Misused: Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil

It's called Affably Evil and it can have Genuinely Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil as Internal Subtropes

MAX POWER KILL JEEEEEEEEWWWWW

Oh.

I didn't mean get the commoners to edit the wiki. I mean have them vote in the crowners. Unless you were responding about that.

Crowners were never accessible for non-logged in people, I think.

Anyhow, this crowner is stalled, which means that I'll probably close it and the thread down soon.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

The definition that ~Troacctid suggested has been mentioned before, but only in the context of redefining the two current tropes (AFAIK).

So perhaps the thing to do is to define that trope, and see how things develop with it around?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I've closed the crowner, but am holding off on closing the thread for now.

Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil both describe themselves as being mutually exclusive. However, both tropes are clearly cases of "Nice Is Not Good" i.e. subverting a certain expectation about how evil characters will behave. So either there's a missing supertrope for bad guys with polite demeanors, or the tropes are incorrect in claiming to be mutually exclusive. Yes?

Rhymes with "Protracted."

I'd go with the latter

MAX POWER KILL JEEEEEEEEWWWWW

But if the issue is that the villain is only faking being nice to trick people, does that really fall under a principle that niceness doesn't equal goodness? The niceness was never real. That'd be sort of equivalent to making Jerkass Façade a subtrope of Good Is Not Nice. They're not really jerks.

Sincerity isn't a prerequisite for politeness. Saying "please" and "thank you" is good manners regardless of whether you are actually pleased or thankful. So you can't exactly fake being polite, really.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

Indeed. That right there is basically the problem with the idea of having a "Faux" Affably Evil trope in the first place. The whole notion that there is a "real" and a "fake" way in which to be polite-but-evil.

and Actually, there is away not to be genuinely nice. If a villain is saying "please", there's a difference between them just saying it politely and holding up a gun to shoot you if you say no.

edited 15th Dec '14 6:34:30 PM by SatoshiBakura

That behavior sounds like sarcasm to me. I mean I guess "sarcasm" is basically "insincerity which isn't intended to trick anyone", but I don't think that's what's generally implied by the term.

But hey if Faux Affably Evil had been Sarcastically Affable in the first place I wouldn't have had a problem. It's the whole notion that there's "nice people who are also evil" and "seemingly nice people who are also evil". How do you distinguish those? Isn't it more likely people will list villains they personally like as one and those they dislike as the other?

You distinguish them by expression, tone of voice, and actions during the scene. Of person is holding a gun at another, they would be Affably Evil if they speak in a saddened voice during their polite talk, and Faux Affably Evil if they speak the exact same words in a more sincere tone while holding the gun. One is being mournful that they're about to kill someone, and the other is a sadist. Though this is only one example.

Replying to post #70: "Any page that has a discussion thread about it gets a link to the thread added to the header... I don't know how much more notice you can give to a thread about a trope."

Those links only show up on the pages in question, so the only people outside of regulars at this forum who will be alerted are those few who happen to click on Faux Affably Evil. What we should do is put notices on the main page and all other pages when a crowner is opened. They could be timed to go away after, say, 72 hours. I bet if we did that we'd get a lot more votes. Hell, why even make people come here? Have a notice pop up which takes users to the crowner.

As for the trope, I agree with the posts above this one saying that there is not a "real" and "fake" way to be affable. Either you're affable or you're not affable, which is why Faux Affably Evil should be eliminated. But the lack of a consensus in this crowner means that Faux Affably Evil will live to fight another day, I guess.

"Nice" is not the same thing as "polite".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Noting here general meanings, not to be taken as authority:

• good
  • likes to help
  • doesn't want people hurt
  • is charitable
• polite = follows social conventions
  • rules of hospitality
  • treat others as equals
  • respects opponents
• evil
  • delights in the pain of others
  • seeks selfish outcomes
  • spends money to serve themselves (like public perception)

Nice is a word that often means good or polite. In this discussion it may be best to avoid that word and quibble over if we meant good or polite. Good Is Not Nice and Nice Is Not Good are tropes because that word is used for two different things.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil need significant cleanup. The tropes are meant to be mutually exclusive (either you're a friendly, affable person who happens to be a villain, or you're a villain who affects friendliness and affability), and yet there are numerous characters who fit both archetypes (polite and cordial towards others or genuinely believe in their cause, yet get on their bad side and your arse is grass). Perhaps the descriptions are a bit too woolly and unclear on this point.

