History Main / ProtagonistCenteredMorality

28th Aug '16 12:53:21 AM NNinja
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Series/{{Arrow}}'':
** Ollie chastises [[Comicbook/{{Huntress}} Helena]] for her violent methods, conveniently forgetting that he's killed many, many more people. When she calls him out on this and gives a NotSoDifferent speech, his response is simply "no." After this treatment, Helena conveniently starts acting like an all-out villain and being treated as such by every character. In the next season however, Oliver has realized that people do see him as a murderer and he needs to change his ways.
** Also note the number of times Ollie gets indignant when he finds out a loved one has lied to him, most notably his mother, and weigh that against the secrets he keeps and the lengths he goes to to keep them.
* ''Series/TheFlash2014'':
** Team Flash's imprisonment of metahumans in their own personal prison without trial or due process is only addressed as possibly being a bad idea once.
** Season 2 saw the Flash straight-up kill two villains without remorse or discussion. It was self-defense both times, but still.
25th Aug '16 8:27:42 AM CarolC
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In ''Film/{{Accepted}}'', we’re supposed to see Dean Van Horne as a tyrant and a raging conservative who wants to stop Bartleby and his friends from starting their own college. He’s kind of a jerk, but he is [[JerkassHasAPoint absolutely right]] when he points out said college isn’t a college at all, as it lacks the basics: teachers, a curriculum, a library and so forth. Also, Bartleby started said “college” simply because he didn’t have the guts to tell his parents that he hadn’t been accepted into a real college. But we’re supposed to side with him and be moved by his passionate speech at the end of the movie.

to:

* In ''Film/{{Accepted}}'', we’re supposed to see Dean Van Horne as a tyrant and a raging conservative who wants to stop Bartleby and his friends from starting their own college. He’s kind of a jerk, but he is [[JerkassHasAPoint absolutely right]] when he points out said college isn’t a college at all, as it lacks the basics: teachers, a curriculum, a library and so forth. Also, Bartleby started said “college” “college” simply because he didn’t have the guts to tell his parents that he hadn’t been accepted into a real college. But we’re supposed to side with him and be moved by his passionate speech at the end of the movie.



* Thoroughly deconstructed in Creator/StephenSondheim's ''Theatre/IntoTheWoods''. The first act sees fairy tale characters Jack (the one who climbs a beanstalk), Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood living their famous stories, while a new couple--a childless Baker and his Wife--try to break the spell on their family by collecting items from those characters. All five of these main characters do sneaky, underhanded things to achieve their dreams, but they still have our support...until Act Two comes along, and Sondheim shows us just what the consequences of the characters' wishes have been. For instance, the Giant's wife appears and points out that she welcomed Jack into her home--despite his being a complete stranger--and offered him food and care, only for Jack to repeatedly return and steal money, a golden egg-laying goose, and a singing harp. The first theft was perhaps the worst, as he didn't even allow the Giantess to explain the situation to her husband; he simply stole from her and ran for it. Jack then eventually killed the Giant, and no one cared because he was a "monster." But his wife did, and she is ''angry.''

to:

* Thoroughly deconstructed in Creator/StephenSondheim's ''Theatre/IntoTheWoods''. The first act sees fairy tale characters Jack (the one who climbs a beanstalk), Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood living their famous stories, while a new couple--a childless Baker and his Wife--try to break the spell on their family by collecting items from those characters. All five of these main characters do sneaky, underhanded things to achieve their dreams, but they still have our support...until Act Two comes along, and Sondheim shows us just what the consequences of the characters' wishes have been. For instance, the Giant's wife appears and points out that she welcomed Jack into her home--despite his being a complete stranger--and offered him food and care, only for Jack to repeatedly return and steal money, a golden egg-laying goose, and a singing harp. The first theft was perhaps the worst, as he didn't even allow the Giantess to explain the situation to her husband; he simply stole from her and ran for it. Jack then eventually killed the Giant, and no one cared because he was a "monster." But his wife did, and she is ''angry.'''' While killing the Giant's Wife becomes a goal in Act II, Red Riding Hood does weigh out the morality of killing the Giant's wife and while Cinderella judges that it's the best decision for now, being that the wife caused so much harm to the kingdom, she also acknowledges in song that "giants can be good."
25th Aug '16 8:15:16 AM Sapphirea2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The show's treatment of the Twelfth Doctor seems to be going out of its way to '''avoid''' this trope, compared to how his revival-era predecessors were treated. He can't do ''anything'' morally grey and/or make the better of two bad choices (let innocent Ashildr die or save her but render her immortal?) [[WhatTheHellHero without getting chewed out by other characters]] and/or seeing his actions come back to bite him where it hurts later. He suffers so much for being a PragmaticHero that he becomes UninentionallySympathetic when he goes full WoobieDestroyerOfWorlds in the Series 9 finale three-parter when he's betrayed by [[spoiler: Ashildr and '''his own people''']] -- all of whom he could have brutally killed or just let perish -- then has to watch [[spoiler: his beloved companion Clara be unjustly executed over a noble mistake]], '''then''' undergoes sadistic ColdBloodedTorture in complete isolation from any other sentient being immediately afterwards, '''then''' is consistently shown NoSympathy for his suffering once he escapes by all but [[spoiler: Clara, whom he ''brings back from the grave'' despite the risk to Time it poses]]. Sure, the survival of the space-time continuum hangs in the balance, but when the protagonist is now TheMentallyDisturbed to the point that returning him to his best self requires [[spoiler: Mind Rape]] while those who tormented him get off lightly or even go unpunished for their crimes, it's hard not to root for him. Maybe he gets treated this way because he's [[BeautyEqualsGoodness not young and charming]], but rather gray, grumpy, and socially awkward?

to:

