Undoing a Moral Event Horizon

So, by definition, it isn't actually possible to cross the Moral Event Horizon backwards. Thus, if someone's morality does manage to increase from what it was before they "crossed" it, does that mean they effectively never crossed it to begin with? And how does this affect the work? I've gotten kinda interested in subverting this trope, so I'd like some thoughts about it.

Moral Event Horizon.

I'd say it's impossible to go back by definition. According to several lines in the description. So if they can go back, they didn't cross it.

Moral Event Horizon is a subjective trope because it tends to be personal for the audience, not necessarily objectively present in the story. After all, any character can in theory be redeemed despite the most heinous of crimes, just because the author says so.

That said, should a character ever genuinely cross back, perhaps because of some character development or personal revelation that restores the audience's sympathy, then the Moral Event Horizon is retroactively erased.

Also, by its definition, Moral Event Horizon can only be crossed once right?

Although at which point of the character's action is considered the MEH and which is just Kick the Dog is subjective.

A character may have multiple Kick the Dog moments, but only one Moral Event Horizon (per audience member, at least).

In a perfect world a Moral Event Horizon is when a character actively crosses the line and the story, narrative and character is changed forever, nothing is subjective because the story is clear on the matter. As an example, in Revenge of the Sith Padme confronts Anakin over what Obi-Wan told her regarding Anakin leading the slaughter at the Jedi temple and even killing the children. She didn't want to believe it but Anakin admitted he did it and had no reservations. You see a "switch" moment in her eyes, the realization she will never look at him the same way.

The problem is that the trope incites some strong reactions in the audience and some people believe an already evil character is forever changed when they stole 20 dollars from an arrogant billionaire.

The truth is characters can and should be complex individuals with their own highs and lows. It could take them decades to realize what seemed like the right (or only) thing to do at the time was by and far the worst thing for themselves and for the people around them. They are allowed to feel sorrow and guilt, but that doesn't change what they did and if they have any attempt at redemption it should take their whole life, maybe even beyond, to achieve it. It doesn't erase the despicable nature of what they did, but there is a difference between the act and the person.

edited 8th May '14 11:39:03 PM by KJMackley

The possibility of undoing a moral event horizon depends on one thing: can people change, or do they stay stuck in their ways? After all, the saying goes, "The only cure for stupidity is death." It sounds like this heel face turn would be gradual, but like a previous poster said this would make so the moral event horizon was never crossed since the character still had some humanity left. But then again, you might be able to set it up so that the moral event horizon was subverted.

On another tangent, this somehow is vaguely reminiscent of scared straight to me. A man commits a heinous act; his life is now ruined forever. The only thing he can do is warn others not to follow his path.

Have another potential example of undoing the MEH.

This one comes from the novel "War Crimes", which is after the "Horde Leadership Assasination" incident instigated by Jaina after Garrosh's defeat. Jaina of all people (who had become a war-mongering psycho in Mists of Pandaria) is the one saying that Orcs should NOT be judged by the actions of Garrosh since they have tried to amend for past misdeeds.

Implies that her actions in Mo P were the result of temporary insanity brought about by the "Theremore" incident.

Jaina never crossed the MEH by any rational definition, so I don't see how this could be considered a re-crossing.

Blizzard (and sanctioned novels) seem to be confused on what direction to take Jaina on nowadays. She's hardly a war-mongering psycho, even at her worst this expansion. That legendary peace-brokering patience is gone and she really wants to stomp the Horde into paste, until she finds another reason to calm down, at least until the next time the Horde offends her.

In her defense, Garrosh's Horde has been going out of its way to drive her into this condition.

I think an important part of the MEH is that the character who performs it seems to fully understand and believe that what he or she has done has no turning back...which prompts the despair or BSOD, or gloating or whatever. In the mind of the character, the MEH is undoable.

Audience reaction apart, when it comes to the story itself, it can vary if it is reversible. A character who has made unintended genocide could revive the entire species or race he killed in some fantasy/high tech/magical setting, but not in a realistic one. In these more realistic ones where the consequences will be forever, then it is very subjective if the character can be "redeemed" or not

I am of the mind that actions that caused the MEH are variable depending on setting of if they are "Undoable". And that it is a separate thing the damage caused by the character that instigated the MEH, and the character itself. Some may be repentant, some are not. Others may seek redemption and find it, others do not find it.

edited 30th May '14 10:27:03 AM by Aszur

Personally I've always seen the MEH as the point at which the narrative abandoned the character. The Anakin Skywalker example listed above is a good case of that.