I think the two tropes are only similar in that they both suggest a sort of "inappropriate affability". In the case of Affably Evil, it was inappropriate for the villainous character to seem so otherwise friendly and social, causing a sort of cognitive dissonance as to how they could so easily engage in villainous atrocities while also maintaining an outward attitude that totally belies their overall actions. However this description got exaggerated/misunderstood, so it ended up turning from "villain who will commit atrocities whilst maintaining an attitude that belies their actions" to being "a friendly, affable guy who just happens to be evil".

In the case of Faux Affably Evil, their affability was inappropriate because it was just totally off — the character can be cordial one minute and completely evil the next. It doesn't cause cognitive dissonance or make one wonder if they're being insincere, it's just plain weird and enhances their seeming evilness. They've got a sociopathic sociality. However, this ended up fitting villains that faked the politeness and sociality, not villains in which the mannerisms, genuine or not, enhanced their villainy.

In my view, the name "Faux Affably Evil" is inappropriate because it brought it and Affably Evil closer together and suggested a connection they didn't really have before; namely, that one is "sincere" and the other isn't. A "faux affable" trope is totally workable — the character knows how to be social and uses it to game people, similar to the Bitch in Sheep's Clothing, but it's not an issue of the character acting in a seemingly contradictory way as in Affably Evil. There's nothing inherently contradictory about being polite and civil to others, yet utterly ruthless at the same time. For the villains who are, whilst being polite and civil towards others, are utterly ruthless (esentially villains whose polite mannerisms enhance their villainy), Politely Evil, or Urbanely Evil, is a totally workable name, similar to Wicked Cultured. But "like Affably Evil except faking it" just undermines the premise of Affably Evil in the first place. My suggestion would be to rework Faux Affably Evil again (so that it only fits villains where the politeness and affability is “an act'' which is either mocking or done in order to manipulate others, like Ratigan, Captain Vidal or Smaug).

Let's give three examples. One is of an Affably Evil villain, one is of a Politely Evil villain and another is of a Faux Affably Evil villain

Affably Evil: Hank Scorpio from The Simpsons is definitely Affably Evil — he's pleasant, friendly, good to his employees, and genuinely cares about them as people, not just as resources. He's also a supervillain plotting to take over the world. His theme song points out that his "twisted twin obsessions" are his plot to rule the world and his employees' health. He also gives them generous pensions and "a stock plan that helps you invest". When Homer tells Scorpio he's quitting — which happens in the middle of an army attack on Scorpio's base — he's sympathetic to Homer's problems and tells Homer to do what he thinks is best for his family (but also says that he'd appreciate it Homer would kill some people on the way out). His friendliness and concern for his employees is by all accounts genuine, but, lest we forget, it's Pragmatic Villainy all the way.

Politely Evil: Agent Smith from The Matrix. He's undeniably evil — he works for the oppressive system keeping the majority of humanity captive, and when he breaks free of that, he attempts to seize control of it for himself. He views humanity as a virus, a disease to be wiped out, and he takes steps to ensure their destruction. Even while he's sharing these views with the protagonists, however, he retains a polite, collected demeanour. He always refers to Neo formally, as "Mr Anderson", and is never insulting or rude. He and Neo even have friendly conversation while confronting each other. After Smith breaks free of the system, he discusses his situation with Neo, who congratulates Smith on his newfound freedom, and Smith politely thanks Neo for his congratulations. Neither the audience nor any of the characters believe for a moment that Smith is anything but evil — but Smith is still polite, courteous, and even friendly at times. He's not a nice person — he wants to kill all humanity, after all, and he doesn't actually care about anyone but himself — but he's not using his courtesy, politeness and cordiality to manipulate others. His polite mannerisms enhance his evil. He's not "Faux" because he's not faking it or using it to manipulate others.

Faux Affably Evil: Prince Hans, from Frozen. All of his behaviour, which initially seemed altruistic and benevolent, whilst he was planning to murder our heroes and usurp the kingdom right from the start, is revealed to be completely self-serving and his Nice Guy façade completely fake. That Love at First Sight song? It's all hollow lies, made up to manipulate an innocent girl. His charitable deeds for the people while Anna is gone? That has been calculated to make his rise to power easier. His drive to keep Anna safe? It's a mask, and he casually discards it when he realizes she's no longer of use: it was safe to let her die. He's pretending to be a Nice Guy when it suits him; when it doesn't, he shows his true character; a self-interested, manipulative and murderous Jerkass who would kill anyone in his way to get what he wants.

The difference between a Faux Affably Evil villain and a Politely Evil villain is that a Faux Affably Evil villain's polite and friendly demeanour is either faked or mocking. A Politely Evil villain may be The Spock (like the above-mentioned Agent Smith), a Villain with Good Publicity or simply a Pragmatic Villain. A Faux Affably Evil villain is polite and friendly when it suits them. When it doesn't, they're utterly ruthless and irredeemably evil (in fact, a lot of the examples on the Complete Monster page are Faux Affably Evil villains).

edited 8th Jan '15 1:02:08 AM by Nathanoraptor

Ridiculously Similar Tropes

MAX POWER KILL JEEEEEEEEWWWWW

No, they are not Ridiculously Similar Tropes. There's a huge difference between those three types of villain. The challenge is to come up with definitions that makes the difference between them clear, so that people will understand the difference and sort examples appropriately.

The closest thing to a litmus test between Politely Evil and Faux Affably Evil that I can come up with is whether or not either the characters or the audience recognise the villain as anything but evil. Meanwhile, the difference between Faux Affably Evil and Affably Evil is to see if the character's pleasantness to others lasts if the others in question are no longer useful to him.

Affably Evil: Hank Scorpio is genuinely pleasant to Homer even when Homer essentially abandoned him in the middle of an attack. His pleasantness and concern for his employees is by all accounts genuine

Politely Evil: Agent Smith is undeniably evil - abandoning his duties as an agent in order to pursue his vendetta against Neo specifically and humanity in general. Both the characters and the audience are aware of this. They don't doubt for a second that Smith is anything but evil. His polite and corteous manners enhance his villainy, rather than taking away from it.

Faux Affably Evil: Prince Hans uses a friendly, polite and gentlemanly facade in order to manipulate others in order to get what he wants. This facade is so good that even we, the audience, are fooled along with the characters. However, when it no longer suits him to show this facade, he discards it and shows his true nature. He treats other people as things to be manipulated and if they're no longer useful, they can die as far as he's concerned. Yet he hides this demeanour underneath a Nice Guy facade, because it suits him to. When it isn't required, he's utterly ruthless and undeniably evil.

That's the real crux of the differences as far as I can see it. Hank Scorpio was nice to Homer even when Homer essentially abandoned him in the middle of an attack, showing that he cared about people even when they were of no use to him. Prince Hans, on the other hand, only views people as puppets to be manipulated and when they are no longer useful to him, he'll gladly leave them to die.

Agent Smith, meanwhile, is undeniably evil, yet he's still polite and corteous towards others. He's utterly ruthless - abandoning his duties as an agent in order to pursue his vendetta against Neo specifically and humanity in general. Yet he doesn't try and use his politeness to manipulate other people. Neither the characters or the audience know him as being anything but evil.

That's the main reason why all three of those archetypes are different.

edited 8th Jan '15 1:28:21 AM by Nathanoraptor

I'm not sure if Hans is an example of Faux Affably Evil. We barely get to know his true personality, with everything else just being Alternative Character Interpretation. For all we know, he could of legitimently meant good when giving out those blankets. If he won, he might have even been a good king! He's at the very least Politely Evil.

even those three would have some states of in-betweens.

Not sure why we can't have just one trope, one very flexible trope.

MAX POWER KILL JEEEEEEEEWWWWW

Tropes Are Flexible, yes, but one trope can't cover these three archetypes of villain (a villain who, whilst committing villainous atrocities, is actually quite a pleasant guy, a villain whose polite mannerisms enhance his evil or a villain who affects pleasantness and friendliness).

Also, let's compare Hans with Hank Scorpio, our example for Affably Evil. Hank Scorpio was nice to Homer even when Homer essentially abandoned him in the middle of an attack, showing that he cared about people even when they were of no use to him. Prince Hans, on the other hand, only viewed Anna as someone to be manipulated in order to further his goals (usurping the throne of Arendelle) and when she was no longer useful to him, he left her to die. Hans is The Sociopath, pure and simple. However, he hides it with a friendly, charming, gentlemanly persona and uses this façade to manipulate others in order to further his own goals. This cements him as Faux Affably Evil.

The problem is that several villains go back and forth between "actually quite civil despite his atrocities" and "his politeness enhances his evil". The most common example is a villain whose politeness and charm is genuine towards one person and none else. In that case he has characteristics of Affably Evil when he is talking to that person and Faux Affably Evil when talking to anyone else.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

Basically, they aren't archetypes; they're different ways to play the same trope.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The fact that we're four pages into this thread and can't articulate a clear, convincing difference between Affably Evil and Faux Affably Evil should in itself be evidence that the tropes should be merged.