Original characters are not always fan characters; see Mae by Paige for one such example.

honestly, this alias creates a ton of mistagging and its objectively bad alias. the term is not exclusively used to refer fan characters (in fact it refers more commonly non-fan characters) and people add it to their own ocs without realizing what it causes.

Original characters that are not fan characters shouldn't be tagged as original characters. By that logic all characters are original characters. It doesn't mean anything.

But I agree, original_character should be aliased to invalid_tag not fan_character. If you post your OC just tag its name.

Carnaxus said:
Original characters are not always fan characters; see Mae by Paige for one such example.

The entire point of "original character" is to specify that you have added an original character of yours to an existing franchise, as opposed to a canon character. It's just a more "professional" way to say fan character.

If your character is COMPLETELY original and appearing in a completely original world of yours, then you don't need to make that distinction. It becomes a moot point.

FibS said:
The entire point of "original character" is to specify that you have added an original character of yours to an existing franchise, as opposed to a canon character. It's just a more "professional" way to say fan character.

If your character is COMPLETELY original and appearing in a completely original world of yours, then you don't need to make that distinction. It becomes a moot point.

I wouldn't call it professional, honestly it sounds more arrogant to call say 'original character' in place of 'fan character'. If it's a fan-made character in an established universe, there's not really as much originality as the fan thinks.

In short, I agree with aliasing 'original_character' to 'invalid_tag'.

Oh see, Donut steel.

MissChu said:
I wouldn't call it professional, honestly it sounds more arrogant to call say 'original character' in place of 'fan character'. If it's a fan-made character in an established universe, there's not really as much originality as the fan thinks.

In short, I agree with aliasing 'original_character' to 'invalid_tag'.

Believe it or not, that "arrogance" is way more common than people referring to fanchiseless characters as original.

Well, the reason people refer to non-franchise characters as 'original characters' are more complicated.

Way back when, in the early days of the internet. everyone was very careful to place copyright information on any fan art or fanfic they did, because people were actually, literally getting threatened with legal action. When 'everyone' does something, it's easy to assume you need to do it too. "everyone says 'Stuff like "Lestat belongs to Anne Rice, but Ebony Dementia Raven belongs to ME!' ... so maybe I need to clarify that it's mine?"

Plus, when you create an interesting character, there's a lot of people who'll ask "whoa, he looks cool, what's he from?" leading to the explanation of "no, he's mine, I made him" and it's easier to forstall that by just explaining that they're an original character, not from any franchise.

Or that they're a fan character in the such and such setting.

Obviously, we're no longer in the dark days of the itnernet, but some habits live on

No.
By removing this alias and going by the logic provided in the op post, it would mean every image NOT tagged fan character would be tagged original character.
It is a useless tag, only people who need feel to use the "original character" on art are usually those under the age of 18 who think everyone is out to steal their characters.

Chaser said:
It is a useless tag, only people who need feel to use the "original character" on art are usually those under the age of 18 who think everyone is out to steal their characters.

Again, original character is *also* a way of stating that, no, this character is is not from some TV show, it's 'mine'. I have spent much time browsing around. If you are at all a popular artist and you do not say "This is my character" you will have people asking what it's from.

And honestly, I really prefer people state it clearly: I hate when I have to spent 20 minutes searching around for ANY character information... Is it the artist's character? a character from a show? a commission? a friend??????

also, i generally agree in that original character is a useless tag, and should not be used on the site. It should not be aliased away to fan character either.

MissChu said:
I wouldn't call it professional, honestly it sounds more arrogant to call say 'original character' in place of 'fan character'.

Arrogance and professionalism are only distinguished by perspective

FibS said:
Arrogance and professionalism are only distinguished by perspective

Well, that's certifiably incorrect.

The biggest idiots can be extremely confident and still be wrong.

FibS said:
Arrogance and professionalism are only distinguished by perspective

There is a difference. The latter gets the job done. The former thinks the only difference is perspective.

kamimatsu said:
There is a difference. The latter gets the job done. The former thinks the only difference is perspective.

So you're turning this into a personal attack at the first opportunity.

e621 as usual, I see.

kamimatsu said:
There is a difference. The latter gets the job done. The former thinks the only difference is perspective.

FibS said:
So you're turning this into a personal attack at the first opportunity.

e621 as usual, I see.