I've always thought that Death Equals Redemption always undoes Moral Event Horizon. If you think about it, Anakin Skywalker is an extremely terrifying figure responsible for mass suffering and was viewed in-universe as a monster years after his death. However because he performed a heel-face turn and portrayed humanely right before his death, he was once again sympathetic. Keep in mind though that Star Wars is a very idealistic work with almost black and white morality.

In a more cynical work, don't expect the villain to have any Tears of Remorse, a Heroic Sacrifice (unless an anti-villain), Heel Realization, or touching Last Words.

edited 3rd Jul '14 11:10:53 PM by jag140

All of these explanations are attempts to make a character fit into Moral Event Horizon when they don't. The Moral Event Horizon cannot be crossed back from. That's what defines it as a MEH — there's no return. There's no redemption. There's no going back. There's no Heel–Face Turn big or sweeping enough to counteract it. They've crossed the Event Horizon of evil.

The same way that not every work has to have a villain who's a Complete Monster, not every villain has to have crossed the MEH.

edited 4th Jul '14 12:02:31 AM by Madrugada

Yeah but a MEH is YMMV and the article for Moral Event Horizon states "the first evil deed whose role in the story is to tell us they will always be evil." A character usually has a chance for redemption right before being Killed Off for Real. Death is generally the ultimate form of retribution because there's obviously no chance of going back but still a possibility of having a final impact.

Heck it's not only possible but inevitable for a Complete Monster to lose status if complex characterization and long-running prominence are of concern. Without the effects of Villain Decay, the slightest humanization, or basic Character Development, you essentially have a character as flat as Always Chaotic Evil Mooks that will likely die or fade from the storyline.

You just quoted it yourself: ""the first evil deed whose role in the story is to tell us they will always be evil.

Not "They will be evil until they are redeemed." Not "They will be evil until they have a change of heart." Not "they will be evil until they die heroically." "They will always be evil.

If they are redeemed, or make a successful Heel–Face Turn, or pull off Death Equals Redemption, then they never actually crossed the Moral Event Horizon in the first place.

And no, it doesn't meant that they have to be flat, or that they aren't allowed any character development. They can move up and down the scale of evil, they can have as much character development as the author wants to give them. They simply can't ever cross back over that line and stop being evil.

edited 4th Jul '14 12:52:24 AM by Madrugada

Also, Complete Monster does require the character to stick to that trope until the end. See this thread for reference.

Ergo neither a Complete Monster nor a Moral Event Horizon can exist with absolute proof unless the character it describes has died or vanished from the storyline. And can't a morally neutral character cross the MEH?

I guess I have trouble understanding tropes that aren't dynamic. Just out of curiosity, in the real world, isn't the MEH essentially impossible or is it still an issue of subjectivity?

Moral Event Horizon requires an irredeemably evil act. So a) they can't be anything but villains ("irredeemably evil" does imply "villain") and b) as a corollary of a) we don't list Real Life examples because Real Life people cannot really be called "evil" for a multitude of reasons.

Now I'm starting to wonder whether Moral Event Horizon is meaningfully distinct from Complete Monster.

Ideally, MEH shouldn't be added to a character until they're done in the work. Over. Finished. Out of the story. That way you don't have to go back and say "Huh, I guess it wasn't one," if the author decides to redeem them somehow.

If a morally-neutral character crosses the MEH, they aren't morally-neutral anymore. By definition, they are evil, not neutral.

And whether a Moral Event Horizon is even possible in real life is a question of philosophy.

edited 4th Jul '14 1:53:04 AM by Madrugada

No, Moral Event Horizon is just "an act that makes one irredeemably evil". Complete Monster is a person, not an act, and it has lots of other qualifiers (no positive aspects, heinous by the standards of the story etc.) that Moral Event Horizon doesn't demand.

^^^ They're very distinct.

First off, the Moral Event Horizon is an act, an action, a decision. Complete Monster is a characterization.

Second, they don't necessarily go together in the work. There may be no single act that made a character into a Complete Monster; in fact, if you read through the thread dedicated to deciding whether characters are valid examples of Complete Monster in the workshops, you'll see that very often, what pushes a character into that category is the sheer mass of evil things they've done over the course of the work, not a single isolate-able incident. There's no identifiable MEH. On the other hand, a character can cross the Moral Event Horizon and still have some sympathetic characteristics — it's just that those characteristics are never going to be enough to redeem them.

'd by Septimus.

edited 4th Jul '14 1:46:59 AM by Madrugada

Yeah, but I don't see why it's tropable when other qualifiers aren't.

edited 4th Jul '14 1:47:14 AM by nrjxll