Character test

[Parallo]

Its not a blue print for a great character. Its a blue print for a character that isn't a Mary Sue. Thats all. Mary Sues can still be great characters, sometimes.

[Marqsaynt]

Even just by that definition I think the test fails. I don't think it'd be too difficult to create a Mary Sue character that still got a good score. My whole point is that there isn't a blueprint that can realistically dictate all the aspects of something like character realism.

That being said, I'm still interested in seeing how the PS specific one turns out and think that it could be a helpful tool.

[Zan]

Duraza, looking purely at the character, is your very stereotypical "Evil dark mage, who sacrifices everything and everyone for more power." Nurahk, looking at the character on the surface is your stereotypical "Bad boy with so much charisma he can get away with it and still get all the girls." (by the way I see a lot of similarities between him and Marqsaynt). Hence they score high on a test.

However you are absolutely right, such a test is limited. Because what makes Duraza and Nurahk unique is not the character so much, it's the player behind the character. Both of them are good roleplayers and I have respect for both, the same for you by the way. I know there are loads of 'kids' who try to make similar characters but they practically all fail miserably because, first of all they can't go up against the name of establised ones and secondly they simply lack the RP skills to pull it off.

Duraza's character is a stereotype but the player behind that character uses his stereotype to provide an entertaining villain. The player accepts it if Duraza gets his butt kicked and doesn't try to win every encounter.

Parallo is right, Mary Sues can still be great characters when they're governed by great roleplayers. And I agree, there is no blueprint that can dictate all the aspects of a good character.

[themule]

I think that what most people here are missing is:

- the test is supposed to evaluate characters in an RP world, not main characters in novels. A world where everyone has a personal history that is worth an epic novel is simply not believable. In the LoR universe there's only one Frodo, one Ring. It wouldn't be the same with a million frodos, and a million rings destroyed. That makes hundreds of rings destroyed every day, with hundreds of frodos (and gollums, and aragorns, and saurons) all queueing up waiting for their turn;

- the test is supposed to apply to the character background, that is, what happened before your RPing story starts. Are you sure that Frodo, or Luke Skywalker, would score high, at the beginning of their own stories? Frodo was just a hobbit (and stays so, btw). The nice thing about the hobbit characters is that none of them is 'special' in any way. Skywalker was a farmer (IIRC). He didn't know a thing about who he was.

The latter is the key point.

Just to stay in the LoR universe, compare Frodo with Aragorn. Now he's so interesting a guy (and knows it, from the start) that everything he does is quite boring in comparison (given who he is, we wouldn't expect less from him). That makes him a very bad choice for a character to RP (everything is already written for him, so to say). Given any situation, there's hardly any choice for his action. Would you expect the heir of Isildur to run from danger? Is he (or the player behind him) really given a choice about it? (Again, compare with Frodo.)

I think the point of the test is: if you want to really enjoy your char, reserve the amazing adventures for the time after your RPing experience starts, and not before. Also, let it surprise you: don't make it too similar to something you already know (eg. what you are or what you'd like to be).

Start with a common guy, and have him live the adventures of a hero. There's little point being an hero from the start (or an evil lord, or king, or mage (Gandalf-like) or whatever): it only means that your character lived the most interesting part of its life already. The most interesting part should be the one you (the player and the char) live together, instead.

I think that's the test suggestion. IMHO it was never meant to be a blueprint for all characters. And again, there's plenty of room for heros or kings or major villains in a RP world, just it's much better if they became so after the char creation, not before.

BTW, my old PS char scored 2. There are lots of interesting adventures for him, somewhere out there. Maybe he'll become a king some day. But I (the player) don't know now.

[Marqsaynt]

@Zan

I definitely agree.

I also have a feeling that a specific PS test may prove to be a lot more useful than any of the more general ones, the scope seems to be just too large to really be of much use for PS character purposes.

Funny you bring up Duraza's ability to actually have his characters fail, that was one of the major things that came to mind when I was considering Mary-Sue-ness and one of the reasons I didn't really feel it completely accurate to categorize his characters as such. (but that's just really more a difference in semantics and not really anything to do with the actual discussion.)

You bring up an interesting idea though; that some characters that play stereotyped roles aren't necessarily unrealistic or non-unique as long as the person behind them is good at what they do. This idea would build in an automatic exception to any cliche test but, not necessarily invalidate the test's usefulness as a tool... assuming the test was actually capable of fairly helpful results. Which gives me pretty high hopes for any PS specific one that is created.

