This:
- Narrowly averted and in fact exploited by the hero of all people in Story Of The Century. L reasons that even if Light and Misa had discovered that Erin was listening in on them and that Misa had gotten the chance to catch her name with her Eyes they couldn't have killed her without irreversibly incriminating themselves and having to kill everyone else afterwards to cover this up. So this Sacrificial Lion meant not only that Anyone Can Die, but that everyone would die. But only after L is killed first. Erin is NOT happy when she figures this out, thinking that L essentially used the whole task force as bait. To his credit L does set things up so that no one has to actually die...well, except Light and Watari, and of course himself.
was changed to this:
- Narrowly averted and in fact exploited by the hero of all people in Story Of The Century.
Because it's a spoiler. Not only does this page says that spoilers can be unmarked, this one is entirely covered. And removing the spoilered bit turns it into a ZCE. If you want to rewrite it so it doesn't have unnecessary spoilers, that's one thing, but turning it into a ZCE is not acceptable.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them. Hide / Show Replies
Also, I have to wonder whether all that stuff is really a spoiler.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Would Mufasa from Lion King be considered a Sacrificial Lion, after all he is a character killed off that establishes the villain is playing for keeps. The only reason I ask is because I am tempted to use him as the page picture for the pun, but am unsure as to what exactly a Sacrificial Lion is.
Hide / Show Replies
Mufasa wouldn't be considered an example. His death is too early in the film (before Simba meats Timone and Pumba), he had too large of a role (mentor and father figure) and his dead had too large an affect on the plot (Simba going into exile while Scar becomes king)
If a character were to die of old age, would that make them qualify for this trope? The character(s) I am thinking of in particular are Otto and Hagop from the Black Company. Otto and Hagop manage to survive from the beginning of the first book till the opening of the Ninth, where it is mentioned in passing, that the two peacefully passed away.
While the two guys weren't that well developed, half their schtick was that at least one of them would be non-fatally wounded in battle at any given point. It their renown for their living in their undead state (and by undead, I mean by the traditional meaning of the word: perfectly healthy and not dead, whilst never being dead before, and still being alive as an irishman during the wake of his worst enemy's funeral, and never not being a member of the living; but I digress) that gives thier first, ultimate and last, and only deaths (I.E YOLO: You may only live once, but two people can die twice (once each)) the impact which they have.
Maybe I'm being overly critical, but it really feels like this is just a list of random characters who were killed.
The quote isn't very good. The definition states that it's supposed to be more than just a "spare". Is there a better quote, or can we just delete this one?
Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Sacrificial Lamb vs. Sacrificial Lion
, started by KJMackley on Dec 9th 2010 at 10:42:06 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman