I'm not sure it counts for this. For the mistreatment to count as Moral Dissonance, Dennis has to object to receiving the same treatment, while seeing nothing wrong with applying it to others. I've never read the strip, has this happened?

If Mr. Wilson (and others) refrain from returning the favor in kind to Dennis because of his own ethics, age difference, and Dennis not being mean spirited, then it's just a comedic set up like Comedic Sociopathy. It doesn't make Dennis any less wrong for doing what he does (or even malicious), just that those around him can't retaliate in kind. Why they put up with him is another question entirely.

On a side note, I remember in the movie that, after all the horrible things Dennis did to Mr. Wilson culminated in everybody missing the ten second(?) blooming flower, Wilson just said something stern. And somehow, we were expected to side with Dennis as the hurt party because "he didn't know better". Even as a kid, I felt more sympathy for Mr. Wilson than Dennis.

On another tangent, I think it was in a 90's issue of Mad Magazine that there was a parody of presently (for then) popular comic strips. One had "Mr. Wilson pushed too far", with Wilson dosing some milk and cookies with poison.

You're thinking of Designated Hero. Moral Dissonance is about heroes with a Double Standard that noone notices.

No Just No. It's a valid trope.

I'm in agreement with Some New Guy it is a valid and common trope, and also a sign of bad writing.

Is it really bad writing though if the dissonance is intentional? Like for instant if it's to show that even the heroes aren't above being dicks?

No, it has nothing to do with things you didn't like, it's about heroes with a Double Standard noone notices.

It's a valid trope but a lot of the examples are wrong.

I don't understand something. Why is Moral Dissonance considered bad writing? What if the protagonist is an Anti-Hero or a Villain Protagonist who is purposefully portrayed as being a hypocrite?

Moral Dissonance is when the story itself portrays the protagonists' questionable actions as heroic. Any intentional examples fall squarely into They Plotted A Perfectly Good Waste.

No, Moral Dissonance is when noone notices that the hero is a hypocrite.

You do realize you're responding to conversations that happened several months ago, right? You know, before the trope was redefined?

You were too nice. I nuked everything in here with a Justifying Edit.

Wow. You eviscerated a trope that is, by its very nature, subjective, and the only justification you give is that they had justifying edits? Real nice...

You know what, fuck it. I'm undoing the damage. Justifying Edit is NOT a valid excuse to eviscerate a page.

And i once again removed some entries that didn't fit the trope. The page description clearly states that this trope is about a hero commiting a double standard and no one noticing

I'm restoring my entry on Doctor Who and Harriet Jones. Because even by kSonik's strict, rigid, narrow, ultra-inflexible definition of this trope, my entry still managed to fit into it exactly. The Doctor deposes Harriet Jones because she committed mass murder against a hostile alien species, then the Doctor goes around committing mass murder against hostile alien species. The Doctor has stated time and again that we can't alter major historical events, and then here alters a major historical event, cutting short what was supposed to be a long successful priemership, and the Earth is much worse off because of it. That's 2 Double Standards and he's never been called out on it. I see no good reason why this was deleted in the first place.

Good Christ, what is happening to TV Tropes?

Okay, so basically, this trope covers the same base as Double Standard, only it's even more narrow? There's no sort of trope for "a protagonist doing something evil and is not called out for it"? Despite the fact that there are NUMEROUS examples of this in fiction? Oh, super. Super. Goodbye, TV Tropes.

keep in mind that jones wiped out aliens that were surrendered and were retreating which the doctor doesn't do. while she makes an extremely sensible augment for her actions she had there is a difference with her actions to those of the doctor.

"strict, narrow, rigid, ultra-inflexible definition"? It's the definition on the page.

Nolan J Burke, if you want there to be a trope we don't have, then take it to YKTTW, don't just complain about how we don't have it and how another trope should be that trope.

Moral Dissonance is about a character who is supposed to be perceived as being a good or at least relatively moral character doing something that you would think such a high minded character wouldn't do. A complete bastard is kind of exempt from this trope if only because his morality is so far off the deep end that it wouldn't be surprising that hypocrisy is one of his sins.

