Discussion Main / DesignatedHero

evidence against what?

I'm a Troper!!!

Them Being heroes

The former sounds like a Cowardly Lion, Lovable Coward or the like. The latter sounds like a Failure Knight

No issues.

IPP Wick Check created.

I actually had no idea about Ariel until I saw that.

Wow, that was terrible. It's fine to point out issues with a character, but quite another to rewrite the film where Ariel is a villain and make it sound as though she did something terrible to her father on purpose.

And hey, maybe Ariel wouldn't have run off to that sea witch if her father's reaction to her interest in the human world wasn't to destroy everything she loves in front of her. He kind of deserves potentially losing his daughter and giving himself up for her is his own apology. I'd think the fact that Ariel does at least try to fight Ursula after what she does to him is proof that she's sorry. I'm not sure what that troper was expecting her to do after all was said and done.

Also? Humans eat fish, yes, but you know what? Fish eat other fish. For example, crabs are omnivores and feed on both plant life and sentient creatures. You know what Flounders eat? Crustaceans. Yea, complaining that Ariel is falling in love and joining a society of people who eat fish is pretty stupid unless those humans are actively stringing up and devouring other merfolk.

I was just surprised at all that...but I'm glad that's over.

.

Edited by MsCC93

Uhhh... Designated Hero is when guy is presented as good guy despite showing no goodness. PCM is when the story treats actions as good or bad depending on how they affect protagonist, this isn't downplayed Designated Hero. In neither example it really matters if the guy is villain or just a jerk.

This is a wiki. If someone qualifies for a trope, feel free to add them yourself.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Can you give an actual example instead of saying something without explanation?

Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!

Read the page, and if you find an example from a movie/book/video game/whatever you've seen/read/played, think about what it's saying: If there is some truth to it, then it counts; if it's largely exaggerated, then yes, it is character bashing about morally ambiguous heroes the user just doesn't like.

Should take this to the Trope Repair Shop for cleanup?

Probably, yes.

Just being curious here, but...does wrestling count? Because I kinda have Black-and-White Morality around wrestling.

Edited by 23.27.249.239

I watched a show called "Daria", an animated comedy on MTV. In said show, the main character, Daria Morgendorffer, was an American high school student dealing with extremely zany caricatures, from her teachers (Janet Barch, a rabid man-hater, Timothy O'Neill, a sappy hippie teacher, and Angela Li, the principal best summed up as a dictator); her classmates, like Kevin and Brittany (two massive dumbasses), and Upchuck (a desperate perv); and even her family (a workaholic mother, a neurotic father, and fashion and popularity obsessed younger sister)

I'm pretty sure this is the show you mean, so I can talk about Daria's character, who was frequently rude, obnoxious, and supremely arrogant to everyone she met.

To sum up the specific examples, her best friend Jane became interested in track and field [See Jane Run], to which Daria insulted her at their pizza parlor hangout, then stared moping around the house, When Jane later got a boyfriend [Jane's Addition], Daria continually berated him to the point where he had to beg her to stop because of the way she was treating Jane.

The 5th season has Daria berate Tom for supporting her for an entire episode for encouraging her to submit a writing anthology [The Story of D]. She then calls him out for forgetting their anniversary when she also forgot it [Sappy Anniversary], forces the issue of sex upon him only to back out at the last minute without a word [My Night at Daria's], and finally, the Grand Finale [Is It College Yet?], in which she projects her failure to get into her college of choice onto him, blaming his legacy for his success while utterly ignoring the fact that she had a terrible interview.

As for her parents? There was the time she was grounded for breaking the rules, then played the harmonica to annoy them into stopping the punishment [The Road Worrier], or all the problems she caused as a child, not to mention running away from home [Boxing Daria]. She also does this to Jodie Landon as well [Partner's Complaint], as well as attacking her sister at the end of [The New Kid]

Her self-centered attitude is best described in the Jane and Tom examples, but the Negative Continuity of the show's first two seasons didn't do her any favors.

She may be called out for her behavior, but the multitude of examples shows she not only doesn't learn from it very well, but it's a consistent aspect of her character. That's pretty much a textbook example of Designated Hero. Sure, there's other episodes when she calls out people like Val, but it's pretty much token goodness in comparison to the horrible things she does to others.

I'm sure you have a difference of opinion, and I can respect that yours can differ. But we're only talking about whether this fits the trope of Designated Hero, and given the definition, she fits very easily.