** The show's treatment of the Twelfth Doctor seems to be going out of its way to '''avoid''' this trope, compared to how his revival-era predecessors were treated. He can't do ''anything'' morally grey and/or make the better of two bad choices (let innocent Ashildr die or save her but render her immortal?) [[WhatTheHellHero without getting chewed out by other characters]] and/or seeing his actions come back to bite him where it hurts later. He suffers so much for being a PragmaticHero that he arguably becomes UninentionallySympathetic UnintentionallySympathetic when he goes full WoobieDestroyerOfWorlds in the Series 9 finale three-parter when he's betrayed by [[spoiler: Ashildr and '''his own people''']] -- all of whom he could have brutally killed or just let perish -- then has to watch [[spoiler: his beloved companion Clara be unjustly executed over a noble mistake]], '''then''' undergoes sadistic ColdBloodedTorture in complete isolation from any other sentient being immediately afterwards, '''then''' is consistently shown NoSympathy for his suffering once he escapes by all but [[spoiler: Clara, whom he ''brings back from the grave'' despite the risk to Time it poses]]. Sure, the survival of the space-time continuum hangs in the balance, but when the protagonist is now TheMentallyDisturbed to the point that returning him to his best self requires [[spoiler: Mind Rape]] while those who tormented him get off relatively lightly or even go unpunished for their crimes, unpunished, it's hard not to root for him. Maybe he gets treated this way the short end of the straw because he's [[BeautyEqualsGoodness not young and charming]], charming]] the way Nine, Ten, and Eleven were, but rather gray, grumpy, and socially awkward?
25th Aug '16 8:12:54 AM Sapphirea2
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Throughout many eras of the show, characters who like the Doctor and are susceptible to his charms are good, while those who dislike him turn out to be evil. Occasionally you'll get a character who is suspicious of him, but if they're good he'll have won them over by the end. The 1970s were probably the worst for this, as both of the 1970s Doctors were exceptionally charismatic on-screen figures, and impossible charm was considered to be one of his characterisation points [[EraSpecificPersonality in this decade]] -- this also allowed the Doctor to mistreat his companions and get out of it by being cute, in a few moments that seem quite painful today.

to:

** Throughout many eras of the show, characters who like the Doctor and are susceptible to his charms are good, while those who dislike him turn out to be evil. Occasionally you'll get a character who is suspicious of him, but if they're good he'll have won them over by the end. The 1970s were probably the worst for this, as both of the 1970s Third and Fourth Doctors were exceptionally charismatic on-screen figures, and impossible charm was considered to be one of his characterisation points [[EraSpecificPersonality in this decade]] -- this also allowed the Doctor to mistreat his companions and get out of it by being cute, in a few moments that seem quite painful today.


Added DiffLines:

** The show's treatment of the Twelfth Doctor seems to be going out of its way to '''avoid''' this trope, compared to how his revival-era predecessors were treated. He can't do ''anything'' morally grey and/or make the better of two bad choices (let innocent Ashildr die or save her but render her immortal?) [[WhatTheHellHero without getting chewed out by other characters]] and/or seeing his actions come back to bite him where it hurts later. He suffers so much for being a PragmaticHero that he becomes UninentionallySympathetic when he goes full WoobieDestroyerOfWorlds in the Series 9 finale three-parter when he's betrayed by [[spoiler: Ashildr and '''his own people''']] -- all of whom he could have brutally killed or just let perish -- then has to watch [[spoiler: his beloved companion Clara be unjustly executed over a noble mistake]], '''then''' undergoes sadistic ColdBloodedTorture in complete isolation from any other sentient being immediately afterwards, '''then''' is consistently shown NoSympathy for his suffering once he escapes by all but [[spoiler: Clara, whom he ''brings back from the grave'' despite the risk to Time it poses]]. Sure, the survival of the space-time continuum hangs in the balance, but when the protagonist is now TheMentallyDisturbed to the point that returning him to his best self requires [[spoiler: Mind Rape]] while those who tormented him get off lightly or even go unpunished for their crimes, it's hard not to root for him. Maybe he gets treated this way because he's [[BeautyEqualsGoodness not young and charming]], but rather gray, grumpy, and socially awkward?
24th Aug '16 9:27:55 PM merotoker
Is there an issue? Send a Message


It's only natural for a writer to see things from the protagonists' [[SympatheticPOV Sympathetic Point Of View]]. Due to their frequent role as [[TheNarrator narrators]] and PointOfView characters, a protagonist's perspective tends to make an impression on the work more than any other character's -- their thoughts will overlap with narration, their feelings will shape the setting, and their priorities will dictate the plot. The way events are treated will be colored by how they relate to the protagonist, the things they love, the people they care about. It's hard to imagine a story told otherwise.

to:

It's only natural for a writer to see things from the protagonists' [[SympatheticPOV Sympathetic Point Of View]]. Due to their frequent role as [[TheNarrator narrators]] {{narrator}}s and PointOfView characters, a protagonist's perspective tends to make an impression on the work more than any other character's -- their thoughts will overlap with narration, their feelings will shape the setting, and their priorities will dictate the plot. The way events are treated will be colored by how they relate to the protagonist, the things they love, the people they care about. It's hard to imagine a story told otherwise.



* Nobody ever considers the ''ComicBook/DirtyPair'' to be evil in their own reality (and their constant claim that [[CatchPhrase "It's not our fault!"]] is readily believed) despite the fact that they've committed ''planet-wide genocide'' multiple times. (A combination of this Trope and CrossingTheLineTwice is needed here.)

to:

* Nobody ever considers the ''ComicBook/DirtyPair'' to be evil in their own reality (and their constant claim that [[CatchPhrase "It's not our fault!"]] is readily believed) despite the fact that they've committed ''planet-wide genocide'' multiple times. (A combination of this Trope and CrossingTheLineTwice CrossesTheLineTwice is needed here.)



** Perhaps the neatest example comes early in Book 3. Chloe and Buck are in Chicago after the start of WorldWar3. Their New York home has been destroyed and Chicago itself may be under attack. Loretta, an old woman who belonged to their church, offers to put them up in her house and the two (speaking outside of Loretta's presence) agree to accept this. Not even a ''page'' later, during the ''same conversation'', they point out that if it came down to it, the church bomb shelter is too small for Loretta, with the implication that they would leave her to die in the fire.

to:

** Perhaps the neatest example comes early in Book 3. Chloe and Buck are in Chicago after the start of WorldWar3.WorldWarIII. Their New York home has been destroyed and Chicago itself may be under attack. Loretta, an old woman who belonged to their church, offers to put them up in her house and the two (speaking outside of Loretta's presence) agree to accept this. Not even a ''page'' later, during the ''same conversation'', they point out that if it came down to it, the church bomb shelter is too small for Loretta, with the implication that they would leave her to die in the fire.



