Created By: Thecommander236 on April 20, 2013 Last Edited By: Thecommander236 on May 13, 2013
Troped

Good Pays Better

Being good pays off in dividends.

Name Space:
Main
Page Type:
Trope
Sometimes evil is the best way to go - at least when you are trying to make money - but that isn't always the case. Sure if you keep the populace uneducated and you block the internet you may have a state that is less likely to riot in the short term. You may be able to tax your people an unreasonable sum in order to make money. Maybe you can loot one of your neighbors once in a while when cash is low. Who would disagree that this isn't a profitable idea?

Well, just about every caring ruler out there would disagree. Kindness towards your people will pay off more in the long-term. Sure it may cost money to build those schools, roads and police stations, but having a good education system, better transportation routes and security is good for the long term. This isn't due to capitalism, communism, or any form of government. It's common sense. If your people are able to earn a substantial amount of money through a job that requires education through an economy that's connected to many foreign countries, then you can get more revenue in taxes. Attacking your neighbors costs money. You have to pay for that military force don't you? Plus, if you can't beat your neighbors or their allies, then you have a serious problem on your hands.

Whereas Videogame Caring Potential is similar to this trope, it doesn't always pay off in $$$. Exporting that surplus of oil to a country that needs it is going to pay off more than say, sitting on it to watch that country suffer. Good diplomatic relationships and good internal PR go a long way. Reducing squalor, building parks, designing sports arenas and constructing defensive structures goes a long way to improving that PR and the better PR you have the more you can tax without starting a riot. The people are happy, you are happy and the money is flowing.

Contrast this trope to Evil Pays Better. Compare it to Videogame Caring Potential and Cut Lex Luthor a Check. Often this type of system relies on the Power of Trust. The latter of which takes inventing things instead of common sense management. Related to Rousseau Was Right. See also Mercy Rewarded.

No Real Life Examples, Please! as calling someone "good" almost always involves calling someone else "evil" which is equivalent to a personal attack and an invitation to a flame war.

Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder: Video Games]]
  • In Medieval II: Total War, there is a point where you can make enough trade agreements to cause valuable good prices for merchants skyrocket. Building structure that add protection (like wall), provide entertainment (like race tracks and inns), provide security and law (like the Mayor's house and garrison quarters), and other such structures raise the people's happiness. Providing them places to work (like farms), places to trade (like ports and markets), and structures to increase said trade (like shipwrights and roads) will increase profits by a substantial amount. If you use loyal, non-corrupted, and smart family members run cities, you can increase public happiness further. All this means is that population growth will accelerate and you can get away with charging higher taxes. Everyone wins!
  • In The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, there is a mission near the end of the game where you need to ask all the city rulers to send soldiers to protect the capital. Each ruler will assign you a mission that you need to finish first. If you go the extra mile and complete all the optional objectives, you will get more units to help fight and better rewards.
  • In Fallout 3, there is a mission to help a strange woman make a handy survival guide. If you risk life and limb to make a very informative book and tell her honestly about your results, you will make a better book and get a bunch of extra rewards, the least of which being people giving you free stuff in gratitude for helping save their lives.
  • Fallout: New Vegas: There are a lot of opportunities to do both good things and evil things, and there are rewards for both. However, there is a general trend of higher rewards for more effort so often times the evil route is a shortcut with limited rewards and the good route is more rewarding in the long term.
    • In the Old World Blues expansion several optional sidequest to aid members of the Think Tank will result in an easy way to end the expansion without bloodshed. If you do you can continue to take advantage of the extra caps, magazines, and energy cell they give you every day whenever you go back to The Sink.
    • Helping the Brotherhood of Steel with their internal conflicts will net you power armor training, something you would otherwise not be able to get until much later in the game.
    • Increasing your Freeside rep by helping The Kings or The Followers will result in members of The Kings periodically approaching you and giving you free stuff.
    • Increasing your rep with any major town will result in better prices at their stores. The best way to do this is to go out of your way to help people in that town (defending Godsprings from the Powder Gangers, getting a new sheriff for Primm, etc). In contrast the evil option would be to just murder everyone. This will allow you to loot the place, but deny you the additional merchants which can be more harmful in the long run.
    • Increasing your rep with the Followers of the Apocalypse will first get you some free healing items everyday, and later get you an honorary membership which gains you access to their safe house. You do this by helping them provide aid to the people of Freeside, cleaning up drug addicts, fetching medicine, helping refugees, and other act of humanitarianism.
    • In Quarry Junction a man will straight up pay you after the fact if you fix the town's pet molerat's leg and/ or fix their generator. The evil option (killing the molerat and wrecking the generator) will only net you molerat meat and scrap.
  • In StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, one of the first missions involves fleeing Mar Sara. At certain points in the mission, stranded survivors will call for aid. If you go to retrieve them with enough forces, you can end up with a positive net gain in saved resources. Similarly, in the mission where you bail out Narud, it is almost impossible to win the mission on hard mode if you don't bother to search and save the surviving mercenaries scattered around the map. This happens again when you fight in the underground caverns on Char where rescuing lost terran units (especially the firebats) is almost a must. In-universe, helping Tosh and Ariel Hanson will free many dissenters and intellectuals who opposed Mengsk and help humanity in it's search for a cure for infestation respectively.
  • In BioShock, rescuing Little Sisters gets you less ADAM than harvesting them, but you'll get extra rewards that cannot be obtained otherwise (like the almighty Hypnotize Big Daddy Plasmid).
  • In the Civilization series of games [at least the first three, I haven't played any versions beyond that], the Republic and Democracy forms of government place some restrictions on your foreign policy (harder to initiate or sustain a war effort) and support for military units, and your populace gets discontented quicker when you are engaged in war (even those not initiated by you)--not exactly easy for a player bent on conquest (at least early and mid game), compared to Despotism, Monarchy, or Communism. But the economic benefits of these government forms (especially Democracy) is astronomical, to the point that late in the game the player can still pay for a large military (with advanced technology paid for with more money that can go into research or tech trades) if they're so inclined, and become a formidable superpower. Or they're more likely to achieve the technological victory (first ship to Alpha Centauri).
  • Come Mass Effect 3, taking Paragon choices throughout the Mass Effect series results in far greater war assets than Renegade choices. Justified since Paragon Shepard is, in general, much more conciliatory than Renegade Shepard and is thus much better at building alliances.
  • An annual mini-game festival event in The Lord of the Rings Online has a storyline where you can either choose to help homeless townsfolk, or help the mayor and festival organizers who exploited them. If you help the mayor, he rewards you with some fancy clothing. If you help the townsfolk they reward you with ragged old clothing -- but about a month later, when they're presumably all doing well for themselves again (and when most players have already stopped thinking about the festival), they send you something really nice and extravagant.
[[/folder]]

