Split? Screw The Money, I Have Rules: Screw The Money I Have Rules

Edit: Ugh. I messed up on linking to the article. Damn punctuation.

Link: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleg3epquepcpnu

To put it simply, this trope is a mess.

I already edited it some because I'm prone to act rashly. Just sayin'.

To start, the trope description included some different and mostly unrelated explanations.

First Explanation: "Maybe a hero's morals and convictions are so strong that he can never be bought out, not even for all the money and riches in the world." This matches with the trope name. No complaints.

Second Explanation: "Maybe someone is so committed to a goal he'll spend all the money he has to in order to reach it." This is something different entirely and doesn't have much to do with the trope name. In some cases of this, there might be some element of morality involved, but there are numerous exceptions (e.g., one related trope would be "Doing It for the Art," which has nothing to do with morality}.

Third Explanation: "Or perhaps there are some people who just don't need the money" This is worded poorly. Let's take it from three angles — "need the money," "want the money," and "have an interest in the money." From the "need" angle, it applies to characters who already have so much money or power that any monetary compensation would be meaningless. From the "want" angle, it applies mostly to typical selfless heroes. From the "have an interest in" angle, it's the same as the second explanation — they're motivated by something other than money. For the record, "want" was the intended meaning.

Now, the basic problem seems to be that the trope is an awful snowclone with little thought put into it. The core of the trope as it exists seems to be a very general "Screw The Money," and the name does not reflect that.

As for how to fix it, at least a rename isn't necessary. I'd recommend changing the trope to what the name implies: "I am unwilling to take money because it would conflict with my morals or the law."

Additionally, a new trope needs to be created for those who are simply not motivated by money, instead working for other reasons. This doesn't need to involve refusing payment, either. If the character does not consider the payment before taking the job but still accepts it, that also counts. As for a name for such a trope, my best idea is "Not In It For The Money."

Thoughts?

edited 29th Jun '11 6:30:22 PM by FalAochin

You deleted some bad examples, as well as a lot of good examples.

You have a point. But like you said, you acted rashly.

Okay, unless somebody tells me otherwise in the next hour or so, I'm gonna put those examples back. We lost a lot of good ones.

Discar, before you put things back, lets figure out what the hell the trope is, because he's got a point, as it stands right now it's any scenario where money doesn't work as incentive, and that's far too broad.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Thank you, I was afraid I was actually going to have to go through with that. That would have been really annoying, not to mention would probably have started an edit war.

Anyway, yes, this needs a bit of work. Maybe turn this into a supertrope, and make the various reasons for turning down money subtropes? Assuming there are enough of them, anyway.

Why do twice the work by making this a supertrope, then recreatingit as a subtrope? All that needs to be done is to remove that two "Or maybe"s that don't have anything to do with "I have Rules" and YKTTW the others if they aren't already floating around out there under some other name."

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Well, the current description doesn't have any of that. Fal pared it down a bit, but he then proceeded to remove a bunch of examples that fit fine with that description.

The Schlock Mercenary one, for example (chosen because it's also the page image) was removed. It's about a man turning down money for a rescue mission because the man to be rescued tried to kill him multiple times, in the most annoyingly smug way possible.

Now, would you call that a good example, or outside the intended area of this trope? I honestly don't know, I'm not being snarky.

I would call it outside. Tagon didn't turn down the money because he "had rules", he turned it down because he simply didn't want to rescue the guy —was it General Xinchub? It wasn't morals dictating his choice, it was personal dislike.

The name is abundantly clear, if we limit it to "Moral considerations" overriding money.

But the three types that are currently all lumped together — "The character has moral considerations that override the offer of money from someone else"; The character is dedicated to a goal to the level that they spend all of their own money to achieve it"; and "money has no attraction as incentive to the character" are all very different, are handled very differently within works, and elicit very different reactions for the audience.

edited 12th Jul '11 8:59:35 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

There was also some practicality, which I guess would be rules in a vague sense, namely that he probably would not be able to order his troops to complete the mission.

Fight smart, not fair.

So, opinions. Should we split or broaden?

Necro-bump: I don't think you can say it wasn't morals for Tagon, not conclusively. The Toughs practice Honor Among Thieves: they're paid killers and looters for hire but they try to not cross the Evil line - no slaughtering innocent bystanders, etc. Xinchub in his appearances to that point had been very clearly Evil and without honor. The Toughs had plenty of reason to hate him in addition to the fact he manipulated them and tried to have them killed in very cruel and cold blooded ways. Plus, Tagon was originally going to take the job but the negative reaction to it by his crew convinced him otherwise - see Honor Among Thieves again.

edited 29th Sep '11 10:20:55 PM by Elle

I lean more towards the "first explanation" above, only expanding it to all characters, not just heroes. The trope should be characters who value money, but value their morals/ethics/personal code/etc. more.

The "second explanation", i.e. "I'll spend whatever it takes to achieve my goal", is another trope entirely. Granted, this is what Seto Kaiba meant in the Trope Namer scene, but the phrase itself says "rules", not "goal" or "dream".

The "third explanation", i.e. "money is meaningless or unnecessary to me" is yet another trope.

mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really.

I agree.

I vote for a split, with 1 and 2 maybe being subtropes, while 3 is a completely different trope. Perhaps tied in with characters who are poor or homeless by choice. (Do we have that? If not, can we call it Vow Of Poverty, for someone who either finds no worth in, or actively avoids gaining material wealth?)

edited 7th Dec '11 11:17:55 PM by Kriegsmesser

Vow Of Poverty would be a good subtrope of Not In It For The Money.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

The current name is clever and all, but isn't the Super Tropes sentiment best summed up by, "Not for a million dollars!"? Or does that not imply the money is actually being offered?

Typical use of that phrase:

"Would you do <x>?"

"Not for a million dollars."

"Would you do it for a Klondike Bar?"

edited 8th Dec '11 11:16:04 AM by 20LogRoot10

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

Has anyone done anything about this?

No, we haven't.

I'm voting split, though I'm not sure whether the current name should go to one of the subtropes or the superetrope. Should we get a crowner?

Yeah, may as well split this.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

I'd say split.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

Agree with a split. And if it hasn't been done already, I say put all the examples back and we can move them over to the new tropes once we figure out what tropes we are actually making.

@ Nate The Great Actually in the Kaiba quote he shut down a card game simulation project and fired the employees who failed. When challenged by them to give them another chance with the fact that he'd already poured a lot of money into the project, he says "screw the money, I have rules!". So it actually is what the trope is about, sort of, though it's not about morality, just personal rules he has.

edited 8th Jan '12 1:39:07 AM by NoirGrimoir

SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)

Yes, I have seen the original Yu Gi Oh The Abridged Series scene. Kaiba meant that he doesn't care how much money he has to spend, he has a goal that he intends to achieve no matter what the cost. He just chose to convey this message by reversing the clauses of his catchphrase. In other words, we're applying the title to my first meaning when it really applies to the second meaning.

mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really.

Should we set up a crowner or do we have enough consensus for a split?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

There is now a crowner for this trope here. Feel free to add options as you see fit.

I suppose a page action one would have worked adequately, but I am a bit unsure about whether there is support for making a supertrope or just leaving Screw the Money, I Have Rules! and making the two other tropes.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Crowner pasted to the thread.

Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.