Ask The Tropers

There was some question of the end of Season 8 when she was banished to Tartarus, largely because we knew nothing of her backstory or motivations. But that has kinda vanished now.

I asked on two separate Discord chats: "general question - do people think they should have been more lenient on Cozy Glow because she's a filly, or did she deserve the fate she got?" The large majority on both agreed that she deserved what she got and a one or two saying no, and one person said they'd have done it where they offer her one last chance as they petrify the other two.

On derpibooru I found an image edit where Cozy declares she changes her mind and wants to reform: the vast majority of comments are saying she doesn't deserve it

So, it's not a comprehensive polling exactly, but from three different sources, general consensus is that no, Cozy did not deserve redemption. I only saw a few people suggesting she should be redeemed or shown mercy because she's a child, many others directly declared she got what she deserved for what she did.

I found some more images/comments with people saying she didn't deserve it: here, and here

Also, this guy was pissed about it

Even in those images though, a lot of people are saying she deserved it.

If you want to go with the Cry for the Devil entry, I can understand that. But definitely not Designated Hero (which is plain misuse of the trope anyway) and not really Unintentionally Sympathetic, as I don't see anyone saying they sympathize with Cozy Glow, just that they think her punishment was too severe

Haven't watched MLP in a long while but i guess the issues is with a series that largely run on forgiving villains, who are full adult, it can be surprising to see it not being given to a filly.

To a degree, though on the other hand, people were getting sick of villain redemptions and pointedly't DIDN'T want the trio redeemed, particularly since Chrysalis and Tirek are beloved villains (I think Cozy was well-liked too).

A list of her crimes is: with advice from Tirek, orchestrated a magic ritual to drain all the magic from Equestria and send it to another world, tricked the Mane Six into trapping themselves in Tartarus, imprisoned Starlight and the Crusaders to make sure they couldn't interfere with their plans, and when caught expressed that she did all this to attain power. Then in Season 9 she is part of the Legion of Doom a they plot to destroy the heroes and take over Equestria, and when Grogar questions why they betrayed them, Cozy is the one of the three who quips "duh, we're villains". And then during the finale she (by herself) storms Canterlot, attacks Twilight and her friends, drains Luna and Celestia of their magic, and later wants to try and absorb it for herself.

Cozy shows no remorse, guilt, or hesitation about her numerous evil deeds, repeatedly reiterates and demonstrated she is interested in attaining ever greater power, and is just as eager as the other villains to destroy the heroes and take over Equestria. Yeah, Cozy Glow is a child, but so was The Good Son.

Anyone else have opinions?

Otherwise I'll remove the Designated Hero and Unintentionally Sympathetic entries and reword Cry for the Devil

Someone recently updated the Unintentionally Sympathetic entry pointing out how it can come from the fact that she was already serving time in Tartarus with no hint of ever being released instead of juvie or a mental facility, and Discord broke her out and railroaded her into getting an even worse punishment...which he got to decide. I will admit, once she and the others had the bell though, they could have simply given in to the feelings of friendship and done the right thing by taking the bell to the princesses and trying to turn over a new leaf, so it is still partly her own fault (while Chrysalis and Tirek rejected redemption in "Frenemies", she could have pretended to go along with them only to go against them and give the bell to the princesses when she had the chance, or simply tried to convince them to do the right thing, neither of which she did). That being said, while they did make those choices themselves, you could argue that upon learning of the bell, the thought of it's powers went to their heads and tempted them to do more evil with it. This is a real life defense in criminal courts called Affluenza, where people put in positions of power argue that their moral judgements dropped because of the power they were given, as it made them feel like they were above the law. Sadly, that defense actually works in getting reduced sentences in real life. I despise that law, but you could use it as an argument here. Learning the power of the bell made Cozy feel she was above the law and made her want to test her power now that she and the others felt that they could do whatever they wanted and get away with it. Discord put her in that position, so it is still partly his fault she got an even worse fate than before, so some could sympathize with her for that.

