Can your party pass the Plinkett test?

Like, lets consider your outcomes here. There's this fellow. You clearly haven't managed to solicit the character depth you were aiming for, because they only saw the letter of the law, not the spirit. Despite being told not to mention their profession, they've just mentioned a bunch of extremely obvious character traits (and to their credit, they have a bunch rather than just a couple), that are functionally speaking identical to roles. They have failed to describe their character on anything other than a surface level, any more so than describing their appearance would have let on.

I do find it amusing that this is despite the usual Plinkett test stipulation of "Describe them to me like I ain't never met 'em before." which ironically if this was in a real context would make people ENORMOUSLY more likely to mention surface aspects of their character. Because in real life, those are the first things we learn about a person.

It isn't until months of knowing someone very well and interacting with them closely that we have any real measure of their inner character, how they act when it counts, etc.

If someone has never even met them before, its likely impossible to even describe those subtle aspects of a person. You need to have seen them in action to have the context for understanding them at a deeper level, even if someone tutors you into it.

Consider: , these characters seem pretty decent. But having followed the Plinkett test correctly, even to the spirit of its laws, we get character descriptions oversimplified to the point of uselessness. We don't know anything about these people that would be useful in a functional sense to someone setting out to meet them, only to someone who has already interacted with them a fair bit and has context for these statements.

This gent is starting to understand.

>describe a role you play
>without describing the character's role.
le what

>serial killer
>salary man
>role of the patriarch of the family.
These are all roles.

>Kira Yoshikage
Kira is an intensely private man who wishes to live a quiet life of mediocrity. He has one impediment from this desire. He is obsessed with beautiful hands. His father notices this obsession and instead of reprimanding him, Kira is protected from scrutiny by society and allowed to nurture his obsession. This ultimately manifests in Kira's belief that he is entitled to live his life as he sees fit in peace and becomes a serial killer who preys on women with beautiful hands. Even in death, Kira's father continues to protect Kira. Kira views this assistance as a form of divine protection which only bolsters his beliefs.

All this adds up to a contradictory man: a man who does not wish to stand out and live a peaceful life but at the same time a man of violence and impulse who believes he has been divinely ordained to do with life as he wishes.

>a description of him following Plinkett test rules still manages to miss the context that makes anything cool about him as a character

Are you sure about that, user?

Not really, him pretending to be a husband/father was incidental to him not getting caught by Josuke and company and his serial killer tendencies are an important part of his character because if he wasn't forced to deal with his murderous tendencies then he could easily enjoy a quiet life within Morioh.
>Yoshikage Kira wants to live a quiet life within the small town of Morioh but his obsession with hands, coupled with circumstances beyond his control, force him to leave his quiet life behind in a bid to escape from his past.

Again, not hard to do if you actually know who the character is.

But I can't reveal the profession or role or what they look like.

>Serial Killer
Clearly his 'role' in this fiasco.
>resides in the town of Morioh
which tells someone unfamiliar with the story fucking nothing
>has a hand fetish where he chops off the hand of his victims.
alright now we're starting to get a little material
>Later, he takes the identity of a salary man with a wife and child
Again this is a thing he did, which is rather against the spirit of the Plinkett test
>tries to keep his murderous tendencies under wraps while taking on the role of the patriarch of the family.
Is in a bit of a grey zone as far as admissibility but its alright.

Consider that if I was actually following the Plinkett test, he'd be described as:
>An independent minded sort, fond of routine who has even managed to work in his own uncontrollable urge to murder into his tight schedule. Between his fetish for hands and his obsession with his own nails, he isn't short on coping mechanisms for what little stress there is in his life. He's got it all worked out and loves his town, and he is extremely diligent in taking care of his own health every day, without fail. Despite his unusual needs, what he wants most of all is a quiet life, and even if everything falls apart he will do absolutely anything to survive and live peacefully.

Now, I've communicated that a character with quite some depth exists there (unlike your attempt), but functionally speaking this description is boring as hell.

This one is alright, I'll admit. You certainly had to skirt the limitations of the Plinkett test to accomplish this, but you did it. If you could explain the Plinkett test in an OP in such a way that most people interpreted it to come up with a description like this most of the time, then I would be less upset.

This is, for reference, the first time in many threads I have ever seen a Plinkett test attempt be effective.

