Discussion Analysis / Antihero

Can a character be a mix of unscruplous and nominal at the same time?

We are trying to get rid of the types completely, as they have only caused probles. You are encouraged to remove references to "Type X" where you see them.

If the types aren't listed anywhere then it's harder to fix (though most are Zero Context Examples that can just be cut, I guess). Preserving the list on the main page discussion might be good.

but the types make it easier to explain

The types encourage people to not add any context other than the type label, which is then much harder for anyone else and much less interesting than reading a description of the trope in each work individually.

How does replacing a simple number for reference with a long-winded description paragraph make it any better? Anyone could immediately check what a Type IV would be referring to on this page. "Unscrupulous Hero" says nothing and is only more confusing. Its current form isn't so much of a scale anymore as it is a disjointed list of subjective interpretations.

I agree. The numbers should stay.

Same here. The numbers help because it shows how specific the "range" can be. Rather than names that refer to individual tropes and further confuse the matter, the numbered types allowed for a simpler, more easily understandable form of classification. And considering this is TV Tropes, ease of classification is kind of the point

On the contrary, the number-based classification in practice merely results in people getting confused about what the numbers mean.

And that's what this page is for. A numbered list is easier to navigate and comprehend than a random adjective that may or may not actually correspond to the example itself.

What is a "Pragmatic Anti-Hero"? Does that imply that the rest of the levels are *not* pragmatic?

Take for instance, Jack Bauer, one of the best examples of a Type IV you can get, who is probably one of the most pragmatic anti-heroes in fiction, but this "improved" scale has in a completely separate level. Hell, pragmatism is almost the central defining element of an anti-hero.

And the fourth level is "Unscrupulous"? Unscrupulous means lack of morality, which seems more like a Type V than a IV, or even a straight up villain rather than an Anti-Hero.

The former scale made sense, this one doesn't. It seems like an entirely unnecessary change that just made the issue worse. Characters could be defined in the old scale, this one is completely vague.

doublepost, ignore

Most people I've met elsewhere don't share that opinion, though. Also, requiring people to read other pages to understand something is frowned upon - see Weblinks Are Not Examples.

And yet, the current system does exactly that same thing. In fact, one would have to come to this page and then *another* one to get the explanation, where the previous page was rather succinct and kept the examples organized together.

Previously there was a scale that was easy to group characters into; now it's a series of adjectives, any number of which could apply to a single character.

Nope.

Adjectives are more meaningful than numbers. And the previous system was not even remotely "easy to group character into" - there was lots of arguing and edit warring about what characters fit where and what every point means.

No, they aren't, because the adjectives are incredibly vague to the point that it's no longer a scale, it's just a set of words that may or may not actually apply to the existing scale.

What's the difference between a Pragmatic Anti-Hero and an Unscrupulous Anti-Hero? There isn't one, because those aren't comparative adjectives in any form, you might as well just be guessing.

They are still more meaningful than numbers. Now, if you have problems with telling apart one trope from another, you can ask for assistance here - whichever the result of the discussion is can be edited into the page.

No, they aren't.

For example, "Unscrupulous" essentially means a complete lack of morality, in other words, not a hero at all. Something that would be applicable to the old Type V, not Type IV.

"Unscrupulous" means something. "Type Whatever" doesn't. Also, we didn't have any obligation to perfectly match the old types up to the modern trope names.

I know I'm very late to this dance, but... could we add the type numbers as *HTML comments* to this page, just for reference? My problem is, I'm looking at a character page that says Tony Soprano is a "Type IV-V". I'd love to replace that with the new trope names, but the trouble is, I'm not 100% sure which is which.

I'm going to assume that the tropes are in their old numerical order, but it would make things easier if the HTML said something like:

%% "UnscrupulousHero" was formerly known as "Type IV"

'''UnscrupulousHero''': These are the darkest possible while…

Any objection to my doing that?

Hearing no objections, I'll go ahead and do that. Again, this is only adding comments, not changing the displayed text—but I think it'll be helpful when someone sees a "Type III" on some page and wants to replace it with the trope name.

Derp—the page is locked! I'll make this suggestion in the "edits to locked pages" forum.

Yeah it is confusing. Unscrupulous I believe the difference is that one has a good motivation and one (Nominal) doesn't.

Yeah, that's one variety, but like the analysis page says, there's a separate, alternate flavor of Unscrupulous Hero that has a neutral motivation. The description basically compares this variety to a Nominal Hero with more honor and redeeming qualities. I mean, if any Anti-Hero motivated mostly by self-interest is a Nominal Hero, then that puts people like Jack Sparrow, pre-Character Development Han Solo, and Catwoman in the same category as Vegeta and The Comedian from Watchmen, which doesn't seem right.

Nominal Hero is a anti-hero motivated by a non-altruistic motivation. Basically, if all the types of anti-hero are caused by the lack of one of the traits that define a hero, Nominal Hero represents the "lack of positive motivation". Correct if i am incorrect, but Unscrupulous Hero is basically a "lack of morality" hero.

If that's the whole difference, then that would mean the second type of Unscrupulous Hero described on the analysis page does not actually apply. Because it describes an Unscrupulous Hero with a neutral, technically non-altruistic motivation, but with more honor and humanity than the typical Nominal Hero. That's the variety of Unscrupulous Hero that I'm referring to.

Or perhaps we could list all the examples we want on a YMMV page.

I would be in the same boat, but it was declined in the thread cited above.

Type IV at least but an argument can be mad that he straddles the line between IV and V. I would add a YMMV to his item.

It sounds like he's what V from V for Vendatta would be if he choose the wrong cause. Plenty of definitely good super heros were wrong at some point but weren't considered villians because of it. Rorschach just keep the wrong goal for longer.

Rorshach is type III in my opinion, to cross the line to IV requires being willing to kill innocent people (Innocent even by the Anti-Hero's own standars) in my view.

Watchmen has every type but II, Comedian is V, Ozymandias IV, Rorshach III, and the rest are all Classical Anti-Heros in my views.

Mate, the last post in trope repair shop about this page was a month ago, and the thread it was in was a over a year old at that point.

Ths most you can say is: 'I think it would be nice if somebody repurposed it as an index.'

Cut has been declined, so knock it off.

A good litmus test for the difference between a straightforward hero and a Type II Anti Hero is how much their non heroic qualities dominate the characterisation. For example, even classic examples of Incorruptible Pure Pureness like Wonder Woman and Spiderman have acted in cynical violent ways (such as Spidey trying to kill the Green Goblin after the death of Gwen Stacey and the whole Maxwell Lord conundrum). However, these are only brief moments of their careers and were eventually resolved and made up for, usually by the hero realising they were wrong so the character is able to leave these incidents behind them and stick to the moral high ground.

Type II's usually have vices that are a consistent part of their character and crop up again and again, like Rick's cynicism in Casablanca, Hellboy's snarky attitude or Aladdin's dishonesty. While they're not as dark as those ranked higher on the scale, their negative qualities are still a major part of their characterisation, unlike the moral lapses of more straightforward heroes.

No, I also think that he's a type V. He really essentially is a more extreme version of V for Vendetta, and has far less extreme excuses for turning out that way. So basically it's an YMMV per definition, which was inserted by myself, but then removed by you for some reason.

I'm not that familiar with V for Vendetta, but on his own merits, Lelouch still has reasonable excuses for turning out the way he is, and yet he still has a lot of empathy and nobility in spite of his methods.

Lelouch(as V and the Count of Monte Cristo)is a example perfect of Byronic Hero, and to be a Byronic Hero by definition he would be a type V.

Byronic Heroes are usually Type V.

Well, it depends on how ruthless they are, so I disagree about Byronic Hero being inherently type V, but I don't have much experience with the trope. Would somebody who is chronically depressed but has reasonably high ethics and never hurts anybody count, or is that simply type I or III?

Regardless, Lelouch is willing to coldly kill far too great amounts of innocents to achieve his personal aims to be a type IV. And yes, Vendetta wasn't willing to kill anywhere near the amount, and was subjected to Mengele style inhumane tortures that drove him insane, whereas Lelouch is mostly entitled and conceited, so yes, he definitely fits type V judging by just how far he was willing to go at his most extreme. Villains Out Shopping/not making a profession of being evil a 100% of the time doesn't disclude somebody, although you can mention that he seems to swing between type III and V.

Lelouch may have been accepting of innocent deaths as a consequence of the war, but he did not take any particular satisfaction from it. And just because Lelouch wasn't subjected to the same type of tortures didn't mean he was entitled, what with the brutal Parental Abandonment coupled with his father's harsh, mind-fucking words, when he was a child. Oh, and I didn't even mention that the father who abandoned him launched a war over the country where he was situated, without any care of whether he was alive or dead. And his outrage extended towards the likes of his father and pretty much the rest of the Britannian nobility treating non-Britannians like subhumans. All of this by the age of ten. And throughout the series, he had even more bad luck, enough to make him certifiably insane by the time Nunnally was apparently killed and the Black Knights (rashly) turned on him. That said, Lelouch still wanted to overthrow the Britannian system for the sake of a more just world. He wasn't a saint, but I'm not sure if he'd be worse than V per se.

In the end, if he passes as a Type V, then you might as well drag a whole bunch of the other IV's with him.

Out of curiosity, who else would you drop, if you had to drop Lelouch?

I don't know anything about the guy, but if he regularly hurts innocents, that seems pretty dark for IV. It's Pay Evil Unto Evil, after all. Once you start paying unto neutral and good, you've hit Well-Intentioned Extremist territory.

Just my $0.02, mind.

I wouldn't say he regularly hurts them. He's just been responsible for his share, and not without remorse, nor does he do it on purpose. (At the very least, he intends to succeed to make sure any collateral damage he causes isn't in vain.)

As for the other question, Sesshomaru from Inuyasha qualifies only insofaras only minding his business most of the time, and being against Naraku, as well as looking after Rin. He's still aloof towards the main character. And Seto Kaiba from Yu-Gi-Oh is cold and apathetic most of the time towards anything that goes on around him.

...and i here guessing that you planned mention Zatanna or Jake.

Sesshoumaru is definitely a type V Villain Protagonist. He's not remotely idealistic, is a conceited ruthless egomaniac supremacist, and will generally kill anybody who annoys him in the slightest or if it is simply expedient. He does have Pet the Dog moments though.

