# Mary Sue- Not sure I understand



## Midnight Dawns (Jun 29, 2009)

So I have seen this term used a lot around here and try as I might I can't get a good definition of it. One one hand it sounds like a dm npc (but for literature) but on the other hand a good deal of the time I see it used I could just as easily say protagonist or big bad. The things people rail against seem to be things that have been common in stories for a very long time. Maybe someone can clear this up for me. Maybe give some examples of what you deem are mary sues and why.


----------



## Kordeth (Jun 30, 2009)

Midnight Dawns said:


> So I have seen this term used a lot around here and try as I might I can't get a good definition of it. One one hand it sounds like a dm npc (but for literature) but on the other hand a good deal of the time I see it used I could just as easily say protagonist or big bad. The things people rail against seem to be things that have been common in stories for a very long time. Maybe someone can clear this up for me. Maybe give some examples of what you deem are mary sues and why.




Mary Sue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## amysrevenge (Jun 30, 2009)

From TV tropes (Mary Sue - Television Tropes & Idioms)

"The closest thing to a widely agreed-on definition is a character who has too many positive characteristics, and too few genuine flaws to be believable or interesting. Of course, despite what many tongue-in-cheek litmus tests claim, there's no objective standard for what qualifies as "too many." In truth, the closest thing to a consensus on a definition is that it is bad. "


----------



## Khime (Jun 30, 2009)

The concept of the Mary Sue has been stretched and bent over the years until it can mean almost anything. For a good read-up on this trope, check out Mary Sue - Television Tropes & Idioms

Edit: D'oh, too slow.


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 30, 2009)

That's basically accurate - the term refers to the author making a character that represents themselves in the novel, and said character being the star and better than everyone at everything... basically the author on a power trip.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 30, 2009)

Midnight Dawns said:


> Maybe give some examples of what you deem are mary sues and why.



Apparently, fanfic (i.e., 'Fan Fiction') is rife with them. Perhaps you could look there?

Oh, and while we're tvtroping away, there's this.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2009)

Elminster from Forgotten Realms is a Mary Sue. Partly because he's very knowledgeable, wise and powerful. Partly because he has sex with lots of hot magic elven babes. And mostly because he's a stand-in for the author, Ed Greenwood.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Elminster from Forgotten Realms is a Mary Sue. Partly because he's very knowledgeable, wise and powerful. Partly because he has sex with lots of hot magic elven babes. And mostly because he's a stand-in for the author, Ed Greenwood.




well ed himself made this one, in general by the end of 2e and begining of 3e Mystra really bec ame one too.

Wait our Netural god of magic died...and was replaced by a Good god, who was an adventurer...and who still thought like a mortal...and gave the title of choosen to so many characters it isn't even funny...


By the end of 3e we here at my local gameing store (also a comic shop) called it Midnight and her Justice League of the Realms...they had batman/Blackstaff (a bit of a jerk loner who split off and made his own group) Superman/Elminter (Yea...just yea), Symbol, shoot I can't remember but I know at least all 7 sisters, the two guys I already named and atleast 1 other were stated as epic...and mostly good, and working with the spy network called the harpers...


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Luckily, a lot fewer people are falling for that misinformation than some years back. Back in reality, Elminster isn't intended to be a protagonist of _any_ kind, the sex thing simply isn't true by the sources (Doug & co. have apparently been fooled by the same randy old goat act that misleads folk in Faerûn), and the idea that he's some kind of projection of Ed more than the thousands of other characters he's created, or is his favourite character, or anything like that is pure internet Chinese whispers based on a marketing strategy TSR insisted on for a while.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 30, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Apparently, fanfic (i.e., 'Fan Fiction') is rife with them. Perhaps you could look there?
> 
> Oh, and while we're tvtroping away, there's this.



Fan fic is rife with them, not all of them are bad, I used to have links to some reasonable Mary Sue stories but I lost them in a disk reformat some months ago.
A lot in the fan community consider the character of Wesley Crusher to be a Mary Sue (really a Gary Stu) in Star Trek the Next Generation.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 30, 2009)

All good links.

Mary Sue comes from fan fiction, specifically, Star Trek fan fiction. (It originated there, but it obviously didn't stop there.) The prototypical Mary Sue is beautiful, good at everything (fights better than a klingon, more knowledgeable in physics than Spock, can fix a warp drive better than Scotty, etc) and is often the daughter of Kirk or some other main cast member. Such a character is typically assumed to be a stand-in for the author. Either that's how the author sees himself or herself, or the author wishes he or she were like that.

It doesn't take much generalize that description to other areas of fiction.

The label is one of derision and, IIRC, it comes from a pice of fiction where a character was actually named Mary Sue. Mary Sue was supposed to lampoon the "good at everything and generally awesome" stereotypical character popular in Star Trek fan fiction at the time.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 30, 2009)

Midnight Dawns said:


> Maybe give some examples of what you deem are mary sues and why.



The problem with giving examples is that Mary Sues are supposed to be characters that, for the most part, are only of interest to the author. Because the Mary Sue character is so powerful, her adventures are uninteresting and the stories are boring. This doesn't preclude Mary Sues from existing in professional, published, writing, but it really limits them.

Because the term is pejorative and not well-defined a lot of characters people don't like or find uninteresting get the label. I think, however, you have it right to equate Mary Sue with DM PC. A poorly run DM PC would fall into the "good at everything, generally awesome" stereotype Mary Sue was meant to lampoon.

I think one of the best explanations of Mary Sue comes from The (Original) Mary Sue Litmus Test. That was a test designed to see if the original character you created in a _Gargoyals_ Fanfic was a Mary Sue or not. Good stuff. Later, some generalized it, also a good test. You will notice that the first question on both tests is "is the character named after you?"


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 30, 2009)

I've also heard Robert Langdon in Dan Brown's novels referred to that way as well. Smarter than everyone, loved by women despite being so brainy, etc. Although admittedly I haven't read the books largely because people told me that it really felt like Dan Brown fantasized being really awesome and then made that into a couple novels. Not exactly high praise.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 30, 2009)

A proper Mary Sue runs rougshod over established setting elements with their awesomeness. A Mary Sue would fight the Dread Pirate Roberts and win, precisely because he is defined as the pinnacle of ability in The Princess Bride. I think of a Mary Sue as having these crucial components:

1. Disrespect for the source - Everything fanfic writers know they should not do with their characters, Mary Sue does. If a character is the only person who can do X, Mary Sue is the other person who can do X (and probably better). If Mary Sue can't out-awesome someone, they sleep with them and gain their undying love. 

2. Narcissism - Mary Sue is awesome for the sake of awesomeness. In fact, it's clear their activities involve a sort of acting out of the writer. This goes beyond wish fulfillment into the realm of ego defensiveness through fantasy. Obviously, this has has to be inferred, but the idea is that with a Mary Sue, the evidence is ample.

3. Lack of meanginful challenge - Mary Sue is supposed to be a conqueror of all challenges, but in fact is so competent, lucky, and lovable that they face few credible struggles. As a result, the story is completely boring. If you took Superman's powers and gave them to Batman, and took away his weaknesses to magic and kryptonite, it would be hard to pinpoint what the resulting hero would do with his time that didn't resemble filing taxes for a single salaried worker in terms of challenge and interest.


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 30, 2009)

A Mary Sue can have flaws but they are "too good" flaws such as "They care too much" or "they'll never surrender" etc.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Luckily, a lot fewer people are falling for that misinformation than some years back. Back in reality, Elminster isn't intended to be a protagonist of _any_ kind, the sex thing simply isn't true by the sources (Doug & co. have apparently been fooled by the same randy old goat act that misleads folk in Faerûn), and the idea that he's some kind of projection of Ed more than the thousands of other characters he's created, or is his favourite character, or anything like that is pure internet Chinese whispers based on a marketing strategy TSR insisted on for a while.





Riiiiiight. 

I didn't read very many Forgotten Realms novels set in the Dalelands, but one of the one or two I did read had Elminster bedding the Symbul. He was such a Mary Sue that it completely turned me off of that part of the setting for good.


----------



## Oni (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Luckily, a lot fewer people are falling for that misinformation than some years back. Back in reality, Elminster isn't intended to be a protagonist of _any_ kind, the sex thing simply isn't true by the sources (Doug & co. have apparently been fooled by the same randy old goat act that misleads folk in Faerûn), and the idea that he's some kind of projection of Ed more than the thousands of other characters he's created, or is his favourite character, or anything like that is pure internet Chinese whispers based on a marketing strategy TSR insisted on for a while.




I'll just say this.  I like the Realms, but reading Making of a Mage has ensured I will never read another Ed Greenwood book ever again.


----------



## roguerouge (Jun 30, 2009)

Basically, Mary Sues extend the idea that one should write from one's own experience and the concept that many characters have parts of the author in them. Many legitimate fictions have author figures in them. It's a Mary Sue when we disapprove with the effect that such a figure has on the overall work.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 30, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> I've also heard Robert Langdon in Dan Brown's novels referred to that way as well. Smarter than everyone, loved by women despite being so brainy, etc. Although admittedly I haven't read the books largely because people told me that it really felt like Dan Brown fantasized being really awesome and then made that into a couple novels. Not exactly high praise.




See, I was under the impression that a true Mary Sue can't be the protagonist of his own story; A Mary Sue is someone who either one-ups the main character OR is overall better than an ensemble cast. For example; Conan would never be a Mary Sue because HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT AWESOME! Now, if I introduced a Barbarian-chieftain into Conan mythos who was a better fighter, lover, tactician,and leader than Conan, HE'D be the Mary Sue, since Conan's supposed to be the hero. 

There is also a good argument whether or not an author can "Mary Sue" his own work; this mostly stems from Harry Potter discussions on whether Hermione is a Mary Sue for JKR. Some say yes because she's clearly better at EVERYTHING than Harry is, while others say she's supposed to be better to compensate for Ron being rather inept (and to make Harry seem grounded/normal by comparison). It is widely accepted that OTHER authors can certainly Mary Sue a work, even if it IS cannon (Mara Jade).


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Twowolves said:


> I didn't read very many Forgotten Realms novels set in the Dalelands, but one of the one or two I did read had Elminster bedding the Symbul. He was such a Mary Sue that it completely turned me off of that part of the setting for good.



With whom he's in a monogamous relationship for the decades of the Realms' published 'present'.

What's the sarcasm for? You can easily verify everything I wrote if you care to look.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> With whom he's in a monogamous relationship for the decades of the Realms' published 'present'.
> 
> What's the sarcasm for? You can easily verify everything I wrote if you care to look.




what about the picture of him and the drow chick in Volo;s guide to all things magical...at the time I was told they were on again off again lovers...

and



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> As of the end of "Elminster's Daughter" the information that Elminster has several daughters was made known. Besides Narnra Shalace two others are made known, one of them is Laspeera of the war wizards and the other is none other than the Dowager Queen Filfaeril of Cormyr. *He has no known wife, but retains contact with several previous lovers, including the goddess Mystra*



  bolded by me...


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jun 30, 2009)

Dagny Taggart in _Atlas Shrugged_ is often given as an example.  One key ingredient of a Mary Sue is, "things that would be illegal, immoral or evil if done by a normal character are moral, justified and either legal or overlooked when Mary Sue does them."


----------



## Al'Kelhar (Jun 30, 2009)

So, Mary Sue = Chuck Norris?


----------



## Midnight Dawns (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks for all of the responses and links. I especially like the litmus test.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

The problem is that once removed from fan fiction, it largely becomes meaningless jargon. It's often used in this form be cynical critics to take a typical heroic character and say the suck. I've seen Horatio Hornblower and James Bond called Mary Sues. It's usually a way of disparaging a character who the critic doesn't like because they aren't flawed enough or are too good. It's usually used in a hateful manner since the implication isn't just that the author's a bad writer, but he or she is pathetic looser as well.

Elminster's no more a Mary Sue then Kirk is.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> For example; Conan would never be a Mary Sue because HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT AWESOME!