Loud patriot, mute sociopath, Hispanic, and Brooklyn accent.

So in other words, the Plinkett test is just about background, motivation, and personality?

>explain the Plinkett test in an OP in such a way that most people interpreted it to come up with a description like this most of the time

I interpret the Plinkett test as, "why is this character," rather than, "who is this character." That's how I was thinking when I posted that.

>Plinkett test
It's shit. Divorcing your character from reality and describing him in boring, vague concepts is shit.
How interesting the character is is not defined solely by his internal struggle, but rather by the specific circumstances surrounding the character.

Plinkett test was designed after its author overdosed on, I dunno, the post-postmodernism koolaid, I guess?
In any case, it's not necessarily indicative of a good character or a good story. Something like Waiting for Godot breaks the test entirely.

More like "How is this character".
Really though. People are blowing the Plinkett test out of proportion and putting way more thought into this than they have any right to. This was never supposed to be a gold standard for character building or an example to follow rather than just a funny way to illustrate how vapid, boring, and one dimensional the Prequel leads were.

Also, the first fucking article I've stumbled upon that describes the Plinkett test and how it should be praised when I googled what it is is fucking shit too.
>To be clear, the Plinkett Test isn’t a method for determining if a character is a good character—just that they are one. What I noticed from my experiment was that many of the examples on my list were described with words like ‘brave’ or ‘driven’. These, to me, aren’t really personality traits: they’re the result of a character’s actions or circumstances. Of the lot, it was BioShock’s Booker DeWitt the people I asked struggled with the most. No one could pinpoint his personality. I couldn’t either—and remember, this is a group of people who have played and finished the game.
Is this for fucking real? The entirety of Bioshock Infinite is about exploring DeWitt's personality, the events that formed it and his struggle to contain his inner guilt. AND I HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED THE GAME, I MERELY WATCHED THE SPEEDRUN DURING THE GDQ MARATHON. You've got to be a special kind of retard to fail to define a character when someone takes away the specifics.

Long story, if I wanted to define something in oblique, vague terms, I would look in a fucking thesaurus or something.

People seem to be misusing the Plinkett test. It's not an be-all and end-all solution to character writing. Simple or shallow characters doesn't always mean a bad characters. Characters with extensive personality and motivation aren't all good characters.

But when ALL your characters are simple and shallow, that's when things start looking a bit shitty.

I wonder how much overlap there is between people, who scream "Plinkett test is stupid!" in these threads, and people who love the prequels.

Perhaps in future, you may be able to come up with a full write up along those lines.

I would still express that this is merely a niche to ensure people are following due diligence creating interesting characters. In Kira's case for instance, we are missing out on his sense of style, popularity with others despite his standoffishness, and his fuckin' baller powers. And honestly, if you were setting out to meet him for the first time you'd want to know those things before the rest of his jam.

I think the Plinkett test's role, and wording, needs to be drastically revised before it is actually useful and not just the equivalent of vaguebooking on Veeky Forums tier cancer. You may well be just the individual to do this!

P: He was a thief growing up. He lived a rough life on the streets with nothing but his wits and light fingers to survive. Eventually he was caught and arrested, but his arrestor took pity on his situation and sent him to live with his order rather than remain on the street or spend his youth rotting in a prison. The young man came to learn of good, and while ashamed of his criminal youth he takes pity upon the poor and the ignorant. He seeks to live up to the example of the kindness, mercy, and stalwart nature of those who showed him how to change his ways. Quick to spare an enemy, he is contemptuous of those who refuse a second chance. Has a quiet nobility about him.

M: The person playing him has an elaborate backstory interwoven into the plot but doesn't actually roleplay him. He is an elite stat array with a void where a personality would be.

B: Foolhardy, brave, but loyal once you get to know him. Secretive about his background. Slow to trust, quick to anger, and without fear. Seems to have led a life dedicated to survival in spite of long odds. Tenacious enough to survive his lack of wisdom. Humanized by his connection to the other party member, prior to those connections was a lost soul.

C: A calm soul who empathizes with the barbarian and keeps his anger in check. Holds the party together with an understanding ear and a calming presence. More likely to listen than speak. Willing to bear sacrifices without complaint, but occasionally indulges in her own whims. Not as selfless as she aspires to be, and grows weary of acting as a lifeline for others while ignoring her own desires. This is boiling to conflict.

