This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
For the record, here's the YKTTW regarding this trope:
The one that established the new name and new definition.
Fanra: I removed the following, as it is basically wrong, as someone tries to explain:
- Several of Clint Eastwood's films played with this trope, notably Unforgiven and Dirty Harry, although the only one to fully embrace it was High Plains Drifter. The film begins with Eastwood's nameless stranger gunning down three townsfolk at only the slightest provocation, and then raping the love interest. Although the character then seems to help the locals, it is eventually that he may or may not be Satan himself, come to exact revenge.
- No. The nameless character is an avenging spirit, in the style of a revenant, wraith, or The Crow. He is actually the lawman killed by the villains upon whom he exacts revenge. He rewards the little guy who wanted to help him. He punishes the other townspeople for standing by and doing nothing as he was murdered. He is not Satan. At the end of the film, the little guy mentions, as he is placing a marker on the nameless character's grave, that he never knew the nameless character's name. The nameless character responds, "Yes you do." The little guy is carving the nameless character's name onto the grave marker. The "nameless character" then rides off and vanishes into the heat waves rising from the hot earth as eerie music plays, suggesting the supernatural nature of the character.
Primo Victoria: Why quote I'd put on this page was deleted?
Comartemis: I'm deleting the Higurashi example naming Shion as an example. She was under the influence of Hinamizawa Syndrome during Meakashi-hen and was most definitely Not Herself during all of the incidents where she crossed the line.
Sean Tucker: Proposal. Instead of acting like the article was never named Rape The Dog and it's a horrible name, we acknowledge it as an alternate title, and just discourage it from being used rather than aggressively taking it out of everything we find it in. This should reduce most of the shitstorming over the new name.
Mercury: Removed the following: Perhaps this troper needs to play this to appreciate the context...but...beavers? Trust me, after Epic Movie, the only good beaver is the one betwixt the legs. Listed after the Suikoden V entry for two reasons - one, it was relatively off-topic and two, yes, you need to play it to appreciate context. There is no relationship between the Suikoden series and Epic Movie. Besides which - ew.
Abaddon: Spike's attempted rape of Buffy in the season 6 episode "Seeing Red"
Working Title: How to best handle the Rape The Dog article?: From YKTTW
Umptyscope: Warren from Buffy, hypnotizing his girlfriend, then killing her when she comes out of it?
Toteone: I don't think killing any Buffy character can be considered evil.
Chuckg: The Tara MacClay Memorial Society would like to rebut.
Gemmifer: I like the new name. I agree that Rape The Dog was just a little too fun, it was addictive. Toteone: Nah, it was better than the new name. It stuck to the mind.
Sean Tucker: Why did we change the name for this? I understand the tightening of the criteria to be on this page, but why change the name? If you want my advice, use Moral Event Horizon as a page explaining the concept and have the Rape The Dog page build off of that.
Robert: See the extensive discussion linked at the top of this page.
Clerval: YAAAAAAAY! We got there! Well done, VB!
Charred Knight: I have two questions
- Does Psycho for Hire like Kimblee, and Kefka count? The reason we like the characters is for crazy crap like wiping out people with a song in their heart?
- What are we going to do about Code Geass? The entire fandom hates at least one character for this?
- The point here is that crossing the horizon makes everybody hate the character. I've never seen Code Geass and have no experience of the fandom, but it seems like if only some people hate a character, it falls under Your Mileage May Vary.
Ingonyama: I'd say hired psychoes count more as Kick the Dog MagnificentBastards, since those moments are irredeemably evil but the fandom likes 'em anyway. Moral Event Horizon is about characters who go the whole hog into near-total loathing, which is part of why it's so subjective. This'll probably cut down like 3/4 of the page size, but wasn't that the point?
Charred Knight: Deleted for reasons mentioned above by Igonyama, where people like the Joker for this. Right off my head Luca Blight, Cartman, Zolf Kimblee, Envy, the Joker, and Kefka probably shouldn't be here since we enjoy their characters. To be on the safe side, I only added Shou Tucker for Fullmetal Alchemist since he seems to be the only universally hated character in the series.
- In The Dark Knight, the Joker crosses the Horizon on a regular basis, to the point of being a Complete Monster. Among his worst atrocities is killing Rachel Dawson and blowing up half of Harvey Dent's face in a truly sadistic take on the Sadistic Choice, and then delivering a Hannibal Lecture to a distraught Harvey that serves to effect Harvey's Face–Heel Turn as Two-Face.
Clerval: I added some lines explaining the kind of character that doesn't belong here and why not, even though they do the most unspeakable things, do you think that's a fair way of putting it?
Vampire Buddha: Looks good.
Now, there's the second phase - all the references to Rape The Dog scattered across the wiki. I'm in favour of deleting them, leaving the exact mechanism of deletion of each individual reference up to whoever finds it.
Sackett: Why not just redirect Rape The Dog here?
Vampire Buddha: Because then people will keep using Rape The Dog where it doesn't fit.
Turkishproverb: Why delete the page completely? There is clearely a difference between Rape the dog and moral event Horizon, especially as someone can easily be given multiple events if slightly redifined, or an event that occours over mroe time, while kick the dog is separate in that it allows the character some redeemability.
Charred Knight: Rape The Dog was always being written as Kick the Dog but more so. It was to subjective for example I was always using it to bash the second season of Code Geass R2 since I hated it because I felt that neither side was sympathetic in the least.
Phartman: I'm not going to be a dick and insist this trope be changed or removed, but I'm not entirely clear on how this differs from Rape The Dog. It seems to me that Moral Event Horizon refers to the concept, and Rape The Dog is about specific examples. How's my aim?
Peteman: From what I get, Rape The Dog has been replaced by Moral Event Horizon.
Vampire Buddha: This is Rape The Dog. Rape The Dog had gotten incredibly bogged down in examples tht didn't fit, had a horribly vague description, and was being referenced all around the wiki when people actually meant either Kick the Dog or Shoot the Dog. Hence, over the course of a LONG YKTTW discussion, it was decided to do to Rape The Dog what had been done to The Un-Twist - delete the entire entry and re-write it from scratch, except in this case the name was also changed to one that was less ambiguous.
Lord TNK: Let's just gradually all use our Wiki Magic to change all mentions of Rape The Dog to this, until the "related to" page for that goes down to 0.
random troper: This page should at least mention this trope is also known as Rape The Dog, as IMO it's one of the wittier trope names on the wiki (as it fits in the 'dog' series of character-development tropes). I leave it to you guys to figure out the best way to do that.
Bri says: I agree with the above random troper
Robert: In the examples, there's no point putting the things that make them valid examples under spoiler space. If it's definitely a spoiler, our Spoiler Policy suggests removing the spoiler content entirely, or even not using that example at all. It's not as if we're short of examples. That's only a guideline, of course, but it's a good one.