Edited by 68.63.102.154

"I'm sure you have a difference of opinion, and I can respect that yours can differ. But we're only talking about whether this fits the trope of Designated Hero, and given the definition, she fits very easily."

Which she does not except in this weird warped reality you live in where Daria, a flawed protagonist who is not portrayed as a heroic character we are expected to worship, is apparently a paragon of morality despise being the epicenter of moral decay.

This is not a trope dedicated to bashing protagonists you don't like.

"I'm pretty sure this is the show you mean, so I can talk about Daria's character, who was frequently rude, obnoxious, and supremely arrogant to everyone she met. "

Except that every time you do, you grossly exaggerate the character's perceived moral failings and also conveniently rewrite your "proof" to remove any justification for Daria's behavior (such as other characters giving her a reason to be upset with them.)

"To sum up the specific examples, her best friend Jane became interested in track and field [See Jane Run], to which Daria insulted her at their pizza parlor hangout, then stared moping around the house."

You mean the episode where Jane, the only person Daria had ever gotten close to and had a friendship with, found another hobby and life without her and Daria had trouble coping with it? And Jane, after having joined Daria in criticizing the school's corrupt system of letting atheletes take "passes" to keep their grades up, wound up compromising her own principles and participating in that very system while knowing full well that the system was unfair to people like her own best friend? And let's not forget that despite the obvious signs of Daria feeling lonely and put out, Jane's response is to further cut her off.

Yea, Daria was rough. So was Jane. they were both in the wrong, they had to work it out. That's what human beings do.

"When Jane later got a boyfriend [Jane's Addition], Daria continually berated him to the point where he had to beg her to stop because of the way she was treating Jane."

In an alternate universe, sure.

Now, in the real world, Jane's Addition was an episode where Daria, who by this point we've established has trouble adjusting to being lonely again, was put in a position where she felt Tom was dominating her friendship with Jane. And let's not forget that in the same episode, Jane had completely ditched Daria at a club to hook up with Tom (a complete stranger at the time), so Daria being upset with her priorities is perfectly reasonable.

And no, Tom did not "beg her to stop", he met with Daria like a mature person and convinced her that he was not trying to compromise her relationship with her best friend.

"The 5th season has Daria berate Tom for supporting her for an entire episode for encouraging her to submit a writing anthology [The Story of D]."

No, she got angry with him because she got a rejection letter and took her frustration out on him.

And then had to eat crow because yea, she had treated him poorly. That was the point of the episode. Surely by the fifth season you picked up on Daria's issues with rejection and her flaw of overcompensating for it?

"She then calls him out for forgetting their anniversary when she also forgot it [Sappy Anniversary]"

So in other words, two guilty parties again.

"forces the issue of sex upon him only to back out at the last minute without a word [My Night at Daria's]"

Wow, way to miss the entire point of the episode. Daria did not "force" the issue on him - she felt pressured by other people's expectations that she have an active sex life now that she was dating and felt even more insecure about it when Tom revealed he wasn't a virgin. The whole point of the episode was Daria coming to terms with not needing to have sex if she wasn't emotionally prepared. Maybe you were never a teenager, but the pressures related to both sex and celibacy at that age are immense and full of stress and the episode was basically answering the question of how Daria would have to navigate that.

And she did not ditch him "without a word." She left him a note the next morning with an apology, fully expecting him to break up with her over it. She knew she was wrong when she did it, but she didn't back out because she was trying to hurt Tom - she backed out because she lost her nerve. Tom kept dating her because he knew that.

"and finally, the Grand Finale [Is It College Yet?], in which she projects her failure to get into her college of choice onto him,"

And this is where I again question if you watched the same show as I did. Daria's "choice" of college was not the elite school Tom was going to. She was interviewing them due to their reputation, but it wasn't her only option and she did get into her other choice. And I noticed you conveniently left this out in your edit, but the other reason she was angry with Tom was because he was extremely insensitive to the fact that Daria, coming from a different social class than him, had to work significantly harder to get into a good school. In contrast, Tom's college interview was merely a formality because he was the son of a rich family that had all attended the school. Where Daria had to legitimately work and prepare and deal with the chance of rejection, Tom already knew he was passing his interview and didn't have to experience that fear.

The whole point of the college interviews was to highlight that Tom and Daria were not going the same places in life and they were breaking up over it. How you got "Daria is an evil ungrateful bitch" from that is beyond me.

