|
Narrative
|
Roland: Amusing as this trope description is, bitter much? :-)
Ruthie A: You know, I find the introductory paragraph rather hard to believe. I just don't think most people would be that heartless. I know some people might be scared, or not think they would be able to help, but to not help someone in serious trouble because they're afraid of messing up their shirt? I just don't think people would act like that.
Ronin Aquila: I envy you, for you have had the good fortune of not meeting too many animals known as the cynic. I have severed my ties with many former "friends" because they keep telling me to stop caring about a starving kid I met on the streets, and then go and watch some heartless cynical crap called "Family Guy" wherein its okay to laugh at orphans and cancer patients because apparently, it is "cool" and "smart" to be a black hearted cynic.
I created this trope as an angry reaction to cynical animals who think that being happy is more important than being honorable and caring for other human beings.. I for one would gladly live without laughter than live without honor.
Gemmifer: But removing the links to Lawful Stupid and Martyr Without A Cause as exampels of the trope done wrong was still unneccessary. I put them back into the text.
Austin: Yeah, I'd agree. This site is anything but neutral, but the opening paragraph isn't written with the grace that most articles are. I think someone should reword that so that it's less extreme.
T Matt: This text is ridiculous. Not only is the openning paragraph demonstratably untrue but the closing paragraph about a "return" to some "more honorable" age is nonsense. Modern humans are nicer than our historic counterparts: we have concepts like "human rights."
Austin: I edited the opening paragraph, because to say "most" people wouldn't help is a big generalization.
Shay Guy: Did the Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann cast ever actually display this?
—-
Shay Guy: Removing TTGL until anybody can cite an instance of this. And Kamina's overall "manliness before reason" ideal doesn't count.
Cromage: Removed a bit of bias in the article. It can come back if you demonstrate that it is true. =P (alas, no [citation needed] markups in this wiki)
I also propose renaming this trope to Honor Before Practicality. It's not like people who act honorably aren't using a form of reason; it's just that if you view the world as a constant series of "jobs" that have to "get done" then you'll use reason in a different fashion than people who have other views on the world.
Sunder The Gold: I can get behind Honor Before Practicality.
Also, if this trope is going to be contrasted against Shoot The Dog, it's more like Sentimentality Versus Practicality — shooting a rabid dog is heartbreaking, but not dishonorable.
Also, removing the following, as Aldaris is an example of Lawful Stupid if anything.
Some natter:
fleb: There's no possible way this could ever fit onto the main page, but I have to mention this passage from The Wheel Of Time The Fires of Heaven parody: [1] Rand: Too bad no one killed Couladin when we had the chance. —-
Austin: I removed the Supernatural example. I don't think it's a case of HBR. It's not honor, it's love. Dean loves Sam to death (And how!) and likely couldn't live life without him, hence why he was so determined to find things out for sure. Given Dean's speech in the season three finale, the writers may have even intended for this to be selfish on Dean's part, and even Sam questions whether Dean could really kill him if he went bad. I'll leave the example here.
Rhuarc: That would violate ji'e'toh. Rand: ji'e'toh restricts you from stopping madmen warlords? Rhuarc: Yes. The rule is madmen warlords can try to kill you, and everyone near you, and everyone else who isn't near you, and everyone they know, and everyone they thought was looking at them funny. Rand: What does ji'e'toh let me do? Rhuarc: You can mutter under your breath. Rand: Shaido dogs. Rhuarc: Now you're getting it.
Austin: I've found a dispute over the Broken Arrow example, so I'll discuss it here instead of letting it continue in the edit summaries. "As an Asian, like John Woo who made this movie, I found this to be the honorable and decent thing to do. Deakin and Riley are warriors, and to have done otherwise is a sin that no hell is evil enough for. " This is ridiculous. Risking thousands of innocent lives just for a straight up fight is not "honorable", it's stupid. Honor isn't how to fight, it's why you fight. Say Deakin had lost the fight, and then Riley had donated the bomb. Thousands would die, but would you say "Oh well, at least he went about it honorably!" I hope not. The correct choice is the one that saves the most innocent lives. Wellington: If this wasn't a Justifying Edit, I don't know what is. Yes, paladins work this way in Quest For Glory... that's the point of the trope! In Quest For Glory 2, a fighter faces The Dragon in a climactic swordfight, and quickly disarms him. If he chooses to kill his unarmed foe, instead of letting him have his sword back, the game treats it as a dishonorable act... even though The End Of The World As We Know It is due to happen in a few minutes, if the hero doesn't get a move on. The VGA fan remake is even more extreme in this regard; giving the sword back leads to a truly Nintendo Hard fight. Apparently, The Dragon waits until after you show him mercy to bust out the really nasty moves.
Wellington: Normally, I'd edit this down:
Freezer: @Ronin Aquila Broken Chaos: Reformatted quotes and pulled the most recently added one, copied below: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions."
—David Hume
|