* An interesting example in Poul S. Kidd's ''Fangs of K'aath'': while two of the main antagonists both enact their plots for the exact same reasons, the one who does ''far'' more horrific things over a longer period is given a sympathetic death scene simply because of a connection to the protagonist, while the other is simply shot dead and forgotten. Namely, both [[spoiler:Shiraj and Farasche want to see their sons succeed to the throne. The difference is that Shiraj has ''raised Raschid to be the host for DemonicPossession since birth'', uses her favorite slave as a HumanShield, then tries to possess Raschid's girlfriend instead, and finally herself--and as a bonus, she also turns Abbas into a monster. Abbas's mother Farasche, on the other hand, merely tries to assassinate Raschid and stage a mundane coup. But Raschid is the protagonist.]]

to:

* An interesting example in Poul S. Kidd's ''Fangs of K'aath'': while two of the main antagonists both enact their plots for the exact same reasons, the one who does ''far'' more horrific things over a longer period is given a sympathetic death scene simply because of a connection to the protagonist, while the other is simply shot dead and forgotten. Namely, both [[spoiler:Shiraj and Farasche want to see their sons succeed to the throne. The difference is that Shiraj has ''raised Raschid to be the host for DemonicPossession since birth'', uses her favorite slave as a HumanShield, then tries to possess Raschid's girlfriend instead, and finally herself--and as a bonus, she also turns Abbas into a monster. Abbas's mother Farasche, on the other hand, merely tries to assassinate Raschid and stage a mundane coup. But Raschid is the protagonist.]]protagonist]].



Probably the most blatant example is his opinion on helping out less-advanced species. In "Dear Doctor", he uses the not-yet-existent PrimeDirective as an excuse to not give a cure to a species on the brink of extinction. He already ''has'' the cure and the recipe for it at this point; all he has to do is hand it over to the Valakians, and he'd save their lives and likely become a hero to their planet for generations. However, thanks to the PrimeDirective mentality ([[HollywoodEvolution and also an absolutely terrible understanding of evolution]]) he doesn't do so. Three seasons later, in "Observer Effect", two of his crew contract a deadly disease. When he realizes that some [[EnergyBeing Organians]] were watching the whole thing, he gets pissed off that they won't help him. He even references the events of "Dear Doctor" and stands by them. Furthermore, the Valakians contracted their disease through no fault of their own, whereas the crew members were literally digging through garbage without so much as wearing rubber gloves. (The episode later confirms that a hazmat suit would have protected them.) In other words, Archer is against saving the lives of an entire planet who are doomed simply due to bad circumstances, but he's in favor of someone saving two members of his crew when the only reason they're about to die is because of their own incompetence.

to:

Probably the most blatant example is his opinion on helping out less-advanced species. In "Dear Doctor", he uses the not-yet-existent PrimeDirective as an excuse to not give a cure to a species on the brink of extinction. He already ''has'' the cure and the recipe for it at this point; all he has to do is hand it over to the Valakians, and he'd save their lives and likely become a hero to their planet for generations. However, thanks to the PrimeDirective mentality ([[HollywoodEvolution and also an absolutely terrible understanding of evolution]]) he doesn't do so. Three seasons later, in "Observer Effect", two of his crew contract a deadly disease. When he realizes that some [[EnergyBeing [[EnergyBeings Organians]] were watching the whole thing, he gets pissed off that they won't help him. He even references the events of "Dear Doctor" and stands by them. Furthermore, the Valakians contracted their disease through no fault of their own, whereas the crew members were literally digging through garbage without so much as wearing rubber gloves. (The episode later confirms that a hazmat suit would have protected them.) In other words, Archer is against saving the lives of an entire planet who are doomed simply due to bad circumstances, but he's in favor of someone saving two members of his crew when the only reason they're about to die is because of their own incompetence.



* ''Series/FamilyMatters'' did this in its last season, when Steve and Laura suddenly hooked up with each other. The problem is that they were both dating other people, who suddenly became their {{Romantic RunnerUp}}s. And to make things even worse, the writers thought it was a good idea to turn Myra, Steve's ex-girlfriend, into a DesignatedVillain. It might be true that Myra already had shown signs of being unhinged and morally ambiguous. But still, she had mostly been a good girlfriend to Steve, and she and Laura had even become friends. But in an attempt to make us root for Steve and Laura, who were the {{Designated Hero}}es, she suddenly was {{flanderiz|ation}}ed into an AxCrazy StalkerWithACrush, who couldn't bear seeing her ex-boyfriend with another woman. And still, you have to feel sorry for her. After all, she had been Steve's girlfriend for the last four seasons, even when other people often bullied him.

to:

* ''Series/FamilyMatters'' did this in its last season, when Steve and Laura suddenly hooked up with each other. The problem is that they were both dating other people, who suddenly became their {{Romantic RunnerUp}}s.[[RomanticRunnerUp Romantic Runner-Ups]]. And to make things even worse, the writers thought it was a good idea to turn Myra, Steve's ex-girlfriend, into a DesignatedVillain. It might be true that Myra already had shown signs of being unhinged and morally ambiguous. But still, she had mostly been a good girlfriend to Steve, and she and Laura had even become friends. But in an attempt to make us root for Steve and Laura, who were the {{Designated Hero}}es, she suddenly was {{flanderiz|ation}}ed into an AxCrazy StalkerWithACrush, who couldn't bear seeing her ex-boyfriend with another woman. And still, you have to feel sorry for her. After all, she had been Steve's girlfriend for the last four seasons, even when other people often bullied him.



* ''Series/FearTheWalkingDead'': The season one finale. Daniel Salazar comes up with a plan to [[spoiler: release a massive herd of zombies and lure them to a military-controlled hospital where his wife, Travis' ex, and Madison's son are being held]]. None of the other protagonists object to this, not even Travis (the show's moral center) despite the fact that it's sure to cause dozens, if not hundreds of other deaths just to rescue three people the "heroes" care about. While they attempt to justify their decision by saying the soldiers have lost their minds and deserved to die, previous episodes had shown them as, at worst, a bunch of PunchClockVillains JustFollowingOrders who, aside from a specific few, weren't actively malevolent and were genuinely trying to help people. And even putting the soldiers aside, what about all the patients and civilians who got caught in the crossfire? The military was even planning to evacuate everyone (including the protagonist's loved ones) from the hospital [[NiceJobBreakingItHero before the attack made them deem it too risky]].

to:

* ''Series/FearTheWalkingDead'': The season one finale. Daniel Salazar comes up with a plan to [[spoiler: release a massive herd of zombies and lure them to a military-controlled hospital where his wife, Travis' ex, and Madison's son are being held]]. None of the other protagonists object to this, not even Travis (the show's moral center) despite the fact that it's sure to cause dozens, if not hundreds of other deaths just to rescue three people the "heroes" care about. While they attempt to justify their decision by saying the soldiers have lost their minds and deserved to die, previous episodes had shown them as, at worst, a bunch of PunchClockVillains {{Punch Clock Villain}}s JustFollowingOrders who, aside from a specific few, weren't actively malevolent and were genuinely trying to help people. And even putting the soldiers aside, what about all the patients and civilians who got caught in the crossfire? The military was even planning to evacuate everyone (including the protagonist's loved ones) from the hospital [[NiceJobBreakingItHero before the attack made them deem it too risky]].



** As noted above, Wrestling/JohnCena runs into this ''a lot''. Over the course of nearly a decade and a half, Cena has piled up quite a list, which includes but is not limited to: hitting {{Wrestling/Batista}} with an Attitude Adjustment off the roof of a car and through a hole in the stage, after Batista begged him not to; viciously attacking Rusev outside of any match, putting him in a submission hold and making him tap out ''and pass out'' just to get him and Lana to agree to a match at Wrestlemania 31, when doing something very similar to {{Wrestling/Edge}} was meant to be considered Wrestling/SethRollins' MoralEventHorizon; and challenging a worn-out Wrestling/ReyMysterio to a match for the WWE title on the same night Rey won it for the first and only time in his career (notable especially because Rey might be even more of a "perpetual face" than Cena), when both before and since this event Cena would often be first in line to take moral umbrage with anyone using Money in the Bank advantageously to become champion. This is one of the biggest criticisms of Cena, as he is shown doing things like this frequently, but it is almost never acknowledged and even then only by heels who are meant to be wrong.

to:

** As noted above, Wrestling/JohnCena runs into this ''a lot''. Over the course of nearly a decade and a half, Cena has piled up quite a list, which includes but is not limited to: hitting {{Wrestling/Batista}} with an Attitude Adjustment off the roof of a car and through a hole in the stage, after Batista begged him not to; viciously attacking Rusev Wrestling/{{Rusev|AndLana}} outside of any match, putting him in a submission hold and making him tap out ''and pass out'' just to get him and Lana to agree to a match at Wrestlemania Wrestling/WrestleMania 31, when doing something very similar to {{Wrestling/Edge}} was meant to be considered Wrestling/SethRollins' MoralEventHorizon; and challenging a worn-out Wrestling/ReyMysterio to a match for the WWE title on the same night Rey won it for the first and only time in his career (notable especially because Rey might be even more of a "perpetual face" than Cena), when both before and since this event Cena would often be first in line to take moral umbrage with anyone using Money in the Bank advantageously to become champion. This is one of the biggest criticisms of Cena, as he is shown doing things like this frequently, but it is almost never acknowledged and even then only by heels who are meant to be wrong.



* Thoroughly deconstructed in Stephen Sondheim's ''Theatre/IntoTheWoods''. The first act sees fairy tale characters Jack (the one who climbs a beanstalk), Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood living their famous stories, while a new couple--a childless Baker and his Wife--try to break the spell on their family by collecting items from those characters. All five of these main characters do sneaky, underhanded things to achieve their dreams, but they still have our support...until Act Two comes along, and Sondheim shows us just what the consequences of the characters' wishes have been. For instance, the Giant's wife appears and points out that she welcomed Jack into her home--despite his being a complete stranger--and offered him food and care, only for Jack to repeatedly return and steal money, a golden egg-laying goose, and a singing harp. The first theft was perhaps the worst, as he didn't even allow the Giantess to explain the situation to her husband; he simply stole from her and ran for it. Jack then eventually killed the Giant, and no one cared because he was a "monster." But his wife did, and she is ''angry.''

to:

* Thoroughly deconstructed in Stephen Sondheim's Creator/StephenSondheim's ''Theatre/IntoTheWoods''. The first act sees fairy tale characters Jack (the one who climbs a beanstalk), Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood living their famous stories, while a new couple--a childless Baker and his Wife--try to break the spell on their family by collecting items from those characters. All five of these main characters do sneaky, underhanded things to achieve their dreams, but they still have our support...until Act Two comes along, and Sondheim shows us just what the consequences of the characters' wishes have been. For instance, the Giant's wife appears and points out that she welcomed Jack into her home--despite his being a complete stranger--and offered him food and care, only for Jack to repeatedly return and steal money, a golden egg-laying goose, and a singing harp. The first theft was perhaps the worst, as he didn't even allow the Giantess to explain the situation to her husband; he simply stole from her and ran for it. Jack then eventually killed the Giant, and no one cared because he was a "monster." But his wife did, and she is ''angry.''



** In the Unlimited Blade Works route, the concept of ProtagonistCenteredMorality is roundly criticized by Archer. [[spoiler: He became a hero hoping to save people, but this ultimately meant leaving a long trail of dead people in his path.]]

to:

** In the Unlimited Blade Works route, the concept of ProtagonistCenteredMorality Protagonist-Centered Morality is roundly criticized by Archer. [[spoiler: He became a hero hoping to save people, but this ultimately meant leaving a long trail of dead people in his path.]]



* Occasionally, a story on NotAlwaysRight will feature an employee who clearly thinks they're the "good guy" of the story, when really they're worse than the customer they posted the story to complain about. For example, [[https://notalwaysright.com/their-understandings-are-chalk-and-cheese/47888 this employee]] outright lies to a customer and then mocks her for not realizing she was lying, and [[https://notalwaysright.com/hope-theyre-just-pulling-trunk/53675 this employee]] insults a customer to her face for mistaking one animal for another. Assuming these events actually happened, of course.
* In the story-presented-as-television ''[[https://tellygunge.wordpress.com/archives/story-archive/by-tellygunge/ Comeuppance]]'', Sian Welby [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement (as portrayed by the author)]] is supposed to be seen as always right, while [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong the contestants as always wrong.]] However, at times, it just comes off as whining on her part simply because contestant X [[StrawmanHasAPoint makes valid points]] and the author makes them look worse by playing up their [[DesignatedVillain supposed villainy]], or because they don't merely give her a free pass on anything for being a celebrity (as seen on Chapter 5's introduction):

to:

* Occasionally, a story on NotAlwaysRight ''Website/NotAlwaysRight'' will feature an employee who clearly thinks they're the "good guy" of the story, when really they're worse than the customer they posted the story to complain about. For example, [[https://notalwaysright.com/their-understandings-are-chalk-and-cheese/47888 this employee]] outright lies to a customer and then mocks her for not realizing she was lying, and [[https://notalwaysright.com/hope-theyre-just-pulling-trunk/53675 this employee]] insults a customer to her face for mistaking one animal for another. Assuming these events actually happened, of course.
* In the story-presented-as-television ''[[https://tellygunge.wordpress.com/archives/story-archive/by-tellygunge/ Comeuppance]]'', Sian Welby [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement [[RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgment (as portrayed by the author)]] is supposed to be seen as always right, while [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong the contestants as always wrong.]] However, at times, it just comes off as whining on her part simply because contestant X [[StrawmanHasAPoint makes valid points]] and the author makes them look worse by playing up their [[DesignatedVillain supposed villainy]], or because they don't merely give her a free pass on anything for being a celebrity (as seen on Chapter 5's introduction):
18th Aug '16 4:17:21 PM WanderingBrowser
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** This trope is why the series finale is considered by many to be an EsotericHappyEnding. Throughout the series, Bobby has struggled to win Hank's approval. In this episode, he finally does so -- but it's because he just so happens to have finally found a hobby that Hank thinks is "appropriately manly", and it's made clear that Hank ''still'' hates all of the "unmanly" hobbies that Bobby has and looks down on him for them. We're supposed to support Hank for putting such restrictions on whether or not to show his son any love and respect.
11th Aug '16 9:21:09 PM PaulA
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Creator/LoisMcMasterBujold:
** At the end of ''Literature/VorkosiganSaga: A Civil Campaign'' the protagonists work together to [[spoiler:prevent the arrest of a man who has (albeit naively) swindled investors out of large amounts of money. Why? Oh, he's their friend, and they need his scientific brilliance to make money for themselves]]. And the situation is decided on the basis that [[spoiler:Miles's cook would lose money if the arrest goes forward]].
** This trope is deconstructed quite openly by [[TheGoodKing Emperor Gregor]] in ''Captain Vorpatril's Alliance'', where Gregor somewhat bitterly observes that his actions affect millions of people, and that therefore yes, he ''does'' trade in human lives on a daily basis. However, he makes it abundantly clear that he is unhappy with this burden and that he will make compromises that he thinks will benefit his people despite having near-absolute power with which to impose his will as he sees fit. He is also the one holding Miles' leash (personally in the later books, rather than through Simon as in earlier books) and he expects a degree of restraint even though Miles as an Imperial Auditor could be the ultimate CowboyCop if allowed to do so. Miles himself becomes noticeably more self-restrained once he becomes an Auditor, and realizes how even the most trivial of his actions could directly impact the Imperium much more than in the days when he was a covert operative.

to:

* Creator/LoisMcMasterBujold:
Creator/LoisMcMasterBujold's ''Literature/VorkosiganSaga'':
** At the end of ''Literature/VorkosiganSaga: A Civil Campaign'' ''Literature/ACivilCampaign'' the protagonists work together to [[spoiler:prevent the arrest of a man who has (albeit naively) swindled investors out of large amounts of money. Why? Oh, he's their friend, and they need his scientific brilliance to make money for themselves]]. And the situation is decided on the basis that [[spoiler:Miles's cook would lose money if the arrest goes forward]].
** This trope is deconstructed quite openly by [[TheGoodKing Emperor Gregor]] in ''Captain Vorpatril's Alliance'', ''Literature/CaptainVorpatrilsAlliance'', where Gregor somewhat bitterly observes that his actions affect millions of people, and that therefore yes, he ''does'' trade in human lives on a daily basis. However, he makes it abundantly clear that he is unhappy with this burden and that he will make compromises that he thinks will benefit his people despite having near-absolute power with which to impose his will as he sees fit. He is also the one holding Miles' leash (personally in the later books, rather than through Simon as in earlier books) and he expects a degree of restraint even though Miles as an Imperial Auditor could be the ultimate CowboyCop if allowed to do so. Miles himself becomes noticeably more self-restrained once he becomes an Auditor, and realizes how even the most trivial of his actions could directly impact the Imperium much more than in the days when he was a covert operative.
6th Aug '16 11:25:22 AM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Series/TheFlash'':

to:

* ''Series/TheFlash'':''Series/TheFlash2014'':



* In the ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' episode T.A.H.I.T.I, the team needs to recover a miracle drug to save Skye from a bullet wound. The drug is being guarded by unidentified agents who won't let the unauthorised team take it. The team kills them both and no one questions the morality of this at all. We later find out that, [[spoiler:of the four people who went into the facility, two of them were HYDRA, and they were the ones who did the actual killing (as well as the ones who assured Coulson that raiding the facility in the first place was necessary, although Coulson was the one who ordered the attacks). The whole thing was a setup by the Clairvoyant to try and discover what this facility was and how it brought Coulson back from the dead]]. Coulson later on argues against Simmons' desire to study the drug on the basis that SHIELD wanted it kept secret so badly that two men died to protect it. You mean those two men you had killed last episode because you wanted to use the drug on someone you personally cared about?

to:

* In the ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' episode T.A.H.I.T.I, the team needs to recover a miracle drug to save Skye from a bullet wound. The drug is being guarded by unidentified agents who won't let the unauthorised team take it. The team kills them both and no one questions the morality of this at all. We later find out that, [[spoiler:of the four people who went into the facility, two of them were HYDRA, and they were the ones who did the actual killing (as well as the ones who assured Coulson that raiding the facility in the first place was necessary, although Coulson was the one who ordered the attacks). The whole thing was a setup by the Clairvoyant to try and discover what this facility was and how it brought Coulson back from the dead]]. Coulson later on argues against Simmons' desire to study the drug on the basis that SHIELD wanted it kept secret so badly that two men died to protect it. You mean those two men you had killed last episode because you wanted to use the drug on someone you personally cared about?
3rd Aug '16 7:28:01 PM Rebu
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Occasionally, a story on NotAlwaysRight will feature an employee who clearly thinks they're the "good guy" of the story, when really they're worse than the customer they posted the story to complain about. For example, [[https://notalwaysright.com/their-understandings-are-chalk-and-cheese/47888 this employee]] outright lies to a customer and then mocks her for not realizing she was lying, and [[https://notalwaysright.com/hope-theyre-just-pulling-trunk/53675 this employee]] insults a customer to her face for mistaking one animal for another.

to:

