I'm having trouble figuring out the trope's definition. The description is doing everything except describing the trope. It could use a complete rewrite.
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
The trope is about authority people staying in a disaster-stricken area even if their endangerment creates more problems.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If that's all there is to it, the trope description still needs some serious reworking to fit that definition. As it is, it's more an example than anything. It doesn't even mention natural disasters, just a battle with the King fighting when he really shouldn't be. And the title is still extremely misleading. As it is, the title and the description (and even the supposed definition) of the trope are completely incompatible with each other.
And then there's the part of the description that says, "Note that you really have to get killed to pull this off. Captivity removes most of the effect." Is dying really a part of this trope? Or is it just the person staying when they're being stupid to do so? This part's confusing because the rest of the article leaves this point open.
edited 9th Sep '13 11:45:19 AM by Xavier1161
Zzzzzzzzzz
I think Septimus kind of got the definition. Kind of.
The way I read it it, assuming the page quote a good choice, which may not be true) is "The leader is in danger, and the larger goal would be best served by him removing himself from danger. He decides to stay anyway."
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
And the part about having to die? Should that be there or should it get axed?
And either way, we either have to change the name, or someone needs to come up with a way that the trope reflects the name. Otherwise, it's just misleading.
I'm thinking Staying With The Fort.
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
I like that one, but maybe something that has a little bit more to do with a ruler or something.
Zzzzzzzzzz
I would say that the needing to die is not vital. Also, it should be about any leader, not just a ruler.
The other option is to change it so that it's clearly about the situation that arises because a leader made this choice, and died because of it. Then the death is necessary, but the description needs to be turned on its head: "This trope occurs when a leader falls into Honor Before Reason and chooses to stay on a position of grave danger to himself and dies because of his decision, leaving his followers to figure out how to carry on without him."
Make the trope about the situation and the choice, not the outcome. And I agree that the name is horribly misleading.
edited 9th Sep '13 1:11:02 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
If that's the case, and it's just a leader, then I think that Rethkir's suggestion for a name works. Any arguments or better suggestions?
Zzzzzzzzzz
Rethkir's suggestion is better than what we have now, but it's still not good. It's doesn't indicate that it's the leader who is staying, or that the trope is about a choice, or that there's another option that would be better in the big picture...
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Alright then, we can decide on a name later. First, we should decide which definition we're going to go with:
1) The leader is in danger, and the larger goal would be best served by him removing himself from danger. He decides to stay anyway. (Focusing on the decision to stay, ignoring on the outcome)
2) A leader falls into Honor Before Reason and chooses to stay in a position of grave danger to himself and dies because of his decision, leaving his followers to figure out how to carry on without him. A) Focusing on the decision to stay, emphasizing the outcome, or B) Focusing on the decesion to stay, noting the outcome but not highlighting it.
edited 9th Sep '13 1:27:36 PM by Xavier1161
Jupiterian Local
I think it's the first one: the opening sentence of the description is, after all, "sometimes even the Reasonable Authority Figure puts Honor Before Reason".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.How about The Leader Stays Behind?
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
Zzzzzzzzzz
That sounds like he stays when everyone else has left. I think a good name for this one is going to be hard to find...
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.Here's one that's descriptive, yet zippy enough: Leader's Refusal To Flee
edited 9th Sep '13 5:51:23 PM by Rethkir
Image Source. Please update whenever an image is changed.
Zzzzzzzzzz
I rather like that one...
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I agree with @17. I do not think that dying is in any way required, except that a) the stay of the authority person makes the problem worse and b) it happens for no good reason.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Hi
Single prop crowner's hooked.
We'll also need a description rewrite here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Ok, given how there are 8 yays and 0 nays, I'm thinking that everybody is in support of renaming the trope. Now, what's a good name? @17 had a good idea, although Leader's Refusal to Flee sounds a bit clunky. Any better ideas?
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
A Nation Without A Leader.
Does it have to be after the disaster, or is this trope in effect when the Nation has lost their leader just before a disaster, and they haven't a leader yet. I'm thinking of Dragon Age Origins, the Dwarven community.
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Zzzzzzzzzz
That's a whole different trope. It could be the result of this trope, or it could be because of any number of other reasons. This one is about the decision of the leader to remain in danger.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Crown Description:
Vote up for yes, down for no.
Well, and Ambiguous Name, but I thought the description was the bigger problem.
It's meandering. It talks about a leader in a situation where he is fighting for his life and he needs to go do something else that is more necessary and he won't budge, and it offers different ways this situation may play out (The leader is convinced to go, or he's forced to leave, or he dies, or he dies and sends his heir out in his place) as if they were all parts of the trope, then it turns right around and says that the leader's death is necessary for this trope, and that captivity removes the effect (exactly what effect this refers to, I'm not sure).
I'm assuming whoever wrote this description was trying to say something along the lines of, "This situation is about when a King is fighting with his men and refuses to leave them due to Honour Before Reason, even though he is needed elsewhere. And then he dies." However, the description is so meandering it's hard to tell.
If that's the case, then it seems to me that the name is meaningless. How does "In its hour of need" have anything to do with that description. "In its hour of need" sounds like its referring to a ruler coming back in his country's hour of need, but this description only talks about the king refusing to leave his men (and even then, the description sounds more like an example than anything) and doesn't say anything about anybody's "need."