Follow TV Tropes

Archived Discussion Main / DracoInLeatherPants

Go To

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.


Robajob: Not convinced adding Dr Frankenfurter and Riff Raff (or Rocky Horror in general) as examples of Draco in Leather Pants is valid. A major aspect of the show/film was to challenge audience perceptions of what was sexy/acceptable; therefore the author (Richard O'Brian) was not only expecting the audience to feel sympathy/arousal by these characters, he was actively encouraging it. I'm not going to edit this myself as I am a first timer here - any more experienced editors agree?

Magick Wizzard: There was this wolf-related guy in Inuyasha, who was leader of a pack of wolves and wolf people. I remember that when they introduced him he was killing and eating a bunch of villagers, but then later on he becomes a protagonist and one of the main characters. Does that qualify for addition to the examples? or am I way off base?


Black King:I was wondering, does thing a villain is attractive automatically Draco in leather pants.

Taelor: No, but excusing a villain's behavior solely because they are attractive does.


Think we could find an actual picture of Draco Malfoy for this page, instead of... whoever those two girls are supposed to be? I dunno who they are, but the picture just doesn't say "Draco Malfoy" to me, sorry.
Black King:Did a lot of editing, people don't seem to get what Draco In Leather Pants actally is. They seem to think if a villain has fans, its instantly Draco In Leather Pants. They included a few protaganists.

Freezair For A Limited Time: This article was having some quote cruft issues, so I trimmed it down to the one that I think best personifies this trope.


Henry Hankovich: Azula (from Avatar) seems like a misapplication of the trope. Zuko qualifies because he starts out (and in many ways remains) a rather whiny, usually ineffectual, shallow and just plain stupid character...who of course is beloved for being grimdark and wangsty. Which means he's deep, natch. Now, maybe it's because I'm not reading fanfic, but Azula seems popular because she is evil, competent, brutally effective, and intelligent/insightful. And of course that Vamping voice... Basically, I think Azula's not a Draco In Leather Pants because she's loved for being what she is, not (generally) for being imagined as something she isn't.


Idle Dandy: Is this related to the disease among soap opera fandoms of "redeeming" characters who are rapists just because the fans think they're good-looking?

osh: That is an extreme yet sadly very good example.

Kilyle: Hope it's okay to split this conversation here—looks like separate discussions enough. I don't know much about soap opera fans, or about "redeeming" rapists who are good looking, but after having read a few resources on romance tropes, I know that, well, rape may not be love, but it certainly isn't the end, not if the guy changes. And while in real life it's dangerous to believe a guy has changed after a short period of time, fiction is condensed by nature, so the characters aren't going to wait around for a decade or two to see if the change is real.

From what I understand, rape is the most extreme example of the hero proving that he is dangerous and that he needs to be "broken" the way a wild horse might be. It's a standard romance idea that is heavily invested in the symbolism of the whole man-woman-joining bit that forms the backbone of any good romance. The "She got back together with a rapist??!!" outrage is in some ways related to the "They're still making books about Alpha males and Distressed Damsels??!!" outrage. The whole point of a romance is to bring the strong, wild, dangerous man into a relationship with the woman who doesn't seem to have the skills to deal with him, and by the end of the story prove that she is his equal and that he (a) can't live without her and/or (b) is willing to acknowledge her strength and even kneel before her. Or so I understand from what I've been reading.

So I guess what I want to know is... is this Draco in Leather Pants, as far as Soap Opera rapists go, distinct from the traditional romance-genre rape? 'Cuz this trope has been around a long time and, as I said, has a lot of symbolism behind it that makes it more than any real-life rape could ever be.

Lale: Rape is, to put in very mildly, a "glaring and obvious flaw," all right, so any fanbase that embraces a rapist sounds like Misaimed Fandom, and any rapist who gets a fanbase sounds like Draco in Leather Pants... unless you're talking about How I Learned To Drive, when the author was sympathetic to the rapist.

Kilyle: Not familiar with that piece, but if I understand the romance staple (bear in mind that I've only read about it, not read books that use it), the author is indeed being sympathetic to the rapist... as a complete character, that is, one who moves past that point, grows. So now that I think of it, I can point out that it's distinct from Draco Wearing Leather Pants: The hero is supposed to change, and the appeal is in his transformation and final form, not any Misaimed Fandom. The rape is there to make the contrast between lowest act and highest act all the more extreme — more cathartic, if I'm recalling my terminology right.

Although a rather flawed example, the only one I'm familiar with is Spike, who was so horrified at his attempted rape that he ran off to get a soul to make sure he wouldn't do it again. And then Whedon, who didn't understand the trope, thought it would be a bad message to have them get back together, so he left the resolution up in the air.


Janitor: When I take off my Troper hat, this entry does not read very well. The troper-jargon is pretty thick. I will expand a few references, if it will not give offense.

Ununnilium: "Contrary fan adoption"? `.`

Janitor: Yeah, that was lame. I think in Korean. Anybody got a better fix?

Ununnilium: I tried, but one problem is I'm not sure of the original meaning of the sentence. Is the Executive Meddling making them eviler, or less evil, or what?

Seth: The meddling usually turns them into good guys or removes them from direct competition from the main party. Allowing you to keep or give more plots to the character people like and getting around that thing where you actually have to defeat the bad guys.


Seth: Removed the "(But not outright evil)" bit because after the last book, yup he pretty much is - i mean there is leeway and he could still do a Heel–Face Turn in the last book but for now he has done some truly irredeemable things - if he does turn to good in the last book expect Redemption Equals Death.

Ununnilium: I dunno. I mean, he wasn't willing to kill Dumbledore. (Not sure if I need to spoil book six, but better safe than sorry.)

Seth: But he did mean to Mind control those girls to bring the cursed object in, assemble the cabinet that allowed the death eaters to invade and kick harrys face in at the start. It might not seem like much but that was quite an evil act and it had a malice to it that i was taken back by. Nothing in the earlier books was quite that strong. How much does he need to do in service to the Big bad before you accept beloved Draco is evil?And thats just half of it, he also tried to use the torture curse on harry, as well as a series of other acts. If you ask me that is a long series of lines crossed, he might have been doing it for his father or scared of Voldemort or whatever reason but he did do a lot. In the end one moment of weakness doesn't erase the rest of it

Ununnilium: Hey, he's not my beloved. I'm just giving my interpretation. >> And IMHO, he's a complex enough character that you can't just say he's evil and be done with it.

Seth: I get that, but you can't say he isn't either. Which is why i removed the bracket.

Ununnilium: Good point; okay, it works for me.


Tanto: Deleted the reference to "Spikifying", since it means something entirely different here.

AdamCuerden I've hinted at the Cassandra Claire controversy - let's just say it's a sordid tale of plagarism - more here if ye want it - but not directly relevant here.


Cosmetor: I removed both variations on "only because they look good" because it's an overly insulting misportrayal of the fans who like said characters.

Charred Knight: and sometimes its right on. Yes, a lot of fangirls are intelligent, and some of them are to put it bluntly reading a manga for the sole purpose of looking at hot guys. I will also say that a lot of guys are not exempt, just look at the entire Natsuki and Shizuru romance angle from Mai-Hime, in which the pairing is popular for the sole fact that Shizuru is a lesbian.

Etrangere: You can be intelligent and like looking at hot guys :p

Harpie Siren: And you can also find a villain attractive without ignoring canon and the fact that he's evil. But there are people out there who's thought prosses is "He's so cute, so he can't be evil"

Gemmifer: And you can like a villain who is not good looking or even young and you can like a villain because he is evil.