F: He's out to win treasure and enjoy an adventure with good friends while he is at it. Everyone's buddy, but keeps his thoughts and feelings largely to himself. Seems to take adventuring at face value and doesn't get too wrapped up in the details of what's going on around him, as that would spoil his fun.

Prequels are shit for entirely different reasons than Plinkett wants to imagine, and the inconsistency of the characters is the least important problem of the prequels.

Episode 2 was okay, Episode 3 was fun but bad, Episode 1 managed to be awful in all ways?

I am really just asking you to apply the level of critical analysis this test supposedly advocates to the test itself. You don't need to subsist entirely on unquestioned, second-hand thoughts.

see

>Bioshock Infinite is about exploring DeWitt's personality
What is it then? What is his personality other than vague self-insert so that a shitty writer could masturbate over 'wibbly wobbly timey wimey'.

A girl with an unusual glow to her that attracts lots of attention, and due to the nature of our jobs, is unwanted and can be a liability. Her talents are magical in nature and while she doesn't know that many spells the ones she does know, she knows very well. She's quite chummy with our female work companions going so far as to socialize with them outside of work through typical female activities such as fingernail painting, clothes shopping, and sleepovers. Even though we work together I don't really know too much about her - when I say we work together its like saying I'm a co-worker with someone in a completely different department than I am; we see each other in the hallways and we sit together for lunch but never collaborate on work directly. Speaking of lunch, her actions of eating half her food then giving me the rest makes me think either she has a crush on my big ugly self and is trying to flirt with me via food, or she has an eating disorder.

She's also shown a shrewd intuition on the job just from observing she knows when to press and when to fold when dealing with clients and when the heat comes down on her, she annoyingly plays "If I cry, boys pay extra attention to me" card.

A lazy bastard who tries to get everyone else to do the work when he's the strongest member of the party, a paranoid SoB who is always checking for traps, a snarky SoB who always has something smart to "say" even though he can only mimic sounds, and a coward who is always being pushed around by the rest of the party because he's weaker than everyone else physically.

>Plinkett test doesn't even apply to the movie he's talking about

What a hack, people only like him for the rape and murder jokes. Which is fucked up.

>escape from his past.
Now his role is escapee.

>Describe a culinary dish without mentioning what it looks like, or what it tastes like or what it's ingredients are .

It seems more like an exercise in mincing words than anything useful for character development.

An independt minded sort. Has very few people he cares about. Fond of ale and elf weed. His coping mechanisms are reading and study of history. He's working out a plan to revitalize his community and is diligent in this task. What he wants most all is to make the gods know the punishments they do not themselves adhere too

Now you're just being pedantic to prove your point. His role isn't "escapee" just because he's trying to escape from his past and the word "escapee" implies that he escaped from a physical space like a prison or something.

Even then, "escapee" doesn't work here because Kira never truly escapes from his past at any point during the story. Everything that happens to him happens because he's incapable of not killing people who either trigger his fetish or get in his way.

Like I said, if a character you made can't pass the plinkett test without sounding boring, that reflects more on your inability to either describe a character in a compelling way or create a compelling character in the first place.

man on the edge, too old for this shit

how did I do, most original character EVAR

LE EBIN FUNNAY VOICE MOVIE MAN

FUCK
OFF
BACK
TO
REDDIT

>What is his personality other than vague self-insert so that a shitty writer could masturbate over 'wibbly wobbly timey wimey'?
Stereotypic self-flagellating man who keeps trying to atone for the mistakes of his past, yet is incapable of stopping himself from committing the same mistakes again over and over?

I mean, if there is an author self-insert in Infinite, it's certainly not Booker - if anything, it's the Lutece twins, because "muh Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern".

Calm your autism. It's not the end all be all. Shit, it's mostly played for laughs. It's like the beach dell test, meant to make you think about the writing and the characters, but just light hearted fun.

How is this test such a hard concept to grasp?

1.If your character is just a "dark, handsome barbarian" it's probably not an interesting character.

2.If you want to make a deep characters easy you give it personality by playing the traits and skills. F.e.x characters that are dexterous beyond mere mortals are often played of as arrogant tricksters because they've gotten away with pick pocketing and playing pranks on the feeble in books.
You all heard of Alignment systems right? It's not that different describing a characters motivation based on those either. There aren't many crazy, sadistic lawful neutral characters out there because they aren't believable.

