Photo by Zain Fianz courtesy Life of Pix. I couldn’t resist a larger version, click on the image.

I was reading an article the other week about a fan theory regarding Gilligan’s Island – well, actually, it’s more like two related theories, one of which is partially contingent on the other. As I was musing (and chuckling, I must admit), the thought occurred to me that with a little tweaking, one of those theories would furnish a couple of great tools for the development of interesting PCs. And you can never have too many of those on tap, right?

Gilligan’s Island

Gilligan’s Island was a half-hour sitcom from the mid-60s. After being shipwrecked on an uncharted tropical island by a storm, 7 castaways seek (a) to survive; (b) to escape; and (c) to better their living conditions. The series was a daytime television staple while I was growing up, and no-one who has ever heard the theme will ever forget it (even if the first version named some but not all the castaways) – you can revive your memories with .

• Gilligan, the titular character, is the bumbling, accident-prone first mate of the S.S.Minnow, who is also inadvertently responsible for foiling most of the escape attempts – sometimes saving the others from flaws in their plans in the process.
• Jonas Grumby, almost always simply referred to as “Skipper” or “The Skipper”, is the captain of the S.S.Minnow, a father-figure to Gilligan, for whom he has deep affection after Gilligan saved his life during World War II, and often refers to him as “Little Buddy”. Despite this, The Skipper is frequently exasperated with Gilligan and swats him on the head with his cap. Gilligan and the Skipper share a bamboo hut (constructed by the castaways after they were marooned).
• Thurston Howell III is a caricature of the multimillionaire – a billionaire until the Great Depression – who attempts to use his money to solve all his problems, or pay others to do it for him. Always referred to by his full name or as “Mr Howell”.
• Howell’s wife is “Mrs Howell” (full name Eunice Lovelle Wentworth Howell, rarely used) serves as a more passive foil for her husband who is, perhaps, more concerned with social position than with wealth itself. Both Howells turn up their noses at Nouveau-Rich. She appears to have a trunk of endless clothing and accessories, though an iconic necklace of pearls and an umbrella are the most common addition to her very conservative attire. The Howells share a second hut.
• Ginger Grant is a movie star, Hollywood celebrity, and occasional Diva. According to Wikipedia, “Her character was originally written as a hard nosed, sharp tongued temptress, but [the actress] argued that this portrayal was too harsh and refused to play it as written. A compromise was reached; [she] agreed to play her as a Marilyn Monroe/Jayne Mansfield type. The evening gowns and hairstyle used were designed to re-create the look of Myrna Loy.
• Mary-Ann Summers (surname rarely mentioned) was a simple farm girl from Kansas, the very exemplar of the-girl-next-door. Although it is rarely stated explicitly, there are hints that she does the bulk of the cooking for the castaways, assisted by Ginger. Mary-Ann and Ginger share a third hut.
• “The Professor” evolved as the first season progressed; originally a Research Scientist and well known Scoutmaster, he was then redefined as a university lecturer, and then as a high school science teacher. Perhaps the most iconic role, “The professor” has been lampooned in both Bloom County and a Weird Al Yankovic song; in the first, he is able to make a satellite dish from a couple of clam shells but can’t build a boat; in the latter, he is described as “brilliant enough to ‘make a nuclear reactor from a couple of coconuts’ [but] cannot ‘build a lousy raft’.” The actor’s autobiography refutes those acts of creativity as exaggeration and hyperbole but admits that for all his smarts, the professor could not build a boat. He had a hut of his own.

Most of the plots centered around one or more of five themes (paraphrased from Wikipedia):

• A running gag the castaways’ ability to fashion a vast array of useful objects from bamboo and other local material. Some are simple everyday things, while others are stretches of the imagination including framed huts with thatched grass sides and roofs, bamboo closets strong enough to withstand hurricane-force winds and rain, a communal dining table and chairs, pipes for Gilligan’s hot water, a stethoscope, and a pedal-powered car.
• A succession of improbable visitors to the island, none of whom ever succeed in helping rescue the castaways, though they always escape/get rescued themselves. Gilligan, Mr Powell, and Ginger each had feature episodes in which look-alikes come to the island . The island itself is also home to an unusual assortment of animal life, some native, some visiting.
• Dream sequences in which one of the castaways “dreams” he or she is some character related to that week’s storyline. All of the castaways would appear as other characters within the dream. In later interviews and memoirs, almost all of the actors stated that the dream episodes were among their personal favorites.
• The appearance or arrival of strange objects, like a WWII mine or a “Mars Rover” that the scientists back in the USA think is sending them pictures of Mars, and in one episode a meteorite.
• A piece of news concerning the castaways arriving from the outside world that causes discord among them, normally followed eventually by a second piece of news that says the first was incorrect (there was one variation in which that did not happen).

The Theory

I came across this theory and its companion at Looper dot com in an article entitled “Fan theories that will make you see TV shows differently“. They claim to have got it in turn from somewhere called “Mental Floss” but didn’t provide a link, stating only that “one fan theory claims that…”

That theory: The S.S. Minnow never made it to the island, all aboard drowned at sea. The island that they perceive is a representation of Hell, and Gilligan is actually Satan.

While this is amusing to contemplate, and no more implausible than a great many events in the show, it has no bearing on today’s subject, so let’s move on.

The Second Theory

The second theory, which is apparently from the same source, suggests that the non-Gilligan characters each represent one or more of the seven deadly sins. To paraphrase slightly: Mr. Howell is greed for worrying about his huge trunk of money that he brought with him — why would you bring that with you on a three-hour-long boat tour? Mrs. Howell is sloth for pretty much doing nothing during most of the show, while The Skipper embodies both anger and gluttony, probably for his temper and constant snacking habits. Ginger, the sultry movie star, is of course lust, and Mary Ann is envy “(no doubt envious of Ginger)”. Lastly, the Professor represents pride, because he’s immensely talented and useful, making all kinds of inventions to help the group survive the island.

