Needs Help (New Crowner 11 April 2021): Moral Event Horizon

Calling crowner as not having consensus for making this not YMMV.

Anyhow, I did propose this description rewrite a while ago:

Asking for more opinions. I note that the old crowner on the definition made the "characterization shift" an essential part of the trope but from the discussion here it seems like folks are beginning to think that the old crowner didn't work. So we might want to formally say that the old crowner is superseded.

The difference that allows Heroes' Frontier Step to work as an objective trope is that it's not intrinsically irreversible. There's nothing to prevent the hero from later doing a Face–Heel Turn, so it can be marked out according to fairly objective criteria in the context of the moment.

In fact, I'd question whether it really is the polar opposite of MEH.

Edited by underCoverSailsman on Mar 17th 2021 at 11:41:18 AM

That rewrite looks fine to me.

Edited by Javertshark13 on Apr 2nd 2021 at 3:06:24 PM

Removed the "pending final action" tag since this needs more discussion. Anyone else in favour of the aforementioned draft description? Do we want another crowner to ratify it?

That draft look like a good place to start. I like the straightforwardness and simplicity of it.

I have this alternate proposal that I think addresses the criteria we agreed on and addresses the debate over the change in portrayal criteria we had.

Moral Event Horizon candidates must:

• Be emphasized and deliberate: The narrative makes a greater than normal emphasis on the deeds significants and evil. Often accomplished by being especially heinous by the characters/stories standard, marking a change in their portrayal for the eviler, or negating redeeming/mitigating traits they had prior. This require it be an intentional effort to portray it as such.
• Be committed with agency: It doesn't count if they were forced or tricked into committing the deed if they wouldn't have done it willingly. Deeds committed unwittingly may still count if they are shown to be remorseless or satisfied by the outcome. Only individuals can cross it as groups lack agency and members can vary in redeemably, though it may count for the individuals who had them commit such.
• Be serious and sticks: Same as discussed elsewhere.

My concern is how do we identity which is MEH if there are multiple candidates as there can be only one crossing. Was the point of the revised criteria to identify such or for other issues? That might effect possible criteria.

If we have the 2 week waiting period and approval thread like for Magnificent Bastard, that would solve the multiple candidates problem by giving them adequate scrutiny to single it out. That would also fix the criteria problem by requiring consensus it meets them. I'd say we need a waiting period in case the get better MEH candidates or redeem themselves either way.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 10th 2021 at 1:49:15 AM

I'd say "first come first served" - if there are multiple events for the same character, the first one wins out. I'd disqualify unintentional acts under the "irredeemable" prong - pretty hard to say that a person is irredeemable over an accidental misdeed.

That makes sense. The first MEH candidate is the true MEH, because you can't cross the line once you're already over it.

I've put up a crowner to ratify (or not) the description I proposed. I am not sure if ~Ferot_Dreadnaught was proposing an altogether different description so I didn't add it as an option.

I'll go with your description as simplifying it might fix the problems we've had with cleanup.

There were other points brought up in the cleanup (must be intentional, no groups, doesn't count if they leave the narrative immediacy after) but we can see about working them into this draft.

Can "Add waiting period to MEH to be sure character doesn't get surprisingly redeemed" be added to the crowner? (I'd say until the characters story is seemingly over or 5 years for long ongoing works). Or should we focus on the definition first?

I thought of a trope "Signature Sin" for a characters most iconic act of evildoing. Some misuse of MEH might be moved there, but is it redundant with Signature Scene?

Quick question: If an author meant for them to cross the MEH but then/later writers decided to redeem them, what is done then? (I'd say just not MEH as production drama is outside the tropes scope.)

This was meant to be most remembered, not necessarily evilest. But I'll leave it for now as we don't what's happening with MEH yet.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 11th 2021 at 8:30:54 AM

We already attempted that with "Vilest Act" and the mods nuked it, sooooo....

I think "worst misdeed" and "most well-known misdeed" are distinct concepts, though. And TBH, I think we might've been a little too hasty in scrapping the "Vilest Deed" draft.

Let's wait on revisiting Vilest or something similar until we see if the revised MEH will remove enough examples to warrant something to put them under.

If MEH were to have a waiting period, how long if not till the end of the character's story?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 11th 2021 at 8:35:10 AM

I'd say two weeks, but I'm heavily involved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard cleanup threads, so that might be influencing my judgment.

Isn't two weeks for new works? I'm not sure that'd apply here.

I believe the two works refers to since the character in questions story is presumed concluded. But what about ongoing works like Berserk with no end in sight but characters definitely portrayed as having crossed the line. Has Griffith's MEH hit some other criteria to count? Been long enough (that's where I say 5 years) without any signs of redeemably? Or what?

But if CM, which has similar but stricter criteria can judge them such I'd adopting their waiting period rules.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 12th 2021 at 1:24:59 AM

I don't think the waiting period should go on the crowner as the crowner is for the description/definition. Waiting periods are a rule for adding examples and thus aren't part of the description - witness how the Complete Monster rule is on Administrivia.Complete Monster and not Main.Complete Monster.

Yeah, we can worry about a potential waiting period in the post-TRS cleanup phase.

Noting that we do have a MEH cleanup thread, so if we decide to go the effortpost route, we can make whatever adjustments are needed.

Bumping for more votes. Also, I downvoted the "effort post" option because I think that procedure needs to arise organically from discussion in the cleanup thread rather than being forced by a crowner.

I brought that up for discussion in the cleanup thread.

I uhh... don't see them redeeming Berserk's Griffith and if the mangaka gave him a FE, we could just say Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse and that his deeds eclipsed him being bullied as a child for example. Then again, I said that infamously with Xehanort and we all know how that turned out.

Most characters who are mostly approved have at least some reason as to why they are like that. The question is whether it holds up compared to what they have done.

If we do an effortpost thread, as controversial as it would be, due to his Draco in Leather Pants status I'd suggest putting up Ashfur from Warrior Cats' latest arc as he is Brambleclaw's imposter and shows no remorse for dragging his ex lover down to hell, turning pretty much everyone against each other, and being a general psychopath. While he does have an excuse it falls flat when you think of what he's done. His MEH is becoming the imposter though as this proves that "Yes, this character is way too far gone, it would be a literal Ass Pull to redeem him."

I stopped reading the books halfway through Omen of the Stars, but plenty of fans would argue that Ashfur crossed the line way, way before that- when he tried to murder Firestar. Or when he tried to kill Jay, Holly and Lion.

Maybe it's different because he somehow went to StarClan despite it all? IDFK. Like I said, I stopped reading, but Ashfur clearly wasn't redeemed after that if he went on to be an evil psychopathic monster later. If the MEH defaults to the first potential spot, then I'd definitely say he crossed the line, if not before Power of Three, then during Long Shadows.

But again, I gave up on the series long before this whole "Evil Duplicate Bramblestar" subplot, so I could be wrong.

What about the multiple MEH candidates being allowed to be listed? Is that something the cleanup is meant to do away with or will we still allow that? I'd assume we'd want to a least minimize multiple candidates as that seem a source of the Trope Decay.

What about Redemption Equals Death or Death Equals Redemption? Last I checked it was case by case if it disqualified MEH.

I see how the efortpost option can fix those by enforcing consensus but am dicy on how the new criteria can adequately deal with the sort of ambiguity that has stymied cleanup.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 18th 2021 at 8:31:51 AM

Updated the trope description and notified the already existing cleanup thread.