Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Kilyle: Does DuQuesne from the Skylark series count here? He's a villain, he does have a certain morality to him while being totally villainous in so many areas (especially body count), he's highly "evolved" mentally, and in the finale he plans to form a planet of his own with those people he sees as fit, and have a strict class structure that permits no marriage between different classes and sterilizes (or kills) those of weaker genetic stock.

Paul Power: Does Captain Carrot of Discworld count as an inversion? He has a lot of the traits (great charisma and strength both physical and mental, sees the world differently and causes others around him to alter their behaviour), but instead he's a good (if somewhat scary) guy in a world of Black and Grey Morality.

Kobal2: Not really, no. Not because of his "good" status though (who said having a personnal code was necessarily evil ? If your society has a Bad normality and consensus, having a screw-y'all-I'm-doing-what-I-think-is-right philosophy is a good thing). However, I wouldn't say Carrot has a personnal code or values significantly at odds with those of his beloved City. Point in case, early on at least : he stringently follows the Laws & Ordinances. He didn't write them. And although A-M is significantly lawless, it's not populated by hardline anarchists either. Also, note that he absolutely refuses to be in a position of power, or supercede Vimes. On the whole, I'd say his "personnal is not the same as important" dogma is more in line with Scary Dogmatic Alien than Ubermensch. YMMV.

Gattsuru: Well, it's more because people in the City think very highly of kings. They expect them to be honest, truthful, care about the law, fix all problems, know everyone, be good, act justly, to trust people, and to cure dandruff. It doesn't matter that the real kings were pricks, just that people believe such. As the true king to the throne, Carrot is the victim of the clap your hands if you believe effect, which is very powerful on the Disc — he can't avoid being what people expect from this idealized individual.

It's kinda sad, since he's smart enough to know better.
Seanette: Corrected Dexter's relationship to Harry.

Renita: Is it just me, or are examples to this entry being added somewhat frivolously? Some of them, such as General Zod (seriously?) are just self serving villains.
Kerrah: Why isn't the title of this trope spelled correctly?

Nornagest: Probably because the wiki code didn't play well with umlauts until recently, if at all, and "uebermensch" looks very strange to English speakers even though it's technically correct.
Lord TNK: Does Richard Rahl count?
Dausuul: Removed the following natter:

  • Pirates of the Caribbean: Despite their clashing values and philosophies ("What a man can do, and what a man can't do"; "It's just good business", etc.), Jack Sparrow, Hector Barbossa, and Cutler Beckett all fit the ‹bermensch mold in their own ways.
    • From a realistic standpoint, only Jack Sparrow really fits at all, and he's hardly trying to change the world. Cutler Beckett does not offer a replacement standard ("It's just good business" basically means "It's more beneficial for me right now", and there is nothing he is shown to refrain from doing if it would increase his own power and wealth) and Hector Barbossa's "standard" is rather, ummm... negotiable. More like guidelines, really.
      • Come to think of it, Cutler Beckett leans more in the direction of a particularly active Last Man.

Count Dorku: Well done, Spectre Agent, for the page image.

Vert: Dito!
Lord Gacek: You know what, guys? Ironically, Adolf Hitler pretty much was very charismatic dude who wanted to overthrow failing old order and instate his own. Should we put him here? I'm asking because, well, making Hitler as an example of Uebermensch sounds a bit, let us say, edgy.