Your favorite, personal "Draco In Leather Pants" Characters

Diamond Tiara seems a rather one note bully archetype, perhaps worse so since she actually seems much more vehement on destroying the CMC at times compared to standard bullies, who are often just in it for a quick laugh. She maybe had a little sympathy in her first appearance though, I admit it's rather breaking to have your peers basically tell you you may have screwed up your destiny. Silver Spoon is about the same par a single Pet the Dog moment.

edited 18th Feb '13 3:43:22 PM by Psi001

For all the snit fits I threw about the Urpneys, I admit after watching the series through again, it did at least seem like they were directly trying to downplay the Noops' Unintentionally Unsympathetic streak. They seemed to be slowly making little tweaks as seasons passed that gradually tipped the scales and made the Urpneys, while still overly sympathetic, at least the lower moral ground that genuinely needed to be stopped.

In one episode Zordrak canonically loses interest in killing Urpneys, their punishments being reduced to humiliating slapstick or a mere chewing out. A later one gives him a far more menacing 'world domination' plot for the stone so the Noops were properly provoked by it being stolen. The heroes also seemed to become more merciful (or at least pragmatic) in their treatment of the Urpneys, showing disinterest in attacking them outside the bare means to get the stone back (they did drift back into Disproportionate Retribution at times, though at least the odd occasion it escalated into outright 'smug bully' mode it usually backfired on them, showing they couldn't take things overboard like before).

The heroes were still less sympathetic than the Urpneys due to their dullness and infallible tendencies (though a couple of characters like Amberley were slowly beginning to compete) but at least they got them to basic Hero Antagonist standards, ie. still the less pitiable side, though only defending themselves and actually having a lot more at stake from losing than the Urpneys did, compared to how ridiculously skewed the dynamic was in the first season.

Another example, did anyone feel kinda sorry for the rat in Lady And The Tramp? It might have just been the pitiful squeaking it made as the Tramp attacked it, but even despite the film's best attempts to make it look sinister and vile (endangering a baby sorta helped), it was really just a non sapient animal working on instincts than any malicious intent.

edited 25th Feb '13 8:10:15 PM by Psi001

I haven't seen the film in forever, but that thing was creepy as shit, especially next to a baby. I didn't feel the least bit sorry for it.

Why do you assume the rat is less sapient than the dogs or the cats? It went after a baby with extreme determination, trying to do God know what to it.

Mostly because it didn't have the same traits of sentience as the other animals did, it seemed like just a normal rampaging animal going whatever place it's instincts told, just with sinster lighting and cosmetics added on. I might be wrong, since like the above I haven't watched the film recently, but the fact it went around the baby, while horrifying, did seem one of those more chance things that a real life rat probably would do if the circumstances led it properly. Rodents usually scurry anywhere they can after all.

edited 25th Feb '13 10:06:34 PM by Psi001

@51 Psi I don't really like Diamond Tiara.. although I may sound like a hypocrite for liking Trixie (since Trixie did worse things), she really doesn't click to me, since she takes pride in bullying people who are different from her (not having a cutie mark) and destroying Applebloom's (and the other two) self-esteem. "Ponyville Confidental" pretty summed up her whole personality of not just the CMC, but to other people.

To me, Babs Seed is a different case. I'm pretty zig-zagged on her. One side of me felt that she did get off too easy with her behavior(an off-screen punishment would have been better), while the other side of me felt that at least she felt remorseful of what she did.

I'm also kinda mixed about Babs, while she was sympathetic, it was only after the CMC basically pulled a Heroic Sacrifice that she felt a shred of remorse. She was redeemable, but still a jerk that had absolutely nothing against picking on others to maintain image (and then some) till the stakes got rather high, and what's more took it to far more sadistic levels than even Diamond Tiara did. Most definitely He Who Fights Monsters.

edited 28th Feb '13 12:19:09 AM by Psi001

I agree. Babs acted worse than Diamond Tiara & Silver Spoon. DT and SS only verbally abuse the CMCS, but Babs got away with destroying their float, stealing their milkshakes, and taking their treehouse. Then people wonder why fans dislike these types of characters, although I try not to hate characters based on a single episode of a show since I used to complain about that. Although the show was trying to send a good message about bullying, it also sends the idea that you can get away with anything if you reveal a Freudian Excuse.

I think that's why the Biskit twins from Littlest Pet Shop (2012) manage to annoy me far less than most bully characters; the only horrible prank they pull is in the first episode (and it backfires completely on them), the school staff, the other students, and even their own dad recognizes how terrible they are, and they're for the most part more annoying than harmful (hell, one episode has Blythe sticking up for them when they get bullied by a jock). Of course, they manage to avoid being Jerkass Woobie characters on account of being far too stupid and spoiled to care.

edited 28th Feb '13 5:03:11 PM by TheGunheart

You make them sound like the Bulk and Skull.