Holy crab muffins, people, can't we be civil for one god damn thread?

I don't see much proof that this alias causes mistags. Original_character is barely even tagged nowadays, mostly for MLP and Pokemon fan characters.

Also note that most of those originate from tags copied from other places: for instance, PoniBooru uses the original_character tag for fan characters. If the alias is undoed, those'll result in unnecessary invalid tags.

Probably best to just leave it.

Honestly the only problem I have this tag is people use it in lieu of "MLP" or "SONIC" or other more legit tags meaning those of us who blacklist certain things have no way to blacklist a color-swapped version of an official character without also blocking anything we DO want to see with an OC tag.

MissChu said:
Holy crab muffins, people, can't we be civil for one god damn thread?

post #299084

Perhaps the tags need “official” E621 definitions in order to be unaliased. I’ve always understood an original character to be one created by the person making the artwork, and not affiliated with any previously established universe other than the one the original artist is drawing them in.

For example, a picture of Superman in Metropolis done by Stan Lee would be eligible to receive the original_character tag. A picture of Superman in Ponyville done by Stan Lee would still be eligible. However, a picture of Superman in Metropolis done by someone other than Stan Lee would not be eligible for either original_character nor fan_character. A picture of a character invented by the artist, set in Stan Lee’s Metropolis, would receive the fan_character tag, but a picture by the same artist, of the same character, but in the artist’s imagined world would instead receive original_character.

Hopefully that clears it up a bit.

Carnaxus said:
Perhaps the tags need “official” E621 definitions in order to be unaliased. I’ve always understood an original character to be one created by the person making the artwork, and not affiliated with any previously established universe other than the one the original artist is drawing them in.

For example, a picture of Superman in Metropolis done by Stan Lee would be eligible to receive the original_character tag. A picture of Superman in Ponyville done by Stan Lee would still be eligible. However, a picture of Superman in Metropolis done by someone other than Stan Lee would not be eligible for either original_character nor fan_character. A picture of a character invented by the artist, set in Stan Lee’s Metropolis, would receive the fan_character tag, but a picture by the same artist, of the same character, but in the artist’s imagined world would instead receive original_character.

Hopefully that clears it up a bit.

That's a useless definition. If you want Stan's own Superman, search for stan_lee superman. Original_character is too frequently used for the latter case, "I made this character for someone else's world, but the character is mine."

Here's what I believe to be true, and I strongly suggest people agree:

Fan_characters are characters that are made, by a separate author/creator, to have an intended affiliation to an existing creation that originated from another author/creator. I.e., Kuroodod's fursona (by Kuroodod), and Mae (by Paige, yes I used someone's valid example).

Original characters are standalone creations that have no intended affiliation with any other creation. I.e., Kalnareff (by Kalnareff), and Shane Panther (by Adam Wan).

See, for Kuroodod's fursona, it is generally depicted as a Pokémon, therefore a fan character. Same with Mae, who is depicted to have been from, and inspired by, Guild Wars.

Shane Panther and Kalnareff, however, are characters who are, like I said, standalone. This is intentional and they have no affiliation with any other creation. (There are exceptions, if either is depicted to be in someone else's creation, they are still technically original characters because they are not created to have been in that relation. Take Kalnareff for example, the character interacts with pokemon in various pictures, it does not make him a fan_character because he is a separate creation. Interactions do not make someone a fan_character, but their personality/looks/story do.)

My suggestion: People just admit that their character is either original or fan.

There are those who say their fan_character is an original_character. This is a misconception that has been made, which is o.k.. The truth is that, yes, it is an original character, but not an original_character. Yes, you made it, but it is not from an original anything. It is an original, CREATION, but not from an original, independent source.

Here is a good example: Let's say I made a Pokémon named Luke the Lucario (tbh there are so many fucking 'luke the lucarios' it's driving me insane), it is a Pokémon, made from the Pokémon story. This means Luke is a fan_character. Yes, he could be my sole creation, but he is not completely standalone and original.

But let's say, instead, I made a character called Vace, (made it up off the top of my head so I don't if there is someone else named Vace but regardless...), Vace is a fox anthromorph that has no affiliation with any other story, he is my sole creation and my own character that I made. Which would make him an original_character.