Rampulus: Shizuru is an interesting case in that there is some evidence that suggests that she was not herself when she went on her rampage (like breaking down in tears and apologizing to Natsuki immediately after their resurrection, and looking somewhat ashamed when seeing Haruka and Ykino again, which could indicate she only just realized what she had done), especially since it was not previously hinted at in her earlier behavior (Killing herself over Natsuki choosing the main character over her in the visual novel may indicate the depths of her feelings, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that she's willing to kill other people for Natsuki). Suggesting that Haruka and Nao's mother deserved what happened to them because of liking Shizuru and/or pairing her with Natsuki is another story, though.


Meems: I don't see why the Phantom of the Opera needs to be listed twice in the examples. Katsuhagi: Could we decide whether or not to keep the image here rather than have a battle of deleting/restoring it? Looks like it's gone back and forth a few times already.
Ruthie A: In defense of Snape, he is (particularly in the last book) a somewhat sympathetic character. I mean he's definitely morally ambiguous (and a bit of a jerk) and more than likely not the character fandom makes him out to be, but I don't think he's as bad as certain other examples here. (Definitely not a Snape Fangirl by the way, I just kind of feel sorry for him a bit).
Thatother1dude: Where did Kishimoto say Sasuke was his favorite character? After looking around, I've found very conflicting statements, and that he just might have been the author's favorite character to draw because his model was reallly complicated.
Fast Eddie: pulled HUGE hotlinked image at h**p://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/F Logic-small.jpg

TClaymore: Yeah, sorry 'bout that. Did not find instructions on importing images to the local site in the help/tips section. Probably just missed it.

  • Update! I finally uploaded the picture, but I kinda trampled the rather-more-topical picture of Draco actually in leather pants. Still, considering that the actor portraying Draco was part of the reason people started considering him attractive in the first place, I'm not sure how fitting it is.

Malicious Illusion: Can we remove the "Fans like them BECAUSE they're evil" entries? I thought the point of this trope wasn't simply being a popular villain, but being a popular villain that people tried to pretend wasn't villainous. Like the Kefka example versus the Sephiroth example: Kefka is mentioned because he was damn good at killing things and people respect it (Bad trope example), Sephy is mentioned because those fans that excuse/ignore his attempted vivicide and would prefer to cuddle him (Good trope example).

Kizor: Yes.


Charred Knight: I just saw some videos from Crisis Core, and be prepared for people to completely misunderstand Sephiroth's character. His presented as a relativly upstanding hero, who goes insane, and tries to take over the world. They will ignore everything after he leaves for Nibelheim.


Charred Knight: Saved because Ninjacat doesn't want anyone to have any fun, I hope you're happy you ruined Draco in Leather Pants

  • Much more so with Itachi, who is loved by many a fangirl despite having slaughtered most of his clan and psychologically tortured Sasuke for years afterward. The Fangirls defend this through Epileptic Trees about how someone else did it. At no point in time is he ever treated sympathetically, when he finally does reveal his plans, its shown that he is a psychotic, power hungry bastard.
    • Actually, much of his fandom acknowledges that Itachi is a psychopathic mass murderer responsible for years of tormenting Sasuke. They do not love him as a character in spite of this, but rather because of it, as they hate Sasuke.
    • Which is kinda funny, as Itachi is the reason Sasuke's like that.
    • I feel a little like vomiting by typing this but it looks like Itachi just got retconed into having the Higher Purpose all his fan girls were gushing about. See "You need to know about him... This man who risked everything to protect the shinobi world... The Leaf Village... And most of all, his little brother..." Well I'm off to the vomitorium, anyone with me?
    • Hopefully, Madara is lying. Kishimoto has been dicking around with us a lot lately (like how Orochimaru died four times. Insert retching noises here.
    • Having read the chapters in question, I don't see it redeeming Itachi very much. Just that his victims weren't as innocent as people have assumed. I still don't trust Madara's side all the way, though.
  • Let's not forget Itachi's other Akatsuki buddies, who have a truly astounding number of fangirls. Sheesh, pick a villain. Any Naruto villain. Someone, somewhere, is in love with that villain.
    • Even Zetsu?
    • ESPECIALLY Zetsu, even though he's a monochromatic venus flytrap man with a split personality and a cannibal.
    • What about that shark guy with the pinecone sword? Surely no one could love such an ugly bastard.
    • This editor knows you're referring to Kisame. Well, guess what? The fangirls are crazy about him too. Damn the fangirls. Damn them to Hell. Well, you know what this editor thinks? This editor thinks that Naruto Uzumaki, ironically a Bratty Half-Pint early on, could run circles around all of them put together in terms of being awesome.
    • Friend!
    • This editor is weirded out by Kisame's supposed popularity, having seen him bashed for being ugly and not worthy of being Itachi's Akatsuki partner.
    • Not worthy? What do they think being his partner entails? Wait, no, don't tell me...

The Nifty: Anyone mind if I cut the friggin' page-long entry for Phantom of the Opera under theatre? it's already delt with under the literature entry, and it's "a freaking page long entry" for godssake.


Charred Knight: Deleted Kefka, and Lucca because both are popular because their evil which is not this trope. This trope is for people making excuses for evil characters about how their not really evil.
Still Waters: Deleted the following for being a largely irrelevant rant (Rukia is a protagonist without any major flaws, for a start).
  • This other troper is very upset at the group of supposed "fandom feminists" who twist Rukia Kuchiki into a "perfect, strong, gorgeous, excellent match for Ichigo", aka a Mary Sue-fied version of her canon self. For worse:
    • It usually comes with Orihime bashing of the "she's everything our Kuchiki Goddess is NOT and she wants to steal Ichigo from her, so KILL THE WHORE!" type.
    • It makes Rukia the "embodiment" of some fangirls's revenge-against-men-and-non-feministic-women fantasies, yet at the same time demotes her to Ichigo's pasted on Yay Designated Soulmate And True Love, as if she had no right to decide who to end up with.
    • This is especially ironic as Rukia's own ideal, by her own admission, is the gentle, aristocratic and very feminine Miyako. Sure, she was 3rd officer so she could probably kick some ass, but otherwise she was a perfect Yamato Nadeshiko who used very polite language with everyone, even her husband Kaien.

Barano: It doesn't seem like an irrelevant rant to me. Some of her fans are like what the entry describes, I've met quite a few of them. Rewrite the entry if you don't like the tone (although I don't know what's wrong about it, after all it doesn't bash neither Rukia nor her non-rabid fans), but I don't think it need sto be deleted.

Still Waters: Oh, I don't doubt there's crazy shippers of that type. My problem is that I fail to see Rukia "glaring and obvious flaws" that is downplayed by ficcers. Plus, all of the other example I recognise are about Villains, Anti Villains and Anti Heroes (L is borderline). Reducing a protagonist to a sappy stereotype for the sake of a romance is certainly a trope, but not this one. But I'm not interested in an edit war, and your rewrite stops the example from sounding like an attack on a rival shipping faction (and their horrid, horrid issue with men), which is a welcome improvement already.

Storms-eye: Really it seems like them turning her into a Mary-Sue, not this trope. I think it should be moved there and it really does not compare with the surrounding examples. Comparing her fans to those who fawn over Szayel-Apollo Granz? They have genuine reason to love her, maybe not to the degree that they do, but she is not someone who is meant to be disliked or controversal, which is what I thought this trope was about.

Willy Four Eyes: I agree with Storms-eye, so I've gotta yank the Rukia thing again, as it doesn't really match the other examples on the page.