[Zan]

Well maybe we could create a Roleplaying IQ test, specifically for PS, for the players

Combine that one with the PS Mary-Sue test we're working on and you might have a pretty good standard people can live up to.

[Marqsaynt]

Well maybe we could create a Roleplaying IQ test, specifically for PS, for the players

Combine that one with the PS Mary-Sue test we're working on and you might have a pretty good standard people can live up to.

Oh you do not want to get me started on the subject of IQ tests...

*runs away before he starts any more rant tangents*

[Hatchnet]

Also, it should be noted that Frodo, Moby Dick, etc. are cliched because of the works they are in. They made the cliche. Thats the point. If you put in a famous character it certainly should not recognize him/her as unique. That would be a pretty crappy test.

Parallo I tested more than 30 characters; most of them from successful recent books such as the Wheel of Time series and Salvatore's work. See the thing is even though these authors created origional characters these same character types have been in use since at least the middle ages.

[Parallo]

these same character types have been in use since at least the middle ages.

And that makes them original how?

[Hatchnet]

It doesn't; to be perfectly honest there can be no origional character type anymore only origional characters. Yet because of the sheer volume of different characters even characters will have an extream time being origional. Hows that old saying go? "There is nothing new under the sun"

[Parallo]

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here that isn't even hinted at in the test. There are varying degrees of originality. Its not all in black and white and thats why different scores have different brackets and it doesn't simply say weather you are or are not a mary sue. Is there not also a saying that goes 'Every single person is unique'? Granted we may share some traits with other characters, its impossible not to, but we can still have original characters. I don't think character types is how you should look at it. Its kind of like classes in an rpg.

[Hatchnet]

Ahh but you see Parallo we are all a type of character (its not a class thing but a personality thing) and types of characters is exactly what these test pick up on. So if the tests author didn't like a particular type of character suddenly the traits for that type of character become bad.

[Parallo]

Well what is your definition of a Mary Sue?

[Marqsaynt]

Well what is your definition of a Mary Sue?

Now there's a question that could probably spark it's own forum topic.

I actually agree with both you two (Parallo and Hatchnet). There has been so many characters made over the centuries that it is pretty much impossible to make a truly original character; anything a person can think of someone else has almost certainly come up with and used before. However, that being said it doesn't mean that a person can't create a character in an original way. Basically the idea of taking a typical type of character (since all characters to varying degrees have been "done" before) and making them unique by infusing them with your own personal style ("making them your own") is how I see originality in character creation.

Parallo also seems right to me when saying that there are varying degrees of originality amongst characters. Some characters created are going to be more believable, likable, creative, than others and that's just the way things work.

themule also made an interesting point, if a person only used this test as a guideline for newly created characters, it seems that it probably would be a bit more accurate. After all, someone that is new in town that walks in and states "I am a great mage! Where I come from people fear me and now I have come to take over Hydlaa with my super-magical waybread of dark doom!" would be showing some pretty serious Mary-Sue-ness and this is one of the reasons that the test has questions along the lines of, "Is your character a great ___?"

However, after a character has been RPed for awhile it actually becomes possible for a person's character to be one of the most respected/powerful mages, warriors, healers, etc. It just needs to be earned through RP. For example, I don't think a character like Rongar would deserve a Mary-Sue point for being one of the realm's best fighters since that reputation was earned through RP/hard work, and isn't just some unfounded claim by a newbie that strolls into town. Same goes for a character like Nilaya, I don't think it is necessarily being a Mary-Sue to RP having expert healing abilities since those skills/reputation were earned through RP.

Maybe all of us are just using the test wrong to begin with by testing our long established characters, complete with already RPed experiences, instead of who they were back when they were first created and all our arguments are moot?  

   

[Illysia]

Keep in mind that you have to take the character in context. Frodo and Harry Potter are fantasy characters, of course they are going be outlandish sounding in a test for a relatively "normal" story. Anything can be pulled off in the right context, but not every unique character fits in every context. So they may be a sue in another story but not in there own.

After reading everyone's post, I think it might be a good idea to only use the tests for stuff that you had made apart of the character from the beginning and not stuff influenced by others.