3. Like this guy says: Plinkett test IS NOT an absolute measure of what your character writing should be, failing it is just to challenge you to write better, nor is it necessary for random side characters, but it helps keep your characters likable and easier to relate by giving them personality outside of their looks and what they do in the party.

It's the difference between Steve playing a character called "Stevenicus the butcher" and still being Steve and Stevenicus the Butcher being it's own personality in the realm you play in.

>There aren't many crazy, sadistic lawful neutral characters out there because they aren't believable.
ahem

...really?
>Father is hardworking and articulate, and tries to make people happy as a form of therapy. Uses religion to make sense of life tragedies. Always on-guard to be a good role model. Always. Feels like he's atoning for something. Don't ask about his life before marriage.
>Brother is extremely social and projects total nonchalance to distract from his insecurities. Struggling to transition to adult life. Increasingly dissatisfied with his life as he realizes he can do better.

This is super easy. Do better.

>Anderson...Neutral
Highly doubt above but more importantly:
"aren't MANY" =/= "aren't any", smartypants.

He is tall, with fair skin and blonde hair in refined style. Usually garbed in a suit of some sort, his signature one being lavender. A paper bag with two sandwiches sways in his hand, as he strides with confidence in dress shoes. The hand of a dead woman is concealed in the inner pocket of his suit.

Can your party pass the Voight-Kampff test?

A group of murderous bastards obsessed with acquiring gold and burning people to cinders.

>Friend's Character
An exiled son who set off to find his fortune. He is an overly tolerant man (by his society's standards) whose naivete and lack of communication skills get him into many dangerous situations. That being said, he's not stupid and is learning how to navigate the treacherous world he resides in. Despite his background of wealth, he's also fairly compassionate, and is perfectly willing to work with those opposed to him to come to some sort of compromise that benefits all. He's driven primarily by a need to prove those who exiled him wrong, and to this end, he must accumulate power, wealth, and allies.

>Other friend's character
A savage, brutal man, whose rough exterior hides a keen and cunning intellect. A man whose experienced with the world, but has a spiritual hunger that gnaws at him ceaselessly, and is willing to expose himself to many different philosophies and religions (some of them dangerous) in order to satisfy this need.

>Other other friend's character
The daughter of a powerful man, who hopes to rebuild her father's shattered legacy. She has few compunctions, and her solution to problems usually amounts to, "I'll win because I'm always willing to go one step farther than everyone else." This overwhelming drive, while effective, is neither subtle nor sagacious, and constantly lands her in trouble as a result. She's oftentimes on the run from the authorities and her father's many enemies. This being said, she's a hardened survivor; if this is to be her swan song, she plans on taking as many of her enemies with her as she can.

>My character
A cunning man who was exiled from his home because he fell in love with the wrong woman. The better angels of his nature have since been overshadowed by his skills in murder and manipulation, as it's all he feels he has left. However, he remains a patriot of his former home, and would be willing to do nearly anything to return. It is this spark of hope that keeps him going.

Everyone in Hellsing, aside from the NAZIs, are varying degrees of neutral user.

Hes definitely neutral of some stripe, outside of killing monsters being sadistic about it and eventually going too far with it.

Hes a genuine good person takes care of children, cares about the men under his command even when they they themselves want to go all martyr and die fighting, and in the end doesnt even believe in truly blind devotion to the church when his superior goes all evil and crazy.

>A two-faced narcissist excelling in manipulation and scheming. She is ambitious to an almost sociopathic degree and has decided to do whatever it takes to 'realize her potential'. Despite being an absolutely rotten person, she is blessed with enough natural charisma to establish a false reputation as a hero of the people, and exploits this false persona to use truly righteous individuals as pawns in her personal games. She distances herself from handicaps like empathy and honor in order to maximize her strategic efficiency, but holds herself to other seemingly arbitrary standards in an effort to further cement her superiority, such as victorian-style chastity, obsessive cleanliness, flawless manners and general perfectionism. She becomes extremely insecure and flighty when confronted with things that make her feel real emotion or form genuine connections. She under-performs in most technical areas and often has to rely on bluster and evasion to avoid exposing her own incompetence. She has an obsession with the moon of her homeworld, believing it was the catalyst of her 'personal awakening', when it was really the death of her brother that prompted her to experience a minor psychological break.