This far harder to swallow. It’s plausible at the start, but Mary-Ann never showed any signs of envy of Ginger (or of any of the others, each of whom had some enviable quality, whether it was the Howell’s money or the bond of friendship between the Skipper and Gilligan) and the Professor was one of the most humble characters on the show, often needing a confidence boost from one of the other characters (which turns out to be justified when the Professor duly succeeds – unless the task is repairing the hull of the Minnow, of course).

It’s right up there with the theory that the Skipper and Gilligan were secretly gay because they shared a hut. It smacks of being something you might come up with if you had never watched the show, only read or heard about it.

My verdict on both theories: Pretentious Twaddle that takes the series far more pompously than it deserves. It’s a situation comedy, not a philosophy/theology allegory.

But even if it holds no merit as a theory, or even if the characters evolved from an initial concept mirroring that of the theory, that doesn’t mean that the concept of building a character around one of the seven deadly sins is without merit.

The principle concept

The core of the idea that this represents is that of the flawed hero. Flawed heroes, especially those who overcome or transcend those flaws, or who succeed despite them, are usually a lot more interesting than a vision of some abstract perfection. Not only are we, as an audience, more able to relate to the character by virtue of the flaws, but the flaws enable them to get into more interesting situations.

The First Tool: Weakness

The first tool is simple: the owner of the character being created (or redeveloped, if you are applying these tools to an existing character) simply chooses one of the 7 deadly sins – Greed, Anger, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, Envy, or Pride – and specifies that the character has a weakness in that area. How that weakness will manifest depends on the character archetype and race.

Working with the tool

To use this information, the player needs to accept the flaw as fundamental to who the character is, and actively look for ways to reflect it in his roleplay – from casual conversation to decisions and even actions. Like casting aside a broadsword and attacking with a dagger instead to try and avoid damaging the fancy armor, or knowing the best place to eat (even if only by reputation) in every village, or engaging passersby on the subject of what wine they had last night and was it any good, or whatever.

The other half of the responsibility belongs to the GM, who must deliberately salt his narratives, encounters, and adventures with opportunities for the player to express this aspect of the character. Some of these may be to his benefit, in terms of plot (or to the character’s detriment, in other words), while others would provide an avenue for the character to enjoy himself. Most should simply be neutral, neither detrimental nor beneficial, of no great significance – they do nothing but add color to the character.

But it’s not without it’s benefits for both parties: the player gets a character that’s more fun to play, and the GM gets a character that can more easily be worked into adventures in different ways.

Delving Deeper

Some GMs and some players may want to delve deeper; some campaigns demand it. This usually involves two things from the character’s past: how they learned to cope with this moral weakness, and what caused it, which is usually a generational issue. Pride: perhaps the character’s parents were so humble and self-depreciating, so lacking in self-confidence, that they were bullied endlessly while the character was growing up (and presumably before he or she was born) – as shown in Back To The Future – so the character made up their mind never to let themselves be overlooked or bullied, to always stand tall and get noticed (Suddenly I’m having flashbacks to the Charles Atlas bodybuilding ads in the comics).

Or greed: the character’s mother was the type that would always donate to the church even if it meant the family went without, and the character resented this, much as he or she loves the church. They are still their mother’s son or daughter, they will still donate to the church – they just want to enjoy their money first.

The Second Tool: Resistance

When initially conceived, that was where this article was going to end (I was very tired). When I was more rested, I immediately saw that there was an optional second tool that could be employed; resistance to a common manifestation of one of the 7 deadly sins or their antithetical virtue.

This is a little trickier: the temptation to which the character is to be resistant should be something to which they are exposed regularly by virtue of their archetype, class, and/or race. They should NOT be especially resistant to other manifestations of that Sin/Virtue, just to the one specific item.

This can have a major influence on character inter-relationships, and so should be the subject of careful consideration and management – one character’s weakness to a vice and another’s resistance to same can either become the cornerstone of their relationship, or can actually cancel out much of the benefit derived from the weakness/flaw in the first place.

As usual, half the responsibility for employing the tool belongs to the player and half to the GM. The great virtue of the second tool is that it gives something else for the character to react to, helping prevent any “one trick pony” personalities. Also, as before, it’s always possible to delve deeper and determine what incident(s) or family history led to the character developing this immunity.

It’s all a matter of personality

It’s very easy to play an RPG, especially if the criterion is simple decision-making intended to derive the maximum gain for the character. The better the player, the more strongly their decisions are colored by, or driven by, a well-defined personality, and the better they are at expressing and manifesting that personality. By definition, these will differ to at least some degree from the optimum choice at least some of the time.

That’s why min-maxing is petty and juvenile and should be regarded in that light; it is making decisions that should be personality-focused on a strictly objective analysis of game mechanics, and that’s close to the very bottom rung of the player-quality ladder. The question should be, “What game-mechanics values more perfectly reflect what this character should be able to do,” or even “What does this game-mechanics capability tell me about the personality of the character?”

When I was starting out, the ideal to aim for as a player was to be able to wear the character like a second skin, and to think like the character would, especially when that was different from the way the player thought, or what a strictly objective / game-mechanics analysis would dictate. GMs were even willing to bend or change the game rules to enable a better expression of character; the rules were a necessarily-incomplete and limited tool for sharpening the imagination into specifics.

Using the Gilligan-derived Personality Tools should help players and GMs recapture some of that old-school flavor in their campaigns – without sacrificing any of the benefits of more modern standards of game system and rationality of design. You won’t find many better bargains than that.