Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- • General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- • Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- • Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- • Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- • Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- • Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- • Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- • Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- • Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- • Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- • Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- • Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openPage Source Videogame
So a video game was cut, but I would like to try and recreate it. Is there anyway to get the old page source for it?
Edited by RonnieR15open Troper vandalizin’ character page. Videogame
Prest Otron has been tamperin’ Five Nights at Freddy's: First Generation, specifically the quotes. They changed them from in-game quotes to attacks on the FNAF fandom. Here is an example:
From:
To:
Dunno if they have been on other pages.
Edited by DelibirdaopenLego Adaptation Game Nightmare Fuel Videogame
I feel like we could set up a page listing the different Lego games and their scarier parts. It might be more effecient to make a whole list for every game rather than seperate them into a bunch of smaller pages with like three-to-one stuff listed on some of them.
openUnjustified removal of a trope Videogame
The following entry under Ambiguously Bi was removed from Characters.Dragon Age Solas:
- Ambiguously Bi: He compares his Walking the Earth trying to find new dreams in the Fade to the Inquisitor's dedication to their training. From his words, it's evident that he's been watching the Inquisitor very closely, regardless of their race or gender. (However, only a female Lavellan can respond with [Flirt].) note (Word of God is that Solas was intended to be bi, but since he's the game's Greater-Scope Villain, Weekes wanted to avoid the Depraved Bisexual trope.)
Solas: (Warrior) You strengthen your body to deliver and withstand punishment. The muscles are an enjoyable side benefit. Solas: (Mage) You train your will to control magic and withstand possession. Your indomitable focus is an enjoyable side benefit. Solas: (Rogue) you train to flick a dagger or an arrow to its target. The grace with which you move is a pleasing side benefit.
The reason given for the removal is:
Ambiguously Bi is, as the name implies, when a character's words or actions cast ambiguity on their sexual orientation. The only thing that can count as "fanon headbands" is the note at the end of the entry; everything else happens in-game, and the dialogue is the same for both female and male players.
Should I restore this?
Edit: fixing typos
Edited by RoundRobinopenGuideline for sorting character pages Videogame
I've been wondering: is there some kind of agreed on guideline for sorting character pages for a franchise? I've noticed for big long running franchise like say Ace Attorney or One Piece, characters are sorted accroding to in-universe factions and dynamics like one page for Defense Attorneys and on page for the marines. But other pages like Yakuza keep everything sorted by series installment; so you've got seperate pages for Yakuza and Yakuza 2 for example, despite characters from both appearing in multiple entries or being part of overarching factions.
Edited by IkeaHanopenThat One Level Videogame
Can you add a YMMV That One Level to Mario And Sonic At The Olympic Games about the Skeet Circuits? They could be a wall to people with shaky hands.
openPreventing an edit war, or perhaps it already started Videogame
On NightmareFuel.Deltarune Chapter 2 A Cybers World (huge mess, by the way), I changed the folder image for Spamton NEO into an image that actually showed him off, compared to the previous one, which didn't show him off, and the scary thing was in the left of the image.
RK93 then changed the new image back to the previous image, saying "It does show the scary thing, look at the left. The image you used isn't even scary."
What should I do next?
Edited by SpideyopenTwo Point Campus Videogame
Why was this page deleted when it DID follow the site's standard rule that at least three tropes need to be listed at time of creation? I was also sure there were NO red links going to or from the page at the time it was created.
openUnilateral Characters page split Videogame
dynamicDiscovery has split off the "Ant Kingdom" portion of Characters.Bug Fables into a separate page. Last I checked, the decision was never discussed with anyone. Is this kosher?
openOblivion cities troped as Characters Videogame
I noticed recent edits on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion were general tropes for the game's main cities have been added in the Characters subpage. Just to be clear, it's not tropes applying to several characters from the same place, but tropes applied to the places in a geographical sense (stuff like Arcadia, Hub City...). And no, the places aren't supposed to be sapient.
Is it misuse?
Edited by Psychopompos007openPac-Man mods Videogame
re: FanWorks.Pac Man. Remind me, I don't think Fan Works can gather outside links if the work pages aren't made. Should it be cut? And in either case, it contains an index markup for no reason.