That's the thing: Conan _is_ a Mary Sue according to the ridiculously generalized vaguely-veiled-insult-to-the-author use of the term, and so are most protagonists of heroic fiction.







GMforPowergamers said:


> what about the picture of him and the drow chick in Volo;s guide to all things magical...at the time I was told they were on again off again lovers...



You're thinking of Susprina Arkhenneld in FOR2 _The Drow of the Underdark_, one of his ex-apprentices. Realmslore doesn't say if they were once lovers one way or the other. But it's interesting that you 'were told' they were, and where the idea might have come from.







> bolded by me...



What about it? It would be odd if someone hadn't had at least several lovers over hundreds of years! The Wikipedia entry mentions it because it's an aspect of Elminster that 'everyone knows', but the sources don't bear it out. (There are promiscuous characters in Realmslore -- I'm looking at you, Torm -- but El ain't one of them.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> The problem is that once removed from fan fiction, it largely becomes meaningless jargon. It's often used in this form be cynical critics to take a typical heroic character and say the suck. I've seen Horatio Hornblower and James Bond called Mary Sues. It's usually a way of disparaging a character who the critic doesn't like because they aren't flawed enough or are too good. It's usually used in a hateful manner since the implication isn't just that the author's a bad writer, but he or she is pathetic looser as well.
> 
> Elminster's no more a Mary Sue then Kirk is.




see this whole thing has one major issue...Kirk is the hero of his story/universe...Elminster is the hero sometimes...other tiems he is a supporting character that gets to mayr sue level...

If I picked up a book set in the new star trek movie area and everyone was falling over backwards for kirk who only shows up in 2 chapters...I would agree...HOWEVER that is not the case.

Batman, Kirk, Harminie, Sherlock Homes, House MD, and many other characters boarder on sue hood, becuse they are too good. Infact that is where opions come into play. How ever When I pick up Blue bettle comics, and the main character (with alien artafact powers) spends the whole issue getting his butt kicked by the bad guy, then batman comes in and wraps it up in 1 pannel...it is batman being used as a mary sue...



> It's usually a way of disparaging a character who the critic doesn't like because they aren't flawed enough or are too good. It's usually used in a hateful manner since the implication isn't just that the author's a bad writer, but he or she is pathetic looser as well.




yea becuse I sooo see ed greenwood as a pathetic looser..

Maybe you missed the part were I respect his world, but not his characters... He is an OK writer in my mind (not great, but far from pathetic) BUT his character IS a mary sue by every strech of the word...

He is good at everything (Look at his classes...he was a fighter, a theif an wizard a prestess (yes he was a girl for a while). He is one of the most powerful wizards in the world, he ignores the over god telling him not to do something (((El sue is training midnight to be the new mystra (yes this mortal wizard is a better teacher then the other gods) and AO tells him to lay off she has to learn on her own...what does El Sue do...he keeps teaching))).
He has had intmate knowlage of many women over the years...so much for the nerdy wizard sterotype he is a player...
He IS ed in the game world...infact Ed use to walk around conventions and holloween parties as elminster...
He inteacts with ed in the story by breaking the 4th wall and being a packers fan and drinking eds type of beer...

what level does that not fit suehood???


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> How ever When I pick up Blue bettle comics, and the main character (with alien artafact powers) spends the whole issue getting his butt kicked by the bad guy, then batman comes in and wraps it up in 1 pannel...it is batman being used as a mary sue...



No, it's Batman as Deus Ex Machina. The characteristic of 'powerful intervention' doesn't constitute any coherent sense of 'Mary Sue' I've ever read.







> He IS ed in the game world...infact Ed use to walk around conventions and holloween parties as elminster...



He was told to do so by TSR, a fact that's well known by now. You haven't the least reason to think he's Ed in the Realms other than that it's what you heard. If you respect Ed as you say, please don't call him a liar.







> He inteacts with ed in the story by breaking the 4th wall and being a packers fan and drinking eds type of beer...



I don't know where you got this idea from, but have you noticed how you stick to it irrespective of how many times I dispel your mistaken or misconceived 'evidence' (including the bit I didn't quote, which we discussed before on Wizards.com)?

Neither is it breaking the fourth wall, since the very premise of the Forgotten Realms -- the source of its name, the hidden motivator of many of its events -- is that it's one of many worlds in a Moorcockian multiverse, once broadly linked to Earth.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 30, 2009)

Elminster is textbook Mary Sue. Or Marty Stu, Gary Stu, whatever. Some of the fiction and setting material makes this fairly clear, but when you also consider some of the noteworthy cases of the writer's. . . 'tendencies' IRL, well now. Textbook it is.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> see this whole thing has one major issue...Kirk is the hero of his story/universe...Elminster is the hero sometimes...other tiems he is a supporting character that gets to mayr sue level...




Star Trek is an ensemble. Kirk, Spock, and Bones are all the hero.



GMforPowergamers said:


> If I picked up a book set in the new star trek movie area and everyone was falling over backwards for kirk who only shows up in 2 chapters...I would agree...HOWEVER that is not the case.




So Kirk is a Mary Sue in Generations?



GMforPowergamers said:


> Batman, Kirk, Harminie, Sherlock Homes, House MD, and many other characters boarder on sue hood, becuse they are too good.




They're not too good. They're heroes. They're only too good compared to the soulless post-modern trash that academic literature passes off as protagonists.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Infact that is where opions come into play. How ever When I pick up Blue bettle comics, and the main character (with alien artafact powers) spends the whole issue getting his butt kicked by the bad guy, then batman comes in and wraps it up in 1 pannel...it is batman being used as a mary sue...




No, he's being used as a deus ex machina. Mary Sue has no real meaning outside of fanfiction, despite what TV Tropes poster say.



GMforPowergamers said:


> yea becuse I sooo see ed greenwood as a pathetic looser..
> 
> Maybe you missed the part were I respect his world, but not his characters... He is an OK writer in my mind (not great, but far from pathetic) BUT his character IS a mary sue by every strech of the word...




You can't have it both ways. Accusing an author of writing a Mary Sue is tantamount to calling him a looser writing his own wish fulfillment. At least that's what it means in fanfiction, which is the only place the term has any real meaning. Since Ed Greenwood developed the character, it's not fan fiction. So calli9ng Elminster a Mary Sue is nonsensical and insulting to Mr. Greenwood.



GMforPowergamers said:


> He is good at everything (Look at his classes...he was a fighter, a theif an wizard a prestess (yes he was a girl for a while). He is one of the most powerful wizards in the world, he ignores the over god telling him not to do something (((El sue is training midnight to be the new mystra (yes this mortal wizard is a better teacher then the other gods) and AO tells him to lay off she has to learn on her own...what does El Sue do...he keeps teaching))).
> He has had intmate knowlage of many women over the years...so much for the nerdy wizard sterotype he is a player...
> He IS ed in the game world...infact Ed use to walk around conventions and holloween parties as elminster...
> He inteacts with ed in the story by breaking the 4th wall and being a packers fan and drinking eds type of beer...
> ...




Not a fanfiction.

I get it, you don't like Elminster for whatever reason and you choose to express it by insulting Ed Greenwood. 

Honestly Elminster seems no worse then most of the classical heroes (Heracles, Persius, etc) or Batman or Kirk, or any other hero.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> No, it's Batman as Deus Ex Machina. The characteristic of 'powerful intervention' doesn't constitute any coherent sense of 'Mary Sue' I've ever read.



 Ok, maybe my example wasn't the best...



> He was told to do so by TSR, a fact that's well known by now. You haven't the least reason to think he's Ed in the Realms other than that it's what you heard. If you respect Ed as you say, please don't call him a liar.



did he do it...Yes
why did he do it...to make money (aka the sma e reason I go to my job)
I am not calling him a liar...I am saying he did X and X fits mary sue...weather TSR made him write a mary sue character or not is not what I am argueing here...
Infact I have no doubt that his orginal idea and wha we have seen in 20 years are very diffrent...

However why he is a mary sue is not the same as if he is a mary sue...



> I don't know where you got this idea from, but have you noticed how you stick to it irrespective of how many times I dispel your mistaken or misconceived 'evidence' (including the bit I didn't quote, which we discussed before on Wizards.com)?



look, I am by no means an expert ont he subject of the realms or ELminster...and I go by 2nd and 3rd hand stories...and cons and rule books...that is the problem...

But yes since Elminster has by many diffrent people been catagorized as a 'ladies man' and the only person in this thread to dispute it tells us how easy to verfy his monogomy is...but give no book or web site to link to...



> Neither is it breaking the fourth wall, since the very premise of the Forgotten Realms -- the source of its name, the hidden motivator of many of its events -- is that it's one of many worlds in a Moorcockian multiverse, once broadly linked to Earth.




Talking to your own writer is the text book defination again... how it is done doesn't matter. It is still breaking the 4th wall, becuse he is interacting with ed himself in the book...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> So Kirk is a Mary Sue in Generations?



I think he was getting close...but it was handled well and avoided...I will admit somepeople see that diffrently...




> They're not too good. They're heroes. They're only too good compared to the soulless post-modern trash that academic literature passes off as protagonists.



 or when they show up in said other protagonists stories 




> You can't have it both ways. Accusing an author of writing a Mary Sue is tantamount to calling him a looser writing his own wish fulfillment.



it is you adding in the looser part not me...but yes I think there was most likely some wish fulfillment there...



> At least that's what it means in fanfiction, which is the only place the term has any real meaning. Since Ed Greenwood developed the character, it's not fan fiction. So calling Elminster a Mary Sue is nonsensical and insulting to Mr. Greenwood.



oh...so now you try to turn this into an insult out right... I respect ed greenwood, but that doesn't mean I respect every thing he has ever done...



> Not a fanfiction.



 also not a stand alone story...



> I get it, you don't like Elminster for whatever reason and you choose to express it by insulting Ed Greenwood.



yes I must really hate the guy that made this setting...and must be insulting him by dislikeing a charcter he has only had some control over for years...



> Honestly Elminster seems no worse then most of the classical heroes (Heracles, Persius, etc) or Batman or Kirk, or any other hero.




MUCH worse he is in a role playing game not just a novel... waht part of he is an NPC not a PC do you not get???


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 30, 2009)

I understand that the original definition of Mary Sue has something to do with the character being a stand-in for the author, but I think the term has evolved to the point where it includes (for many people, including myself) an idealized character that is so awesome that no other character can top it. It's sort of like "My fictional creation is bigger than your fictional creation...".

Given that, and I don't think Ed Greenwood is necessarily to blame for this, but Elminster is absolutely the poster-child for Mary Sue-ness.


As statted, he's ludicrously powerful and adept. He is a little bit of everything, and (despite weak explanations why he doesn't just 'port in and take out every major bad guy on the planet) he can take nearly anything on paper.
Mystra is an ex-lover. Regardless of his other bedroom conquests, that's... quite a claim. And he's a Chosen, as well.
All of the women he's been with are described as having power and beauty on a goddess-like scale. I guess they've got to match his power to maintain some level of equity, but he's not much of a looker. I think I'd like Elminster more if his partner appeared more age-appropriate, but I guess grandmothers would look odd in silky revealing robes...
He can outwit or out-sass gods and archdevils alike, to say nothing of poor incompetent super-villains like Manshoon and Sammaster.
He's everywhere. I hated seeing him the first time while playing Baldur's Gate, and I *really* hated seeing him the 3rd or 4th time (...where, like most portrayals of Elminster, he pops up to say something mysterious, implying that he knows so much more than you, and then vanishes without really doing anything meaninfgul). He's just... smug. And irritating.
The constant positioning of Elminster as the uber-wizard, not just of the Realms, but of all D&D worlds. The old Wizards Three articles in Dragon usually had Elminster portrayed as more knowledgeable (or at least more laid-back and in control) than Mordenkainen, and Dalamar came off as a punk-@ss kid by comparison.
I live for the day that Mordenkainen feeds Elminster to the Altar of the Elder Elemental God. Unfortunately, I suspect that Mord would need Raistlin, Gandalf, Merlin and Lady Vol simply just to take Elminster down for a couple rounds, and he'd probably just give the Elder Eye a wedgie (and sleep with Iggwilv) for their trouble...


