Alright, so in TRS Badass Gay came up for discussion and it was agreed that there appears to big problem with the Badass X tropes in general, which needs to be sorted out until something can be ruled on for Badass Gay.
Here's a courtesy link: TRS page
. And Badass page with its subtropes. You can also visit the sandbox page here.
Noted Problems include:
- Tropes are just listings of characters people thing are badass who happen to have a certain trait. (The Badass + Trait Problem)
- Badass X as a naming scheme is actually very vague and doesn't give a lot of insight into what the character trope actually is, assuming it is a trope.
- Badass X as a naming scheme proliferates the use of Badass + Trait 'tropes'.
Suggested things to do include:
- Make it a requirement that a badass character trope means a character is "badass because of a trait", or "badass in spite of a trait".
- Renaming away from the Badass X naming scheme as much as possible.
- Cut, redefine or re-purpose things that are just Badass + trait.
There are also a lot of tropes that seem to be valid character-types, but have the naming scheme 'Badass X', when there's more to the trope than that. There are also a lot of prop or event or whatever tropes that need to be gone through as well.
Edited by Berrenta on May 15th 2020 at 7:39:14 AM
Indeed. To me this all seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of how tropes work - and how we work about them.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That's a separate trope and not at all contradictory since that's about a specific type of narrative convention. I whole heartedly agree.
We can have a Woman Defies Gender Roles To Fight trope. But that shouldn't create a blanket law about how combat roles relate to royal families when that trope is not in effect.
Like there's a trope for Mulan and Merida, and there's a trope for Azula and Xena and Wonder Woman. Those are two separate stories being told. My worry about being muddled is that people will want to shoehorn examples of one into the other as 'subversions' when they should really both stay in their own lanes.
edited 18th Mar '17 9:23:55 AM by acrobox
Can we just have a vote on what to do about Badass Princess and stop going back and fourth?
I'll seconded that. We're clearly going nowhere in this discussion.
What are the options?
Hell if I know anymore.
Imo it should be
- Warrior Princess, counterpart to Warrior Prince, laconic: fights for or against king and country in some military fashion. Yada yada yada. Many times they start out a Tomboy Princess before graduating to this. Often has to ditch suitors as getting married off via Political Marriage means she goes to that country, might have to fight her family on the opposite side if this is the case like Oichi in Samurai Warriors or Sun Shang Xiang in some Dynasty Warriors games.
With potential YKTTW of a General King for those kings who run and lead their army, often from the front, to complete the trifecta.
Badass Princess can be redirected to Warrior Princess for inbounds because 'princess who gets an awesome or cool moment or two' it just isn't a trope just like every other trope that uses 'badass', wrongly I might add not a single badass trope actually uses the word correctly. 'A tough, uncompromising, or intimidating.' princess might actually be a trope but it isn't anywhere here.
edited 21st Mar '17 8:23:29 AM by Memers
and my two cents (names not final but you get the point)
Character tropes:
- Protector Royal: A member of a noble class who is allowed and expected to take up arms in service of their nation, and be well versed in warfare.
- Protected Royal: A member of a noble class is expected to stay far away from the battlefield to either preserve the bloodline, focus on diplomacy, or just look pretty.
Narrative trope:
- Wont Stay Back Woman: A woman who is not expected to fight because of gender, but breaks social norms and fights anyway. (see also You Go, Girl!)
edited 21st Mar '17 7:56:21 AM by acrobox
Those are ok tropes I guess. But those are only kinda related to this and not this.
Those imo should be broader than just strictly royalty though as those gender standards get enforced from basic conscription on all the way up.
edited 21st Mar '17 8:18:17 AM by Memers
IMO, there will always be differences between a royal class and a working class based on practicalities and necessities, though the latter may try to emulate the former if their economic station improves as a status symbol.
The biggest options are 1. splitting Badass Princess and Warrior Prince by gender with the Warrior Prince being expected to and trained to take part in battle and his female counterpart not being expected to or 2. merging the genders to make a 'Warrior Royal'.
The Unknown Unknown
That's what it looks like.
If we're taking it to a vote, put me down for merging them into "Warrior Royal" (or whatever we decide upon). It's simpler.
A cruel, sick joke is still a joke, and sometimes all you can do is laugh.
I dont like the name, maybe use Warrior Prince then a redirect to Warrior Princess sure. They are both existing terms.
A General King is something completely different than either of those though and I would be against merging.
Also a lot of tropes relate to Warrior Prince like Evil Prince, The Wise Prince, Prince Charming, Rebel Prince and such that do not relate to Warrior Princess or General King.
edited 22nd Mar '17 12:10:21 AM by Memers
I'm for merging, whether that means it's Warrior Royal, or having Warrior Princess redirect to Warrior Prince.
Side note, Evil Prince is covered by the much more clearly named Princeling Rivalry. Those two should definitely be merged.
Umm the trope itself doesn't require rivalries just despotic princes. And even then it's not always a prince rivalry, several princes I can think of just get impatient for their father to die off and just do it themselves IE Gihren Zabi. Also Wars over succession happen with princes vs stewards, generals and such.
And the Princes don't need to be good or evil to have a rivalry, Tales Of Graces for example had the two heirs of Lhant be good people just their idiot father pit them against each other in moves that would make him a nominee for the worst father in fiction in a dumbass attempt to prevent them from doing just that.
There are very few Evil Princess as a counterpart to that, it's a completely different stereotype. Even with a Warrior Princess they almost never go that route, God Save Us from the Queen! yes but not princesses.
edited 22nd Mar '17 8:57:28 AM by Memers
Keep the Prince and Princess tropes separated is my vote. I don't feel a merge solves anything.
To be honest, I think this should just be tabled for the moment and the thread move on to some other Badass trope with a clearer situation. (I'm not sure doing a crowner is a good idea, because that feels kind of like putting the very concept behind this site up to a vote).
That is what we already voted on though, Badass is going to way of Baka and other Fan Speak terms aka not to be used on the wiki. It is just used to get around YMMV and gush about Moment Of Awesome for X characters on main pages.
All Badass Tropes need renames at minimum and most need redefinitions.
Badass Pacifist is probably the clearest though we could move on to that.
edited 22nd Mar '17 7:18:03 PM by Memers
we should actually do a crowner to get a tally
If the Warrior Prince takes part in battle himself, bravely fighting for his kingdom or as an evil conqueror then it sounds like there has to be a war going on with armies fighting for the crown. Badass Princess sounds more like the personality of an individual that is good at protecting herself and being the heroine of the story.
The first is more plot based and the second is more character based.
Re: Tough Chick and the conversations we've already been having in circles.
Even if that's so, that I think we can agree is a separate trope and separate discussion. Can we do an actual crowner vote for the issue at hand?
edited 23rd Mar '17 12:43:42 AM by acrobox
I think that would be a bad idea, because - and I don't know how to put this more delicately - I feel like you've been consistently approaching tropes in a very top-down, purely conceptual fashion that is not how this site is actually supposed to work, and that kind of issue won't and shouldn't be settled by a vote. Frankly I don't care much what happens to Badass Princess one way or another, but it would be a really problematic precedent.
edited 23rd Mar '17 3:58:57 AM by nrjxll
i dont have a deciding vote. and lexicon proposed the initial vote. just echoing sentiments.
we can move on if you want to
edited 23rd Mar '17 7:18:21 AM by acrobox
Personally, I think that kind of talk sounds alarmist. There is no danger from a conversation like this and saying that there is like using a censor cudgel. Whether or not we merge Warrior Princess and Warrior Prince is a classic Lumper vs. Splitter issue regarding royal characters in fiction and is no more dangerous than a bottoms-up process that runs into People Sit On Chairs.
If the issue that you're worried about can't be resolved by a vote, then it won't. Besides, this isn't a court of law and we are not controlled by precedents.
Again, the problem with that line of thinking is that it's based on what makes the neatest trope definition instead of what is actually present in the works of fiction that we're supposed to be troping in the first place. There are absolutely repeated cases out there of a princess defying the setting's gender norms to fight for her country.