Misused: Worthy Opponent

I've noted that this trope widely gets used to refer to a villain or antagonist acknowledging the hero or protagonist as "worthy": that is, they prove to be an interesting challenge. However, the definition indicates that the trope is supposed to be applied to the villain or antagonist themselves, as being equal to the hero in skill (and thus inspiring such feelings in the protagonist).

A quick ten semi-random wicks (chosen among the A's) check:

• Ace Combat: Equestria Chronicles: ZCE. Unclear.
• Action Film, Quiet Drama Scene: Context-less pothole. Unclear.
• AdventureQuest Worlds: Villain thinks this way of the hero. Misused.
• Animorphs: Animorphs: Villain thinks this way of one of the protagonists. Misused.
• Antagonists: Two examples, both cases of villains viewing protagonists this way. Misused. ^note As an aside, that set of character pages probably needs to have their namespaces fixed.
• Ape Escape: Villain thinks this way of the hero. Misused.
• Arch-Enemy: Several uses. Used correctly in the definition and in some examples, but used as the "villain thinks this of the hero" in other examples. Both correct and misused.
• Ashita no Joe: Antagonist and protagonist think this way of each other. Correct.
• Assassin's Creed II: Implied antagonist thinks this way of the hero. Misused.
• Aubrey-Maturin: Used to imply how the protagonist feels about several antagonists, and how a couple of antagonists feel about the protagonist. Both correct and misused.

I can do a more thorough wick check if needed. This initial one does not bode well though.

Given the trope's huge popularity and inbounds, I'd say it looks like rewriting the definition to be more broad (as in not as specific in applying to one side of the protagonist-antagonist conflict) may be the best course of action. Of course, if anyone has a better idea...

edited 5th Jan '14 8:12:19 PM by TotemicHero

I think the definition should work both ways.

EDIT PS: Actually, you are also reading the trope wrong.

The trope is supposed to be about a rival character that follows a code of honor, not about respect for an opponent's skill.

edited 5th Jan '14 5:10:58 PM by Catbert

Fair enough, although the opening line of the description does muddy the waters a bit.

Not that it makes a huge difference, given the trope is badly misused either way.

"...who, save for the tragic circumstances of their life, upbringing, political ideology, or financial situation, might have been the hero's best friend. Unfortunately, though, they must be the hero's opposition. Evenly matched, with a sense of honor that allows the hero to trust them about a select few things, and an honest respect for the hero, the Worthy Opponent also fights to the same standards of fairness as the hero"

Seems pretty clear to me.

What is confusing is the title. In general use, "Worthy Opponent" as a term is more likely to be about respect for skill rather than honor.

I think we need to split this.

One trope should be about Honorable Enemy, and the other about respect for the skill of your opponent.

"Mutual respect between adversaries" doesn't seem like problematic usage to me. Respect is a big part of honor, and it's a very fine line between the two. (Look up "honor" in a thesaurus and I guarantee you'll find "respect" as a synonym.) Let's not split hairs.

We also have other tropes covering honorable acts, like Let's Fight Like Gentlemen, Touché, It Has Been an Honor, Graceful Loser, and The Only One Allowed to Defeat You, so it's not like there's a hole that particularly needs filling.

There's a big difference between respecting a foe's code of honor, and respecting an foe's skill or strength.

Seems to be easiest to just tweak the description and expand this trope to encompass both.

Would it be a potential supertrope in that case, covering a set of subtropes dealing with the different ways adversaries can respect/honor/(insert word here) each other?

Not always. Particularly in Asian media.

If anything, the two are mutual Internal Subtropes.

Look up "honor" in a thesaurus and I guarantee you'll find "respect" as a synonym.

It appears that you are being confused by the fact that "honor" can be both a noun and a verb.

What you are talking about is the verb usage is is honoring another person, which is similar to respect. The "honor your wife" or "honor the king" sort of honor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/honor?s=t&path=/

However, what the trope is talking about is the noun use of honor, such as a code of honor.

Specifically the first definition given here.

The trope is talking about "A rival character that follows a strict code of honor.", as it is well summed up by the Laconic.

Now, it "may" result in mutual respect as described in paragraph four, however I'm reading that part as being an optional result of the fact that the enemy acts honorably and fights fairly, as described in paragraph one and two, rather than as the sole requirement of the trope.

I'm not going to argue with Caitbert on what the definition; upon careful reading, it is closer to "honorable villain" than anything else. But then again, Noble Demon covers that perfectly (to the point where it's almost the same trope as this), so we really don't need to spin off another one.

So, back to the definition rewrite. Can I go ahead and sandbox it, or would you all prefer a crowner vote first?

Fixed the tag.

For what it's worth, I've always taken the trope to mean "honourable (not sure which is the right word) opponent in a fight", without it having to be about a specific form of honour or about a hero/villain specifically.

Anyone? Bueller?

Worthy to me still means someone who is of equal or better skill than the one they are fighting and is a fair match for them, honour could play a role but the initial thought regarding them being a good match is the overriding one.

I always thought it overlaps with The Rival. A character that opposes the protagonist that have mutual respect for each other.

Right, so no objections to my plan?

I guess I'll draft the sandbox in the next few days, and see how it turns out.

How's this?

My main concern is making sure the "related to" stuff is good. (I'm still not sure what the distinction between Challenge Seeker and Spirited Competitor is, only that at least one of them is related to my new definition, so I linked both...)

Looks good to me.

So what happens to the current definition...?

The current definition, as it is, reads like a combo platter of Noble Demon and Not So Different. (I admit, as seen in above posts, I originally thought it was much closer to the former, but I rethought that.)

I'm not sure how having an extra trope written like that benefits us. If you think it does, we could YKTTW it under a new name, but again, it just seems redundant to me. Unless we do that, it probably just gets dropped.

Edit: I tweaked the Laconic in the Sandbox slightly, because I didn't think it was quite on.

edited 12th Jan '14 9:44:47 PM by TotemicHero

Considering the usage check, the sandbox is OK for me.

I think the current one is better. The sandbox is stylistically awkward and not significantly clearer.

Does that mean you oppose redefinition?

I suppose.

It is, of course, possible to change the description without redefining the trope. *shrug*

But redefinition is what's been talked about here. Maybe there should be a crowner of some kind.

Well, it's either redefine it or fix the wicks to match the current definition.

The question is, do you feel like going through 3000+ wicks to correct them? That's not exactly the most viable of options...