(This thread has been originally posted in The Writer's Group. Reposting here now with slight delay in order for it to reach more newbies. It also sparked a rather interesting discussion which you can read here.)

Creating a ‘good’ character is an evergreen topic in many groups on this site, so I thought it might be worth a shot to dedicate another miniguide to it. Here I’ll focus primarily on some aspects of a character’s role in a story and the ways in which these aspects affect character creation. The guide might be also a bit messier than usual as putting together these various tidbits of advice would require a far longer text to be somewhat coherently connected.

First and foremost, it’s important to emphasise one thing: characters are ultimately just tools. Interesting and very versatile storytelling tools, but still tools. I know that this mindset might be hard to accept, but try to bear with me. Thinking this way will help in two regards. First, you’ll be less likely to get overly emotionally invested in your characters, and second, it might make it easier for you to think of how characters contribute to the creation of a story.

When coming up with a new story, you should try to start with the idea behind the story itself, with its plot and its driving conflict. Once you have a solid idea of what you want to do, you can start refining it by adding the characters, settings, and so on. This is akin to taking up a new craft project—first you think of what you want to create and then you start gathering the necessary tools and materials. If you first pick a few tools and only then start thinking of how to put all of them to good use, then you are quite likely to end up with some abomination of a project. Similarly, if you create a character or two and try to build a story around them, it’s likely not going to end well, especially if you aren’t very experienced.

Now, I admit I’m guilty of exaggerating here a little for the sake of making a point. Characters are an integral part of a story, so don’t assume that you first have to write the whole story and then just fill in the blanks by stuffing in Spitfire and Steven Magnet. No, characters should be added as you develop the story, with their addition affecting the story’s development in turn. In other words, there’s nothing wrong with creating a story and its characters at the same time. It’s creating a character and then the story where problems arise.

This brings us to the traits of a good character that so many folks seek in the forums. You can find a lot of good advice there, most of which is widely applicable, but not universal. The thing is, possibly the only universal trait is that a good character works well when they fit their role and serve their purpose in the grand scheme of the story. I know that’s about as helpful as telling you that pretty much any kind of character can work under a certain set of conditions, but it’s the truth.

Now, a few things in regards to characters assuming a certain role in the story, plus especially one piece of pragmatic advice in terms of writing fanfics. If there’s some canon character that’d fit the role, choose them over an original character. Don’t get me wrong, I love OCs, but truth be told, not everyone in the fandom does, and if people have to choose, they’ll likely favour a story featuring Twilight Sparkle they know and love over a story about some random Sparkly Twinkle. It might seem a bit constraining, but to be fair, being able to reference the source material is one of the greatest strengths of fanfiction. If you find yourself needing a random pony for a very minor role, try turning it into a cameo of some fitting canon character. I’m pretty sure that this spot will make a reader or two comment on it

Of course, if you cannot find a fitting CC, use an OC designed so that they fit the role. That also means that you don’t need to develop the character more than what the story requires. You might flesh them out more than necessary if it helps you think of how they might react to something, but these extra details shouldn’t appear in the story itself. In other words, stating a character’s date of birth or listing off their twenty favourite power metal bands when it’s completely irrelevant to the story shouldn’t happen. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with a character making small talk and off-handedly remarking that the smell of lavender reminds them of their grandma. It’s not really a relevant detail, but it fits the situation and adds a touch of realism.

I already mentioned that stories featuring canon characters are a bit more likely to be noticed. However, there’s no sense in trying to cram a canon character into your story just because it’d make it a bit more appealing at first glance. A second glance will likely reveal that the character feels nothing like their show self.

Such a case might be described as a character acting out-of-character (OOC), which is a term that gets thrown around a lot. The problem with this and the other few terms that I’m going to mention below is that it has been overused so much that it’s original meaning has been muddied up a bit, and people oftentimes use it without really knowing what exactly it means. It’s pretty similar to climate change, Einstein’s relativity, and other big words and phrases that have become pretty much hollow with their inconsiderate overuse.

