when people say something "seems ooc" for a canon character what they're really trying to say is something isn't consistent with the characterisation/narrative beats.
rather than dismissing someone for talking about whether things are "out of character" for a "canon character" (i.e. this character did the thing in the canon therefore it isn't really out of character/this character that did the thing did xyz before therefore it isn't out of character) you need to be interrogating a) why they think what they do and b) how they came to this conclusion and c) is there any merit to it
often when I see large complaints about "out of character" actions there's a few different reasons. i'm someone who deeply believes that it's not always a question of whether or not a character would do a certain action, it's a question of in what scenario would a character do that and what would push them to do it. there's not a lot kf cases to me where a character simply would not do something, it is all about the circumstances and journey and that's some of the beauty of the writing craft — in what ways can i get to this point and what does that do to the character i'm writing about.
if someone has a character in a story and a whole section of the people who are into that story keep coming away with "this feels wrong and out of place" and "this is not consistent with this character" that means that something wasn't done well. usually this is because:
Something feels like it came out of nowhere, it was not built up to well enough or with consistency.
The circumstances of the action were not written well enough, there was not enough support in the writing of the action or event, most of it was off page or backstory, it does not link with other events or motivations, it is not expanded upon.
The event or action does not have proper follow up or consequence. Nothing comes of it, it does not impact the narrative, it does not change the characters afterwards. Or the event or actions are used to alter the narrative in ways that feel odd, out of place, or forced.
The event or action actively harms the narrative in ways that feel puzzling. It tears down previous arcs or characterisations. This might be fine in some cases but this often is coupled with the characters in the narrative not acting like this harm has occurred or continuing as if it hasn't. Thereby... puzzling.
The event or action leaves the person viewing the story as feeling "what was the point". Some stories are about the journey and some are about the destination. While destination stories are often about growth, or the end climax, journey stories focus on the road taken and how that unfolds. Character regression or deconstruction is fine, and a normal path to take, but those stories are not really compatible with character growth within the same character. And often consequences are a part of that formula. When a narrative feels confused about what is what it can leave the person invested in it feeling like "what was the point". If a character's friendship is one of the central pieces, and an event occurs where something heavy should impact it, and this is poorly delivered and never resolved or shown to have weight, then the friendship itself feels off. Especially if the delivery is underwritten, as the cause and effect (including in linking it to past behaviours) will feel off due to conflicting establishment. This can then come off as "inconsistent" because of the mixed messaging or poor followup and establishment.
again, dismissing a whole group of people who continuously say "this is out of character" and others say "uh no it's in the canon" or "no, this character did this to x so they definitely can do it to y" is disregarding why this keeps happening and what the first group is actually talking about. understanding why this keeps coming up enables actual proper analysis of the characters and scenes in question.
could this character do this? under what circumstances? if this feels off as it stands why does it do so and what isn't landing? how could this be done better? should it be in the narrative at all, why or why not? why was it put there, especially if it feels forced? what would a better thoroughline be here? how else could the end result be achieved?
i don't know, as someone who works on other people's manuscripts day in and day out and across writing portions of the arts industries it really just gets me when some don't do the steps to understand the full argument at hand and others don't try to fully articulate their points.
note: this post is about a wide range of media and literature but there is nuance here because there is of course television shows and comic books with multiple writers, or adaptations not written by an original creator, so there is room for discussion in regards to "out of character" and "consistency in character writing".
