Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alright, not sure if this is in the right place, if not then feel free to move it mods.

I have a few questions about Mary-sues and sue-isms for the people of Dakka. What is the worst thing about a Mary Sue? Is it the fact they can do everything and anything perfectly, or is it that generally, the story behind a MS is bland and unimaginative; for example, Draigo gets a lot of flak, but I can't help but wonder if his fluff was written a little better, would he get as much? Also, when you are writing fluff, how do you avoid making a MS? Lots of thought obviously goes into characters, but are there any special techniques you employ to protect them?

As ever thanks in advance.

The thing that annoys me the most concerning Mary Sues is that they are so damned perfect. They can do everything and anything and have no noticeable flaws.
Sadly, the new Doctor Who series appears to be going that route.

Well, technically that could be said about most video game characters since they never lose. This on account of you being Dovahkiin! Anyway, I think whats acceptable exists purely in the mind of the person reading. I only object to it if such characters are written to have no depth or anything particularly interesting about them. If thats the case then they become only known for what they've done and not who they are. How powerful or influential they are is irrelevent in the context of 40K. It turns the 'character' into a simple force of nature. Thats okay in certain contexts ie St Celestine or the Swarmlord. But its not really good for characters like Commander Shadowsun who is simply a loyalist farsight end of. Farsight is more interesting for his betrayel, but again hes just a force of nature for the anti-thesis of the Tau philosophy. We can speculate on his motives and imagine our own backstory but this basically equal no real characterization. Hes also simply a Mary Sue who betrays the Empire.

I admit that is one reason i'am a bit iffy about some of my DE fluff. My Archon is pretty good at what she does and gets stuff done. It is difficult to avoid because you, obviously, want your army leader to be awesome; especially if you've won a fair few battles with them.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Well, technically that could be said about most video game characters since they never lose.

But you can lose in a video game. The power of the Quick Load key is irrelevant

I think the problem is that Mary Sues make it seem easy...
Admiral Cole from the Halo series manages to be the most successful commander of large scale engagements the humans have.
They win time and time again but their losses are colossal and Cole himself is an alcoholic who has been married 3/4 times and divorced as many times with 2 kids who don't want to speak to him...
Now that's a character.
Mary Sues are boring or hated because they make things seem easy even when the odds are totally against them...

So do you think adding a flaw (aside from the whole doomed warrior McDraigo gig) to a character detracts from it? Making the character more complicated rather than "Captain X is awesome and he did this and this and this and can do this and this because he is awesome and never loses" is the way to go about it?

Adding a realistic flaw detracts from the Mary Sue i would think...
A (more) complex character has different reactions to a situation than a less complex one...
It helps the story immensely IMO...

The damn perfection is the worst. For me I follow one mantra if I want young badasses. ADD plenty of tutors, and let some of them die. That's how you forge a guy.

Want to avoid making a Mary Sue? Read something Matt Ward has written, and take cues from the movement inside your belly. Anger shall NOT enable a guy to wipe the floor with 12 Greater Daemons before tattooing a Daemon Primarch's heart or allow you to win an engagement when outgunned, outnumbered, outmaneuvered and out-everything.

Don't be afraid of adding flaws to even your good guys. Dan Abnett is very good at that.

Oh and my tolerance is low. If it's too good to be true I tend to think: "What's the kicker?" Or more likely, I stop reading, and never bothers with the thingy ever again as I regard it as damn stupid.

A Mary Sue is a character who is pretty much perfect. They never fail (or their failure is someone else's fault). Most Mary Sues have very little depth beyond being perfect, because depth usually requires some sort of problem/struggle (with alcoholism, trust issues, ect..). Sometimes they have false depth, which is them being emo about how perfect they are or how hard their perfect life is. This is surprisingly (and sadly) common.

LoneLictor as always makes excellent points, but don't mistake a male casanova for a flawed guy. There are thirteen for a dozen of them everywhere. That's not even close to not being a Marty Sue, which can be even more annoying than a Mary Sue due to him winning a maid despite being a cheating ass without any depth.

Please delete this post mods, I just realized it sounded stupid.