Anyway, back to OOC characters. In general, such a character behaves in a way that doesn’t make sense in context of their known personality, and in the most extreme cases the characters feel nothing like themselves. However, it’s important to note what is not an OOC. If Fluttershy starts hating animals out of the blue, then that’s going to be out-of-character for her. However, if she endures some trauma due to which she now resents animals or if some magical mishap turns her into the polar opposite of her normal personality, then that’s not an OOC. It’s a justified change or character development.

Now, OOC characters are pretty annoying, however, there’s something even worse; and that’s boring characters. Given that a reader is intrigued and hooked as long the story is interesting, using a character that reeks of boredom pretty much kills the story. While this might apply to characters that are inherently boring and uninteresting (see the concept of unnecessary person used in works of Russian realism for some examples), the source of boredom is more often than not the author trying a bit too hard to make the character special.

One such problem pose characters that are overpowered (OP). The lack of interest here stems from the fact that this pretty much abolishes the story’s conflict as the character is usually so strong (including, but not limited to physical strength) that they don’t struggle at all to reach their goal. In addition to being boring, it is also not very relatable or believable. Just imagine Little Red Riding Hood merrily hopping along a forest path with her basket in tow when she suddenly gets jumped by the big bad wolf. She doesn’t wait a second and knocks the wolf out with a well-placed right hook, then continues to her grandma’s cottage for tea and biscuits. That’s not exactly interesting, especially when compared to the lovely original story of how a canine digestive system definitely doesn’t work.

A character being OP can be a stand-alone issue, though it’s often a side effect of another kind of a faulty character, commonly known as Mary Sue (in case of male characters sometimes written as Gary Sue, Gary Stu, Marty Stu and so on) the definition of which is shrouded in many misconceptions.

The original Mary Sue is the protagonist of A Trekkie’s Tale written by Paula Smith as a parody of a bunch of bad fanfiction tropes. If you read through her very short story (you can find it at the end of this post), you’ll notice that Mary Sue is adored by everyone from the get-go, nobody really questions what she does, and she has so many skills and special abilities that she is much more than your average prodigy. These are the traits that many people deem as defining features of a Mary Sue, and some even think that any character that shows a hint of special skills or has some interesting ancestry has to be a Mary Sue. Well, nope.

The traits listed above are indeed common in Mary Sues, but to be fair, these are more like consequences of the main trait that defines any Mary Sue—and that’s the fact that a story with a Mary Sue in it is constructed so that it can glorify and show how great the character is in every sentence or so. That’s also why everyone loves the character and benevolently overlooks their flaws, if they have any. (On a side note, you can also encounter stories where the character is hated by everyone—however, it only serves to illustrate how great they are in comparison to the rest of the world who are then portrayed as useless morons.) There might also be some self-inserts and wish-fulfillment involved, though these aren’t present in all stories featuring Mary Sues.

This brings us back to the beginning where I mentioned that creating a fully fleshed out character before working on the story brings with it a lot of problems. The creation of a Mary Sue or an OOC portrayal of canon characters are just a few of them, though they are possibly the most noticeable.

Please bear in mind that this guide is meant primarily for beginners, and the discussed topic has been simplified for the sake of keeping this somewhat short.

You can find the previous guides in the forum of this group as well as in my blogs.

Here’s the promised story of the original Mary Sue, A Trekkie’s Tale by Paula Smith.

”Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky," thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. "Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the fleet - only fifteen and a half years old." Captain Kirk came up to her.

"Oh, Lieutenant, I love you madly. Will you come to bed with me?"

"Captain! I am not that kind of girl!"

"You're right, and I respect you for it. Here, take over the ship for a minute while I go get some coffee for us."

Mr. Spock came onto the bridge. "What are you doing in the command seat, Lieutenant?"

"The Captain told me to."

"Flawlessly logical. I admire your mind."

Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Scott beamed down with Lt. Mary Sue to Rigel XXXVII. They were attacked by green androids and thrown into prison. In a moment of weakness Lt. Mary Sue revealed to Mr. Spock that she too was half Vulcan. Recovering quickly, she sprung the lock with her hairpin and they all got away back to the ship.

