Wick cleanup: Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes

Well, I want to make sure which of these new tropes corresponded to which of category on the original Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes, and whether they are accurate to the spirit of said category. It may be an otherwise herculean task to manually determine which trope should replace which "Antihero Type (insert roman numeral here)" for all the hundreds of wicks for Antihero.

edited 9th Jul '11 3:53:21 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

New? All the types of the scale have some associated tropes.

Yeah, but the new scheme includes both those already associated tropes as well as new ones, the latter of which includes tropes made from scratch (e.g. Classical Antihero) and already existing tropes that have never been associated with the scale's categories before.

edited 9th Jul '11 4:18:56 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I'd suggest having 3 categories instead of 5.

• One for "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" which would cover type 5 and maybe some varieties of type 1; (Templeton from Charlottes Web comes to mind as an example.)
• One for "doing morally ambiguous things for the right reasons" which would cover some varieties of types 3 and 4; (Batman from The Dark Knight comes to mind.)
• One for "attitudes not exactly in line with conventional heroes." (Basically, this would cover types 1, 2 and some of 3; as I pointed out in the Good Is Not Nice thread, there's a difference between goodness and niceness being separate and them being actively contrasted.)

edited 10th Jul '11 6:15:14 AM by neoYTPism

Wanted to bring up here a change I made. I didn't think that Psycho for Hire or Sociopathic Soldier were Type 5 descriptors, arguing that those were villain-only traits, even if a type 5 character was equally psycho.

I'm not so sure now. I can think of some anti-heroes who could probably fit Psycho for Hire, such as Deadpool or Revy of Black Lagoon, but I still don't think Sociopathic Soldier is an appropriate descriptor.

Hodor

Psycho for Hire by definition requires doing evil solely For the Evulz; that's pretty much a villain trait. The opposite trope for it would be Heroic Sociopath.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That's also what I thought. I know right now that it says they are a Heroic Sociopath if played for laughs, but maybe that reflects the older definition of the trope.

Hodor

I doubt it's possible to salvage a definite, single trope from each "type"; there will probably be "types" with more than one trope that correspond to them, and tropes where it's not clear which "type" they fall under.

As for the wicks, if there's a good trope to use instead of the horrid "Anti-Hero (type XVIII)" style, great. If there isn't, or we haven't figured it out yet, no harm in making it just say "Anti-Hero".

edited 10th Jul '11 7:57:11 AM by TripleElation

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Well, what do you know, it's undergoing TRS processing.

edited 10th Jul '11 7:52:59 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The definitions need to be defined much more clearly. The sliding scale is incomplete, the different levels all need their own tropes to properly define them. On top of that, Type I shouldn't be on the scale, though as the original definition, it should be mentioned somewhere on the page. As is, the types seem to be defined as such:

---

Type I: Pretty much just a Loser Archetype. This is the portrayal of the Anti-Hero as a loser; weak, cowardly, unpopular and unmanly. This is the classical definition of Anti-Hero, and deserves a mention on the page. Probably not as part of the scale, since it's a completely different type; maybe, as was suggested before, as a Type 0. Think Scooby-Doo or Shaggy.

---

Type II: Is not morally ambiguous: Differs from a classic hero only in their outlook on the world and level of snarkiness. In works aimed at children, Type II is the most likely kind of Anti-Hero one will see. Think Piccolo in Dragonball Z.

---

Type III: Commits morally ambiguous acts on a Good Is Not Nice level, and is willing to Shoot the Dog. They may recieve a few What the Hell, Hero? moments from more idealistic characters, but are usually seen as justified in their actions. However, they do not take pleasure in their dips into moral ambiguity, seeing it as Dirty Business to a heroic end, and they must have lines they will not cross. This does not mean, however, that they aren't Jerkasses to the people around them; this type of Anti-Hero doesn't usually play well with others. Think Batman in The Dark Knight.

---

Type IV: The difference between this type and a Type III is not necessarily in the extremity of the act, more behind the motivation of their actions. This type of Anti-Hero tends to revel in the flaws that aren't born from necessity; a Lovable Rogue or Casanova doesn't need to steal or break hearts, respectively, but they do it because they enjoy it. Their actions are less "Shoot the Dog", and more "shoot the dog for ruining my best shirt", and they might come close to Knight Templar or Token Evil Teammate. They are still nominally on the side of the good guys, or at least, fighting for the same cause, though the more morally white heroes will definitely give this character a What the Hell, Hero? or two. This type ranges from being a Type III who takes a little too much pleasure out of doing bad things, to being a borderline Villain Protagonist who are only heroes by virtue of fighting for a heroic goal, though they kick an unnecessary number of puppies along the way. Think Zelos Wilder from Tales Of Symphonia.

---

Type V: This type, while fighting against bad guys, is not heroic in the least, though they might be Evilly Affable. They are characters whose motivation is typically selfish, and they probably won't have moral lines they wouldn't cross, though they may have personal, self-created principles they stand by. They are heroes only because they are not in direct conflict with the good guys, and they are pointed at much worse villains; without that condition, they are simply a Villain Protagonist. They, like the Type IV, tend to revel in the mayhem they cause, though this is usually more sinister in nature than a Type IV. A Type IV Casanova might break hearts because he enjoys the sex, and doesn't care about what happens to the woman; a Type V might do it because they enjoy the feeling of breaking the woman's heart For the Evulz... as well as the sex. Type V Anti Heroes, if they DO work with straighter heroes, are typically doing so in an Enemy Mine situation, or they're a Heroic Sociopath, since characters like this are typically too bloodthirsty or extreme for more morally straightforward heroes, or, alternatively, they just don't care about the heroes' goal. The heroes might work with them if they're up against a villain who is a significant threat, or even to keep an eye on the Anti-Hero, to make sure they don't become a serious threat in future. Type Vs are also not adverse to working for the Big Bad as a Dragon with an Agenda or Psycho for Hire, if they think it will further their goal; however, they will usually betray the villain if the villain's plan interferes with their own. Think Kratos in God Of War.