Orihime: It has been re-posted... at its rightful place, the Possession Sue entry. Sorry for all the trouble. :P


Andrew: Deleted the Brokeback Mountain example because the editor was complaining that the writer and director treated characters with too much kindness. That's a trope, but it's not this trope.
Puck: I cut the following since, as the natter points out, Jayne Cobb is supposed to be likable. Not noble or heroic or even polite, but likable nonetheless.
  • Jayne Cobb from Firefly is a prime example of a Draco in Leather Pants. In the episode "Ariel," he turns Simon and River, his two least favorite members of Serenity's crew, in to the Alliance for the reward money, but gets arrested right along with them and has to bust them right back out (and almost gets Thrown Out the Airlock by Mal for betraying the two in the first place, since as he so pointedly explains, "You turn on ANY of my crew, you turn on ME!"). In a Flashback Episode, he betrays the crew of his previous ship to get a better paying job on Serenity. When he refuses to betray Mal in the pilot, his simple explanation? "Not enough money."
    • Actually, I think Jayne was written to be pretty likeable despite his flaws. He undergoes Character Development as the series goes on, turning him from a blatant mercenary to someone who starts to think about maybe someday considering becoming halfway honorable. Remember his final words to Mal in "Ariel": "Make something up...don't tell 'em what I did..."
    • Not to mention that his Even Bad Men Love Their Mamas moment is utterly canon.
    • It's also worth mentioning that he does act playfully and outright friendly with most of the cast, including Simon and River, but especially Shepherd Book.
    • At the very least, by the time they reach the Big Damn Movie, Jayne has started to soften up a lot. He actually chooses to go along with Mal's near-suicidal plan because its the right thing to do, even if it isn't the smart thing to do.


T Matt: Pulled Arguably the Gundam Pilots from Gundam Wing. Throughout the series, the five are rather unsympathetic, as well as sociopathic. To name a couple, Heero has a hobby of making death threats that would one would expect would be worth a trip to the psychologist; also, Duo repeatably gets a kick out of killing Mecha Mooks. However, this doesn't stop the fanbase from producing countless yaoi fanfics among other things. It probably doesn't help that everyone in the series idolizes them to unbelievable levels.

The pilots are the protagonists, not Ensemble Darkhorses or the subjects of Misaimed Fandom. If you really hate their behavior try to put them in Villain Protagonist.

Rann: Hm. The example was added back in, and this time it's even rantier. It seems like the troper insisting the Wing pilots go here has more of an axe to grind with yaoi fanfic than the series itself.

Charred Knight: Draco in Leather Pants simply means that a character's negative flaws are ignored either because Evil Is Cool, or the character is sexy. An example of a protaganist being a Draco in Leather Pants is Lelouch whose fans generally ignore his hypocritical behavior, his constant need for revenge, and the fact that he feels no guilt about offing people his never met. Are Gundam Wing's pilots Draco in Leather Pants Wufei is a mysogonist, who joins an army literally because his bored, and his only existence is to fight. Herro is largely mentally unstable, and threatens to kill people at the drop of the hat. Duo, seems to enjoy fighting, and well Trowe wants to fuck his own sister.

  • T Matt: The trope says "An Ensemble Darkhorse out of Misaimed Fandom."
These people are the protagonists and are suposed to be liked.

"This is a subtrope of Alternate Character Interpretation. " Considering the pilots heroes is the canon interpretation, not the alternate.

"For other cases where the audience embraces a villain, see Unintentionally Sympathetic." Note the use of "Other" meaning that this is also a trope related to villains.

This is about cases where the audience interprets a character who was supposed to be bad as good. The pilots are supposed to be good. Whatever flaws they have are not intended to make them unsympathetic. You may not like them, but most people don't view them as bad.

Charred Knight: To put it simply Draco in Leather Pants is when fans start to either excuse the bad side of the character, or outright ignore it. This sometimes includes the character commiting atrocities, and the fans will still make excuses. Also you are confusing Protaganist with hero, you are simplyfying the concept of hero, and you also need to read between the lines, we have accepted heroes since while rare this does occur, and we don't need a second page just to mention them. An example is Light Yagami from "Death Note", over the course of the series he kills numerous innocent people in the course of his Knight Templar dream of a new world where he is worshipped as a god. That doesn't stop people from thinkiong his Knight Templar godhood plan isn't a bad idea, and start rooting for him. Just to make sure that we know to stop liking him, his death is him begging to be saved, as he crawls around revealed to be the whiny loser he is.

An american example is the character of Rorschach, who is an Obnjectivist nut case, who kills murderers, and rapists in the most inhumane way possible. He sees the world in black and white, and believes that all liberals are scumbags, is racist, and is an overall unpleasent human being. Alan Moore created him to show the logical extension of Objectivism which he found to be a white supremacist dream world where the believer thinks of himself as the dominant minority, and not the opressed majority.

  • T Matt: Before I respond further I'm going to need some clarification to prevent misunderstandings. When you say "we have accepted heroes since while rare this does occur, and we don't need a second page just to mention them." are you protesting the existence of Villain Protagonist or Heroic Sociopath? Furthermore, what "reading between the lines" am I supposed to do. There are about a million possibilities and I don't want to go off on a useless tangent.

Charred Knight: Villain Protagonist is simply a character who is both the villan and the main character, for example White Fang, and Oz are the main villains of the Gundam Wing TV series, and the Barton foundation are the main villans of the OVA, so the Wing Boys are not Villain Protagonist. Draco in Leather Pants is when you start making irrational excuses for the Heroic Sociopath, and Villain Protaganist.

  • T Matt: That doesn't answer my question: What does "we have accepted heroes since while rare this does occur, and we don't need a second page just to mention them." mean?

Charred Knight: Instead of creating a second page about Heroic Sociopath, or seedy heroes whose flaws are ignored, or excused we just lump them with the villains.

T Matt: No, we don't lump them with villains. That is why Heroic Sociopath and other such tropes exist. I'm sorry if you don't like that but the majority of Tropers clearly do so that is the way things will remain.

Di LP requires re-writing the character to eliminate flaws, not simply not caring about flaws. If a fic-writer views Heero's emotionlessness as interesting or Wufei's misogyny as a justification for slash that isn't this trope. It would only be this trope if all of those characteristics that were supposed to make the character "bad" (which the pilots were not supposed to be anyway) were removed.


Meg: Any commentary regarding fantagonism (to be a fan on an antagonistic character) as a phenomenon of sympathy, rather than an apparently inappropriate incarnation of fandom? —Sympathy is here used as either/both: ~recognising one's own flaws in a character and responding in empathy, and/or ~commiserating based on the comparative depth of an antagonist, versus the hero; certain villains have such extensive back stories or other explorations of motive/character (canonically—or otherwise, certainly, but the focus here is canonical foundations for fantagonism) that they can be much more developed than the hero, and thus more human, more real, and possibly (probably) more interesting. ((I was dismayed to find a certain level of fan-snobbery in the article; fantagonism is easy to bash—any possibly-vulnerable expression of non-snark/un-cynicism is.))
Caswin: Death Note. Um. I won't challenge the entry on Light Yagami, but L? The first half of the paragraph effectively outlines qualities that set him apart from the Draco in Leather Pants archetype, and the second... alright, Misa was tortured under his orders (disregarding, for now, that she happened to be one of the most dangerous serial killers in the world), but where do the murder-and-kidnapping labels come from? As I recall, Misa was arrested, not captured, and... murder? It's not talking about Lind L. Tailor, is it?

Caswin: Taking it out. Half of it describes how he's not a standard Leather-Pants case, what with being "The Anti-Bishonen", and unless I'm missing something big, the "Draco" half of the equation doesn't hold up.

  • Let's not forgot Light's rival, L. This guy is basically The Anti-Bishōnen. He dresses like a bum (he doesn't even wear shoes!), his black hair is shaggy and unkempt, he looks permanently hungover, he strongly detests physical contact with anyone, he's close to emotionally dead, and (in the ultimate insult to any female) he gorges himself on nothing but sugary snacks but retains his thin figure for the entirety of the series. As far as his morality is concerned, he's a Knight Templar whose crimes in the pursuit of "justice" include kidnapping, murder and torture. Yet despite all this there is a sizable fangirl following of a character systematically designed to be the antithesis of everything remotely attractive in modern society.
    • Wrong. Modern society downright fetishizes defying everything modern society considers remotely attractive. Violate half of what people consider attractive (for example, by being a homeless bum), and people hate you. Violate all of it (by looking like a homeless bum, being emotionally dead, and committing kidnapping; murder; and torture) and someone somewhere will find a way to rationalize your faults into absolute greatness because you're a rebel.

