What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics ykttw archive back to Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality

Knight9910
topic
10:46:48 AM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Removed:
  • In Avatar The Last Airbender, Katara attacking Waterbending master Pakku when he refuses to duel her was portrayed as a You Go Girl moment. While Pakku's reason for refusing to fight is a silly one (she's a girl, and the Northern Watertribe is quite sexist) Katara had no real call to assault him.

In an earlier episode the Gaang visits an air temple which has been taken over by mechanists, Aang at first gets very annoyed about these people daring to live in his peoples' sacred temple.

But eventually Aang decided that he was wrong. The temple was the mechanists' home now and they had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.

But even in that episode, it was never argued by anyone that the mechanists were wrong simply because "the rules say so." Aang was angry because the temple was sacred and the mechanists were tearing it apart without any respect for what any of it meant. In the end, he accepted that it was okay to let his peoples' traditions get stretched a little, as long as the mechanists agreed to be more respectful of his culture instead of just busting things down left and right.

In the Northern Water Tribe episodes, Pakku's only argument was "this is the law and therefore it's right, period." Even though he was completely in the wrong, even though his decision not to teach Aang could potentially lead to the murder of billions of people and the destruction of every culture besides the Fire Nation, and he absolutely knew this, he still stood by his decision, with his only argument being "the law says I'm right, therefore I am." And when Katara attempted to be the bigger person and apologize, even though she was actually in the right, he proceeded to mock and humiliate her for it. Katara was absolutely justified in refusing to accept that.

No, it's not okay to ignore any law just because you don't like it, but it IS absolutely right to defy a law which is completely and dangerously unethical. To say otherwise is to call Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Ghandi all heinous monsters.
Larkmarn
11:00:44 AM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
This one, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Pakku's argument was that Aang disrespected their culture and teachings by teaching Katara waterbending. However, the chief of the tribe said that Pakku would probably accept Aang again if Aang and Katara apologized. She didn't apologize, and instead decided to start a fight instead. She outright refused to apologize.

Nevermind the fact that, in sneaking away to give Katara lessons, Aang was knowingly jeopardizing his training by annoying his best teacher.

Now, it definitely all worked out for the best but Aang did take unnecessary risks, Katara did fail to apologize, and Pakku, dogmatic as he was, was perfectly in the right from his own point of view, just not from ours. And as soon as he agreed with Katara's POV? Suddenly he's all cuddles and sunshine. Which is exactly what this trope is about.
Knight9910
02:02:34 PM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
See, here's the thing. Yes, Aang disrespected Pakku's cultural beliefs by teaching a girl how to fight when girl waterbenders in his tribe are only supposed to be healers. But by that logic you could also say Moses insulted the Egyptians' cultural beliefs by telling them they couldn't keep Hebrews as slaves anymore.

Why does the episode dare to insist that Pakku is wrong? Because he freaking IS wrong. Objectively, and in every way. He's sexist, and uncompromising, and a total jerk about it. He IS the bad guy here, even if he doesn't agree with that.

To put it another way... Fred Phelps also believes that he is a good guy, also has the law on his side, and also embodies many of the same negative traits as Pakku (except with homophobia replacing misogyny). Yet you'll never see anyone claiming that we should "think of things from his point of view" or "respect his opinions."

EDIT: Just so we're absolutely clear, I'm not trying to sound insulting. I do totally understand why someone might consider this moment a case of protagonist-centered morality, I just very strongly disagree with that opinion, for the reasons I've mentioned. I think that at the very most this one is only arguably a case of PCM, and even then only in terms of Katara assaulting Pakku (which, really, is a crime and she probably should have been held accountable for it), not in terms of Pakku being considered wrong.
Larkmarn
05:02:26 PM May 13th 2013
That's exactly what the trope is, though. The character is presented as being completely in the wrong until they agree with the protagonists. See this: the very fabric of the fictional universe seems to be seeing things from the protagonist's point of view. Every single sympathetic character, the symbolism, the narration, judge characters as worthy of praise, condemnation or indifference depending on how much favor they carry with the "good guys". The protagonist themself can seemingly do no wrong, and even if there's anyone at all who would beg to differ, they're obviously a bad guy.

Katara's assault, Aang's breaking of the rules, never get treated as anything bad. It's a case of Values Dissonance, but the fact that Aang and company are shown as being completely in the right makes it PCM. Remember, Tropes Are Not Bad. Just because you agree with the Protagonist doesn't make it not this trope.
Eagal
05:35:35 PM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
Firstly, all of my LOLs at comparing Katara to Rosa Parks, Martin Luthor King Jr and Ghandi.