Koga is a cannibal and murderer of innocents, and not idealistic either. He's simply loyal to his friends and love interest. Not quite as bad as Sesshoumaru, but still a type V.

Wolverine is of course arguable is he's a type V or not, as he has gladly slaughtered completely outmatched street punks in an extatic bloodcraze and similar antics, or done even worse in slughtering entire villages of bystanders in his flashbacks. It's the whole strange fictional Running the Asylum / Depending on the Writer tendency that makes things odd (back-and-forth personality shifts) in this case, so at other times he's simply played as a type III.

Lisbeth Salander on the other hand is placed within type V without due reason compared to other characters on the scale. She's very similar to Hartigan of Sin City in that she's strictly using Pay Evil unto Evil as a last recourse when technically outmatched and the system has legitimately completely betrayed her (her supposed lifelines literally either torture or rape her), but has strong ethics beyond that, would Never Hurt an Innocent, is unshakably loyal to her friends, and will allow the system to handle things when it works. For example since her Ombudsman repeatedly raped and mistreated her, she filmed it as evidence, tazered him and tattooed "I AM A RAPIST" on his skin. Basically, she's in an incredibly desperate situation, remains ethical despite ridiculous amounts of mental torture since she was born, minds her own business unless she notices corruption afoot (in which case she attempts to expose it) or dangerous individuals severely threaten herself or her friends, and doesn't have the luxury of being a superhuman who has the upper hand, and as such it is incredibly arguable whether she is a type III or IV, but definitely not a type V or Ax-Crazy. Pay Evil unto Evil as a last outmatched resort is a better definition, so probably a dark type III or at worst mild type IV. She's definitely less extreme than Marv in any case, who is also a professional criminal I might add, and Dwight, who was placed as mild type IV, is willing to hurt occasional innocents or offhandedly kill much greater amounts of criminals than she is, and under less extreme duress. Comics or movies simply let a writer get away with greater amounts of cruelty than a novel that is explicit (rather than offhanded) about the full uncomfortable details/implications of what is happening.

As for Lelouch, as I said above, it is a fine compromise to state in his entry that he swings between types V and III, but might average as a type IV. Not mentioning it at all on the other hand...

Vendetta, well the memories are fuzzy at this point, but I don't recall him harming any innocents beyomd when Evey asked him to enlighten her about his situation, whereupon he gave her a Mind Screw trick to make her believe herself imprisoned in a camp just like he was and given the same notes from the prisoner beside him that he was, so I think a Your Mileage May Vary if he's a type IV or V should be inserted, although I may misremember.

Sesshomaru is complicated case, in the first 30 episodes was obviously the villain Full-stop, when he met rin became more heroic and at the end of the series is a type IV.

I think he's still a type V ruthless supremacist, as he hasn't really changed enough to warrant another label. We simply don't see him kill a lot of bystanders anymore, as he's mostly focused on Naraku.

Also, why isn't Kagura in type V? For one thing she's defintely a villain through and through, although one that is motivated by a need for freedom, and for the other, she isn't even a protagonist, or have any altrustic spots, so why is she labelled an anti-hero at all?

Lelouch is also Pay Evil unto Evil by necessity due to Britannia, though his Large Ham Magnificent Bastard Jerkass Façade acts can complicate things, not to mention the variance of his acts. I had it posted as IV on average as well, though I forgot about it in one of my many re-edits.

Regarding Kagura, I only remember her opposing Inuyasha only out of necessity later on, as an appendage to Naraku. She doesn't seem overtly malicious any longer so much as simply wanting her freedom.

She has no idealism whatsoever, and is completely ruthless towards innocent bystanders. Not to mention that she was always played in an antagonist role, i.e. not as a Villain Protagonist. She belongs on Sliding Scale of Antagonist Vileness, not here.

Edit: Never mind. She seems to have either already been edited out by somebody else, or I did it without noticing.

just to clarify, lisbeth is very sadistic to be considered a type III.

• postscript. Dark Schneider is a Noble Demon, He isn't Evil Overlord.

In other words...type 4?

Well, yes.

I think I originally referred to him as one because at least based on the anime, it seemed like he was an Evil Overlord prior to resurrection and aimed to be one again. But you do have a point that he might be just nice enough to be a type IV- really, I could easily see him as either IV or V.

Lisbeth seems to swing between type III and IV.

On the one hand she has suffered ridiculous amounts of psychic torture, still perseveres and maintains strong if unusual ethics, is in a very desperate outmatched situation where she usually has only herself to count on, and is technically no more extreme than Hartigan, she's simply socially handicapped, so lots of people tend to instinctively just view that part as an excuse to bump her type down further, whereas a charismatic Magnificent Bastard casual massmurderer gets away with far more.

On the other hand, if extremely pressed by a Complete Monster type she will systematically and efficiently kill the threat, alternately use low-level torture to get her current abuser in charge to stop raping her or somebody else. She is not nearly as extreme as plenty of the other type IV's, but I'm willing to put her her here with a possible note of her variation. However, she isn't strictly Pay Evil unto Evil, as it is more a case of finding desperate solutions when the law ignores it. Basically, compare with somebody sticking you in a isolation cell and raping you for several years, and then saying that you aren't allowed to defend yourself to make them stop doing so. She was fine with the system actually proving that it could handle things, and technically does less to Bjurman than what he did to herself. What I see as pushing her into type IV isn't that part. It's that she robs a financial swindler of a billion bucks to mostly keep it for herself, and can get downright sociopathic in her detached method of dealing with things (the scene in the third book when defending herself against her half-brother, by using a nail-gun to attach his limbs to the floor, then calmly waiting for him to die, calling a criminal motorcycle gang to frame them for the murder, and then going to have a soda).

Dark Schneider... well, it's been several years, but as far as I remember he is Sealed Evil in a Can, used to be the warmongering, massmurdering, cheerfully sadistic and overkill-loving Blood Knight supremacist tyrant of the world; keeps up the same behaviour; and states outright that he will do it all over again at first opportunity; which sounds like an accurate description of an Evil Overlord to me at least.

So afaIk he's an overpowered wanton overkill casual massmurderer Villain Protagonist without compassion, restraint, or idealism, definitely more extreme than The Punisher, who is a type V, so yes Schneider is a Complete Monster by real world standards, and definitely a far gone type V.

Also, I'm getting very tired of cclospina removing "Contrast with Jerk Sue, Byronic Hero, Blood Knight, Uber Mensch, The Unfettered, and Villain Sue"

This was my compromise on the matter, as the previous version was to list all of them as defining tropes, which they technically are, but for one Byronic Hero doesn't seem to necessarily need to be a type V, just moody, and as such could just as well be a type III. Much of the entire premise of type V is also complete power-tripping lack of restraint, to just cut lose with sadism, mass-murder, and overkill through any flimsy excuse complete fantasy scenario that you can come up with. To say the least, Jerk Sue, Blood Knight, Psycho for Hire, Uber Mensch, The Unfettered, and Villain Sue are all a very defining part of that, with plenty of common examples, and "Contrast with"/"Compare with" at the end is a very common praxis on most pages. So yes, at least some of them should stay, whereas Byronic Hero isn't really any more defining than the rest, and as such shouldn't be listed as unique. However, I'm willing to compromise/strictly keep the most relevant. I think that at the very least Jerk Sue, Uber Mensch, Villain Sue, and possibly The Unfettered have strong reasons for staying.

Also, I'm getting very tired of cclospina removing "Contrast with Jerk Sue, Byronic Hero, Blood Knight, Uber Mensch, The Unfettered, and Villain Sue"

I'm tired of the edit warring that keeps happening over the issue. Better to argue it here than in the edit reasons box, for everyone's sake. Cclsopina really what gives?

Totally unrelated: shouldn't The Punisher be type IV? Isn't he pretty much "Pay Evil unto Evil" incarnate? I think that kind of argues for some changes to that group. I think the line between "uses evil methods between bad guys" and "uses super-evil methods against bad guys" is kind of hard to define.

I agree about clearing it up here. I'm tired of the lack of straightforward honest explanation of motivation. I tend to be upfront about the core issues, and prefer the same clear communication from others to get anywhere.

As for The Punisher, he uses so ridiculously evil methods on such a vast scale (and yes, including killing the occasional innocent, or recurrently killing people who are technically considerably less extreme than himself, so Disproportionate Retribution or High Octane Nightmare Fuel is commonplace), and mostly simply for the sake of gaining a target for his need to kill, that it drowns out everything else and turns himself evil, simply considerably less so than his most extreme Complete Monster adversaries... for whom his treatment actually can be argued as type IV... killing random drug-addicts definitely not, much less without due process involved. Anyway Evil Versus Evil is a part of the larger Pay Evil unto Evil area.

The line for when exactly the line is crossed (as opposed to the less ambiguous "completely amoral Psycho for Hire villain played in a "heroic" role" turns fuzzy though, I agree about that. It's the reason why we put in the YMMV tags for various entries.

Regardless, I rather like the current definition, or at least it was reasonably close and to the point:

"Either lacking any heroic attributes whatsoever, or being so ridiculously extreme in their sadism, bloodthirst, ruthlessness, or even Disproportionate Retribution that any potential signs of genuine benevolence are near completely drowned out. Frequently they are classified as heroes only because they fight Complete Monsters and/ or Omnicidal Maniacs."

Tyoria, considering that cclospina isn't making any kind of response argument/avoids the issue, whereas I have tried to to be clear, is it acceptable in this situation for me to move them back again? I'd like to get some kind of input from yourself and others first though.

Well I'm not a mod or anything.

I'm not personally opposed to it, although we might haggle over the categories a bit (I still don't see the Sue application, personally...) But you've tried to discuss your points reasonably and I don't think anyone can fault you on those grounds. I will say, if you change it and cclospina changes it back, take it to Ask The Tropers and get the mods involved.

All right. Will do. Thanks for the help.

A "Sue" is per definition a wish-fulfillment device for the author, whether it is to be all-powerful (God-Mode Sue), perfect (Purity Sue), an asshole (Jerk Sue), or cut loose with your bloodthirst, hatred, intolerance, supremacism, extremism, prejudice, etc (Villain Sue). The more skilled authors then try to come up with a setting and narrative that "justifies" that/tricks the reader into accepting it, either by presenting a lie/deceptive narrative so great that it is a self-sustaining continuity (as Hitler roughly put it), or simply twisting small parts completely out of context in synch with with greater lies (it is entirely possible to make a Friend to All Living Things pacifist or a forgiving repeated torture victim into the bad guy whereas outright fascist values or the torturer in question are presented as good. In fact it is common, just watch the movie Three Hundred.

