Biggest Mary Sue/Gary Stu

[Inference]

Lol, FE13 Ike.

"Become the General of our army, Ike! Slay a god and save the world, Ike! You're the only one who can do this, Ike!"

Always showing up in the nick of time, doing everything, killing everything, gets the badass hero ending. Only way he could get more Gary Stu is if he were tapping Queen Crimea on top of it all. Sadly, he's too dense for women.

Honorable mention to FE13 Bastian. How the fuck is he suddenly the mastermind of the Crimean government?

[shadykid]

Lol, FE13 Ike.

"Become the General of our army, Ike! Slay a god and save the world, Ike! You're the only one who can do this, Ike!"

Always showing up in the nick of time, doing everything, killing everything, gets the badass hero ending. Only way he could get more Gary Stu is if he were tapping Queen Crimea on top of it all. Sadly, he's too dense for women.

Honorable mention to FE13 Bastian. How the fuck is he suddenly the mastermind of the Crimean government?

er, you mean FE10 in both cases right

or Ike's Gary Stu-ness moved all the way to Ylisse

Edited June 2, 2013 by shadykid

[Chiki]

Ike's quotes in FE13 are the most boring I can even imagine.

I'LL FUCK FOR MY FRIENDS!!!!!!!

[Rehab]

At this point I have a hard time seeing the use of the term as anything other a way of shuffling around saying "I don't like how this character who was intended to be sympathetic was written"

You have all done this to me

In that vein, Avatar

[Fala]

Well, the reason why Avatar has so many supports is because it's more of a design choice. I mean s/he is suppose to be you though s/he fails hard. In fact why is s/he even on this list? S/He barely any personality other then being a nice guy/girl and a Troll in his/her supports. And the reason why I don't really count FE12!Avatar and FE!13Avatar as Lords is because they really don't have any defining qualities.

Oh! And they're glorified wish fufillment. Can't forget that.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Fala

[Florete]

At this point I have a hard time seeing the use of the term as anything other a way of shuffling around saying "I don't like how this character who was intended to be sympathetic was written"

You have all done this to me

In that vein, Avatar

Indeed, the term has basically lost all meaning, similar to how people will occasionally use the word "overrated" for anything they dislike.

Going back to the actual origins of the term, the only character who could really be considered a Mary Sue in FE is Avatar/Robin, and perhaps MU/Avatar from FE12 as well, but I haven't played that. The idea of the Mary Sue is a character who has no apparent flaws, possibly comes out of nowhere, is loved by everyone, and, most importantly, is intended as a self-insert for the author. Among some other things, but those few are the main ideas from what I've read. Oh, mix of exotic races is also a common one. And Robin basically fits into that one, too.

None of the other lords fit that well enough.

[shadykid]

Going back to the actual origins of the term, the only character who could really be considered a Mary Sue in FE is Avatar/Robin, and perhaps MU/Avatar from FE12 as well, but I haven't played that. The idea of the Mary Sue is a character who has no apparent flaws, possibly comes out of nowhere, is loved by everyone, and, most importantly, is intended as a self-insert for the author.

watch, now someone will attempt to show that Micaiah is a self-insert through some convoluted nonsense

[Baldrick]

True empress of Begnion, queen of Daein, half-heron laguz? Why would anyone want to write a self-insert character with those characteristics?

On the subject of what is a Mary Sue, I'm reminded of something August said in FE5;

"What I'm saying is that Lord Celice didn't earn his fame on his own. The times require a hero, and someone is setting him up to be one. Heroes aren't born, Lord Leaf. They are made"

This could be roughly applied to every protagonist in the series (except possibly FE7, which is a lot smaller in scale than the other games in the series). This necessitates some Sueish traits, but doesn't really qualify them to be considered classical Mary Sues. The term has been expanded to fit certain characters, and the two Tellius lords get it especially bad.

[Inference]

er, you mean FE10 in both cases right

or Ike's Gary Stu-ness moved all the way to Ylisse

Dude, cut me some slack. I haven't talked about anything other than Awakening in a while. x_x

But yeah, Ike was just untouchable in that game. Friends on every corner of the globe, pivotal plot point from the moment he shows up, and broken unit on top of that. "We like Ike" indeed.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Inference

[Snowy_One]

For what it's worth I DO know what a Mary Sue character actually is and Micaiah is not one of them. CLOSE to being one? Sure. Actually a Mary Sue? No. I voted for Eliwood though as 1) I don't know who Robin is so I can't exactly vote for him/her. And 2) I kinda felt cheated by Eliwood. I was very much enjoying Lyn's mode and felt she was a solid and good character, then it suddenly flips to Eliwood? I was left confused to say the least. 3) I REALLY hate Hector, but he's not on the list.

As for Micaiah, she honestly seems more like a Magical Girl who got lost on her way to Cardcaptors or Sailor Moon and wound up in a FE game. She's not a Mary Sue, just out-of-place.

[Steampunk]

The idea of the Mary Sue is a character who has no apparent flaws, possibly comes out of nowhere, is loved by everyone, and, most importantly, is intended as a self-insert for the author

This description can fit just about every main video game character ever made. Link from LoZ, Samus Aran from Metroid, Mario from SMB, the Vault Dweller/Courier from Fallout 3/NV, Sonic from Sonic the Hedgehog, the list goes on. You could also argue that many supporting cast characters from Fire Emblem are Sues with this logic. There's no way Tiki, a really old (yet still young and beautiful) dragon priestess with the power to destroy the world, could be considered a Mary Sue right?

The avatar character certainly gives the impression of being an expert at everything, since (s)he can play any class in the game (with gender restrictions), but I don't know think it's because the developers meant for MU to be an expert at everything. Rather, I think it's for character customization: letting the player choose what class or type of character they want to play. Everyone likes the avatar? Sure. It's a Nintendo game. Everyone is best friends with every other character in the army. MU certainly saves the day with cunning, but the avatar is a strategist: it's his/her job to outwit the opposition (like Soren, the strategic golden boy in Radiant Dawn). What about ability? Not so much. MU is only one unit in an entire army, and I personally don't solo maps with my avatar character on a regular basis unless he's over-leveled for the map. As for being a self insert...well, My Unit is My Unit: the whole point of the character is to think of him/her as you. Don't think self insertion applies in this case since the character is supposed to be a proxy of the player, like the Vault Dweller/Courier in the Fallout games.

Just for kicks, here's a link to a Mary Sue test: http://forum.bravofleet.com/showthread.php?31-Bravo-Fleet-Mary-Sue-Test

I know it's for Star Trek, but since that's where the term originated from, I suppose it's fitting. Maybe someone could make a Fire Emblem Sue Test based on this one. Anyway, think of each character as you answer those questions and that will give you an idea of where they rank. Only if you give a shit, though.

[Chiki]

Link from LoZ, Samus Aran from Metroid, Mario from SMB, the Vault Dweller/Courier from Fallout 3/NV, Sonic from Sonic the Hedgehog, the list goes on

Link, Mario, Sonic and Samus aren't loved by everyone.

[BrightBow]

In comparison between Micaiah and Robin, I would like to point out one thing:

When Micaiah wiped out an enemy army using oil and fire, it was treated as an act of unprecedented cruelty and cowardice.

Everyone who didn't want her head immediately on a platter, was absolute shocked that she was capable to do such a thing.

Micaiah herself was heavily guilt ridden from it. Not just because of the act herself, but also because she saw herself less affected by the death of one person then by all the other people that died because of her orders.

Her acts weighted so heavily, that Micaiah couldn't belief it when Ike when begged her to stop the fighting. That he had it in him to forgive a crime of such magnitude, made her realize how wrong she was about him all the time.

But when Robin wiped out an enemy army using oil and fire, it was treated as an tactical masterstroke and proof of his genius.

Nobody bothered to say as much as: "Man, that's pretty cruel. But we have no choice."

And the massacre was immediately forgotten after the end of the chapter.

Allies and enemies alike just kept praising Robin's tactical skills from there on.

And btw:

Given that we know that Micaiah wiped out the 5000 troops from the Crimean army (extended script), I would guess that the people she killed that day went well into several 10.000s,

Wallhart's forces were said to consist of over 1 Million troops. The invading forces alone, were already said to be twice the size of the Ylissian army.

Given that Wallhart's remaining forces were weak enough to be defeated by said Ylissian army, we can probably conclude that the numbers of the Invasion troops went deep into the 100.000s.

That's a lot of widows, widowers and orphaned children.

Edited June 3, 2013 by BrightBow

[Steampunk]

Link, Mario, Sonic and Samus aren't loved by everyone.

Orly? The only people I can think of who don't like those characters (within their own universe) are the people who get their asses kicked by them. If we consider the Mario sports games canon, even Mario's enemies like him well enough to take in some leisurely activities with him without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the face while he's serving in Tennis. If we include the Sonic X cartoon (since Mary Sue applies to games, movies/tv, books, etc), Sonic is widely loved by the people living in whatever that city is called (I think there's even an episode dedicated to Sonic's rabid fans). Even if we only look at the games, the only time Sonic is disliked (iirc) is when people falsely believe he's turned evil in SA2. Link seems pretty well liked in all the Zelda Games I've played (going all the way back to LoZ 2, random strangers are more than happy to help him out and completely ignore him destroying their grass and pottery). Samus is a respected and revered bounty hunter, and the Metroid Wiki describers her as "of prestige fame." Not really sure where you get the idea they aren't liked. Unless you mean their nemeses, in which that would go without saying.

When Micaiah wiped out an enemy army using oil and fire, it was treated as an act of unprecedented cruelty and cowardice.

Everyone who didn't want her head immediately on a platter was absolute shocked that she was capable of performing such an act.

Micaiah herself was heavily guilt ridden from the act. Not just because of the act herself, but also because she saw herself less affected by the death of one person then by all the people that died because of her orders.

Her acts weighted so heavily that Micaiah couldn't belief it when Ike when begged her to stop the fighting. That he had it in him to forgive such an act, made her realize how wrong she was about him all the time.

But when our dear Robin wiped out an enemy army using oil and fire, it was treated as an tactical masterstroke and proof of his genius.

Nobody bothered to say as much as: "Man, that's pretty cruel. But we have no choice."

And the massacre was immediately forgotten after the end of the chapter.

Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand. Technically Micaiah was fighting for the "bad guys," so her acts would be portrayed as horrible. MU was fighting for the "good guys," so his actions would be considered brilliant. Unfortunately, good and bad, moral and immoral are not fixed ideas. They're pretty relative and more flexible than a slinky.

[Chiki]

If we consider the Mario sports games canon, even Mario's enemies like him well enough to take in some leisurely activities with him without pulling out a gun and shooting him in the face while he's serving in Tennis. If we include the Sonic X cartoon (since Mary Sue applies to games, movies/tv, books, etc), Sonic is widely loved by the people living in whatever that city is called (I think there's even an episode dedicated to Sonic's rabid fans). Even if we only look at the games, the only time Sonic is disliked (iirc) is when people falsely believe he's turned evil in SA2. Link seems pretty well liked in all the Zelda Games I've played (going all the way back to LoZ 2, random strangers are more than happy to help him out and completely ignore him destroying their grass and pottery). Samus is a respected and revered bounty hunter, and the Metroid Wiki describers her as "of prestige fame." Not really sure where you get the idea they aren't liked. Unless you mean their nemeses, in which that would go without saying.

I'm not gonna reply to Sonic since I don't know much about it.

Mario, Link and Samus aren't really portrayed as Mary Sues. I don't think you should be applying this kind of logic to video games like Zelda, Metroid and Mario when they barely have a proper plot, characterization and script in the first place.

You can't compare the amount of wank Ike receives to the amount of wank Link, Mario or Samus does. I mean, there's barely any script compared to Radiant Dawn in those games.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Where you sit depends entirely on where you stand. Technically Micaiah was fighting for the "bad guys," so her acts would be portrayed as horrible. MU was fighting for the "good guys," so his actions would be considered brilliant. Unfortunately, good and bad, moral and immoral are not fixed ideas. They're pretty relative and more flexible than a slinky.

I never played FE10, but how exactly is she fighting for the "bad guys" and what exactly constitutes as good and bad?

[Steampunk]

I never played FE10, but how exactly is she fighting for the "bad guys" and what exactly constitutes as good and bad?

She leads the Daein army to fight on behalf of Begnion senators who are, for the sake of plot, the one of "bad guys" in Radiant Dawn. Since she's on the wrong side of the conflict (as far as the story is concerned), the negative side of her actions are emphasized to facilitate her moral dilemma and also to help the player accept fighting the same people that were originally assumed to be the heroes. It's a technique story writers use. Basically, if you demonize someone, you don't feel as bad about killing them that sort of thing.

On the other hand, the avatar is the hero of Awakening, so the story writers have to pass off his actions as heroic regardless of the not-so-pleasant implications. It's not so much a matter of everyone loving Robin no matter what as it is the story team wanting you to view it in a positive light. It all comes down to how the writers want you to feel about a certain event. Micaiah's actions are terrible because that's how you're supposed to think of it, and the avatar's choices are okay because they're fighting for the right side and you're supposed to support them.

Sorry for taking a satchel charge to the Fourth Wall. I'll try to get it patched up ASAP.

Edit: missed this post for some reason. My eyes must be going South on me.

Mario, Link and Samus aren't really portrayed as Mary Sues. I don't think you should be applying this kind of logic to video games like Zelda, Metroid and Mario when they barely have a proper plot, characterization and script in the first place.