[[folder: Western Animation]]
  • In ReBoot, Dot Matrix was able to stop the Crimson Binome's pirate raid by parleying with him and his accountant. After showing him that his pirate profit margins were lower than her own rates for honest cargo hauling, she hired him and his ship.
[[/folder]]
Community Feedback Replies: 44
  • April 20, 2013
    KTera
    In BioShock, rescuing Little Sisters gets you less ADAM than harvesting them, but you'll get extra rewards that cannot be obtained otherwise (like the almighty Hypnotize Big Daddy Plasmid).
  • April 20, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Added.
  • April 21, 2013
    WeAreAllKosh
    In the Civilization series of games [at least the first three, I haven't played any versions beyond that], the Republic and Democracy forms of government place some restrictions on your foreign policy (harder to initiate or sustain a war effort) and support for military units, and your populace gets discontented quicker when you are engaged in war (even those not initiated by you)--not exactly easy for a player bent on conquest (at least early and mid game), compared to Despotism, Monarchy, or Communism. But the economic benefits of these government forms (especially Democracy) is astronomical, to the point that late in the game the player can still pay for a large military (with advanced technology paid for with more money that can go into research or tech trades) if they're so inclined, and become a formidable superpower. Or they're more likely to achieve the technological victory (first ship to Alpha Centauri).
  • April 21, 2013
    WeAreAllKosh
    This trope is also related to, and often based on, Power Of Trust.

    I assume this trope isn't strictly for video games. There's definitely Real Life truth to it as well. The Prisoner's Dilemma relates to it (and game theory showing that cooperation is the optimal play for all in the long run). And obviously there are benefits to living in a world where you don't feel you have to be constantly watching your back--but to live in a world like that takes people (including you and I) not stabbing others in the back. A culture of honesty is also good for business--in many ways business depends on it to even function. And ensuring that everyone feels they have a stake in things (by being included rather than marginalized, have at least basically decent living standards rather than desperation) ensures that such an honest and cooperative culture can persist and be strengthened rather than deteriorate and be ruined for everyone.