From what I understand, Unintentionally Sympathetic doesn't always mean the villain is sympathetic as a whole, just that they get more sympathy than intended. The trope page even says an example is if people think their punishment was excessive, which is the main issue here. From what I've seen on other forums, some fans felt her being turned to stone was justified and some felt it was too harsh, but it's definitely more than "just a few" who feel that way.

"so it is still partly her own fault (while Chrysalis and Tirek rejected redemption in "Frenemies", she could have pretended to go along with them only to go against them and give the bell to the princesses when she had the chance, or simply tried to convince them to do the right thing, neither of which she did)."

There is no indication along the way that Cozy Glow was an unwilling participant in all this and was not was eager to destroy the heroes and rule Equestria a Tirek and Chrysalis.

"That being said, while they did make those choices themselves, you could argue that upon learning of the bell, the thought of it's powers went to their heads and tempted them to do more evil with it"

That would be Alternate Character Interpretation. In my view, there's no reason to think Cozy was not as eager to destroy the heroes and take over Equestria as the other two, or to think she might be open to the idea of redemption if it was offered.

Also, in response to your comment on the discussion page (to keep the discussion in place) - audience reaction tropes can be wrong. Tropes can be misused, or someone can present the opinions of a comparative small group of people as the majority opinion. In this case, it is largely the latter. On numerous image comment threads, I am seeing definite disagreement on Cozy's fate, but people who wanted her redeemed or think a child shouldn't be treated this way are largely a minority, most are saying she got was she deserved. I directly asked in two separate Discord chats and in an Equestria Daily discussion post, "do you think Cozy Glow deserved her fate", and the majority said she did, there was some dissent but there was a clear general consensus.

Anyway, as to my suggestions for how to overhaul the tropes:

• Cry for the Devil: Explain that some feel that Cozy Glow's punishment was too severe, as she was a child and children are typically not given death sentences, they're put in rehabilitation. Additionally, we never found out her backstory and why she was so evil, making it possible she had a sympathetic backstory or Freudian Excuse.

• Designated Hero: Flat delete, this trope is misused here. This is for when someone who is not a hero is presented as one by the story, and this is not the case for Celestia and Luna — even if you disagree with what they did to Cozy Glow, to suggest they are villainous figures for it is just Ron the Death Eater at play. While it is a bit closer to Discord, a better trope for his showinw in the special is Karma Houdini, someone who did evil deeds and suffered no punishment for them. That has been added to the main page already though.

• Unintentionally Sympathetic: Also misuse, as there is no reason that Cozy may elect sympathy other than "she's a filly and should have been given a chance to redeem herself", which better fits under Cry for the Devil. I ran down the page's list of possible reasons why Unintentionally Sympathetic may be at play, and other than Cry For The Devil, one of those reasons are accurate for why someone may feel sympathy for Cozy.

EDIT - Given Javert's explanation on Unintentionally Sympathetic, and reading Cry for the Devil again (the fact that Cozy wasn't given a backstory would be a major reason it doesn't count), I reverse my opinion on the two; cut Cry for the Devil and keep Unintentionally Sympathetic.

Karma Houdini was cut from the main page because apparently Discord losing his powers and being given a lecture in addition to briefly being captured is supposed to be seen as his karma. Many viewers were unsatisfied with that and don't think he suffered ENOUGH karma, but the stupid rules for the trope say that the trope is only for characters who suffer absolutely no karma at all, not ones who don't suffer enough. I tried adding him to Unintentionally Unsympathetic, but that was deleted as well. What trope do we list him under to express the belief that he didn't suffer enough despite the episode saying otherwise?

You don't? Not all audience opinions get catalogued.

So is anything happening on this or what?

Does anyone object to my proposed revisions for Cry for the Devil and Unintentionally Sympathetic?

Go for it!

Those changes are fair. Trope misuses, especially with YMMV tropes, are a big problem, we shouldn't be shy in correcting them.