A type V can frequently turn into the very essense of this. A glorification of absolute evil. Basically it is not uncommon to have a Complete Monster character running around fighting against Lovecraftian horrors, or idealise [[{{Conflict Man Versus Man full-blown warfare mass-murder, rather than Man Versus Nature (which is the real problem)]] as the ultimate pinnacle of human achievement and thrill to strive for. Heck there are plenty of writers who outright ingrain Social Darwinist systematic cleansings as something harmonic, good, virtuous, enlightened, wise, and positive, which may be even worse. They have simply turned an awful lot more clever about it than in Benito Mussolini's days.

There are definitely characters for whom that criticism is pretty accurate (to make a massive generalization, it seems to apply to a lot of conservative military fiction/military science fiction). That being said, there are type V characters for which this isn't the case at all (i.e. Mugen of Samuraichamploo and Belkar of Order Of The Stick).

I'd also think that the general rule about the Sue label would apply to this page- since you're not supposed to list a character as a Sue on a mainpage, saying that type V examples are often/generally Sues seems to go against that.

Well, they are often Sues per definition.

Even Vendetta, who is probably the most idealistic and compassionate type V you're likely to find, with extremely good reasons for being that way, is a "Rebel against authority! Destroy the old to build up the new!" kind of Sue (it is not restricted to extremists of one spectra only), whereas the Punisher has been defined as "the essense of far far right-wing rage", by one of his most prominent writers no less.

And ruthless overkill ultraviolence mass-murder (the most common thread of type V) is almost always about creating a farfetched setting to cut loose with bloodthirst. However, as you say, there are probably exceptions.

Still, I think that it is more than common enough to insert a "compare with" or "commonly intersects with these categories" footnote. Which categories exactly is obviously up for discussion.

Type V antiheroes are about "antiheroes" who've stretched the definition to nearly its breaking point. They may turn into the glorification of violence. Sues are about wish fulfillment, and in the case of the Villain Sue this can turn into the glorification of violence. But that puts the intersection at the concepts at glorifying violence, rather than the concept of antiheroism. That's why I find it out of place here. You keep wanting to emphasize that as though it's the most important identifying feature, when it isn't necessarily. It seems like you keep trying to push a political point home. It just feels off.

It doesn't seem necessary to the trope and it seems like it's spoiling for a fight. I wouldn't mind it if it weren't so... obvious. It's not that I have objections to calling a spade a spade, but I do have objections to calling all garden implements spades, in earshot of several angry farmhands, or something like that, I'm not sure.

Personally I see type IV as stretching the definition near the breaking point, and type V to go beyond it, but regardless:

I'm not really trying to make a political point, as that's usually about starting at a given end and then wanting to push something into a given ideology/go in the opposite direction that I went. It's much more about that I have absorbed an awful lot of this type of input, and after extreme prolonged effort patterned and reached something akin to a (constantly shifting depending on further input, and as such fuzzy) "conclusion" about this issue specifically. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm right though, just very honest, and that I have highly valid and varied reasons for the impression.

Anyway, as usual I'm willing to compromise, so which tropes do you think are reasonable to keep as customary "compare with" links? Not even '90s Anti-Hero is definitive, rather than common (it can be type IV as well), after all...

I would say that Heroic Sociopath, Token Evil Teammate, and Nineties Ani Hero are good comparisons. On the actual Sue pages you could put something about type V anti-heroes, but it shouldn't go on this page. I basically agree with what Tyoria said- it's painting with too broad of a brush and even if "political" isn't the best term, it's definitely making a moral conclusion about this type of character and imputing a motive for creating them (which is true of some examples, but far from all).

All right. I think extremes usually tend to be about "Sue" power-tripping, but I'll compromise.

The current text reads: "Contrast with: Well-Intentioned Extremist, Anti-Villain, Knight Templar, Byronic Hero, Blood Knight, Uber Mensch, and The Unfettered. "

So how about The Unfettered or Uber Mensch, which are my personal favoured comparisons? The concepts are almost requirements to fit into this category, imho considerably more characteristic ideals than '90s Anti-Hero, and stretching back to the mythological handling of the concept.

Blood Knight, Psycho for Hire, and Knight Templar are also very common, although (at least) the first one can be a type IV as well.

Well-Intentioned Extremist I'm more iffy about, as that can technically even be a type III in rare cases.

I would definitely list Blood Knight and probably Byronic Hero as well, but I disagree with the others for the reasons as folllows:

• While there are a couple of anti-heroic examples, The Unfettered and the Uber Mensch tend to be straight out villains/not on the side of the heroes.
• Anti-Villain, Well-Intentioned Extremist, and Knight Templar are generally traits of villains with sympathetic motivations than of anti-heroes at all. As you alluded to, the hero characters who lean in this direction are more likely to be the fairly pleasant Type III Good Is Not Nice characters.
• My issue with Psycho for Hire which I mentioned before is that it's really villains-only by its nature, and even anti-heroes who border on it tend to be a lot better than any villain examples. A Psycho for Hire is "in it for the sadism". Type V examples tend to enjoy killing people when they get the chance, but it tends to be incidental to other motives ranging from boredom, greed, Hookers and Blow, or on occasion, actually admirable goals.

Well, the basic fundament of this category is that it's a Designated Hero, i.e. not necessarily a hero at all, frequently a Villain Protagonist by almost any measure, and occasionally a full-blown Complete Monster, simply played in a protagonist role, or as the lesser of two evils relating to the situation in progress.

(It can also frequently be a case of extreme Moral Dissonance between the writer and the audience. For example if the writer is a Wellintentioned Extremist (which is a common drive to start writing in the first place) he/she might consider "Nuke 'Em Back To The Stone Age"/"scorched earth" Disproportionate Retribution, or systematic cleansings of people with severe mental or physical handicaps as fully acceptable, or even admireable, whereas the majority of the readers might disagree)

Anyway, being unfettered from restraints is basically a requirement to become as systematically ruthless as this category demands, and the fundamental idea of the Uber Mensch is roughly the man who "through superior power and self-direction does whatever he deems best as it is beyond the realms of his lessers to decide... hail Cthulhu!" usually through Well-Intentioned Extremist or Social Darwinist very ruthless methods, and this category is all about being ridiculously extreme, with well-intentioned as an optional extra...

As for Psycho for Hire, there are even various examples listed here within the type V section, and part of the '90s Anti-Hero characters were also in this category.

Can you name a Type V example who you consider a Complete Monster, because while they very in how bad they are, they are generally better (if sometimes only a little) than complete monsters- that seems like kind of a stretch.

Another thing with the Ubermensch is that the term kind of implies a distinct philosophical reason for behavior. I can't think of more than one or two Type Vs who are like this. Most of them don't really have any philosophical motivation for their actions. They're just selfish people.

Daimon Hellstrom; Lobo; Deadpool; Dark Schneider; Vegeta; Alucard; Mayuri; The Comedian; Kratos; Grand Theft Auto protagonists; Demitri Maximoff; Reaver; Doctor Venture; and assorted mythological heroes. would all qualify from my perspective.

And that's just the ones that are listed here, and I know about...

As for Uber Mensch, the characters themselves don't have to think about ideological implications, they simply have to embody the ideal for the writers, philosophers, or people drawing upon those those ideals. As usual it's about the narrative and writer more than it's about the character. Fiction has long been a way for people who have far too ridiculously extreme, sadistic, and bloodthirsty views (see above) to state through open discussion and treatise, to get away with making propaganda for them, with scientifically inaccurate (read Freakonomics for a start reference regarding how easy the human brain is possible to manipulate) convenient systematic Hand Wave rationalisations.

Are those examples of characters you consider Ubermensch's or characters who you consider complete monsters? If it's the latter, I'd dispute Dark Schneider and Deadpool and probably mythological heroes. For the rest, I would either agree or don't know enough about them to judge.

I consider them as Complete Monster types, although it obviously depends on which mythological hero, but plenty were remorseless mass-murderer ravaging horde soldiers without any idealism whatsoever, or deities that were even worse from a position of much greater entitlement. Schneider, Alucard, Mayuri, Kratos, Demitri, and mythological also all arguably fit into the Uber Mensch ideal (as do assorted non-Complete Monster types on the list, and plenty of "Chaotic" alignment in general for that matter... even some genuinely nice ones... hmm). Heck, the Bleach narrative in general recurrently fits into the Nietzsche Wannabe / Uber Mensch ideal...

Daimon Hellstrom; Deadpool; Dark Schneider; Vegeta; Alucard; The Comedian; Kratos; Grand Theft Auto protagonists; Demitri Maximoff; and assorted mythological heroes are not Complete Monster.

even they have standards.

It doesn't matter if they have the standards that "I don't rape my grandma, I just eat her!" or vice versa. It is mocked a lot, but for this type of situation it really is worth noting that Hitler was vegetarian, or that torturing serial-killers are considered morally preferable to rapists in prisons. Even Complete Monster types tend to have some sort of standard to convince themselves that there is somebody worse than them, recurrently completely topsy-turvy What Is Evil? ones, but regardless, it just doesn't matter if somebody commits genocide but always is polite about it, and never gropes women, or similar.

For just one example, Daimon Hellstrom tortures millions upon millions of people as his day job... there is no way to get around that, and simply makes any writers who try to justify it themselves seem like genuinely (ideological sadist) evil people of a caliber that would make most (but obviously not all) hardcore Nazis blush. (But then again, as usual, I'm Literal-Minded, and have a hard time relating to not being it.)

Regardless, beyond a certain ridiculously extreme point it still almost turns irrelevant, and usually simply makes them into Complete Monster hypocrites rather than ones who are honest about it. Not that the latter category is preferable, but there is a discomforting nubmer of people who think that the former somehow is regardless if the person in question goes ridiculously far... which of course from a rational standpoint simply means that people who have a systematic ideology justifying ethnic systematic ethnic cleansings, then that is preferable to ruthless survival values only barbarians who simply don't think much about it, but at least they aren't more than a local problem/enciting others into a mass-murdering frenzy, or moralising about why putting you in an owen was the righteous thing to do. So yeah, systematic ideological sadists who delude themselves into thinking that they have moral standards (rather than actually have genuine ones), very much can be even worse than those who have none.