Pakku was well within his rights to refuse to teach Katara and Aang if they are unwilling to accept his decisions. Decisions they agreed to honor when Aang became his student. Honor they then violated when they went behind his back. Not only that but they are outsiders, who arrived in the North Pole more or less uninvited, and therefore have no right to dictate to Pakku what he can and can't do.

More importantly, PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, regardless of whether or not their position is wrong, is objectively bad.

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create."

Katara crossed the line when she attacked Pakku (and to my mind should have been executed for it, but that's neither here nor there) when he refused to duel her. Not even mentioning the fact that, immediately beforehand, she directly admitted that what she was doing had nothing to do with Aang. She did it because he hurt her feelings.

We can argue all day long about whether Pakku's decision not to teach Aang was justified or not. It won't matter one single bit because the problem isn't Pakku not teaching Aang. It's Katara attacking Pakku and being portrayed as being totally in the right for it.

In summary: Katara did something bad and the show said it was good. It had nothing to do with Aang, or the Fire Nation's future genocide attempt. It was 100% all about Katara getting her feelings hurt.
Knight9910
04:39:02 PM May 14th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
It seems that there are two major arguments being made here, so I'll give a separate response to each:

  • Katara's use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we're expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn't because "yay, a main character is kicking butt!" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it's because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully
    • Incidentally, I think it's also worth noting that Katara lost that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn't even violence that let her have her way, and she didn't get away scot free. Pakku completely owned Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
    • Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is not defined as "a main character did something I disagree with and wasn't punished." At most this is an example of Values Dissonance, and not an example of PCM.

  • The audience's intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it's PCM. Pakku isn't really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He's still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he's simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he's made this one exception we're supposed to think he's a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it's the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn't see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.

But as for the argument of "OMG Katara used violence now she's evul!"... no. Just, no.

Also, I'll have you know I am not arguing this solely because I don't want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn't care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.

Truth be told, while Avatar is generally pretty good about avoiding this trope, there are times when it falls into it. For example: after Master Yu and Xin Fu trapped Toph inside a metal cage, she used metalbending to escape, then trapped them back in the same cage, and left them there, in the middle of nowhere, where they could potentially die long before they're finally found, even though they're both people who have lives and (presumably) families, and we're supposed to agree with Toph's decision just because they were jerks.
Eagal
05:26:53 PM May 14th 2013
Katara isn't (necessarily) evil for using violence, she's just wrong.

Belittled minority or bullied child, this isn't just "Katara did something I disagree with and wasn't punished" this is "Katara did something that is objectively wrong and was portrayed as being right about it".

By her own admission, she instigated a fight against someone, by assaulting them, because they were mean to her and at no point did the show treat this position as wrong in any way.

The fact that she lost doesn't mean she wasn't still shown to be right. Pakku was stronger and more skilled than her in every way, it's only natural that he would win in a universe that doesn't rely on Right Makes Might.

But despite losing, Katara still got what she wanted and she wasn't portrayed as wrong for attacking him, despite plainly being so.

The Morality, in this case, was Centered on the intended Protagonist in this encounter.
Knight9910
06:23:59 PM May 14th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
That's the thing, though. I don't say that she was wrong. As someone who was bullied as a child, and who was only able to finally put a stop to it by kicking a few butts, I don't see anything wrong with standing up for yourself against a bully, or with using violence as long as you don't take it too far. (For example, I would agree that school shootings are absolutely wrong. Giving a bully a bloody nose, however, is something I would agree with.) Violence is not automatically bad. Violence is a tool, it's all in how you use it, and it's not like Katara was trying to actually kill or even seriously injure Pakku.

That's the big issue. I don't believe Katara was portrayed as right because she's a main character. I believe she was portrayed as right because a lot of people, including myself and apparently including the writers for the show as well, believe that bullies need to be stopped, even if that means punching them a few times. In other words, the "objective" morals that you claim the show violated for the benefit of a main character are not quite so objective or widely held as you think.

Because of that, I think the example works much better as Values Dissonance, rather than as Protagonist Centered Morality.
Knight9910
06:39:57 PM May 14th 2013
To put it simply:

Was Katara portrayed as right, solely because she's a main character and the main character has to be right?

Or was Katara portrayed as right because the writers believed that she was right, with her main character status being a mere coincidence?

