[quote]T'is a sad day when beasts must be unchained to fix the folly of man.[/quote]

I'm Prince. If you don't know me, that's probably for the better. If you do know me, you know this is about to get fun. You're either going to absolutely hate me or applaud for me by the end of this post, and I'm telling you now that I firmly believe the former of those two is the more interesting one. I thrive off of rage, frustration, discomfort; all of those things are, for better or worse, no more than another form of passion that the edified can use to fuel their personal abilities. Allow [b]me[/b] to [i]elaborate using a tangible example:[/i]

[indent]First and foremost, anyone whom believes that no one can write a canon character effectively is, in my opinion, a fucking idiot. I'm going to use logic so basic here that even Mr. Torn is going to appear ignorant in its shadow. It has nothing to do with fan fiction or personal opinion. It has to do with fact. Prior to this post, someone brought up the fact Wolverine has been around for forty some-odd years, and spoiler alert he's destined to die permanently in September in mainstream canon due to losing his healing factor. Shocker, right? Moving on. Wolverine started out as an off-villain for the Hulk and evolved into the character he is today; as a matter of fact, he was supposed to be a mutant Wolverine that turned sentient and humanoid. Fun facts, but again I do digress. There have literally been dozens and dozens of writers for Wolverine in hundreds if not thousands of plotlines, stories, comics, etc. that have all considered those Wolverine variants canon. Canon is a hard concept to pin down, as a matter of fact. Is Earth Prime or Earth-616 canon? Is it what is the most mainstream? Are you going to disregard stories of the Wolverine variants that are so greatly varied from the more mainstream concepts as 'poor interpretations' because you disagree with them? The answer is yes, but it should be no. Wolverine is a character that has been rewrote and retconned (retroactive continuity, for anyone whom actually doesn't know the term; it originates in comics) so many times that he is a concept with little static or concrete information about him. Any player that knows enough about Wolverine and comics knows that two different, yet [b]VERY[/b] talented comic writers for Marvel might have Wolverine do completely different things in the same situation. One writer might push individual character development and another may push the collaborative story-telling aspect of every character in terms of a story. These are personal preferences by writers that are in my opinion far superior to us that make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in profit due to their prolific writing styles, and that alone gives them claim to superiority. Fact is, there are dozens of people that have partaken in 'creating' Wolverine through his actual creation and integrating him into the world that became that of The Uncanny X-Men. The ability to play as him effectively is in fact one of skill and personal preference. I could do so, I'm sure, but I choose not to because I don't enjoy playing canon characters; that has nothing to do with skill, that is personal preference.[/indent]

But, I will move on from that alone. I'm going to bring up to entirely valid points that will later become far more profound. The first is the sheer essence of roleplaying. I've read a majority of the posts here and came to the conclusion that a lot of roleplayers don't understand that the entire point of roleplay is to interact. I have some strict definitions of roleplaying I use when I teach, but I'll skip the lecture and simply state that one has to interact to roleplay. Elsewise, you're solo writing. Roleplaying has recently become somewhat of a derogatory term so much to the degree that myself and a few other roleplayers I know of higher stature refer to the act of roleplay as 'collaborative writing' because it tosses off the shackles of distaste given to us by sex-fueled kids and those punks on facebook with thousands of fake accounts and far too much free time. The second point I want to make is that maturity is a pointless measure as it can only refer to one of two things: physiological and psychological development. Regardless of what model you use, psychological development can happen in stages and be skipped, but any educated individual knows that a majority of what we call common sense or mature actions are actually those that are in line with societal and personal beliefs. Anyone who judges another are physiological development goes into a debate so deep it would requite a novel for me to retort to.

Those two facts are important. All roleplay centers around interaction, but what some people neglect is that there is so much personal preference and influence from individual roleplaying styles that it is sheer ignorance to believe one way is a way it should be. I personally change my outlook at times mid-roleplay just to spice it up, but sometimes you must focus on the plot and disregard finite details about the characters. At other times, one must stretch the setting and plot and even create formerly non-existent events to make a character fit in. There are points in a [b]healthy[/b] roleplay when that can happen and when it can't, and it's normally up to a [b]good[/b] GM or at least an observant roleplayer to decide those times. The future cannot be planned out, but it can be prepared for. That said, I've read through plenty of opinions, valid points and well-structured statements in this thread that tell me that some people have their opinions and respectfully allow them to clash or mingle with others while some people are just fucking assholes that believe the world is black and white. I do sound hypocritical saying that after I boldly went so far as to claim that anyone whom thinks a canon character cannot be roleplayed effectively is an idiot, but let me addend that:

[indent]At times, canon is clear. The actions of a character are determined in short increments and are always evolving. The fact is, there is often not enough information presented in real canon to make a justifiable decision as to what level of psychological development would proceed. Examples of this are Avatar: The Last Airbender. We don't know how Aang grew up or how his personality shifted or changed when he united the world and made Republic City, and no roleplayer has enough source material to truly make an Aang that is justified. Batman, however, is a different story. So is Green Lantern, Superman, Wolvernie, Charles Xavier, so on and so forth. Canon characters are not cut and dry and the fact you face is that sometimes comic writers use the same techniques of on-the-spot creation that we do, simply far better. Some characters do not exist to be fleshed out or roleplayed and using them in a fan fiction or roleplaying deeply as them intrinsically defeats that initial purpose. The best example for this are the dozens of spin off Spiderman comics that show Peter Parker, whom was always interpreted as the 'boy overcoming struggle and adversity' maturing into an adult and how he would act, how his parents, Mary Jane, Uncle Ben and even his Aunt still affect his persona as a man, yet do so differently. Spoiler, Peter Parker dies them is seemingly coming right the fuck back! Mainstream comics don't show that level of maturity, but these brilliant writers still try. The fact there is that even if you act against the nature of a character, you can still do them justice, but that does [b]NOT[/b] mean you are roleplaying them. You aren't roleplaying Wolverine or Spiderman or anyone else; you're roleplaying that character AS PERCEIVED BY YOU and it simply won't be the same. That doesn't dilute quality, but that doesn't mean you're always going to do them justice or abide by canon either. This is a conflict every comic writer has to get over and a conflict every writer should just understand is neither good nor bad, like some of the members of this conversation seem to insist. It's not about maturity or development, it is personal preference yet again.[/indent]

So, what have I seen through all these opinions and arguments? A whole lot of ignorance and intolerance to poor writing, but that's fine. Every writer takes time to develop and if you don't feel someone is on your level, move on or help them. This entire post was about bitching, so let me take a turn? You know what pisses me off? People who think their ability to structure out arguments make them better. I've been bested by people with one-liners and simple replies because they just plain knew what they were talking about. I'll admit it. You don't need grammar or witty comebacks to be impressive or knowledgeable and I think it's stupid as fuck that someone tried. That same someone even tried to claim that people were ignoring the 'content' of his arguments and if I were so volatile to point them out, I'd tell them that I read every fucking word and I'm here to tell him half the shit he says is nothing but a pointless ego trip he thought he'd get away with and won't. A majority of it was just fluff to fill in a few insults and string along a concept as vague as the replies made to him. I've seen it a million times from people who bring up "veterans of roleplay" or "I've been roleplaying x amount of years"; so fucking what. You're still a pretentious dick and no amount of flowery language or literary technique is going to fix that shit. Fuck off.

[indent][i]Sincerely, 
The Gentlemen Beast[/i][/indent]