One last topic to discuss is "inspiration". Inspiration does not always make a character an original or fan character. If 'Vace' was inspired by one/multiple stories, it would not make him a fan character if I made him standalone. Like let's say if Vace had a robotic eye, or he was a hitman. Those two things could be inspired by something, but it is not intentionally having to do with someone else's creation. (One exception is if there is a story-specific item, i.e. the Vorpal Sword from the live action Alice in Wonderland, then that would make him a fan_character if it is his signature weapon. If it is referenced that he had the sword or used it at one point it does not make him a fan character. Like Wonder Woman from DC being able to lift Thor's hammer and using it. Vace could also just happen to be walking in Alice in Wonderland for some reason.)

If I made 'Vace' intentionally with a relation to 'Warframe' then he would be a fan_character, but he is not, so he is an original_character.

I hope this explanation helped some people.

Uh... do you have any proof that Paige's Mae was from Guild Wars? The rabbit cub, anthropomorphic and often drawn in explicit content. That's from Guild Wars...?

Mae's character sheet doesn't say anything about Guild Wars, I don't think you're right in claiming she's from or inspired by Guild Wars. I think that's speculation on your account.

Twines said:
Same with Mae, who is depicted to have been from, and inspired by, Guild Wars.

quick question, where you got this information? because i have over thousand hours of gameplay in gw2 and i cannot come up with any connections between this character and anything in guild wars universe.

I am pretty sure Mae also predates guild wars 1.

I thiiiiink the first pictures of her were posted on a friends oekaki board, a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away-- before 36 even came around.

Siral_Exan said:
Uh... do you have any proof that Paige's Mae was from Guild Wars? The rabbit cub, anthropomorphic and often drawn in explicit content. That's from Guild Wars...?

Mae's character sheet doesn't say anything about Guild Wars, I don't think you're right in claiming she's from or inspired by Guild Wars. I think that's speculation on your account.

In hindsight I knew it might be a sketchy reference, but she was tagged 'Guild_Wars' so I took it as fact. I didn't really look further than the tags. I admit that I might have been wrong. This is what happens with bad tagging (if that's the case). But assuming she is from Guild Wars then what I said makes sense. If she's not then the fan_character logic does not apply and she would then be an original_character.

Lord_Eggplant said:
quick question, where you got this information? because i have over thousand hours of gameplay in gw2 and i cannot come up with any connections between this character and anything in guild wars universe.

I got the information at the top of this thread.

And as for what you've stated, her not looking anything like Guild Wars, this is essentially the idea of a fan_character, sure there might not be much to her looks to say she's straight from Guild Wars, but if she was tagged GW with the intention of being related to the universe and (quite possibly) from it, then she would be a fan_character.

Twines said:
In hindsight I knew it might be a sketchy reference, but she was tagged 'Guild_Wars' so I took it as fact. I didn't really look further than the tags. I admit that I might have been wrong. This is what happens with bad tagging (if that's the case). But assuming she is from Guild Wars then what I said makes sense. If she's not then the fan_character logic does not apply and she would then be an original_character.

I got the information at the top of this thread.

And as for what you've stated, her not looking anything like Guild Wars, this is essentially the idea of a fan_character, sure there might not be much to her looks to say she's straight from Guild Wars, but if she was tagged GW with the intention of being related to the universe and (quite possibly) from it, then she would be a fan_character.

post #346181
this is not paige's mae. this is some completely different person's character who just happens to have same name. it has absolutely nothing to do with paige's mae who you were talking about.

Lord_Eggplant said:
post #346181
this is not paige's mae. this is some completely different person's character who just happens to have same name. it has absolutely nothing to do with paige's mae who you were talking about.

I was already told. The logic can still apply, I just used a bad example. Thank you for correcting this.

Back to the original topic, fan and original characters, the other three examples were more than good enough to set things straight.

Furrin_Gok said:
That's a useless definition. If you want Stan's own Superman, search for stan_lee superman. Original_character is too frequently used for the latter case, "I made this character for someone else's world, but the character is mine."

I used Superman to explain what I define an original character as. Obviously, for a character as famous as Superman, you’d be better off just searching for/tagging as Superman.

The example you gave, of people using “original_character” for their own character who is a part of someone else’s world, would be better tagged as “fan_character,” but that doesn’t make the “original_character” tag useless or invalid.