Removed Cry for the Devil, rewording Unintentionally Sympathetic to this:

• Unintentionally Sympathetic: Cozy Glow. We never found out her backstory or why she was so evil, and she was never offered a chance to seek redemption, either now or during her original banishment to Tartarus in Season 8. Coupled with her being a child and being given two of the worst punishments the show could deliver for any villain, and it left some viewers feeling sorry for her because she came off as a messed-up kid who was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the heroes never tried to reason with her or rehabilitate her.

Another thing I would suggest - removing "Discord put them up to it" as a reason for Cozy's Draco in Leather Pants status, and in general removing it when it's used justification for sympathizing with or justifying the actions of the villains.

True, Discord formed the Legion of Doom, but he never specifically made them do anything other than get the bell - sowing distrust among the ponies, sabotaging the Summer Sun Celebration, betraying Grogar to take power themselves, and everything they did in the finale, was done willingly and on their own volition. It's not like Discord was offering drugs to a recovering addict, he just gave them a base to sit in for a few weeks and they went back to villainous scheming on their own when they recognized the opportunities.

Removed that "Discord put them up to it" bit from the Draco in Leather Pants entry, and from additions bobg made to Unintentionally Sympathetic. I also removed this misused trope:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: A minor case with Discord, Celestia, and Luna. A common complaint is that Cozy Glow and Tirek were already serving their sentences in Tartarus before Discord broke them out, tempted them with the bell, and railroaded them into getting themselves put into an even worse punishment. While the two, along with Chrysalis, did turn on him and proceed with their plan to use the bell to take over Equestria, ultimately making their final fate largely their own doing, that does not change the fact that they were still ultimately put into the position that resulted in them receiving that fate because Discord broke them out and tempted them with the bell, which could be seen as entrapment. The fact that Discord was not trying to get them to reform through teamwork and fully anticipated them to launch an attack on Equestria, albeit with him still in a position to stop them if the heroes couldn't, still holds up. While Discord is chewed out for endangering Equestria, no one ever points out the fact that he freed and basically goaded the villains into their actions which brought about their worse punishments when Tirek and Cozy could have simply remained in Tartarus unable to harm anyone if it weren't for him. We are not supposed to care about the fact that Discord is guilty of entrapment and goading because the villains are bad guys, as if villains don't have rights, which comes off as Protagonist-Centered Morality. If Discord had been trying to reform the three or the punishment had simply been to send them back to Tartarus with Chrysalis this time like the sentence they were already serving, fans wouldn't have this gripe. Celestia and Luna share this position with Discord because they take part in turning the villains into stone instead of merely sending them back to Tartarus as per their original sentence despite knowing that Discord goaded them into doing what they did.

I could see a case for Unintentionally Unsympathetic with regards to Discord losing his powers being his own fault for his terrible idea backfiring in his face, but this is just complaining about the fates of the villains again. I have told bobg to talk about what to do with his issues with that here and cease misusing tropes to add it to that page. At this point this is not an edit war, this is bobg criticizing the episode and trying different tropes to get his criticisms on the page.

Discord's whole plan was for the villains to attack Twilight at her coronation, and he used Sombra's fate to threaten the villains into going along with him. He could have left Cozy Glow in prison, but he was willing to use her as a pawn, fully intending for her to end up with an even worse punishment than she already had. If you break dangerous criminals out of prison, supply them with a weapon, and intend for them to commit an act of terrorism with it, then whatever happens as a result is on you. It's not a defense for Discord to say he didn't mean things to go so far. I'm not sure if it qualifies more for Unintentionally Unsympathetic or Moral Dissonance, but definitely one of those two.

