Rip/Criticize my character: Angela Copperfield.

[AlexanderHowl]

She is a delusional megalomaniac who is not a supervillain associating with other supervillains. She is not a legitimate threat. If she was, she would have dropped dead long ago.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

She is a delusional megalomaniac who is not a supervillain associating with other supervillains. She is not a legitimate threat. If she was, she would have dropped dead long ago.

Yep! Although she really is more of a scam-artist than a delusional megalomaniac XD

[pestigor]

I've been trying to figure out what is is you want. If this is a player character, it's outside the scope of anything I'd ever allow as a GM (I mean that I wouldn't even consider a paradigm for a game constructed world that this character could ever exist in). If it's an NPC then it doesn't really matter as the GM can do whatever the heck they want and there isn't squat a group could do except leave the game.
Just because the Gurps rules are capable of something doesn't mean it should and I suppose this is the place for feedback on character concepts outside of the usual scope of any game I've ever seen.
That said, what exactly are you trying to figure out about this character?
If it's viability, sure if you have a GM willing to do a game with this level of power/control then sure why not. If you're wondering the level of "reality" of the character then it's pretty far off, like over the top comic book level of out there.
If you're a GM and wondering the "reality" of this NPC, it's the same as above but you're running the game and so I assume anyone playing is willing to engage in gonzo over the top comic book action.
What won't happen is anyone playing a 0-250pt game saying this character is viable in any game resembling reality as we know it.
So unless you need something more Alonsua, You do You.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by pestigor

I've been trying to figure out what is is you want. If this is a player character, it's outside the scope of anything I'd ever allow as a GM (I mean that I wouldn't even consider a paradigm for a game constructed world that this character could ever exist in). If it's an NPC then it doesn't really matter as the GM can do whatever the heck they want and there isn't squat a group could do except leave the game.
Just because the Gurps rules are capable of something doesn't mean it should and I suppose this is the place for feedback on character concepts outside of the usual scope of any game I've ever seen.
That said, what exactly are you trying to figure out about this character?
If it's viability, sure if you have a GM willing to do a game with this level of power/control then sure why not. If you're wondering the level of "reality" of the character then it's pretty far off, like over the top comic book level of out there.
If you're a GM and wondering the "reality" of this NPC, it's the same as above but you're running the game and so I assume anyone playing is willing to engage in gonzo over the top comic book action.
What won't happen is anyone playing a 0-250pt game saying this character is viable in any game resembling reality as we know it.
So unless you need something more Alonsua, You do You.

Well, she has been bioengineered and drugged to the top, that´s what makes the difference, I suppose. How many CPs are usually rewarded per year of campaign in one of those 0-250pt games?

[Pursuivant]

If her Trademark is an ordinary playing card, it's just a Quirk.

A distinctive playing card, modified in a significant way, and left in a particular location, might be a -5 point Quirk.

E.g., Always always leaves the Lovers Major Arcana card from the Waite-Rider Tarot deck, folded to form a triangle, near every lock she picks.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

If her Trademark is an ordinary playing card, it's just a Quirk.

A distinctive playing card, modified in a significant way, and left in a particular location, might be a -5 point Quirk.

E.g., Always always leaves the Lovers Major Arcana card from the Waite-Rider Tarot deck, folded to form a triangle, near every lock she picks.

This type of playing card:

Simple: Your Trademark takes very little time to leave and cannot be used to trace your identity, but you absolutely must leave it. You cannot leave the scene until you do, even if your enemies are breaking down the door. A typical example is something left at the scene – a playing card, a small stuffed animal, etc. – as long as it can’t be traced and takes little time. -5 points.

By definition I don´t think it should be distinctive or left in any specific place, so she would be carrying a deck of cards and randomly throwing one of them at the scenes.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

She is a delusional megalomaniac who is not a supervillain associating with other supervillains. She is not a legitimate threat. If she was, she would have dropped dead long ago.

Depending on the campaign I could see her as a recurring villain or a patron who's almost more trouble than she's worth.

If she appears as a villain, she's not exactly a supervillain, but more of a criminal mastermind who can cause the party all sorts of trouble, enjoys messing with their minds, and is competent enough that she can hold her own in social situations or certain types of combat.

[Alonsua]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Depending on the campaign I could see her as a recurring villain or a patron who's almost more trouble than she's worth.

If she appears as a villain, she's not exactly a supervillain, but more of a criminal mastermind who can cause the party all sorts of trouble, enjoys messing with their minds, and is competent enough that she can hold her own in social situations or certain types of combat.

Fair enough :)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by johndallman

You can't claim a disadvantage for sleep difficulties if you don't need to sleep.

Given her somewhat manic personality, Less Sleep would be a legitimate and realistic substitute for Doesn't Sleep.

[whswhs]

I think I have to ask what is the narrative that is supposed to be focused on this character. On one hand, you have them as a talented prestidigitator and deceiver, with the subnarrative of their cheating Las Vegas casinos (for which, I think, her skill levels are nowhere near to adequate; casinos can afford to hire very sharp people to spot that sort of thing and ban the people who do it, and she has to succeed in her deceptions every time to avoid this). On the other hand, you have her as the founder of a religion—and even if it's a consciously deceptive and fraudulent religion, that's a very different profile socially than "stage magician." On the gripping hand, you have the narrative about her being the product of an arcane exercise in genetic engineering (and one, by the way, that's hard to use to justify her gifts; people as recently dead as that weren't genetically different enough to support that narrative, I think). I'm not seeing any compelling reason that all three narratives should involve the same person, or even appear in the same story at all. It's kind of as if you are putting together a dish based on salmon, avocado, and maple syrup. What is the story logic of "putting A together with B makes B work better"?