Charred Knight: Deleted, from what I have seen most of the blame has been to Nina, then Lelouch and Suzaku are being blamed equally. Hell one of Lelouch's most staunchest defender has seen that Lelouch is partially at fault. Rann, I have never seen the episode, have only seen pictures, and a description, and I HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCENE! Lelouch commanded Suzaku to stay alive, when Kallen was about to kill Suzaku this caused the Geass to activate forcing Suzaku to use the bomb. By giving him such a undefined order, Lelouch helped cause Suzaku to use the bomb. He should have stated to stop trying to kill yourself.

  • Egregiously defined in Episode 18 of R2 where Suzaku fired a nuclear bomb that killed Sayoko, Guilford and Nunnally, but what was the main cause? Because of Lelouch's "Live!" Geass. Of course, Lelouch gets away scots free of that, and fans put up more Scrappy points to poor Suzaku. True enough, he's also at fault, but it's not like Lelouch should just get away without blames in this. Yet he did.
    • Might have something to do with the fact that it's a frikkin' ONE WORD GEASS. "Live" kind of leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It's not like Lelouch ordered him to "Live, even if you have to nuke my sister to do it." Suzaku is still the one that chose to use a nuclear weapon, fired in the direction of the civilians he's supposed to be protecting, to try and save his life. But oh nooooo, it's not like Suzaku's ever been fitted for leather pants by his fans.

Orihime: Sort-of back, though differently worded. =/

Charred Knight: Rann, theirs one problem with your theory, Suzaku doesn't have any fans, he has people who tolerate his presence since they hate Lelouch more.

Orihime: Suzaku HAS fans. The difference is that lots of them aknowledge that Suzaku has commited several reprehensible acts, but still like him and see him as a Tragic Hero of sorts.

And Rann, your "DOWN WITH SUZAKU, HE'S A DILP" complains are giving EVEN MORE fuel to the "Lelouch is a Draco in Leather Pants" accusations. Looks like you can't tolere anybody liking Suzaku just because you hate him; either that, or you seem to assume that every single Suzaku supporter is pretty much an imbecile who's blind to his huge faults or a shallow fangirl who only likes him because he's good looking. People have right to like Suzaku without getting Suzaku haters go all up in arms, you know.

Rann: Funny, the extreme reactions and hardcore resistance to including Suzaku on the page at all, or even mentioning him at all while making Lelouch sound like a psycho killer ("kill you as soon as say hello", really?) pretty clearly make the case. Ah well, it'll get deleted again, but at least I've made one last try at keeping the inmates from running the asylum.

Orihime: You seem to be obsessed with the idea of Suzaku being the only one of the two who deserves the DILP and saying everyone who thinks poor Lulu Baby is one of these too is EBUL. In your opinion, then, NO ONE should like Suzaku just because YOU say so? That makes you just as bad as those you claim you're fighting against.

Rann: Ah well. It seems that the determining factor of who's being leather pantsed is how many rabid fans the character has on this site. Never mind if a character is the protagonist of the series and the series has his name on it. With any luck, we can get a zerg rush of good ol' Cassie's fans in here and have this article renamed to Harry In Leather Pants by the end of the week.


Cromage: Trimmed the obvious Cruft, including:

  • Belkar's Oot S entry. Tried to cut it down from three paragraphs to one giant paragraph.
  • The Les Miserables entry was moved from Theatre into Literature. Eponine's characterization is perfectly reasonable if you've only seen the stageplay; it might be said that the play itself does this to the Thenardiers as well.
  • Deleted the FFTA example. Mewt is clearly not fetishized, and the entry itself admits that it's more about the fan community's hatred of the protagonist, Marche.
  • Most of the Code Geass spat was deleted. All mentions of Suzaku were stripped mostly because my perusal of the Code Geass page suggests that his flaws are actually exaggerated and therefore not a subject to this trope. Therefore he does not belong. Any actual Code Geass community members are welcome to debate his inclusion.
  • I also trimmed down the Avatar example (which seems like it was created while the show was still airing). Zuko is clearly meant to be sympathetic, and Azula is JUST as clearly meant to be pitied as much as despised, and more importantly, both characters are portrayed by the authors as inherently redeemable, which effectively disqualifies both from the trope. (Come to think of it, Sasuke probably counts as this, except I never paid attention to whether or not he eventually got redeemed. I just know that redemption through the genki kid's perserverance is a big theme in that show). I did leave them both as it's fully possible that someone, somewhere, minimizes their mistakes unfairly.

Charred Knight: um what? Azula is clearly not shown as being as pitied as despised. She SUGGESTED THAT AN ENTIRE CITY BE WIPED OUT! EVERYONE DEAD! How is her crying, and being pathetic supposed to be the equal to her pulling a Nazi? Sasuke betrayed his team, his nation, and his friends to shack up to the big bad. He is not supposed to be shown in the right, but women due it anyway just because his hot.

Cromage: Just because you disagree with an author's portrayal doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The entire last season of Avatar attempts to redeem Azula as a character. Few actual Kick the Dog moments, comedic scenes which are meant to underscore her massive social incompetence, her gradual slide into madness after she sends her friends away, and the final Freak Out! at the end... if you want to pretend they don't have any significance and that we're not supposed to pity her, and instead think she's "bad to the bone" anyway, that's fine. But there's absolutely no evidence of that.

Charred Knight: Except for the whole ETHNIC CLEANSING bit, and the fact that her friends left her because SHE WAS EVIL! She got pissed that she wasn't allowed to wipe out the rest of the world with her dad! She was shown actual sympathy in one comedic episode, the rest of the season she planned to jave her good brother take the fall for her failure to kill the Avatar.

In review

  1. She tries to set up Zuko for the fall in case Aang is alive
  2. Suggests that they Ethnically Cleanse the entire Earth Kingdom
  3. She tries to kill Zuko, and orders the arrest of Mai after her manipulation of her and Zuko backfired. This causes Ty Lee (who by the way was forced to join Azula against her will in Season 2) also attacks Azula to save Mai.
  4. She once again tries to Kill Zuko showing a descent into madness
  5. Got pissed that her father didn't trust her enough to help him ethnically cleanse the planet! In reality he wanted someone to protect the Fire Nation while he wipes out all life outside it.
  6. She fires a woman for having a pit, she fires the Da Li for being late, she tries to have two sisters fight to the death
  7. During a one on one match she forces Zuko to be hit by forcing him to save Kartara's life by attacking her.

So in other words she Rape The Dog than proceeds to beat the crap out of it for the final 4 episodes. While it certainly possible that the creators of Avatar think that wiping out all life outside of the Fire Nation is fine, I highly doubt it.

Please note that I am not using bold to make fun of you or try to humiliate you, I am just using it to show where you ignored what was going on.

Cromage: I’m as capable of reading episode summaries as you are, thanks. However, what makes a Kick the Dog moment isn’t just an evil act, but an escalation of evil. We know by the beginning of the Fire book that Azula is manipulative, loyal to her father and no one else, and willing to do anything to accomplish her goals. Book Fire actually represents a step *back* from her usual evilness—she does evil things, but usually just to Zuko (who is directly or indirectly working against the Fire Nation even at the beginning when he doesn’t tell anyone about Aang’s possible survival), when she's trying to please her father (remember that the focus of the genocide scene was the Fire Lord, not Azula), or when she goes irrational and paranoid.