But back on board, Dr. McCoy and Lt. Mary Sue found out that the men who had beamed down were seriously stricken by the jumping cold robbies, Mary Sue less so. While the four officers languished in Sick Bay, Lt. Mary Sue ran the ship, and ran it so well she received the Nobel Peace Prize, the Vulcan Order of Gallantry and the Tralfamadorian Order of Good Guyhood.

However the disease finally got to her and she fell fatally ill. In the Sick Bay as she breathed her last, she was surrounded by Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, Dr. McCoy, and Mr. Scott, all weeping unashamedly at the loss of her beautiful youth and youthful beauty, intelligence, capability and all around niceness. Even to this day her birthday is a national holiday of the Enterprise.

7375791
To be fair, I'm really hesitant to judge a character based on a wiki description. As I have said, a character is an integral part of a story, so I cannot really do much without actually being shown how the character acts in a story.

7375795
Okay. Sorry about that.

7375799
It's fine, no need to apologise.

I’ll have to give further thought to the notion of characters as tools. My trend has been to construct a story outline around a central character and add additional roles as needed to support the plot. I don’t think I’ve ever tried an approach that asks what character(s) would be best used to tell a story for the benefit of the plot. Instead, I’ve asked what stories could a given character be used to tell and worked from that angle. Might be time to try out a new method on a new project.

7375787

Hello again, Ever, glad to see you're still making posts like this. I'm glad you re-posted this one, I missed your original posting and wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't posted it again.

The guide might be also a bit messier than usual as putting together these various tidbits of advice would require a far longer text to be somewhat coherently connected.

I'd love to see you tackle a longer version of this provided you find the time to do so.

First and foremost, it’s important to emphasise one thing: characters are ultimately just tools. Interesting and very versatile storytelling tools, but still tools. I know that this mindset might be hard to accept, but try to bear with me. Thinking this way will help in two regards. First, you’ll be less likely to get overly emotionally invested in your characters, and second, it might make it easier for you to think of how characters contribute to the creation of a story.

Mmm, I'm conflicted with this as I agree with 75% of it, but can't articulate why I don't fully support this one.

If you first pick a few tools and only then start thinking of how to put all of them to good use, then you are quite likely to end up with some abomination of a project.

I agree with this. Usually first time writers try cramming multiple mechanics together that don't always go together, which as you said, results in an abomination of a project.

Similarly, if you create a character or two and try to build a story around them, it’s likely not going to end well, especially if you aren’t very experienced.

Hmm. I'd argue with this one a bit provided I had the time. It almost feels like you exaggerating to make a...

Now, I admit I’m guilty of exaggerating here a little for the sake of making a point.

Ah-ha, I knew you were exaggerating for a point.

most of which is widely applicable, but not universal.

Isn't that the deal with every writing rule or technique? It's applicable in a lot of places, but it's not universal.

The thing is, possibly the only universal trait is that a good character works well when they fit their role and serve their purpose in the grand scheme of the story.

I'm not saying this is wrong, I just don't like the way it's worded.

I know that’s about as helpful as telling you that pretty much any kind of character can work under a certain set of conditions, but it’s the truth.

Then again I'm the one who prefers this wording, so what do I know?

Now, a few things in regards to characters assuming a certain role in the story, plus especially one piece of pragmatic advice in terms of writing fanfics. If there’s some canon character that’d fit the role, choose them over an original character. Don’t get me wrong, I love OCs, but truth be told, not everyone in the fandom does, and if people have to choose, they’ll likely favour a story featuring Twilight Sparkle they know and love over a story about some random Sparkly Twinkle. It might seem a bit constraining, but to be fair, being able to reference the source material is one of the greatest strengths of fanfiction. If you find yourself needing a random pony for a very minor role, try turning it into a cameo of some fitting canon character. I’m pretty sure that this spot will make a reader or two comment on it

That's a very solid point and really good advice. I also highly agree with what you said about "referencing the source material" being a great strength for writing fanfiction. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this is a strength.

n other words, stating a character’s date of birth or listing off their twenty favourite power metal bands when it’s completely irrelevant to the story shouldn’t happen.

What? What do you mean that's not important? The readers have to know! If it wasn't obvious, I am joking with this one.