It did not LoneLictor, you made excellent points in my mind. I regret I didn't quote you, as you had good points. Making a char into a Casanova, giving him a flashy scar or making him emo is not a good way for him to be a good char. That was really good points, and as you pointed out a common mistake.

purplefood wrote:I think the problem is that Mary Sues make it seem easy...
Admiral Cole from the Halo series manages to be the most successful commander of large scale engagements the humans have.
They win time and time again but their losses are colossal and Cole himself is an alcoholic who has been married 3/4 times and divorced as many times with 2 kids who don't want to speak to him...
Now that's a character.
Mary Sues are boring or hated because they make things seem easy even when the odds are totally against them...

Well theres an example of different opinions I thought Admiral Cole was a ridiculous character because he kills a whole Covenant Armada with a super-weapon to redeem himself for Reach :Yawn: Not to mention that no amount of tactics should allow a human fleet to match a covenant one. End of. Their ships are a hundred times bigger and the humans only have a handfull of cruisers.Things like Keys blowing up four covenant vessels with his destroyer made no sense since the Covenant became unable to zap his vessel and introduced the thing which really irked me about those books; the collossal incompetance of the Covenant. It is just gauling and silly at times. They assert that humans can never win in space and then describe them owning Covenant when outnumbered.

Many chars have elements of Mary or Marty Sues in them, the kicker is their bad sides. Unfortunately I'm nearly considering a good husband a bad trait at times in some fluff. Too many are rakes who should be shot at sight despite being heroes.

liquidjoshi wrote:So do you think adding a flaw (aside from the whole doomed warrior McDraigo gig) to a character detracts from it? Making the character more complicated rather than "Captain X is awesome and he did this and this and this and can do this and this because he is awesome and never loses" is the way to go about it?

But you know in most fiction that the main character is going to come out on top. Also if you make you make your villains/enemies too powerful compared to the heroes then it begs the question of how they're even capable of surviving. The Halo books are good examples as I mentioned. The UNSC should get owned every single time how the verse is described, but actually take down five times as many covenant ships through the plot device of 'stormtrooper syndrome' to explain it. On some level you have to make your heroes good and in 40k when you're describing Space Marines or a Titan pilot you are obliged to emphasise that these people are vastly more powerful than the average. When you do that you risk making them seem to have it easy or being unphased by danger. I guess it largely comes down to writing style and how you convey what the character is doing. I personally found the Halo books jarring but others on this thread didn't so it does somewhat exist in peoples minds what qualifies as 'having it easy' or a mary sue character.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

purplefood wrote:I think the problem is that Mary Sues make it seem easy...
Admiral Cole from the Halo series manages to be the most successful commander of large scale engagements the humans have.
They win time and time again but their losses are colossal and Cole himself is an alcoholic who has been married 3/4 times and divorced as many times with 2 kids who don't want to speak to him...
Now that's a character.
Mary Sues are boring or hated because they make things seem easy even when the odds are totally against them...

Well theres an example of different opinions I thought Admiral Cole was a ridiculous character because he kills a whole Covenant Armada with a super-weapon to redeem himself for Reach :Yawn: Not to mention that no amount of tactics should allow a human fleet to match a covenant one. End of. Their ships are a hundred times bigger and the humans only have a handfull of cruisers.Things like Keys blowing up four covenant vessels with his destroyer made no sense since the Covenant became unable to zap his vessel and introduced the thing which really irked me about those books; the collossal incompetance of the Covenant. It is just gauling and silly at times. They assert that humans can never win in space and then describe them owning Covenant when outnumbered.

There are various things that don't make sense in-universe but they aren't because of a character...
I won't derail the thread with this so if you wanna discuss it PM me...

Beaviz81 wrote:Many chars have elements of Mary or Marty Sues in them, the kicker is their bad sides. Unfortunately I'm nearly considering a good husband a bad trait at times in some fluff. Too many are rakes who should be shot at sight despite being heroes.

Well 40k is 40k. Rakes can't all meet their end in Bedlam. (Prize if anyone gets the reference ).

I can't fething count how many times when I used to play on WoW I read Blood Elf character descriptions about how skinny, yet curvy around the hips they were and all their little weab mannerisms.

The Forsaken had nothing but two extremes, either a blubbering emo or a "I hate everything and it needs to die" anarchist. Their were very few characters with actual originality. Which thus led me to have no people to roleplay with.

