Not Counterparts!: Magnificent Bastard

Does that then make Rommel an actual example?

Yes.

Let me get this straight:

• Magnificent Bastard: Thinks long term and outsmarts other characters while looking cool in the process. (Grand Admiral Thrawn)
• Smug Snake: Thinks he is or wants to be a Magnificent Bastard, but is too overconfident and/or arrogant. (Starscream)
• Guile Hero: Thinks short term and outsmarts other characters believably. (Michael Weston)

Did I get that right? BTW, it sounds like Erwin Rommel is more of a Guile Hero than a Magnificent Bastard.

edited 17th Sep '11 12:12:47 PM by Kersey475

That is more or less correct.

There has been a call to lock this thread because it is languishing. Clocking.

I better add Manipulative Bastard and The Chessmaster since those tropes are often confused too:

• The Chessmaster: Thinks long term, manipulates events, often (but not always) uses Chess Motifs, and prefers the Gambit Index. (Vlad Plasmius)
• Guile Hero: Thinks short term and outsmarts other characters believably to heroic ends. (Michael Weston)
• Magnificent Bastard: Combines The Chessmaster and Manipulative Bastard, thinks long term, and outsmarts other characters while looking cool in the process. (Grand Admiral Thrawn)
• Manipulative Bastard: Manipulates people personally, usually thinks short term, and prefers Social Engineering. (Benjamin Linus)
• Smug Snake: Thinks he is or wants to be a Magnificent Bastard, but is too overconfident and/or arrogant. (Starscream)

Is it possible for a Guile Hero to evolve into a heroic Magnificent Bastard?

edited 4th Nov '11 7:13:47 PM by Kersey475

I think Magnificent Bastard does require a certain "shadiness" about it that isn't necessary to Guile Hero. They can be good guys, sure, but they aren't Knights In Shining Armor by any means. Guile Hero, on the other hand, doesn't seem to require that same "shadiness". They can overlap, and I think a Guile Hero could theoretically develop into a Magnificent Bastard, but I do think that's a difference.

Why would the Guile Hero think short term? Do you mean thinks quickly?

I think the idea is that the Guile Hero is a much more "thinks on his feet" character, preferring the Indy Ploy. The Magnificent Bastard is much more long-term.

Another question; if Magnificent Bastard is not limited to villains, how can we make this clearer?

Simple - emphasise the Lord Vetinari-type in the main description. He's of the 'not Evil, but not particularly Good' school of being Magnificent: his methods aren't squeaky-clean, but the outcome he manoeuvres towards isn't Puppy-Eating Evil (unless you hate a smoothly-running Ankh-Morpork's guts). In short: he's got his own set of morals, but he's also an assassin who can and will get his hands dirty should the situation merit it (so, not an example to teach the kids). By pointing out that most M Bs have tendencies towards Blue-Orange or Black-Grey Morality, you can pound the point home. Guile Hero will, at worst, be Grey-Grey when not seeing the world in Black and White. I guess it's why M Bs tend to look badder than their more straight-forward cousins, even when they act for the good of all.

My understanding of the trope is that it requires four essential ingredients:

- The Chessmaster

- Manipulative Bastard

- Magnificence; that is to say, a stylistic flair that appeals to the audience.

- A degree of bastardry; preferably moral ambiguity (Type III-V anti-heroes, Type I, III or IV anti-villains), though a Magnificent Bastard who is also a Complete Monster is possible (many might call Johan Liebert a Magnificent Bastard, after all, even though he's literally the poster boy for Complete Monsters), whilst conversely one can just about imagine a heroic MB whose 'bastardry' is really just being a little bit of a jerkass to his opponents as he's beating them, and isn't actually morally ambiguous.

I believe The Trickster was originally included to cover the idea that the Magnificent Bastard shouldn't, ideally, have his plans come down around him because he can't adapt or cracks under pressure; however, as has been pointed out, this isn't really what The Trickster is about, at least not in its entirety, whilst the same angle is, for the MB's purposes, covered by Xanatos Speed Chess (still not necessary, but highly desirable).