However, there’s no sense in trying to cram a canon character into your story just because it’d make it a bit more appealing at first glance. A second glance will likely reveal that the character feels nothing like their show self.

You'll probably call me out for being subjective on this one, but your audience will pick up on an out of place character. There have been a few stories where I ask myself why the writer isn't using canon character X when their background makes them perfect for the story rather than canon character Y who doesn't fit in. Or, a canon character is in the mix and I don't even understand why they are there in the first place other than just to be there.

and people oftentimes use it without really knowing what exactly it means.

Ah, like the Hero's Journey. I've heard this mechanic used wrongly a lot, and most recently it was used by a few people when breaking down Last of Us Part II, which is anything but a Hero's Journey no matter which game you look at or which character arc you track.

These are the traits that many people deem as defining features of a Mary Sue, and some even think that any character that shows a hint of special skills or has some interesting ancestry has to be a Mary Sue. Well, nope.

Mmm, I agree with this, but only 50% of it. If you have the time could you clarify this a bit either here or in a PM? Sorry for asking about the clarification, you're touching a can of worms that one needs to be very precise on when they talk about it. I've read the paragraph below it as well, but I'm having a hard time understanding what your point here is?

Please bear in mind that this guide is meant primarily for beginners, and the discussed topic has been simplified for the sake of keeping this somewhat short.

Actually I really liked this one. Though, I might debate you on a few points, but that might be due to the simplified nature of this post. Otherwise I think you did a really good job with this one. Actually there is one thing I do need to bring up that I was saving for last.

Just imagine Little Red Riding Hood merrily hopping along a forest path with her basket in tow when she suddenly gets jumped by the big bad wolf. She doesn’t wait a second and knocks the wolf out with a well-placed right hook, then continues to her grandma’s cottage for tea and biscuits. That’s not exactly interesting

You're assuming this isn't Mike Tyson Presents: Little Red Riding Hood. And in this version Little Red is in fact the off spring of either Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali in which case a firm right hook would be the only acceptable answer to a wolf showing up. Or a ghost.

In no way, shape or form, would this be a boring story. I'd read it in a heart beat.

7375951
Hey, OConner, glad to see you here and glad to know you mostly enjoyed this one It was actually created under some rather unpleasant circumstances, so I'm glad it ended up enjoyable.

I'd love to see you tackle a longer version of this provided you find the time to do so.

I'm afraid properly explaining everything about characters would take a few hundred pages at the very least

Mmm, I'm conflicted with this as I agree with 75% of it, but can't articulate why I don't fully support this one.

Yeah, I know it's simplified. You might want to check the discussion in the original thread. Most of it concerned this.

Isn't that the deal with every writing rule or technique? It's applicable in a lot of places, but it's not universal.

Almost. It doesn't apply to very generalised statements, which I'm guilty of making here

Then again I'm the one who prefers this wording, so what do I know?

I actually put the reworded part in there because I thought it sounded far less intimidating and more casual, even though it says pretty much the same thing.

You'll probably call me out for being subjective on this one, but your audience will pick up on an out of place character. There have been a few stories where I ask myself why the writer isn't using canon character X when their background makes them perfect for the story rather than canon character Y who doesn't fit in. Or, a canon character is in the mix and I don't even understand why they are there in the first place other than just to be there.

No, it's fine. This is actually what I meant by a second glance.

Sorry for asking about the clarification, you're touching a can of worms that one needs to be very precise on when they talk about it. I've read the paragraph below it as well, but I'm having a hard time understanding what your point here is?

Yeah, any talk about Mary Sues is a ticking time bomb. It'd be good if you included your interpretation here as well, because I can only guess what exactly you want me to clarify. The thing I'm trying to say here is that some of the signs I listed are just that, signs or symptoms that may or may not be present in a Mary Sue. Yet many people see these signs as proof that a character has to be a Mary Sue. The only truly defining trait that a character is a Mary Sue is the fact that the story starring this character will serve pretty much as nothing more but a display case for the char.

