Misused: Knight Of Cerebus

I don't know if this has been properly grandfathered in since, as stated, some people don't even know what the name of the trope is or how it should actually be spelled. It's not like The Scrappy where everyone just knows what it means with little confusion.

Being hard to spell (due to "Cerebus" and "Cerberus" being ridiculously similar in spelling) and being counterintuitive sound like points against the Cerebus family of tropes/trope names, so I wouldn't be against renaming them (or at least the ones we keep if we get rid of Knight of Cerebus).

I don't know if the Cerebus tropes are covered by the Grandfather Clause; I think the main type of name that isn't covered by the Grandfather Clause is the use of "trope" as a placeholder, and at least one case received a rename recently (It Is Pronounced "Tro-PAY" being renamed to Pretentious Pronunciation), albeit due to rampant misuse and not the use of "trope" as a placeholder.

(Also, regarding The Scrappy, it's not just the name that's covered by the Grandfather Clause — the inherently negative nature of it is covered as well.)

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 27th 2021 at 9:31:32 AM

I get that. Maybe I'm just used to referring to "Cerebus" in a non-TV Tropes context.

The original names could still stick around as redirects. I just don't think they fit as the primary title for reasons already discussed.

But we need to figure out how to actually fix the tropes before we worry about fixing the titles.

For KOC, I say we make a new criteria that it excludes villains. Only heroic or morally ambiguous characters changing the tone of a work (whether permanently or just during their scenes) are noteworthy.

As for Cerebus Syndrome, can it be merged with Darker and Edgier?

I feel that the Cerebus family of tropes are redundant to the Wham trope family and Darker and Edgier as well.

Edited by namra on Oct 28th 2021 at 8:13:17 AM

Let's focus on KOC first.

Optionsss?

• Cut Knight of Cerebus, merge the concept of "a villain who causes the story to turn dark" into Cerebus Syndrome, and move examples to Cerebus Syndrome, Vile Villain, Saccharine Show, Mood Whiplash, and others. (mutually exclusive with all keep options)
• Keep Knight of Cerebus as a standalone trope, and rename
• Keep Knight of Cerebus as a standalone trope, and modify the scope (would be finalized in another crowner)

The third option would cover the suggestions for a non-permanent but significant tone shift, to exclude villains entirely, or to expand to non-villain characters.

Are the rename and expand options mutually exclusive? Because that's how it reads.

Nope.

I think it's because both start with "Keep as a standalone trope and do X", which makes them sound more separate than they actually are. At least to me.

To be honest, based on the sheer number of inbound links+the problems with the proposed new names and the somewhat handwavey responses to these problems, I don't think that a rename crowner would be hooked here. The suggestions sound like they could cause serious problems in their own right down the road.

That's another reason we need to fix the other issues first.

I do think the title is an issue, but I also agree it's not a priority one and the misuse isn't caused by the title. If anything, the issues caused by the title are just about misspellings and general confusion. I'd like them to be fixed if possible, but it's really not our first issue.

i really, really hate it when awful design is allowed to stick around because of ~*the inbounds*~. if a page needs fixing, it should just be fixed, rather than having all those people landing on a bad page.

We have Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard to keep the inbounds going, so don't worry about this one's inbounds. People weren't focused on that.

Huh? What have these tropes to do with anything?

You said you didn't want to do a renaming crowner due to the rebounds and I brought them up since they are giving us a lot of them. This means that we don't need to worry about any rebounds we lose if we end up renaming Knight of Cerebus

You are saying that since other tropes also give us a lot of inbounds we shouldn't care about these to this trope? Because that's not logic at all.

[And if it were, I would argue that since there are lots of other problematic tropes it won't help us to rename these ones]

What I meant is that we shouldn't be worried about rebounds if they get in the way of fixing problematic tropes and if we do end up losing rebounds, it's not the end of the world.

Also if I come off as too rude, I'll apologize. I'm just trying to share my opinion.

Edited by Cutegirl920fire on Oct 29th 2021 at 9:16:07 AM

Honestly, you aren't being rude but your arguments don't quite work...

Without renaming, what are the options for now?

• Merge with Cerebus Syndrome and Vile Villain, Saccharine Show, and move on to fixing Cerebus Syndrome.
• Expand the definition to not just the villains and address the scope. Ironically, Sandbox.Knight Of Cerebus is already a page that exists, so some work can be done there.

Edited by Amonimus on Oct 29th 2021 at 7:50:17 PM

So, basically we only have two options so far: redefine the trope or cutting it completely and merging villainous examples to Cerebus Syndrome and other fitting tropes. Is that all?

Personally, I think cutting it is a bit too extreme. Merging it with Cerebus Syndrome doesn't sound like an ideal option either.

Edited by selkies on Oct 29th 2021 at 9:39:37 PM

So how would we redefine it, then?

I think the main problem here is the vagueness associated with the trope, thus causing it to be confused with Vile Villain, Saccharine Show. VVSS is typically applied when the villain in question is a massive contrast with both the setting and the character in the medium. Things like Care Bears, Friendship is Magic, or Undertale all have cheerful upbeat settings which make the genuine evilness of the villains stand out.

When it comes to Knight of Cerebus, I think the character shouldn't just darken the scenes that they're in, but the entire work as a whole. What sort of themes do they introduce? What was the story like before they showed up? What sort of impact do they have after their tenure is completed? That last one is the important part. The villain's impact on the story should still be felt even if they're no longer present.

Example: Mercenary Tao from Dragon Ball brought forth the series's first murder of an allied cast member and is the strongest threat of the entire Red Ribbon Army. He successfully kills General Blue, the only other challenge Goku faced, and nearly kills Goku in their first fight. Even after he died and the RRA was defeated, villains introduced after him started playing for keeps and having higher body counts. Before him, the series was funny and lighthearted, but after him, the story got darker and more serious. Tao=KOC. King Piccolo and Piccolo Jr however, wouldn't qualify as KOC, because while they're certainly very dangerous, and KP even takes the dragon balls out of commission and kills several cast members (That WOULD qualify if that consequence lasted longer than his arc), their actions don't have much of an impact on the story after their tenure has come to an end. Kami just makes new dragon balls to wish everyone back and Piccolo Jr. just leaves after losing.

The Knight of Cerebus is equal parts threat level, tone-shift, and LEGACY. That's why not just any dark villain can qualify, only the ones that have an impact on the story as a whole. Preferably inflict some permanent damage, have the characters dealing with the fall-out afterward, and serve as a herald for darker stories to come.

Example: In Friendship is Magic, Discord and Chrysalis certainly qualify as VVSS, but only Tirek would qualify as a KOC, because he permanently destroyed Twilight's library, wrecked most of Ponyville, even defeated Discord as well. And after his tenure as the villain, the story transitioned to much grander and more adventurous stories with the map of friendship being introduced to take our heroines outside of their comfort zones.

Hopefully, this can help separate the two terms. If a rename is necessary, Tone-Shifting Villain works or perhaps Wham Villain to associate the trope with radical changes in the status quo.

Edited by MrEintheMorning on Nov 5th 2021 at 10:13:41 AM

I think we should go ahead with those options, but I would keep my original "modify the scope" wording. I don't think "expanding to not just villains" has been universally agreed upon.

Edited by Synchronicity on Nov 5th 2021 at 12:14:35 PM

There's also various Kirby games, which have final bosses be of beings Lovecraft would dream of, despite Kirby games being otherwise bright and cheery, complete with numerous cute characters, especially the playable titular character.