This may be a lost cause, but try to remember that the world of Avatar isn't one of black and white, one where the shining hero defeats the black-as-pitch evil monster. It is therefore possible that a villain be shown both as:

A) A manipulative bastard, capable of fratricide and genocide.

and

B) Someone who got that way from a combination of a psychological inability to form healthy relationships with other people, and serious Darwinist indoctrination from her father, who could become a normal productive member of society if these two things were mitigated.

Note that these two things together do not suggest that genocide is "fine."

However, if the creators had intended her evil actions to be the only important aspects of her character, they would have done things a lot differently. There would be a lot more innocents suffering, the beach episode would have been much different, and she wouldn't have gone insane at the end. Instead she would have done all those things (and worse) with a smirk on her face and a cheery wave, as opposed to two steps away from a fetal position.

Charred Knight: Okay it seems like you miss the part where she suggested Genocide, and had no problems. Her problems started because Ty Lee, and Mai left her fot being an insane evil bitch. Nickolodean can't have more innocents suffering since its Nickolodoeon. The beach episode was largely a comedy episode. Comedy doesn't mean a secretly nice person.

Cromage: Um, please read again. I did touch on the genocide issue, and how it was really Ozai's Rape The Dog moment (seriously, Azula had two lines, was building off of Ozai's suggestion and left a lot more to interpretation as to what she meant. Namely she said "burn their land" not "destroy all life." It would be possible to ascribe that to Never Say "Die" except by that point they were saying it). She then gave full support to the genocide plan because she supports her father unconditionally anyway.

Also, it may be hard to believe, but authors occasionally like to have multiple objectives with a single episode. Comedy and character development are not antitheses. And since when have I claimed that she was secretly a nice person? War On Straw much?

And of course Nickolodeon can have innocents suffering; just look at what Azula did in the Earth Book. They just can't die.

Ry Senkari: Well, it's quite obvious that if Bryke intended Azula to be a controversial character, they certainly succeeded.

Chuckg: Its entirely possible to both pity someone, wish their life had worked out better, and yet acknowledge that they are in fact irredeemably evil and while you can wish they had taken another path in the past, its too late to clasp them to your bosom now. Tolkien did it first with Gollum, after all.

Ry Senkari: It's never too late. Look at what Goku's been able to do with people like Piccolo and Vegeta, the later of whom was DEFINITELY more despicable than Azula.

Charred Knight: I would also point out that Avatar is better written than Dragonball, which is by and large a Guilty Pleasure for anyone over 15. One of the things I like about Avatar is that their isn't a lot of fandom appeasment, they didn't make Zuko good because the fans demanded it, they made Zuko good because they planned it. As for burning all land, I would like to know how you think the Earth Kingdom would survive without food, or homes? She clearly knew what she was doing which is why she agreed with her father. She's a human being not a robot, she has free will, and she agreed with her father making her as bad as he is. At several points in time she could have defected and proven to be worth redeeming, and she didn't. She never questioned her father on genoicide, only about her role in the genocide.

Ry Senkari: Redeeming Azula would not have appeased the fandom, I can guarantee you that. It's obvious that this has become the second largest wedge issue in the Avatar fandom, right behind the Kataang/Zutara debate. As for Avatar being better written than Dragonball, that's your opinion. I happen to have liked Dragonball quite a bit more, and find the Vegeta example very valid. Here's an opinion for you: if you feel Dragonball's a Guilty Pleasure, you only have to watch Dr. Slump to see that Akira Toriyama's a better writer than Mike and Bryan could ever be.

Charred Knight: Your kind of comparing apples, and Oranges with Dr. Slump and Avatar. The first is mostly a gag comic which includes the main character destroying the moon, while the later is far serious. Though I do think Toriyma is the best gag manga writer out their. His Neko Majin Z is one of the best parodies I have ever seen.

Ry Senkari: You got me there.

Devil's Advocate: I'm going to have to side with Chuckg here. For one thing, Azula's comment at the war meeting was that they should burn the Earth Kingdom peoples' land in order to crush their hope, Ozai was the one who thought up the mass genocide (though Azula did support it, that's not in question.) However, as Chuckg said, it is possible for a character to be evil and dislikeable while still being tragic and pitable (and as given an example already, Gollum was a perfect comparasion. I pity him greatly, but do I LIKE him? Frankly no, he creeps the hell out of me.)

Mike and Bryan even said on the Sozin's Comet DVD commentary that the whole point of Azula's last scene was to be an Alas, Poor Villain moment and avoid the cliche of "Yay, the villain's defeated, everything is happy!", and that Zuko and Katara's reaction was meant to be pity toward their fallen foe. In short, yes Azula's an evil bitch, but pity WAS the intention behind her role in the finale.


Sara: Moving the J, J&M stuff to Alternate Character Interpretation, also replacing them with Giovanni as the Pokemon example.
Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Can I list Lestat as a canon example of Draco in Leather Pants?

Cromage: No. The act of an author attempting to make a villain more sympathetic than what the fans may be comfortable with, is not an example of this trope. Try Evil Is Sexy or Moral Dissonance.

Trouser Wearing Barbarian: Lestat's case is a bit more complicated than Evil Is Sexy or Moral Dissonance. In Interview With The Vampire, he's an amoral Magnificent Bastard villain, and the story doesn't try to justify his behavior, regardless of how sexy-evil he may be. However, the later books not only downplay his evilness, but go out of their way to retcon away his previous canine molestation as he works his way towards becoming the most blatant Canon Sue this side of Jean Auel.

Cromage: Villain Sue then? Badass Decay? Villain Decay? He sounds like Hannibal Lecter. And come to think of it, Hannibal should come off this list too.


Trogga: "This article doesn't need a picture." Why not?

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: because they haven't seen a good drawing of Draco in leather pants yet? (It must exist. Someone must've illustrated the magnum opus of Cassandra Claire.)

Insert Witty Name Here: He's not in not leather pants, but would this image from Pottersues work?


Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this, for now, and put it here. If this belongs here, the last justification is wrong.
  • Oddly, even Nena Trinity, Gundam 00's definitive Scrappy, has a little bit of fan backing even though she murdered Louise's parents, among countless others, at a wedding out of boredom, traumatizing Louise for life. Those that defend Nena say that it wasn't entirely her fault, since she's not only a Tyke-Bomb who was conceived only to fight, but also the subject of merciless devotion by her Tykebomb-ish older brothers who met their end at the hands of Ali, as noted above. This may also be due in part to the performance of her seiyuu, fan favorite Kugimiya Rie, the go-to gal for Tsundere characters (though Nena is a yandere). It's also confirmed that Nena is pretty much the most popular Gundam 00 female in Japan, ranking 8th place in Newtype Magazine's Top 10 female characters (with Marina tailing at 10th place). Just wow on how an accidental murderer made it that far. Her cute looks and nice Boobs of Steel help, though.
    • It's actually not that surprising. Those who like or tolerate Nena say they do because she's a far cry from the traditional Dark Chick with a tragic Freudian Excuse and/or a tragic crush on the Big Bad or The Dragon, therefore they think of Nena (a childish, spoiled, unpredictable and so far unrepentant enemy who doesn't apologize for being the way she is) as a refreshing change.

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here, for now. This is either Unintentionally Sympathetic or Villain Protagonist, depending on where the creators' sympathies lie (which has been hard to pinpoint sometimes).
  • Eric Cartman in South Park. Despite the fact that, among other things, he's greedy, cruel, anti-Semitic, manipulative and extremely sociopathic, the audience still loves him.
    • Seems a difficult fit, as Draco in Leather Pants generally involves the downplaying of a character's faults and imbuing them with attractive and/or heroic traits. People like Cartman specifically as he is, a mean little Magnificent Bastard in a Crapsack World who still reaps the karmic windfall of his actions fairly often; they don't want him to be a hero, or even an anti-hero, they like him as a Villain Protagonist. And no one wants to see him in leather pants, yikes.

