A flawless character isn't a character at all. Mary Sue
: "...the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting." In roleplaying games, too many people tend to create the most 'perfect' character they can, aiming to give it all positive values and as few minimums as possible. This is for obvious reasons... people like to be able to do things with a high chance of success! And this makes sense, in a game situation; the fewer flaws, the more likely you are to 'win' any given situation. However, this is roll-playing, not role-playing, IMnsHO (in my not so humble opinion.) Consider superheroes; to me, the ultimate hero, Superman, just simply isn't interesting. Depending on the writer, Superman's power level can be absolutely ridiculous! I've seen a comic where he was literally towing a dozen planets behind him on a chain! That's just stupid on so many levels; I don't care that it's a comic book universe - the laws of physics just simply won't allow that to work, no matter how 'strong' he might be! And granted, Superman does have a weakness in Kryptonite, but that's so easily avoided I've even seen him using it as a weapon against other Kryptonians. So, to me, Superman is a boring character; the ultimate Mary Sue. Then we have Superman's existential opposite: Batman, the Dark Knight. Batman is everything Superman isn't; he's dark and brooding in contrast to Superman's goodness and light. (Literally... Superman is powered by the yellow light of Sol; Batman is motivated by, and lives in, darkness.) Where Superman has his powers inborn, Batman has to work for his; he's developed into what he is by hard work and training, or by inventing gadgets to do what he needs to do. Granted, he has some inborn powers; he's depicted as being incredibly intelligent, and of course being born ridiculously wealthy didn't hurt either! But he's still, IMnsHO, a Mary Sue... Batman almost always wins a fight, and he's ALWAYS prepared for any situation ("Bat-Shark Repellent" anyone? :::eyeroll:::) He's getting better, as far as a character is concerned, but he's still not the type of character that I'd want to play for any length of time. Now let's switch publishers and look at Marvel's possibly most famous Superhero: your friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man. An argument can be made that he's still a Mary Sue, but he's flawed in ways that other superheroes aren't, and to me that makes him a much more interesting and relatable character. First off, he wasn't born with his powers, and he didn't fight to get them... in fact, he didn't even want them, he obtained them by accident! But "with great power comes great responsibility" and so, despite all it costs him, Spider-Man goes out and fights the bad guys, and doesn't give up. And he does it, knowing that he's not going to get a reward for it. In fact, he's hated by a good chunk of the population! Peter Parker's own boss, J. Jonah Jameson, constantly runs a smear campaign against Spider-Man in his newspaper... and Peter Parker has to make his living by providing pictures of himself, as Spider-Man, to help fuel that smear campaign! Now, to me, that's GOOD character building; the character is deeply flawed, has terrible weaknesses to balance his great strengths, and the average person can relate to what he's going through. Who hasn't, at some point in their life, had to do something they really really did not want to do, simply because they were in a position to do it and nobody else could? Even if it's as simple as going to work every day at a job you hate to feed your family, which he does too, this is something the reader can relate to, and that's part of what makes Spider-Man a great character. And that's why I make characters that make my GMs ask "Are you really sure this is what you want to play?" I've even been kicked out of campaigns because my characters weren't overpowered enough for the GM, despite the fact that they were getting along just fine in their own way. And that's fine with me; if a game requires a flawless character who can never fail, that's not a game at all; it's not really gambling if you can't lose, is it? Right now, here on Roll20, I've got: An Inquisitor, who is a stinky old hermit, with barely any combat skills but who makes up for it in cunning (he's one of my favorite characters ever!) A Fighter, who is an old man long since retired, who's just coming back into the world of adventuring after many, many years sitting behind a desk. For various reasons in his past, he's 'crippled' by heartbreak and loss, as well as severe alcoholism resulting from that backstory. A Rogue who, despite being made partially of stone, still does what he can to help those around him. Unlike most rogues, he has a strict code of ethics (lawful) rendering him nearly incapable of certain actions one might expect of a rogue, such as telling a simple lie. And a half-orc Bard, who doesn't have the standard bardic ability to boost his allies' abilities with song, but still proves himself useful in other ways. Any player could easily 'fix' these characters in an instant by 'curing' their flaws, but to me, it's those very flaws that make these characters interesting to play. And interesting characters make interesting stories. It's a big world, and there's room for everybody's play style, but like others I strongly suggest that people design characters with at least some flaw to them, even if it's not mechanical. You may find you like being hampered in certain areas; it can help make your character (and yourself!) stronger in ways you may not have expected!
