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.

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.

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.

I put the Boast Busters example back up in My Little Pony. It is a prime example of this trope.

• “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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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: 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:

• 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.

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.

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.

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".