Charred Knight: I consider Cartman to be Black Mage except he occasionally suceeds. Its pretty clear that Matt and Trey consider Cartman a racist psycopath, his just the perfect character for the Crapsack World.


Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Cut this and put it here, for now, as I'm not sure if it qualifies. If the fans truly like the racism, then there's no accounting for taste. (If it does belong, put it back.)

  • Axel Almer was a really huge, sadistic bastard in Super Robot Wars Original Generation 2, starting from his racist What Measure Is a Non-Human? towards the W Numbers, espacially Lamia, his sadistic mauling to Kyosuke 'for fun'. Banpresto went out of it to make the people glad they picked Lamia to be the 'heroine'. But alas! Fans knew out his other persona in Advance, Ahoseru, and they started liking him, even with all his atrocities, considering them 'utterly Badass'. This eventually culminates in Original Generations, whereas his personality got fixed into something of a Noble Demon... And to top of it all, pulls a Heel–Face Turn in OG Gaiden.
    • Then again, he was meant to be a rival for Kyosuke. He served well to be completely different.
    • Rival or not, he certainly was depicted to attract haters and make people think "Whew, thank God they picked Lamia as the hero from Advance". That doesn't work so well...


Austin: Glancing at some of the examples here, shouldn't this be "when people like a villain and pretend they're a better person than they really are" instead of "when people like a villain"? I don't think this trope was made for people who like a bastard precisly BECAUSE they're a bastard.
Charred Knight: Deleted the Claus Von Stauffenburg section due to piss poor research. Yes Stauffenburg believed in Germany, but no he wasn't a Nazi, he opposed the Nazis and was eventually executed FOR TRYING TO KILL HITLER! When did trying to kill Hitler become a bad thing?

Praetyre: Wanting to kill Hitler does not mean you are necessarily a good person. I doubt Joseph Stalin was Hitler's biggest fan, yet I'd hardly call him a moral paragon. I should not have called him (von Stauffenburg, that is) a Nazi (I did so since our definition of that trope seems to be a bit looser, since included are "heroic and/or noble German soldiers from World War II", which is supported by the My Country, Right or Wrong linkage in the article itself), but.. "We agreed to the basic ideas of the National Socialists concerning inner policy...The racialist idea...appeared healthy and promising to us." -Berthold von Stauffenburg, who collaborated with his brother in the plot to kill Hitler, page 146 of Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel J. Goldhagen

The subsequent chapters on youth, elite resistance, German Jews and popular reactions to racialism are generally more satisfying, even if they do not add much to our existing knowledge. Stauffenberg and Beck are certainly given their due as resisters of Nazism, but not without a probing critique of their own ideologies. Housden pulls no punches when he points to Stauffenberg's view of Poles as "an unbelievable rabble," their country occupied by "a lot of Jews and a lot of cross-breeds" (p. 100). Similarly, Housden shows how General Beck's opposition to Hitler resulted from a disagreement over Hitler's tactics in annexing the Sudetenland, not Hitler's goals. Moltke is really the only one among the July 1944 conspirators to appear unambiguously opposed to Nazism on ideological grounds. However, as with the chapter on the churches, Housden contradicts himself. He describes the rightist conspirators as "fundamental opponents of the Third Reich" (p. 116)--a rather curious appellation in light of the considerable space given to the overlap between, among other things, the conspirators' and the Nazis' expansionism. Contradictory argumentation is to be found elsewhere. For instance, the attempts of a Protestant congregation to alleviate the suffering of a converted Jewish family on their way to the camps is proof for Housden that such behavior "actually helped to have Jews deported--albeit for the 'best' of motives" (p. 64). However, when the author points to similar behavior on behalf of a Jewish organization, he imputes an entirely different motive: "to make the whole process at least minimally tolerable" (p. 127)."

Both are academic sources. The reason Count von Stauffenburg is a DILP is because he has been lionized (especially by the new Cruise film Valkyrie into a heroic freedom fighter who wished to eliminate Hitler for humanitarian reasons, when the evidence shows that he did not disagree with the racialist ideas of Hitler and even stated that Poles were best under the whip. The definition of DILP is to take a controversial or downright villainous character and erase or diminish his flaws while inventing or inflating his virtues, and Count von Stauffenburg fits these criteria.

Admittedly, he may actually fit better in Historical Hero Upgrade, which is sometimes a real-life version of this trope. Also, Stauffenburg is not generally whitewashed for PSL (which would be definitionally impossible, given he is a real person).

Charred Knight: Sure he felt that Germany was superior but he was still disgusted by the Nazis, his no different from Winston Churchill or many men from that era. I will also mention that HITLER SURVIVED BY DUMB LUCK! If the meeting had been in a bunker like he was supposed to or the bomb was put in a different place, Hitler would have died.

Praetyre: Please provide proof he was disgusted by the Nazis. According to his brother, he wasn't disgusted by their racialist policy. He *could* have been disgusted with Hitler's mismanagement of the war, but keep in mind the whole "If Only the Fuhrer Knew" thing Germany had going on at the time. Also, I don't see what Hitler surviving by dumb luck has to do with Stauffenburg's moral quality. He was certainly brave for staying around in such a dangerous situation for such a daring plot, but that says little about his ethics.

Charred Knight: He believed that Germany was superior, not that Germany should wipe the rest of the world off the face of the Earth.

Praetyre: Nor did Hitler. He had little interest in the Far East beyond a one-time military aid mission to China and wanted to bring the United Kingdom onto his side. Heck, just look at how his racial ideology views Scandinavians! But in this case, we are talking not of Germany of a nation, but of von Stauffenburg's own agreement with basic tenets of National Socialist ideology, which includes the superiority of the "Aryan" race, and the inferiority of Jews (among others). Why would he want to kill Hitler for humanitarian reasons if he agreed with the basic tenets of Hitler's racial ideology?

Granted, racism and particularily anti-semitism are unfortunately very old European traditions dating back hundreds of years, and I certainly wouldn't claim that Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt went to war to save the Jews or because they were opposed to racism (though, FDR *did*, if I recall correctly, make minor reforms in allowing blacks a greater role in the military, though whether for pragmatic reasons or ideological ones depends on your cynicism. But the evidence seems to indicate von Stauffenburg did not go after Hitler for humanitarian reasons, which is the portrayal being given by media such as Valkyrie (at least based on my viewing of it's current trailer and Cruise's own statements), and his faults (anti semitism and support of Nazi racial ideology) are downplayed or outright ignored, which fits this trope.

Charred Knight: There's a difference between believing that you where superior, and believing that they must be exterminated. I don't remember a single thing pointing to Stauffenburg believing that Hitler was right about the Jewish. Stauffenburg agreed that the Jewish where inferior, but he disagreed that the Jeish must be exterminated. From everything I have heard Stauffenburg was much like Churchill, a guy who I admired, but not someone i would want to be friends with. I deleted it because you where claiming he was a nazi and generally came off like he was someone who wasn't a hero.

Praetyre: I was wrong to call him a Nazi, but I fail to see how he was a hero. He evidently thought that the Poles were best under the whip, and his motivations for the July 20 Plot were not humanitarian. He was, perhaps (and this is just idle speculation) less extreme in his racial views than Adolf Hitler, but so was Hermann Goering. Wanting to take over Germany to establish a military dictatorship because you don't like the way your boss is handling the war is neither a heroic nor villainous act in most cases. Since there's little evidence von Stauffenburg wanted to kill Hitler for humanitarian/honor/etc reasons, I don't see how he's really a hero.