Me? No I'm definitely not in the amoral camp, quite the opposite, if anything I'm a desillusioned Wide-Eyed Idealist, and am quite freaked out by encountering too great parts of both extremes (ideological sadist Knigh Templar types and What Is Evil? wantonly amoral sociopaths). I have managed to pattern both types very extensively in an effort to try to make sense of them though. Of course that tends to make both sides of extremists tend to assume that I'm part of the other side (since "it takes one to know one"... except of course that I'm not "one" at all, tryign to understand alien people that one has very little in common with is a common autistic trait, even if most writers can only writer people similar to themselves), whereupon they fanatically declare why some barely recogniseable distortion of 1% of my personality mixed with 99% other stuff deserves to be strangled at birth on principle, which is a major case of Completely Missing The Point. I've excruciatingly (up to 10 hours to fit together every single page) attempted to pattern and make sense of things that shocked me to the core at some point... that's pretty much it. Oh well, rambling off-tangent again, but it happens so often that it turns frustrating.

When I say you come off like you're pushing a political point, it has nothing to do with the way I imagine you gather and process information to arrive at conclusions. It has to do with the fact that you see the page as part of a larger social agenda. Further, that you assume other people feel that way too, and entries that conflict with yours must needs be on the other side of that agenda. Some of your edit reasons have been really nasty because they've apparently been making that assumption. You've accused people of being dishonest, of hating the disabled, of intentionally and deceptively promoting villainy rather than condemning it as any good person ought to.

Where I would say there is a h-u-u-uge difference in between drawing a line between a Type V type and a Complete Monster because these are terms not from a judicial review board but from an informal catalog of writing terms. "Complete monster" has several distinguishing features that go beyond "ought to get locked up for life". These are important to the scale, here, even if they'd be trivial in a Real Life consideration. Making that distinction has nothing to do with "defending" characters or "promoting" evil, it has to do with "classifying" things with the fictional agenda put foremost. An evil character, with standards, is going to be classified differently from a Complete Monster who does not have standards and who even the evil character despises. That this classification is somewhat ridiculous at times is something we hope to highlight. But not beat people over the head with the moral lesson that THEY'RE STILL BAD AND YOU'RE BAD IF YOU DEFEND THEM.

I hope you understand I'm not trying to attack you when I say this. That you're willing to talk about it, and be reasonable about it, counts for a lot. Nor do I think you're stupid. But I think you push things into the realm of Serious Business, serious moral business, more than the page can do well by. It's just not what it was designed or equipped to do, and most people who come aren't interested in using it for that purpose either.

I don't really have any further comments than that. Right now, I don't have much to complain about as far as the page goes. If I think of something later, I'll bring it up.

Actually, I've said that cclospina doesn't state her editing reasons or motivations out loud, here and elsewhere that I've run into her, which in the long run makes me suspicious. I've also said that the previous definition of type IV ''really did' sound (probably unintentionally, but nevertheless came out this way in practice) like pushing together anybody with a handicap with hardened casual serial-killers. And this is not an imaginary issue on my part, there were several entries into type IV that did exactly this thing. It grouped together Shinji Ikari with Marv for cripes sake.

As for the wider frame of reference, I realise that it may come across as odd, and apologise for that, but I genuinely do have encountered plenty of outright statements (nothing implied about it) in media that people who have brain disorders should be tortured and executed with a Catchphrase or Dead Baby Comedy treatment on principle. Still, I really am Literal-Minded, which in combination with plenty of outright statements in conversations over the years has given me a trigger about this sort of thing. In the most extreme cases of when a media creator does something like that it practically reads like I just listened to Hitler making a speech about why I should be in a gas chamber, and am expected to somehow shrug it off as nothing, which I still try to do mind you... no it's not fun to live with.

Regarding the longwindedness, that's also basically regrettably "just the way I am", when making natural conversation. I stray a lot and have troubles summarising. It is not intended to be offensive or annoying, but tends to make things awkward. My apologies again.

However, I most definitely do not remotely state that, say, anybody who plays Grand Theft Auto is a horrible person for the killing-sprees. I do however state that we should not try to excuse or make that kind of gorn behaviour into something good and idealised as a practical point. For example, from what I have gathered Frank Miller genuinely believes in much of the barbaric ideology that he markets, and that's not uncommon.

On the other hand, I just don't get the whole "I have standards that "justify" my dead-serious torture-orgy ideals into system" so that automatically saves me from being a Complete Monster bnotion

Aham, antva. Someone with ANY altruistic quality is not pure evil because that someone pure evil by definition can not have ANY good in himself. Is extremely easy understand why TOTAL lack of altruistic qualities is one requisite to be one Complete Monster.

" The Blood Knight Wolverine in his worse moments, as he has casually slaughtered completely outmatched/non-superhuman street punks in an extatic bloodcraze, and equivalent antics, or murdered entire villages of bystanders in his flashbacks. "

Wolverine has never been a type V, in the Flashbacks he was a Villain Full-stop.

when wolverine plays the role of antihero, is type IV in the worst.

Well, "easy to understand" doesn't mean "makes any iota of sense". The thing is that by that measure nobody, not even Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, etc would qualify.

A murderer and/or torturer of millions will be considered preferable to somebody who simply doesn't have the energy to care anymore. (Yes, I definitely do, but I dislike the nonsense principle)

Anything whatsoever goes as long as you make sure to maintain a Pet the Dog moment once in a while, the, and then off to the personal gulag day job we go... Horrifying, and a very very common outright rationale in North American media.

Basically, what truly defines a Complete Monster is the completely sanity-driven absolute embracement and willingness to, in practical application and complete control of oneself and understanding of what one is doing, perform unspeakably ridiculously extreme horrors at the drop of a hat with less than a shrug, or possibly quoting a thoroughly malevolent ideological doctrine. Not through accident, through full premeditation. That's pretty much it.

Wolverine has a long long history of being a Psycho for Hire mercenary or government agent. More recently he hasn't really particularly changed his nature, simply mellowed out and been aimed in another direction.

He has also been willing to slaughter, extensively prolonged torture, or murder completely outmatched targets on numerous occasions, recurrently accompanied by an extatic grin. He is at least as extreme as The Punisher in his worse moments, has probably slaughtered a much greater amount of people, and doesn't have Castle's excuse of being a regular human being who usually doesn't have the luxury of outmatching his victims (kill or be killed).

The extremes and sheer scale is in itself is more than enough to make him warrant a type V rating for Wolverine.

He is also definitely far more extreme, bloodthirsty, and less compassionate than Vendetta. Could you seriously see him giving a genocide camp worker who performed torture on him a ''painless' death? His own comparison when a Yakuza mob boss killed his to-be-wife was to gradually cut off his body parts over the span of several years (while, you know, also leaving said yakuza free to victimise a few thousand people in the meantime). It is also worth noting his background moments for highlight. Hence, your current listing of Wolverine as strictly in-between types III and IV, does not make sense to me in the context that far less extreme characters get higher ratings.

There also seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of a Villain Protagonist and an Anti-Hero type V. Basically the latter category is very frequently the former without giving emphasis to that point, either through a Hand Wave, other story points in the way of attention, Rule of Cool, Magnificent Bastard, or even because the writer does not consider the character as such, even if it doesn't make sense.

Actually, I've said that cclospina doesn't state her editing reasons or motivations out loud, here and elsewhere that I've run into her, which in the long run makes me suspicious.

In context there's no way to interpret this besides that you were "suspicious" that she is sympathetic to eugenics. That is not to my mind reasonable, and lashing out in this paranoia is not condonable. I thought this was out of line completely:

No, that's only representing _your_ viewpoint. Just like _your_ viewpoint is that types I (moral versions of regular people, or any idealistic persons with mental handicaps or illnesses) are worse than those who take the law into their own hands to perform castrations and bloodshed (although within limits).

I've also said that the previous definition of type IV really did sound (probably unintentionally, but nevertheless came out this way in practice) like pushing together anybody with a handicap with hardened casual serial-killers.

As far as I can tell the only person who has made an issue of "handicaps" here is you. I can't go back to the original entry since the history doesn't go back that far, but I strongly suspect that if I did, I would not find Shinji's existence on the list being justified with a remark that he is handicapped (as in, someone included it with the notation that being handicapped is exactly the same as being a murderer), but rather that he'd done something morally questionable. Further, in what way was the character in question handicapped, by which I mean explicitly the kind of handicaps you're talking about that are discriminated against? I'm pretty sure PTSD doesn't fall on that list.

That's not to say someone suffering from PTSD who commits a morally questionable act is necessarily the same as a Type IV — although they are by no means all "hardened casual serial-killers" — since it's questionable under those circumstances how much control over/responsibility for their actions they have. But someone erroneously listing a PTSD character then, is not necessarily demonstrating bigotry. That's a totally different thought process. It's simply failing to take into account the extenuating circumstances, in much the same way a person who was listed as a Type IV who killed in pure self-defense would be.

As for the wider frame of reference, I realise that it may come across as odd, and apologise for that, but I genuinely do have encountered plenty of outright statements (nothing implied about it) in media that people who have brain disorders should be tortured and executed with a Catch Phrase or Dead Baby Comedy treatment on principle.

I can't say I've encountered many, myself. They're in the very extreme minority. Characters like Fred Phelps exist but I don't start to think someone who perhaps includes a homosexual character on this list thinks exactly the same way he does. There might be some Unfortunate Implications there — although there might not be — but those would be the absolute end of the spectrum. It's incredibly unlikely you're going to run into someone here who is that reactionary.

Still, I really am Literal Minded, which in combination with plenty of outright statements in conversations over the years has given me a trigger about this sort of thing.

I'm sorry for that trauma, but yes, I would say that trigger is hypersensitive in this particular environment.

Regarding the longwindedness, that's also basically regrettably "just the way I am", when making natural conversation. I stray a lot and have troubles summarising. It is not intended to be offensive or annoying, but tends to make things awkward. My apologies again.

I mentioned you being long-winded to contrast with cclospina, who is of very few words. You can probably guess that two people, one of whose average post is 15 words long, and another whose average is 5-10 times that length, would either form a wacky comedy duo or else clash due to not being able to understand one another. In particular, I have a hypothesis that someone who explains all of their actions in detail, to the point of thinking in full view of others, might be more "suspicious" of someone who isn't as loquacious, as it might seem to their perspective that they are likely "hiding something". But it is only a hypothesis.