"blaming his legacy for his success while utterly ignoring the fact that she had a terrible interview. "

But his legacy was the cause for his success. Somebody who knows his interview is simply a formality doesn't have to prepare or worry about his appearance - he just has to show up.

"As for her parents? There was the time she was grounded for breaking the rules, then played the harmonica to annoy them into stopping the punishment [The Road Worrier],"

You mean she thought up a clever way to get out of a punishment by her parents? By your standard, Yogi Bear and Ferris Bueller are history's greatest monsters.

"or all the problems she caused as a child,"

Which you didn't list, thanks.

"not to mention running away from home [Boxing Daria]."

Oh wait, you mean the problems where Daria's parents put so much pressure on her to be more openly social like her sister that she was in therapy trying to cope with it? You mean the problems where her parents had openly fought so loudly about how to raise her that Daria crawled into a box in the rain to escape their fighting?

And her "running away from home" was caused by her parents revealing that her personality had caused them a fight, causing her to leave because she felt so guilty for hurting them with her own attitude that she wanted to leave and not hurt them again?

My god, Hitler himself could not top such cruelty!

"She also does this to Jodie Landon as well [Partner's Complaint]"

You mean calls Jodie out on her duplicity in being offended that she was treated poorly by a bank due to her race, then used her family connections to prevent it a second time?

Daria had to apologize, by the way. They learned that while they didn't see eye to eye on everything, they both had their own ways of navigating a world that didn't respect them.

"as well as attacking her sister at the end of [The New Kid] "

Because her sister stole something that was intended for her. Also, are you not aware the show is a comedy with dramatic elements? You are aware of "jokes" right?

"Her self-centered attitude is best described in the Jane and Tom examples,"

Where she acts mostly justified or has to come to terms with being the source of her problems. I see.

"but the Negative Continuity of the show's first two seasons didn't do her any favors. "

Oh good, you don't know what that trope means either.

"She may be called out for her behavior, but the multitude of examples shows she not only doesn't learn from it very well, but it's a consistent aspect of her character."

The whole point of the show is Daria both mocking the inanities of the world around her, and eventually coming to realize that while her attitude made her stronger, it probably hurt her as well. That was the entire point of Boxing Daria, the episode you used as an example of her being a cruel and evil person when it is the exact opposite.

"That's pretty much a textbook example of Designated Hero."

No, that's a three-dimensional character. Also, a snarky comedy protagonist. You are aware this is a comedy (with dramatic elements) right?

"Sure, there's other episodes when she calls out people like Val, but it's pretty much token goodness in comparison to the horrible things she does to others."

So far the worst you've come up with is a teenage girl having a fight over software with her sister. In which case, this page is going to include every single protagonist in children's television.

Edited by 209.234.187.242

I notice how you constantly try to play down her behavior as justified. That's your opinion. My opinion is that it's not. She's obnoxious and selfish, and the fact that she doesn't take rejection well does not equate to her bashing her best friend's new boyfriend. It doesn't equate to insulting her best friend at a pizza parlor in front of her teammates and other people. Personally, I think Daria's behavior in those two episodes are classic domestic abuse signs, utter possessiveness of another, belitting them and ignoring their feelings. Tom's legacy is also only relevant to Daria (Tom even claimed he wasn't a sure thing. Who is telling the truth?). Daria is actually shown not to have worked very hard to get into Bromwell: How else could she have bombed her interview? You're really forcing that interpretation. The simplest solution is that Daria failed simply because she was boring, the woman who did the interview probably forgot about her in the sea of millions of other applications because she didn't stand out. She wasn't special.

But the domestic abuse thing, that's just my opinion. I won't write a Designated Hero article saying that true because that's how I interpret it, it doesn't actually happen in the show. You, however, are just playing away her behavior, and blaming others for what she does, and coupling that with thinly veiled personal attacks.

Jane is responsible for Daria's behavior. Tom is responsible for it, her parents are responsible. Everyone but Daria herself, it seems. She acts like cad and you explain it away just because you like her. Her reasons do not justify her behavior. You may think they do, I think they don't. Designated Hero is a YMMV trope. All of the examples I provided are accurate, you just don't like it because you like the character. I'm not saying you have to dislike her, but you're removing valid examples because of your personal feelings. You're just Gushing About Shows You Like, if you'll pardon another trope.

A character being in a comedy does not excuse their behavior. The Order Of The Stick is a comedy, and Belkar Bitterleaf is funny. But he's still has evil measured in kilo-nazis (indeed, it's part of his humor). You can be in a funny story, designed to be funny, and still a horrible person.

"I notice how you constantly try to play down her behavior as justified. That's your opinion. My opinion is that it's not."

No, I'm portraying this show in the context of the events that actually happened. Not the bizarre alternate scenario of yours.

YMMV tropes are not for completely misrepresenting a series to jam a non-example into a trope for a character/show you don't like. You don't have to like this show, but you don't get to invent a completely alternate reality where Daria is an evil, abusive mastermind being constantly rewarded for her vile behavior.

Which is this trope. She does not fit.

Rather than dispute any of the facts I gave you, you just went back to ignoring anything that contradicts how you feel about the show.

"You're really forcing that interpretation."

That you write that with a straight face is kind of ballsy.

You obviously feel strongly about the show - write a review about it, where opinions free of trope definitions are welcome. You'll probably find some people who agree with you if some of the discussions I've seen on the site are any indication. But that doesn't make this character a Designated Hero.

"You're just Gushing About Shows You Like, if you'll pardon another trope. "

You mean another trope you don't understand that you're using to Square Peg Round Trope? I wasn't gushing about the show. I was pulling out the scenes you are using as "evidence" and providing the context you've either forgotten about or deliberately removed in order to prop up your argument. I'm not providing my own "interpretation" of the events, I'm literally giving you the scenes as they happen in the show to prove your trope example is contradictory to what took place in the story.

Again, YMMV tropes are not a dumping ground for bad trope examples. You may feel Daria is not a good protagonist or a good person, and that's your right. But while you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You did not back up any of the actual facts I gave you with counter-points.

Actually, I did refute your points: I did all of them in one sentence. You actually quoted it, friend. It was "I notice how you constantly try to play down her behavior as justified. That's your opinion. My opinion is that it's not." If you want another sentence, it's "You, however, are just playing away her behavior, and blaming others for what she does"

You are providing only Daria's characterization, and forcing your own interpretation of the events: Daria doesn't take loneliness well, so she's justified in being an utter prick to Jane, Tom, and later, Nathan. Daria is "pressured" into emotional intimacy, so it justifies her forcing the issue on Tom, and then, backing out and sending a letter. You pulled an absolutely insane theory about Bromwell that's twice as crazy as anything I've said, and provided zero evidence to support it: The writers simply gave Daria a pass for her bad interview. Bad interviews kill, and nowhere in the show did it say that Tom was guaranteed to get into Bromwell other than by Daria's assertions. That's not a fact. It is, however, a fact that she had a bad interview, but you ignore it completely in order to prop up your like of Daria.

Further, as much as you claim I don't know the trope, it seems you know even less. A Designated Hero is an Audience Reaction Trope. It's part of the reason why it's a YMMV. Designated Heroes are characters who are portrayed to be in the right, but, either due to bad writing, Values Dissonance, or other factors, end up being something far from heroic. Daria is a bitch, plain and simple. Janet Barch in the same show had a reason for being a bitch also. Having a reason does not mean either of their behavior is justified.

But again, it's an audience reaction. You reacted one way, I reacted another. That's what YMMV tropes do. Daria is the hero, but she's massively flawed and does horrible things to others, and is presented as the moral, root-for, character. That's a Designated Hero.

Perhaps we can compromise: I'll write the article, but provide her reasons. And, like all YMMV tropes, it can be decided by the readers.

"Actually, I did refute your points: I did all of them in one sentence."

No, no you did not. Refuting my points would be providing actual evidence that contradicted the factual information I gave you. Not going "That's just your OPINIONNNNN!"

"You reacted one way, I reacted another. That's what YMMV tropes do."

No, no they do not. You do not get to add an example that has nothing to do with the trope you've attempted to classify it as. Something you have not actually stood up for either. You constantly fall back on "But its YMMVVVVVV", but as I've said beofre, they're not so subjective that you get to toss up just anything regardless of whether they qualify.

"Daria is the hero, but she's massively flawed and does horrible things to others, and is presented as the moral, root-for, character. That's a Designated Hero. "

But she doesn't do "horrible things to others." I pointed that out already. With actual facts. You did not use any facts from the show to contradict me. I pointed out that you stripped out plot points to the point of taking situations where Daria was reacting something being done to her and in at least one case, vaguely saying she caused "problems as a child" when the show was clear that the "problem" was she was more comfortable reading books by herself and her school was upset over it. I also pointed out that in several of your examples, she did have to learn or grow as a character, she did have to apologize, and in the episode you quoted as proving Daria is truly evil to her parents, she actually openly had a break down knowing that her attitude was hurtful.

So still waiting on your facts.

Yes, Rebochan, I did. I have provided clear and concrete instances in which Daria behaved wrongly. She did not undergo appreciable Character Development (she reacts childishly when she is rejected, constantly: With Jane twice, with Tom a number of times, and finally, at Bromwell). You say she has to admit she's wrong, but she then promptly forgets about it the next time the circumstance happens (That's Aesop Amnesia, which a Designated Hero will usually undergo) The show ends much the way it began: Daria has a smug sense of superiority and no patience for the idiots around her. While the folk on the show are truly idiots, she is among them, not above them. She hasn't learned this lesson. At best, she has superficial virtues to Jane, and possibly her family, but everyone else can go to Hell. That's hardly character development.

I've provided several examples of how she reacts badly, and you just utterly ignored them to coddle the character you worship. Having a reason is not an excuse for your behavior. If Daria murdered Jane because she joined the track team, Daria would have a reason, but it is not justified. It's much the same for all her other reasons, her reasons just aren't good enough for her conscious bad behavior.

You have provided no facts: You stated your opinion Tom got into Bromwell because of his legacy, but the only place that's stated is by Daria, who is under no circumstances neutral in the matter. You have stated your opinion that Daria is justified in acting like a bitch to Jane just because Jane joined the track team to get her grades up. Regardless of Jane's behavior, Daria is consciously being mean to her, putting her down in front of others. You state that it's Kevin and Brittany's fault Daria's insecure about her relationship because there is no sex in it, and play off the fact that Daria stood Tom up, and tried to break up with him in a letter because of her cowardice. Your facts are less facts and more your favoritism in standing up for the character.

I have stated only what happens in the show: Jane finds a boyfriend and leaves Daria (which, yes, is not a good thing to do. Bad on Jane, but this is about Daria), and then Daria spends the whole episode trashing Tom, putting Jane out, only to "grudgingly" admit she was "slightly" being unfair. And in the next episode, Daria is still doing it, so Jane refuses to do an economics project with her. That is Daria acting badly. You try to play it off with "Daria's bad at rejection", but that's not an excuse. Daria behaved badly, and didn't learn from it, she still treats Tom like crap. We see this in their relationship. We can sum up all of the Season 5 relationship aesops in one sentence: "Daria and Tom's relationship is not like the ones of other teenagers, but that is not wrong. They still care and support each other (or, at least Tom does)". She can learn that easily by the end of "Sappy Anniversary" (I know I did). But, we then get "The Story of D", "Life in the Past Lane" (The Daria/Tom parts of it, and the sex episode. The same lesson with different details is taught: Daria is provoked because something skews with the traditional, and she throws a temper tantrum. Those are just facts, stripped down without any mindless favoritism to Daria's behavior. It's only she acts to others. You may claim that she is being reactive, and yes, she is. But what difference does that make? All it does is give Daria a reason that doesn't excuse her behavior.

As for "problems as a child", I already answered this, but as you recall, Helen (repeatedly) has told Daria that she and Jake have to constantly come out of work to deal with the counselors (In real life, a child not interacting with her peers is a sign of psychological problems, just FYI). Daria, in her blase manner, utterly ignores it and continues to act in such a manner, regardless of her parents spelling out the problem, for what appears to be ten years (However long it was between the flashback and the actual episode of Boxing Daria). We still see Daria causing problems that require calls to Helen and Jake at Lawndale. Admitting you're wrong ten years after the fact is not appreciable Character Development, particularly when, in the very next episode, that blase manner returns causes her to be rejected from a college, and then takes it out on Tom.

But I don't think I've treaded any new ground. You're blatantly favored towards Daria and will justify any of her behavior simply because you like her, and call your opinions facts. And I understand, all characters have fans, and provoking reactions, one way or another, is part of the point of making TV shows stand out. But you are denying valid tropes simply because of your bias towards the character. I can admit I don't like her, but I can strip it out and say how she fits a Designated Hero, that she has marginal virtues, that she's an utter Jerkass, she doesn't live up to her own standards (and only seems to care about it once in the whole show) and she causes problems for people constantly. If she learns, she then promptly forgets about it later and returns to her Jerkass-ness.