Vampire Buddha: The problem here is that the moment when a character crosses the horizon is often a major plot point, and if it isn't, it's often the crossing point because it's so shocking. Blabbing about all the moments with reckless abandon hurts the drama. I do see your point about white shifting, however. Perhaps a general Major Spoilers Ahead warning might be in order?
Robert: Good idea. The mere presence of a example on this page is itself a fairly strong spoiler. We can put the page on the Spoilered Rotten page too.
Fast Eddie: I think this name change is stacking up as a pretty poor idea. The phrase "rape the dog" has already gained a pretty wide off-wiki use. Moral Event Horizon could be made a redirect to the original title, and that one could use the tighter definition employed here.
Robert: Give it time. We had a pretty extensive discussion on the topic. We should give the conclusions a fair trial, whether we like them or not. Rushing to reopen them is a recipe for perpetual debate. Instead, wait three to six months, see where we stand then, and make sure everyone has a chance to contribute before taking decisive action.
Dangermike: The trouble is that it's not the same trope. As I pointed out on the forum, A RTD is a specific action which is morally objectionable to the reader/viewer, and can be done by established villains. MEH is a morality changing action by a former goodnick. MEH is a Mapquest to evil, RTD is a "you are here" of evil.
Robert: MEH isn't an action at all, let alone a morality changing action. Note we say that some characters can start beyond the MEH - they never crossed the line, never changed their moral status, but it's still useful to talk about them being beyond the line. MEH is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase - metaphorically, a place - but it does capture the same concept, and a fresh start was needed.
However, this discussion should be closed, for now at least. Once a decision is made, we all have to live with it. As I said, rushing to reopen them at the least excuse is a recipe for perpetual debate, going nowhere, and not just on MEH. There are decisions I've vehemently disagreed with in the past, easily reignitable, and there will be many other people with similar discontents, but we don't want to go there. It's better by far to keep quiet, and let time tell.
Tanto: I'm diagnosing that Malta Group example with an extreme case of tl;dr syndrome. The prescription? Repeated and gratuitous application of a hatchet. Do we have any surgeons in the house?
Dalantia: *gets out the hatchet.*
jketchum31: Not sure if I put this on the right page, but I have to take issue with the use of Jekyll and Hyde on the trope page; the use of Jekyll and Hyde to stand for the trope has me confused to whether the ones on the trope explanation are the LITERARY Jekyll and Hyde or the trope manifestation. If it's the former:
I understand that the archetypical view of Jekyll and Hyde is that Henry J is good, Edward H is bad, and J was trying to get rid of H for good guy reasons. When the trope plays out in other fiction, that's usually how it goes—good personality either didn't choose the change or meant to get rid of the evil entirely. But in the actual novel by Stevenson, Jekyll wants to get rid of the evil simply because he was tired of feeling guilty. Once he discovered the change he liked doing evil things with no change to his reputation, was still cognizant and even partly in control as Hyde, And KEPT DOING IT for fun. There's absolutely nothing admirable about the original Henry Jekyll and no one who's read the actual piece would think so. My question is, is that line about personalities suppposed to refer to the "actual" Jekyll and Hyde, or to the archetypical good personality/evil personality, called Jekyll and Hyde for shorthand here on Tropes and elsewhere? Could the person responsible for that bit clarify?
I suggest adding "the" to Jekyl and Hyde both, but I'm a dumb noob who's unclear on what's being shot for there to begin with and unsure of waht's acceptable. Plus, my scholarly work on that novel may be leading me to go a bit too srs about it all.
Vampire Buddha: It refers to the trope manifestation. Putting 'the' before the names would be a good idea.
Good catch.
jketchum31: Thanks? I changed two iterations; I think that was all of them? Glad my ridiculous obsession with that novel was of use?
Bob: Cutting controversial example to in accordance with the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.
- Naruto's Uchiha family is made of, shall we say, polarising characters, but Itachi's Mind Rape of his little brother, subjecting him to several days of mental torture — making him watch Itachi murder their parents again and again — is the single most horrifying act committed by any character in the series. And he does it twice!
- Later, it's claimed that Itachi is a good guy! What the Hell?!
- It's never claimed he was good, just a person traumatized by war, which made him a Well-Intentioned Extremist. There is no such thing as White And Black Morality.
- There are a number of tropes you might find relevant.
- See what the original post meant by 'polarising'?
- Later, it's claimed that Itachi is a good guy! What the Hell?!
Runespoor: Thanks for that. I hesitated upon cutting this off, because I'm the one idiot who added him in the first place. Who added him, might I say, in order to stop the "discussions" on the Naruto Just Bugs Me page. (And also the one who posted the fourth reply.) So Yeah.
Justice Gundam: I am the one who added Sasuke's example, and I'm writing here to clarify my opinion. As the page itself states, the crossing of the Moral Event Horizon is not necessarily an action more evil than the ones the character already has committed, it just affects viewers on a more personal level, and convinces them that that particular character no longer deserves to be redeemed. Now, Sasuke explicitly stated that he wanted to destroy Konoha (and I don't think he was lying - he's not the deceitful type), without distinction for innocent and guilty, reasoning that the civilians are just as guilty as the elders who ordered the destruction of the Uchiha clan for the simple fact that they're enjoying peace. It clearly shows that he's let his petty revenge suffocate his morality, and is willing to kill a lot of innocent people just for that. After doing that, is it really any wonder a lot of Naruto fans feel that a redemption would make him into a Karma Houdini?
Annwyd: Cleaned up the Gundam00 examples:
- Gundam 00's Nena Trinity crossed it after she blew up a wedding in a fit of bored frustration. And while he was introduced as a Loveable Rogue of sorts with impressive piloting skills, Ali Al-Saachez's Complete Monster status just built up over the first season; the first indicator was when it was revealed he made child-soldiers that he recruited kill their parents to prove their faith in God and the cause - a cause he didn't even believe in himself. Then he killed the Ordinary High-School Student Saji's Plucky Reporter sister for no particular reason, after revealing his nature as a Blood Knight to her just for kicks. Then just to top the cake, he killed fan favourite Lockon Stratos. Though obviously a Complete Monster (he admits it himself!) his fanbase doesn't care.
I simplified the Ali entry and, I hope, improved its accuracy (I'm of the opinion that while the kill-your-parents thing can be mentioned here, the real Moral Event Horizon came when he killed Kinue, and anything after that is irrelevant to this trope). I removed Nena because—well, she didn't cross this line, no matter how much Western fandom hates her. The wedding incident was a particularly dramatic Kick the Dog moment. Consider:
- The context: before she blew up the wedding, she had merely been unstable and somewhat ominous, never overtly evil.
