Working Title: SlidingScaleOfAntiHeroes: From YKTTW
: May I suggest we remove 8 Bit Theater from Type V as the Light Warriors have officially been designated the villains (except Fighter) here
Lynceus: Just out of curiosity, if we're classifying Renton from Eureka Seven as starting out as a loser and becoming a real hero, isn't that basically the hero's journey, therefore making him a very traditional hero after all (albeit a well done one)? Or are we just looking at the classical definition of hero here? Because, I mean, "hero is a loser" as a starting point for a character who is eventually a real hero seems to somewhat contradict classifying the character as an antihero, though admittedly Renton sort of hovers in the middle until the very end of the series.
Ryusui: Let the Code Geass
entry here be an example to us all: if you can't spell "Ubermensch", you have no business being within fifty feet of this website.
Pteryx: Hm, think perhaps another category for the Noble Demon
could be squeezed in somewhere?
: Those are almost always Type II's that don't want to admit it. Maybe even Type I if the work is comedic enough.
: I wouldn't put Tony Stark in type V, as that's just Character Derailment
. And Mal was only type IV in the movie. The supporting points from the series are out of context (stabbing was in lieu of killing his opponent which was the rules, and he punched out someone who tried to have them all killed).
: I didn't realize that it was a duel to the death, but still, the heroic norm would have been to simply walk away when the villain was on the ground- like Zuko does to Zhao in Avatar
. Similarly, I'm not saying that it was unjustified to punch Saffron, more that a "hero" wouldn't do that.
: But it wasn't a What the Hell, Hero?
moment. If you had watched the episode, you would know. Also, this isn't a society that has a total taboo against hitting women, as we know they can defend themselves (Zoe). In Serenity
, he counts, not quite for shooting the operative, but for earlier refusing to help someone against the reavers until it was almost too late.
: No hero is perfect — that's a bad thing
: About "Not sure about this, Edo shows a willingness to kill that the other good guys (Except Zane, who probably fits into one of these categories) do not. Hes also less inclinded to save people from their folly (ala Bastion/Mishwa)" — Edo would probably have said the same thing. And then he found himself wondering why he was doing the obviously compeltely, traditionally heroic thing of protecting someone who meant nothing to him just because he didn't think it was fair she should lose her life (Ekou). He thought he had to be Batman
, but he wasn't.
: This isn't a Sliding Scale. It's just a list. Could use a rename.
SenatorJ: It's just Type I that doesn't fit. The others are a spectrum of niceness.
I'm not getting something in the [[Watchmen]] entry, when did Rorschach express any ideals which were in line with Facisism?
Removed Sword of Truth
entry, because I'm tired of listening to you all bicker. Discuss the matter here, and then put it back when you reach a consensus.
- Arguably, Richard Rahl is either this or a Type IV- that the author doesn't recognize the decidedly unheroic nature of some of his actions suggests this category, as type IV characters are usually aware when they have had a Kick the Dog moment.
- Very, very arguably. Considering how often he has been willing to sacrifice himself and his desires for others. He is a hero in a very cynical universe who ascribes to very utilitarian moral principles. Though this troper had his share of wall banger moments concerning his decisions, he is clearly trying to make the correct decision based on his moral principles.
- ...Moral? Dude, he sends his army into enemy territory for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible. What sort of morals does that indicate?
- The same that the Allied leaders in WW2 used to justify the bombing campaign? That to stand aside doing nothing is worse and prolonging a conflict through notions of chivalry will only increase the death toll in the end. This is not lack of moral, but Moral Dissonance.
- Also? NO HE GODDAMN DOESN'T. In the books, he says explicitly that they should avoid killing people unless they're forced to. He tells them to attack supplies. Saying their "sole purpose" was to kill civilians is bullshit. *takes a breath* Sorry.
- "What I want the men of the Order to hear are wails of agony. I want them to know that their homes are being gutted, their cities and towns leveled, their businesses and crops destroyed, and their loved ones left with nothing." What does that sound like to you? Though I will concede that this is not a case of him being a Complete Monster, as I thought in the past, but a Knight Templar who has the blessing of the author. And I will concede that he doesn't send them into Imperial territory for the sole purpose of killing civilians. He still tells one of his generals to mutilate noncombatants.
- I smell Thread Mode.
I moved Vaarsuvius to type V. Genocide, anybody?
: Ehhh...it's definitely questionable, but not on par with the grand "hey look at me" evil of the other type V characters.
Tricksterson: And is genocide really an evil act when you know
beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that the species you're destroying is evil?
: Um...what's the difference between II and III? It seems like The Same, but More
: Yeah, at this point it's even admitted in the description that it's The Same, but More
. I badly want to consolidate it, but there's no way to do that without having to go through anywhere the numbers are referenced and change them, and there will probably still be a few people who won't realize the change and will use the old numbers. Does anyone have any input? I don't want this to seem unilateral, so I'm going to wait until at least tomorrow before I start.
Tricksterson: Should Type V even exist as a cotegory? I mean what distinguishes these characters from, at best, Anti Villains?