* Occasionally, a story on NotAlwaysRight will feature an employee who clearly thinks they're the "good guy" of the story, when really they're worse than the customer they posted the story to complain about. For example, [[https://notalwaysright.com/their-understandings-are-chalk-and-cheese/47888 this employee]] outright lies to a customer and then mocks her for not realizing she was lying, and [[https://notalwaysright.com/hope-theyre-just-pulling-trunk/53675 this employee]] insults a customer to her face for mistaking one animal for another. Assuming these events actually happened, of course.
3rd Aug '16 8:49:50 AM Ebrbfureh
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Sasuke gets a ''huge'' amount of moral leeway with his crimes. Despite becoming a murdering sociopath who would - canonically - sell his teammates down the river for the chance to get "revenge", he is treated by Naruto - and the narrative - as being worthy of redemption, as a lost friend who has strayed down the wrong path but can be brought back to the light by ThePowerOfFriendship. Anyone who disagrees with this and thinks that Sasuke should be severely punished is instantly portrayed as narrow-minded and often hypocritical in the face of Naruto's {{messianic|Archetype}} willingness to forgive. Danzo has committed a string of morally questionable actions for (what he views as) the good of the village, but what puts the protagonists at odds with him was giving the Cloud village permission to kill Sasuke, who had recently assisted the same terrorist organization that had antagonized the village throughout Part II (and had just reduced it to a crater) by capturing a jinchuurki like Naruto without any regard for the man's life.

to:

** Sasuke gets a ''huge'' amount of moral leeway with his crimes. Despite becoming a murdering sociopath who would - -- canonically - -- sell his teammates down the river for the chance to get "revenge", he is treated by Naruto - -- and the narrative - -- as being worthy of redemption, as a lost friend who has strayed down the wrong path but can be brought back to the light by ThePowerOfFriendship. Anyone who disagrees with this and thinks that Sasuke should be severely punished is instantly portrayed as narrow-minded and often hypocritical in the face of Naruto's {{messianic|Archetype}} willingness to forgive. Danzo has committed a string of morally questionable actions for (what he views as) the good of the village, but what puts the protagonists at odds with him was giving the Cloud village permission to kill Sasuke, who had recently assisted the same terrorist organization that had antagonized the village throughout Part II (and had just reduced it to a crater) by capturing a jinchuurki like Naruto without any regard for the man's life.



** Emerald's stated goal (to stop Crystal Tokyo's creation, to prevent its people from being brainwashed) is noble enough, but the fic gives virtually no evidence of brainwashing (life seems to go on perfectly normally, from what we hear of it), and his main reasons for not liking life in Crystal Tokyo boil down to that he thinks it's boring. [[spoiler:The same goes for Pluto, at the end. The only reason she gives for having her timeline erased from existence - sending countless unsuspecting people and ''her own friends'' into Nothingness - is because Crystal Tokyo didn't turn out how she liked it. No specific reasons, just that.]]
** After Serenity came to power, Emerald joined a group of rebels who tried to overthrow her. While their efforts were portrayed as heroic (if doomed to failure), none of them seemed to consider ever trying non-violent means of shaking Serenity's public support, instead opting to launch an incredibly brutal attack on her and her friends. Emerald decries the decreed fate of the rebellion's survivors - banishment from Earth - and hates that the senshi consider it magnanimous, except that sending them to live elsewhere is a pretty light sentence for trying to kill a ruler.

to:

** Emerald's stated goal (to stop Crystal Tokyo's creation, to prevent its people from being brainwashed) is noble enough, but the fic gives virtually no evidence of brainwashing (life seems to go on perfectly normally, from what we hear of it), and his main reasons for not liking life in Crystal Tokyo boil down to that he thinks it's boring. [[spoiler:The same goes for Pluto, at the end. The only reason she gives for having her timeline erased from existence - -- sending countless unsuspecting people and ''her own friends'' into Nothingness - -- is because Crystal Tokyo didn't turn out how she liked it. No specific reasons, just that.]]
** After Serenity came to power, Emerald joined a group of rebels who tried to overthrow her. While their efforts were portrayed as heroic (if doomed to failure), none of them seemed to consider ever trying non-violent means of shaking Serenity's public support, instead opting to launch an incredibly brutal attack on her and her friends. Emerald decries the decreed fate of the rebellion's survivors - -- banishment from Earth - -- and hates that the senshi consider it magnanimous, except that sending them to live elsewhere is a pretty light sentence for trying to kill a ruler.



** Bella has a rather telling moment in ''Eclipse'' when the Cullens know a battle with a large group of hostile vampires is coming, and Bella finds out that vampires become a little stronger if they feed on human blood versus the Cullens' normal diet of animal blood. She realizes she's perfectly okay with condemning someone to death if it ''slightly improves'' the odds of her boyfriend surviving the battle. And by ''Breaking Dawn'', the Cullens have agreed that they need backup if the Volturi are coming to get their murder on, so they call in every favor they have with the other vampires. Now, the Cullens have sworn to feed only on the blood of animals, these vampires have not, and yet the Cullens are happy to lend them their car to go hunting for humans (and vampires in the setting inevitably kill any human they feed on, unless they're turned) - just as long as Bella doesn't get hurt. Oh, and that they hunt outside Forks so people Bella knows won't die.
* E. E. Smith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series exemplifies this. The actions of various protagonists are consistently applauded - including one man judge/jury/execution, destruction of entire planets/solar systems/civilizations, with or without noncombatants, various nasty means of underhanded (or overhanded) warfare, torture, mind rape, etc. It's stated in-story that only paragons of IncorruptiblePurePureness can ever be Lensmen in the first place (and that the Arisians are actively weeding out those who fall short just before they actually get Lenses), but we do have to kind of take the author's word for it.

to:

** Bella has a rather telling moment in ''Eclipse'' when the Cullens know a battle with a large group of hostile vampires is coming, and Bella finds out that vampires become a little stronger if they feed on human blood versus the Cullens' normal diet of animal blood. She realizes she's perfectly okay with condemning someone to death if it ''slightly improves'' the odds of her boyfriend surviving the battle. And by ''Breaking Dawn'', the Cullens have agreed that they need backup if the Volturi are coming to get their murder on, so they call in every favor they have with the other vampires. Now, the Cullens have sworn to feed only on the blood of animals, these vampires have not, and yet the Cullens are happy to lend them their car to go hunting for humans (and vampires in the setting inevitably kill any human they feed on, unless they're turned) - -- just as long as Bella doesn't get hurt. Oh, and that they hunt outside Forks so people Bella knows won't die.
* E. E. Smith's ''Literature/{{Lensman}}'' series exemplifies this. The actions of various protagonists are consistently applauded - -- including one man judge/jury/execution, destruction of entire planets/solar systems/civilizations, with or without noncombatants, various nasty means of underhanded (or overhanded) warfare, torture, mind rape, etc. It's stated in-story that only paragons of IncorruptiblePurePureness can ever be Lensmen in the first place (and that the Arisians are actively weeding out those who fall short just before they actually get Lenses), but we do have to kind of take the author's word for it.