Holy crap, you're right! They are Alpha Bitch versions of Bulk and Skull!

Yeah, I think it can get annoying if they have to overemphasis via narrative how redeemable or irredeemable the character is, rather than taking it from viewpoint.

As said this is why the Urpneys bugged me in early seasons, they thought just having the heroes fuming about what conniving, vile and completely unforgiveable bullies they were would do the trick, despite the fact they for the large part seemed smugly aware they were anything but anyway. Granted the show at least didn't have the gall to add another sympathetic villain for them to show a Double Standard and Easily Forgive.

I think this is also why Tom And Jerry bugged some people, though at least in that case they usually bothered to toy with the grey morality, having Jerry Pet the Dog to prove his moral superiority or sometimes deliberately portraying him as an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist.

From what animes I've seen, they actually tend to do this a lot as well. In cases with two genocidal wannabe villains, I actually tend to find the comical self acknowledging villain more admirable than the delusionally self righteous "brooding mystical type" that thinks they can use their weepy backstory to act like an monster and still be considered a good person. Guess which one the heroes usually befriend...

Were Bulk and Skull even bullies after the first season of so?

@Ms CC 93: Your argument for Trixie may still make sense, since while Trixie was a jerk, next to everyone was very verbal of it in her first appearance, while most of her actions in her second were the result of the brainwashing amulet (though it was admitedly odd how long she remained evil even when it was taken off). Even when she reveals the crap she went through between then, they more or less have a 'serves you right' complex to it. In the case of Babs, the moment they hear she is a Troubled Abuser they feel they should be apologizing to her.

edited 1st Mar '13 1:15:07 AM by Psi001

I don't care much for "Draco In Leather Pants" in general, but if I had to choose one, I would have to agree on Plankton, but probably because Krabs has become such a douche that I actually want him to get taken down a notch once in a while.

You mean I'm not the only one who hates that?

@ PSI 001 I agree...at least the others didn't excuse Trixie's bad deeds and her sob story didn't excuse her actions. Plus, even though she was under the influence of the amulet, it's still 50% her fault for buying the amulet since she was explicitly told that it was dangerous (don't get mad at me lol).

As for Babs, although I do give the show credit for at least trying to send a good message about bullying (since the show is for kids and kids are too young to understand karmic punishments and stuff), I did dislike how The CMC were portrayed as bad guys for attempting to get revenge. Babs did really nasty things to them, it's just that they took their revenge a little too far

@ Luna87 I think Plankton is the only one who deserves his Draco in Leather Pants status, since he always got karmic punishments for his villainy, while Krabs rarely gets punished for his...Plankton always loses, which is why he garners more sympathy than Krabs. I don't agree that fans should forget how evil he was though.

edited 2nd Mar '13 6:30:59 AM by MsCC93

Admitedly Plankton and some of my other examples may count more as Ron the Death Eater examples than Draco in Leather Pants, since my problems root more from the good guy being so much of a tool that I actually want to see them get taken down a peg, or at the very least be put in a situation where they are under pressure and look like the underdog against them. Just the villain is the most ideal character for the job and usually the most frequent catalyst for their Designated Hero role.

Admitedly Plankton, while still evil, is genuinely rather pitiful at times. In "Plankton's Regular", even ignoring Krab's dickishness, he is emotionally abused to tears by his computer wife-thingy and would reform if he got so much as the slightest bit of success. He did win once though ("Wishing You Well") and there are many non-Plankton episodes that Krabs deserved a comeuppance he never recieved (and at least in the case of Plankton he is bullying an Asshole Victim).

Tom is another more legitmate example, even without resenting Jerry, it was rather satisfying to see Tom get a happy ending every once in a while. If anything I actually liked Jerry because his arrogance usually cost him and he could end up the loser every once in a while.

The Dreamstone was an all around example. The Urpneys were still genuinely very sympathetic, just the heroes being very unsympathetic elevated it further.

edited 2nd Mar '13 10:04:27 AM by Psi001

To be fair, on the Draco in Leather pants Western Animation Subpage, it states that both Tom and Jerry fit the trope. I also like seeing Tom win because you rarely see that in any Tom and Jerry episode.

As seeing the hero get taken down a peg, there are shows that do that (The Buzz On Maggie and Totally Spies, for example)

Just take a look at the quote on the page:

I also agree with Plankton. Even though he was evil in earlier seasons (but in the movie, he is surprisingly taken seriously), there are times when all he wanted to do was feel like a winner and just get a few customers.

