Needs Help: Badass Damsel

Is there some reason we can't merge the bit about resisting captivity into Poisonous Captive? Right now it seems like that page is the trope we're talking about here But Evil.

edited 17th Jul '13 2:22:15 PM by Arha

I think there's a difference between 'resisting captivity' and 'remaining a threat despite captivity'. It's about the contrast in personality.

I see it like this: Manipulative Bastard+Captivity=Poisonous Captive Silk Hiding Steel+Captivity=Badass Damsel

In regards to the But Evil point, I see it as the difference between All Your Base Are Belong to Us and Storming the Castle. The general event taking place 'one side invading the other's base' is the same but the way it goes down, its role in the plot, and the motivations involved are all different.

edited 22nd Jul '13 7:31:37 AM by ChaoticNovelist

bumb

I still like what I said last page.

Whose in favor of making a crowner based on those options?

Go for it.

I added two options to the crowner. Now for hooking.

Hooked. When you make the request, please provide the crowner link so we know which list to search through in the tool.

edited 23rd Aug '13 11:05:26 AM by Willbyr

Sorry. I'll be sure to remember that for the future.

On another note, it appears that the redefinition is a popular notion and the split off is not.

Defiant Captive sounds like a proposed redefinition of I'm Not Hungry, also on TRS. I think Defiant Captive will be made anyway if work on I'm Not Hungry goes through, so I supported that one.

edited 26th Aug '13 11:30:15 AM by MikuruFan

"rejection of hospitality as a protest against having been kidnapped" is similar. It gives something to point to (rejecting an offer) instead of relying on troper opinion (sure, what they're doing is defiant, culture normally dictates excusing oneself after a burp!). I'm okay with Defiant Captive with the definition from I'm Not Hungry. I think we need a crowner over there, perhaps a third option over here.

These options don't appear to contradict each other. Was that intended?

Yes. The two crowner options are not mutually exclusive.

That sounds like it's going to be confusing.

How so? A Damsel out of Distress is a subversion of the Damsel in Distress trope where the damsel in question effects their own escape without needing outside forces to rescue them. A Defiant Captive is a character that doesn't necessarily manage to escape on their own, but is uncooperative and combative with their captor, rather than being meek and passive like the traditional Damsel in Distress.

I meant the crowner deciding on two things that can really overlap.

...how so? If one passes we do one, if both pass we do both. There's nothing about renaming and clarifying the definition that precludes splitting off another, related trope (and nothing about splitting off a related trope that precludes renaming and clarifying the original).

As I understand it, the rename option is just renaming this to something along the lines of Damsel Out Of Distress while splitting creates both that and Defiant Captive.

Either way, I downvoted the rename option because I think it would conflict with I'm Not Hungry.

Why would "Character who escapes rather than needing to be rescued." overlap with I'm Not Hungry?

No, Defiant Captive. If work on I'm Not Hungry goes through, it would become Defiant Captive anyway.

Not all instances of Defiant Captive include rejecting food or other hospitality from captors. I'm Not Hungry can exist as a sub-trope of Defiant Captive.

Still, because of the connection, I support that option.

Won't that thread likely point to this one and say "Hey, those guys didn't want to do it either, so why should we?"

I already directed it to this one. That's the most popular proposal.