The only arguments for Unintentionally Unsympathetic I see are:

• The Princesses: deciding the villains deserved worse than Tartarus despite their wrongs this season being not established as worse than their prior wrongs which Tartarus would have been enough for (keeping them from further wrongdoing) if not for being broken out by Discord, who they let decide the villains punishment despite being the one who enabled there actions. (All the villains have crossed the Moral Event Horizon prior though, so is any sympathy on them left to loose?)
• Discord: as a continuation of his Unintentionally Unsympathetic behavior from "A Matter of Principals" making his actions here come off as continued Flanderization as opposed to the accident portrayed. (Within this episodes he's completely called out for his actions and had to risk his life to earn everyone forgiveness, leaving little unintentional. Would this have been so bad if audiences weren't salty about the Grogar twist.)

Such might be nitpicks as I doubt this would have been viewed so harshly if not for Cozy being Unintentionally Sympathetic (the other villains being defended is Leather Pantsing) and all complaints are best there.

Well, I considered the thing about Discord a valid point, and I believe any truly valid point should be expressed somewhere. I tried the protagonist centered morality trope, but apparently that trope was changed to (or has always been) in universe examples. I thought that was a YMMV trope. UU seemed the next best one. If neither of those qualify, than yeah, I guess Moral Dissonance works. Sorry I didn't ask here about which trope to put that under first. I will do that for tropes from now on. Shall we add it under Moral Dissonance?

"fully intending for her to end up with an even worse punishment than she already had." - We have no idea what Discord intended to happen to the villains one way or the other, and considering his personality he probably didn't even give it any thought.

"If you break dangerous criminals out of prison, supply them with a weapon, and intend for them to commit an act of terrorism with it, then whatever happens as a result is on you." - that does not mean, however, that they are absolved of guilt because you allowed it to happen. Yes, Discord broke them out of prison and rallied them to him, but they still did many evil acts of their own volition. It is a flat lie to say that Discord "goaded" them to do anything, he never told them until the day of that he wanted their attack to happen during Twilight's coronation, by which point they most certainly were going to do that anyway. Does Discord bear part of the blame for what they did? Yes, but he does not bear all of it.

"It's not a defense for Discord to say he didn't mean things to go so far" - And I didn't say it was, in fact I specifically affirmed the opposite.

Is Discord Unintentionally Unsympathetic? Yeah, he had a horrible, poorly thought-out plan, that he did a terrible job executing, and it blew up in his face. He played with fire and got burned.

Are the Princesses Unintentionally Unsympathetic? No, they were trying to clean up the mess Discord made, got their magic stolen, their castle blown up, and again, even if it was partly Discord's fault, they tried to kill the heroes and conquer Equestria. Any arguments one may make about the opinion that the punishment the trio received was undeserved do not have any impact on the Princesses being victims in everything that happened, and they had full rights to issue some manner of punishment.

"I believe any truly valid point should be expressed somewhere." - To be blunt, you are wrong. This is not a website for one to post their opinions, it a website for cataloging tropes.

^How's Discord Unintentionally Unsympathetic for that? "(H)e had a horrible, poorly thought-out plan, that he did a terrible job executing, and it blew up in his face" is what's he's called out on and had to earn forgiveness for. Unintentionally Unsympathetic requires they be unsympathetic for different reasons than intended or called out, that just lists the intended and called out reasons.

Again, only as a continuation of his actions from "A Matter of Principals" does it come off as anything worse than the poorly thought out plan he's treated as intentionally unsympathetic for. Unless there's a point I'm missing.