Edited by Amonimusopendon't want to start edit war but troper keeps adding factually wrong trope Videogame
another troper added this trope to Flight Rising under Baldwin the brewer
- Determinator: Still tries to do his alchemy post-transformation, even though his body isn't really suited for it.
open Fallout 4's Brotherhood of Steel page Videogame
Hello, fairly recently a mass edit was made to the F4's ECBOS character page, removing almost everything positive about the faction, nuance on the synths and stating that they target sane ghouls and that Tegan's farm mission is officially sanctioned by Arthur despite both being outright false and Tegan himself admitting its the opposite. (This behavior is also what got him locked up, something he also alludes to)
Evidence from Teagen,
Tegan:{very warm / Happy} Step forward, Knight... even though they've locked me in this blasted cage, I promise that I won't bite.
Player Default: "Caps on the side," eh? Doesn't sound like official military business to me.
Tegan:{Thinking} Well, it is and it isn't. It's... complicated.
-source https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/BoSProctorTeagan.txt
Relevant wiki pages for Tegan,
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Teagan https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Feeding_the_Troops
From what I understand reverting it could potentially lead to a edit war, so I decided ask about it here and will notify memetron with the link once the page is up.
Edited by TheSwordsmanopenTrying to Avoid an Edit War Videogame
Recently, I modified a couple of entries on Dragon Age – Anders, removing the The Extremist Was Right entry and reformatting the information and moving it to Well-Intentioned Extremist. Before I did this, I took it to the Is This An Example thread, where I was mostly ignored despite posting several times. Now, I previously did the same thing for the same entry on the main page for TEWR after I got agreement from the same thread that it wasn't an example, so despite lack of replies, I thought I was okay.
Shortly after I did this, Asherinka reverted the entry back and edited it to have more neutral wording (or tried to at least). The topic for the Dragon Age fandom is major Flame Bait and Anders himself has a Broken Base, so I'm trying not to let this devolve into an argument over whether or not he was right.
My big hang up on TEWR vs WIE is that I believe they are mutually exclusive tropes. And, for Anders, I do not believe he meets the requirements for TEWR.
- The Extremist Was Right:
- Terrible as Anders' actions were, a lot of supplementary material suggests that escalating the mage/Templar conflict to open war was the right thing to do, since the status quo only weakened the mages' position. The events of Inquisition can further cement this idea; if Leliana is named Divine, one of her reforms to the Chantry is the dissolving of the Circle system, granting the mages their freedom and creating widespread mage acceptance, giving Anders (and the rebel mages who agreed with his points, if not his actions) everything he wanted. Even the endings that see the Circles rebuilt come with some major reformations.
- The flavor text of the Magehunter shield in Inquisition tells of a previous misuse of the Right of Annulment. In 3:09 Towers, twenty-five years after the Right was first granted, the Circle of Magi in Antiva City was annulled to cover up the fact that its Knight-Captain was a serial killer who murdered over a hundred mages out of pure bigotry. While the Seekers eventually hunted him down and punished him, they assisted the Templars in covering up the incident, leaving the rest of the Circles completely ignorant of the truth, and there is no mention of them punishing the Knight-Commander for Annulling a Circle under false pretenses. Given that background chatter in the second game reveals that Meredith had gone over Elthina's head and petitioned the Divine for the Right, it paints a very clear picture of what might have happened to the Gallows if Anders had not provoked Meredith into jumping the gun instead of waiting for the Divine's permission.
Hello83433: I'm a bit concerned about [this particular TEWR example] in general, because it relies a lot on player perception and it seems to be used as an Audience Reaction, because there's hardly anything in-universe that is justifying the actions taken. The trope itself says the people whom everyone thought were completely right and in-universe it's noted that many, including mages, denounce Anders' actions. The supporting material (i.e. comics and supplementary novels) also have that the character is dead, because some events that occur do not occur in a universe where he lives.
Overall, this seems more like someone trying to convince others that the actions were right, when they moreso fall under Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters (and he's already listed under). Thoughts?
Reply from Afterward: Sorry I haven't said this before, but I think there's enough negative reactions to Anders' actions in-universe that he doesn't qualify (and while the Mage situation in Dragon Age was already pretty bad before Anders blew up the Chantry, there's no real evidence that it got better, just that the conflict became open), although I'm not super familiar with the inner workings of the trope.