- The motivation: she did it because she was bored. One of the easiest ways to identify Kick the Dog is to ask if there was a purpose behind the action, or if it just serves to illustrate that the character is a bad guy. If we already have seen quite clearly that the character is a bad guy, this can sometimes be a Moral Event Horizon, but in Nena's case, it's her first evil act.
- The method: Nena kills from a distance with the Gundam she's piloting.
- The role in story: the people actually killed are unnamed, and most of them we haven't even met. Yes, Louise is maimed and traumatized, but (related to the above) Nena never even sees her face.
Yet another reason not to add her to this page: what will we do if/when she does cross the line in Season 2? (My money's on either that or Redemption Equals Death for Nena.)
Compare Ali's act:
- The context: we already knew he was pretty damned evil, especially with the "ordering kids to kill their parents" thing.
- The motivation: boredom combined with the desire to prove how evil he is—and happening right after he complained about how much peace sucks because it means he has nothing to fight and no one to kill anymore.
- The method: If I recall correctly, it's not actually shown, but we know it was up close and personal.
- The role in story: Kinue was a named and very sympathetic character who was trying to do her job in a plucky and admirable way. Ali didn't just kill her, he took the time to (seemingly) get to know her first. Just to top it off, after he does the deed we see her lying on the ground in a puddle of blood and clutching a family photo as she dies.
Sorry for the tl;dr, but seeing Kick the Dog moments listed as Rape The Dog annoyed me enough when he had that entry; we don't need to repeat it here. So far with the restarted page tropers have been pretty good at remembering that a particularly shocking or over-the-top Kick the Dog or Establishing Character Moment does not equal Moral Event Horizon. Hopefully we can keep that up.
Willy Four Eyes: Agreed. I'm removing it again and placing to Kick the Dog where it belongs.
Robert: The page has a blanket spoiler warning, which should be enough to cover all the examples. If a spoiler is so sensitive that it needs spoiler space on top of this, don't use it as an example. It's not as if we're short of examples, and an example that's mostly spoiler space is pretty useless.
Not Robert: And if somebody wants to not be spoiled on Lost, does that mean they can't read the Live Action TV section at all?
Wascally Wabbit: Cut the Warhammer 40000 example for being nothing of the sort. All characters are introduced as Just That Evil, all still have fans and no one specific moment is cited.
Dausuul: Removed the claim that "a Magnificent Bastard who crosses the horizon ceases to be Magnificent." Given the new definition of Magnificent Bastard, which specifically does not depend on coolness factor (and which includes both Hannibal Lecter and Heath Ledger's Joker), the Moral Event Horizon isn't really a threat to the Magnificent Bastard any more.
Vampire Buddha: So Magnificent Bastard finally got a decent definition? Excellent.
Dr Lombriz: I know this is a subjective trope, so I want to see if anyone agrees before I edit the page, but I'd propose Joel Calley in Concession and his assault of Artie to be Joel crossing the MEH. Artie instead of Father Ted since it took that long for me to make up my mind. Anyone else feel this way?
Fast Eddie: Batch of natter:
- Firefly: Let's talk about Jubal Early of the episode "Objects In Space" for a bit. He might seem cool at first, what with his Boba Fett looking ship and effortless takedown of Mal, but he falls into the "truly despicable villain" category when he confronts Kaylee, ties her up in the engine room and forces compliance from her...by threatening to rape her. He then repeats this threat to assure Simon's assistance in a truly Sadistic Choice between protecting Kaylee or his sister River, who Early wants to bring in. Not a good man at all, but according to Word of God a masterfully Manipulative Bastard—he can size people up in a second and know how to deal with them: intimidation with Kaylee, intellectual debate with Simon, and taking down enemies who won't be reasoned with or frightened.
- Maybe it is cold, but Early's threatening Kaylee with rape may not be a Moral Event Horizon. If he'd followed up on his threat, then yes, it definitely would have been, but all he did was intimidate her. Now, when River makes the reveal as to what he did to his neighbor's dog, that was the Moral Event Horizon.
- What, so rape is worse than murdering people (for money) now? Seems a bit of Moral Dissonance there.
- Simply put, yes. The trope definition says, "It is a single act which, while not necessarily objectively worse than anything else the villain has previously committed, affects the audience... on a far deeper level." The Moral Event Horizon is measured by impact, not by comparing various acts' values on a meter.
- Plus, Kaylee's status as the sweetest, cutest thing in the 'verse has to count for serious Kick the Dog points when threatened.
- Also the pilot episode, when the Alliance agent knocks Book unconscious and then proceeds to beat on him with a pipe for several seconds.
- For this troper, it was Dobson's implication that he was fully aware of what the Alliance did to River and still had absolutely no qualms with dragging her back to that place.
- As far as this editor is concerned—and I know my fellow fans are going to call Misaimed Fandom—Mal kicking a helpless prisoner into a jet intake (without even getting called out on it) crossed the Moral Event Horizon. Interestingly, I never saw either Dobson or Early as crossing the Moral Event Horizon. The former was too pathetic and the latter never did anything terrible, he just made threats. But that's just me.
- Considering the prisoner in question had just promised to hunt Mal to the death, this troper thought killing the guy sounded like a perfectly valid choice to spare himself and his crew unnecessary trouble.
- Told ya. Your Mileage May Vary, of course. Personally, I never consider intentionally killing another human being as justified in real life. Murdering someone like that whose only crime is bravado though, strikes me more as straight-forward villainy. The worst part may have been not the murder itself, but the fact that the show treated it as comical. (Incidentally, I had the same problem with Mal shooting Dobson. Not so much that he did it, but the light-hearted way it was presented.) Of course, it's all very subjective. This is just how I see things.
Praetyre: The destruction of Alderaan is a poor example of this trope. The Empire not only still has fans, it is the Trope Namer for Rooting for the Empire. Many essays are out there defending the actions of Tarkin in this matter, and the only real MEH moment for the Empire would be in-universe, where when tales of it came out, many Imperials (especially Alderaanians) defected en masse. A far, far better example are Anakin's slaughter of the entire Tusken village and the slaughter of the younglings (though I'd like to suggest his choking of Padme as well).
Narvi: No more quotes. Indeed.
Bob: Some cuts
- When one of the VG Cats travelled back in time to kill the other one WHEN HE'S STILL IN HIS PREGNANT MOTHER'S WOMB.
- To be fair, Aeris did somewhat of a favour to the world because Leo is such a fucktard, arguably, this failed when he came back two issues later, asking the right to play with her time machine, which leads to this hilarious exchange :
Aeris : "But... But I aborted you. FROM TIME."Leo : "I got better." - To be fair, Aeris did somewhat of a favour to the world because Leo is such a fucktard
Why are you taking VG Cats seriously?