Don't fuck with me, user, I could write a book on this bitch.
I could probably do the same with all the other party members, too.

A character that passes the plinkett test isn't automatically an interesting or well rounded character, but a character that fails it is little more than a walking talking prop. It's fine to have some walking props in your story, but if your story is nothing but that then it doesn't have any characters and THAT'S boring.

A: Antisocial ass. Hates were-Xs. Driven and tends to make decisions for the group. Pragmatic but keen on defending the little guy, just an ass at making himself seem relatable while doing it. Will save your life in a pinch and politely ignore that the incident ever happened. Incredibly angry at the stupidity of E, father figure to B.

B: More idealistic than A, suffered more personally at the hands of were-Xs but is less vindictive about it. Trends conflict and risk averse. Has some self-worth issues. Daughter-figure/apprentice to A, gets along well with B.

C: Meek and deeply risk averse, not a coward by any means but terrified of many dangers. Has deep-seated past traumas regarding drowning, murder, but largely hides them and refuses to speak about them. Is relatively secretive and sympathetic to the group's enemies, and mostly goes along with things because he refuses to take the initiative. Basically a cypher, socially. Vaguely friendly with B? Confides in A sometimes.

D: Tired and good hearted, though obsessed with vengeance over his grandson's wrongful death. Has accepted the fragility that has come with age and has resolved to do his best to do right by others regardless, The most responsible member of the group. Is a mentor/companion to E and tries to reign in his stupider bullshit, often serves as an advisor to A.

E: Chivalry obsessed and mentally closer to a dragon than anyone is comfortable with. Obsessed with riches, adventure, titles, and glorious combat. Also reflexively self-sacrificing. Idiot and knows it, the only thing he's good at is war and he is fully aware of that. Multiple entities have attempted to trick him into damning himself, only for him to be too goddamned stupid to fall for the plot. Act First, ask someone why he acted later type. Would default to group leader if it wasn't for A, who's intelligence he respects.

ITT: We post about our characters, ignore everyone else and then leave.

* Kleptomaniacal psycopath with zero impulse control. Pretty much chaotic randumb: the character, except actually entertaining to GM for. Also wanted his own airship for some reason. He is a walking plot hook.
* A delusional man who considered dinosaurs to be greater than humans and himself a dinosaur in a human's body. Wants to permanently become one, Avatar style
* A man who craves notoriety above all else. Attention-seeking, in a lot of ways.
* I would call her a psychopath but she literally has no idea that what she is doing is wrong, from what it sounds like. She pretty much follows the party and does what they want. Cares only for plants.

That's pretty cool, user. For some reason I get Traveller vibes but I am sure that is wrong.

> She becomes extremely insecure and flighty when confronted with things that make her feel real emotion or form genuine connections.

Now there's a character I can identify with!

Welcome to every draw your party or made/saw/played thread ever.
This premise works on the same principle as those. Hope at least one other person thinks its interesting enough to give you a reply, and that it isn't a derogatory comment.

Ha! Look at this loser! Your comment sucks.

We could put a twist on these threads to make them more participatory. 'and rate the one above you' maybe.
I'm doing the exact same shit though so I have no room to talk, just pointing it out

That sounds fucking horrendous.

Ep I was the best of the three, fight me.

>Self-centered, drunk, currently coming to terms with an upheaval in his life in which he both lost something precious and gained something wondrous.

>Boisterous, drunk, violent, zealously devoted to a higher power

>Violent but honorable, also drunk, formerly very prideful but humbled after a debilitating defeat, struggles to not allow anger to rule his actions.

I guess?

Is your party a Bavarian, a Slav, and an Irishman?

>ITT: people who hate the Plinkett test because their characters are so poorly made that they can't pass it

A loud, boastful braggart whose outward claims of heroism are secretly motivated solely by a desire for recognition and adulation. Less likely to put himself out to perform a good deed that won't be publicly known about or attributed to him. A show-boater and a bit of a thug.

Let's do another one:

A cold, detached thug of a woman whose willingness to inflict violence and injury on others is motivated and, in fact, justified by deep, nearly religious beliefs that people in positions of power cannot be trusted, and all organizations with authority are invariably corrupt. Focused less on causing harm than intimidating others into thinking she will harm them in the future if they step out of line. Pretends to be an alchoholic so that others think they have a handle on her. Deeply insecure about her appearance.