"Gaston in Disney's Beauty And The Beast. Even though he's a thoroughly detestable, chauvinistic villain with basically no redeeming qualities whatsoever (at least in the film), he has acquired a following..."

Definitely NOT an example of the trope; Gaston was clearly and specifically written to be the love interest. This would be an example of a different trope: "sympathetic protagonists who are romantic heroes only because the author wrote them as such, although if you actually pay attention to what they really do, they're despicable and/or psychopaths." There's a lot of that going around.

Stranger: Wait, I don't get it. Gaston? Love interest/sympathetic protagonist/romantic HERO? If you're saying that Gaston was a good guy, then you must have been watching a different movie or you're just making him a Draco in Leather Pants yourself. He was the villain of the movie!

Charred Knight: Put me as another that doesn't understand what the person is trying to say. You have to live in a fantasy world to think that Gaston is sympathetic in the least, his an idiot chauvanistic, whose in love with his own muscles. The writers made that clear, he had his own love song to himself.

Cambdoranononononono: I'd guess that the person misremembered the film and thought that Gaston was the Beast's real name?


Chris X: On the Gundam 00 issue, please note that I am part of one of those who think that Nena lost her leather pants, when she revealed her hypocritical gloating. I don't hate Louise either, but in my community, there are still some who favors Louise, and those who condemn her of killing Nena doesn't like Nena either... In fact, I am seeing more who favors Louise and was glad that Nena was gone, because she was wholly hated (Compared to Ali). Of course, this site has given me sights that there are some who still favors Nena, so I try to Take a Third Option and post the middle road: Display both fandom tendencies.

MikoGalatea: Fixed the entry accordingly. I just had my hackles raised because the last edit made it sound like Louise becoming totally unlikeable after ep 21 was an objective fact, instead of an opinion. I've also been pretty annoyed by 00 fandom in general lately, including the rabid Nena fanboys I mentioned (I actually feel rather embarrassed to still somewhat like Nena now) so... long story short, no hard feelings, and nothing personal. ^^;

Chris X: Me too. Still want to like her, but after her character goes... uh... back to psycho bitch, I am very much embarassed. On another topic, though, Nena does have one standard to follow: "Don't work with anyone involved with Ali". Unfortunately, blowing wedding isn't part of standard. But seriously, if that standard wasn't there, why would she even bother sending the CB the weak spot of Memento Mori? It's as if "Fine, I'll destroy my source of fun, if it means to slap on Wang, who works with the guy who hired Ali." If she doesn't have that standard, I think she'll just leave that Kill Sat alone. Because, hey, more source for watching destructive events.

Though to be honest and just for personal info? Take out Nena's murder case, and I STILL don't like Louise... I dunno why.


Kizor: Could someone who's familiar with the series please turn this from a contradictory list of opinions into a proper entry, and stick it back in?

  • Ever since the release of Snake Eater, the Metal Gear Solid series has also arguably had a Draco in Leather Pants in the form of Naked Snake/Big Boss. In light of the information revealed about his background (a subtle demonstration that the series villain and hero are Not So Different) people have started to sympathize with him and in fact have gone as far as to defend his actions in Metal Gear 1 & 2. Never mind the whole starting a nuclear war thing. At the end of Metal Gear 4, however, it's revealed that he was the good guy all along, and was trying to fight against Major Zero and the Patriots, who had taken control of the world and used Solid Snake as a tool to defeat their opposition. As of then, this has been retroactively subverted. Maybe.
    • Well, there’s room for disagreement on his level of goodness. The Patriots didn’t go really bad until after he was dead, and Big Boss’ plan to oppose the Patriots was to start a chaotic, never ending war. Personally I think you can list every patriot who wasn’t Eva or possibly Sigint as a gigantic dick, Enemy Mine be damned.
    • If Big Boss is an arguable case (keep in mind that he is genuinely sympathetic and very much a tragic character), Vamp is a very definite case: Fan Fic writers (particularaly of the female variety) treat him as this utterly tragic figure who just wants to be loved, all the while conveniently forgetting that he's a terrorist and a blood-drinking murderer who killed an innocent, defenseless girl for no discernible reason. This treatment seems to be from the effect of his good looks and bisexuality, as similarly evil but not-as-good-looking villains received no such fangirling.

Taelor: The main issue with issue with Big Boss is that his characterization has changed over the couse of the series. Essentially, he starts out as you're typical Card-Carrying Villain out to plunge the world into anarchy for kicks. This characterization continues all the way to the end of MG II, in which he s Killed Off for Real. However, starting in MGS, the franchise came down with a serious case of Cerebus Syndrom, and Big Boss was posthumously retconned into a paranoid Knight Templar who might have had a couple points, even if he took them too far. In MGS II, it's revealed that his motives might have been much more valid than we had been previously lead to believe, and in MGS III and IV, he's turned into a full blown Tragic Hero. The main dispute here seems to be between people who have been with the series from the begining, and thus are more familliar with his earlier, Bond Villain-esque characterization, and thos who entered the fandom later know him primarilly has a Tragic, Well-Intentioned Extremist. Personally, I say his entry stays off, as it's just too much of a complex issue fit here. The other characters mentioned, IMHO, are much more staight forward examples.


Dragon Quest Z: I am really tired with people deleting the picture I put up because they are confusing the nature of this trope with examples for it. This is not Magnificent Bastard, where the definition has decayed. This is just to note a villain that fans go for. Azula is a villain that fans go for, and that is why I put that picture up.

Seikai: Dragon Quest Z, if so many people don't like the picture, maybe it would be wiser to find a better one? I also don't really think the picture illustrates the trope too well. Sure, Azula herself is a Draco in Leather Pants, but the picture doesn't really fit or look right. For one thing, she... isn't really wearing leather pants, and for people who don't even know her, she just looks like some random bikini babe going to the beach with her friends.

Dragon Quest Z: Those who removed it tried to replace it with similar pictures to what's on the Magnificent Bastard page, meaning they thought I was trying to put a favorite character, which I was not (I've only watched the first 4 episodes of the series, so I haven't seen a single scene with her).

As for the actual scene, that might have some merit, but leather pants have nothing to do with it. The trope is not actually about any sort of clothing. It's just in the title.

Random: Er, no, this trope ISN'T about "villains who people go for". There's no sin in liking a villain. This is about liking a villain SO MUCH that fans EXCUSE them for all of their evildoing. Azula's probably not the best example; for every fan who does excuse her, there's another who doesn't. Someone like Sephiroth or, say, Draco Malfoy himself, would be more appropriate, as the majority of the fandom does without question excuse them more often than not.

I agree with what you're trying to do; but I just don't think the character in question is a good enough example for the main pic, as alot of her fanbase doesn't Draco in Leather Pants her and love her because she's an unrepentant sociopath.


  • Magneto of The X Men has a large potential for this, considering he's about the most inconsistently written character in the Marvel Universe. Depending on the Writer (and way before Grant Morrison ever began writing him), he's either a misunderstood Anti-Hero with the sympathetic Holocaust Survivor backstory, who only wishes to live in peace with humanity, or a demented meglomaniac hypocritically willing to do anything to enforce mutant-superiority. What makes it this trope, however, is how any writer (especially the aforementioned Morrison) who decides to run with the idea that that guy who created the "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" and became a charter member of The Hellfire Club, who destroyed half of New York in an attack by him and Namor, who has tried on more than one occasion to blackmail the world with nuclear destruction to get his way, who keeps putting together armies of mutants in preparation for a human-mutant war, who ripped Wolverine's skeleton out of him, etc. might be legitimately interpreted as being out of his gourd, gets shouted down by fans of the character as Character Derailment.