- It could be argued that Benito Mussolini, previously thought the only good Fascist Dictator, crossed the Event Horizon when he threw in his lot with [1] and invaded a France that was already crumbling.
No Real Life examples, please. That section has been cut before to prevent Internet Backdraft but it hasn't stuck so this time I'm leaving a notice.
- Avatar The Last Airbender's Big Bad Fire Lord Ozai was always an unsympathetic character, and every revelation only made him worse. Some would argue that he was clearly shown to be over the Moral Event Horizon in the episode The Storm, which showed him deliberately burning his unresisting son, Zuko (that burn scar on his eye? It wasn't an accident), which pushed him over the edge into irredeemable evil. That's at least a very big Kick the Dog moment. Others might pick later moments, but by the time he plans to literally raze the Earth Kingdom to the ground with fire in the finale, he is undoubtedly well beyond the Moral Event Horizon. It's often overlooked because of Zuko's Crowning Moment Of Awesome, but the line was crossed when the second the eclipse was over, Ozai fired a double lightning stike against his son. Everything else before then could be considered an extreme form of "tough love," but this was outright vindictive.
- To be fair, if you stand directly before the Evil Overlord's throne and loudly announce your intention to join the rebellion, you can sort of expect lightning bolts to be fired at you. High treason is punishable by what again?
- Considering the amount of [[squick twincest wincest]] fics out there? SNOO SNOO!
- To be fair, if you stand directly before the Evil Overlord's throne and loudly announce your intention to join the rebellion, you can sort of expect lightning bolts to be fired at you. High treason is punishable by what again?
I'm rewriting the Avatar section to cut down on Natter. Old version saved here.
- Mass Effect. At one point, you have the last fertile queen of the hitherto-thought-to-be-non-sapient Bug-Eyed Monsters at your mercy. The queen promises that she and her people will find a distant, uninhabited world to settle on if you spare her life. You may instead choose to execute her, thus dooming an entire race of intelligent beings to extinction and launching yourself so far over the Moral Event Horizon that you'd need a telescope to see Cruella De Ville gaping at you in appalled repugnance. Of course, this isn't the first or last depraved act you'll commit if you're trying to max out your Evil Points, but it certainly makes all your earlier atrocities seem like cheeky schoolboy hijinx.
- That's one interpretation. That same race had waged war against the galaxy earlier, killing countless beings and coming uncomfortably close to omnicide. She said it was a mistake... But releasing her may yet trigger a recurrence of this war, dooming billions of sentients. It's meant to be a wrenching lesser-of-evils choice, not a simple good-or-evil divide.
Ah, yes. The classical moral dilemma of "She promised not to start any genocidal wars, something her species has a reputation for, now the question is: do you believe her?" This one I'm a little uncertain if it qualifies since this article is a bit stricter than the other Subjective Tropes because of the potential falling into Complaining About Stuff You Don't Like which killed the Rape The Dog article. I'll leave it here for debate.
Chuckg: Its important to note that the only evidence that the rachni were gleefully genocidal monsters comes from history books written by the winners. Krogan history books. Add in the rachni queen's account of events involves Reaper indoctrination and there is a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. There is also that the decision to let her go into the wilds of Noveria is reversible if later reflection leads people to the conclusion that you've made an error — reversible by orbital bombardment of Noveria, if nothing else. The decision for immediate genocide is not.
Vert: Removed the phrase "Not all the Nazis were evil, but the man behind it all certainly was." from the holocaust quote. I'm sorry, but any person who calls himself a Nazi is accepting its tenets, which include the extermination of the Jews, the mentaly handicaped and the Roma, not to mention the subjugation (i.e., turning into slaves) of the Slavic race. I'd say that any Nazi is evil, VERY FUCKING EVIL, at least in principle.
Satanic Hamster: And there was another "noble Nazi" during Rape Of Nanjing.
Nobody: Okay, calm down there, Schmo. Maybe you should read about the Milgram Experiment, or perhaps understand that not every nazi was a psychopathic torturer, or that the idea of "evil" belongs in fables and comic books, not in real life. And a guy selling Pepsi in a baseball game is not a murderous agent of capitalism, he's just a guy selling Pepsi.
Matthew The Raven: It all depends on your personal idea of evil. You seem to think that evil is always the comic book Card-Carrying Villain/"psychopathic torturer" version of evil, which doesn't exist. Therefore, people who call people evil are Schmos. Other people, like me, think of evil as something people do that is harmful to others. That is evil, and it exists in real life. And the people who followed the tenants of Nazism were evil, and the people who let the attrocities occur without doing anything to stop it through cowardice or apathy were evil too. Don't go thinking that everyone who isn't a complete relativist/nihilist is a schmuck. Some people just have different ideas on what is or isn't "evil."
wit: I'm pretty sure Internet Backdraft is a very unlikely reason for Real Life examples to be pulled, unless there's someone on this site who has a boner for the Holocaust or the Tiananmen Square Massacre or something. It's more likely that there are too many examples.
Praetyre: I honestly do wonder about these things sometimes.. a few things pulled for ROCEJ reasons seem only really likely to offend Neo-Nazis or Communists. I have a sneaking suspicion it's to avoid people putting things like Roe vs Wade or the second Gulf War in.
Bob: It is.
Praetyre: Unless a significient amount of this sites users are Neo-Nazis, fugitives in Argentina, Stalin fans, Maoists, uyokus or Holocaust/Holodomor deniers, I hardly see any reason to cut out the Great Leap Forward, Holocaust, Holodomor or the establishment of medical camps in Manchuria for ROCEJ reasons. If someone puts in something that *is* going to offend a lot of our users (like, say, Germany's participation in World War One, Columbus' attitude towards Native Americans, Arthur Harris' participation in the bombing of Dresden or the judges ruling in Roe v. Wade), then by all means take it out. But I have seen not a whisper of that in there.
Sean Tucker: Seconded.
Darth Howie: I think this needs a mention of the Complete Monster in the description somewhere since they obviously have a lot to do with this trope.
"Now V has definitely crossed it."
I can't agree that killing non-shiny dragons in an attempt to protect one's family is "definitely" a Moral Event Horizon, before we even see the aftermath. I'm not saying she was right. I'm not saying it isn't morally dissonant. I'm just saying we could wait at least one whole entire other strip before saying it's definite.
Vampire Buddha: Chainsawed the anime section. Will do others when I get the chance.
- * Light Yagami. Just...Light Yagami. Depending on your point of view, he crossed the line with the deaths of Raye Penbar, Misora Naomi, or, most famously, L. Of course, your mileage may vary, since Light's leather pants mean he can be forgiven for just about anything by some percentage of the fandom.