I actually haven't even had a good roleplaying session since I quit, I have little to no interest doing it on forums and finding a decent pen and paper group in Prince George is a feat.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Beaviz81 wrote:Many chars have elements of Mary or Marty Sues in them, the kicker is their bad sides. Unfortunately I'm nearly considering a good husband a bad trait at times in some fluff. Too many are rakes who should be shot at sight despite being heroes.

Well 40k is 40k. Rakes can't all meet their end in Bedlam. (Prize if anyone gets the reference ).

I know that. I have personally an ex-spy of Conan thrown into space. he struggles with alcoholism, depressions and such to tell the least. Excellent char, lousy author. Just read the chars in my link below the comment. Oh and a certain family-drama.

In my opnion any main characther need flaws to be a belivibal one. I also agree with Shadowbrand on the WoW perpective of elfs and such. It tends to get dull after a while

When I make fluff I attemt to make my characthers somewhat flawed in one way or the other. It really helps if you dont have a story filled with Clark Kent or James Bond good guys running around

Trondheim wrote:In my opnion any main characther need flaws to be a belivibal one. I also agree with Shadowbrand on the WoW perpective of elfs and such. It tends to get dull after a while

When I make fluff I attemt to make my characthers somewhat flawed in one way or the other. It really helps if you dont have a story filled with Clark Kent or James Bond good guys running around

What if you're writing a villain (anti-hero), say a Dark Eldar Archon ? Would the same rule apply. Depends on what you meant by 'flawed'.

Writing a Dark Eldar Archon? Heck take a turn to this site for advice http://www.thedarkcity.net/

Well that really depends on how you have built the characther, if you have a stern and no nonsense Achron, then I would give him some sort of addiction that is kepot secret, like a drug habbit or something. Flawed can mean alot, I guess it boils down to how you make said characther stand out in the story.

Hope this makes sense,

Not every flaw even needs to be dark or angsty.

Lack of confidence is a great flaw, as you can write about the character gaining confidence through adventures.

Misplaced loyalties can be fun. Trusting the wrong person.

Hell, just giving the character a weakness in terms of pure abilities. Combine two things, one that a person does really well, one that they do terribly: instant short story. A Catachan Devil with virtually no sense of humor. An eldar Autarch that cannot trust another person.

Well its a she and generally her 'flaw' is being fatally over-confident. Which causes deep mistrust and suspicion among her subordinates since she led her whole Kabal to annialation. Trouble I have is precisely that if she loses then its game over so she kind of has to win and come out on top in most of the fights after that. Despite the odds being stacked against her as she rebuilds her kabal. So I find it difficult to avoid making her Mary Sueish in that sense. Even a minor setback could be fatal since she has five other Kabals out for her blood (because shes after theirs ).

Over confidence is only a flaw if it actively hurts the character. Say your Archon is always right/successful, then being over confident doesn't matter. But if her plan has some fatal flaw that could've been prevented but wasn't, then she has a character flaw.

Also, this isn't as much related to the Mary Sue thing or anything you said at all (but I feel like saying it anyways), but when writing a villainous character, don't try to make them less villainous ("He may be a serial killer, but he loves his mom and is nice to receptionists") but rather explain what made them a villain in the first place. How could your Archon end up so callous and cruel that the death of thousands means nothing to her? And, how could she rationalize this to herself?

LoneLictor wrote:Over confidence is only a flaw if it actively hurts the character. Say your Archon is always right/successful, then being over confident doesn't matter. But if her plan has some fatal flaw that could've been prevented but wasn't, then she has a character flaw.

Also, this isn't as much related to the Mary Sue thing or anything you said at all (but I feel like saying it anyways), but when writing a villainous character, don't try to make them less villainous ("He may be a serial killer, but he loves his mom and is nice to receptionists") but rather explain what made them a villain in the first place. How could your Archon end up so callous and cruel that the death of thousands means nothing to her? And, how could she rationalize this to herself?

Well...shes a Dark Eldar. Her soul is a black void that must be constantly filled with ilicit vice and the suffering of others and they are raised in an environment that valorises this fact. Her reaon is simple, it gets respect, it gets her power and it intoxicatingly enjoyable to her. The deaths of others only serves to advance herself. Non-eldar are even less than that and simply cattle to be harvested. Again, shes a product of that society with that condition of the soul. I suppose I try to write that she kind of cares about her daughter. But thats only because her daughter is also the leader of her incubi (and thus totally loyal to her as per all Incubi) if she were a threat then she would gleefuly slit her throat. Think mafia. Not neccesarily false love but one with drawn daggers behind the back.