Hello83433: Reposting because I think it got lost in the page transition. After cutting Anders' example from The Extremist Was Right, it was added to his character page. The first bullet point text is exactly the same as TEWR, and the second point is diving deep into begging the question and slippery slope territory, but I wanted to bring the full example here again just in case.
[Example In Question]
Reply from nrjxll: Honestly, I think there's a seed of a valid example buried in there, in that Inquisition does pretty clearly show that Anders's broader goal of dragging these festering problems out in the open led to necessary reforms that probably weren't going to happen otherwise. What it doesn't validate is the method he did that by. (Just speaking personally, one of the few points I found myself majorly agreeing with Vivienne - who I rather disliked on the whole - on was that tying the cause of mage independence to a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of people was a huge PR self-own.)
BTW, the definition of The Extremist Was Right is distinctly not helpful here. I don't see anything about other characters in a story needing to say as much to qualify an example the way you originally cited, but the description's not all that long in general.
Hello83433: I was going off of Laconic and the first sentence of the description, although I agree it could be written clearer. The heavy disagreement on his methods is what puts him out of TEWR territory for me. Although, now that I'm looking at it, would it be a better fit for Well-Intentioned Extremist? Anders seems to fit under the first and/or third types (the problem is the means and/or consequences) just based on in-universe reactions to his "solution".
I don't want this OP to be too long, so just to sum up I don't believe the example fits The Extremist Was Right primarily due to in-universe backlash against Anders and his actions. I suppose moving it to YMMV might be an option, but to avoid an edit war I'm asking here to get a consensus one way or the other.
Edited by Hello83433open Vandalism by a troper Videogame
When I was looking at the YMMV page for Perdition, I found this rather... hostile block of text from mcloud replacing a good chunk of the other entries that seemed clearly meant for the CM cleanup thread.
""But sometimes, like Madam Satan, making a villain complex is good for the character." Beast is a dumbass lol, Queen Myrrah actually isn't complex at all, backstory or not, one note cliche "kill all humans" villain isn't "complex" regardless of a barely relevant backstory in Gears 5 lmfao. "Higgs is a complex case, but that complexity leads to his belief in freeing humanity from their suffering." No it doesn't actually, he's also one note and kinda sucks. Lightysnake lmao. "Because he's too nuanced of a character, I mean how couldn't you feel for him when he-" There is no such thing as "too nuanced" to count as pure evil actually lol trash. "He doesn't seem to care for pure evil villains." Maybe Yokotaro and Toby Fox don't, maybe they do, you don't get to make assumptions on stuff you don't know though lol. Polarphantom garbage. "Small indie games like these aren't usually as anticipated as say, Metroid Dread." Master N's an idiot, just because they aren't "usually as anticipated" doesn't mean they aren't anticipated lol. Many indie games small or no are anticipated by someone actually. Also "small" is vague and confusing in that context. "We typically don't apply the two week rule to small indie games like this, since it's unlikely anyone cares enough to be spoiled." Except people actually do care enough to be spoiled often so it doesn't matter. "Rafe hardly meets the baseline of heinousness while also having enough nuance to keep him away." There's actually no such thing as "too much nuance" to count as pure evil."
I looked at his edit history, and that's the only thing that was in there. So uh... yeah. Ban perhaps?
openRemoving Spoilers on Character Pages, Rudeness Videogame
Tropers.Another Guy made multiple edits to Halo: UNSC Navy removing spoiler tags, each with the same rather rude edit reason ("There. Are. NO. Spoiler. Tags. Here.") This includes ones for the just-released Halo Infinite. I'm not up on the latest policy but AFAIK there's nothing against having spoilers on character pages unless the community collectively decides to make it Spoilers Off, and even then I haven't seen any indication of such a consensus beyond a general "Beware of spoilers on all of these pages." line on the main Characters.Halo index.