**Are we forgetting that he also killed his own fragging dad?!
** We aren't forgetting; He didn't. Not that he wouldn't have been willing to, had the need arisen.
***He may not have actually written his name in the Death Note, but this troper holds Light partially responsible anyway.
***It's very telling about Light's personality, considering that his father may have held stronger to the ideal than Light ever did.
From the Full Metal Alchemist section.
- *** He may have crossed the line much earlier... when he stabbed the sympathetic chimera girl to death while she's inside Al. Al just kind of collapses, as blood pours out of all the chinks in his armor. The entire time, the culprit has a calm smile on his face. Even while his sword is down Al's neck.
*** Heartily agreed, and considering he's a very good liar and manipulator in general, he didn't really need to do it. It was more than likely prejudice as most in the military viewed the chimeras as less than human in some way or another due to their half-animal lineage. Add in that he's a homonculus and there's a touch of irony as well, since he'd be branded the same way if it came out.
*** When you consider that the human chimerae were made by the military, and likely by his orders, considering who (in the anime) was their creator, the scene's just that much worse.
At that point, we don't know he'd a homunculus, and it seems like he's just misguided.
- ** Speaking of Shou and Barry, the State Military's crossing of the Moral Event Horizon for many viewers came when they were shown to be using them. Of course, the flashback to the Ishvalan massacre in the manga shows you how awful the Amestrian Goverment really is. The Generals care more about getting all the credit than about ending the war, and the events are so horrifying that Gentle Giant Alex Louis Armstrong has a mental breakdown right on the field. The worst part is that its made clear that the soldiers (except for Kimblee) hate this and just want to get out of there.
That's just saying War Is Bad.
- *** Granted, he was NOT in the right mind at the time. That doesn't justify the act, but there is a difference between intentionally killing two nice characters and killing them in a blind rage directed towards anyone who remotely looks like an enemy.
From the Elfen Lied section:
- ** Lucy herself multiple times. Gouging a defeated opponent's eyes, killing a secretary, and ripping off Nana's limbs all stand out. Not to mention when she cuts the protagonist's little sister in half right before his eyes.
** But she also killed the girl who was her only friend and who loved the dog like she did, making her cross the horizon in the very same scene herself. Alternatively, she crossed the line when she killed all the bystanders at the fair, or killed Kouta's family in the train later that evening.
*** The girl in question revealed where Lucy's dog was to the cruel kids, though to be fair to her, she didn't know what the kids had planned for the poor mutt. And to be frank, that first lash-out with Lucy's diclonius powers was very much an indiscriminate one. She was past the point of caring about any innocents caught in the crossfire, as the incident was the final straw that clinched the idea in Lucy's mind that humans were bastards.
*** The line was crossed in the first ten MINUTES of the first episode. Especially with the nice secretary's body *Shudder*
*** A less extreme example would be a secretary's introduction to one agent Bando. Sure its not so damning as anything else listed in the series, it still crosses a line.
From Hira-whatever it is
- ** Miyo Takano also crosses the horizon in the seventh arc of the series. The characters have finally learned their true enemy ( Takano herself, who had been hiding the whole time), and have united against her. After a chain of miracles and heartwarming scenes, the six friends are incredibly close to their goal, until Takano shoots them all. Keiichi is killed in the middle of his Rousing Speech, Mion and Rena die trying to hold Takano off, and Satoko and Shion are tied down so Takano can shoot them in the face. Then she goes on to ritually disembowel Rika to set off the Great Hinamizawa Disaster, wiping out an entire village of 2000 people, just to prove that her grandfather was right.
Sounds like Miyo was already evil.
- Anonymous Mc Cartneyfan: Yes, but there's different grades of evil. I gather from the description that, after being unmasked as The Mole, she appeared to go through a Heel–Face Turn because of that chain of miracles and Crowning Moments of Heartwarming). Then she renders them all useless with Chronic Backstabbing Syndrome, killing one in the middle of his inspiring speech, murdering two others of the Nakama in cold blood, and killing someone in an evil ritual to destroy a city... Taking miracles and throwing them away in a sea of blood? Just typing this makes me horrified.
- Vampire Buddha: I haven't seen it, so I was erring on the side of caution. If it affects you that much, maybe it does belong.
* Name a One Piece villain. Any One Piece villain. Especially if they are Big Bads or are associated with the World Government.
** Aside from Crocodile and Arlong though, most non-World Government villains do eventually find redemption.
** Even Arlong has a bit of leeway now, given what we've learned about how fishmen are generally treated, particularly on Shabondy Island. Most fans, however, aren't buying it, and they shouldn't. He let Nami grow up gathering the money he promised that she could buy her town's freedom for, and then, on the day she would have finished, he sent a corrupt squad of marines to beat her up and steal all of the money before she would pay him off. That's not revenge; that's evil, pure and simple.
** How can we not mention the World Nobles here as well? Especially that bastard Saint Charloss, who gunned down the only member of the Arlong Pirates who wanted to redeem himself in Nami's eyes for what Arlong had put her through all those years, simply because he was a fishman. Luckily, He Got Better, and Luffy promptly punched Charloss right in the face, fully aware of the consequences of doing so.
From the Gundam section:
- This troper and many others he knows cheered when Louise finally killed her, though the fact that Louise did not find the closure she deserved soured the moment considerably.
*** It was similarly soured for others as Nena had died like that. Louise had the advantage of actually having a good past and a posibility of redemption later, whereas Nena is rather tragic in her lack of life other than war. That she did not at least find closure for one of the few things she actually had in her life is sad.** And once again in 00, Andrei Smirnov started out as a decent guy but arguably crossed the line when he, out of emotional outburst, killed Hank Hercules and his father Sergei Smirnov, after they just worked hand in hand in shooting the falling debris of the collapsing Orbital Elevator. At that point on, he has put himself beyond the line in between Nena's position (who has been slowly trying to get off the line) and Ali's position, as the audience has been gunning down for his death.zz- Big Bad Ribbons crossed the line when he brainwashed Anew Returner, or more exactly returning her to her Innovator self, then pits her against her lover Lyle/Lockon II, who still resolved to get her back. And just when things are going Lyle's way, Ribbons takes direct control over Anew to fight him off again, forcing Setsuna to shoot her dead to save him. Poor Lyle.
I haven't seen it. but these don't sound that bad.
- * In the final season of the anime of Sailor Moon, Galaxia is presented as the boss of minions who go off searching for Star Seeds hidden in living beings. Apparently, she has to find Star Seeds with eternal shines, so she can take over the planet. But after killing off her minions and descending to Earth once the Princess of a planet she destroyed showed herself, Galaxia took that Princess' Star Seed and apparently had nearly enough power to accomplish her goal. She then spent the next four episodes killing almost everyone on Earth by taking their Star Seeds, showing that the efforts of her minions were little more than pointless busywork. Sailor Moon redeems her though, because that's who she is.
If she isn't beyond redemption, she hasn't crossed the horizon.
- ** Dio Brando gets one of these in his introduction in Part 1. Jonathan's dog Danny runs up to Dio, just to be friendly... and Dio kicks him as hard as he can! Dio then explains that he hates dogs because "they're stupid animals who don't know their place". That isn't even the worst thing Dio does in the entire series - in fact, that's not even the worst thing he does to Danny - but it certainly shows what kind of person he is.
That's just Kick the Dog. Literally.
- * Lord Darcia of Wolfs Rain goes from being woobiliciously wicked to unforgivable in an instant when he kills off Toboe and Quent. It only worsens after his wolfish transformation, which makes him unattractive as well as evil, and kills off all the other characters.
** Kind of weird that said transformation would be self-inflicted, but he did go crazy, after all.
** Can't blame him too much as he wasn't really all there. If he had done it earlier it would have had a much bigger impact. The insane unrequited love of Jagara that caused her to begin much of the events in the series is probably more worthy.
If the natter is accurate, this doesn't count.
- ** Tomoe is considered having crossed the line at one of two points: when she "greets" Shizuru immediately after switching sides, or later when she confronts Arika and gloats about being responsible for crippling her and her friends throughout the series (while also saying something to the effect of "they were all useless, anyway" with a big smile on her face).
Evil gloating isn't that bad.
- *Alucard from Hellsing seems just to be a badass vampire hunter at the start of the manga, but as the series progresses, the reader finds he is quite close to being amoral. Case in point: his brutal battle against Rip van Winkle, where he crashes directly into the hijacked ship she occupied, taunts her by letting her tear him apart with her magic bullets (and promptly regenerating afterwards), then, in a scene of symbolic rape, impales her on her own musket and devours her. All this, whilst Rip cries hysterically for basically the entire scene.
**Well, Rip wasn't exactly innocent of brutal crimes...
**"Close to Amoral?" Alucard is PURE EVIL, kept on a tight leash and aimed at crazy vampire Nazis. I thought his brutality, sadism, and his Blood Knight tendencies were what people liked about him?
*
Fans like Alucard. Also, this is Hellsing we're talking about.
- *** All had gone downhill for him from the moment he not only mocks Alexander Anderson's death, but brutally kills Yumi in the middle of her Roaring Rampageof Revenge, cutting her down to pieces. Various pieces.
Collaborating with Nazis is bad enough.
- *** Is it just me or does Pain remind anyone else of Ninja Jigsaw as far as motivations go?
** This is shortly after killing Shizune by ripping her soul out of her body and then he , imp\ales little old Pa Toad, breaks every bone in Gamabunta's body, it's implied he crushes Gamaken and drowns Gamahiro, and very likely kills Hinata right after she finally confesses to Naruto (which easily counts even if she did survive).
** Also from Naruto, the Village elder Danzo, who prevented Naruto from coming to Konoha to prevent the aforementioned scene by killing a frog messenger sent to fetch him, expressing a desire to see Konoha destroyed so that he can succeed Tsunade as Hokage.
Natter is natter.
- * In the fifth Kara No Kyoukai movie, Cornelius Alba goes from somewhat cool guy with a grudge to flow blown psychotic after Araya kills Touko and gives Cornelius her head to do with what he wishes (ew) and then Cornelius uses it to torment Mikiya. And then he corners Mikiya, knocks him out and starts repeatedly slamming his head into the wall until he's bleeding while screaming about how Touko never respected him. He has to die after that, and when he does you can't help but cheer. Good riddance, you bastard.
Honestly, that doesn't sound too bad as far as villains go.
- * Almost every adult in Now And Then Here And There is guilty of this. Especially the Big Bad.
Explanation plz.
- ** The revelation early in the same show that Argentum makes a habit of reassigning infants' sex, seemingly more-or-less at random.
Don't they have a good reason for that?
Fast Eddie: Pulled out for discussion
- V for Vendetta; Killing two fingermen/cops; fogiveable. Blowing up government building; forgiveable. Getting innocent hostages killed by disguiseing them as himself; forgiveable. Killing more cops; forgiveable. Hunting down and killing the people who had him tortured in the concentration camps; forgiveable. Talking Evey into dressing like a little girl/jailbait/prostitute/doll in order to seduce a pedophile priest apparently without mentioning or clueing her in to the fact that he's a pedophile; forgiveable. But Tortureing Evey for weeks or months, and it turns out be a little joke Now THAT... well this troper has naver seen that in a movie done by a "good guy" before.
Ivan Grozny IV: So...can a PC in a game technically cross the Moral Event Horizon? Isn't the entire idea that after this act you are no longer cheering for the character, you just want them to DIE DIE DIE for whatever truly repulsive thing they did? If it's the PC, it's you. How can you stop rooting for your own character choosing to do what you told him to do?
Killer Clowns: I suppose if you say, at the beginning of the game, "I'm going to go evil because Evil Is Cool," there'd be a relative Moral Event Horizon in the form of an act that makes you think, either "wow, being evil is about more than dressing in black, I guess... but I said I was going evil" or "fuck that, Even Evil Has Standards," it'd be a Moral Event Horizon. An act you had never imagined was in your power to commit, and makes you, the player, feel genuinely dirty instead of like a badass villain.
Metaphysician: I would say, yes. In particular, I've known of P&P gaming groups wherein the players managed to disgust *themselves* with the depths of their evil. ( And also, the GM, who was going to have the P Cs all killed in the very near future if they didn't halt the campaign )
Is the Dollhouse entry correct? The only revelation I saw about November's backstory is that she had a baby that died. Sierra, on the other hand, was made into an active because she refused to have sex with a guy who then proceeded to hire her out, making the whole organization basically conspirators to her rape.
KJMackley: Just throwing this out here, what if we removed any instance of fan objectivity in this trope. It is still largely being used exactly like Kick the Dog with people saying that they lost respect for a character when they went blah blah blah. What if this trope is established as being something identifiable In-Universe. Meaning the characters themselves identify the villain as doing something irredeemable.
Many of the examples already support this and the ones everybody are arguing about concern fandom reactions, which is heavily subjective. Like Xanatos from Gargoyles is listed as crossing the line but he was redeemed by the end of the season, and Sentinel Prime said some harsh things to Blackarachnia but she was also trying to kill him. The examples I am talking about include:
- Arrested Development when Lucille felt that being rude to the guests was worse then George Michael being missing. Michael looked at her with disbelief before he ran off anyway.
- Star Wars when Alderran was destroyed it caused a massive surge of Rebellion support, the exact opposite of what Tarkin was aiming to do.
- The Joker in Batman Beyond Return of the Joker. It was the closest Batman in that universe ever came to killing the Joker in absolute rage.