In other words, Moral Dissonance is about audience perceived hypocrisy, which does not apply because he already is a hypocrite.

Edit: damn, edit ninja'd

NO, Moral Dissonance is when the hero has a Double Standard which noone notices.

Edit: what does edit ninja'd mean?

Moral Myopia?

I think the dealio was that the villains were primarily characterised as doing deeply nasty things to noncombatants for very flimsy reasons, which is a good chunk of what makes them evil. That's where the Double Standard starts to kick in.

Example is valid, but probably needs rewording from someone with a greater knowledge of the series than I.

But it has to be an double standard on the hero's part. Sure if he condemns the kind of acts he would do it would be Moral Dissonance.

That was what I was attempting to convey. From his perspective, The Empire slaughtering civvies is evil. Him mowing down pacifist protesters isn't.

No no no.. the point of the trope isn't about the author being an hypocrite but it's about an hero commiting an double standard and no one is calling him out for it.

It is so the Author being a hypocrite. If the author wants us to admire the Hero's good acts and despise his evil acts, or even accept that his evil acts were necessary but regretable, then the author writes it that way.

This trope is when the Hero does evil and the writer wants the Audience to admire the Hero for doing evil because it is not evil when the hero does it.

You haven't read the trope description as it doesn't say anything about that. It specifically defines moral dissonance as when an Hero commits an Double Standard and nobody notices

Indeed. Moral Dissonance can be boiled down to three criteria.

1. A character holds a moral belief (for example, that slavery is wrong).

2. The character does something that goes against the moral belief (for example, uses slaves).

3. No one notices that the character has gone against the moral belief (No one says What The Hell Hero, there is no I Did What I Had To Do moment, it's simply not acknowledged).

The common mistake lots of people seem to make with the trope is that they ignore the first criteria. Instead, they'll think "If a character does anything that I think is wrong, that's Moral Dissonance." That is why the trope keeps gathering bad examples. The page isn't subjective, it's just a victim of Trope Decay.

The subjectivity, though, can turn up in differing interpretations of whether they crossed the line they set up for themselves, and how badly.

Jerrik's explanation makes a lot of sense. But noticing that kind of thing takes an alert and thoughtful reader/viewer. No wonder bad examples accumulate; subtlety tends to be in short supply among internet commenters.

^ Indeed. The page probably needs someone to look after it.

^^ I suppose there could be some subjectivity about whether or not a character's actions crossed the line. But my point was that we don't really need to try and guess what the author's intentions were, or try and evaluate how 'good' or 'evil' something is, because that isn't what the trope is about. All we need to do is see how well a character's actions line up with their beliefs, which is much easier to judge just by looking at evidence from the work in question.

I suppose they must have been removed due to them not fitting the definition.

So what you're saying is, Katara used Bloodbending, wasn't called on it, never acknowledged it in any way and the attempts to justify it just lead to Fridge Logic that enforces guilt thus making it a clear case of Moral Dissonance and you admit to being wrong in your attempts to prove otherwise.

You're trying to claim that the fact that Katara didn't kill the leader of the Southern Raiders, who I shall henceforth refer to as Bob, automatically absolves her of any guilt.

You think that acknowledging that she shouldn't take revenge(which she actually didn't, all she did was question whether she was weak or strong for not doing so) suddenly makes bloodbending totally okay to use. You think that because she didn't kill anyone, it's okay that she used bloodbending which was Ultimate Evil and anyone who uses it is a Complete Monster unless your name is Katara in which case, you're just a woobie and totally misunderstood and how dare anyone critisize you, who is the definition of perfection in the Avatar universe that the laws of morality magically cease to exist when you're angry.

When Katara used bloodbending on Hama she broke down in tears because of how horrible the experience was.

When Katara use bloodbending on Steve the Mook she was disappointed that he wasn't Bob.

But of course, Katara was angry. Not just angry, but REALLY angry, so that totally makes it okay. I'm angry that you're trying to defend Katara when she's plainly guilty (honestly, you're as bad as the Sasuke fans trying to argue that he isn't a Complete Monster). If I were to go outside and kill someone right now, would you speak up in my defense and claim it was okay for me to kill someone because I was angry? All right, the situation doesn't match, because Katara didn't kill anyone. So let's say I physically restrain that random person and torture him nearly to death(not completely to death, just nearly to death), that would be totally justified because hey, I'm angry. Right? Right? Of course not.