** {{Lampshade|Hanging}}d in ''Discworld/NightWatch'', in which young Sam points out to Vimes that in certain circumstances, Vimes is prepared to do things which are illegal or immoral (like knocking people unconscious before they can hit him). Vimes evades giving an explanation, and privately admits to himself that his main justification is "It's Me Doing It" - and that this is a pretty poor justification, especially because it's the one the people on the other side are using too (and he feels [[TheFettered he could do worse if he let himself]], but he doesn't).

to:

** {{Lampshade|Hanging}}d in ''Discworld/NightWatch'', in which young Sam points out to Vimes that in certain circumstances, Vimes is prepared to do things which are illegal or immoral (like knocking people unconscious before they can hit him). Vimes evades giving an explanation, and privately admits to himself that his main justification is "It's Me Doing It" - -- and that this is a pretty poor justification, especially because it's the one the people on the other side are using too (and he feels [[TheFettered he could do worse if he let himself]], but he doesn't).



* A lot of the behavior displayed by Literature/NancyDrew is downright meddlesome, snoopy, and intrusive, all of which is portrayed as perfectly okay as she's a detective and the people she's displaying this behavior towards are jerks and/or suspects in her case. When anyone else acts like this, they are rightfully called out on their rudeness. This gets to the point where Nancy demands clarification on information that she learned while eavesdropping on a man's private conversation, and ''he's'' the one made to be the bad guy for screaming at her to mind her own business. Multiple times throughout the ''Files'' series however, Nancy is blasted for this by everyone - Bess, George, Ned, even her own father - and her conduct is bad enough to cause a rift in her relationships with these people.

to:

* A lot of the behavior displayed by Literature/NancyDrew is downright meddlesome, snoopy, and intrusive, all of which is portrayed as perfectly okay as she's a detective and the people she's displaying this behavior towards are jerks and/or suspects in her case. When anyone else acts like this, they are rightfully called out on their rudeness. This gets to the point where Nancy demands clarification on information that she learned while eavesdropping on a man's private conversation, and ''he's'' the one made to be the bad guy for screaming at her to mind her own business. Multiple times throughout the ''Files'' series however, Nancy is blasted for this by everyone - -- Bess, George, Ned, even her own father - -- and her conduct is bad enough to cause a rift in her relationships with these people.



** In both ''Buffy'' and ''Series/{{Angel}}'', when Angel loses his soul, the characters go to great lengths to restore it - but they never try to do the same for anyone else who gets turned into a vampire. It's only because they already know Angel that they make an exception for him. Every other vampire just gets slain. It is possible they have considered the fact that Angel's soul was restored as (apparently very successful) punishment for the crimes of his demon half, and come to the conclusion that pulling a more-or-less innocent soul out of the afterlife to inhabit the body of an undead murderer might not be the most merciful of acts, but it's never mentioned on screen.

to:

** In both ''Buffy'' and ''Series/{{Angel}}'', when Angel loses his soul, the characters go to great lengths to restore it - -- but they never try to do the same for anyone else who gets turned into a vampire. It's only because they already know Angel that they make an exception for him. Every other vampire just gets slain. It is possible they have considered the fact that Angel's soul was restored as (apparently very successful) punishment for the crimes of his demon half, and come to the conclusion that pulling a more-or-less innocent soul out of the afterlife to inhabit the body of an undead murderer might not be the most merciful of acts, but it's never mentioned on screen.



** Spike and Harmony are quite sympathetic in the latter series, mainly because they are both so ineffective as to be laughable, and because Spike is such a martyr for love. Meanwhile, Harmony is killing a whole bunch of people while Spike is completely unrepentant and cares so little for other's welfare that he helped a BigBad bring on the end of the world at least once, and was selling weapons (demon eggs) - the sort which could kill entire cities - to the highest bidder.

to:

** Spike and Harmony are quite sympathetic in the latter series, mainly because they are both so ineffective as to be laughable, and because Spike is such a martyr for love. Meanwhile, Harmony is killing a whole bunch of people while Spike is completely unrepentant and cares so little for other's welfare that he helped a BigBad bring on the end of the world at least once, and was selling weapons (demon eggs) - -- the sort which could kill entire cities - -- to the highest bidder.



* Helena Peabody in the 2nd season of ''Series/TheLWord'' had a strong social conscience. She cared a lot about the plight of poverty stricken families and donated a lot of money, both money from the company she inherited and her own money, to good causes. However she manipulated Tina and Bette so was a villain. Similarly when she mentioned to her - admittedly also very charitable - mother Peggy Peabody that she had been a neglectful mother and Peggy responded by mocking her we are encouraged to support Peggy who was always nice to Bette. We are also encouraged to dislike Helena for dating other women while with Tina even though she only did this after Tina cheated on her with Bette.

to:

* Helena Peabody in the 2nd season of ''Series/TheLWord'' had a strong social conscience. She cared a lot about the plight of poverty stricken families and donated a lot of money, both money from the company she inherited and her own money, to good causes. However she manipulated Tina and Bette so was a villain. Similarly when she mentioned to her - -- admittedly also very charitable - -- mother Peggy Peabody that she had been a neglectful mother and Peggy responded by mocking her we are encouraged to support Peggy who was always nice to Bette. We are also encouraged to dislike Helena for dating other women while with Tina even though she only did this after Tina cheated on her with Bette.