Vampire Buddha: That could work. There will probably still be some subjectivity as to just how disgusted the characters have to be for an example to qualify (for example, Ozymandias' actions at the end of Watchmen), but it will be somewhat better than what we have now. (24/4/2009, 22:33 GMT)
J Caesar: But the article's text is entirely about subjective moments and there's a big pink "subjective" banner on the top? I'm sorry, but I just don't see this is a problem. Also, if we make this objective within a continuity, I think it becomes a new trope entirely. Most heroes see the villains they're facing as having crossed the Moral Event Horizon in the first place, otherwise they'd probably have something better to do than chasing after them. In those rare occasions when heroes do go from "thinking this guy (or girl) can be redeemed" to "thinking death is the only option," it seems to me a subtrope of the "I Know You Are in There Somewhere" Fight or else a variation on the current YKTTW topic Shit Just Got Real are more appropriate.
Premium Irritation: Pulled
- Survival Of The Fittest character JJ Sturn: This (NSFW) thread.
- To summarize: He has sex for one last time with his girlfriend, then breaks up with her while insulting her. She slaps him, and then he decides to beat the crap out of her while continuing to insult her. After all, he is a Complete Monster for a reason. His handler tries to turn him into The Atoner, but it doesn't work.
- Survival Of The Fittest character JJ Sturn: This (NSFW)
I get that this is a subjective trope, but that example isn't true. The events in question happened, but the rest is just character-bashing, because that's just plain not what JJ Sturn is.
Man Without A Body: Removed the Watchmen example, and killing a single character in a not particularly hideous way doesn't qualify, especially if that character is Rorschach. Also, pulled this picture, because the article says right there that the Joker is not an example:
Vampire Buddha: Removed this example:
- Eragon from The Inheritance Cycle. He strangles an unarmed guard begging for his life, decides to Mind Rape Sloan because he tried to protect his daughter even though he had already been starved and his eyes plucked out, lets two slaves wait to get eaten alive as he jubilantly shows the various scars on his body to Roran and completely abandons his brother who had saved his life because the Big Bad forced him into inescapable servitude. Eragon doesn't just go past the moral horizon, he does a merry jig across it.
- Oh, yeah, and hes not too fond of cripples, either.
- And he's supposed to be the hero of the story!
- Which just goes to show how much of an incompetent writer the author is, really.
- First, his strangling of the unarmed guard was only because if the guard was left alive he would tell Galbatorix that Eragon was in the Empire. Second, the "mind rape" of sloan was an attempt to save Sloan's life. Also Sloan was not trying to protect his daughter, He was kidnapping her so she couldn't get married to Ronan. Third, he tried multiple times to save his brother but the brother refused to accept his help.
The natter gives a good reason why it wasn't so bad, and don't the majority of fans still like Eragon?
The Jackal: Removed this,
- Arthur Petrelli IS the Moral Event Horizon. All he does is kill, mind rape and plot to kill and mind rape. That's it.
Because it's just Complaining About Characters You Don't Like.
Kuruni: It's Older Than Dirt. In Buddhism, one can archive enlightment as long as he doesn't cross moral event horizon. Angulimala slain 999 travellers as hughway murderer, yet he didn't cross it since Buddha prevent him from committing matricide. A straight example is King Ajatashatru whose Buddha said that he would have attained a degree of enlightenment, if only he hadn't kill his father. From my knowledge, it isn't the sin that prevent one to archive enlightment. But by commiting one (kill parent, kill Arahanta, cause harm to buddha), it mean the person is Complete Monster and even if he has chance to redemption, the guilt will be so great that it's impossible for such mind to archive enlightment.
Silence: For some strange reason, the phrase "dog-kicking machine" makes me smile.
Eida: Removed
- When people found out that PETA killed animals sent to their pound this seemed like hypocrisy (at best). When it was revealed that members of PETA accepted the animals from owners who could no longer take care of said pets, promised them that they would find their pets a good home, and then BLUDGEONED THEM TO DEATH ONE BLOCK LATER they lost any kind of sympathy.
because it was a Real Life example.
Kahran042: I really think that this should be on Darth Wiki, seeing as it IS a negative trope. There is nothing non-negative about calling character irredeemably evil, so it is a negative trope. And if it's not a negative trope, then what keeps it from being so?
Matthew The Raven: It's about the dark side of fictional characters, not the darker aspects of our Tropersphere, like So Bad It's Horrible or the various Something Sucks tropes. Otherwise, we'd have to add Complete Monster and just about every other villain trope to the Darth Wiki.
Specialist290: Am I the only one who finds it hilariously ironic that this page abbreviates to "Meh," considering that that's exactly the opposite of the reaction it's supposed to cause?
Jketchum31: Hey, is there or should there be a Troper Tales for this? I ask because there are some examples where fandom is sharply divided, or perhaps where only one or a handful of fans think a character crossed a line. The particular example that comes to mind is Doctor Who's Doctor. There are plenty of things he's done that are iffy to folk, but for me, he crossed the event horizon in "Journey's End" when he mindwiped Donna to save her life, as she pleaded with him not to. I can no longer forgive him, but a number of fans have defended his action to me and told me I'm overreacting. Still, he crossed the event horizon for me. So what do I do? put it on the main page with a heavy warning of Your Mileage May Vary, or try to find a/the Troper Tales page for this trope?
Mouser: Removed
- A Despair Event Horizon arguably pushes Vaarsuvius off the Moral Event Horizon in Order Of The Stick when a giant black dragon beats V to a pulp, promises to eat his/her kids, and skin his/her spouse into a hat as revenge for killing her son in a random encounter. Desperate, Vaarsuvius makes a Deal With A Devil to gain Nigh Invincible magic, rips the dragon to pieces from the inside out, zombifies her head, and makes her watch as V slaughters every one of her family members on the planet up to and including unhatched embryos. In other words, V kills a quarter of the black dragons on the planet. One one hand, all black dragons are ChaoticEvil, and who knows how many of the dragon's relatives would have tried to get revenge on V's family again? On the other hand, those were an awful lot of innocent dragons...the Three Arch Fiends estimate a 50-50 chance that V would be sentenced to hell after "the stunt with the dragons". And to appease the black dragon's patron goddess, the Arch Fiends promise to kill five good dragons for every evil dragon that was killed.
Vaarsuvius did something terrible, enough to shift alignment to Neutral Evil - hopefully not permanently. That there is hope for that means it is not a Moral Event Horizon. Reread the first paragraph: You don't come back from a MEH, you don't have fans cheering for your redemption, you don't get My Greatest Second Chance, and you certainly don't become The Woobie the way Vaarsuvius has.
