|
Main Xanatos Gambit Discussion
Change "Western Animation" to "Animation." Anime can be anime or japanese animation. ...I mean come on.
Discussion thread here
regarding replacing the current image.
regarding replacing the current image.
There should be a mention of Lord Foul in Donaldson's Covenant Chronicles.
It is unusual in that no deception whatsoever is involved. He flatly states the full truth as he knows it at that time: if they do not act, Drool Rockworm will win both against the Lords of the Land and against Foul, in 7 years. If they act and attack Rockworm now, they will win against Rockworm, but Foul will win against them in 49 years.
It wasn't any actual plan, sounded more like trying to save face or... something. I'm not even sure if it counts at all, but in Pokemon Soul Silver, when you get Koga down to his last pokemon he says "...I was counting on this all along!" Unsure if it should be mentioned.
Take out the Chief Justice John Marshall real life example — it's incorrectly applied. Marbury v. Madison was far from a power grab by Marshall, as the doctrine of judicial review had already been adopted by state courts before Marbury v. Madison went to court. More importantly, because Marshall ruled in Marbury v. Madison that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, the writ of mandamus Marbury asked the Court to issue was invalid, meaning that Marbury could not become a justice of the peace because of Marshall's decision. As such, it would be incorrect to say that Marshall was trying to force Jefferson's hand because he himself made it impossible for Marbury to become a justice of the peace.
This is really stupid. I just want to point out that one of the examples is The Departed, where Matt Damon survives and is then killed by Mark Wahlberg. Whoever wrote it censors out the fact that Damon is the rat, a fact which is revealed in the first minutes of the movie, but does not censor the fact that Wahlberg kills him, which is not revealed until the last scene and can't really be expected even if you've seen Infernal Affairs.
I could have just edited this, but I wanted to start a discussion of how big of an idiot whoever did that is.
Whacked a whole bunch of examples from the literature section that either didn't describe the Xanatos Gambit, or described something that was not in fact a Xanatos Gambit.
while the first page quote is a fine quote which sums up the essence of the trope quite nicely, I don't think that the second one describes it very well.
would it be ok if I were to change it to another one which was recently in the top spot (albeit shortly), "If I win, I get to be a king. If I lose, I get to be a legend."?
It seems this page, looking over it, could use a bit of a clean up to get rid of things which are just evil plans. I think what may help is requirement to explain HOW it's a Xanatos Gambit on both sides of things with outcomes and not just a plan.
Is it still a Xanatos Gambit if the villain loses at the end but had a good plan of succeeding "A" and "B" none the less?
Removed the Death Note example. It was extremely forced (the hypothetical 'either way' situation wasn't mentioned at all in Death Note itself that I recall), and had an obvious chance of failure (in the hypothetical situation where it shows that Kira can be mocked - that would require getting the word out that he had been mocked, which eventually could result in eg. the guy getting killed five days later after information about the broadcast had spread worldwide, providing no benefit to L and costing him the life of a prisoner.)
It feels like someone desperately combed Death Note for an example that would fit on this page because they mistakenly thought that this was Crowning Moment of Planning or whatever.
Could someone explain one of the Babylon 5 gambits? If it doesn't have at least one that can be put in detail then it needs to be removed.
Four words: Doc Scratch in Homestuck, at least at the time of this writing (Beginning of Disc 2).
No matter what, he is going to release his master, the indestructible Lord English. He manipulates the players of S Burb and S Grub to force a need to cause the Scratch. Being omniscient, he has the ability to see all possible outcomes and force the one he desires. In fact, Doc Scratch at the time of this writing has and will always succeed, because "He Is Already Here."
Cut this:
* The core plot of Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn is a massive gambit by the Big Bad Storm King involving the titular three swords. Embodying the most powerful magic in the land of Osten Ard, and in response to an ancient prophecy, the protagonists see the swords as the only things that can, if brought together, stop the Storm King from returning to the world. Of course, this is a trick to get them to deliver the swords to the villains, so their power can be used to summon him. Throughout the story, a major portion of the villains' effort is spent killing off anyone with enough knowledge to unravel the plan before it can be completed.
Because it's not a Xanatos Gambit: Ineluki only wins if he successfully tricks the heroes into bringing the three swords together. That's why he has to spend so much effort to kill anyone who might tumble to the scheme before it's too late. If the heroes had figured things out and kept the swords apart, Ineluki would have lost. For this to have been a Xanatos Gambit, it would have to have been the case that Ineluki wins regardless of whether the heroes gather the swords or keep them apart.
Regarding the trope picture. There is one other bubble that can be added for gambit: klingon promotion.
You challenge me to combat. > You defeat me, but my army and the Dragon makes you their new leader. Mad with power, you continue my work. > I Win.
Could someone update the trope picture with this?
Emperor Palpatine's plot to have Luke Skywalker and Darth Vador duel to the death is listed as a Xanatos Gambit, but it seems to me that this clearly does not qualify because the ultimate outcome did not benefit him.
Does it HAVE to be literally all outcomes benefit the planner? I mean, if the planner plans for every single itty bitty outcome doesn't that turn the Xanatos Gambit into a Xanatos Roulette?
I think we should rewrite it to say that it only counts as a Xanatos Gambit if all plausible outcomes benefit the mastermind.
At the very least, can it still count as a Xanatos Gambit if at least two of the most plausible outcomes benefit the mastermind (like Heads I Win Tales You Lose for example)?