    (And I'd say generally 90% of people if not more do try to live this way. A large portion of exceptions are probably Sociopaths.)

    I'll have to think of examples from other media that mention or clearly illustrate these principles--again, if your trope is intended to go beyond gameplay.
  • April 21, 2013
    Thecommander236
    It involves everything. Hell, how many shows and movies show bounty hunters getting thousands of dollars for turning in a convicted criminal? A hell of a lot.

    Can you write that as an example?
  • April 21, 2013
    DunDun
    Also there's a typo in the name. Good Pays Better.
  • April 21, 2013
    Thecommander236
  • April 21, 2013
    StarSword
    ^Lol.

    Video Games:
    • Come Mass Effect 3, taking Paragon choices throughout the Mass Effect series results in far greater war assets than Renegade choices. Justified since Paragon Shepard is, in general, much more conciliatory than Renegade Shepard and is thus much better at building alliances.
  • April 21, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Added.
  • April 22, 2013
    StarSword
    Fixed italicization and a namespace. And hatted.
  • April 24, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Thank you.
  • April 24, 2013
    willthiswork
    I could not get my reply with my example to go through, so I edited your draft. Hope that is ok!
  • April 24, 2013
    StarSword
    Related trope: Rousseau Was Right
  • April 24, 2013
    Thecommander236
    That's fine as long as you told me and didn't troll the article. Added Rousseau Was Right.
  • April 26, 2013
    ohnoesazombie
    Looks wonderful, and all of the examples I came here to post seem to be there. Have a hat.
  • April 26, 2013
    jatay3
    In Sixteen Thirty Two, Grantsville's policy of welcoming refugees and training them in twentieth century technology quickly made it the most formidable power in seventeenth century Europe.
  • April 27, 2013
    randomsurfer
    In Marville Kal-AOL accidentally stops a bank robber and is given a huge cash reward - which just happens to be the exact amount of money the thief was in the middle of stealing. The cop just hands Kal the Thief Bag.
  • April 28, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Added and thanks
  • April 30, 2013
    StarSword
    I don't really understand how bounty hunters are an example.
  • April 30, 2013
    Thecommander236
    We aren't talking about neutral or evil bounty hunters. We mean licensed, good bounty hunters who are paid to pick up criminals. Sure as hell pays a lot more than being a cop.
  • April 30, 2013
    willthiswork
    ^ To qualify for this trope I would assume it would have to pay more than being a criminal, not more than being a cop.
  • April 30, 2013
    Thecommander236
    The criminals are going to jail, I think that negates any money they got while committing crimes. Note bounty hunters are hired when criminals (many of whom are on the lamb) disappear after their they have already been caught once and are out on bail. Doing that isn't very profitable, so, yeah, the bounty hunters are making more than the criminals are in that case.
  • April 30, 2013
    Generality
    See also Mercy Rewarded.
  • May 1, 2013
    remande
    In Re Boot, Dot Matrix was able to stop the Crimson Binome's pirate raid by parleying with him and his accountant. After showing him that his pirate profit margins were lower than her own rates for honest cargo hauling, she hired him and his ship.
  • May 1, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Added.
  • May 3, 2013
    Melkior
    I've edited the description for spelling and grammar. The examples also need similar work. If I get the time, I'll do them too.

    I like this trope. I'm surprised it didn't already exist.
  • May 3, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Ditto. Heh, I always spell and grammar check before I launch a trope. I think the reason we didn't have it is because a lot of people think it's more fun to act evil in a game because they can't in real life. We also Videogame Caring Potential, but that doesn't necessary reward you.
  • May 4, 2013
    Megaptera
    Video Games

    • An annual mini-game festival event in The Lord Of The Rings Online has a storyline where you can either choose to help homeless townsfolk, or help the mayor and festival organizers who exploited them. If you help the mayor, he rewards you with some fancy clothing. If you help the townsfolk they reward you with ragged old clothing -- but about a month later, when they're presumably all doing well for themselves again (and when most players have already stopped thinking about the festival), they send you something really nice and extravagant.

