Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Bleach / TropesCToD

Go To

[005] KingZeal Current Version

12th Dec '16 at 11:07:58 AM

Changed line(s) 4 from:

n

--->'''Geth Prime''' We regret the deaths of the creators.
--->'''Shepard''' They made their choice.

to:

--->\'\'\'Geth Prime\'\'\' We regret the deaths of the creators.
--->\'\'\'Shepard\'\'\' They made their choice.

Changed line(s) 7 from:

n

Reason: It doesn't matter what a fallible in-universe character may or may not say. Near-total genocide of an entire race isn't

to:

Reason: It doesn\'t matter what a fallible in-universe character may or may not say. Near-total genocide of an entire race isn\'t \"karma\" by any objective definition of the term. And there is no \"arguably\" here, this isn\'t a YMMV page.

First off, the first part of the edit reason is flat out wrong. Yes, it \'\'does\'\' matter what an in-universe character has to say, fallible or not, because we primarily judge tropes in-universe. Tropes do not rely on any sense of absolute morality, and we\'d be hard to find such an absolute even if it were. The fact that one version of Shepard finds it laser-guided karma is enough for troping.

Secondly, even without Shepard\'s statement, the argument that genocide somehow wouldn\'t be \"karma\" is somewhat baffling. It\'s clear that one of the themes of the Morning War is that a societal majority of quarians (meaning those who had the power and/or numbers) tried to inflict a fate on another species that instead happened to them. That\'s practically the definition of the trope.

They are right about \"arguably\", though. That needs to go.

[004] KingZeal

21st Apr '16 at 02:15:12 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

to:

\"unfold gradually throughout the story\" - unnecessary, since the earlier parts of the paragraph already establish this

\"or subject to either exact wording or important context that requires a separate reveal\" - I would change to \"or are subject to {{exact word|s}}ing or context which render the previous assumptions moot\".

What I think the current write-up lacks is an emphasis on just \'\'how unreliable\'\' previous canon can be. For instance, dramatic tension and conflict can be built around misunderstood or false rules. Case in point with the current battle, where two separate points of tension were based on rules that had unrevealed sub-rules .

[003] KingZeal

21st Apr '16 at 02:14:34 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

to:

\"unfold gradually throughout the story\" - unnecessary, since the earlier parts of the paragraph already establish this

\"or subject to either exact wording or important context that requires a separate reveal\" - I would change to \"or are subject to {{exact word|s}}ing or context which render the previous assumptions moot\".

What I think the current write-up lacks is an emphasis on just \'\'how unreliable\'\' previous canon can be. For instance, dramatic tension and conflict can be built around an established rule or assumption that turns out to be mistaken. Case in point with the current battle, where two separate points of tension were based on rules that had unrevealed sub-rules .

[002] KingZeal

21st Apr '16 at 02:14:14 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

to:

\"unfold gradually throughout the story\" - unnecessary, since the earlier parts of the paragraph already establish this

\"or subject to either exact wording or important context that requires a separate reveal\" - I would change to \"or are subject to {{exact word|s}} or context which render the previous assumptions moot\".

What I think the current write-up lacks is an emphasis on just \'\'how unreliable\'\' previous canon can be. For instance, dramatic tension and conflict can be built around an established rule or assumption that turns out to be mistaken. Case in point with the current battle, where two separate points of tension were based on rules that had unrevealed sub-rules .

[001] KingZeal

21st Apr '16 at 02:11:29 PM

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

to:

\"unfold gradually throughout the story\" - unnecessary, since the earlier parts of the paragraph already establish this

\"or subject to either exact wording or important context that requires a separate reveal\" - I would change to \"or are subject to {{exact word|s}} or context which render the previous assumptions moot\".

What I think the current write-up lacks is an emphasis on just \'\'how unreliable\'\' previous canon can be. For instance, dramatic tension and conflict can be built around an established rule or assumption that turns out to be mistaken. Case in point with the current battle, where two separate points of tension were raised based on rules the reader didn\'t know no longer applied.

Or maybe that would count more as BaitAndSwitch?

Top