In other words, would a secondary character in the same situation, who made the same choice as Katara have also been shown to be right? I believe that the answer to that question is yes.
MrDeath
07:05:56 AM May 15th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
Consider the morality of the show. Duels are commonplace, and accepted forms of resolving disputes. Martial arts are ingrained into every culture. It's a world where, if you have a problem with someone, challenging them to a fight is the acceptable and common way to work things out with people. It's also a world where, if you're challenged to a duel, the typical response is to either accept, or decline the challenge with some kind of grace and concession.

Pakku doesn't just decline the duel. He declines the duel and insults Katara's ability and character. He tries to decline the duel without any grace or concession—in effect, declaring he's right in the matter and Katara has no right whatsoever to question him, because she "doesn't count."

That, according to the culture of the world the show takes place in, is wrong. So Katara has been wronged repeatedly by Pakku, who is refusing to even acknowledge her as a person. Remember this is the same culture where Katara saying that Yon Rha isn't worth killing is an insult toward him, crueler than if she'd just killed him. By saying that he doesn't have to even acknowledge Katara's challenge, Pakku's delivering the same insult.

I think that gives Katara plenty of right to whack him upside the head.
Knight9910
09:30:49 AM May 15th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
Exactly, yes. Couldn't have said it better myself. The Water Tribe may not be quite as into dueling as the Fire Nation with their agni ki duels, but they still do have them. At the very least you notice that no one in the room batted an eye when Katara challenged Pakku. The only nation in the world that seems to actually be against dueling is the Earth Kingdom, and even then only in Ba-Sing-Se.

Point is, in their world using violence to solve problems IS acceptable. Therefore letting Katara assault Pakku isn't a case of PCM, because it's not violating the show's own morals. So, again, that's Values Dissonance, because the show holds a moral stance that a large segment of our own society does not.

As I said, though, I will concede that Pakku himself may be a case of PCM. So how about something more like this for the example:

  • Pakku from Avatar The Last Airbender. In his first appearance he's antagonistic, misogynist, and condescending, culminating in him insulting Katara and then refusing to duel her, a serious insult in the Avatar world, where dueling is still considered the most appropriate way to settle disputes. After Pakku changes his mind and chooses to teach Katara waterbending, however, our view of the character completely changes. All of a sudden he's a nice, heroic figure who acts lovingly and respectfully, and all of his failings are completely swept under the rug.
Knight9910
12:01:03 PM May 18th 2013
Well, it's been 72 hours and there's no further discussion here, so I'm going to go ahead and put up the new example.
Knight9910
topic
10:12:41 AM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
Removed Example from Avatar The Last Airbender:
  • A better example would be in the episode when Katara offered to heal Zuko. Zuko showed human emotions, but did not side with her. But the moment he joined with Azula, his family he became extra evil, denounced as a liar and a traitor, despite never being on their side in the first place.

It doesn't count as protagonist-centered morality for two reasons.

1. Zuko knew 100% that Azula was in the wrong and only sided with her for selfish reasons (he would get to return home with his honor intact) and he himself admitted this. That is why siding with her was wrong, not simply because she was an antagonist. Also, if you're going to make the "blood is thicker than water" argument, then it should be noted that he also betrayed his uncle Iroh, who was more of a familial figure to him than Azula had ever been.

2. At no point did the show ever try to claim that Zuko was a complete monster for this choice. Katara believed that, but she's always been a very vindictive person. (See also: her treatment of Jet after his Heel Face Turn.) We are expected to believe that Zuko made the wrong decision (because he did, objectively, and even he admitted that) but at no point are we told that he's pure evil now.

To put it simply, he led Katara to believe that he had changed, that he didn't want to hurt her or her friends anymore, but then the first chance he got he changed his mind and helped Azula murder Aang. I'd say that Katara and the audience are both well within their rights to think Zuko is a dick for that.
Larkmarn
10:31:49 AM May 13th 2013
This was a good cut.
Eagal
topic
11:39:53 AM May 11th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Removed this:

  • To be fair to Katara, Pakku was being completely unreasonable in refusing to teach Aang until Katara apologized. Yes, she offended his culture and openly defied their traditions but refusing to teach the world's only savior and hope because he went behind your back is a very bad move. Not only that, but Pakku needlessly mocking Katara is what spoiled her initial attempt to apologize in the first place.

'Twas a Justifying Edit, but I imagine it'll still be a matter for discussion so I've made this post.