** Sam's behavior at the start of the eighth season - giving up hunting, shacking up with some random woman, and not even trying to find Dean or rescue Kevin from Crowley. It ''might'' have worked if the show had at least acknowledged he'd screwed up, but instead the narrative and WordOfGod tried to push that Sam's decision was 'mature' and Dean was wrong for being upset over it. Eventually the show did have [[spoiler:Bobby]] call Sam out on this, but this was 19 episodes into the season and was likely only done to [[AuthorsSavingThrow appease the fans]] once it became clear that nobody liked the decision.
** If one compares the early seasons to the later seasons you can easily see that this trope has become rampant in this show. Where once the boys angsted over the rights and wrongs of killing a demon- which ''always'' means killing the innocent person they are possessing too-, nowadays they cut them down by the dozen without a shred of hesitation or remorse, and in season 8 at one point Sam actually ''stops'' a demon from leaving a victim and ''then'' kills it; the only times they don't do this is, of course, with people they personally know and like. In earlier seasons, they were opposed to hunters who treated every single monster out there as fair game and slaughtered with impunity; nowadays, they do exactly that themselves, making only occasional exceptions for, once again, monsters they know (and admittedly, once or twice, for "new" monsters who haven't killed anyone...yet).

to:

** Sam's behavior at the start of the eighth season - -- giving up hunting, shacking up with some random woman, and not even trying to find Dean or rescue Kevin from Crowley. It ''might'' have worked if the show had at least acknowledged he'd screwed up, but instead the narrative and WordOfGod tried to push that Sam's decision was 'mature' and Dean was wrong for being upset over it. Eventually the show did have [[spoiler:Bobby]] call Sam out on this, but this was 19 episodes into the season and was likely only done to [[AuthorsSavingThrow appease the fans]] once it became clear that nobody liked the decision.
** If one compares the early seasons to the later seasons you can easily see that this trope has become rampant in this show. Where once the boys angsted over the rights and wrongs of killing a demon- demon -- which ''always'' means killing the innocent person they are possessing too-, too -- nowadays they cut them down by the dozen without a shred of hesitation or remorse, and in season 8 at one point Sam actually ''stops'' a demon from leaving a victim and ''then'' kills it; the only times they don't do this is, of course, with people they personally know and like. In earlier seasons, they were opposed to hunters who treated every single monster out there as fair game and slaughtered with impunity; nowadays, they do exactly that themselves, making only occasional exceptions for, once again, monsters they know (and admittedly, once or twice, for "new" monsters who haven't killed anyone...yet).



** Throughout many eras of the show, characters who like the Doctor and are susceptible to his charms are good, while those who dislike him turn out to be evil. Occasionally you'll get a character who is suspicious of him, but if they're good he'll have won them over by the end. The 1970s were probably the worst for this, as both of the 1970s Doctors were exceptionally charismatic on-screen figures, and impossible charm was considered to be one of his characterisation points [[EraSpecificPersonality in this decade]] - this also allowed the Doctor to mistreat his companions and get out of it by being cute, in a few moments that seem quite painful today.

to:

** Throughout many eras of the show, characters who like the Doctor and are susceptible to his charms are good, while those who dislike him turn out to be evil. Occasionally you'll get a character who is suspicious of him, but if they're good he'll have won them over by the end. The 1970s were probably the worst for this, as both of the 1970s Doctors were exceptionally charismatic on-screen figures, and impossible charm was considered to be one of his characterisation points [[EraSpecificPersonality in this decade]] - -- this also allowed the Doctor to mistreat his companions and get out of it by being cute, in a few moments that seem quite painful today.



** In [[Recap/DoctorWhoS25E1RemembranceOfTheDaleks "Remembrance of the Daleks"]], the Doctor frequently chastises the military (and humanity in general) for their habit of resorting to violence. However, not only does the Doctor directly kill several Daleks over the course of the story, he's actually been planning to eradicate them all for ''centuries'' in advance - with a weapon he helped build.

to:

** In [[Recap/DoctorWhoS25E1RemembranceOfTheDaleks "Remembrance of the Daleks"]], the Doctor frequently chastises the military (and humanity in general) for their habit of resorting to violence. However, not only does the Doctor directly kill several Daleks over the course of the story, he's actually been planning to eradicate them all for ''centuries'' in advance - -- with a weapon he helped build.



* Played straight in season 3 of ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'' but then eventually subverted. Barney's Casanova ways were viewed with disgust by the rest of the group. But they never had a problem when Ted got in on it after his break-up with Robin. Eventually though Ted realizes just how sleazy he's been acting - and acknowledges it was more out of desperation.

to:

* Played straight in season 3 of ''Series/HowIMetYourMother'' but then eventually subverted. Barney's Casanova ways were viewed with disgust by the rest of the group. But they never had a problem when Ted got in on it after his break-up with Robin. Eventually though Ted realizes just how sleazy he's been acting - -- and acknowledges it was more out of desperation.



* Played with on ''Series/{{Rome}}'' - several character denounce acts done by their enemies but view them as fully justified when they do the same things themselves. The show seems to play this up as an intentional part of the DeliberateValuesDissonance. Contemporary attitudes about MightMakesRight and RightMakesMight are incredibly entangled, and the Romans have no problem invoking either to justify their actions.

to:

* Played with on ''Series/{{Rome}}'' - -- several character denounce acts done by their enemies but view them as fully justified when they do the same things themselves. The show seems to play this up as an intentional part of the DeliberateValuesDissonance. Contemporary attitudes about MightMakesRight and RightMakesMight are incredibly entangled, and the Romans have no problem invoking either to justify their actions.



* Many TabletopRPG players, especially those who aren't interested in the role-playing aspects of the game, will take this attitude. Anything they do is completely justifiable (including killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff - also known as "a home invasion"), while they will seek revenge on [=NPCs=] for the slightest infraction. It can also come up in a strange way even for players who are concerned with roleplaying: If one of the characters is a criminal, the other players, even if they're LawfulGood, will be much more willing to forgive and trust that player than they would if an [=NPC=] behaved the same way. The degree to which they're forgiven is primarily founded in wanting to play with their friends, but not force them to play a character they don't want to play. Also, NeverSplitTheParty.

to:

* Many TabletopRPG players, especially those who aren't interested in the role-playing aspects of the game, will take this attitude. Anything they do is completely justifiable (including killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff - -- also known as "a home invasion"), while they will seek revenge on [=NPCs=] for the slightest infraction. It can also come up in a strange way even for players who are concerned with roleplaying: If one of the characters is a criminal, the other players, even if they're LawfulGood, will be much more willing to forgive and trust that player than they would if an [=NPC=] behaved the same way. The degree to which they're forgiven is primarily founded in wanting to play with their friends, but not force them to play a character they don't want to play. Also, NeverSplitTheParty.
This list shows the last 10 events of 1665. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ProtagonistCenteredMorality