Do we give badass characters too much leeway?

If I remember right "Epic" was a specific type of poem, like the Odyssey by Homer.

edited 6th Nov '14 8:56:47 PM by ParadoxialStratagem

"Awful" means "full of awe", right guys?

Used to, and can still, but it will confuse people not acquainted to using it in that manner.

I know, I was joking.

To answer the thread title - yes. And not just characters; look at the cult of Patton in the USA, and then look at some of the less well-known incidents that show he wasn't quite the hero he is portrayed as.

I wouldn't exactly call the slapping incident "less well known" considering that at the bare minimum everybody who saw the movie about Patton knows about it...

What about Ubermensch characters like Malvo form Fargo or Tyler Durden? They seem to be above criticism and yet they give out as much as they want.

Tyler was a figment of Tyler's imagination and even claimed he would never hang out with a piece of shit like Tyler.

My guess is that a big reason to love badass characters is wish fulfillment (not just for protagonist - generally speaking, encountering a badass character in fiction tends to give a reaction "I wish I could do that"), and part of wish fulfillment is a wish to be able to get away with anything.

That's one possible reason.

Vegeta is cool because of his redemption and the fact that he is a "true" representation of the Saiyan race, unlike Goku, who was raised by humans. And his desire to be the best while always being second string is very relatable.

So how about all that mass murder

Neh, it's Dragon Ball Z. Everyone (except Mr Satan) has got brought back from death at least once unless they are villains.

And if you count the anime you just gain a halo above your head and lives in the underworld after "death".

edited 11th Nov '14 3:29:53 PM by IraTheSquire

I wonder if we give characters like that a 'pass' where you pretty much cannot do anything to them anyway.

Yeah, and it also happens in real life, for example [list of leaders and warlords throughout history]

Fun fact: I had a history teacher in high school who hated Andrew Jackson (seemingly considered badass by many) so much that she refused to carry $20 bills.

One thing doesn't exclude the other, though. Andrew Jackson was, by most interpretation, completely Ax-Crazy, but it is undeniable that the man was a bona-fide badass.

Genghis Khan was a genocidal, fanatic warlord, who's acquired a reputation as a wise badass leader. And he's sort of both.

He was also a horrible racist who is actively responsible for almost all the difficulties Native Americans have faced since his day.

That he was. But beating his own assassin to near-death with a cane to the point of needing to be restrained? Badass.

What is it with American Presidents and assassins?

They're heads of state and powerful, high-profile people in general. Those kinds of people get clipped.

edited 24th Nov '14 8:54:31 PM by Robotnik

It is amusing though that other nations tend to have a lot less presidential assassins (barring the occasional coup of state here and there). Brazil for instance, had about...two or so assassination attempts on presidents.

Forcing all the Natives into the desert? Horrible, and vastly outweighs the good Jackson did as president, or any badass credentials he has.

Yeah, Jackson was a total asshole.

He also destroyed the U.S. economy at the time.

And I thought George Dubya was the least popular President.