Do your characters belong to you?

Just a thought. Only, I've been reading such a lot about characters and character construction. Some very interesting and valid discussions. Not a lot for me to disagree with - which, for me, is some kind of hell, as I reject just about everything at first, then allow it to filter back into my head bit by bit. Which usually means eventually accepting most of what has been put to me, if only after a while of thinking/disagreeing about it. Accent on the word 'most'. Me, the eternal pedant!
It's actually not much of a thought, more a feeling.
If you accept everything you read, or hear, and if it's the same as everyone else has been hearing or reading, then I wonder if your character will maybe read the same as other people's characters.
But people are people i.e. they are individual to themselves and to the whole. They are unpredictable, to themselves and to the whole. You really don't know what they are going to do next. Not all of the time, and not most of the time. Just some of the time. People are flawed. They do not follow rules.
However, I'm sure they follow an individual's rules - each particular character's own rules, though not a set of general character rules.
If a character followed a set of rules, acting well-rounded, full of character-rule fullness, then is it possible that the element of surprise, and even discovery (for the character, reader and writer), will be missing?
A flawed character cannot follow rules. Something jolts, something goes missing, awry - in the journey, and even at the end of it. All characters are flawed: they are products of the writer's imagination, so they have to be, as the writer is also flawed. Unless you attempt to make them flawless. So that they follow rules. That is a flaw in itself. (Discuss.)
However, I do think you need to know rules, otherwise how do you flaunt one or two? Of course, you have to follow the number one rule: the reader must bond with your characters, especially the protagonist(s). Is there another rule? Hmmm, another discussion?
I wonder, if a character (and I guess we are really talking about the protagonist) follows every rule, then he cannot fail to come out the other side better than when he went into it. Of course, again, this is not true life. In fiction writing, though, he has to. Unless he dies!
Hmmm. In life there are characters. They don't follow all of the rules. They may follow certain rules belonging to a specific character-type, but not rules to any unspecific character-type. They will, I'm sure follow certain rules from A to F, but not from G to J. Being flawed they may miss out more letters than that, but if you hit the jackpot they will follow every single rule in the 'book'.
Does it really mean you've hit the jackpot if you've followed the rules? It may also mean that you've made a false call.
Jeez, this writing lark is so difficult... trying to please everyone... trying to please yourself... trying to please an agent... trying to please an editor (lol, neither of the last two exists... for now! That may be my problem!)
Which rules must you always follow, and which can be variable? All? None? Some? So easy to get lost. Perhaps it's best to follow the rules, otherwise you might not make it back. If you had followed the rules, you wouldn't have got lost. Nobody would. We'd all have well-rounded characters travelling on the same emotional journey. Is that what is wanted? Required? Well, what are the rules, then? Somebody must have them. Aha! Someone has a set - they've made them up. So has someone else. There are differences, though. We have no 'official' rules.
No, no. These aren't character rules, they are story rules. I think. Story around the character, then. Aha! Now that's different. Or is it?
But if these rules came from someone else, then they may be just what I need - I don't have any, other than 'get the protagonist to gel with the other characters and with the reader'.
See, I told you I can be persuaded.
Just me thinking. Or maybe not thinking all that well. Maybe I'm just floored - oops! Flawed!