The challenge wasn't about Aang, it was about Katara getting her feelings hurt. She was going to apologize to get him to teach Aang, but when Pakku called her a little girl she went off the deep end and challenged him to a fight. It stopped being about Aang and became all about Katara. She directly admitted as much.

While Pakku was a jerk, Katara was in no way justified in her decision to challenge Pakku to a fight and so far from justified in assaulting him that one could see the curvature of the Earth.
RK_Striker_JK_5
topic
07:34:02 PM May 4th 2013
I put the Boast Busters example back up in My Little Pony. It is a prime example of this trope.
MsCC93
08:17:07 AM May 5th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Thanks..I was just about to do that...I wish people would stop deleting valid examples because they disagree.
RK_Striker_JK_5
08:20:11 AM May 5th 2013
You're welcome.
MagicallyMe
05:30:04 AM May 11th 2013
There is valid example and there is up for debate. Put the Boast Busters example back down.
DracMonster
11:45:14 AM May 11th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
Um.. can you provide reasons why? The example contains some logic for why it belongs but you're not really providing a reasoned argument against it. (I've never seen this, so I have no actual stake either way.)
RK_Striker_JK_5
04:16:27 PM May 11th 2013
This example really isn't up for debate, Magically Me. It is protagonist-centered morality. There was no reason for Applejack, Rarity or Rainbow Dash to interrupt Trixie's show, and all three are massive hypocrites about it. And in the end, they mock the destruction of her cart and her honest efforts against it despite not even trying against the Ursa Minor.
MagicallyMe
01:43:46 AM May 12th 2013
Thanks for the correction. Maybe you can put it back up if you want to. I don't truly disagree i do think it's pretty rude to interrupt a show cause you don't like it. sorry didn't meant to begin an argument. You can put it back up. Bye:)
DracMonster
08:51:25 AM May 12th 2013
For future reference, when you delete something, it's a good idea to include an edit reason. Deletions are more heavily scrutinized for potential vandalism.
RK_Striker_JK_5
11:23:41 AM May 12th 2013
It's all right, Magically Me. I'm just a little... testy about this particular entry, and this episode. ;)
reillymouse
topic
01:10:44 PM Apr 11th 2013
  • “The treatment of Canterlot upper crust ponies is pretty bad. While they are snobby jerks, that doesn't really justify the Mane Cast causing property damage, assaulting the attendees who didn't do anything to them, causing massive disruptions, and in the case of the Canterlot Garden Party, in addition to the above, they invade the party uninvited, eat the food, forcibly redecorate, and try to play over the music, even though the snobs hadn't done anything to them personally.”

Is this really a fair assessment? In neither case did the mane six set out to intentionally ruin the party, or take any pleasure in doing so. The Grand Galloping Gala was mostly trashed by accident, and the audience are supposed to find their behaviour at the Canterlot Garden Party obnoxious and embarrassing, just like Rarity.
Peteman
01:27:39 PM Apr 11th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.45
The problem is that the behavior is treated more as wacky hijinks instead of supremely, call-the-police-levels of obnoxious. There's only so much one can claim they weren't trying to ruin everything, before one has to point out that with the way they were acting, what the hell were they expecting?

Their actions are treated as bad in the "I stole a cookie from the cookie jar" level of badness, instead of "I could have accidentally crushed someone's skull in with a croquet mallet" level of badness.
MsCC93
08:44:48 AM May 5th 2013
I agree with that entry. It's a valid example of the trope. I do believe that the cast was wrong to invade a party that they were not invited to and not get called out on it. Sure the Upper Crust ponies were assholes, but there is no excuse for the mane cast's actions. Examples shouldn't be deleted just because you disagree.
Peteman
08:52:41 AM May 5th 2013
No, no, I put the entry in, and am willing to entertain the argument. He's right in that what they did wasn't depicted as intentional in the former, and it was depicted as bad in the latter. Besides, the OP didn't remove it, merely asked about it.

But I argue you can only claim "it was unintentional" only so much, after which the argument sounds more like they are dodging responsibility. As for the second one, it's not that it wasn't treated as bad, it's that it wasn't treated as bad as it should have been. There's a difference between Wacky Hijinks and Making A Complete Ass Of Oneself. The show treats the Mane Cast's actions like the former, when it was solidly in the latter.
MagBas
topic
03:57:55 PM Oct 2nd 2012
  • Avatar The Last Airbender: Katara and to a lesser extent Aang break the laws of the Northern Water Tribe in teaching Katara combat waterbending and are portrayed as largely, if not entirely right to do so, with the objectors (mainly Pakku) being portrayed as backwards assholes who needed to be taught a lesson. While it is true that the laws in question were unreasonable, that really shouldn't give them carte blanche to ignore them. Laws aren't something you can cherrypick to suit your needs (I'll have the waterbending with a side order of magic fish god. Hold the Straw Misogyny.) Similarly, Katara attacking Pakku when he refused to duel her was portrayed as a You Go Girl moment. Again, while Pakku was being a huge jerk about it, Katara had no real call to assault him.

