Ambiguous Name: Reluctant Mad Scientist

This problem is worse than just an 'ambiguous name', but it is the closest reason option. This trope's name conflicts with the definition of the trope. The definition of the trope is any scientist who at some point works for a villain and is portrayed as morally unaccountable for his actions. This means he could be completely and utterly compliant, provided he isn't portrayed by the work as a bad person. A compliant character being called reluctant doesn't make much sense. Also on what I consider a less important note he doesn't need to be "mad" either. This problem could be fixed in 2 ways. The first is changing the name of the trope. And the other is modifying the trope criteria.

Any sign of misuse?

Haven't checked. The name and criteria conflict, that or the criteria is ambiguous enough that i misunderstood it.

Actually, I've been thinking about putting that trope here for awhile. The problem I see is a mismatch between the description and examples. The description indicates that this trope is about scientist characters who aren't held morally responsible to the uses their inventions are put to. Many, if not most of the examples are about scientists who try to create something good only to be horrified when someone else twists it into something evil. In these cases, I'd assume the scientist is holding HIMSELF responsible, hence the guilt.

I think there may be two subtropes here:

The Wernher Von Braun- the scientist pursues research for its own sake and is more or less apathetic as to who uses it for what.

The Alfred Nobel - The scientist's intentions are pure good, and he watches in horror as his inventions are used to harm.

So yes, I'd say there is misuse. People think Reluctant Mad Scientist means "someone who doesn't want to be a mad scientist but is" or someone who makes doomsday weapons by accident.

edited 4th Jun '12 4:05:21 AM by Topazan

How about we just rename it to The Scientist?

The "Reluctant" part of the name is misleading, but it is also hard to replace with a more descriptive word, and the point of this character trope is that, thanks to the way the trope evolved over time, the "Mad" part is now obsolete, if I'm reading the description correctly.

The character is no longer "mad", but more level-headed, if still obsessed with science, thanks to the way science itself has changed in the eyes of the common public.

The first trope in 4 is For Science!.

What do you mean by that?

He means "The Wernher Von Braun" is For Science!

Strongly oppose the suggestion in #5. That would be something like naming a trope about a surgeon whose patients die on the operating table The Doctor.

The difference is that For Science! is about scientists who do immoral things in the name of research, and be extension are immoral themselves, mad scientists if you will.

Reluctant Mad Scientist, and by extension the split trope I'm proposing, is about removing the moral judgement from the scientist. The scientist is neither a force for good or evil. The scientist creates the knowledge or invention, and others will use it for good or evil.

I agree that the current title is confusing. This YKKTW from awhile back was about pretty much the same thing, and had some good possible titles.

I feel that the trope as written is difficult to understand because it's so abstract. Adding the two subtropes like I outlined above would help. The Von Braun can't be a force for good or evil because he doesn't care about either, and the Nobel type wants to be a force for good but can't stop others from misusing his inventions.

edited 4th Jun '12 7:21:12 AM by Topazan

Whatever we end up doing with the trope that this was apparently supposed to be, Reluctant Mad Scientist should be the name of a trope about scientists who reluctantly have their work used for evil.

edited 4th Jun '12 8:22:34 AM by abk0100

So should we make a crowner or something about whether or not to split?

Clocking due to lack of activity.

Locking.