Right, Matt, it's obvious you hate the character and again, it's your right. Liking a fictional character is subjective. And again, you're hardly the only person on this site to feel that way (you did notice her Base Breaker entry, right?)

But once again, you're trying to create your own facts to jam this character into a trope she doesn't belong. When I've pointed out that your evidence is contradicting the actual events in the show, you accused me of favoritism and using my interpretations to gush over Daria.

So I took this over to Ask The Tropers for a neutral call and got the agreement that she does not fit this trope. Let this one go.

Edited by 68.106.220.231

The comic can be found here. http://comic.nodwick.com/

I've read it pretty thoroughly, and except for the last arc, Artex and Yeager are exactly as heroic as the gold and loot involved deems necessary.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

The only reason he wouldn't be a DH is the lack of plot. Basically telling a girl your alcohol is more special then she is is a terrible move.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

oops

Edited by 68.15.50.220

Depends on how he is portrayed. If he is portrayed as fully heroic, he still counts. If his morally questionable acts are shown as what they are, then no he's not.

I'm a Troper!!!

In a show as long-running as Doctor Who, there's bound to be the odd moral inconsistency here and there. On the whole, though, he doesn't count as a Designated Hero because the show readily acknowledges that he spends his life walking a fine line between 'saviour' and 'monster' and that it's often a matter of opinion which side he's on at any given time. There are just as many in-universe factions who think of his as a blood-soaked monstrosity than there are ones that laud him as a hero, and the Doctor himself is shown on several occasions to be unhappy with his own actions.

According to the edit history, you never made it.

I'm a Troper!!!

Huh. I thought I did.

One cleanup thread later...

I deleted it because it is a Justifying Edit, which is not allowed on pages.

Agreed. (I swear there's not a show on this site that gets Square Peg Round Trope and Entry Pimp as much as I Carly.) I'm taking it out.

I concurs. The same thing can be argued to Designated Villain

Edited by MagBas

It can be YMMV but, authors do it on purpose many times.

Thought about it for a minute more and cut the whole thing. The article hingd the villians trying to pull a Not So Different on Altair was invoking this trope, even though at no point would anyone reach that conclusion; Altair's flaws aren't presented as being heroic and he gets called out on them in the game.

The paragraph on antiheroes might be worded a mite confusingly in that aspect. I gather the idea is, "they could have passed for antiheroes if not for all of the praising they are given which indicates they are to be thought of as actual paragons", but it might be possible to mistake that for "they are antiheroes".

I did some work on the description. See if it does any good.

Edited by Tyoria

Looks good; I went through the examples and cleaned out the worst ones that didn't belong, and added a bit to the description to include other tropes that people seemed to frequently mistake Designated Hero for.

Okay, yanked the following:

• Dungeons And Dragons. Any group portrayed as good comes off as self righteous jerks after a while. If you look at why the bad group are evil, you'll find that: the gnomes collapsed their main source of income for fun, they've been forced into inhospitable lands where nothing can grow. There's even a little bit in Cityscape that says that none of these groups have permanent settlements because adventurers like yourselves keep breaking in and smashing everything.
  • In the new Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, there's a passage in the section on Turmish about how some Lizardfolk had to abandon their homes precisely because of asshole adventurers, with little to indicate they were doing anything to harass the locals. Now it's home to bandits. Nice Job Breaking It Heroes.
  • More generally many campaigns feature "heroes" who treat the lives of NP Cs as worthless, define Evil as "in my way", refuse to help anyone unless they're assured of payment and resolve all conflicts by massacring one side.

If anyone has a somewhat more precise method of describing the basic idea, I'm all for it.

On the subject of D&D, I cut this example:

* Dragonlance: In the first chapter of their first novel, Dragons of Autumn Twilight, the Heroes of the Lance return to their home town after a five year absence, and promptly slay local law enforcement officials for trying to enact a curfew passed in their absence, and for being the wrong race. They then joke over the bodies. You're supposed to sympathize with these characters, incredibly enough.

Because this is not only an inaccurate description of the events in question, but even if it were accurate, it would not qualify for this trope. The trope is not: the so-called heroes do anything morally questionable or wrong ever, the trope is that the heroes never do anything genuinely good or heroic, but we're expected to root for them anyway. The Heroes of the Lance save the world from tyranny and enslavement. They are flawed heroes, but they are heroes.