I do however state that we should not try to excuse or make that kind of gorn behaviour into something good and idealised as a practical point.

I don't see that the page was ever doing this. It was never particularly kind to the Type V. So given that, I don't think the mission of the page should be to try and "reverse" any excuses for that type of behavior that might be found elsewhere. It's not about teaching people to think the right way. I am sorry, I just feel very strongly about this. Anviliciousness, even in support of a message that I agree with, turns me off. I don't think it's even effective. I think people are far more receptive to a point you allow them to reach on their own.

On the other hand, I just don't get the whole "I have standards that "justify" my dead-serious torture-orgy ideals into system" so that automatically saves me from being a Complete Monster bnotion

You don't have to "get" it in that you have to find it a realistic or compelling rationale. You just have to be able to recognize it and know how that effects classification.

As ever, no disrespect is intended. I have noticed I sometimes mean to sound "dispassionate" but wind up nearer to "acerbic", so my apologies if something goes over hard or sounds insensitive.

Well, the thing is that originally type IV was simply worded in terms of "character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over", which in combination with placing characters like Shinji or Haruhi alongside hardened serial-killers, and extremely common treatment of this sort from North American media, made the trope/page read as making the statement "if you have mental handicaps, or are simply automatically functioning in a somewhat obnoxious manner, that means that you are comparable to the most ruthless mass-murderers in the history of humanity, regardless if you have overactive conscience and have never hurt a fly"; i.e. extremely anvilicious in the first place to me.

Then again plenty of Internet afficionados (or othervise), fan-media writers, and even quite a few "official" media creators, although they tend to attempt to be more "subtle" about it to avoid hate-speech suits, take this notion even more ridiculously far, by loudly proclaiming that harmless isn't just equivalent to mass-murder, no it is infinitely worse; as honest mass-murder for kicks is perfectly fine, and there are plenty of glorious social benefits of genocide, whereas anybody with serious disabilities is a thoroughly reprehensible piece of pond scum that should be strangled by his/her own mother at birth or have a magasine emptied into the face by the nearest "upright humanitarian bystander". Again, I'm basically quoting here, and as such essentially in a constant Face Palm mood at times.

As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV, which in combination with her fixation on Byronic Hero as "the worst scum of all" (which also read more like being about mental problems than ruthlessness to me) created a suspicious impression regarding her moral viewpoint, but I apologise if I overreacted.

originally type IV was simply worded in terms of "character for which the mental flaws/problems start to take over"

Okay, I wish I had been able to see that. Because yes, that's severely problematic. You cannot equate all flaws in this regard, a character succumbing to their own vices is not at all the same story as one succumbing to insanity or stress or what have you.

As for cclospina, from what I remember she outright listed category I as morally worse than type IV

Edit history does not bear this out. Cclsopina came down on the side of: Type I is good or neutral, II & III are good, IV is neutral and V is evil. When you two were arguing about it before, I do distinctly recall it was the conflict between Type I and Type III, and how I had the qualifier "good or neutral" where III was just "good."

Ah, I seem to misremember then... although I definitely seem to recall her stating that "type I is selfish so it is worse than type IV" or somesuch somewhere, along with occasionally seemingly favouring extremely bloodcrazed characters, but she is hardly unusual in that regard, as you pointed out earlier I somewhat misunderstood type I as "a reasonably decent regular person" (even though it seems to stand somewhat outside of the list) and I generally dislike narratives that encourage people to slaughter each other period.

We've run into each other quite a lot elsewhere as well, and beyond all the schisms that you listed above, including the whole "pushing patterns in a certain direction on multiple pages without stating outright why she is doing so, while the context of the edits start to speak for themselves" I tend to intuitively pattern plenty of subtle details, and when something more direct comes along it easily pushes them into a pattern. It's more or less automatic, so I'm unaware of exactly where I got the details more than half of the time.

Anyway, if I've misunderstood I obviously apologise, but I have actually attempted to rein myself in and give the benefit of doubt.

In any case, thank you for being so helpful Tyoria.

Type V does not mean Designated Hero, Designated Hero are presented as heroic, type V are not presented as heroic, they'd be Villain Protagonists if they weren't fighting villains who are even worse.

Also, as I've said on the monster disney disney discussion page, I highly doubt that anyone in Real Life is this trope, despite earlier claims I've made.

Also, while I can see cclospina's post that lots of type I characters are selfish, It doesn't say that this makes them worse than type IV (unless it was just edited out.)

I edit the first Blackadder, I think it fits best in type V.

Well, his goals are pretty much purely villainous, but the show places a lot of emphasis on him being a totally pathetic loser. Sounds more like type I to me.

Incidentally, I'm inclined to say that the fourth Blackadder is (appropriately enough) a type IV. None of his behavior really rises to the level of his ancestors.

I'd say that the most extreme Blackadders are far too extreme to qualify for type I. Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain at best does not equal mild Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist.

On the other hand, that page mixes extremely diverse degrees of this. On the one hand there is the basically harmless but possibly grouchy or obnoxious everyday Adam Sandler variety, and on the other there is the completely over-the-top child-hospital burning Complete Monster version like Peter Griffin.

Wow, you have some obsession with Peter Griffin.

Nah, I just remembered that time he offhandedly burned down a children's hospital for giggles, so I changed my mind and admitted that cclospina has a good point. You can remove the page mention if you wish.

Thanks for removing it. It just seemed kind of shoe-horned in. Wow, that is pretty bad. Not a show I watch, but yeah, that isn't exactly loveable loser behavior.

It's possible for a type I to be more than one point on the scale, since they are just defined by being a loser, not by immoral behaviour or general jerkishness like the other types.

'There's probably some salvageable stuff in this mess.' It needs a clean up sure but there's no need to be rude.

It seems to be a level of darkness. A type II is not the perfectly clean Disney hero. Maybe they are a bit of a jerk, but they meet most of the qualifications of a normal hero: resistant to killing, help the helpless, nice to old ladies.

Level III is darker. They may be rude, kill with little if any hesitation, and other morally questionable behavior.

Level IV is similar, but much darker.

Level V is for all intents a villain.

Type I antiheroes are losers. As in jerk, uncool, tactless, not graceful, dull, or some combination of those characteristics.

Type II antiheroes are simply a cooler and/or more exciting version of Type I antiheroes. Like the person above me said, both type I and type II antiheroes meet most of the qualifications for a hero.

Wolverine and Action heroes are what come to mind when I read about type III antiheroes. Type III antiheroes are mature, have come to grips with a harsh reality and have a few bad habits left over from a less than saintly past. Also they do good but not nice things.

Type IV anti heroes usually have good intentions and motivations but haven't ditched as many bad habits as the type III antihero. They usually don't see any need to or don't completely understand why they have to.

Type V anti heroes would be villians in real life but in fiction the willing suspension of disbelief kicks in so they are considered antiheroes.

The difference between types II and III is that a type II is a good person doing heroic things; just expect them to be very snarky and complain a lot about it. Han Solo post-Episode V is an instructive example.

Type III heroes are not necessarily so clear-cut: their motivations are good noble but their methods often border on unethical. Think Batman in The Dark Knight. When they actually resort to evil, that's type IV or V.

IV and V personally confuse me; the difference is that a type IV is still recognizably a hero at least some of the time, while a V is basically a villain we're supposed to cheer for.

Yes, I think that he probably would. A well-intended type I/minor The Woobie, with self-esteem issues.

I think we should leave Real Life examples out of this, real life doesn't have protagonists.

EDIT: Why did I post this?

He does have a willingness to do good and evil. I would say probably a True Neutral character that is trying to be Neutral Good. He is too willing to do Evil to be Neutral Good, but is also tooo willing to try to be Good and actually doing Good to be Neutral Evil. If he wages war against the Empire for the sake of freedom, then he is Chaotic. But if he is waging war for the case for a New Order, then he is Lawful. As He does neu=ither then He is probably True Neutral.... for now

That sounds right. He tries to be good, but his flaws and sins keep him from being fully good.

But what type would they be on the Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes?

Type 4

If you ask me he's Chaotic Neutral with hints of Chaotic Good and sounds more like a Type III bordering on Type IV, but for the tie breaker:

What is his attitude towards innocents and children? I know he doesn't enjoy hurting others, but does he like fighting? (There is a diffrence between enjoying fighting and enjoying hurting people)

He doesn't like fighting. He only does it to defeat the forces of evil. And he fights to protect the innocents and children.

Chaotic Good Type III

A type V can very much be a complete monster strictly counting their actions, but they are not necessarily so, and are not always the lesser evil, nor is it remotely necessary to be an Omnicidal Maniac to be one.

Also, I gradually get the imrpession that you are trying to censor entirely accurate information and insert strictly your own, sometimes extremely questionable, value system which puts mass-murderers as preferable to volunteer-workers. I have had no problem with keeping that part, but different types of evaluations should be honestly showcased, or it all turns into blatant falsehoods.

The majority of Psycho for Hire, The Unfettered, Villain Sue and Uber Mensch are are almost always villains.

No, actually there are plenty of mercenaries among type V antiheroes. The Unfettered and Uber Mensch are even more defining traits of what this level of vigilantism is about.

Basically, the really disturbing thing about this category is that everything flows together at this point. There are plenty of examples of characters that in one moment commit atrocities beyond anything anybody ever did, and the next everybody shrugs and treats it as irrelevant. It's very commonplace.

The very essense of a Villain Sue is a character that allows the writer and part of the audience to just go nuts with power, commit any level of atrocity, and try to make it look good, cool, acceptable, or admirable. Again, this is a big part of what type V is about in about half the cases. Or for that matter what the Uber Mensch trope is ultimately about.

To make another example that I never managed to wrap my head around. In the ever-contradictory Incredible Hercules Hera recently plotted to kill the entire universe because they didn't pay enough attention to her/worship her. In an interview the writer claimed that she wasn't evil at all, despite the completely entitled and trivial reason for it, and after she died she went to paradise to be happy with her husband. The same writer, just a few issues previously, stated that most of humanity deserved to be tortured forever, and when a thoroughly traumatised victim of the process (being tortured for 3000 years will do that to you...) who had been abandoned there by his family was out of his mind and in desperation grabbed any hand that helped him out of the pit, his other half (who per definition would have turned out exactly the same way if subjected to the same treatment, as they started out identical) called him a "whiny brat" and kicked him down into a pit to be tortured further with a One-Liner. And this type of completely topsy-turvy madness blend of pure evil reverse-morality ("The more petty and calculated the reason the less horrible it is, and it is far worse to have crippling mental handicaps than to be a war-criminal or serial-killer far eclipsing Jack The Ripper!") is very commonplace in the entertainment industry.