...in an earlier episode, Aang was portrayed as wrong when he tried be ultra-conservative about the rules of his civilization- and when the show portrayed break a specific rule as wrong, all the times it used the moral that caused the creation of the rule as argument, not their status as rule.
Eagal
05:00:02 PM Oct 21st 2012
edited by Eagal
...Say what now?

What you've written is very hard to understand. Something about Aang being ultra-conservative about Airbender society, which I don't remember... Something about morals behind the rules being broken...

At a guess, you're saying that the rule was wrong so it's okay for them to have broken it.

Bologna. Not liking a law doesn't give you the authority to ignore it. Aang and Katara are visitors. Regardless of whether the laws not to teach advanced waterbending to women were in some way wrong, they're still laws and they still need to be followed, especially by outsiders who have no say in the matter whatsoever.

What further enforces it is that they broke these laws and the most they suffered for it was a stern talking-to, and they were portrayed as totally in the right, even after Katara assaulted Pakku.

There's nothing to discuss here.
lu127
moderator
topic
06:36:26 AM Aug 20th 2012
Pulled this:

  • This site has a total deconstruction in a short story called "The Sword of Good".
    • Summary: Hero is sucked into a fantasy world, where he's given the Sword of Good, which will smite the unworthy. On the way to defeat evil forever, he sees some minor injustice and Moral Dissonance, but ignores them because they further the cause of Good. We then reach the climax, the last battle between Good and Evil, and the protagonist stops long enough to think about it. He notices that the wizard with the group refuses to help the people he doesn't know, and refuses to take any risk despite having the best chance of surviving them; he's a cold bastard and no hero. The pirate queen who's been setup as his love interest is a pirate queen, who's probably killed lotsa people and done lotsa bad things, which are forgiven because she's a Karma Houdini. The villain, meanwhile, has been trying to uplift his people from slavery, oppression, and hatred, simply because they're different. The protagonist then decides to help the "villain" on his campaign to freedom and equality for all.
    • Hilariously, this becomes a meta example when the very first step the hero must take towards "true" Good is... murdering one of his allies in cold blood. Sure, the wizard was arrogant and didn't take personal risks, but he was still at the hero's side, giving him the best help and advice he could. He never did anything actively wrong, and was really just the victim of his culture's questionable morality (indeed, the hero even mentions how amazing it is for anyone at all raised in this world to realize that everyone deserves rights). Yet the Sword of Good is totally fine with cutting this man down for no reason other than needing his soul as fuel for the ritual to bring fairness to everyone.
      • Not quite. The "villain" calls him out on several sins, including causing and necessitating many pointless and avoidable deaths. He lists five people by name to have been killed due to the wizard's actions, the same five mook baddies the protagonists kill at the start of the story, and whom they could just as easily have avoided.
      • Right. Because he thought the orcs were just animals, since he was raised in a society which taught that. But he gets no explanation and no chance for redemption, he's just brutally killed by someone he swore to protect. Whee.
      • The way it's put makes it fairly clear that the wizard who gets killed WAS evil, as in evil intentioned. The sword can kill anyone, but it instantly kills the evil intentioned - compare the writing. When the first mage to be killed by the sword (the "dark" adept) dies, the sword first scores a line on his cheek which hurts before the fatal blow. By comparison, when Dolf is killed, it explicitly states that the instant the sword touched him he stops completely (i.e. dies) and the physical decapitation doesn't do anything because he's already dead.

This one doesn't know where it's going, what with the back-and-forth natter. Needs rewriting.
swallowfeather
topic
11:55:32 AM Jul 1st 2012
Is there a reason there's a "comics" section *and* a "visual novel" section on this page? Is that an important enough distinction? Other pages don't seem to include it.