  • May 4, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Added.
  • May 5, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Sigh, I have to this soon don't I? XoX
  • May 7, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Sorry guys, I have finals this week and I'm really worried that I'm going to fail chemistry (my major, no less!) out of laziness. So I'm avoiding launching this until next week. So dont think this is up for grabs. I just don't have the time right now.
  • May 8, 2013
    Bobchillingworth
    I'm not a fan of the bounty hunter RL example either. It is subjective and overly-generalizes the profession (surely not all bounty hunters are "good"), and it's not clear to me what they are being compared with here. Even if we accept that being a bounty hunter is 'good', it pays better than... what, being a criminal? Not only do some criminals make quite a lot of money, but you could make the same claim about thousands of professions.
  • May 8, 2013
    Thecommander236
    I'm talking only the licensed bounty hunters in the USA. Do you know how tough it is to get a license here? It's damned near impossible because these guys are given MORE RIGHTS than cops to get the job done. They aren't going to give psychopaths a license to start breaking down doors.
  • May 8, 2013
    Bobchillingworth
    That's naive and more importantly irrelevant. If the only standard for a real life "Good Pays Better" example is 'does not openly recruit psychopaths' then you should include 99.9% of professions. You are also ignoring the point that bounty hunters do not even fit the trope as presently described, since there is no evidence that they earn more than "criminals" or other morally questionable forms of employment. It also implies that bounty hunters face a quandary of whether or not to earn a living through deliberate cruelty, since "good pays better" inherently requires an alternative; you could easily argue that billions of other people make the same "decision". Furthermore Tv Tropes has a policy against labeling groups of actual people with the blanket designations of "good" or "bad". This is a good trope idea (although it occupies an awfully specific niche between the various existent "good is pleasurable / powerful" tropes), but I don't think it's ready for prime time with a RL section, especially not with such a subjective and confusing example.
  • May 9, 2013
    Bobchillingworth
    While I'm thinking about it, the text of the trope as written propounds several unfounded or outright inaccurate assertions. There are and have been plenty of "evil" (or highly morally ambiguous) nations which have had schools, roads and police stations. North Korea, for example. Or Nazi Germany, if you want to go Godwin. Conversely, a lack of physical infrastructure =/= "evil". The second paragraph in particular has a number of problems. The sentence mentioning capitalism and communism doesn't make sense (what does "This" refer to, the trope itself? Why would anyone think economic systems were relevant?). Very few actual nations deliberately keep people underemployed and impoverished, fewer still could be unequivocally labeled as "evil", and of those remaining the trope still doesn't apply- Kim Jong Un is personally far more wealthy than most of his "good" contemporaries, regardless of what his tax base looks like. Dictators by the very nature of their unfettered power are almost universally fabulously wealthy. And concerning the final assertion, historically many nations have successfully increased their power / resources through unprovoked military aggression.

    Honestly I'm not sure why so much of the trope description is dedicated to nation-states, considering how subjective applying black-and-white morality to entire countries is. Given that most of your examples are going to come from videogames where the positive karma options give better rewards than the evil ones, I'd rewrite and refocus the introduction.
  • May 9, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Nonono, man, these guys only arrest criminals that have skipped town while on bail. I literally never said they make more than ALL criminals, just more than these runners. You can't really run a criminal organization while on the lamb. In essence, these criminals aren't making any money for their crime of fleeing. As for being good or bad, bounty hunters aka Bail Enforcement agents aka Fugitive Recovery Agents are not allowed to do this job if they have received a felony in the past. Furthermore, they Bounty Hunter Training Academy clearly states that it is a force for justice. There are laws to keep assholes out of the profession.

    You're also ignoring the reason WHY they make more money than cops as well. In fact, by what I can tell, they make more money than the majority of people who DON'T need a college degree for their job. You'll also notice on that page that these guys do make decent money.

    North Korea, that's your example? Really? You really don't know anything about North Korea, do you? Do you know how terrible their GDP is? They are placed at 164th of all countries... out of 195. Do you know how they compared to Democrat South Korea. PPP GDP for the North is $1800 an PPP GDP for the South is $32,272. 18 TIMES the amount of the North. Nominal GDP for the North is $506 while nominal GDP for the South is $23,113. FORTY-FIVE TIMES the North's! The North's policies have been killing it for decades. Who cares that they have schools? We're talking money, not either or not the people can read or write. The fact of the matter is if it wasn't for China, the entire country would have starved to death by now. The people live in squalor and living conditions suck. Even taking ALL the country's money into account, they only place 103. "So what," you say, "they're small. Of course they aren't that rich compared to big countries." Well, let's look at South Korea again which is about the same size. Hmm, uh, oh okay. They 13th. 40 billion dollars vs. 1.611 TRILLION dollars. South Korea has 40.275 TIMES what the North has. In sixty years, the North has slowly been dying which is WHY we're worried their on the verge of going insane and nuking everyone which is WHY we refuse to let them build nuclear weapons.