Aye, I'll have her stumble a few times, she is up against some pretty intelligent and ruthless Archons/Succubus. Its also bad because if anything does go wrong this trait is immediatly singled out by her soldiers/Luetenants and is a frequent cause of friction. DE don't appreciate being led on foolish raids that put their lives in undue risk. So, I'am having her plan a large scale raid on a tau world. She won't be expecting one of the other kabals to attack her whilsty the dangerous operation goes on and will lose a lot of people as a consequence. ps Lelith and a ton of wyches to be precise. Enough to ruin any Archons day.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:Over confidence is only a flaw if it actively hurts the character. Say your Archon is always right/successful, then being over confident doesn't matter. But if her plan has some fatal flaw that could've been prevented but wasn't, then she has a character flaw.

Also, this isn't as much related to the Mary Sue thing or anything you said at all (but I feel like saying it anyways), but when writing a villainous character, don't try to make them less villainous ("He may be a serial killer, but he loves his mom and is nice to receptionists") but rather explain what made them a villain in the first place. How could your Archon end up so callous and cruel that the death of thousands means nothing to her? And, how could she rationalize this to herself?

Well...shes a Dark Eldar. Her soul is a black void that must be constantly filled with ilicit vice and the suffering of others and they are raised in an environment that valorises this fact. Her reaon is simple, it gets respect, it gets her power and it intoxicatingly enjoyable to her. The deaths of others only serves to advance herself. Non-eldar are even less than that and simply cattle to be harvested. Again, shes a product of that society with that condition of the soul. I suppose I try to write that she kind of cares about her daughter. But thats only because her daughter is also the leader of her incubi (and thus totally loyal to her as per all Incubi) if she were a threat then she would gleefuly slit her throat. Think mafia. Not neccesarily false love but one with drawn daggers behind the back.

Aye, I'll have her stumble a few times, she is up against some pretty intelligent and ruthless Archons/Succubus. Its also bad because if anything does go wrong this trait is immediatly singled out by her soldiers/Luetenants and is a frequent cause of friction. DE don't appreciate being led on foolish raids that put their lives in undue risk. So, I'am having her plan a large scale raid on a tau world. She won't be expecting one of the other kabals to attack her whilsty the dangerous operation goes on and will lose a lot of people as a consequence. ps Lelith and a ton of wyches to be precise. Enough to ruin any Archons day.

For me, I prefer to avoid having canon chars involved as much as possible, and it's always nice developing new chars on your own instead of being unimaginative and involving chars like Lelith, Vect and such. As for the daugther being the leader of the Incubi, I would rather have the daughter being the overthrower of mommy dearest. That can actually be a good read when I think about it.

The four others are non-canon inventions; leliths the odd one out. She was already betrayed by Lelith in the story so throwing in more betrayel would be a bit much.

edit
Also mother-dearest would win that fight.

Oh I thought dropping Lelith altogether and have the daughter betray your Archon as a Succubus is less likely to merely betray as opposed to killing than an Archon. Wyches doesn't scheme, they go straight for the jugular. Also I regard it as very lazy of any writer to bludgeon in a char like Lelith for no reason whatsoever just to kick ass and chew gum. For me, if an established char is to be involved, then it's just a cameo, or they are necessary for the plot. Like wanting a new Space Marine Chapter of Imperial Fist-origins created? Then you might have to travel to Terra and petition the High Lords and preferably stringing Vladimir Pugh along in order to see it go.

Also that can be sort of a coming of age ritual in the twisted Dark Eldar way, and there are special circumstances that makes a Dark Eldar join the caste of the Incubi. I can't see any good story way for a daughter of an Archon to join them as long as the Archon is in power. Even if the plot fails, and mother dearest slaughter the daughter's lovers she would likely have gained some perverse pleasure in knowing that the daughter finally dared to plot against her. Of course you doesn't need to have the daughter doing the betrayal, but for me it seems to be the coolest idea.

Anyway the more a canon person is involved in fan-fluff, the less likely I'm to read it properly as I don't like it one bit when guys don't have the imagination to make up their own chars.