---

Type 1 and 2 are already covered by Classical Antihero and Knight in Sour Armor, respectively, but Types III, IV and V still need a YKTTW.

edited 16th Jul '11 4:02:55 PM by tropetown

We have Byronic Hero as well, which looks like it fits somewhere towards the higher end of the scale. It's not exactly a Type IV or V, but it covers some of the darker/more outright villainous examples.

The problem with the definitions is that we are trying to use the categories to simultaneously map Good vs. Evil and Extreme vs. Not Extreme.

A hero who tortures bad guys for torturing others is certainly extreme, but not evil. But as the list is currently defined, he would not fit a single category. He is too extreme to be a type III, yet not evil enough to be a type IV.

And that's the problem with the list as it stands. The list need to cover good guys who go to extremes, but will only do so to the bad guys. The inverse is easily covered with Anti-Villians.

I believe type III already has a trope in Good Is Not Nice.

"I'll show you fear, there is no hell, only darkness." My twitter

I believe that would qualify as an example of Pay Evil unto Evil. The fact that it doesn't fit anywhere here is meaningless - I don't believe this is one of those sliding scales designed to cover absolutely every form of antihero ever.

edited 22nd Jul '11 9:34:53 PM by nrjxll

The thing with the scale is that extremity is only a factor in deciding type II-III. Type III-Vs can all do things considered extreme, but the deciding factor is just how much enjoyment they get out of being bad, and for what reasons they go to extremes. Some Type II Is can do things that would make them seem like a Knight Templar to some, but have it done as a Shoot the Dog moment. A Type IV or V, on the other hand, might find themselves doing things which are morally ambiguous and less extreme in action, but are done for amoral or immoral reasons. Type V doesn't necessarily mean actively evil, just amoral at best.

EDIT: The hero who tortures torturers would have a spot on the scale depending on why he did it, and how much he enjoyed it. If it was a necessary evil, and he didn't enjoy it, he'd be a Type III. If it was necessary (may or may not be the reason why the character did it), and he DID enjoy causing pain, he'd be a Type IV. If it wasn't done because it was necessary (though it could still be useful) AND he enjoyed it, he'd be a Type V. A Type II, barring some Values Dissonance, wouldn't do it at all, which is why extremity is only a factor in II vs III.

edited 23rd Jul '11 4:01:54 PM by tropetown

Regarding Type V "Hero In Name Only"'s description... Why the Well-Intentioned Extremist pothole? I don't see how that trope figures into "Hero In Name Only"; Well-Intentioned Extremist seems more fitting for Type IV "Vicious Anti-Hero" IMO.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

You're right. Changed.

Anything else left?

Another tangential question regarding Type V... Is it possible for a character to be both a Type V Anti-Hero and a Villain Protagonist at the same time? And I'm not considering cases of Anti-Hero turns Villain Protagonist or vice versa.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The crowner seems to be in favor of something like Vampire Buddha's proposal. I'm inclined to go with it, with a historical note about "Type I", "Type II" and so on tacked onto the end of the description for backwards compatibility.

All the Myers-Briggs style quibbling has done this scale zero favors.

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

I would say no, mostly because the difference between a Type V Anti-Hero and a Villain Protagonist is who they're fighting against. A Type V is fighting against someone more evil, or at least, more dangerous, for their own reasons. They might still clash with more straightforward heroes, but these heroes aren't the Anti-Hero's main enemy. A Villain Protagonist is up against the good guys, period. They may have an Enemy Mine, but the minute the reason for mutual cooperation is gone, if they are to remain a Villain Protagonist, they will become enemies once again for whatever reason they were before. There might be some overlap, though I can't think of any examples, but normally that wouldn't be the case.

edited 7th Aug '11 12:16:52 AM by tropetown

But there are cases of a Villain Protagonist fighting villains on his own in Evil Versus Evil setups, though.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

[quote]EDIT: The hero who tortures torturers would have a spot on the scale depending on why he did it, and how much he enjoyed it. If it was a necessary evil, and he didn't enjoy it, he'd be a Type III. If it was necessary (may or may not be the reason why the character did it), and he DID enjoy causing pain, he'd be a Type IV. If it wasn't done because it was necessary (though it could still be useful) AND he enjoyed it, he'd be a Type V. A Type II, barring some Values Dissonance, wouldn't do it at all, which is why extremity is only a factor in II vs III. [/quote]

The trope descriptions should note this. Also, Type IV can indeed be a good guy I believe, insofar as he is a Jerk with a Heart of Gold.

This is a Character Alignment debate with "types" instead of alignments.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine successive bullet points correcting each other as to whether Batman is a "type III" or a "type IV", repeatedly, forever.

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Batman's case is largely due to Depending on the Writer, so it should be expected of him to jump from one type to another. Just make a separate list for him and similar examples.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

In that case, yes, the two tropes can overlap. Some Type V Anti Heroes are Villain Protagonists and vice versa, though for a Villain Protagonist to be a Type V Anti-Hero as well, he needs to be up against someone worse than he is. Otherwise, he's just a Villain Protagonist, period.