I'm not an old hand and wouldn't presume to make a decision but wanted to raise the question.
QueenofSwords
11:00:51 AM Jul 3rd 2012
Visual novels and comics are two entirely different things. And I have seen other VN sections on the site, just none that I can remember off the top of my head. Sorry!
EMY3K
topic
07:01:55 PM Jun 4th 2012
I'm a little confused about the River Song example. I agree that she's an example; I just want clarification on the part where she knowlingly causes deaths. Everything reverts back to normal in the end. The only people who remember are River, The Doctor, Amy and possibly Rory. All those deaths she caused technically never happened. River went to prison because it was assumed she killed the Doctor. The rest is accurate, but not the part about the deaths.
QueenofSwords
07:11:21 AM Jun 10th 2012
edited by QueenofSwords
The Doctor points out "People are dying for me. I won't thank you for that." Despite this, she continues what she's doing. Furthermore, Amy points out later that despite Madame Kovarian's death being retconned, she still did it - so yes, despite the universal retcon, it still counts according to the narrative.
punksweets
topic
10:18:25 PM Feb 6th 2012
I Think River Song from Doctor Who should be added for the events of The Wedding of River Song compare to the events of The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood. In The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood two parter a terrified wife and mother accidentally kills Silurian when trying to find out where her loved ones are after the Doctor find out he spend the rest of the episode telling her what a terrible human being she is for doing so. In The Wedding of River Song River threatens to destroy all of existence to save the Doctor and even knowingly causing deaths she straight out says she doesn't care about any else's life and never once gets call as much as selfish, said wife and mother did show regret for her action but is still said not to be the best of humanity River shows none and Amy even calls her a good girl.
EMY3K
07:37:38 AM May 2nd 2012
edited by EMY3K
They're both separate examples, though. There's more to contrast than to compare. The River Song example was a fixed point in time, while the Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was a malleable point. However well intentioned, the mother doomed the peace talks when she killed the prisoner. River's story is going backwards. We're seeing her character development devolve. River's in a Stable Time Loop with The Doctor. When Amy met her in the Angel two-parter, she was working for a pardon. We didn't know why. She had to be sent to prison to complete her part of the time loop and warn the Doctor about the Pandorica Box and make sure the Doctor learns what he's supposed to do.
QueenofSwords
09:05:50 PM May 3rd 2012
edited by QueenofSwords
I agree that River should be up there, definitely. Regardless of character development/devolvement (which count as justifying edits, by the way), she still committed horrific actions in-story that were barely even glanced at overall. Even in River's personal future, only her actions of "killing a good man" are looked at askance. However, it shouldn't be used in comparison or in contrast to Ambrose's actions in "The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood", as they're entirely different instances, and they're not compared in-story.

ETA: I went ahead and cleaned up the example, deleting questionable edits ("devolving" or not, she's still yet to be called out on it in-story) and getting rid of the comparison. If the Hungry Earth is still counted as an example, it can be added back.
EMY3K
08:18:52 AM May 5th 2012
The comments about devolving are not a justifying edits. It's not about calling her out. River isn't as clear since her timeline is going backwards from the Doctor's . It doesn't make her any more right about nearly destroying time. However, the comments fit with the trope since her morality is a little different than everyone else's. And she does still qualify as a protagonist. This isn't Karma Houdini.
QueenofSwords
01:09:08 PM May 5th 2012
edited by QueenofSwords
I'm sorry, but for some reason, what you're saying isn't quite clicking with me (lack of sleep, I'm sure). People are aware that we ran into River backwards for most, if not all, of her appearances, so difficulties in following aren't an issue. Furthermore, regardless of her "devolution", her actions still fit with the trope. Morality being different belongs in either Values Dissonance or Moral Dissonance, however; it's better taken over there. This trope is about a character's actions being treated as fine in-story when they're not. It's not about bashing characters you don't like, it's not about defending characters you do like. It's about pointing out examples in-story. Furthermore, her actions in the library aren't, as yet, treated as a punishment/reward for her actions; it's better taken to either Driven To Suicide, Redemption Equals Death, or Stable Time Loop.
EMY3K
04:35:31 PM May 5th 2012
Exactly. Her actions till fit. According to the tropes, characters who fall under this trope do qualify for Redemption Equals Death. I'm not trying to be defensive ans I apologize if I am. However, pointing out that what happens in the library still fits in the trope. She either is an example or she isn't.
QueenofSwords
08:36:51 PM May 5th 2012
edited by QueenofSwords
I'm sorry, but each time I've spoken to you about your habit of defending characters you like on this wiki (we've done so a few times), yes, you have gotten defensive. Anyway, as it's not made clear what, exactly, her actions in the library are, actually troping them might be better left to YMMV/WMG/Discussion pages of the respective tropes. Furthermore, as her actions weren't treated as anywhere near crossing the Moral Event Horizon in-universe (for all that out of universe, it's often viewed as such) and her actions were all but forgotten (going by Amy's description of her as a "good girl" in the most recent Christmas special), it's uncertain where it goes, or whether it qualifies for Heroic Sacrifice, Driven To Suicide, or Redemption Equals Death. As such, it's probably best to just leave that sort of thing out for now until we see how her actions are treated later on in the show.
EMY3K
12:51:36 PM May 6th 2012
edited by EMY3K
Most times, it's been in defense in a character you don't like and you never seem to listen to my point of view. I feel like you always seem adamant that my opinion is wrong. It's hard for me to think logically when I feel like rebuked when I give an opinion someone doesn't like. It is a big flaw of mine and I'm sorry that I'm not always successful for reigning it in. I'll try harder, but I would appreciate it if you weren't so quick to declare me at fault.