Edited by Dirtyblue929openThe Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild headscratchers page Videogame
I found this absolute wall of text on Headscratchers.The Legend Of Zelda Breath Of The Wild. Placed in a folder because it's long:
- I haven't found what's supposed to claim this but I see talk of how Zelda's father, who is explicitly mentioned to have the title of "King", isn't of Hylia's bloodline. As Hylia's incarnation is always Princess Zelda that would indicate that her kin should be the side of the family with the literal divine right of kings. So unless there's something important here I'm missing how in the world did Zelda's mother, who was of Hylia's blood which was why losing her was so crippling to this incarnation of Zelda and assumedly the naturally born crown princess/Queen of Hyrule, get outranked by some schmuck she married and who does this glorified Prince Consort think he is to declare himself King while acting as Zelda's regent until she comes of age to rule on her own? "King" as a title can't belong to anyone not of the direct ruling bloodline after all, as in a Kingdom it outranks its sister title of "Queen", since consorts/spouses aren't permitted to have titles higher than the actual ruler's. On a similar note if being protected by a religiously powered matriarch is so fundamental to Hyrule in the first place (And as the local deities of worship that can be confirmed to exist are almost all female) why is it a Kingdom instead of a Queendom in the first place?
- You're looking way too far into this. The simplified way that the royalty in this game works is the same one that has been portrayed not just in other Zelda games, but across most realms of media and fiction in general - the idea of Prince-consorts as opposed to true kingship seems almost strictly limited to the real world. And that's even if the thing about Rhoam being from outside the line is true.
- Original poster here: This is the headscratchers page, no need to be so rudely dismissive about answering since this is where fridge logic is meant to be put and nothing is considered "too far" as long as you can see how the question came up. Why comment if you aren't actually addressing the question being posed in the first place for that matter and instead just attacking someone for asking it? Most other Zelda games just plain don't talk about the royal family beyond Zelda herself so there's no need to question if her father has the right to be called king, as their competence isn't in question and neither is her own (Unlike here where her father outright tells her that her people think she's the "Heir to Nothing" like an abusive asshole and encourages the only heir to the throne to act more like a priestess than a studious princess) so the fact this game did want to go into royal politics for a change doesn't make me out of line. And just because mainstream media doesn't like to do it's research most works that do want to make royal politics a major plot point, like Zelda tried here, do go into this sort of thing plenty often. Only part I'd grant would be "too deep" is the notion of a patriarchy existing in a world where the major religious and cultural foundations are primarily presented as female-focused with confirmable magical existences, and that contradiction has always been a part of the game's setting. And as I said in the first line I don't know if it's true so the least you could have done was find what could confirm or deny it, as obviously that's my main concern here.
- First of all, let me apologize for coming off as rude, since that wasn't my intention. It just seemed like you were getting a bit too...upset, if I may, about something that's been a common part of royalty's portrayal throughout most of popular culture. Having nearly completed the main story and collected all of the memories, I've yet to come across anything indicating that King Rhoam was from outside the line, but even if he was, what I meant with my earlier response was that, in the game's universe, he would probably still be considered a genuine "king", as opposed to prince-consort, because that's how it typically works in fiction. So his line to Zelda about her inheritance probably wouldn't be seen as that level of disrespectful, in-universe - I didn't want you to get that worked up about it, and I'm sorry if it came out wrong.
- OP again: Alright, it just rubbed me wrong that it didn't seem like any other questions got that sort of treatment without any meaningful expansion/explanation on anything added to it even though this one isn't the only one with parts that can be difficult to check by the nature of the game, like the timeline debates, or one based on honest confusion. But with monarchies hardly being a fictional concept as Great Britian's royal family is easily one of the most well known existing monarchies to date (regardless of how vital it is for their current system of government) and seeing it used as an excuse for sexism's a Pet Peeve trope of mine as well... you'd figure people should know or at least infer by now as despite easily being the world's best known monarchy it openly has no King at present and hasn't in ages (with the Queen's husband indeed only ever having the title of "Prince") that not all Kingdoms need a King to function you know? Though his telling his daughter to her face that the people she knows should be looking to her for future guidance have no faith in her like that in such brutal phrasing was still an awful parenting move on his part considering it couldn't help her with anything and just further hurt her self esteem all because she tried to act like princess in her situation should.
- For all we know, both of Zelda's parents might be descended from Hylia's line. An awful lot of time has passed since the Skyward Sword era, and unless the line of Hyrule enforces a strictly one-child-per-generation rule, it's bound to have branched out countless times. Rhoam may be the de-facto king, and married to a member of a cadet branch. Apparently being a woman is a requirement for the powers of the blood of Hylia to fully manifest, so only his wife was taught the procedures.