As you've so helpfully pointed out, we have seperate issues here. Katara being willing to kill someone. That's one. Katara using bloodbending. That's two. Katara wanting revenge. That's three.

Let's hypothesize on some fictional alternate universe where Katara did admit that she was wrong to seek revenge. That still leaves attempted murder and bloodbending. Let's say for shits and giggles that the attempted murder doesn't necessarily conflict with Katara's moral code, because she threatened to kill Zuko over a far more trivial offense and I'm sure she's contributed to the deaths of many a Fire Nation mook with nary a tear shed.

What do you know, that still leaves the matter of bloodbending. Imagine that.

So what do we have here. We have bloodbending set up as the worst evil imaginable circa 2007. Season 3, episode 8. That's 1.

We have Katara doing something explicitly against her moral code because she was REALLY angry at Bob a mere eight episodes later, my how time flies. That's 2.

We also have Katara not in any way, shape or form acknowledging that she did so. That's 3.

I've consulted a panel of peers who I know from experience aren't blithering idiots.

Survey says? DINGDINGDINGDINGDING. Moral Dissonance. My oh my, what an astounding coincidence. I'm positively shocked that this conclusion could possibly have been reached. Never in a million years could I EVER have imagined that this might be viewed as Moral Dissonance. Alas, our dreams of a Katara who is viewed as the perfect image of perfection that she so plainly is have been shattered like so much glass. (incidentally, I've gone on record as saying that sarcasm works best when it's less heavy handed, but some situations just beg for a bit of over-the-top-ness)

I don't know why you've got such a hardon for trying to prove Katara innocent, but your Chewbacca Defense holds no water.

P.S. I will concede that the bit about Hama and the Fire Nation soldier's lives, because that implies that death was involved. Hence, I have made the necessary adjustment to the enry.

You know, you don't have to be so rude about this. :/

As Some New Guy said, try not being a dick about how you're arguing. I brought it to the Discussion page so that we could have a discussion about it, not so you could be a condescending douchebag about it.

Now, that said, you're exaggerating the importance of Bloodbending in this issue, and trivializing Katara's feelings so you can imply she's using it for trivial reasons when that's clearly not what the episode is telling us.

I'm not saying Bloodbending was okay just because she didn't kill, nor am I saying that she's "absolved of any guilt" because she didn't kill the guy. What I'm saying is that Bloodbending is included as part of the revenge thing. "Katara being willing to kill," "Katara using Bloodbending" and "Katara going for revenge" are not three separate issues, they're all the same issue driven by her revenge, specifically they're the methods she employs in that revenge.

Calling it "the worst evil imaginable" is a gross exaggeration. Yes, it's a bad thing, but even within the context of the series, it's not the "worst evil imaginable." Nightmare Fuel definitely, but you're trying to stack the deck for your argument.

"REALLY angry" doesn't cover her feelings. Yon Rha (He has a name, even if you weren't paying enough attention to see it) didn't cut her off in traffic. He brutally murdered the girl's mother with fire. You're trying to make it sound like she decided to use Bloodbending for trivial reasons, when she's using it to confront the person she thinks murdered her mother in cold blood. I don't think you can downplay how enraged that can make a person. Katara was acting out of character: That was the point of the episode, that Revenge was turning her into something she wasn't.

It may not include someone saying, "You know, Katara, Bloodbending was wrong." "You're right, Sokka, I didn't realize it before!" because Avatar is, generally speaking, much more subtle about that sort of thing. It was covered in the theme of the episode, and the show respects its audience enough that it doesn't have to beat everything into its head. She spends the episode's denouement dealing with her revenge and how that made her feel; just because she doesn't specifically mention, "Oh, and I bloodbended, and I feel bad about that :(" doesn't mean it's not included.

Bloodbending is part of that, not a separate issue. She is called out for the revenge, by Aang and Sokka. The Revenge is the driving motivation, and the trying to kill and bloodbend is included in that.