[[rallyfan9000 Anonymous]]: Looking back on it now, would what Andross and his forces did to Zoness count? He basically turned a pleasant and peaceful water planet into a toxic wasteland. It would have been easier on the Cornerians if he had simply blown it up, imo, since they now have to deal with years, possibly decades of clean-up and damage control work.
Yuvalescent: I must question this.
Kuruni: The artcle isn't suppose to has Real L Ife example anyway. I think it might worth mention if there is evidence, but since it isn't...
Yuvalescent: Ah, thank you. I wasn't sure what the protocol was on deleting things.
Master Ghandalf: Removed Xanatos's entry. While the misdeed posted there was easily the most straightforwardly evil thing he ever did and a seriously nasty Kick the Dog, it wasn't this trope. Lots of fans still loved Xanatos afterwards, and it's only after the affair with the mutates that he becomes an Anti-Villain before finally doing a Heel–Face Turn. The definition of the Moral Event Horizon is that you can't come back. Xanatos came back, so he never crossed it.
KJMackley: This Transformers Animated example is likely the one thing that bugs me about this page, mostly because people are treating it as "Anyone who does anything that annoys me." I think we can all agree that if it is not treated by the show as a MEH than it does not count. This is different from my earlier remark (that the characters have to acknowledge it as a MEH) because even if there is no one around to call the villain out on the act, the individual can not be still considered as "good" by the story. Sentinel Prime might be a jerkass and obstructive to the main team but he is still on their side and Optimus treats him as a respectable ally, he even makes full amends with the guy in "Decepticon Air." That means Sentinel Primes' remark was not intended to be a MEH, this is just Moral Dissonance.
- Sentinel Prime, already a Jerkass, did this when he told his long-lost friend Blackarachnia that she was better off dead than technoorganic and then tried to kill her himself. Did we mention he's now the de facto leader of the Autobots?
- For the record, Blackarachnia is a Fallen Hero Evilutionary Biologist, so she's obviously not the bot Sentinel once knew. What truly makes Sentinel cross the line is that he made this accusation before he learned any of this.
- Sentinel Prime, already a Jerkass, did this when he told his long-lost friend Blackarachnia that she was better off dead than technoorganic and then tried to kill her himself. Did we mention he's now the de facto leader of the Autobots?
Some Sort Of Troper: The huge Tolkein spoiler is just unnecessary, you can just call it "the unevents of..." or "Morgoth's actions against... which resulted in..." and keep it brief if you want the example back in. Relate it to the trope.
Some Sort Of Troper: New description additions- important and objective points about this trope were being lost, points about how a writer can craft their work to generate the audience reaction which is what all trope do, not just subjective" ones. So the subjective banner is gone too, there was Trope Repair froum discussion that expressed displeasure with it and they had a damn good point.
—-
Skinner: Removing some natter from the Repo The Genetic Opera example. It's here for posterity.
- Nathan crosses this line an hour into the movie. Nathan is the Repo Man, a heartless monster who takes organs from patrons who cannot pay for them any longer. The viewer is sympathetic for his character, even watching him butcher and kill several people, until he hits Shilo, his daughter, in a moment of rage.
- Was this AFTER the song where she sang about how useless and pathetic his attempts to protect her were? That was the entirety of the song "Seventeen." It's an entire freaking chapter of the movie. I'd be PISSED if I was her father.
- Given that he kept her locked away without a single shred of human contact I'd say she was right to be pissed with him.
- There's a reason behind it, though - remember that in the outside world, exposed to everything, it's possible, perhaps even likely that SHE could have required an organ transplant. Do you really think even the Repo Man's daughter is immune from organ reposession?
- Oh so his heart is in the right place when he steals his daughter's independence, shuts her up in her room and forbids her to have a life, while slowly poisoning her? Well that's alright then darling. Seriously, don't try and pretend that his actions toward Shilo were anything less than monstrous. And let's not even get into his obvious sick incestual thing for her, what with making her up to look like his DEAD WIFE. The guy was a bastard. He had sympathetic qualaties but his only truly GOOD deed was dying and leaving Shilo free to live her life.
- I wasn't excusing him, just pointing out the reasoning for him locking her away in the house. I don't argue that Nathan was far from ever being 'Father of the Year,' even considering the Crapsack World they lived in. Keeping her in the house? Given whatever epidemic that caused peoples organs to fail so totally, that's a little extreme but understandable. The rest? Yeah, that is anywhere from difficult to impossible to justify.
- Was this AFTER the song where she sang about how useless and pathetic his attempts to protect her were? That was the entirety of the song "Seventeen." It's an entire freaking chapter of the movie. I'd be PISSED if I was her father.
KJMackley: I feel that the trope is miles ahead of where it was a few weeks ago, but there are still bad examples that still need to be pruned. The Office example below isn't taken as a character changing action, Michael is still more or less treated as the same character before and after it.
- In an odd example, in the American version of The Office Michael Scott betrays Dwight when an idea blows up in his face and later asks for all of the credit and none of the blame when it turns out that the idea was in fact a good one. After that scene, he blatantly sells out his 'friend' to the higher ups. Unfortunately enough, this is probably Truth in Television as many bosses do indeed more or less force subordinates to fall on their own swords to avoid censure.
Tyoria: I took this out:
- In Chrono Trigger, in the first visit to prehistoric times, the Reptites seem like baddies-by-default in by virtue of being a non-human race doomed by history. (The time travelers just want their Gate Key back.) It's on the second visit that they establish themselves by razing Laruba Village, the designated home for non-combatants, which drives Ayla into Final Battle mode. Further driving Ayla to rage is the fact that Kino went to Laruba to help extinguish a fire and wound up being captured (probably for the Reptites' victory meal); it's obvious she cares for him a lot. Whatever the player or the rest of the party may think doesn't matter - Ayla intended to smear every last Reptite into the ground with her bare hands.
- Which makes the Lost Sanctum in the remake seem really weird. It's a village full of irritatingly nice reptites who will reward you handsomely for doing side-quests. Rather jarring.
Ayla never says anything of the sort. The reptites are genocidal, but there's nothing to indicate that she is. She tries to save Azala at the end of that sequence, for crying out loud! She just doesn't intend to roll over and let her tribe get wiped off the map.
Mysterio:The "Comic Books" section seems to me M.I.A. Is there a reason for this?
Some Guy: I have, as promised, completed the page overhaul as outlined in the Trope Repair forum thread on this topic. Time will tell if the bad examples of this trope will (hopefully) stay away.
Some New Guy: I didn't realize this page had to cater to your standards. What the hell gives YOU the right to decide how a trope should work? EDIT: Restored perfectly valid entries.
Dales Kaine: Sasuke stabs through Karin so he can stab Danzo in the heart. http://www.onemanga.com/Naruto/480/16-17/
Discuss]]