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Aus_Snow, that's a nasty bit of innuendo you've got there. Are you going to leave it at that or tell us what you're talking about?







GMforPowergamers said:


> look, I am by no means an expert ont he subject of the realms or ELminster...and I go by 2nd and 3rd hand stories...and cons and rule books...that is the problem...



OK. But in the many things I'm not an expert on, I don't usually insist my second-hand ideas must be right.







> But yes since Elminster has by many diffrent people been catagorized as a 'ladies man' and the only person in this thread to dispute it tells us how easy to verfy his monogomy is...but give no book or web site to link to...



No one's disputed it, just cited hearsay. There may be an explicit statement somewhere -- though I remember _The Seven Sisters_ says he's her chosen consort -- but the point is (gods, this is a sordid conversation) there are no mentions or suggestions in print of Elminster having sex with anyone else from 1357 DR on.

As for the 'he's so lusty' thing being an act, see, for instance, here. I thought it was obvious from the books, but clearly not to everyone. It's used as a footnote to the Realms' overall treatment of influence-through-manipulation.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> Aus_Snow, that's a nasty bit of innuendo you've got there. Are you going to leave it at that or tell us what you're talking about?



It's not nasty at all, coming directly from trusted sources as it does. Any nastiness involved is none of my doing, let's just say.

However, *no*, I am certainly not going to go into any detail here. As far as I'm aware, this place is not right for such discussions. Or rather, such discussions are verboten.

That's not my call, so if it's a problem for you, please take it up with those who have decreed this to be so. If you must take it up with anyone. Thanks.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 30, 2009)

Lancelot said:


> I live for the day that Mordenkainen feeds Elminster to the Altar of the Elder Elemental God. Unfortunately, I suspect that Mord would need Raistlin, Gandalf, Merlin and Lady Vol simply just to take Elminster down for a couple rounds, and he'd probably just give the Elder Eye a wedgie (and sleep with Iggwilv) for their trouble...




Eh, it's all a question of what world it takes place in. The trick is to lure Elminster out of his own world to a world where his author can no longer protect him.

Obviously, Elminster needs somebody to talk him into going into OotS-land to save that hapless adventuring party from that wicked lich Xykon. Of course, as soon as Elminster leaves Toril, he passes out of Ed Greenwood's sphere of influence and into Rich Burlew's; at which point Xykon's plot protection takes over, along with his talent for demolishing overconfident wizards.

...Y'know, I just made a decision. In my reality, Dorukan was Elminster in disguise. He's now trapped in a small black gem in Xykon's back pocket.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> As for the 'he's so lusty' thing being an act, see, for instance, here. I thought it was obvious from the books, but clearly not to everyone. It's used as a footnote to the Realms' overall treatment of influence-through-manipulation.




did you read the answer...it is no answer at all



> I can't say for sure, because I've never peeked. :}
> 
> Yet let's go a little beyond what I (and other
> writers) have thus far set down in print. El and Storm
> ...




it was a very good way to not commit one way or te other though...my hat goes off to him on awsome double speak (((And I mean that really not sarcastic)))


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> Eh, it's all a question of what world it takes place in. The trick is to lure Elminster out of his own world to a world where his author can no longer protect him.
> 
> Obviously, Elminster needs somebody to talk him into going into OotS-land to save that hapless adventuring party from that wicked lich Xykon. Of course, as soon as Elminster leaves Toril, he passes out of Ed Greenwood's sphere of influence and into Rich Burlew's; at which point Xykon's plot protection takes over, along with his talent for demolishing overconfident wizards.
> 
> ...Y'know, I just made a decision. In my reality, Dorukan was Elminster in disguise. He's now trapped in a small black gem in Xykon's back pocket.




can someone write this fanfic please....


extra points if at diffrent points of the battle BOTH characters do the "Pro tip" thing...


----------



## Lancelot (Jun 30, 2009)

I'd like to add that Elminster's monogamy (or lack thereof) seems like a bit of a red herring to me. Most people in real-life are non-monogamous (at least, before they're married - and I don't think Elminster is married, true?). The same is true of many fictional characters.

However, Elminster is portrayed as an elderly pipe-smoking fellow in thick red robes. And he's pulling the hotties. Check out the usual portrayal of the Simbul, or Mystra, the Seven Sisters, etc. It's very Hugh Hefner... which is what disappoints me. All these significant female role models... and they're attacted to the hairy, tobacco-smelling old guy with 30+ levels in 4 different classes and the biggest spell book in the land.

Driz'zt wishes he saw that kind of action. Eternally young elven looks, athletic, non-smoker, likes cats...


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Talking to your own writer is the text book defination again... how it is done doesn't matter. It is still breaking the 4th wall, becuse he is interacting with ed himself in the book...




No, it's a type of third person limited narration. Technically, the fourth wall concept only applies to theater (and by extension cinema, radioplays, and teleplays). In a novel, breaking the fourth wall would involve the character revealing that he knows he's fictional, living in a fictional world. To my understanding, Elminster shows up, tells 'Ed' some stories, drinks his beer, and leaves. At least that was the vibe I got in the FR products that mentioned it.




GMforPowergamers said:


> it is you adding in the looser part not me...but yes I think there was most likely some wish fulfillment there...
> 
> oh...so now you try to turn this into an insult out right... I respect ed greenwood, but that doesn't mean I respect every thing he has ever done...




Calling a work a Mary Sue is insulting and implies you consider the author a hack and a looser. If that is not you opinion of Mr. Greenwood, find another pejorative.




GMforPowergamers said:


> yes I must really hate the guy that made this setting...and must be insulting him by dislikeing a charcter he has only had some control over for years...




That's what Mary Sue means. Calling Elminster a Mary Sue carries with it the implication that you think Greenwood is a pathetic looser. If you don't feel that way, find a useful critical phrase to describe Elminster.




GMforPowergamers said:


> MUCH worse he is in a role playing game not just a novel... waht part of he is an NPC not a PC do you not get???




Wait, were we discussing Greenwood as an author or a DM?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> No, it's a type of third person limited narration. Technically, the fourth wall concept only applies to theater (and by extension cinema, radioplays, and teleplays). In a novel, breaking the fourth wall would involve the character revealing that he knows he's fictional, living in a fictional world.



 I think we are spliting hairs here...




> To my understanding, Elminster shows up, tells 'Ed' some stories, drinks his beer, and leaves. At least that was the vibe I got in the FR products that mentioned it.




yea, that is the same impression I got...infact if you know where it was said you would help me out alot..





> Calling a work a Mary Sue is insulting and implies you consider the author a hack and a looser. If that is not you opinion of Mr. Greenwood, find another pejorative.



The character fits mary sue...the writere changes...ever notice that the character shows up in books and games and rpg stuff...it all adds up





> That's what Mary Sue means. Calling Elminster a Mary Sue carries with it the implication that you think Greenwood is a pathetic looser. If you don't feel that way, find a useful critical phrase to describe Elminster.



 Sorry but you are wrong...I say nothing of the writer...it is the character...infact...






> Wait, were we discussing Greenwood as an author or a DM?




we are talking about Elminster the character...in novels (some by Mr Greenwood some not) in vedio games, in RPG guids...

Elminster is not his fav character...fine I don't care 
Elminster is written by how many authers (Including appearnces in mods and games)?
Elminster the character created and owned by TSR that was sold to WotC that Ed greenwood had a major hand in...but not the only hand in...


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> I don't know where you got this idea from, but have you noticed how you stick to it irrespective of *how many times I dispel your mistaken or misconceived 'evidence'* (including the bit I didn't quote, which we discussed before on Wizards.com)?



Have you, though?

I mean, I see a lot of _assertions_.  But right now it looks like you and the others are basically going "Nuh-UH!" "Uh-HUH!" back and forth.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Calling a work a Mary Sue is insulting and implies you consider the author a hack and a looser. If that is not you opinion of Mr. Greenwood, find another pejorative.



OK, we can either talk about Elminster as separate from Ed Greenwood, or we can talk about them as inextricably linked.  Personally, I'd rather keep them separate, to move away from this "HOW DARE YOU INSULT ED GREENWOOD!" vibe.

In short, the term "Mary Sue" might not mean the same thing on ENWorld in regards to authorial wish-fulfillment, as they would on a fanfic site.

I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't care a lick what Ed Greenwood thinks about Elminster, whether or not he's fantasy wish fulfillment, or whatever.  I'd rather talk about the _character_, how he's been handled by _all_ authors, and his effects on the setting.  Which, IMO, have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual person, Ed Greenwood.  

That's a pure distraction, and if we can't have a discussion about a character without devolving into questions about whether or not those discussions are insulting to the _author_ of that character, I think this thread is going to go even further south, more quickly.  IMO, YMMV, etc.

-O


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I mean, I see a lot of _assertions_.  But right now it looks like you and the others are basically going "Nuh-UH!" "Uh-HUH!" back and forth.



Like I said to GMforPowergamers, I didn't think the straight points of Realmslore (or what Ed has said) were in contention. I could footnote them all, but thought it would seem pedantic. Anything in particular you're thinking of?







Obryn said:


> That's a pure distraction, and if we can't have a discussion about a character without devolving into questions about whether or not those discussions are insulting to the _author_ of that character, I think this thread is going to go even further south, more quickly.



Quite, that would be a much more civilized discussion, but the term 'Mary Sue' does imply a certain kind of relationship between the author and the character, doesn't it? Some people are definitely asserting one, even if others might be using it more vaguely.


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think we are spliting hairs here...




Not really. They're two very different things.



GMforPowergamers said:


> yea, that is the same impression I got...infact if you know where it was said you would help me out alot..




I seem to recall it in the Realmspace guide. The conceit that the author is relating stories from a third person shows up a number of times. It a cross between a third person limited point of view and an epistolary narration. There's some unreliable narrator there too, since Elminster lies constantly and is bug house insane.



GMforPowergamers said:


> The character fits mary sue...the writere changes...ever notice that the character shows up in books and games and rpg stuff...it all adds up




Then he can't be a Mary Sue as part of it that the character is a stand in and wish fulfillment for the author. Unless you're saying all of those authors had the same wish.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Sorry but you are wrong...I say nothing of the writer...it is the character...infact...




You said Elminster was a Mary Sue due to Greenwood's writing a few times. Calling an author's character a Mary Sue isn an insult and implies you think he's a looser.



GMforPowergamers said:


> we are talking about Elminster the character...in novels (some by Mr Greenwood some not) in vedio games, in RPG guids...
> 
> Elminster is not his fav character...fine I don't care
> Elminster is written by how many authers (Including appearnces in mods and games)?
> Elminster the character created and owned by TSR that was sold to WotC that Ed greenwood had a major hand in...but not the only hand in...




The he's no more a Mary Sue then Superman or Heracles. It doesn't preclude him from being poorly characterized or employed though. That doesn't make him a Mary Sue, however.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Then he can't be a Mary Sue as part of it that the character is a stand in and wish fulfillment for the author. Unless you're saying all of those authors had the same wish.




ok I must admit this is more a joke then anything....but comeon, people working int he RPG industry who faantasize about being powerful wizards...my bet would be 90+% of teh writers...readers...players have at one point or another...






> The he's no more a Mary Sue then Superman or Heracles. It doesn't preclude him from being poorly characterized or employed though. That doesn't make him a Mary Sue, however.




so what should I call a character that is often protrayed by many sources as the over powered DMPC style Mary sue???


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> That's a pure distraction, and if we can't have a discussion about a character without devolving into questions about whether or not those discussions are insulting to the _author_ of that character, I think this thread is going to go even further south, more quickly.  IMO, YMMV, etc.
> 
> -O




Then perhaps avoiding insulting jargon of a field only tangentially related to the topic at hand would be a good first step.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Then perhaps avoiding insulting jargon of a field only tangentially related to the topic at hand would be a good first step.




ok how about the character shows traits of sue hood when written by multi writersss (I will edit this if you can give me a better name for the type of character)

I will then relist two diffrent (one mine) lists of why it is felt this way...please note that I removed any mention of ed by name...