The "goading" comes from the fact that he informed them of the existence of the bell. When you get your hands on power like that, you tend to think you are above the law and get a desire to test your power by lording over others. It's a defense called affluenza. Would the trio have tried to take over Equestria anyway? Absolutely, but the fact remains that Discord broke Cozy and Tirek out of Tartarus while they were already serving their sentences and set them on a path to get themselves in a worse punishment than they were in before. That the two were already evil to begin with and they could have stopped at anytime is irrelevant. If I broke someone out of prison, told them where the person who testified against them in court lived, and enabled them to go after them, and they ended up being re-arrested and getting a harsher sentence than before, you better believe the criminal's family would start whining and blaming me for their family member getting in more trouble than before, and they would have a point. Discord broke them out and set them on a path to getting in hotter water than before. This could be considered entrapment, and he's never called out on it. I'm not denying those two along with Chrysalis did really bad things (and I feel little sympathy for Tirek and next to no sympathy for Chrysalis, who was the most unrepentant of the three), but the fact that the entrapment is never addressed comes off as Protagonist-Centered Morality to me, Asshole Victims or not. I'm not gonna deny that the villains are [insert statement relating to their evilness here], but this was similar to if an undercover cop posing as a criminal broke two criminals out and offered them power they could use to conquer the world and they ended up getting defeated and having harsher sentences imposed afterward. You can argue the others who share this viewpoint and I are DIL Ping them, but you have to admit that we do have a point, and shouldn't the YMMV section allow people to use appropriate YMMV tropes to list this viewpoint? Isn't that what the YMMV section is for? Expressing subjective viewpoints?

^No, YMMV is for expressing YMMV tropes. While YMMV tropes stem from subjective viewports the tropes still have enough objectivity to be misused.

Just because a valid opinion or complaint exists doesn't mean we can shoehorn it into a trope to voice it if it's an incorrect use of the trope.

A Wall of Text explaining why Discord's unsympathetic doesn't make him Unintentionally Unsympathetic if it just elaborates on the actions (breaking criminals out and enabling them to do harm) he's Intentionally Unsympathetic for. Any legit complaints against him are drowned out by the vast majority of it being intentional, I asked about this before awhile back.

Trope Finder is the best bet for finding what can correctly convey what you want.

Very well. I guess moral dissonance is fine. I'll be sure that when I want to list an existing common valid viewpoint, I'll ask the trope finders and the ATT...area? Thread? Whatever you call it, for what subjective trope exists that is best used for filing it under. If it doesn't exist, I guess that's what trope launchers are for, though you need to ask first and the majority rules.

How about this?

• Moral Dissonance: Discord broke Cozy Glow and Tirek out of Tartarus when they were already serving their sentences, tempted them with the bell, and railroaded them and Chrysalis into a series of events that resulted in Cozy Glow and Tirek being given new punishments that were more harsh than the ones they already had. While he is chewed out for endangering Equestria, the fact that he planned for the villains to get defeated and receive harsher punishments all along, which could be considered entrapment, is never addressed, implying that it's okay for him to manipulate villains but not the heroes. Likewise, he is not punished by the heroes besides a stern lecture simply because he was remorseful, while the villains are turned to stone for their actions despite the fact that the only reason they were able to accomplish their deeds was because Discord enabled them to.

You guys said it was either this or Unintentionally Unsympathetic.

Condense to this and I'll call it OK.

• Moral Dissonance: The villains are treated as so unforgivable for their actions by the heroes they're subject to a Fate Worse than Death while Discord, who enabled all of said villains actions, is forgiven by the heroes and even decides the villains fate without stating why he deserves better.

How about this?

• Moral Dissonance: The villains are treated as so unforgivable for their actions by the heroes they're subject to a Fate Worse than Death while Discord, who enabled all of said villains actions, is forgiven by the heroes and even decides the villains fate without stating why he deserves better. The fact that Discord is basically guilty of entrapment (breaking Cozy Glow and Tirek out of Tartarus when they were already serving their sentences just so he could have them be given an even harsher punishment after their defeat) is never even addressed.

I do believe the entrapment thing deserves mentioning. He broke them out and enabled them to do all that stuff so that they could be defeated by Twilight and given harsher punishments). The fact that things backfired on him and he only gave those punishments after they got closer to conquering Equestria than he expected is irrelevant.

The entrapment part is not directly relevant to the double standard Moral Dissonance is about (Celestia having used villains to test the heroes over stopping them before they risk harm means it's not a double standard even if it's morally questionable at best) . Changing "enabled" to "enabled and encouraged" should cover that point well enough.

Does Moral Dissonance apply even if Discord felt bad about what he did while the villains didn't?

^... why did you bump this?

Sorry.