This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
"It's also usually considered very bad behavior when a villain indulges in it, but a protagonist who uses this trick rarely meets with audience disapproval, which may be considered a Family-Unfriendly Aesop about when it's okay to tell a particularly underhanded lie.
This is also usually an example of Moral Dissonance: it's reprehensible when a villain does it, but a hero is likely to get cheered for successfully tricking the bad guys with this ruse."
Sunder the Gold: Addressing the idea that Moral Dissonance comes into play with this Trope:
If a villain punches the hero across the face in a fight, it's bad. If the hero punches the villain across the face in a fight, it's good. This is not simply because one is a villain and one is the hero. It goes into the deeper issue of why one is the villain and one is the hero in the first place.
The villain is punching the hero for no good reason — it is a means to the bad end of taking over the world, stealing the crown jewels, or killing the president. But the hero is punching the villain for a good reason — to prevent the villain from achieving his bad goal.
Just as a lethal tactic is always a lethal tactic ("Guns don't kill people, people kill people!") an underhanded tactic is always an underhanded tactic, but can still be used for an objectively good purpose. If the "I Surrender, Suckers!" gambit allows the hero to save the world, the jewels, or the President, then of course it was a far nobler thing than if the villain had used the same gambit to succeed in taking over the world, stealing the jewels, or killing the president.
In essence, is this tactic any different from the "Look behind you, what's that?!" ruse? If the villain uses it, it's bad. If the hero uses it, it's good. People are looking at the context and motive behind the use of the tactic, rather than taking the tactic out of context.
...Unless the protagonist is a Heroic Sociopath or some other villain-as-hero. But that scenario already presumes that people have left normal moral judgments and attitudes aside and don't care (much) how evil the protagonist's actions are, so long as they are bold, daring, and successful — all of which this trope fulfills. If people did NOT set their morality aside to enjoy such stories in the first place, they'd always get up and immediately leave the theatre when the protagonist's nature became apparent.
There are, of course, some underhanded tactics that cannot be used to a good purpose, such as implanting bombs in your messengers of peace without letting them know you're about to sacrifice their lives. But the reason this cannot be a good tactic is, again, because of motive. You may be trying to save the world (jewels, President), but you've written off your allies as expendable tools, which is not a moral thing to do.
Implanting bombs in volunteers on the other hand, is a different matter. In this case, it's not a disrepect for their lives that motivates the tactic, but respect - respect for their willingness to sacrifice for the cause.
It's all about motive. The road to hell isn't paved with good intentions, but with poor intentions dressed up by rationalization.
- About the Doctor Who example - Martha did the I Surrender, Suckers thing because she'd completed the first part of the plan (i.e. tell people all over the world about the Doctor). That's why she was hiding from the Master for a year: so that she could do this essential set-up. I thought that was quite clear, and don't see why the snarkiness was justified, so I've removed it.
Daibhid C: Does Jingo qualify? Vimes's forces are fighting under a white flag, much to their opponents' confusion, but they don't actually say they surrender, and Vimes claims the flag represents "what they're fighting for" (i.e. peace).
Chuckg: Vimes gets away with it because the Discworld doesn't have the Hague or Geneva Conventions. Trying that shit in real life would get you a war crimes trial: it doesn't matter what you claim the white flag means, the standard is that it means 'truce'. So Vimes' tactic above would be a clear misuse of.