Hence, Hellstrom tortures a billion people every day... no problemo! Let's ignore it, since nobody will notice!" "Vegeta killed 5 billion people a month. No problemo! Let's ignore it!" "Lobo wiped out his own species, and that was just the first atrocity in a very long list... No problemo! He looks Bad Ass!" "Three Hundred literally propagated eugenics and made propaganda for almost every extreme that Mussolini stood for! It's cooooooooool!"

It does turn into a major Face Palm after a while...

In any case, it is basically ridiculous to make a unifrom statement that the most ruthless type III's are always morally good, and everybody would agree, while simultaneously stating that generally far more harmless type I's are uniformly far more arguable. Even though everybody definitely does not share that perspective, especially the whole "have mental handicaps, and help out in a soup kitchen or run an ambulance, be automatically worse than somebody who goes around castrating of killing criminals" Unfortunate Implication.

Basically, I've been trying to insert some sanity into the page, very much welcome compromises, and yes have genuine problems being brief/succinct/to the point, but this "one uniform viewpoint only, regardless of the variation, cut out anything else" approach does not sit at all well with me. Thoughts?

the problem with Good Is Not Nice, is that the very name says "Good is not nice", , also lots of type I are selfish.

Type I isn't uniformly anywhere on the alignment spectrum. They're much harder to peg down than any of the other categories. They're the "classic" definition, the actual "sliding scale" doesn't kick in until you hit type II.

Drawing a line at type III and saying they're good, while saying type I is variable, doesn't mean any given type III is better morally than any given type I. But there is a boundary of moral behavior which would disqualify someone from being a type III, which doesn't exist in the same capacity for a type I. Which means it is accurate to say the worst of the Type III's will be on better moral ground than the worst of the type I's.

Everybody is selfish, but they don't take the law into their own hands to kill and torture people, and generally find less violent methods to help out. That's the way I see understand most type I's, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn't go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of Neon Genesis Evangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the "Take That! Misaimed Fandom!" add-on movie).

As for the "sliding scale" the thing is that there are different fully legitimate evaluations of this. This very discussion is just a minor proof of it. And as such I'm extremely uneasy with not mentioning this.

It is very important to define the boundary that keeps type III from sliding into type IV, and I only have a personal problem with type IV and V, but remember that there are plenty of vigilantes who are willing to go to what in normal society count as considerable extremes within it (imagine reading in the newspaper that somebody independently had gone around castrating or killing criminals without due process, which also in practice always leads to lots of people not guilty of the crimes to get caught along the way), even though they are comparatively tame by fiction standards, and they can be extreme Jerkass types in combination, so there are definitely many who would consider them as neutral. Then again, afaIk there are technically two different types within this category, and the other is simply extremely rude about being great people.

Regarding type I's potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV's job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay.

Would you be interested in attempting to work out a reasonable solution Tyoria? The whole uncompromising and unreasonable heavy-handed cutting everywhere, regardless if it doesn't make any sense or not (several of the categories cclospina routinely cuts out are very much included amongst the characters in the category), is getting a bit tiresome to deal with, she has thus far not made much of an argument that makes me see a coherent rational for all the editing reasons, and I have tried to do various attempts at compromises, but it turns harder without dialogue.

dammit it's hard to work out a reply when the reply above you doubles in size in between the time you start and after you hit send...

(I edit my posts a lot too, though, so anyway I just mean — I wrote something, and now I'm going to change it because I see you wrote more.)

No, it's not "I'm a better person", I never said that, it's exactly what I said: they are questionable/very arguable per definition, otherwise I wouldn't be able to make an argument. As are mine naturally, and both views should be presented, along with attempting to take those of other people into account.

I have tried to maintain her inserts, but the cutting that I have been treated with in return has been so heavy-handed and put into practice elsewhere as well, while ignoring any long explanations that I make and offering virtually nothing in return, that I can't help but start to see it in a pattern after a while. I have tried to discuss it, I have asked for logic, I have explained myself, and I thought that several of my text pieces were quite relevant. It quickly turns tiresome if the pattern is just repeated over and over, especially as I think that cclospina used to be more talkative over at Deadpool. So in these cases it's usually good to ask for others to help mediate it.

As for my motivation, it's the usual one: Strong anal-retentive need for patterns to make sense, and getting hangups when I can't quite process it.

Btw: No problem. It tends to be a progress to hammer out my thoughts. Sorry about that.

Btw2: I just noticed that cclospina had in fact done a couple of compromises in her latest version, and apologise to her. I also attempted to compromise further myself by adjusting sentences to a middle-version or keeping out further large chunks of my old text. I think that this is a good point for you to check for bad parts to keep out.

Re: Editing. As I said, I do it, so no apologies necessary. The thing is, the overall tone of your post read somewhat differently to me before and after the edit in question, so then it seemed my response needed to change to reflect that. In this case, your edits make you sound somewhat less... belligerent isn't quite the word. Aggravated maybe. My post would have been less condescending/"don't take it so seriously" in tone. Since you actually saw that old post, I feel like something more of a jerk than I'd like to.

I don't really agree with your assessment of the Type I's... like, almost at all. See, here's you:

"hat's the way I see understand most type I's, the either mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn't go to extremes while doing so (if I remember correctly Shinji of Neon Genesis Evangelion was of this type in the tv-series, with the exception of the "Take That! Misaimed Fandom!" add-on movie)."

And here's the trope description:

"This was actually the original understanding of the term, a character who is a protagonist but lacks the qualities of the hero as seen by the Greeks (probably closest to the Tragic Hero). See Arthur Dent and This Loser Is You for related concepts. Type I antiheroes are particularly common in comedy, where they might also fall under Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist. A Type I may transform into a full hero over the course of the story if they manage to overcome their inner demons, discover their courage, find their reason to fight, etc. Whether or not this happens is heavily dependent on the story's placement in the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism; a Type I Antihero in an even slightly idealistic story is all but guaranteed to find true heroism by the end, whereas a Type I in a more cynical setting is much less likely."

One sentence that leaps out at me in particular: "Type I antiheroes are particularly common in comedy, where they might also fall under Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist."

Either you're wrong or that's totally wrong, because an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist (e.g. Married With Children's Al Bundy) is by definition unsympathetic, not at all by necessity a nice, well-intentioned person. I can't vouch for many of the examples, but some seem geared in this direction.

• The protagonist of The Tatami Galaxy, who is something of a Zetsubou-sensei expy, and is described in some promotional matterials as a "not-so-lovable loser".
• Most of the protagonists in Kevin Smith's View Askewniverse qualify.

I've seen the other works in the View Askewniverse, but when I think of Dante, I think: he's not a terrible person. But he's self-absorbed and self-pitying, he engages in a great deal of wangsting in order to justify his often selfish and staggeringly insensitive actions. Most everything I know about Evangelion is from hearsay, but Shinji's life seems like a trauma rollercoster. Having demeaning and often unpleasant life situations I don't think comes close.

• The portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network teeters between this and Villain Protagonist.

Veering in the direction of a Villain Protagonist does NOT seem like your "mostly non-violent idealistic regular person, or somebody unfortunate for various reasons, who tries and helps out a lot anyway, but doesn't go to extremes while doing so".

• Lily Bart from Edith Wharton's House of Mirth. Let's see: fails at anything and everything she tries her hands at? Check. Only ever succeeds at alienating the few people who genuinely do care about her? Check. Is a whiny, insufferable Jerk Ass with an entitlement complex bigger than Brazil? Check.

• Travis Touchdown, of No More Heroes, a porn-obsessed Otaku without anything resembling a social life. He's also a type V, however, eagerly slaughtering opponents and rarely showing any remorse for his killings.

"Regarding type I's potentially fitting anywhere (which I though was type IV's job), rather than good<->neutral it might help if you point out some examples that could be argued as morally evil? But if what you say is true, and it truly is an unbound trope, then I have no problem with it. Othervise I think that the previous range should stay. "

If you can arguably be a Type I and a Type V/Villain Protagonist, I'd say you can be evil. You can certainly be neutral. I'm not seeing how it fits within range at any point. In order for the sliding scale to be a straight progression from good to evil, Type I would have to be the most unambiguously good of the lot, but everyone seems to agree it's Type II. Either Type I is misfiled, or it simply doesn't belong on the scale at all. Type IV's arguably go all over the spectrum too, what with the good motives + often evil methods, but that's less "any given Type IV can be at any point of the scale" than "Type IV's morality is the most heavily contested due to the fact that people will alternately declare evil deeds for good methods good, neutral, or evil depending on their own evaluation as to whether the ends should justify the means."

Type V... which I have a rather low opinion of, as a section... is either The Same But More of IV (good motives but super-evil methods), or "should be a bad guy but is sent up against such complete monsters that he looks good by comparison", possibly even a super-lax "any villain who has ever gone up against a Complete Monster or taken part in an Enemy Mine". Sheesh.

Would I like to help: ...Sure. Though like you said, compromise does generally require dialogue. From your last edit, it seems like you and cclospina are working towards that. Any particular contested sections? Seems like the "see also" lists get switched around a lot.

Well, maybe type one should be better defined as somebody who is either a regular limited but decent person without Heroic Resolve, somebody with mental problems who is still trying to do good, or somebody othervise extremely unlucky or insecure, but still fundamentally decent. And another category for people who are simply non-well-intentioned assholes, but also not murderous or similar, for example an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist, which might also including more harmless borderline Villain Protagonist types, and move the rest(/misplaced?) to better fits among the preexisting types?

As for type V... yeah I also have a major problem with the entire narrative for them. Basically it is frequently dependent on inventing Lovecraftian nightmares that are worse than anything encountered in the real world (or demonise the enemy) to justify behaving as badly as (or occasionally even worse than) anything that does in fact exist. It's probably going to continue being a strange cancer on human consciousness for a long time yet.

Heck, I have a fundamental problem with stories that propagate nightmarish World of Chaos fantasies that are worse than anything the real world has to offer in the first place. It doesn't help against fear, paranoia, nihilism; in the long run it propagates it. Something like One Piece, Harry Potter, or Kingdom Hearts is probably kept at the healthiest therapeutic level, and considering their overwhelming popularity most people seem to agree with me.

Btw: Yeah, we seem to have worked it out, except that I prefer to several tropes that illustrate what type V is really about, whereas she prefers minimalism.

^^^Wait people debate about the alignment of a type IV?

^ What, are you serious, or should that have had a Sarcasm Mode tag? Do they debate it? They debate it AD NAUSEAUM. Pay Evil unto Evil and Black-and-Gray Morality are the two most relevant tropes to a Type IV's character — tropes fundamentally about challenging a perspective on morality. Incidentally, L got pulled? The example was worded against him in a ridiculously negative way, but I'd definitely call L a Type IV. Do people debate L's alignment? Oh yes I suppose they do occasionally...

^^ For those kind of changes, I would propose bringing it up in the Trope Repair Shop. Otherwise, I'd leave it where it is. The point of Type I is that it's "antihero classic", before the word evolved to take on the specific moral connotations it has now. I don't think there's anything wrong with that definition as it stands. From what you're proposing, it sounds like you'd like to sneak it in between Types II and III. I think for something that large, we might want to bring in more people.

I'd kind of like to bring it up there anyway to talk about Type V which — I think you misunderstood my disdain for it. Not that I think Type V's are jolly folk I'd love to spend my days drinking tea with, but the reason I said I had a low opinion of the section is because I think it's ill-defined and sprawling.

But I honestly don't have a problem with I except that its placement on a "sliding scale" is pretty damned unintuitive. I proposed earlier we rename it Type 0 and call the others A-D, but didn't get any traction on that.

What I meant to imply by my sentence was not really so much "It happens?" as in "I never really knew about it.Stupid Me." rather than "It happens?" as in "people actually care about what "true" alignment Character X from Show y that doesn't canonically use alignments is in the first place?!? Seriously people care about what alignment say, L from death note is?!?

Yeah, I don't get that question either. I mean there likely aren't any Neutral Good Type I Vs or Vs, but I'd say they can be True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Neutral Evil, or Chaotic Evil (although I'd the last one is mostly true of only the Type Vs)

Hey what about Lawful types? Geesh, you do left Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil out:/

Also, on an different topic, I ahven't seen anywhere about 'Ls specifically though, though I shopuld take your word.

Well, that too- so yeah, people definitely debate them, since they can be any of the alignments except for the good ones.

I was actually thinking of debating morality in general (which was why your question sounded weird to me), but yeah, they care about the actual Character Alignment. Do they ever...

Well, why?

I wish I knew.

I already tried to explain why. It's mostly a combination of "does not compute" anal-retentive hangups, and differing perspectives on the marketed morality of narratives and the resulting social value influences. Seeing a sufficient number of outright bloodcrazed fascists or sociopaths feverishly proclaim the wonderful qualities of Three Hundred, combined with assorted studies on the proven brainwashing effects of even brief calculated propaganda on the human mind has been quite an enlightening experience for me.

The question might extend to anybody here for any given topic, for that matter, so I don't see why you seem incredulous about this case? At least this one is reasonably relevant as far as the nature of media is concerned.

Regardless, cclospina changed the YMMV about about whether a character with the ability to do anything he or she pleases, including full-scale atrocities, gets away with, and looks appealing doing it, is a Jerk Sue or Villain Sue, which doesn't make sense to me, as it is definitely very arguable.

As for type I, the fundamental problem with it seems to be that it includes two very different types of characters, due to strictly being a contrast to the Greek "might makes right barbarian slaughtermachine", unconnected to any moral sense of the term.

Also, which of the edited out tropes for type V should be kept do you think? Or should any more be added?

The alignment question wasn't directed at you at all. (The initial query was, "wait people argue over the Type IV's alignment?") A lot of people argue over it and many other people are baffled by the amount of arguing that goes on over it, especially given that it's a D&D exclusive concept that so infamously does little but lead to fights that they've actually changed it.

Okay, let's see what got changed here. From:

See also: Blood Knight, Psycho for Hire, Heroic Sociopath, Villain Protagonist, Evil Versus Evil, The Unfettered, Knight Templar, Well-Intentioned Extremist (depending on how extreme), Token Evil Teammate, Byronic Hero, '90s Anti-Hero, Anti-Villain, and Uber Mensch.

Villain Sue is the ultimate extreme of this trope."

To:

"Byronic Hero, '90s Anti-Hero and Heroic Sociopath are specific tropes of Type V."

Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by definition Type V.

What about Villain Sue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. You're seeing a lot of violence and it's constantly glorified. Therefore the trope is about the glorification of violence. Well no not quite. It does often/almost always glorify violence. But it has the "antihero" part as a necessary justification. There is some good to be said for what these characters do, besides how cool it looks. They're given a pass for torturing and eviscerating because the people theyr'e doing it to are Complete Monsters worse than the character doing the torturing.

Whereas nothing about Villain Sue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% Card-Carrying Villain who does things For the Evulz and whatnot. He can do all these things exclusively to the heroes and innocents or other good people. He too is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. But he need not have any sort of pretext that makes that "good". Now, in practice, you can take a Villain Sue and have the author try and give him sympathetic, antiheroic traits, and that may happen a lot. Then he can be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, Byronic Hero, Nineties Antihero and Heroic Sociopath.

Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. Token Evil Teammate is the most arguable. It's hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I'd say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include "commonly found among these types" of tropes among the definition, though, so I'm not totally on board with cclospina's just cutting it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.

As to Type I, I'm not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don't really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to "Type 2.5" (in between current types II and III) and "purely nasty amoral characters". It seems you have types who don't quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are IIIs, IVs and even a handful of Vs. I don't think it's at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.

I'd like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/

Ok, sorry about misunderstanding. Addressing some points:

The thing is that Dark Schneider and his ilk really are Villain Sue types, and, for the specific edited-out case, several of the supposed "heroes" of classic myths didn't actually display any "actions for the good of humanity" or benevolent traits at all, could easily be bloodthirsty invaders, crazed kinslayers, rapists, torturers, scheming assassins, murderers of innocents, etc, as an ideal admired as the epitome of human achievement by the populace telling stories about them; and strictly limiting the Greek definition to "might makes right" and occasional Karma Houdini, well it definitely sounds like Villain Sue material to me.

Also, plenty of the included have slaughtered or tortured countless innocent people, so although I agree about your evaluation regarding the (very ironically) tamest and most idealistic type V's, such as "V for Vendetta" (who both had an extremely traumatic Jerk Justifications in being subjected to Mengele-style experiments, was up against a Nazist government, and as such could be seen as a more extreme version of the German soldiers who attempted to kill Hitler... recently more popularised in Valkyrie), I disagree about the most extreme cases being limited to Complete Monster targets, and they recurrently more than qualify as Complete Monster types themselves.

Regardless, I like your idea of limiting ourselves to the most defining tropes, and then putting the strictly very common ones in a sub-section.

Evil Versus Evil, The Unfettered, Uber Mensch, and Villain Protagonist are probably some of the most prioritised, but Psycho for Hire and Knight Templar are good as well.

I'm not familiar enough with Byronic Hero to know if it is limited to the type V section? Are they completely devoid of benevolence or consumed by mass-murdering torturing or supremacist bloodthirst, or can they simply be very flawed good people like Shinji Ikari, alternately simply be less extreme type IV's?

You're probably right about type I. It simply seems like a bit of an unfair category as a whole, as lots of very troubled but decent people are implied as equivalent to genuine assholes by it. Although I was only interested in putting the "heroic but unfortunate" part as type 2.5, whereas most of the others would probably be closer to type 3.5, but it's harder to say. Hmm... The entire problem is that the ancient Greeks believed in the brave psychopath Uber Mensch ideal as heroic, so not fitting into it is definitely not necessarily a bad thing.

I've made some changes, which resulted in chopping down a fair amount of text. I tried to incorporate relevant information, but some of it seemed unnecessary. There was a great deal of admonishing of people for adding bad examples to section four which got cut. Define the section well and hopefully that won't happen. I think Type III was made out more complicated than it needed to be with the whole "there are two types and it's not fair because one is actually better than the other." Let's not have the scale argue with itself by saying it's not fair. The main difference was over the use of lethal force.

It mostly seemed like good work to me. I made a few modifications though. Feel free to tell me if there is something wrong with them.

Psycho for Hire, Villain Protagonist, Anti-Villain, and Villain Sue are by definition villains, not antiheroes. Token Evil Teammate depends, the milder ones could be a Type V, but the Complete Monster ones (i.e. Eric Cartman) could go under Villain Protagonist. Byronic Hero, '90s Anti-Hero, and Blood Knight can be type IV or V.

You know what I say yes. It's been incredibly annoying lately and I have no idea how to fix it. Maybe it really is something wrong with the actual scale.

Yeah, I don't even know where to start with this thing. What would the OP even be for the Repair Shop? This mess really needs reinforcements.

I'll start on it

Edit: Actually somebody else can do it.

Well, I think that we are slowly getting there, as we've at least established a scale that does not state that anybody with a mental handicap (hi!) is automatically equivalent to a casual mass-murderer, which the previous one did, and put it in some semblance of order, but yeah, sensible input would be appreciated.

The problem of course is if it isn't sensible, due to being cursory and heavyhanded, and leaves the page worse off. I've seen that intervention style happen elsewhere.

OK then, could someone give me a quick synopsis of the problems, and what we need help with? I'm thinking A. definitions of each type B. whether or not this needs a YMMV banner due to personal interpretation, and C. the asinine amount of edit-warring.

Anything else?

I'm not sure if I can give a nice and sweet summary, but there isn't that much to read in the discussion above.

Anyway, I think that you've summed up the situation as such pretty well, beyond that there needs to be open discussion about the core problems/schisms. I and others have tried to do so, but cclospina seems to just revert without explaining (or admitting) her core intents outright. I tend to dislike that sort of thing, but may misread the situation due to multiple bad experiences.

Thread created, let's hope for the best.

Yeah, he starts out as a very non-violent minor swindler/Villain Protagonist, but develops upwards to stop doing bad things and become rather idealistic; and didn't do anything horrible enough to be almost unforgivable before that. I'm not sure where to place him? No trope quite fits. Splitting type I into two subsections, and put him in the Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist one might be an idea.