Unfortunately not, although that sounds like one kickass campaign.

Anakin is not a good character and he passes the test. Also in rpgs getting a full list is hard like said I only play my character once a week at most and only spend about half an hour interacting in a character based way and not a plot or combat based way

>Anakin is not a good character and he passes the test.
He really doesn't.
>Also in rpgs getting a full list is hard like said I only play my character once a week at most and only spend about half an hour interacting in a character based way and not a plot or combat based way
Well I mean, it's much harder finding water when you're stuck in the middle of a desert, I agree.

A smarmy new yorker trapped on the West Coast with a cuckold of a husband, with strong aspirations of grandeur. Total bitch, but has a modicum of power.

A 20 something hipster who fucks his sister regularly, probably the biggest liberal in the group. Insufferably naive to a fault. Optimistic.

Some kinda irish person. The second most forgettable character in the group.

A biker, chased out of Boston. Wants to lead but doesn't have the chops to do so. Has a fuckload of guns but that's about it.

...someone that wants to get in local politics?

Newcomer to the area, wants to start her own outfit but is too skittish IRL and IC to do so. Following suit of everyone else.

An attention thriving, silver tongued minx with a passion for good food, lewd dudes and gals, and large amounts of unmarked bills.

Easy.

> First guy: Takes no shit from anyone. Constantly furious. Hates priestesses, halflings, Orientals, wererats. Loves fire. Exiled from his clan, but left his second home on his own accord. Loves his cursed weapon more than life itself.
> Second guy: Big into being a hero and an ethical guy. Beta, but wise.
> Third guy: Loves tricking people and getting people to do what he wants. Very consistently popular with everyone he meets - nobody knows why, they're just attracted to his personality.
> Fourth guy: Edgelord. Wishes to constantly debase himself and go further down the path of darkness. Bit of a Napoleon complex, albeit not related to height. Relatively beta, but sneaky. Not a straight shooter. Always out for his own gain.
> Fifth guy: Has seen some shit. Deep in a hallucinogenic ego death that has lasted maybe decades. Purity of mind and a shrewdness and wisdom inform his actions, but he sure loves to get a buzz on.

dwarven barbarian, half-elf cleric, halfling bard, half-elf warlock, human monk

A monk who punches things and is completely inept at actually being a monk, a healer who spends most of his time stabbing things, and an alcoholic half-orc warrior who is so greedy he has no problem beating the shit out of allies to get what he wants.

Someone struggling in a world that makes no sense. All the lessons he's been taught growing up have gradually been discarded as he repeatedly put their life on the line to protect everything they thought they knew. In the end he's got nothing but someone he loves that he'd go to any lengths to protect, even to discard his humanity and damn his immortal soul.

Eclipse Phase, a Jovian reformist combat medic who fled the junta with his daughter to get her the medical aid she could never have gotten otherwise. Is also pumping himself full of personal tailored combat drugs to even be able to compete with the transhumans he deals with in Firewall.

4 man whores.

The point of the Plinkett test wasn't that if you pass it your character's good, it's that if you couldn't pass it your character's shit. It also isn't meant to portray much complexity or depth. It's really just a measurement of basic character traits.

Lucjan originally desired to be a hero when he learned of the Legions as a child, but was quickly swept into something he did not understand and turned into a monster against his will. Degenerated and his mind compromised by implants, he became an instrument of multiple genocides and had the empathy, and thus the humanity of his very being, drained out of him until he became a wholly amoral killer.

Eventually he turned against his master like a mad dog, and fought against him like one: gibbering in bloodlusted insanity. When the fight was over and his side lost he fled into exile, living in literal hell for endless millennia. As the eons crept by the humanity banished by his creators slowly crept back, and it destroyed the few pleasures he enjoyed as a living weapon. Eventually all feeling he harvested from fighting was hollowed out, replaced by disgust over what he had degenerated into.

However as he was slipping into melancholy, his soul was touched by a vision of his old master, beckoning him to his service again. He embarked on a forlorn quest to execute his old liege's will, not caring what it may cost him in the end as it filled his life with a sense of value again.

A filthy liar with a heart of gold that has realised he isn't as morally bankrupt as he thought

A psychopath with no remorse for others and a possible addict of some kind

A headstrong dude with an unwavering, if slightly dubious sense of justice

the other two are newly made characters that haven't had a chance to shine yet

so, what's your party, user?