GMforPowergamers said:


> He is good at everything (Look at his classes...he was a fighter, a theif an wizard a prestess (yes he was a girl for a while). He is one of the most powerful wizards in the world, he ignores the over god telling him not to do something (((El sue is training midnight to be the new mystra (yes this mortal wizard is a better teacher then the other gods) and AO tells him to lay off she has to learn on her own...what does El Sue do...he keeps teaching))).
> He has had intmate knowlage of many women over the years...so much for the nerdy wizard sterotype he is a player...
> He inteacts with ed in the story by breaking the 4th wall and being a packers fan and drinking beer with his writer...






Lancelot said:


> As statted, he's ludicrously powerful and adept. He is a little bit of everything, and (despite weak explanations why he doesn't just 'port in and take out every major bad guy on the planet) he can take nearly anything on paper.
> Mystra is an ex-lover. Regardless of his other bedroom conquests, that's... quite a claim. And he's a Chosen, as well.
> All of the women he's been with are described as having power and beauty on a goddess-like scale. I guess they've got to match his power to maintain some level of equity, but he's not much of a looker. I think I'd like Elminster more if his partner appeared more age-appropriate, but I guess grandmothers would look odd in silky revealing robes...
> He can outwit or out-sass gods and archdevils alike, to say nothing of poor incompetent super-villains like Manshoon and Sammaster.
> ...


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so what should I call a character that is often protrayed by many sources as the over powered DMPC style Mary sue???




It would depend on the usage, but:

Poorly characterized.
Overly idealized.
Overly powerful.
Unbelievable.
Stock character.

Based on the complaint I've seen most often:

Deus ex machina.
Ostentatious.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> It would depend on the usage, but:
> 
> Poorly characterized.
> Overly idealized.
> ...




ok with the exception of the last one (witch i really don't know) It seams to line up with sue hood...



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> While the term is generally limited to fan-created characters, and its most common usage today occurs within the fan fiction community or in reference to fan fiction, original characters in role-playing games or literary canon are also sometimes criticized as being "Mary Sues" or "canon Sues," if they dominate the spotlight or are too unrealistic or unlikely in other ways. One example of this is Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation.




how ever I did find God Mode sue...a variant with no repercussions ont eh writer...
godmode Sue @TV tropes
in fact:



> •Elminster of Shadowdale, full stop. Probably the most notable is that he gets to bed the goddess of magic, as well as numerous other hot super-powered babes.
> ◦He's still alive in 4th Edition, which means that not even the death of his patron goddess, the magic Weave going bonkers, the resulting Spellplague, and the chaos resulting from the deaths of other heroes and gods could kill him.
> ■However, take solace that he's no longer orders of magnitude more powerful than pretty much everything else, having been metaphysically kicked in the balls with the death of his goddess. He's powerful, but a group of dedicated epic characters can take him down, now that his deific plot armour no longer works.




so is this better??


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 30, 2009)

I think the most important thing about "Mary Sues" is that they ruin a setting by their presence. Conan, for example, doesn't ruin Hyboria, he enlivens it.

In view of which, "Mary Sues" should probably be renamed "Elminsters" just to avoid confusion.

Look, I bought Drow of the Underdark and I saw the picture of the nekkid drow babe lounging in Elminster's hot tub. With that "Hi, my name is Ivanna Havitoff" and Elminster all looking like Hef and so on. I know what that was all about.

Also, try using Google Image for Ed Greenwood (NOTE: I keep Safesearch ON, so don't come crying if you foolishly don't use it). Dude. It's Elminister. Sorry.

The point is, Elminster is the unkillable, ultrasmooth, ice man, chick magnet, playah, rock star, don't need Viagra, pimpalicious ultra-uber-arch-mega-infini-mage tom-jones-meets-johnny-cash bearer of the Invulnerable Codpiece of MechaGodzilla who beats up Chuck Norris, pities Mr. T and teaches Pat Morita how to do Karate. Any shred of integrity that Forgotten Realms could have as a setting collapses under and implodes into the infinite mass of his goddess-banging script immunity.

If Elminster isn't a Mary Sue, then there are no such things and they should not even be discussed.


----------



## jensun (Jun 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Elminster from Forgotten Realms is a Mary Sue. Partly because he's very knowledgeable, wise and powerful. Partly because he has sex with lots of hot magic elven babes. And mostly because he's a stand-in for the author, Ed Greenwood.



Its creepier when you realise that one of those women he is boning (the Symbul) is someone he raised from being a child after Mystra burned up their mother giving birth to the Seven Sisters of Super Awesomeness.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jun 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> See, I was under the impression that a true Mary Sue can't be the protagonist of his own story; A Mary Sue is someone who either one-ups the main character OR is overall better than an ensemble cast. For example; Conan would never be a Mary Sue because HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT AWESOME! Now, if I introduced a Barbarian-chieftain into Conan mythos who was a better fighter, lover, tactician,and leader than Conan, HE'D be the Mary Sue, since Conan's supposed to be the hero.



I think you're right. The original concept was that fanfic authors were creating characters who were supposedly way better than the main characters of whatever popular fictional universe they were writing in. So Ensign Mary Sue was supposedly a supporting character, but out did all the crew and singled-handedly saved the day.

If such a character was in a story set in the author's own universe, the character wouldn't be a Mary Sue because the character would simply be the protagonist.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

jensun said:


> Its creepier when you realise that one of those women he is boning (the Symbul) is someone he raised from being a child after Mystra burned up their mother giving birth to the Seven Sisters of Super Awesomeness.



No, the Simbul was raised by Oraumae of Rashemen (_The Seven Sisters_ p. 8). Why do you think you were so sure of this mistaken point?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

There is an issue of bad writing which is not necessarily about Mary Sue.  Conan is a fine character, but if you're playing a Conan game your PCs are the heroes, and if the GM has Conan show up and solve the adventure, that is a Bad Thing.  The same goes for Elminster showing up to rescue the PCs in a Forgotten Realms game, or Luke saving the PCs in a Star Wars game.  It inculcates a "why do we even bother?" attitude.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I think you're right. The original concept was that fanfic authors were creating characters who were supposedly way better than the main characters of whatever popular fictional universe they were writing in. So Ensign Mary Sue was supposedly a supporting character, but out did all the crew and singled-handedly saved the day.
> 
> If such a character was in a story set in the author's own universe, the character wouldn't be a Mary Sue because the character would simply be the protagonist.




Yes, I agree.  There is an issue where one character in an ensemble cast is mis-written to become vastly Better At Everything than the others.  In old series Trek fanfic this is most likely to be Spock.

Elminster is an annoying self-insertion character who steals the limelight from the PCs, who are supposed to be the heroes.  Since Ed created the Realms, El cannot meet the strict definition of Mary Sue, however (leaving aside those crossover chats with Mordenkainen).


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 30, 2009)

Here is the original tale that spawned the name:



> A TREKKIE'S TALE
> 
> By Paula Smith
> 
> ...






Oh Elminister, I was just reading The Drow of the Underdark (2e) last night and cringing at the introduction: it read more like Ed's sexual wish fulfilment or a soft porn novel. He is a dirty old man (Elminister I mean), that drow woman was one of his apprentices.


----------



## Zaister (Jun 30, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> Here is the original tale that spawned the name




It should be noted that this "story" was written as a satire to spoof this kind of fiction that was abundant in fanfic at the time.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 30, 2009)

Zaister said:


> It should be noted that this "story" was written as a satire to spoof this kind of fiction that was abundant in fanfic at the time.




True, I should have mentioned that.


----------



## Faraer (Jun 30, 2009)

S'mon said:


> Elminster is an annoying self-insertion character who steals the limelight from the PCs, who are supposed to be the heroes.



I really don't understand why you give credence to the self-insertion thing.

What are you basing the 'steals the limelight' claim on? Naturally he's active in the fiction he's in (most of which, once more, wouldn't exist if TSR hadn't wanted him to write it). I can't think of any of it where he steals limelight from a PC-like adventuring band. In the more than 100 Realms game adventures, Elminster does something significant in about 3 of them, and in most he isn't mentioned.

Like with the nudity, you evidently got the impression you got. But the weight of Realmslore doesn't remotely support it.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> What are you basing the 'steals the limelight' claim on?




Ed's accounts of his GMing of his own Dalelands campaign that I've read, when thinking about running FR.  If it carries forward into actual published adventures, that's even worse.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> I really don't understand why you give credence to the self-insertion thing.




A self-insertion character is actually very common in fiction, and not necessarily bad.  Frodo appears to be Tolkien's self-insertion character, but not a wish-fulfilment character.  Conan is a wish-fulfilment character, but IMO REH pulls it off, because REH-Conan is not invincible and even spends much of his adventures *running away from* the monsters.  Marvel's version of Conan ("No man is his equal!") can become annoying, though.  For me, Edgar Rice Burrough's heroes like Tarzan & John Carter of Mars are good example of ones who just cross the line.  Pastiche characters like Tarl Cabot of Gor veer way over the line.  For me El is up there with Tarl, although being a genial free-love hippy rather than B-D fetishist is somewhat less horrible I guess.


----------



## vagabundo (Jun 30, 2009)

Elminister might not be a big player in adventures, but he is prevalent in FR accessories and supplements. And, it seems to me, is an alter-ego for Ed himself in many cases.



S'mon said:


> A self-insertion character is actually very common in fiction, and not necessarily bad.  Frodo appears to be Tolkien's self-insertion character, but not a wish-fulfilment character.  Conan is a wish-fulfilment character, but IMO REH pulls it off, because REH-Conan is not invincible and even spends much of his adventures *running away from* the monsters.  Marvel's version of Conan ("No man is his equal!") can become annoying, though.  For me, Edgar Rice Burrough's heroes like Tarzan & John Carter of Mars are good example of ones who just cross the line.  Pastiche characters like Tarl Cabot of Gor veer way over the line.  For me El is up there with Tarl, although being a genial free-love hippy rather than B-D fetishist is somewhat less horrible I guess.




I think your spot on with this.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 30, 2009)

Elminster is not a Mary Sue.

He is not a fanfic character slotted in by the fanfic author that overshadows the characters in the source material and is used as wish-fulfillment by the author.

He is however:

A creepy author-identified character.  Elminster is a certain avatar of Ed in someways.  Hearing about ANY sexual exploits is creepy.
He is a Kwizach-Dragon-Who-Lived.  Too much "awesome" packed together.
He is used in a Mary Sue-ish manner (upstaging the protagonists) by many bad FR DMs.

He comes VERY close to Mary Sue, but not exactly.


----------



## rounser (Jun 30, 2009)

Ed can come across as a bit pervy at times*, and Elminster is cast as a meddling deus ex machina DMPC, and narrator.  But I don't think all DMPCs are power trips for the DM.  Elminster often shows up in a way that keeps the story going (e.g. heal the PCs, distract the King, give them a lead), much as this is frowned upon.

I think the fact that FR is presented as Elminster telling "Ed of the Greenwood" _about_ the Realms leaves it pretty explicit that Ed sees him as a character seperate to himself.  The pervy stuff seeps into FR when Ed is involved, so it is no surprise that Elminster has had some of that written into him.  And Ed loves his archmages, and it's obvious that Elminster is something of a Gandalf clone...

So...

Pervy?  Check.  Has a deity for a lover.
Powerful?  Check.  Archmage, Gandalf clone.
Deus ex machina? Check.  DMPC, again related to being a Gandalf clone.
Narrator?  Check, but lost this role to Volo to an extent.

Proxy for the author?  

Possible but debatable, given that the 4th wall is explicitly broken in a way that suggests that this is not the case (i.e. he is written as _hanging out_ with the author.  On Earth.  Why bother having El have somewhat alien tastes that don't match Ed's unless he was imagining him as a character seperate to himself?).

And he's not a fanfic.  Remember that Elminster's *original* published role outside of short stories and Ed's campaign was as this character who talked about a bunch of magic books in Dragon magazine.  So he's the FR narrator.  But he's far from top dog in pre-spellnonsense FR.