Rothul: Magneto. Is he an example? I'd certainly say that he's a "controversial or downright villainous character" in which the fandom has "[downplayed] his flaws", and certainly "[ran] into conflict with the opinions of writers not willing to retool the character to fit this appetite" to quote the definition. I admit wrote the above in reaction to the apparent dislike fans of the character had of Grant Morrison's depiction, which would cause you to think that the character had never been written as an terrorist lunatic before. However, I think the crux of the issue is that he, along with many other comic book characters, have had multiple writers and multiple interpreters giving a wide range of depictions for the character. Does Draco in Leather Pants count for such characters who have such a wide range of canon interpretations, but have loud fan-bases dedicated to shouting foul at anything but the more sympathetic ones?

Doctor Nemesis: I can't speak for Magneto directly, not being incredibly conversant in his character history, but from what I've heard I'd personally say so — for all their sympathetic points and the fact that multiple authors have added their interpretations, it seems pretty clear to me that characters like Dr. Doom and Magneto were pretty clearly supposed to be villains. Not entirely unsympathetic ones, granted, but from little I do know it seems nevertheless clear to me that we were supposed to side with Professor X's 'Dr. Martin Luther King' viewpoint over Magneto's 'Malcolm X' perspective. This trope, as I understand it, covers characters whose more devoted fans seem to pretty much whitewash them to the extent that they forget that they are actually villains; they have sympathetic portrayals, but their fans tend to forget that this doesn't mean that the more villainous ones aren't just as valid (if not actually more so).

SSJ Dk Crew: It's hard to classify Magneto as heroic or villainous, given that he's been both a hardcore villain, a dark savior, a Knight Templar and a teacher at the Xavier Institute at different times in his carreer. He's a little like the Hulk in that respect. He's always switching sides.


SSJ Dk Crew: Just removed a sentence from the "Dark knight Joker" example. Sorry, but it had to be done. It was basically a taunt, inviting people to explain what makes the Joker good. In other words, Natter bait.


Taelor: Anyone feel like explaining why the Cersei Lannister section got removed?


Cambdoranononononono: Does someone want to clarify the Red String example? I think I've been dealing with pretty much the same fanbase, and I haven't really noted this anywhere. My impression is that someone is feeling smug toward the people who didn't immediately condemn Kenta for having undesirable qualities, now that he's really started to Kick the Dog. That is, the closest I used to see was people viewing him along the lines of a Well-Intentioned Extremist who was in the wrong but still looking out for his family.


Oonerspism: There's an edit war going on right now about the Terminator example (see the page history). My inclination would be to zap it because it looks like Complaining About Shows You Dont Like with a dash of misogyny thrown in, but there should probably be some discussion first. Is there any way we can rewrite the example to get the point across without looking like we've got a serious hate-on for the Terminator series? Is this even a valid example? I haven't seen anything Terminatory in a long time, but if I recall correctly, Sarah is the heroine, meaning she couldn't fall under this trope. Talking it out will be more productive than a revert war with increasingly long edit reasons.

Ronin Aquila: There seems to be a misunderstanding here: I love The Terminator franchise with a passion. Terminator 2 Judgement Day in particular is a eulogy and funeral song for the Noble and Honorable Classical Masculine Warrior of the Reagan Era before feminism urinated and vomited on the Warrior Spirit that built modern society. And who is the symbolic banner that they scream their father-hating battle cries from; the selfsame deep-voiced, selfish, violent, cold-hearted monster of a bad-mother that her creator himself decries as a horror of human being in interviews. I am merely stating the truth of feminist hypocrisy, NOT a declaration of hate for a franchise that celebrates the Masculine Warrior Spirit like few franchises can.

Oonerspism: *backs away slowly* I'd love to debate this more, but honestly I can hardly remember anything about the Terminator franchise. If someone who knows the material better would like to play the mediator, be my guest. Also, do you suppose you could lighten up on the formatting? You don't have to bold every other word. It's like you're doing a Shatner impression in writing.

Taelor: Perhaps a move to Misaimed Fandom would be in order?

Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Yeah. Or maybe Ron the Death Eater. (Sorry...)


Hugh Man: Some-one deleted the paragraph:

"Interestingly, this happened before Draco's characterization in the books became somewhat pitiable, if not sympathetic. Nevertheless, JK Rowling frequently admitted she was bothered that characters like Draco (and Snape) were popular for all the wrong reasons."

Should this be re-inserted? (Maybe as an example rather than in the description.) It seems wrong to play him as pure evil, but then I do read fanfics and therefore am an unreliable editor in this case.


Caswin: Wait... what happened to half the anime examples?

Taelor: Please be more specfic. Which examples are you refering to?

Caswin: Looking closer... the entire section containing Bleach, Galaxy Angel, Mai-HiME, Weiss Kreuz, and most of Death Note was deleted back in September for no given reason in the same breath as the NOTE about this not being a villainous popularity contest. (I would have just put them back, but the fact that a chunk that big remained missing for so long gave me pause.)


The Tambourine Man: Would Seifer from Final Fantasy VIII qualify? I've seen a lot of fanfics where he comes back and becomes a See D while treating suspicion of him as unreasonable.

Stranger: Seeing as he's so much like Draco already, then yes he would.


Doktor von Eurotrash: I haven't read a lot of God Child, but does Cain really qualify for this? First of all, he's the protagonist, and not a Villain Protagonist either. Secondly, in the first three volumes which are what I've read, he doesn't even kill anyone outside of self defence, to my recollection. If he blossoms into a Byronic Hero later, feel free to tell me, but so far, he seems like The Woobie more than anything else.


azul120: Just spotted quite a few recent selective deletions of "anti-heroes", which I don't quite get, because there are still quite a few non-villains that remain.
Fast Eddie: The examples section is composed almost entirely of natter. If someone would like to clean it up, that would be nice. If it doesn't happen, I'll just go ahead and make this one "example-less."

edited later: After a few days ... Okay. We'll just go that way.

Caswin: "almost entirely"? I must have been looking at the wrong sections. This article might have had a relatively high natter-to-entry ratio, which does merit cleaning up, but the better part — I'd almost certainly say the bulk, but it's harder to tell for sure in history format — was actual entries. Honestly, no offense meant, but I don't think anyone heard you.

Gyrobot: Aw I loved reading some of them :(

Orihime I liked it too. I think I'll put them back on... but in different pages. Clean up =/= deleting everything in a whim.

EDITED LATER: Done. All reposted and sorted.

Fast Eddie: Moving the natter to another page is not a solution.

Orihime And deleting everything without even bothering to hear other people is no solution either. You are NOT the owner of this page and cannot do what you want with it just because you can. And while there IS natter, there's also some intresting discussion among it. So no, not everything is natter and you're just acting like a Jerkass.


Ry Senkari: Should we make it clear that it's only a Draco in Leather Pants situation if fans are glorifying a Complete Monster (or at least someone in that neighborhood)? It's getting to the point where we have Level 3 and below Anti-Hero characters and Anti-Villain s being put here and I don't think that's what this trope is about, as it's easy to like those characters for a myriad of valid reasons.

Ingonyama: Aren't those two mutually exclusive? As I understand it, a Complete Monster by definition cannot be a DILP, specifically because fans hate them that much. If a character is/are one, they don't qualify for the other. That said, I agree that AntiHeroes generally don't belong here, though the jury's still out on AntiVillains.

Stranger: Anti Villains only belong here if their fans handwave and excuse all of their evil actions or try to justify said actions as good in an attempt to overly-glorify the villain. Like say, Prince Zuko is an Anti-Villain and there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking him but I've seen his fangirls try to excuse all the bad choices he's made (like betraying his uncle to side with his sister) and claim that what he did was good. And that is clearly NOT what you're supposed to be thinking.

Ry Senkari: As long as fans aren't shoving their opinions in everyone's faces, they can think however they want. It's Fan Dumb to tell fans what they shouldn't be thinking.

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report