If I had to put the trope into one sentence, it would be this: the Magnificent Bastard is any character who makes the character whistle in admiration at his(/her) cleverness, style and audacity, whilst being ambiguous on the moral scale. That's not quite the perfect description, obviously, but I think it's a good way of capturing the trope's essence laconically.

edited 28th Nov '11 7:00:07 AM by Osric

Where the 'bastard' comes in isn't on the morality scale to my mind, it's his opponents calling him a bastard out of frustration at the fact that he's always one step ahead of them and so damn cool while doing it. It doesn't matter whether those opponents are good guys or bad guys.

Exactly.

Reminds me of this scene from Dirty Harry.

That said, I don't think this would have been named bastard if not for at least originating with the idea that the character was, well, a bastard...

edited 28th Nov '11 2:14:26 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

I dunno, I see where you're coming from, and it is admittedly quite possible to read that sense and only that sense into the trope-naming quote (not that I myself have actually seen the film in full, but hey ho), but my personal image of the Magnificent Bastard, at least, has at least some shade of moral - or at least personality-related - bastardry to it, even if it's not an overriding element. I realise that's not a particularly good argument for it, but I don't really know how else to say it. I guess if it's just me then I can but admit defeat on the issue. Nevertheless, the MB to me is someone who is willing to, and when necessary does, get his/her hands dirty.

edited 28th Nov '11 3:16:01 PM by Osric

Yes, the Magnificent Bastard is by default a Manipulative Bastard which in many cases isn't seen as a virtue, so it's certainly true that in the majority of cases the Magnificent Bastard isn't going to be a straight hero, but to preclude the possibility of any character ever managing to be as such is quite hasty, especially since there are some quite arguable examples of them (I nominate Miles Vorkosigan and Urahara Kisuke) and most of what we consider straight heroes these days aren't necessarily the extremes of Ideal Hero.

edited 28th Nov '11 4:54:01 PM by NoirGrimoir

Got another holler to lock this thread for lack of resolution. Looks like you've got most of the issues sorted out, right? Matter of getting it done and wrapping up. Setting a three day clock.

edited 28th Nov '11 6:36:31 PM by Camacan

Yes, it's accomplished what it was meant to, I hollered for it to close a while ago...

edited 28th Nov '11 8:16:03 PM by NoirGrimoir

Alright, let me clarify: I wasn't trying to preclude examples like Urahara (Miles I can't speak for, having not seen/read that series). I did, indeed, in my original post entertain the possibility of a more or less straight hero falling under this trope; however, I added the proviso that (often, admittedly, due to their Manipulative Bastard nature as you note) that they're also kind of a dick, at least to their enemies. Now, again, I can't speak for Miles, but Urahara would definitely qualify for that - he has no problem whatsoever taunting and cajoling his enemies, and indeed sometimes his allies, above and beyond the call of what's necessary to get done what needs to be gotten done. He's undoubtedly a hero despite this (short of some fairly radical Epileptic Trees and Alternate Character Interpretation), but nevertheless, a bastard in the good, old-fashioned sense.

Still... with all that said, I guess I can see the point that it's often as not due their being a Manipulative Bastard that they are this way, which would make mentioning it as a fourth necessary condition a bit redundant. I just think it should be emphasised in the rest of the text that they are usually morally ambiguous beyond the basic requirements of the trope.

You don't think the description says that clearly enough?

Judging by that part of the description, I'd say that the presence of manipulation is enough on its own to contradict the idea of it applying to "purely heroic" characters.

edited 29th Nov '11 1:07:46 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

Eh, at this point, since we seem to be contemplating a wholesale re-write of the trope (unless that's happened already, in which case my apologies), I'm not really paying too much attention to the current article, just establishing principles.

The re-write has already happened.

Right. I must've missed that. Sorry.