    Also, Nazi germany? Here's the thing, Nazi Germany f'ed over the entire country. That country lasted less than a decade, got wiped off the map and that war f'ed over East Germany until 1990 when it rejoined with the West. East Germany had maybe 12 years of prosperity (during which millions of citizens were killed, tens of thousands rapes by Soviets, millions more put until arrest, millions more THAN THAT that had their homes invaded and destroyed by Soviets, etc.) and they got 45 years of poverty for their trouble. Let's ignore the fact that millions died (which also happens to mean millions less people who could pay taxes) in West Germany for a moment and think about the people of Nazi Germany's capita. Here's a sobering thought, the people who had money got it from countries that were annihilated and stole it from the millions of people they slaughtered. So, realistically speaking, there were millions of poor people (a very large percent of the country) that was dirt poor, but I guess you can say their per capita increased when they murdered all those poor people in the Contration Camps. Vlad the Impaler did the same thing. Vlad wiped out poverty in his country by BURNING THE POOR PEOPLE ALIVE that he invited to dine with him. Oh and a hell of a lot of good that money did the majority of Nazi leaders. They could really spend that money after they committed suicide, were executed for their crimes, or escaped on the lamb. Hell, a Nazi doctor was lucky enough to make it to central America were he lived out his life in peaceful poverty. A hell a lot of good did that doctorate do for him. In the long term, Germany was ecomonically ruined by the Nazis and the majority of the people there who supported them lost everything when war came and blow up their houses, killed their sons, and revealed the truth of Nazi cruelity at which point former Nazi supporters killed themselves.

    And you said I was naive...

    Damn, that was annoying...
  • May 9, 2013
    Bobchillingworth
    I don't want to get into a big debate about world history with you, but your oddly aggravated reply only continues to reinforce my belief that your YKTTW purports to be about a clear-cut decision between good or evil while including multiple entirely irrelevant examples.

    I will try to make this simple. Going back yet again to the bounty hunter example, the fact is that it does not fit the trope going by your own definition. The trope posits that an entity faces a decision between "good" or "evil", and that furthermore the more morally positive option will inevitably provide greater dividends. There must be a choice, or the word "better" in the three-word title does not make sense. How then does a real-life bounty hunter fit the trope? Even if we accept your inaccurate assertion that fugitives cannot earn more than bounty hunters, the trope still does not apply, unless you mean to claim that the bounty hunters themselves must decide whether to be in their current profession or be fugitives. The claim that bounty hunters earn more than cops (which is itself again incorrect unless you're discarding many higher-level police positions) is even less relevant, since now you're just comparing salaries between two different non-criminal jobs. Looking at it logically, right now the trope states that actor A must decide between options 1 or 2, and option 1 pays better. The bounty hunter example is instead actor A inherently picks option 1 while actor B intrinsically includes option 2. It simply does not fit.

    There is of course also the unaddressed issue that Tv Tropes does not assign black-and-white "good" or "bad" labels to large groups of actual people. If bounty hunters are only good because they are not felons and a school claims they are a "force for justice", then you could include literally thousands of professions in the RL section. How about physicians, surgeons, professors, lawyers, military officers and congressmen? All generally well-paying positions which include codes of conduct. Except again none of them would fit, because there is no requisite decision a person faces between being a "good" pediatrician vs. an "evil" whatever. The fact is that you cannot simply declare that all bounty hunters are good, and even if they were universally recognized to be paragons of morality, there is no clear evil alternative which they out-earn.

    Moving on to your nation-state wall of text & ignoring your unnecessarily condescending tone, it does not matter how much the average North Korean peasant makes or how backward the nation is. I only mentioned schools etc. because you list various forms of infrastructure as being signs of a "good" nation in the trope description. If you now feel they are in fact irrelevant, you should fix it. I cannot read your mind through the internet to garner what you actually intend this trope to represent, I can only go by the text you have written. In fact, going again by what you yourself have provided as the trope's description, it continues to not make sense to focus 3/4 of your introduction on comparative international development. It does not matter how many statistics on North Korea you rattle off here- nations are not living entities, and the people in charge of North Korea are much more wealthy than most of the people leading democratic nations. This is because dictators are not bound by constitutionally-limited salaries or mandated ethics. There are plenty of ways for a world leader to make billions regardless of the wretched condition of most of their subjects. A country's GDP is completely different from its ruler's personal fortune. Your Nazi / Vlad the Impaler (??) paragraph is irrelevant for the same reasons. And of course this all yet again incorrectly assumes that nations (or at least the people in charge) face binary choices between arbitrarily-assigned "good" or "bad" policies.