Which raises the question:  Is _Gandalf_ a Mary-Sue?

*: Not sure if this is Ed's "fault", but rather a reflection that a fully realised fantasy world might have more sex references in it than people would be comfortable having in their games.  Still, don't have to dwell on it.


----------



## jensun (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> No, the Simbul was raised by Oraumae of Rashemen (_The Seven Sisters_ p. 8). Why do you think you were so sure of this mistaken point?



Its mentioned in one of the collected stories FR anthology novels.


----------



## kenmarable (Jun 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> See, I was under the impression that a true Mary Sue can't be the protagonist of his own story; A Mary Sue is someone who either one-ups the main character OR is overall better than an ensemble cast. For example; Conan would never be a Mary Sue because HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE THAT AWESOME! Now, if I introduced a Barbarian-chieftain into Conan mythos who was a better fighter, lover, tactician,and leader than Conan, HE'D be the Mary Sue, since Conan's supposed to be the hero.
> 
> There is also a good argument whether or not an author can "Mary Sue" his own work; this mostly stems from Harry Potter discussions on whether Hermione is a Mary Sue for JKR. Some say yes because she's clearly better at EVERYTHING than Harry is, while others say she's supposed to be better to compensate for Ron being rather inept (and to make Harry seem grounded/normal by comparison). It is widely accepted that OTHER authors can certainly Mary Sue a work, even if it IS cannon (Mara Jade).



Got it, the "better than Dread Pirate Roberts" clarified the definition for me. Both are annoying character types, but being the spy who can outsmart James Bond, the barbarian that spares Conan's life on a whim, etc. makes sense to me now. Thanks!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> However, *no*, I am certainly not going to go into any detail here. As far as I'm aware, this place is not right for such discussions. Or rather, such discussions are verboten.





Well, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, now should you?

This, "I can't talk about it here, because it might be sordid, but I have it from trusted sources" stuff, is really shabby.  You do realize that there's an actual human being there, and you're suggesting things about his personal life?  That sounds like a cool thing to do, or something?

How about this thread continue with a higher sense of class than that from this point on?  You know, respect for our fellow human beings, and all that...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 30, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I think the most important thing about "Mary Sues" is that they ruin a setting by their presence. Conan, for example, doesn't ruin Hyboria, he enlivens it.




I disagree, the important thing about Mary Sues is that they overshadow the protaganist. So it is relatively easy to have one in a fanfic, where a complete unknown overshadows the canonical protagonist, wheither Kirk in Star Trek or Buffy in Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
It is a bit harder to have a Mary Sue in an original work unless you set up a protagonist and then undermine them by having some secondary character do all the ass kicking. 

I don't really see how you can have a Mary Sue in a setting, unless it is an uber DMPC that waltzes in and over shadows the party. 

Elminster is a different kind of beast, imho, he is really a perament Deux ex machine, waiting to be invoked by any DM or writer who need an out for the heros right now.


----------



## avin (Jun 30, 2009)

Don't read any FR novels. 

All I know is known by the RPG books and I have something like a hate for Elminster and Drizzt. 

In some ways, yes, they are Mary Sues. Everytime E. showed up on Baldur's Gate, like knowing toooooooo muuuuuuuch more than me I wondered why couldn't I kill him.

I think it's easier to like characters more "human" such as Han Solo, Deckard, Phillip Marlowe than "the great granny lover of realms" ... but heck, if Elminster was like Bukowski's Dirty Old Man I would be a fan


----------



## Krensky (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok with the exception of the last one (witch i really don't know) It seams to line up with sue hood...




It has a few (similar) meanings, but here it can basically be seen as "Look at me! Look at me!"



GMforPowergamers said:


> how ever I did find God Mode sue...a variant with no repercussions ont eh writer...
> godmode Sue @TV tropes




TV Trope's neologisms aren't useful in literary analysis since they have no generally accepted meaning outside of internet hipsterism. They're are fun to read though.

Again, Elminster is a bit flashier and prominent, but he really doesn't look any different then a number of classical and modern heroic characters. A large part of his over use and exposure seems to be a mix of authors at TSR/WotC cramming in too many places because he's cool, and because he is (was?) the iconic character of the Realms due to Greenwood's use of him as the unreliable narrator for the Realms in general.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2009)

Heh, just listened to an interview with R. A. Salvatore on the Open Design Podcast  One of his best lines is, when talking about writing for a shared universe, authors aren't allowed to kill each other's characters.  When asked who would win between Drizz't (sp) and Elminister, his answer was, "Well, if I write it, Elminister DIES!"  

Really, I think we're splitting hairs.  Even if you deny the Mary Sue appelation, the fact that Deus Ex Machina gets chucked around so often pretty much says it all.  It's a God Mode DMPC that is all knowing and all powerful.  Pre or post Spellplague, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> Which raises the question:  Is _Gandalf_ a Mary-Sue?




No, that was Tom Bombadil.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 30, 2009)

Faraer said:


> With whom he's in a monogamous relationship for the decades of the Realms' published 'present'.
> 
> What's the sarcasm for? You can easily verify everything I wrote if you care to look.



It's not monogamous. Here's a quote from Ed Greenwood from the Candlekeep Forum.



			
				'Sex' Ed said:
			
		

> neither I nor the nigh-immortal... fictional Realms characters I’ve created view “sleeping with” people as being incompatible with having deep, committed relationships with someone else. So they don’t see it as “lax” at all (and by the way, neither did a LOT of real-world American people of a certain generation, during the 1960s/Woodstock generation -- making love to Person A was seen as having nothing at all to do with being life-bonded to Person B).
> Yes, The Simbul and Elminster DO love each other. Deeply. Yet neither of them would define faithfulness to the other as having anything at all to do with sex. So, yes, “swinging” between committed or married couples isn’t seen as Bad by a lot of Faerunians, in many places and situations (though among most citizens across the Realms, it would be).
> ...
> I make no apology for this mental separation between love and lust. Outliving lover after lover, family after family, (many of) your own children, realm after realm, and so on will do that to you. You grab physical love when you can, and search for long-term partners with a desperate hunger.




The reference to the Woodstock era is particularly indicative of where Ed is coming from imo. In the same post he goes on to say -



> If I was publishing the “uncensored” Realms, in fiction, most of my liches would be desperate to have physical relations with adventurers, not kill them. Think about it.




Again, at least it's not furry erotica though. That's something.


----------



## Derulbaskul (Jun 30, 2009)

_Mary Sue_ is, for the Forgotten Realms, the same as _World of Warcraft_ for D&D4E: a cheap throwaway line with which to start fights on messageboards.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Again, Elminster is a bit flashier and prominent, but he really doesn't look any different then a number of classical and modern heroic characters.




I don't think that necessarily gives him a pass on his looming Gary Stu-ness. He's built like one, even if he isn't typically used like one. One toe over the line and he's there in fully Gary Stu glory. Perhaps a Gary Stu with a lot of potential energy.

The difference between a highly competent character and a Mary Sue/Gary Stu is a question of crossing one or more poorly defined lines and doing so too often.
Aragorn in LotR is highly competent, becomes pretty much loved by all and extremely politically powerful. Heading for Gary Stu territory? But he's rarely written to steal the thunder of the other characters, has moments of real indecisiveness, and spends some time off camera doing some of his greatest deeds. When he reaches his apotheosis, he largely fades into the background as an active character, and focus tightens on the hobbit protagonists.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 30, 2009)

I think the term Mary Sue is kinda funny when used outside of a discussion of fan fiction. Especially when you start applying it to genres of fiction that are essentially built around power/competence fantasies. It's almost as if some people are embarrassed to be reading about the likes Doc Savage. In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. 

And wouldn't it be nice --for writers-- if good characterization was simply a matter of making a protagonist _bad_ at a few things...


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 30, 2009)

Krensky said:


> TV Trope's neologisms aren't useful in literary analysis since they have no generally accepted meaning outside of internet hipsterism. They're are fun to read though.




Okay, this is just too funny. You realize you're talking about the term "Mary Sue," right? It comes from Star Trek fanfic! It's on _exactly_ the same level as TvTropes. It's not like you can break out the Oxford English Dictionary and point to the definition. And "literary analysis?" If this thread is literary analysis, then TvTropes is a freakin' dissertation. Which is actually not so far from the truth; academic literary analysis is mostly just TvTropes with bigger words and more pretensions.

If you want a discussion of the Mary Sue concept and its applicability to both fanfic and canon characters (and no, the fanfic community does not have exclusive rights to the term), TvTropes is an excellent place to start.

My own personal definition: *Mary Sue is any character whose presence causes reality to lose all depth and become a mirror reflecting her glory.* All sympathetic characters love and praise her, even if they ought by rights to hate her guts. (They may turn against her briefly, so that the universe can then show them the error of their ways.) People who would normally step up to solve a problem simply wring their hands in despair, so that Mary Sue can save the day. All desirable characters want to sleep with her and/or are in love with her, regardless of whether this makes any sense for those characters. Everything she does is the right thing to do, and all the other characters agree that it was the right thing, even when she does something that in a non-warped reality would be considered appalling. The only time she's ever wrong is when she has doubts as to how special she is.

Is it always a bad thing for a character to be a Mary Sue? Well, I hesitate to say _always_ about anything, but almost always, yes. Is her presence proof that the writer sucks overall? No. Good writers, even great ones, sometimes fall into the Mary Sue trap while remaining good writers in other respects. IMO, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became textbook Mary Sue in the latter half of Season 7, and she had some Sue-ish traits going on before that. I'm not fond of that part of Buffydom, but I still love the show overall and think Joss Whedon is an awesome writer.

I honestly can't say whether Elminster qualifies, since I haven't read the novels in which he plays a role. From what I've heard, he certainly seems to have some of the traits, but maybe it's exaggerated.

Oh, and regarding the "nudity is non-sexual in the Realms" business: Again, I haven't read the novels, but based on past experience with this sort of thing, I am extremely skeptical. If there are examples of this lack-of-nudity-taboo where the non-Elminster participant is _not_ a stunningly attractive woman, I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just a thinly veiled excuse to have stunningly attractive women get naked around Elminster.


----------



## Vuron (Jun 30, 2009)

IMHO Elminster was initially envisioned as a powerful, extremely well-connected magic-user who is a bit of a meddler and deus ex machinae but much less powerful than he appeared in later fiction.

In the original greybox he was definitely a powerful wizard who was a decent match for Manshoon (the assumed primary antagonist for dalelands campaigns). However he was mainly useful as a resource for adventurers in that area. Sage Knowledge + wizard tower made for a good source of plothooks. Much like Gandalf it was assumed that if he was influencing events it was by subtly encouraging PCs to take up arms against the Zhents and defend the Dales and Cormyr.

Later on in Halls of Heroes, Elminster got a significant powerup (interesting enough Ed was not a writer on that book - I choose to blame Jeff Grubb who seems to have pushed a more superhero status for Elminster early on). He got some interesting abilities (including Psionics - not seen on him since). 

Spellfire which came out about this time saw Elminster as powerful (and certainly a bit of a deus ex machinae) but beside indicating that Ed was not the greatest writer (although I kinda enjoyed this book), I didn't think it was exceptionally egregious as a Marty Sue. Shandril was much closer to a mary sue with exceptional abilities (in no way supported by the ruleset) that made her death to wizards.

I think the tide really shifted around the development of 2e and the decision to make Elminster and Driz'zt the signature characters of the setting. Troy Denning wrote the horrible Avatar trilogy which definitely amps up Elminster (although in comparison to the Marty Sues of Cyric and Kelemvor and the Mary Sue of Midnight Elminster is pretty much tame).

Elminster and Drizzt continued their too cool for rules status and I think this is about the time that TSR books editorial staff made the decision to push stories from Elminster's perspective rather than stories built around the Knights of Myth Drannor (which I gather is what Ed would've prefered). I assume that Ed wanting to keep writing decided to go along with the TSR preference and keep writing uber Elminster stories.