And she didn't threaten to kill Zuko for "a far more trivial offense," unless you're trying to say that she considers killing the guy she loves who also happens to be the one hope to save the world a "trivial offense."

So, in conclusion, yes, Bloodbending bad. But, it's not ignored because it's part of the revenge plot of the episode.

Now, please, if you're going to reply, please don't do it as an arrogant dick.

Bloodbending isn't so much a part of the revenge thing as a result of it. She wanted revenge and because she was really angry that Bob kidnapped/murdered her mother, (I don't remember him killing her, but I can't find the episode online to check, so I assume you're right on this point) she used Bloodbending. You can admit fault for the cause while still being guilty of the effect. Katara didn't even do that, all she did was wonder whether she was weak or strong for not killing Bob. Also "brutally murdered" seems like an exaggeration to me. It brings to mind Ludicrous Gibs and such-like.

There's subtle and then there's not admitting fault. Avatar may not be South Park where at the end of every episode someone says "I've learned something today." but if that's the former and not the latter, I'm Mary Queen of Scots. Revenge and Bloodbending are tied together, but they're still two issues.

I'm not saying that Katara's feelings are trivial, but it was definitely no crime of passion. She had like ten years or whatever to think about it and plenty of time to plan what she was going to do and Katara is still guilty of using bloodbending which, while it may not be OMGZORZWTFEEEVIIIL!!!! is still a terrible crime and still went totally unaccounted for.

As for whether Zuko's attempts to kill Aang were minor or not, that doesn't really matter, because it's not a matter of scale, it's just an establishment of Katara being willing to kill when she feels it necessary(though I suspect that Katara's definition of "necessary" is fairly deviant).

So in conclusion, the lesson we can take away is, revenge is always bad, but Bloodbending is only bad when Katara, the series' center of morality, isn't the one using it.

But of course, in keeping with your remarkable similarity to Team Sasuke, you'll never admit that Katara is actually applicable to the given trope and I'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration, proving once again that the truth is meaningless when your opponent is more stubborn and/or more numerous than you.

P.S. This is totally unrelated, but I'm freezing my ass off. It shouldn't be so cold in the middle of Spring. I choose to blame Katara for this as well. Another count of Moral Dissonance on her part!!!

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this, I kinda sorta forgot about it.

Anyway...Part of the revenge, result of the revenge, either way, it's subordinate to the revenge. The revenge takes precedence over the tool used for the revenge, so the revenge itself is what she angsts over, and what the episode focuses on. The series has already dealt with how she feels about Bloodbending, and here it's used to illustrate just how much she's acting out of character.

Saying "it's only bad when Katara isn't the one using it" completely ignores the context. You're acting like she used it offhandedly for some trivial thing when the context of the episode makes it clear that this is something she's only doing because she's letting her drive for revenge, to kill in cold blood, get the better of her.

Consider this: When Appa's missing, and one of the vulture bees grabs Momo, Aang, a dedicated, professed pacifist, attacks it in anger (possibly killing it—it happens in the distance and it's not followed up on, so we can't tell one way or the other). This is after he's saved Momo, and while the vulturebee is running away—there's no motive aside from revenge and his own anger.

Does the episode stop and have Aang go over how it was wrong to strike a fleeing animal in anger? Do the rest of the Gaang chew him out over it? No, and no, because there, exactly as here, the totally out of character action is used to show, not tell the audience the extent of the character's anger.

That's what I mean by subtlety. The show presents the characters doing something out of character, against their expressed moral attitudes, to illustrate how far off the reservation they've gone. There's no need for the episode to halt itself to tell you that what she did is wrong because it's implicit and the show trusts its audience enough to get that. The characters know it's wrong, the audience knows it's wrong, so there's no need to stand around talking about it.

Lastly, I don't even know what Team Sasuke is, so please don't try to shoehorn me with some fanatical fan group just because I disagree with you on this trope. Let's stick to the discussion at hand and keep from name calling, because with the sarcasm and dislike I'm getting from your posts, I could easily just dismiss you as some rabid anti-Katara person.

I don't see why not.