    It is clear that YKTTW needs a significant rewrite before it is ready to launch. Something which should be mostly about how taking a paragon prompt gives more exp or whatever than a renegade one in the same situation has instead developed a tumor of dog-chewed, half-forgotten Poly Sci 101 notes. I'm happy to edit this page if you'd like; it is not very large and shouldn't take long. It might help to have someone who can step back and take an unprejudiced look at this entry before fixing it.
  • May 9, 2013
    Thecommander236
    It's aggravated because you're being an ass about this. It's not as that big of a deal. Just drop it.
  • May 9, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Okay, okay I'll explain why you pissed me off.

    1). You hit my berserk button by calling me "naive" which didn't make sense to and insulted my intelligence. That was a really bad start to convince me of anything.

    2). You had no idea what you were talking about when you used North Korea as one of your examples which is one of the most dirt poor countries on the planet. That was really bad Critical Research Failure.

    3). Why in God's name did you use the NAZIS as an example?! I know that Hitler saved the country from economic ruin and made the country prosper for about 12 years, at least in teh short term. The fact of the matter though is that his rule destroyed the entire country, stole from millions of people, killed said millions of people, killed millions MORE in a war, destroyed the economy of many nations that it conquered including France, caused half the country to become dirt poor for 45 long, horrible years, and led into one of the biggest rebuilding periods in the world's history. That obviously goes against the fact that they were making money by being sadists AND it would have been better if Hilter had just fixed the economy and left it at that instead of ending countless lives. If that had happened, maybe Germany would have been one of the world's major super powers up until the 1990s instead of after it.

    The point is, you could NOT have picked a worst example as it's the most offensive thing you could have stated even IF you had worded it more carefully. You should've picked a fictional example. That was literally the most offensive thing I've read all year and I was absolutely disgusted. So what if a few Nazis got some gold? You were basically arguing that anyone can get rich as long as they perform mass genocide. That's why I couldn't get myself to even get past the first paragraph of your third post, because I'm afraid it's going to be more disturbing then the second one.
  • May 9, 2013
    Bobchillingworth
    "You hit my berserk button by calling me "naive" which didn't make sense to and insulted my intelligence"

    [...]

    "You had no idea what you were talking about when you used North Korea as one of your examples which is one of the most dirt poor countries on the planet. That was really bad Critical Research Failure."

    Heh. Where's an eye-rolling smiley when you need one?

    Anyway, WTF are you talking about, saying I was "basically arguing that anyone can get rich as long as they perform mass genocide"? Are you insane? I never wrote anything like that. As I have explained multiple times now, my point was that your providing national investment in various forms of infrastructure as the hallmark of a "good" nation didn't make sense. I have absolutely no idea why you are calling me offensive, disgusting and disturbing except that you evidently have not bothered to actually read any of my previous posts. Not once have you logically addressed any of the concerns I or others have bought up in this comment section.

    I'm done arguing with you. If you can't trouble yourself to take a few minutes to consider my points then fine, just don't try to publish this mess without serious edits.
  • May 9, 2013
    Thecommander236
    Listen, man, you got three strikes already from me, I'm literally too pissed to read anything you write sorry. Try again in a week or two.
  • May 10, 2013
    DunDun
    The argument above is, as far as I'm concerned, pointless. Let me offer a reason to ditch any Real Life examples: calling someone "good" is the inverse of calling someone "evil"; if you're going to say Good Pays Better in Real Life, then you must call someone "evil" or a "villain" because you're saying "Good pays better than evil," and wiki policy is to not call real life people villains. This is No Real Life Examples Please
  • May 10, 2013
    Thecommander236
    At least someone knows when to be polite. I'll remove it.
  • May 13, 2013
    Melkior
    I agree that this is a No Real Life Examples Please trope. The argument caused by an attempt to add a real life example is, in my opinion, enough reason to ban them from this trope regardless of any other considerations.

    Added a No Real Life Examples Please request to the description, including reasons. Feel free to edit if you can come up with a better wording.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/discussion.php?id=5qv6zpwc95e45rp7s8n4xwwf&trope=GoodPaysBetter