- I can find no mention that he isn't a descendant. I think we can assume, as with European nobility, a lot of inbreeding was happening. The King probably married a distant cousin who happened to be a priestess. This sort of thing happened all the time to keep blood-lines "pure", and that's before we add in descended from Gods into the mix to have some sort of actual reason to do it. Of course this then raises further questions; if there is a large body of nobility all tangentially related to each other then losing Zelda's mother shouldn't have been the death blow to her teachings the King and Zelda believe it to be.
- Because she's smart enough to know that ruling the kingdom is nothing like sitting on the throne and ordering minions around while gloating in their ego on their high title; The Good King or Queen takes care of their people and make their place safe. After all, she holds the Triforce of Wisdom. So she brushed all her responsibilities as a ruler to her husband even though it means he'll get the glory and status in the process.
- Issue with that would be that the title of "King" couldn't be given to him under any circumstances barring him overthrowing his wife if she was the by blood rights ruling party because that's not how royal titles work period and it is factually wrong to depict them as such and was the core point of my initial complaint/confusion. In order to be King, Rhoam would have to have more royal blood than the Queen does in the first place, so you missed the point about how having the title "King" over "Prince" or "Regent" isn't possible if she was the primary and acknowledged descendant of Hylia instead of him, which is why the focus of most attempts to make sense of this are instead focusing on looking into where his blood right is called into question. Also with the implications that holding the Triforce of Wisdom wouldn't obviously make her best qualified for and the one who would be actually preforming the duties you are at the same time suggesting she delegates away to the man who would still be required to have a lower title than her own by basic law and common sense sounds incredibly confusing at best and overtly sexist at worst as why wouldn't she want her subjects to know who exactly in HER country deserved their respect exactly and by whos authority they lived under?
- One thing I'd like to note is that Rhoam very closely resembles Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule from The Wind Waker (who, by the way, also seemed to possess mystical, divine powers - did anything every say that Hylia's powers only went to the females?), as well as various other Hyrulean kings across the series, just with a longer beard and hair and a pointier nose. The resemblance suggests that they're related through more than just marriage.
- As a common thread seems to be that whatever helped make the idea that Rhoam wasn't Hylia's descendant seems to have been a rumor more than an actual in game claim or a particularly hard to find diary entry so thanks everybody for helping clear that up! Being a Daphnes Expy does make him being at least one of Wind Waker Zelda's descendants does seem very likely (or something similar if this can't connect with that timeline at all) instead of Nintendo just dropping the ball where their research or world building was concerned and falling into harmful/sexist traps regarding royal politics just when they decided to try and go that extra mile for this series. At the very least Zelda's lack of spiritual connection could easily be attributed to just taking after him too much as, even though him being a guy made it a less important issue, he certainly seems less attuned with his bloodline's magic or their piece of the Triforce than Daphnes was and provide a reason for how if her mother was less "pure"/directly connected to Hylia she was supposed to have been in charge of this area of Zelda's teachings.
- As I understand your remarks, you've basically made three distinct arguments: (1) A man cannot become a king by marrying a queen; (2) A king always outranks a queen; and (3) All monarchies operate according to uniform rules of heredity. All three are historically false. Argument (1) is false because there exist two different ways of becoming king by marrying a queen: the king jure uxoris ("by right of [his] wife"), who becomes king in fact as well as name by marrying an heiress or a queen regnant; although these men did not wholly displace their wives, they did acquire the right to rule on their wives' behalves by what English law would later call coverture, the woman's property being automatically administered by her husband. There are a number of examples of kings jure uxoris in the Medieval period: Fulk, Count of Anjou, as king of Jerusalem via Melisende, daughter and heiress of King Baldwin II; Conrad, Marquis of Montferrat, and Aimery, King of Cyprus, as kings of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella I; John of Brienne (later emperor of Constantinople) as king of Jerusalem via Queen Mary (Isabella I's daughter by Conrad); Emperor Frederick II as king of Jerusalem via Queen Isabella II (Mary I's daughter by John); Philip IV, King of France, as King Philip I of Navarre via Queen Joan I; Emperor Sigismund as king of Hungary via Queen Mary; and Albert V, Duke of Austria, as king of Hungary via Elizabeth of Luxemburg, daughter and heiress of Emperor Sigismund. Kingship jure uxoris more or less died out by the time of the Renaissance