Agreed about leaving the library out of the the trope. At this rate, who the hell knows where Moffat is going?
QueenofSwords
12:58:39 PM May 6th 2012
edited by QueenofSwords
I don't dislike River. I'm merely adding tropes that fit. I'd rather not shove my own opinions all over a wiki when they're supposed to be neutral, and I dislike other people doing it, as well; I just prefer to stick tropes, "good" and "bad", where they belong. And you're hardly being rebuked for having an opinion, just the fact that you tend to shoehorn in Justifying Edits and delete things you don't like. Furthermore, your constant edit warring has been brought to the attention to the mods in the past (by someone else, no less).

If you have a problem with me, please feel free to PM me.
Allan53
topic
07:06:24 AM Dec 27th 2011
"Another Buffy example in "Gone", where a social worker sent to look after Dawn sees legitimately suspicious activity. Buffy, who has turned invisible, sets things up to make it look like the social worker is insane in a way which could easily get her fired or sent to a mental institution. This is portrayed as a comedy routine and we are apparently supposed to feel sympathy with Buffy harassing an innocent person merely because she's frustrating a main character."

I'm not sure this is an example of Protagonist Centered Morality. I think this was more to show her rapid unwinding and the effects of her suddenly being relieved of the duties that were causing her all that stress after being resurrected. Not good, of course, but not something that's really meant to be perceived as good.
JosephLeito
topic
09:41:46 PM May 7th 2011
The Oot S quote isn't this trope at all. It's Nominal Importance maybe, but there's nothing that could be considered this trope in it. So if someone finds a better quote soon...
Zeke
topic
09:20:38 PM Jul 14th 2010
edited by Zeke
Zeke: Cut this too...
  • There's a popular meme in American thought; historians call it American exceptionalism. For instance, during the Cold War, vicious gangs of bandits that the Soviets supported were "terrorists", while vicious gangs of bandits that the Americans supported were "freedom fighters". When Pakistan creates a parallel system of secret military courts for terrorism suspects, it's an affront to freedom and democracy. When the United States does it, it's just being pragmatic.

First, RL sections on negative tropes are, as always, a real bad idea. Second and more important, that's not what American exceptionalism is. American exceptionalism is the belief that America is unique in history — not perfect, just unique. Yes, there are some American exceptionalists who stop just short of saying everything the US does is okay, but the one doesn't imply the other.
Zeke
topic
07:55:33 PM Jul 14th 2010
edited by Zeke
Zeke:
  • Twilight: You're a vampire who eats defenseless humans? Yeah, that's cool. You're a vampire who dares to threaten the wonderful Bella Swan? Prepare to die messily.
    • The Cullens lend their cars to the vampires who come to aid them when Nessie's life is on the line. These vampires are still eating humans left and right, but because they're there to help the Cullens, they're A-OK.
    • Midnight Sun tells that the Cullens have no problem having people-eating vampires as guests. Edward even uses their presence as an excuse to follow Bella around in secret to make sure she isn't eaten, yet doesn't care at all about anyone else they might go after.

This strikes me more as in-story Values Dissonance. The Cullens, except for Carlisle, really don't see humans as their moral equals. They're pretty contemptuous of us; eating humans is a bad thing, to be avoided, but it's not unthinkable. If Jasper went on a bender and ate somebody, do you think the others would kill him or even kick him out? They'd cover it up and help him get back on the wagon.