You can't compare the amount of wank Ike receives to the amount of wank Link, Mario or Samus does. I mean, there's barely any script compared to Radiant Dawn in those games.

So what are you saying here? They're poorly developed/underdeveloped characters? That's exactly what a Mary Sue is: a particular class of underdeveloped good guy. It's a collection of what are considered humanity's finest qualities poured in to one generic "perfect man/woman" hero. I'll pick on Samus in particular because I love Samus and we always hurt the ones we love. How is it not Mary Sue-like of Samus to completely destroy two space pirate strongholds and exterminate two of the deadliest creatures in the galaxy all by herself using "lost" technology of a super-advanced, super secretive alien race (who raised her as an orphan because she's the sole survivor of some disaster) that only she can use? That's not to say she's a bad character. It works under the circumstances, but she is an underdeveloped character because she has precisely one dimension. She doesn't lie or steal. She doesn't have any addictions or chemical dependencies. She doesn't make morally questionable decisions. She doesn't put herself first in any given situation. She has 1 gear, and it's called "Savior of All Humanity." Samus doesn't have one single flaw or fallibility.

She is completely selfless, courageous, and never fails. Mario and Link are the same way. There's no depth to their character. There are no shades of grey here. They are a compilation of what people consider to be the best qualities a person can have blended together into one generic "always saves the day" hero or heroine. It makes for a quick solution for a simple problem (a generic hero for a video game with shallow plot), but they are still Mary Sues whether we like them or not. Samus Aran is probably my most favorite heroine, but I have to be honest and say she is horribly imbalanced. There's no underlying motivation for why she does what she does. She's a hero, so she does heroic shit just because she's a hero and that's what heroes do. When all this comes together, we have a character with extraordinary ability and pure benevolence who never fails, and always ends up being the last best hope for humanity. If there were more people in the Metroid games, she'd probably be as popular as Ike is in FE9 and FE10. I say that because the scan logs from the Metroid Prime games that talk about Samus only have the best things to say about her. In fact, I recall one scan log from Metroid Prime 2 that smacks of hero worship from one of the dead soldiers.

I'm not saying Ike or MU are any more deep or complex as characters, but they aren't really Mary Sues. The motivations for why these characters fight is much clearer than simply "I'm the hero." They also rely on other characters instead of them taking care of business while everyone else is along for the right. Ike has Soren do all the heavy thinking, Titania helps manage the company, Oscar cooks, Boyd is...Boyd, and he also has Volke around to do god knows what behind the scenes. That doesn't make him a complex character, but he's not a Sue either.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sheik

[Nobody]

In comparison between Micaiah and Robin, I would like to point out one thing:

When Micaiah wiped out an enemy army using oil and fire, it was treated as an act of unprecedented cruelty and cowardice.

I don't think she actually set them on fire. Tibarn caught sothe before she started the fire, she only used the oil. I remember a dialogue where Sanaki talks about all the soldiers hit by the oil surviving, although injured.

[Chiki]

That's exactly what a Mary Sue is: a particular class of underdeveloped good guy.

You need to get your definitions straight. Not one universal definition talks about a Mary Sue being underdeveloped.

The idea of the Mary Sue is a character who has no apparent flaws, possibly comes out of nowhere, is loved by everyone, and, most importantly, is intended as a self-insert for the author

[Steampunk]

You need to get your definitions straight. Not one universal definition talks about a Mary Sue being underdeveloped.

If you've got legitimate counterpoints to raise, please raise them and don't waste my time attacking semantics. People only do that if they don't have a real counter argument but have to have the last word. I think you're smarter than that.

Anyone who's spent any time studying character development in a creative writing understands why I said they are underdeveloped and I also explained in my previous post (albeit very briefly) how they are so. If you still don't understand it, I can refer you a book or two on the matter that provide a lot of insight in what makes characters deep and interesting and why "perfect" characters should be avoided.

[Chiki]

If you've got legitimate counterpoints to raise, please raise them and don't waste my time attacking semantics. People only do that if they don't have a real counter argument but have to have the last word. I think you're smarter than that.

Anyone who's spent any time studying character development in a creative writing understands why I said they are underdeveloped and I also explained in my previous post (albeit very briefly) how they are so. If you still don't understand it, I can refer you a book or two on the matter that provide a lot of insight in what makes characters deep and interesting and why "perfect" characters should be avoided.

Attacking semantics huh? Too bad. That's what modern debaters and philosophers do: you know, the people who really can argue and make counter-arguments. The people who really do spend their life arguing do exactly nothing but attack semantics.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analytic%20philosophy

a philosophical movement that seeks the solution of philosophical problems in the analysis of propositions or sentences

http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-university-conversations-3-importance-definitions

So one of the things that really gets me excited about the objectivist conceptual theory and the way it cashes out in an important and useful way is the emphasis subjectivism has on definition-- and definitions not simply as a way of organizing your way you use words or checking the conventional use of a word the way a dictionary gives a definition, but definitions as an investigation into what the world is really like and what you really mean and what you intend to mean.

And that's something I think is a really vital skill for thinking conceptually, something that students today are not really taught to do, something that I think anyone working with any kind of conceptual material or any kind of moral material-- they're trying to decide what to do about something, and there's a principle involved. It really is vital to step back and make sure we're clear on what the terms are that are involved. I think it's--

Incidentally, there's an entire field of philosophy called formal semantics which I am familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics_%28logic%29

It's really arrogant and insulting to lecture someone on a subject when you aren't even educated in it.

How does this relate to "Mary Sue?" Well, being a Mary Sue is a concept. Lol.

[Rewjeo]

But that doesn't necessarily help you come to an actual conclusion.

In any case, I would say being underdeveloped is more a symptom of being a Mary Sue than a defining trait.

[BrightBow]

I don't think she actually set them on fire. Tibarn caught sothe before she started the fire, she only used the oil. I remember a dialogue where Sanaki talks about all the soldiers hit by the oil surviving, although injured.

Whether she managed to pull it off or not isn't really important. What's important is that she was going to do it and that everybody was shocked about her ruthlessness while Avatar is praised to the heavens for the very same strategy.

And not a single shit is given for the people who inevitable burned and drowned to death during the massacre while the "sea is on fire".

[Steampunk]

Attacking semantics huh? Too bad. That's what modern debaters and philosophers do: you know, the people who really can argue and make counter-arguments.

Then you should spend more time reading about how they actually refute arguments and less time obsessing over their word choice. More specifically, you should learn how to identify the context which something is being discussed and stay within the bounds of that context. Using philosophy to argue against a literary definition for a literary term isn't the best approach.

Incidentally, there's an entire field of philosophy called formal semantics which I am familiar with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_semantics_%28logic%29

That's great. I'm glad to hear you're expanding your intellectual horizons. Unfortunately, this debate is about a literary concept, not philosophy.

It's really arrogant and insulting to lecture someone on a subject when you aren't even educated in it.

You are absolutely correct. I know next to nothing about the philosophy of semantics, and I don't think there's any shame in admitting that. I do know rhetorical argumentation, and have enough experience with it to know when someone doesn't have a refutation but doesn't want to "lose" the debate. I've seen it from others several times, and have been there myself more than once.

I'm not lecturing you in anything. I'm telling you to address the points I bring up instead of nit-picking the word choice. If you actually had a counter-argument, you wouldn't be doing that in the first place; so you latch on to the only thing you can argue, which is semantics. That's an unwinnable debate for either side in this case because 1) Mary Sue doesn't have a universal definition, only common themes, 2) we can spend the rest of our lives arguing over the meaning of every last word in whatever working definition we establish, and 3) Mary Sue is a literary concept, so philosophical semantics really doesn't fit here because we are taking the term out of its intended context (literature) and debating its meaning in philosophical terms (stripped of its literary context). So if you don't have any real points to argue and just want to talk about word choice, I think we're done here.

How does this relate to "Mary Sue?" Well, being a Mary Sue is a concept. Lol.

You're using philosophy to argue something that is not being debated in a philosophical context. Mary Sue may be a philosophical concept, but it's use in this thread and its general meaning relates to literature. Can't speak for anyone else, but it makes more sense to me to discuss a literary topic in literary terms. That's one problem with people who argue semantics: they get caught up in what they think the word should mean that they forget language doesn't conform to their ideas of how something should be defined. That's why we have working definitions, and why many dictionaries (and Wikipedia, for that matter) will list multiple entries for the same term in different contexts (literature, mathematics, physics, etc)

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sheik

[Faye]

Whether she managed to pull it off or not isn't really important. What's important is that she was going to do it and that everybody was shocked about her ruthlessness while Avatar is praised to the heavens for the very same strategy.

And not a single shit is given for the people who inevitable burned and drowned to death during the massacre while the "sea is on fire".

You do have a major good point there. D8 I always hated that part of the game, and I can't call My Unit a real self-insert after that. I'd never use such a cruel, heartless tactic either. It's one of the defining weakpoints in Awakening's story telling IMO.