....it is rather tricky to describe someone who defines themselves by her appearance and role. Noblesse Oblige kinda informs a lot about her role but it's also a core part that can't be just described as altruism or superiority.

>S
Suffers from a deep fear of inadequacy and being outdone, and will inflict suffering upon himself and others if it means suppressing someone who can compete with him. From childhood, he has hated seeing others succeed and receive praise. This pushed him to improve himself as much as possible so as to soak up all of the attention in the room. Whenever he sees someone with interesting knowledge or skills that is revered or praised, he seeks to outdo them even if he has no knowledge on the subject. Lies to himself about abandoning his children in pursuit of knowledge and power. Replaces friendship and personality with edgy accessories and artifacts to gain the respect of soldiers.

>M
Self-deluding narcissist and insecure wannabe autocrat who lives on the highest horse of the moral high ground and is fully aware that he cannot speak without virtue signalling. He assumes all criticism is rooted in a legitimate hatred for him and everything he stands for, thus painting anyone who opposes him as an enemy of humanity and prosperity. It would be wrong to call him evil, as he truly believes the words he preaches, however he is fully aware that he is a manipulative demagogue and that his aspirations come before his goals for humanity.

>H
Childlike masochist. She is hardwired to seek pain and avoid pleasure, but doesn't necessarily enjoy misfortune as much as she desires it. Wants to make things worse for everyone for attention and pleasure. Despises conventional happiness and romance, deeply misogynistic but homosexual in a Freudian sort of way. Has grown accustomed to being treated instrumentally and seeks to scare off anyone who respects her or treats her as an individual, ensuring that she does not reach her goal of being loved and depending on someone else. Easily hurt by mundane criticism, spends hours trying to improve her looks and projects.

>L
At his core, he cannot handle reality or make it compatible with his distorted idealism. Supernaturally moral and kind, but too inept to make a positive difference. Incapable of understanding the concept of "lesser evil", will not stand for anything that is not infallibly good. Wants everyone to get along, but he cannot accomplish this.

>A
Popular prodigy driven further and further into paranoia and Machiavellian bitterness as a result of his malicious surroundings. Has a natural talent for compromising and leadership in general. In recent decades, he has given an inch to have a mile taken from him more times than he can count, and he has grown intolerant of the vultures and sociopaths he associates with. Doesn't put up with their shit anymore, but ultimately pays the price for it. Becomes absolutely ruthless after having to deal with S, the final straw to his civility, blinding himself and opening up fatal weaknesses.

>C
While L wishes to depart from reality, C is already completely dissociated from all conventional views of morality and has relinquished her humanity in favor of forbidden knowledge and raw power. Through many a prophecy and vision, she has become convinced that she knows everything that was, is, and will, and that she will be the harbinger of a new paradigm. Has no weaknesses or traits to hold her back, instead living the life of an eldritch nightmare in a human body. Drives S insane with feelings of inadequacy who in turn ruins A, bringing down the world order and leaving C as the queen of the ashes.

My character is a life preserving man who is struggling with the ideological problem of fighting to protect others.

My buddy's is a whiny noble trying to outshine his brothers, who are accomplished in areas he is trying to break into.

Member 3 is a devout worshipper of her weird foreign god trying to spread faith and is ruthlessly competent and tired of our shit in general.

Member 4 is trying to write the ultimate adventurer's tale; a catchy single that doesn't sacrifice artistic integrity.

How'd I do?

I'm the GM of a custom setting supers game. The PCs are as follows.

A carefree destructive diner aficionado.

A schizophrenic communist shut-in who loves moeblob animes and knows of (and possibly believes) almost every conspiracy out there.

A good intentioned and kind person whose desire for truth, justice, and heroics is never stymied.

An odd individual who collects credit cards, loves disguises, and is perpetually cheery.

How so? I actually rather like them.

>Guy with an unhealthy obsession with body modification and technology.
>Sociopath who constantly plots against and deceives his own friends and employers for no reason other than "because it's interesting". Keeps a record of the number of people whose deaths he has caused, not because he regrets them, but because he likes to brag about what an awesome shot he is.
>Brash, headstrong man who massively overestimates his own abilities and those of his comrades, and then becomes pouty and petty when his overconfidence results in severe consequences. He refuses to accept loss, either personal or financial, unless the only other option is absolute certain death. He is more than willing to risk his own life and the lives of those around him in near-suicidal gambits for more money; money which he will then immediately spend to acquire shiny, fancy pieces of equipment which he really doesn't need. He insists that he is an amazing leader, even though he has never devised a strategy more intricate than "charge" and he has never given a speech more inspiring than "Look at how awesome I am. With someone like me leading you, how could you possibly fail?"
>A basically decent, laid-back guy who is willing to make sacrifices for the sake of survival. He knows when to cut his losses and run, he is reluctant but willing to abandon party members if the situation looks hopeless.

literally Artorias, literally Lady Maria, literally Seath, the straight (wo)man and a pony

Fuck your Plinkett test. The only tests I take are Save vs Will and Save vs Death.

I'll start with my character since I know her best.
When the adventure began she was cynical and manipulative. She yearned for martial and especially political power, willing to lie and cheat behind oponent's backs while beaming to the public. She acted gracious, gentle, and always empathetic, while behind closed doors she was ruthless.
As the campaign continued she began championing the outcasts of society, as she was one herself due to her deity of worship. She was also struggling with the fact that she was barren, a cruel fate to the worshipper of a fertility goddess. Through gaining mutual trust and respect with her party she's starting to lose the edge of her cynicism, and beginning to become a truly compassionate leader.

A religiously devoted fanatic who gave her life for her goddess and serves even in death. Cheeky little bitch, enjoys kharmic retribution and kicking back in the sun. Built herself a foster daughter.

A homicidal maniac from a magically created race that eats people in order to survive. Recently humanized by a nice man who taught her what morality is. Struggles with the concept of other people being both equals and prey. Despite being seductive and clandestine in her methods, she is still honorable due to an early mentor's teaching and keeps her word.

I'll cut you off each time you fail the test by mentioning something you are supposed to have avoided.

>>Yoshikage Kira is a serial killer
Fail, mentioned role
>who resides in the town of Morioh
Fail, where he lives is irrelevant
>who has a hand fetish where he chops off the hand of his victims. During a later part of the story, he takes the identity of a salary man
Fail, mentioned profession
with a wife and child and tries to keep his murderous tendencies under wraps while taking on the role of the patriarch of the family.
Fail, mentioned role again

The point of the test is to only talk about the character's motivations and personality traits, not plot or setting or role in the story.

You misunderstand the Plinkett test.

The Plinkett test isn't about describing everything about a character. Your description will be entirely more complete without those restrictions. But if a character can't pass the test, they are objectively inferior to those that can.

> Bogdan

Stubborn, angry, and defined by what he hates. Bogdan hates everything, and uses that hatred to fuel his march onward toward the next fight. Bogdan lives, and he suffers, and he draws strength from that suffering to cause harm to that which he hates. Bogdan has lost everything, and so he'll take everything from the world. Choleric in temperament.

> Vin

A troubled veteran who struggles with the knowledge that he's damned his soul. Although an able leader, he resents the fact that the party has thrust him into the role of commander, and secretly wishes the burden to be taken from him. Towards that end, he has stopped acting as the party conscience. Melancholic in temperament.

> Lucina

A sociopath, through and through. She enjoys causing pain, flouting the rules and doing whatever it takes to give her a thrill, to the point of committing random acts of cruelty. Lucina is only kind to those who can give her something, and has no sense of loyalty to anyone but herself. Sanguine in temperament.

> Temuchiin

A boisterous, good-hearted scoundrel whose joviality masks a secret shame. Capable of both great humor and great rage, Tem savors life's every moment and sensation from minute to minute. Although apparently ruled by his passions, Temuchiin's inherent goodness often puts him at odds with the party's cruelty, even if he might have to delay gratification in exchange for doing the right thing. Sanguine in temperament.

> Talos

A dullard who is trying to mask his lack of competence. Fate has gifted him a set of skills, but his turkey-wit and coward's heart limit their usefulness to the immediate. Talos is slow to think and slow to act, but once he moves it is with the power of a thundercloud. Talos is an enabler by heart, and so he often finances the group's excesses. Talos is defined both by his lack of schooling and his desire to overcome it. Phlegmatic in temperament.

>Bogdan
Uh, can I get a quick rundown on this guy?