The wizards three bits in Dragon were also a reflection of this. The Forgotten Realms was the cash cow so Elminster gets first billing, Mordekainen gets second billing (maybe as a slight to EGG- who knows), and Dalamar as second fiddle to Raistlin gets third billing. Further as the "good" wizard, it seems that the TSR Standards group were more comfortably pushing Elminster as a good wizard instead of Dalamar's "evil" or Mordekainen's active neutrality.

However that there were reasons for Elminster becoming a marty stu does not condone that course of events. Ed could've toned down the rules breaking badassitude of the character (as could Salvatore) and he chose not to. Combined with Ed's liberal opinions towards sexual relations in the realms and Elminster became a overly powerful lecher. This negative impact has been magnified by countless Forgotten Realms DMs using Elminster as a godawful DMPC. Hell I know I used him as such way back in the day.

But honestly EGG's Gord was similarly overpowered and rules breaking (son of the catlord my ass). I can only assume that stories featuring Mordekainen would've unfortunately resembled Elminster stories (although I prefer high gygaxian to high greenwoodian).


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2009)

Vuron said:


> But honestly EGG's Gord was similarly overpowered and rules breaking (son of the catlord my ass). I can only assume that stories featuring Mordekainen would've unfortunately resembled Elminster stories (although I prefer high gygaxian to high greenwoodian).



Oh, absolutely, 100%.

I re-read the Gord the Rogue books just a while back, and he's basically the prototype of Driz'zt.  I mean, by the final book, he's essentially a god, and kills literally thousands of demons in one scene.  The series started out great - Gord was actually fairly interesting in Sea of Death and City of Hawks - but it got absurd by the later books.

-O


----------



## an_idol_mind (Jun 30, 2009)

The sex thing isn't limited to Elminster. That's just how Greenwood writes. One of his novels mentions Mirt the Moneylender's adopted daughter hoping to one day become his lover. You can set an egg timer on most characters in Greenwood's novels losing their clothing. That's not an Elminster thing - that's how Greenwood always seems to write.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> It's not monogamous. Here's a quote from Ed Greenwood from the Candlekeep Forum.
> thank you...this was a myth that needed dispeling since I have REPATEDLY been critasized ont his and other forms for calling him out on this...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Obryn (Jun 30, 2009)

an_idol_mind said:


> The sex thing isn't limited to Elminster. That's just how Greenwood writes. One of his novels mentions Mirt the Moneylender's adopted daughter hoping to one day become his lover. You can set an egg timer on most characters in Greenwood's novels losing their clothing. That's not an Elminster thing - that's how Greenwood always seems to write.



Yeah, I and I always find it vaguely ... _icky_.  Seriously, Fantasy Authors...  If you don't know how to write a good sex scene, don't even try.

It's unsettling in _almost_ the same way that Piers Anthony books are.

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jun 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Yeah, I and I always find it vaguely ... _icky_.




did you read his LICH comment...I kinda got a little sick when I did...

I mean if he had his way it seams likt tentical Anima would be in the realms by now...


----------



## Mr. Patient (Jun 30, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> IMO, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became textbook Mary Sue in the latter half of Season 7, and she had some Sue-ish traits going on before that. I'm not fond of that part of Buffydom, but I still love the show overall and think Joss Whedon is an awesome writer.




I disagree; it's Buffy Season 4 that had the Mary Sue.  See my avatar for details.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> did you read his LICH comment...I kinda got a little sick when I did...




Oh yeah. I mean, seriously, _liches_?

Whoa, there! Eric's Grandmother would not be happy. Let's keep this thread within board rules.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 30, 2009)

Mr. Patient said:


> I disagree; it's Buffy Season 4 that had the Mary Sue.  See my avatar for details.




Yes, people who use "Mary Sue" in place of actual criticism don't get it.

Jonathan was a *perfect* Marty Stu.  But that's the problem.  He was intentional.  So is the canonical "Ensign Mary Sue".   I have never seen a proper Mary Sue outside of bad fanfic.


----------



## Oni (Jun 30, 2009)

> If I was publishing the “uncensored” Realms, in fiction, most of my liches would be desperate to have physical relations with adventurers, not kill them. Think about it.




O_O

The idea of what the Realms might *really* be like fills me with a deep and terrible curiosity of the sort usually reserved for things man was not meant to know and automobile accidents.


----------



## Shades of Green (Jun 30, 2009)

IMHO a Mary Sue is a supporting or background character who is so powerful/good/competent/whatever that she steals away the spotlight from the protagonists. If an extremely powerful/good/competent/whatever supporting character exists in the story or setting but does not steal the spotlight from the protagonists she's not a Mary Sue, though it still sometimes raises the question of "how come the world is so choke-full of bad guys (ready to be defeated by the protagonists) when an uber-powerful pure-good NPC is around?". There are ways to solve this question (as done in many mythologies in regard to gods).

In a fanfic or even original fiction a Mary Sue is a "minor" character who out-shines the protagonists. In a role-playing game a Mary Sue is an NPC who saves the day (and wins the adventure) instead of the PCs.


----------



## Oni (Jun 30, 2009)

I feel like the term Mary Sue has evolved to be more of an author's pet character (why can vary) for whom the author's favoritism has been allowed to negatively impact the quality of the narrative.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Double post.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2009)

Oni said:


> The idea of what the Realms might *really* be like fills me with a deep and terrible curiosity of the sort usually reserved for things man was not meant to know and automobile accidents.




I guess you never read the FATAL/Forgotten Realms actual play reports before they were yanked from the site in question. I'm still trying to undo that damage almost eight years later.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

I'll share with you some small snipets from So Saith Ed:

The Hooded One signing off, with a "You're welcome" to Karth. I hope I can give you another big grin with this little gem: me leaving to walk to the bus to get to Ed's for the weekly Realms session, and my mother calling out the front door: "Dear, dear, you've forgotten your dice!"
Whereupon I, on the sidewalk, call back: "It's all right, mom: I don't expect there'll be swords out tonight!" (curious looks from other pedestrians)
Mom frowns. "No swords?" (not knowing that Ed's Realms are very different from the D&D games she's seen kids playing at school, which are ALL 'hack the monster, take the treasure, hack the next monster')
Me: "No. We start tonight with me lying nude on the altar."
(REALLY strange looks from two old men walking past on the sidewalk, in different directions) :}
To those readers who think our Realms sessions were one long orgy, I hasten to explain that they were actually . . . a series of short orgies. :} No, SERIOUSLY now: two female Knights were staying (without the other Knights) in the house of a merchant who was a devoted worshipper of Sharess. We suspected he was pandering for various temples of the goddess by luring unhappy and restless young lasses away from family and home with gifts and promises of rich husbands and the high life in distant glittering cities -- and that he was doing some tax dodging on the side by making these gals claim that certain coffers travelling in his wagons with them were their own personal property, rather than his wares. The other Knights were waiting to pounce if the merchant revealed any of this to be true, and my character was posing as a young lass smitten by his offers, who upon finding his private altar to Sharess is possessed by her manifested favour, and goes into wild raptures. My character didn't dare speak for the goddess [who might just smite her down for such blasphemy], but we hoped that her writhings and then wild dancings might unsettle the merchant enough that he would jump to the wrong conclusions . . . which he did. I had problems keeping a straight face during the roleplaying that night, though, because as Ed (playing the merchant) shuffled around wringing his hands and imploring Sharess to forgive him, I kept seeing the shocked face of one of the old men on the sidewalk.
Hmmm. Let amend my last post. Instead of "shocked face" let me correct it to read: "shocked and disbelievingly delighted."
So there. :}
The Hooded One, not Ed. Ed almost always looks delighted.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Another one again involving our Lady of prostitutes:
Sharess, as you might expect, doesn't mind WHO gets married (in other words, beings of the same gender, beings of different races, beings already married to others, beings very closely blood-related to each other - - all sorts of unions are okay, as well as the more traditional 'male and female of the same race' pairings). All that Sharess insists is that love and passion(demonstrated physically, through lovemaking) exist within the union, and that both partners of the union be 'unjealous' enough that both partners in the union will be free to flirt (includes at least kissing and caressing) with other beings not part of the union.
The actual ritual is as follows:
Only two beings can be wed at a time (although both can engage in later rituals, immediately after a wedding is concluded, if they desire to end up in a marriage bond of more than two individuals).
Clergy of Sharess prepare each partner, in private, for the ceremony, bathing them, anointing them with oils, applying cosmetics to them, and even (if they desire and pay for such) augmenting their natural appearance with minor illusions. As the being about to be wed is being prepared, skilled clergy talk to them of their love for the being they are about to marry, encouraging them to describe the charms and graces of their partner-to-be, and bring them to a state of excitement.
The beings about to be wed are clad only in open mesh cloaks (scraps of fishing nets are often used), and led out of doors (regardless of the weather, climate, or terrain, the wedding itself must be performed outdoors, usually in a temple garden) in some place where a feast can be held and the two partners can be led towards each other in a procession.
Each partner-to-be (who are called "the Offered" by the clergy of Sharess) cradles a trained temple cat in their arms, and they walk with clergy of Sharess (almost always priestesses) who sing and chant soft, low-voiced songs to the goddess.
At the 'right' time, while still out of sight of each other, the priestesses simultaneously command the partner they're with to kiss the cat passionately, and then let go of it.
The cats usually kiss and lick the partner, and may or may not scratch them (this is to be borne stoically if they do), and then 'climbs down' the net-like garment, and runs off through the garden in search of the other partner-to-be. The trained cats typically run straight to where the other partner-to-be is, climb up their net-like garment, and deliver the kiss from their fellow Offered (again, licks and scratches must be accepted along with it). [There have been cases where cats have been prevented from completing this ritual, or even killed my mischance; the clergy who walk with the Offered are ready to spell-transform themselves into cat form and 'step in' to perform this vital part of the ritual, if necessary.]
The moment both Offered have received the kiss, a spell cast by the presiding priestess takes effect, and the partners-to-be are momentarily mind-bonded, able to see through each other's eyes. (This 'seeing and feeling' some small part of the mind of the other sometimes causes them to fall right out of love with each other in a hurry.)
By means of this seeing, they can usually swiftly find each other (despite the 'weird' feeling of seeing through the other's eyes), and (through love and rising passion, aided by Sharessan spells) rush together, to consummate the wedding on the spot. Yes, that means the happy couple physically engage in lovemaking, side by side with their two messenger-cats, and all of the attending Sharessan clergy (plus any guests). The temple has previously prepared a feast of mead, light wines, and what we would call 'finger food,' and hedonistic lovemaking continues for some time. The favoured time for a Sharessan wedding is just before dusk, so the orgy can continue throughout the night. If it's winter or storming (NOT viewed as a bad omen, by the way), the initial consummation is 'on the spot' and usually outdoors, sometimes in a bower heated by a ring of small fires, but the ongoing frolic moves indoors.
During the fun, Sharessan clergy will insist that each Offered publicly disclose one of their personal faults to the other ("I snore loudly" or "My feet smell" or "I can't resist skirt-chasing every dark-haired Calishite I see"). This must be honest, though it can be frivolous, and the clergy forewarn and even coach the partners-to-be, beforehand (i.e. the request to disclose doesn't come as a surprise). All previous weddings and child-bearing unions (no matter how unofficial or illegal) either Offered has previously been involved in MUST be disclosed to the clergy and the other Offered, or the ritual ends right there.
The ritual isn't actually complete until the orgy ends and both of the Offered have slept (usually together, and if not, always in the physical company of Sharessan clergy) and awakened again - - at which time both are solemnly (and seperately) asked (by Sharessan clergy) if they desire to be united to the being they Offered themselves to, and whose Offer they in turn enjoyed. In other words, they are given a last chance to back out. Sharessan clergy freely offer private counsel (advice for wedded life ahead, or how to deal with specific flaws or tendencies of the partner chosen) at this time, and will even , if one Offered desires it, bring the two Offered together to continue counselling with both, face to face. If both Offered accept the other, they are henceforth known as Accepted, their names are entered in temple rolls, and they are magically translocated (by teleport spells, usually, though portals can be used) to a place of their mutual choice, if they want to go somewhere (Yes, a honeymoon! Or an escape from smothering parents, creditors, or even the authorities!), and the clergy keep the chosen destination secret from everyone for at least a year (longer unless family of the Accepted plead for disclosure because they fear something bad has befallen the Accepted).
It's customary for either the partners-to-be or their families to make donations to the hosting temple or shrine of Sharess (to cover the cost of the wedding feast), and in some cities priestesses quietly offer drugged wines (usually to induce wild passion) for those who pay extra (in other words, the father of the bride might try to stir the ardour of his long-uninterested wife by discreetly arranging with the clergy to 'add a little something' to her wine or to everyone's).