A problem I faced was that I wanted to make a charecter that was quite unique with his magic. But I had to make sure they don't become a Mary sue because they just can do something that NO ONE can. Now I haven't went into details on that on any of the stories I've written. But I decided to limit them to their unique-ness. So what do I mean by that? Well it's simple actually: They may have a really special magic but they are trully incapable of using any other sort of magic that we see any other charecter may use. They have a very unique magic but it is very limited as well.

In fact I even felt that can give you a challenge to be creative about your charecter. Since you need to give them an alternative from what they were build opon but not so that it basically becomes the exact trait that others may have; just explained in another way.

Will my method work out? I can't be sure yet. Because the magic part was not the only part of them....but we'll see.
7375787

This was extremely helpful advice. Whenever I look for writing advice, this is the type of things I am looking for, and this way of learning writing is what I want to be able to find online. Even though I technically have been writing for "a few years," I haven't really gotten all too experienced with it and still rely on instinct instead of knowledge. For example, "no, I can't make this character do this. Something just feels wrong about it happening." Or "readers might get frustrated if I include this so I should find a different way to make this plot point happen." I would like to get to a point where I can have actual evidence and writing facts to back up my instincts instead of just hoping for the best because I know one day, my luck will run out.

Finally, for your talk about Mary Sues, I have a question. Typically with story writing, the authors try to make their villains unlikable so they can root for the heroes to defeat them. So what happens if the villain is a Mary Sue? Has that every been effectively done so the audience (and the characters) end up hating the villain?

7375999
Of course, it depends on how the story treats the character, so I cannot be really sure, but so far it sounds rather good

7376320
I’m glad you find this so helpful. Though to be honest, relying on common sense is oftentimes more than enough, but I understand the need to have some facts to back you up just in case.

Typically with story writing, the authors try to make their villains unlikable so they can root for the heroes to defeat them. So what happens if the villain is a Mary Sue? Has that every been effectively done so the audience (and the characters) end up hating the villain?

Well, first and foremost in modern stories nowadays are written so that they are rather likeable. Not that the audience would root for them, but the villains still interest the readers with how evil they are or how they challenge the protagonist(s). Mary Sue is just a badly written character, so if you try to write the villain that way, all the interest will fade away and the character will become annoying and boring, and the readers will likely hate the story as a whole.

It was actually created under some rather unpleasant circumstances, so I'm glad it ended up enjoyable.

I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you were able to resolve whatever issues were plaguing you.

characters would take a few hundred pages at the very least

Yes, I agree with that statement, but I wanted to see how eagerly you might tackle that request.

Yeah, any talk about Mary Sues is a ticking time bomb.

You can say that again.

The thing I'm trying to say here is that some of the signs I listed are just that, signs or symptoms that may or may not be present in a Mary Sue. Yet many people see these signs as proof that a character has to be a Mary Sue. The only truly defining trait that a character is a Mary Sue is the fact that the story starring this character will serve pretty much as nothing more but a display case for the char.

Actually the way you have it worded here is very spot on to how I'd write it. If I were to give my interpretation of it, I'd probably write it more like this though:

A Mary Sue has X amount of traits associated with them as a character. These aren't a full proof list as some traits might be story specific, for example, having an overpowered protagonist in a story full or Norse of Greek Gods would not make said character a Mary Sue even if they are a bit overpowered. However this list of X traits are a good test, and this test should be used to figure out what the bigger problems of the story are, this is because a Sue is a symptom of bigger problems with the overall story itself. And these problems can range from being a boring story, to being wish fulfillment, or lack of understanding of proper use of story mechanics. In short, a character can be a Mary Sue, but this is only a surface level issue for deeper problems that need to be addressed.

I had to think about this one for a bit, I think I could have done a better job with it, but I haven't covered the Mary Sue issue in a few months so I'm a little rusty on my explanation. But, as you wrote, a Sue is a symptom for bigger problems. This is why I asked for a clarification, I figured you were trying to say that, but it wasn't coming off that way originally.

Yet many people see these signs as proof that a character has to be a Mary Sue.

Yeah, I've had conversations with people that believe this, so it makes it hard to discuss things with people when they have a sever lack of understanding of the concept. Now I know how my teachers felt when I was in school.