and the Early Modern Period. Around this time we see the rise of the king consort, as women were accepted as queens regnant suo jure; their husbands might be granted the title of king. The existence of the king consort simultaneously demonstrates that both arguments (1) and (2) are false. Examples of kings consort include Philip IV of Burgundy as King Philip I of Castile via Queen Juana I; Philip of Spain, King of Naples (later Philip II of Spain), as king of England via Queen Mary I (Philip's father, Emperor Charles V, had donated his kingship of Naples to Philip in 1554 as a wedding gift, so that the Spanish prince would be equal in rank to his fiancée, Queen Mary, at the time of their wedding); Francis II of France as king of Scots via Queen Mary; Henry Stuart, Lord Dudley, as king of Scots via the same Queen Mary; Infante Pedro of Portugal as King Peter III of Portugal via Queen Mary I; Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry as King Ferdinand II of Portugal via Queen Mary II; and Francisco, Duque de Cádiz, as king of Spain via Queen Isabella II. There are also a handful of cases in which a queen regnant shared her authority with her husband as co-ruler without being legally displaced by him, such as Prince Louis of Taranto as king of Naples via Queen Joanna I; Philip, Count of Évreaux, as King Philip III of Navarre via Queen Joan II; Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania, as King Władysław II of Poland via Queen Jadwiga; Ferdinand II of Aragon as King Ferdinand V of Castile via Queen Isabella I; and William III, Prince of Orange, as King William III of England via Queen Mary II. Władysław and William continued to reign after their wives died. Argument (3) is false because each monarchy operates on its own individual rules. In England (and by extension, the modern UK), male-preference primogeniture meant that a female could inherit the crown if there was no male with a superior claim (e.g., Mary I, Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II), and also that the line of succession can pass through a female dynast (e.g., the current Prince of Wales and his sons). In France, however, the legal fiction of Salic law forbade a woman from inheriting the crown and also forbade the line of succession from passing through female dynasts (i.e., if a king's daughter had a son, he would have no rights of succession through his mother). In the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Bohemia, and Hungary, the crown became elective (although in many cases, election was merely a formality). In Wallachia, any male with royal blood was eligible to succeed, even if he were illegitimate. In the Ottoman Empire, any male of the dynasty could become sultan through a rather vague process of dynastic consensus, resulting in uncles succeeding their nephews on occasion. Furthermore, all of these rules operated only so long as it was advantageous to the most influential and most powerful that they operate. When these rules were inconvenient, people could and did flout them. The Norman Invasion (1066), the Anarchy (1135-1154), the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), the War of the Castilian Succession (1475-1479), the War of the Burgundian Succession (1477-1482), the War of the Portuguese Succession (1580-1583), the War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1715), the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), the '45 Rebellion (1745), the War of the Bavarian Succession (1778-1779), and the Carlist Wars (1833-1840, 1846-1849, 1872-1876) — to name only a few prominent examples — were all results of disputes over succession.This is to say nothing of civil wars or usurpations of monarchs already ruling. Of course, all of this is moot because (A) there is no evidence whatsoever that King Rhoam Bosphoramus Hyrule is not king suo jure, and (B) we know very little about how the House of Hyrule determines succession. As far as point (A) is concerned, Rhoam bears a physical resemblance to the King of Hyrule (AL), the King of Hyrule (LP), King Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule (WW), King Daltus and King Gustaf (MC), and the deuterocanonical King Harkinian (LZ animated series and comic series, but less so his appearances in FE and WG), and, like Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, appears to use Hyrule as a cognomen or surname. All of this circumstantially suggests that he should be interpreted as exactly what he appears to be. With respect to point (B), we know only that the royal family apparently practices male-preference primogeniture during the Golden Age in the Downfall timeline (the Prince of Hyrule and the Princess Zelda in AL), and that it is possible for a princess to be "queen-in-waiting" (TP trading cards and Prima guides). Presumably this means she is the legal ruler in reginam promovenda, pending some the completion of some ceremony or other condition before coronation as queen, and we further assume that this is the case of other princesses whom we might otherwise expect to have acceded as queens (the Princess Zelda in the Adult era of OT, Tetra in WW and PH, the Princess Zelda in ST, and the Princess Zelda in BW, although it is also possible that some of these princesses could be regents pending the arrival of another dynast with a superior claim to succession). We simply don't know how the crown is passed, and there's certainly no reason to assume that the English rules of succession apply.
- The short version of the above is: "Yes, a man can become a king by marrying a queen. No, this does not automatically mean he rules instead of her. No, there's no reason to assume that King Rhoam shouldn't be king."
- The issues with the above come from saying we have no reason to assume Rhoam isn't the by-blood king when we really do, which is what lead to the king debate. If he married into the royal family taking his wife's surname in a case like this would most likely be the expected practice, so his name doesn't seem to prove much of anything here. Looking like kings of the past could also be just as indicative of him coming from one of the supposed side families as he is lacking in the royal family's ability to use Hylia's magic which seems a lot more important for this than appearances. Hylia's bloodline being central to why "Princess Zelda" is always a princess (As opposed to just having the prophecy say a descendant of Hylia is needed to seal Ganon) seems to indicate their connection to this Goddess is why they are the ruling family, a lot like the legends about the Japanese ruling family being descendant of the Goddess Amaterasu in a variation of the divine right of kings, so it seems like decent reasoning to assume he's more likely to have married into the family than his wife did. Had Hylia's power come from a "side family" it seems odd he wouldn't have had any other alternatives for Zelda's teacher after the Queen died, as mentioned above, when if the power was kept within the direct royal family this element of the story makes more sense. Also it's unclear if Hylia's power really is gender locked since no other goddesses power in this series seems to be restricted in this way, as two of the three holders of the Golden Goddesses' triforce are male, and since Wind Waker's king was adept at least at general magic, given how he animated the King of Red Lions and created the Pirate's Charm, Rhoam completely lacking in this area sticks out more as an oddity.
- In point of fact, no, we really don't have any reason to assume that Rhoam is not king suo jure. There is no evidence saying this. There is no reason to assume this. Your suggestion that he might have adopted his wife's name — which has no precedent in history that I am aware of (the closest being the examples of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, neither of which support your argument) — is both begging the question and a violation of Ockham's razor. There is no reason to assume that his surname "Hyrule" means anything other than his dynastic kingship of Hyrule, so you are positing complexity without need in order to explain why he has it. Your talk about his apparent lack of magic powers is irrelevant; of the eight kings of Hyrule we know of (Harkinian, AL, LP, OT, Daphnes, Daltus, Gustaf, and Rhoam), precisely one of them (Daphnes) has displayed magical abilities without use of the Triforce — and there is absolutely no indication that his magic has anything to do with Hylia, given that it is possible for Hyrulians to learn magic via study (AL) or to use it via talismans (LP, OT) — , so there is no reason to believe that magic has any strong correlation to Hylian kingship. If anything, the ability to use magic makes Daphnes the odd man out.
- I would also like to point out that Hyrule was both founded by a woman and named after a goddess. It's very likely that despite being called a 'kingdom', it is very likely that queens were the higher ranking royalty, especially considering that only women could inherit Hylia's power.
- You mean they used the wrong word and use of "kingdom" has become a case of The Artifact as the series has gone on? Since there is already a word for this concept in English, as pointed out in the question that led to this. A queendom would be a realm controlled by a queen first and foremost, much the same way kingdoms are for kings which is why ruling queens in a kingdom are technically considered "queen regent" when "regent" is a title for someone serving in the place of the "proper" ruling party.
- You're mistaken. A ruling queen in a kingdom is called a "queen regnant," to make clear that she is reigning in her own right and is not a queen consort, a woman who has the title of queen because she is married to a king; it is possible for one woman to be both a queen regnant and a queen consort (e.g., Isabella the Catholic, Mary of England, Maria Theresia). "Queen regent" refers either to a queen consort who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her husband the king (who is absent or incapacitated) or to a queen dowager (wife of a previous king who is now dead) who exercises royal authority in a kingdom on behalf of her son the king or her daughter the queen regnant (who is absent, incapacitated, or has not reached his or her majority).
- Is it really that hard to believe that a fictional kingdom just has a different hierarchy/titles/rules for succession? There's never been much but practically everything we've ever heard about the Hylian royal court across all games doesn't jive with historical monarchies. At this point it's more ridiculous to try and shoehorn the Hyrule family into our understanding of real-world royalty than it is to just start theorizing how their monarchy works from scratch.