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

Now I want someone to tell me that Ed's version of the realms are not sex obsessed.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 30, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Yes, people who use "Mary Sue" in place of actual criticism don't get it.
> 
> Jonathan was a *perfect* Marty Stu.  But that's the problem.  He was intentional.  So is the canonical "Ensign Mary Sue".   I have never seen a proper Mary Sue outside of bad fanfic.




There's a kinda parodic Mary Sue character in Blackadder II & IV - Lord Flasheart (*woof!*)

I thought Orlando Bloom's Legolas in the LOTR movies was getting there.

Or how about any character played by Kevin Sorbo?  Dylan Hunt in the later Andromeda episodes especially is pretty well a classic Mary Sue, if you're allowed to be one in your own show.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 30, 2009)

Back on the more generic topic, I would urge you to read this Girl Genius short story which illustrates Mary-Sueness as well as anything you might hope to see.

I think the fact that Phil Foglio is able to allow his stories to be satirised _by remaining within the genre he created_ in this way is great.

The link: Girl Genius Online Comics!

Cheers


----------



## Uzzy (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> Now I want someone to tell me that Ed's version of the realms are not sex obsessed.




Odd that you pick examples relating to faithful of the Goddess of Sex!

Now, if Torm had sex related marriage rituals or stories, or if Helm did, or if Bane did, then maybe you might have a point. But instead you picked tales and rituals relating to the Goddess of Sex, and then said that the whole Realms is sex obsessed.

One Example (Taken from the Goddess of Sex) does not equal the entire setting. That'd be like finding some statues of Aphrodite and declaring that all Greek Life was a hedonistic orgy.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jun 30, 2009)

But why on earth does a man need this level of detail for a deity of lust? And as you can read on the first one they roleplay orgies. And it is not something out of the ordinary for Ed's games.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Jun 30, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I guess you never read the FATAL/Forgotten Realms actual play reports before they were yanked from the site in question. I'm still trying to undo that damage almost eight years later.




I fell off my chair after reading this. I really would have liked to have read that.


----------



## Uzzy (Jun 30, 2009)

Nymrohd said:


> But why on earth does a man need this level of detail for a deity of lust? And as you can read on the first one they roleplay orgies. And it is not something out of the ordinary for Ed's games.




I will not judge what another man does in private. Nor do I really care, as long as everyone consents. As far as I'm aware, that's the case. I'm also aware that he spends plenty of time doing intricate political roleplaying sessions, along with adventures and the like. 

Now, what's wrong with details on the marriage ritual? He has details on all sorts of things, from Lliiran (Dancing) Assassins, the Dwarven language, rural Realmsian houses and the window tax in Suzail. The man has details on everything about the setting. Which includes, unsurprisingly, entirely normal human actions, such as sex. If that was the only thing he had in the Realms, then your point might have some merit. But it isn't. It's a tiny, tiny part of the published Realms and his own, unpublished Realmslore.


----------



## Aeolius (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm not sure if she qualifies, but I have maintained the same altruistic NPC protagonist in four of my online games since 1995. She's died a time or three, but I always seem to find the means to bring her back. She enjoys interacting with the party in dreams and portents, currently awaiting the party's help in resurrecting her spirit from the Region of Dreams.

   I always jokingly tell people that "I DM, so that my hags have someone to play with". Truth be told, it's not so much a joke. I see myself in her; she's a hag, a witch, a dreamer, a heretic, and a bit of an eccentric. She enjoys propagating a large family, even if her progeny do not always behave.

   I had my first hag dream more than a year ago. There was a covey of hags in a dilapidated mansion lit with green, blue, and violet. It was glorious.

   I tend to begin each campaign by developing the BBEG. Somehow, they always seem to be relayed to Xaetra. She's enjoying the ride as much as I, so onward we go.


----------



## vic20 (Jul 1, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Also, try using Google Image for Ed Greenwood (NOTE: I keep Safesearch ON, so don't come crying if you foolishly don't use it). Dude. It's Elminister. Sorry.




Huh. Absolutely nothing at all comes up here, so I think you're imagination may be on overdrive...


----------



## Oni (Jul 1, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I guess you never read the FATAL/Forgotten Realms actual play reports before they were yanked from the site in question. I'm still trying to undo that damage almost eight years later.




I can't figure out if you're joking or not.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2009)

vic20 said:


> Huh. Absolutely nothing at all comes up here, so I think you're imagination may be on overdrive...



Here he is performing a Sharess marriage ceremony.


----------



## Uzzy (Jul 1, 2009)

Oh no! The fiend, holding a stuffed dog. Or actually, a stuffed cow. Called Bossy. Seems familiar, actually.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2009)

thecasualoblivion said:


> I fell off my chair after reading this. I really would have liked to have read that.




The AP reports were _horrible_ — so much so that I emailed WotC legal about them, as I couldn't imagine at the time that they weren't somehow damaging the FR trademark by mere association. I'd describe them in detail here, but it would probably _kill_ Eric's grandmother. 

It has since become clear that the FATAL play reports weren't _too_ far removed from Greenwood's own vision of the Realms, based on his public comments about being reined in by TSR/WotC where matters of sex and violence were concerned. 

The comment concerning liches is what brought this back to mind for me. Let's just say that Byron Hall and Ed Greenwood apparently think a _lot_ alike when it comes to those two subjects.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2009)

Oni said:


> I can't figure out if you're joking or not.




Absolutely _not_ joking. I tried looking for the pages in the Wayback machine, but I'm pretty sure it was on the old site (prior to the FatalGames domain going live or, at least, before the archive was caching it).


----------



## Set (Jul 1, 2009)

Around season 5 of Buffy, there was another perfect Mary Sue, only, unlike Jonathan in season 4, she wasn't played up as a joke. A former boyfriend, Riley Finn, shows up in town, and his new wife, Sam Finn, is a textbook case.

Her backstory is that she was some sort of volunteer nurse in a third-world country, only a few months ago, when her team of charitable do-gooders were wiped out by demons. Despite this Mother Theresa-esque backstory, she's introduced to the narrative swinging down on a bat-line to kick the butt of a demon that is handily throwing Buffy (who has actual super-powers, and has spent five years fighting these things) around. She's better looking, taller, smarter, a former social worker / doctor, married to Buffy's ex-boyfriend (who is implied to have been psychologically damaged by his relationship with the self-absorbed Buffy, and only Sam 'saved him'), etc.

She gives magical advice to Willow, who has spent years becoming the most powerful witch on the planet, and has an advisor who has access to the best magical resources on the planet and has been dabbling in magic since the days of Woodstock.  But Sam Finn, former social worker, knows better than all of them!

She gives relationship advice to Xander and Anya, whom she's just met and knows nothing about.  But Sam Finn has the magical words of wisdom pulled straight from her perky derriere to make things right!

She offers psych and _fighting_ advice to Buffy, the 'one girl in all the world, Chosen to fight the monsters.'  But Sam Finn, some random bimbo who just discovered the world of the supernatural, and has no super-powers at all, is conveniently better at this, too, just as she's just automagically better at everything else.

She's the perfect Mary-Sue, being better at any single skill than over-specialized masters of those skills, *and* being presented as morally virtuous, and placed in a position to *lecture the hero* when Buffy is set up to fail at a task.

From the moment she bat-lined into the scene, to her final words of wisdom on the way out, her entire presence one-upped everyone else in the show and made them look inferior or damaged or weak in some way.

(And that's the worst kind of Mary-Sue, one that isn't just better at everything than everyone else, but someone whose presence inexplicably makes everyone else dumber, weaker and less competent than they were before she arrived.)


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 1, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> Elminster from Forgotten Realms is a Mary Sue. Partly because he's very knowledgeable, wise and powerful. Partly because he has sex with lots of hot magic elven babes. And mostly because he's a stand-in for the author, Ed Greenwood.




And he's lame.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Jul 1, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Mary Sue has no real meaning outside of fanfiction, despite what TV Tropes poster say.




Yes, cuz' a concept developed in one context cannot be appropriated for another.



> ...calli9ng Elminster a Mary Sue is nonsensical...




I don't think so.



> ...and insulting to Mr. Greenwood.




Oh well.

(Incidentally, it's loser not looser.)


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jul 1, 2009)

I must say I agree with Krensky when it comes to the use of Mary Sue--it's meant for fan fiction, not as a general criticism for fictional characters.  Half the characters in ALL fiction are wish-fulfillment, pictures of the writer, etc.  I think the word is WAY overused.

I also must agree with Umbran that people are starting to get very close to personal attacks on Ed Greenwood himself.  I hate to see an author get picked apart and psycho-analyzed by people who really don't know the man.  (I'm getting a vibe people are thinking "oh my, Ed's a perverted geek" from the conversation).

As far as Drizzt and Gord falling into that category--I really have to disagree.  Gord followed what I consider the Joseph Campbell Mythical Hero with an epic destiny, and Drizzt likely as well (though not as powerful).  The thing is, novelists shouldn't ever have to follow game rules at all.  I think the obsession with this is people want to see the characters "statted out" and that gets them into trouble from fans who can't stand the special quirks they get.  (At least Gary was smart not to really stat out Gord except for a few hints).  Like I said, this can be over analyzed in fiction to the extreme.  

One Irony--It's almost like the people who do the most complaining about NPCs in FR are almost like Mary Sue's themselves--after all, they are the ones putting their own characters in a big shared world produced by a big company.  I always saw FR as having so many NPCs are a way of saying "you're not the only heroes in this world, or the most important, so don't fill yourselves with hubris", and I always thought that fit the tone of the campaign.  Put it this way--would people complain as much if they were plaing a MUD or MMORPG where you have hundreds of characters 10 times your level?  If you look at it like that, it seems people are complaining way too much about FR, especially when the local DM is the ultimate arbiter of the effects of the campaign setting in your game session.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> I must say I agree with Krensky when it comes to the use of Mary Sue--it's meant for fan fiction, not as a general criticism for fictional characters.  Half the characters in ALL fiction are wish-fulfillment, pictures of the writer, etc.  I think the word is WAY overused.



 I think it is very much a grey area when a charcter passes into this geoup (sue hood) but I also think that this thread shows some darn good examples...I also want to say that Dan Brown and Josh Weaden are very popular and like authors...so when we can say there characters are falling into it, then I don't think Ed Greenwood should feel insulted for being in that company...



> I also must agree with Umbran that people are starting to get very close to personal attacks on Ed Greenwood himself.  I hate to see an author get picked apart and psycho-analyzed by people who really don't know the man.  (I'm getting a vibe people are thinking "oh my, Ed's a perverted geek" from the conversation).




well when you take a public life style (he is a sort of celebrity) you have to expect some of this, however I think most if not all of this has been no worse then saying your best friend had a DMPC in that game last year you hated...dislikeing something and meaning to insult the person who did it are two diffrent things...


> As far as Drizzt and Gord falling into that category--I really have to disagree.  Gord followed what I consider the Joseph Campbell Mythical Hero with an epic destiny, and Drizzt likely as well (though not as powerful).  The thing is, novelists shouldn't ever have to follow game rules at all.  I think the obsession with this is people want to see the characters "statted out" and that gets them into trouble from fans who can't stand the special quirks they get.  (At least Gary was smart not to really stat out Gord except for a few hints).  Like I said, this can be over analyzed in fiction to the extreme.