Blood Knight is almost a requirement for type V. Uber Mensch, The Unfettered, Villain Protagonist, and Evil Versus Evil are definitely very common.

Psycho for Hire and Knight Templar are the two sides of the coin (wanton or overzealous), and at the very least there are definitely Psycho for Hire characters within the category (including Deadpool).

Well-Intentioned Extremist is a character with good intentions and extreme methods, which certainly defines the most idealistic type V's, but then there are the ones without any idealism whatsoever of course... However, Token Evil Team Mate is more iffy I'll grant.

Villain Sue is still the ultimate expression of this trope. A character who gets to do anything and look appealing doing it.

maybe, but only include specific tropes and these tropes are not specific examples.

Isn't Villain Sue more about antagonists who are functionally unstopable to an annoying degree? I think that some Type IV and Vs might be more of a Jerk Sue though, which I think is what you're getting at. I still wouldn't put it though- I get the impression you pretty much want the article to say in effect "if you like this character you are a bad person and should feel bad". I agree that is true of some of the examples on the page, but still Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.

I agree about keeping Blood Knight, not so much the other tropes though. While a Type V anti-hero could be quite close in behavior to a Psycho for Hire, by definition, a Psycho for Hire is on the bad guys side. Similarly, although there are some iffy cases (like the Blackadders), as I noted, in general, a Villain Protagonist is an antagonist who is a viewpoint character, not a Token Evil Team Mate (who I do agree is often a trait of Type Vs).

I thought that Villain Sue was about trying to make a casual cheerful mass-murderer or equivalent appear appealing/liberating/admireable, and get away with almost everything, not necessarily an antagonist?

At the very least The Uber Mensch and The Unfettered are very closely connected, and it is common that the characters are extreme villains per definition, so Villain Protagonist is the same for them, no?

Can a Blood Knight be anything lower on the scale?

Yes, it can be a type IV as well. It depends on how extreme and how well-intended.

I always thought that they could be lower in the scale if they're a morally good hero who just happens to enjoy fighting.

And using the soldier analogy from III and IV, what if a soldier is a Blood Knight who enjoys warfare and killing enemy soldiers, but Would Not Shoot a Civilian and only kills armed enemy soldiers (not the surrendering or wounded) what type would they be then?

Somebody who simply enjoys fighting doesn't need to be an anti-hero at all, just to join the local dojo. Somebody who enjoys killing and puts it into practice for this reason is usually at best a type IV if he has scruples. However, if somebody has strong genuinely good intentions that drive them, and simply learns to appreciate the excitement, but never kills some random opponent for the joy of it itself/has a strong respect for the value of life, but knows that killing sometimes is unavoidable/has a bloodthirst, but isn't sating it for the sake of sating it/tries to avoid it when possible, and has overall strong scruples, a sense of good will, and such, then yes they can definitely be a type III, but I dunno if they would qualify as Blood Knight types anymore.

No. unless you go by dnD definition then yeah(see Loveable Rogue)

Loveable Rogue are Chaotic Neutral

Well that does makes sense though. Isn't stealing considered a Chaotic act rather than evil under Dn D terms(not that i would agree with this)

yes, but most Loveable Rogues are selfish.

Responded.

Most Byronic Hero and nineties antihero Are Morally Neutral, and are specific tropes of "type V antiheroes."

They're a darker shade of grey. They usually sit on the fence between Neutral and Evil. Some of the nicer Type V's will be Neutral, while the cruel, merciless Type Vs will be Evil. So they can be both.

i don't see how by dnD definition you can sit between Neutral and Evil.

As demonstrated here. Also remember that a Character Alignment is not a straightjacket.

I think we need to re-work the page so that Type I is called a Type O or Type 0 because I view it as distinct from Types II-V, which have a nice progression down the flaw and/or Character Alignment slope.

I personally think that a Type I is easiest to define when compared with a Type IV; they're both fundamentally defined by serious character flaws that prevent them from being a traditional hero, however:

A Type I's flaws are flaws that prevent them from acting in a decisive manner for good or for evil; most heroes are defined by their abilities to do things that an ordinary person wouldn't or couldn't do, and the typical Type I can't do anything particularly decisive because they are ordinarily human. A typical Type I's flaw is often a very passive personality or some other attribute that prevents them from breaking away from normalcy. If a Type I develops into a hero, it is because they develop Heroic Willpower or otherwise overcome the flaw that is preventing them from taking strong action.

A Type IV also has significant character flaws, but their flaws do not prevent them from acting in a decisive manner—their flaws just often cause them to act in a morally questionable decisive manner.

So that would explain why Arthur Dent was used as an example for a Type I Anti Hero. I agree with you. A Type I isn't really an Anti Hero because they aren't a Hero that does morally questionable things. They're Heroes that aren't Heroes. They should be seperate from the other Anti Hero Types. But one thing we'd have to do is go through all the TV Trope pages and do a big sweep through. For instance, if a Hero was called a Type IV before hand, they might now be called a Type III instead.

that's a big problem, you would have to make hundreds of edits.

You could maybe rework the scale to make the former Type I, Type 0, and then use alphabet letters for the rest of the scale. Then if you saw a Type III on a page elsewhere, you could convert it to Type B without wondering if it had been changed already, and make a note on this page that Type A was formerly Type II, etc.

It'd still be a lot of work though.

How often are anti-heroes really referred to by type, though? Usually they're referred to by the more specific component trope. I've never heard this page actually being used as an authority on anything. If we want to be technical we could just change Type I to "anti-heroes who are cowardly, greedy, or some other not-cool" trait and it would fit the scale. I always figured the purpose of this page was to measure the Anti-Hero in terms of relative evil-ness.

Incidentally, can we just ditch Type V? They don't fit the scale at all, and the measurement's too subjective to be useful anyway.

I think the idea that the page is trying to measure antihero in terms of relative evilness is the basis of the complaint. The Type II "Disney Anti-Hero" is the most clearly heroic of the bunch, the Type V Byronic Anti-Hero the least. But Type I isn't generally a better person than Type II, they're not on the same progressive scale at all. Their position and designation suggests otherwise.

I see people name-dropping "Type III" or whatever on many pages, usually without elaboration and often without a courtesy link back here.

Type V's are Anti Heroes. What seperates them from a Villain Protagonist is that they fight the Complete Monsters, and are often Selfish Good; when they do good and fight evil, it's not because they want to do the right thing. Examples of a Type V would include Riddick and Belkar Bitterleaf. But, yes, Type II's are morally better than a Type I. A Type I doesn't fit on the Character Alignment scale like the other ones do, as they are a different type altogether. Maybe we should have Types 0,A,B,C & D. At any rate, we can't be too technical. Because being an Anti Hero is in many ways like a medical condition, in that the individual doesn't always have all the classic "symptons" of each Type. It woud have to be a Type 0,1,...

Oh, I get it now. The first paragraph of type V should be rewritten and the examples cleaned up, since that really wasn't the immediate impression it gave.

What if we consider the type in terms of the following framework-

• Type I: An Anti-Hero, emphasis on the "Anti". As in, "flawed".
• Type II: An Anti-Hero, emphasis on the "Hero". His "Anti" is an Informed Attribute.
• Type III: Your typical modern-day Anti-Hero.
• Type IV: An Anti-Hero, emphasis on the "Hero". His "Anti" is often circumstantial.
• Type V: An Anti-Hero, emphasis on the "Anti". As in, "horrible person".

That any help?

Sort of. I still think that a Type I should be a Type 0 instead, and a Type II should be a Type I etc... But that's the general idea. I like your ideas, but I don't quite agree with what you said for a Type IV, so you might wanna change that.

A Type IV is often a Tragic Hero, in that deep down inside, they're good souls. They do the right thing because they like to do the right thing, which seperates them from a more merciless Type V. But circumstances have made them turn bitter, selfish and/or vengeful. They often have a Fatal Flaw that causes them to do morally questionable things, such as Pride, Impulsiveness or Psychopathy. It's often more than just circumstance that affects a Type IV, as they are geniunely flawed, just like a Type I. You gave a good comparison between the two earlier on, so you might wanna use that when comparing the terms.

Type V does not mean Complete Monster, hercules is Deffinity a Type V, kill innocent in fits of rage.

I would argue the difference is Hercules admits what he does is wrong and submits to punishment including slavery and humiliation. That is not something Types V's seem to do. Type V's are described as "lacking any heroic attributes whatsoever." Hercules is not like that. Deep down Hercules is well meaning and most of his actions are beneficial to mankind, but was cursed with a temper. That would make Hercules a Type IV at worse.

Even then most of the other Greek heroes fall under Types III or IV depending on which one. Persues and Cadmus would probable bee Type III. Theseus and Achillis may be type IV.

I would say Type I. At least in the movies. Haven't seen the theater version.

Obviously it`s Type IV and Chaotic Neutral, Possibly is a Heroic Sociopath and Knight Templar.

Postscript: as I see your story will be Black-and-Gray Morality

Actually, I'm aming for a combination of Earn Your Happy Ending and White and Gray Morality (the story is heavily influenced by the Tales Series). The rest of the party is nicer and more idealistic than him.

In fact, if he wasn't the protagonist he would be the Token Evil Teammate (personally, I don't consider him evil (even though I completely agree with him being a Chaotic Neutral Type IV) because he Pay Evil unto Evil, has empathy, and would Never Hurt an Innocent (he is a bit of a Jerk with a Heart of Gold though).)

BTW, By Heroic Sociopath, do you mean an Anti-Hero Played for Laughs (the original definition) or an over-the-top Anti-Hero (the Trope Decay definition). And he is not a Knights Templar.

That clearly sounds like a Knight Templar.

"He has a Pay Evil Unto Evil viewpoint and is sadistic, being fond using the Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique on especially despicable Asshole Victims (and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques on mooks). In fact, he's bascially a "heroic" Torture Technician. "

No, a Knight Templar is a fettered character that blindly believes that they're good/righteous, believes that All Crimes Are Equal, favor Disproportionate Retribution, and tend to be Lawful Evil.

The protagonist I'm desribing is aware that he's a sociopath, is not lawful (due to the fact that he is Chaotic Neutral), generally tries to mind his own business (that's what I meant by his "leave me alone and stay out of my way" atitude), is The Unfettered, and saves his cruelty for Complete Monsters.

It would probably help if I mentioned that two of his biggest influences are Yuri Lowell and Marv.