- That's what I was going to say, but I'm gonna rehash anyway. First of all it's not like this is the first time we've had a Hylian King; Daphnes from WW and OoT's King, for instance, and there's no evidence for or against them being of Hylia's blood. Secondly, as the above says, it's a fictional world and applying real world conventions to it without any proof of it is kind of silly. Hyrule could easily be a "a Prince/Princess has to get married and they become King and Queen" sort of Kingdom. TBH I didn't even read all of the real world examples and arguments because bottom line... this is not the real world. There are flying tree people, giant bird people, giant fish people, ROCK people, flying dragons, and that's not even getting into monsters and Gods and such. It's not the real world, bottom line.
- Hyrule is a fictional kingdom so it likely follows different rules. Since the power of the bloodline only appears to manifest in the women of the royal family it's possible that succession is matriarchal (and the powers might even been seen as the right to rule, remember Rhoam's line about "heir to nothing"). Also remember that Hyrule fell on the day Zelda went to the Spring of Wisdom, which was her 17th birthday and the day she was seen as an adult in Hyrule (No one under the age of 17 is allowed there) so Rhoam could have been Zelda's regent. Now Rhoam could easily also be a descendant of Hylia, see above about the Royal family branching out and intermarrying with other noble families (this might even be a requirement of the royal spouse to keep the bloodline and powers as strong as possible), but since he's not a female of the line he doesn't know how to access the special powers.
- Technically speaking, we also have no reason to assume that Hylia's power doesn't manifest in male members of the royal line; as previously noted, Daphnes displayed magical talent that was never implied to be not his own (when recounting how Ganondorf overtook Hyrule, he does say "My power alone could not stop the fiend"), and the king from Adventure of Link also knew enough to hide the Triforce of Courage so well. Neither of those contradict anything we're told in this game, either, because even if Rhoam can access the divine magic of his line, he's established as being such a stickler for tradition that he would still see the duty to harness it as falling to Zelda, if he even knows that he could do it just as well himself.
- Age of Calamity contains some details that shed a bit more light on things. Rhoam's main weapon in that game is a Royal Claymore, which is explicitly stated to be the type of weapon issued to the royal family's personal guards. This strongly implies that Rhoam served in the Royal Guard, and may have even been one of Zelda's mother's bodyguards prior to their marriage (in real-world history, it wasn't unusual for younger sons in noble families to enter the military, where their rank would put them on the fast track to promotion—Hyrule's nobility might do something similar). While not an outright confirmation, this suggests that Zelda's mother was the direct heir and Rhoam married into the throne. If the sealing power is a sign of the right to rule, as mentioned above, Rhoam may fall victim to the opposite side of the coin: he can't use it because he's King by marriage, not a direct member of the royal line. If it's accepted in-universe that Zelda is the only one who can wield it as long as she's alive and has no children, this would also explain why no one else with Hylian blood is trying to unlock the sealing power in her stead.
- There's still his resemblance to previous Hylian kings, though, particularly Daphnes in The Wind Waker, who seemed to be a direct heir since he possessed the requisite powers. And Rhoam is already a king by the time of Age of Calamity when he's using the Royal Claymour. Being so adept with it doesn't mean he must have had a past as a royal guard; he could've been born a royal who chose to use it as a weapon.
Is there anything we should do about this? I've briefly touched upon this in the Headscratchers cleanup thread but even with a possible conclusion I still have no idea what to do.
openEmojification Videogame
SZTF has replaced button prompts with emojis on Sonic Heroes and the YMMV for Sonic 3 & Knuckles.
open Anti-Anti Bowser Jr. Videogame
Wicked Bowser Jr has basically whitewashed Bowser Jr.'s character page to remove any negative character traits on it. Also, those are their only edits.
An Ass Pull entry I made for the YMMV of The Great Ace Attorney keeps being removed. In the game's final chapter, one of the villains complains that Ryunosuke's study tour in London had been undermining their plans even though these same villains had been shown up to that point to be nothing but supportive towards Ryunosuke's continued presence in London and chose to allow him to continue to staying in Great Britain even though they had the power to end his study tour whenever they wanted. Despite the villain's prior behavior towards Ryunosuke being clearly inconsistent with the big reveal of their plans, the entry keeps being taken down on the grounds that it does not qualify for the trope.