QFT...had elminster and drizt never seen stat lines none of this would happen...or my personal theory that they should be stated as weak character the PCs can work with with out being over shadowed...(Imagin Elminster 4th fighter 5th rouge 3rd wizard 3rd cleric 5th mystic theurg and add silver fire...) (imagin drizt fighter 4 Ranger 5)  



> One Irony--It's almost like the people who do the most complaining about NPCs in FR are almost like Mary Sue's themselves--after all, they are the ones putting their own characters in a big shared world produced by a big company.



 The irony isn't lost on me, I agree with this statement...




> I always saw FR as having so many NPCs are a way of saying "you're not the only heroes in this world, or the most important, so don't fill yourselves with hubris", and I always thought that fit the tone of the campaign.



 See that is the problem though...that is not how I run games...and I think I am in the majority (Hey this is the internet all opions are the majority right...  )


> Put it this way--would people complain as much if they were plaing a MUD or MMORPG where you have hundreds of characters 10 times your level?



Ironicly this is also what stops alot of my group (not all we have 3 wowers) from playing MMOs...we want to be the BIG DAMN HEROS...not just adventureing group 73...


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 1, 2009)

I know that one example of Mary Sue I heard recently was the lead character of the Twilight novels. Someone had been doing a multi-part analysis of the Twilight books, and a large chunk was explaining why the main character was a Mary Sue.

She looks a lot like the author in terms of how she's described. Everyone either loves her or hates her ... and in most cases for no given reason. The character is good at everything, except for a minor flaw (in this case clumsiness) that rarely ever is actually bad for the character, and in fact, is an endeering quality for her love interest (the one she likes back, as opposed to every other guy who is also in love with her). Much time is taken to have people talk about how pretty/unique she is while she denies it.

One of the biggest issues is that a Mary Sue is incapable of having a meaningful character arc, because they are already so good/awesome/flawless that they can't really overcome obstacles and grow as a character.

There are different problems between Fan Fiction [or any adding to established fiction ... Chloe Sullivan on Smallville, for example, was a potential Mary Sue as she was a 'new character' added to the Superman mythos and at points in time was the girl that would be 'perfect' for Clark. Her character, however, has had sufficient flaws brought up, etc] and a new character in it's own work. RPGs have another issue as the problem with Mary Sues there are less to do with litterary issue as there is a risk of either a DM PC upstagging the players, or one player's PC being a spot light hog (or "DM's girlfriend/son/etc's PC" who has extra layers of plot immunity or uber-important artifact, etc).

In a tabletop game, certain things that would be ok in a normal story are more greivous, but in other aspects, the game table is more lenient. It's hard to avoid having PC's have tinges of Mary Sue, as long as the DM doesn't let them get too overboard. Any NPC that overshadows the group is going to build resentment, especially if it is on your side (an enemy that's better than you is a challenge to eventually beat).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I also must agree with Umbran that people are starting to get very close to personal attacks on Ed Greenwood himself. I hate to see an author get picked apart and psycho-analyzed by people who really don't know the man. (I'm getting a vibe people are thinking "oh my, Ed's a perverted geek" from the conversation).




I concur.

I think we have heard enough about Ed Greenwood, discussion about him (and Elminster) will stop now please.

By all means continue talking about other stuff related to 'Mary Sue', but I will close the thread if anyone finds themselves unable to comply.

Thanks


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2009)

Set said:


> Around season 5 of Buffy, there was another perfect Mary Sue, only, unlike Jonathan in season 4, she wasn't played up as a joke. A former boyfriend, Riley Finn, shows up in town, and his new wife, Sam Finn, is a textbook case.




No, because there is no indication there of any authorial identification with Sam.  Sam is there to represent Buffy's lack of self-confidence, she's a 'Better Than You' character, not the intrusion of the scriptwriter into the story.  Unlike (edited).  Johnathan of course was a parody of the Mary Sue.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Put it this way--would people complain as much if they were plaing a MUD or MMORPG where you have hundreds of characters 10 times your level?




Well, yes.  I was playing the free trial of Age of Conan last week.

"Oh look, there's Valeria!  I'm 9th level (in a game where the _barmaids_ are mostly 20th level), it says over her head she's _80th level_.   Yet apparently she needs me to help her kill those four 8th level mooks over there to perform some minor quest..." 

The game had a lot of that, and from what I can tell of MMORPGs, it's standard practice.  I find it silly and annoying.  If you don't want the NPCs killed, don't stat them.


----------



## S'mon (Jul 1, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> In a tabletop game, certain things that would be ok in a normal story are more greivous, but in other aspects, the game table is more lenient. It's hard to avoid having PC's have tinges of Mary Sue, as long as the DM doesn't let them get too overboard.




A PC can't be a Mary Sue without the GM's connivance.  The PC in the Fear of Girls web-movies would count, especially the second one with the female players.  Mary Sue-hood requires a certain amount of reality-bending around the character. In "Sim" freeform online gaming/writing that is easily done, but in a traditional RPG the GM controls reality.  That's why Mary Sue-hood is much more common with GMPCs.


----------



## Somebloke (Jul 1, 2009)

The lead of Ann Bishop's _Black Jewels_ Trilogy seems to me to be a perfect example of a Mary Sue as a main character. The elements are all there- tragic background (abusive family who hurt or merely don't appreciate her), a small harem of vampire-esque loner nobles who vie for her affections, status as the most powerful being _by far_ in the entire world, intelligent animal pets, the near-superpower ability for just about every single half-decent person in existance to love her, a 'true form' that has elements of unicorns and wolves and perhaps the most telling aspect of all- the fact that a good 50% (at least) of the book is devoted to people's various (invariably positive) reactions to her various awesomeness. I swear- just about every single chapter involved some form of hero worship being levelled at her. _And the author still tried to convince she was a tragic figure._ It was so blatantly the author's wish fulfillment fantasy converted into book form (so that, one suspects, teenage girls could buy into it). 

Really, if anyone wants a picture perfect ideal of the Mary Sue, I recommend these books. Keep in mind these have been edited and made commercially available. 

...

If anyone is a fan, I apologise, _but it needs to be said._


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 1, 2009)

Not exactly a Mary Sue, but I think the unremitting awesome of the Raven King in Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell gets mentioned far too often. Feels like once every 10 pages or so, at least in a footnote.

This is pure conjecture, but he might be an idealised lover for the author, a Byronic figure, dark, terrible, beautiful and, of course, awesome.


----------



## Doug Sundseth (Jul 1, 2009)

While the concept of "Mary Sue" characters was first formalized in the fanfic community, Mary Sues need not appear in fanfic -- and can be protagonists as well.  For a fuller description, see this old post at Making Light.

For reference, the post was written by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, a senior editor at Tor, a significant part of whose living is categorizing slush.

The informal version (quoted from the post above):

"Mary Sue literary theory has changed my professional life. Before, when discussing manuscripts with my colleagues, I had to say things 'You know, one of those books that keeps telling you how wonderful and talented and perfect the main character is and how much everyone loves her, but aside from that there’s nothing at stake and nothing really happens? No logic, no causality, no narrative development, just that character being wonderful every barfy step of the way?'"


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 2, 2009)

Hmm.  My Mary S... recurring NPC meets several of the criteria in the litmus test (such as a period of slavery), but it was dictated by an old GM.  Does it still count if I didn't write it into the story?


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 2, 2009)

Whether or not it "counts" as a Mary Sue because of author identification is pretty irrelevant ... because ultimately it's the final product that determines Sue-hood, at least if you eliminate the author, if the Sue is still the same, it's still going to be just as annoying to hear about it.

On the one hand, being written by a different author, or used by a new DM, means it's possible to change the character to reveal something that makes them less of a Sue, and more of a normal character. There is also a risk though, that a new author will try to keep "true" to the character and end up making it more of a Sue as a result.

Odds are any NPC "Sue" can likely be saved from Sue-hood, especially if you recognise elements of it. You can't really change the backstory (outside of having it revealed to be a lie, especially if the Sue is the only one to provide the backstory) but characters can evolve over time.


----------



## Primal (Jul 2, 2009)

~ removed by admin - PS~


----------



## S'mon (Jul 2, 2009)

Primal, please refer to the mod warning at:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/4849001-post115.html
Suggest you delete your post.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 2, 2009)

Well, I thought I'd give Primal some time to respond and edit the comment himself, but he hasn't... so he's booted from the thread. Hopefully everyone else can continue normally.

Thanks


----------



## Somebloke (Jul 2, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> Hmm. My Mary S... recurring NPC meets several of the criteria in the litmus test (such as a period of slavery), but it was dictated by an old GM. Does it still count if I didn't write it into the story?



 So long as the game is about the players and not the NPC, it will be fine.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 3, 2009)

Somebloke said:


> So long as the game is about the players and not the NPC, it will be fine.



It's about players who accept an NPC who's smarter, stronger, faster, luckier and better looking than all of them put together.


----------



## Somebloke (Jul 3, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> It's about players who accept an NPC who's smarter, stronger, faster, luckier and better looking than all of them put together.



Then in all seriousness it sounds like drastic action may be needed. What would happen, canon-wise, if the NPC vanished or expired?


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 3, 2009)

Somebloke said:


> Then in all seriousness it sounds like drastic action may be needed. What would happen, canon-wise, if the NPC vanished or expired?



The post was in no seriousness at all.  However, I think I will fire the NPC from a cannon for laughs.


----------



## roguerouge (Jul 3, 2009)

I just saw Alice's Restaurant and my girlfriend, unprompted, remarked on what a Mary Sue Arlo Guthrie's "character" is in that film. Of course, rather than confront people on their issues or fight for justice or demonstrate against the war... he just blows town. In repetition, it sort of undermines his Mary Sue qualities....


----------



## Somebloke (Jul 3, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> The post was in no seriousness at all. However, I think I will fire the NPC from a cannon for laughs.



 Er....ah....that's preicsely what I intended all along.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jul 4, 2009)

wayne62682 said:


> That's basically accurate - the term refers to the author making a character that represents themselves in the novel, and said character being the star and better than everyone at everything... basically the author on a power trip.




Hmmmm....seems to me the definition of most PCs I've seen.  

Banshee


----------



## Psion (Jul 4, 2009)

Banshee16 said:


> Hmmmm....seems to me the definition of most PCs I've seen.




Absolutely. With the exception, the player is not the GM or author, and all of them have to abide by the limitations of the ruleset for making PCs.

In the realm of RPGs, the Mary Sue has the most overlap with the stereotypical GMPC or (when written into the setting) Canon-super-hero.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 4, 2009)

Uzzy said:


> Now, what's wrong with details on the marriage ritual? He has details on all sorts of things, from Lliiran (Dancing) Assassins, the Dwarven language, rural Realmsian houses and the window tax in Suzail. The man has details on everything about the setting. Which includes, unsurprisingly, entirely normal human actions, such as sex. If that was the only thing he had in the Realms, then your point might have some merit. But it isn't. It's a tiny, tiny part of the published Realms and his own, unpublished Realmslore.




I don't really play Forgotten realms, aside from once being in a 2nd ed Undermountain campaign that barely left the dungeon. However I remember reading the 2nd ed campaign guide and being impressed to see the colours of the roofs in one town being described for each district. My first impression was that this was a very detailed world, which a lot of attention had gone into creating. 

I'm not at all surprised that it discusses sex, love and marriage in the world as these are pretty crucial to politics and many motivations of heroes and villains alike (or just regular folk for that matter).



> Originally Posted by *Set*
> 
> 
> _Around season 5 of Buffy, there was another perfect Mary Sue, only, unlike Jonathan in season 4, she wasn't played up as a joke. A former boyfriend, Riley Finn, shows up in town, and his new wife, Sam Finn, is a textbook case._





Just remember that Buffy is supposed to be an analogy to the real world experience of growing up set in a supernatural universe. People often find themselves jealous of their ex-partner's new partner and thinks they are better at everything, in the buffy world this just manifested literally. 

Like many of the more comedic moments I don't think that it's meant to be taken as a serious aspect of the universe. That said, I hated that episode.


----------