The Cullens are like vegetarians: they object to meat-eating and would end it if they could, but they don't go around killing carnivores. And really, they don't have much choice. If they considered human life sacred enough to trump all else, it would be their moral duty to kill or convert every vampire in the world. Net effect: they die, leaving a world still full of vampires, but with no benevolent ones instead of a handful. No, they'll take the occasional human under their protection, but they're not about to side with us over their own race in general. They can't afford to, and most of them wouldn't want to.

In a way, this is more disturbing than mere protagonist-centred morality. After all, where does the vegetarian metaphor leave Bella? She's a specific animal that a vegetarian would stop a carnivore from eating. Killing other members of the species isn't worth a fight, but this one has emotional value, so they'll protect it. That's right — Bella is the Cullens' pet.
Jordan
08:01:00 PM Jul 14th 2010
I haven't read Twilight (and don't plan to), but this really reminds me of how a Friendly Neighborhood Vampire, Kostya, acts in the Night Watch. He tries to be a Vegetarian Vampire, as do his parents, but he's furious when the human protagonist kills a vampire, who was one of his friends, even though that vampire was going to eat a human.

This might fall under the Sliding Scale Of Vampire Morality- even vampires who have all the perks and few of the disadvantages just aren't going to be that concerned with human life.
Earnest
08:26:04 PM Jul 14th 2010
swallowfeather
11:57:52 AM Jul 1st 2012
edited by swallowfeather
"That's right—Bella is the Cullens' pet."

That is made of awesome.
118.208.229.31
topic
06:27:58 AM Jun 20th 2010
edited by 118.208.223.67
Cut this Justifying Edit from the comic book section:

  • But also because Maxwell was pretty much helpless an at her mercy. It wasn't an impulsive decision or necessary for her immediate survivial, it was calculated murder. She could have knocked him unconscious and kept him drugged while they at least tried to find better solution. They've imprisoned any number of "unstoppable" villains in the past and they stand ready to fight if these villains get free.

Due to inaccuracy - in the comic, there wasn't any other viable solution. She had mystical confirmation that the only way to break Lord's brainwashing of Superman (who was about to murder batman) was to kill Lord. She could let batman die, or she could kill Lord. If it's "calculated murder", then so is shooting someone who's about to shoot someone else.
gibberingtroper
07:37:29 PM Jun 20th 2010
edited by gibberingtroper
She had mystical confirmation that Lord BELIEVED the only way to break his brainwashing of Superman was to kill him. And she'd just cut Superman's neck with her tiara. She had the situation under control for the moment. She could have cold cocked Maxwell to stop him from taking control.

And while normal people may be justified in shooting someone to stop them from shooting someone else, these three have always held themselves to a higher standard (in the then current continuity. Golden Age does not count for this discussion.)
gibberingtroper
07:41:05 PM Jun 20th 2010
edited by gibberingtroper
ttp://www.comictreadmill.com/images/2005twelvedays/maxlord-thumb.jpg

I refer you to here. In the background, as Wonder Woman is asking the question, Superman is standing clutching his bleeding neck, not strangling Batman. She already had this under control.
gibberingtroper
topic
12:39:05 AM Jun 13th 2010
Okay. I know there's some contention about my post on Back to the Future. The point I'm trying to make is that 1985 is supposed to be okay when Marty gets back because all the changes worked out in his favor. The only person we're shown getting the raw end of the deal is Biff but surely others would be worse off to (like Biff's kids and grandkids just for example). Maybe he deserved it for being a jerk but the point is, Marty tampered with things to get what he wanted. It was mostly good stuff but its what he wanted. It completely undermine's Doc's philosophy about not mucking with time. Of course he undermines it himself in the third movie when he saves Clara's life but at least he takes her away from 1885 which would minimize the impact of her living.
99.21.80.215
12:32:57 PM Nov 7th 2010
Marty wasn't trying to change anything in the first movie, though. He also didn't turn his hometown into a shithole.
magic9mushroom
topic
06:59:08 AM Jun 6th 2010
edited by magic9mushroom
I'm really not seeing Eddings' works being stuffed full of this, if only because the bad guys are usually so incredibly bad that any perspective would put them in the evil camp. There are a couple of examples (Zedar on the "villains'" side being the most obvious), but not "chock-full".
118.208.223.67
06:39:42 AM Jun 20th 2010
The good guys do occasionally murder (possibly innocent) people who get in their way, particularly in the Tamuli. Considering what they're fighting, they're still the good guys though.
swallowfeather
11:56:02 AM Jul 1st 2012
Seems like that would make it Black and Grey Morality.
Knight9910
10:46:26 AM May 13th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Oops, wrong spot.
ykttw archive back to Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy