This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Desertopa: I don't see this as an appeal to authority at all. The entire point is that the characters can get away with stuff like that, not because they're in a position of authority, but because they're right. They can do things that would be wrong for other characters because they always know exactly what they're doing. For an Average Joe, messing around with a house's electrical system is stupid and dangerous, but it's not a problem for a qualified electrician. This is the moral equivalent of that.
Red Shoe: I'm not really seeing the logic behind the name of this trope. Seems like "Omniscient" isn't the right word here, unless you mean "It's okay because they know what they're doing." "Machievellian" seems more apropos, though I think the classical example would be "Carte Blanche".
Andyzero: It's twofold. One, the characters are somehow considered as completely able to predict the consequences Or so the plot tells us, but doesn't necessarily show us.
and
Everyone in the series believes them. Anyone who challenges their authority is "proven" wrong by the end.
The writers never indicate that they're gambling anything, even if said characters have been wrong in the past. For example, Yoda and Obi-wan "Don't go help your friends, even though even we have to admit you might save their lives. You'll just destroy everything they care about." Star Wars treats them as right....even though it was Han, Leia etc. who were responsible for the operation that destroyed the Death Star.
Ununnilium: See, I never got that feeling. I don't see that anything goes wrong *because* Luke went off to save Han and Leia, and neither he nor anyone else ever said "Boy, you sure shouldn't have done that".
Andyzero: Okay, I'll remove the Star Wars ref. I was trying to think of a Western example. Eriol and others definitely fit that, though.
Red Shoe: Okay. So the notion is that they're given a license to (appear to) act amorally on the grounds of their omniscience? I'm still not completely comfortable with the name, but I think I get where it's coming from. Also, I think this trope goes hand-in-hand with some of the other incomplete-information plots, especially We Would Have Told You, But....
Ununnilium: Indeed. Omniscient Morality License is We Would Have Told You, But... taken to its logical extreme.
Violet: So basically an Omniscient Morality License means you can do some pretty nasty stuff, but its ok, your super knowledge means you knew it was the right thing to do and everyone agrees. But logically, if your smart enough to know that killing the heroes sister would eventually lead to the hero saving the world. Surely your smart enough to figure out a way without killing anyone in cold blood?
Nobodymuch: Usually the nasty stuff is more like withholding the knowledge that she actually survived after all and not necessarily. Quite often the License-Holder knows what will happen if the sister doesn't die and what happens if she does, but not what would happen if he tries to take a third option or there is simply by fiat no third option.
Andyzero: Removed the God example as it was getting far too conversation-y and Take That!, especially since there are people for whom this is their faith on this very Wiki.
Ivan Grozny IV: Sorry, sort of indirectly added this back in by citing the Old Testament. If we run with the concept of the Omniscient Morality License being actually justified by the fact that the entity (i.e. God) knows everything will turn out for the best in the end, then I don't see why this is necessarily a controversy, even for the faithful. How many believers truly believe their God is entirely bound by the same moral laws human beings are, after all? How would the world function if God couldn't kill?
I'm going to go back and edit it slightly to remove any trace of controversy, but it strikes me as too much of an elephant in the room to remove completely.
Iphigenia: Cut the following example:
- Jedi Council from KOTOR. They refuse to help their state in defensive war until they are directly threatened, use brainwashing and keep secrets from other Jedi. In the first game light side character has no choice but to side with them.
Firstly, it's factually inaccurate - for example, what they did to Revan was not 'brainwashing' but implanting false memories, which isn't the same thing. Secondly, no one ever suggested that the Council was supposed to be omniscient. 'Making ethically questionable decisions because you see it as the best option at the time' isn't Omniscient Morality License - it might fit better under Moral Dissonance or What the Hell, Hero?.
What does Sailor Pluto do that would put her on this list? The only things I could think of that might remotely count is when she almost kills Sailor Moon for attempting to travel through time or when she takes Hotaru away from her father.
Specialist290: I would like to point out that "Wizard Hitler" would make an awesome name for a rock band.
While anti-religious statements are super-edgy for anyone born before 1950, I don't think we really need this:
- Every Supreme Deity of every religion ever.
Taelor: I say it's a valid example. This trope is about a getting away with seemingly amoral acts because you have some kind of special knowledge that let's you know that it'll all turn out in the best in the end. Regardless of whether you personally believe it's the case, you can't contest that it is a core tenet of almost every major religion (the whole "god(s) work in mysterious ways" business).
Taelor: So, if no one has any objections, I think I'll re add the entry, though I'll probably try and rephrase it.