I don't think Tom bothers me as much because as noted, the writers knew there was grey morality in the situation and that Jerry didn't always deserve to win. Maybe not as much as they should have, but still they played things more carefully than a lot of other examples here. Not to mention, while Jerry stepped out of line sometimes, he was still rather likeable a lot of times, and had a similar fallibility and amount of pathos as Tom. He was rarely ever an Invincible Hero that could get away with anything unscathed that so many complain he was anyway.

Even Plankton doesn't bother me too much, because for the large part the narrative makes clear Krabs is supposed to be an odious Designated Hero, it's just his Karma Houdinis aren't nearly as funny as they planned it to be.

A lot of my more annoying critisms come to examples that have a similar, if worse overzeal as Jerry, but aren't treated as such. As said The Dreamstone bugs me because the Urpneys are ten times as sympathetic as Tom while the Noops are often Unscrupulous at worst and Pragmatic at best, but unlike Tom And Jerry, the dynamic is ridiculously black and white, and outside one or two rather subtle occasions the heroes are treated as perfectly messianic individuals 'too brave' to take crap from such a demonic foe. The show seemed reliant entirely on What Measure Is a Non-Cute? and they lack even the basic traits of benevolence Jerry had (who at least shown altruism to outside parties and attempted to take pity on Tom every once in a while).

My beef often goes for examples where writers genuinely just expect viewers to root for the hero because they are simply the hero.

edited 7th Mar '13 3:52:19 PM by Psi001

If Tom and Jerry can be brought up, I'll mention the Looney Tunes. In fact people DIL Ping Elmer Fudd let to Sam's creation. (Of course, Elmer suffered a lot of Villain Decay which made him more sympathetic.)

Actually I could argue Elmer got more malicious as time progressed, compared to some of his earliest appearances where he's just a normal civilian heckled mercilessly by Bugs for genuinely no reason. It was perhaps because of this that the rare times Freleng used Elmer as a villain he was more Not So Harmless. I actually think there was more times Elmer provoked genuine fear out of Bugs than Sam did.

Allegedly Tom's eased out abuse in the 50s was a result of fans DILP-ing him as well. I guess it makes some sense, since cartoons were still in their early phase. Stuff like Screwy Squirrel types and other abrasive slapstick was very popular in the 30s and 40s though over time story enthasis likely became more expectant and people probably started to feel sorry for the characters as a result.

I sometimes feel Sylvester fits this however. Even Freleng, who resented Elmer's treatment, loved dishing it out to him, karmic or not, and unlike Tom, he rarely got a Bone Thrown. Sometimes I wonder if replacing him with the super-evil Daffy in later Speedy shorts was a similar intention to replacing Elmer with Sam.

edited 7th Mar '13 3:59:18 PM by Psi001

While I don't quite put leather pants on him, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the Aardvark from The Ant And The Aardvark shorts. Most of his actions are motivated by hunger bordering on starvation, rather than cruelty, and the Ant just comes across as insufferably smug and smarmy, as opposed to say, Bugs Bunny, who, while certainly no stranger to this characterization, is more consistently portrayed in a Beware the Nice Ones manner.

Smug heroes and Unintentionally Sympathetic villains are also a problem I have with Adventures Of Sonic The Hedgehog. Scratch, Grounder, and Coconuts don't seem anywhere near as evil as Robotnik himself (who, despite his entertainment value, never comes too close to being a "good" person); they even go so far as to cheer the heroic Edgar Eagle on TV and aspire to be like him. But Sonic will sometimes outright manipulate them with flattery and pretend to be their friend, only to stab them in the back, or callously refuse to save them when they're in peril after agreeing to do so. That the show otherwise goes out of its way to portray Sonic as being the perfect role model makes his cocky malice border on Moral Dissonance.

edited 7th Mar '13 7:03:34 PM by Robotnik

The Ant in the original shorts was rather bearable, but his Pink Panther And Pals incarnation was just downright hateable.

I know there were some times when Sonic was nice to Coconuts, like in the PSAs.

Yeah, but... Those voices. How can anyone find them SYMPATHETIC when they talk like the other guy in a biased flashback?

I won't deny their voices can be extremely grating (Grounder's became exponentially less so in the episode where he acquired "Flowers for Algernon" Syndrome), but they seem more pathetic than anything. Between the abuse they suffer at Sonic's hands for trying to catch him and at Robotnik's for failing to, it's hard for me to think of Scratch and Grounder as particularly "evil" (or even particularly harmful) in and of themselves.

True, but it's difficult to consider those particularly "canon".