edited 9th Dec '11 1:19:55 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Right, Ironeye. Would anyone be willing to help me expand on the list in this post
?
edited 9th Dec '11 1:22:48 AM by arks
Video Game Census. Please contribute.Can't add much right now since I'm pretty much falling asleep, but I can say that trying to identify all possible dimensions and trying to make a scale out of each is just going to get us back into the mess that we are now.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.Fair enough. I was more thinking that each trait would be designated as "yes" or "no". Still, building that list will at least give us an idea of what tropes we have that can be antiheroes, which may help us find a good rubric.
Here's a suggestion: how about a two dimensional scale: the two dimensions are character and competence. Character is the personal traits of the hero, e.g. personal morality, honor code, friendliness, love, loyalty. Competence is the skill traits, e.g. intelligence, strength, ability. On the page, we can list different ways you can lack character or competence.
So an example of a hero that has low character and high competence is a '90s Anti-Hero. An example of a hero with high character but low competence is a Failure Hero.
Another idea is personality vs action. An example of a character who has a non-heroic personality, but does heroic actions would be a Jerkass Hero. An example of a character who has a heroic personality but does non-heroic actions would be What the Hell, Hero?. An example of a character who has a non-heroic personality and does non-heroic actions would be Heroic Sociopath.
Video Game Census. Please contribute.For the record, I believe this
is a Punch-Clock Hero, but I'm not quite sure about that.
Also, I'm not sure what's with the sudden rush to expand what's covered on this page. The "categories" don't all make sense, but I'm not sure why we suddenly seem to have decided to try and cover every possible permutation of one basic archetype (the Anti-Hero).
How about we define a list of traits that are typical to anitheroes, in the sense that practically every antihero has to have at least some of those traits to be an antihero in the first place, and then have the "subtypes" serve as anithero subtropes that designate subsets of the aforementioned set of traits that are commonly/popularly used together as "archetypes" of some sort?
Sorry if I didn't make sense; I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to put what I have in mind into words.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I guess I forgot to mention that.
So here's the heroic traits I have been working with on this project so far, on the theory that if the character has the opposite trait in any one or more categories, they're an Anti-Hero.
Going in order of (my interpretation of) the current scale:
Ideal Hero traits => Anti-Hero trait
Heroes are capable (Bad Ass) => Antiheroes can be weak
- Above - average physical ability. => Average or below average physical ability (character is a child, has a physical disability, is fat, frail, weak, etc.) - and that isn't subverted by having them be a superstrong child or something.
- Above - average mental fitness / toughness => Below - average mental ability (Idiot Hero?) OR struggles with mental illness, personality disorder, a Dark and Troubled Past, etc.
- Is a Badass, at least when it's required. => Is a loser, failure, etc.
- Courageous => cowardly.
Heroes have a positive temprament (Optimistic, idealistic, etc.) => Antiheroes can have a negative temprament (cowardly, cynical, etc.)
- Bold, confident, optimistic, etc. => cowardly, timid, shy, etc. [Type I for here and above]
- Idealistic, optimistic, patriotic, thinks Rousseau Was Right, etc. => cynical, grumpy, grouchy, pessimistic, slow to trust others or authority, etc. [Type II]
Heroes are morally pure => Antiheroes can be morally questionable
- Holds self to high standards, would not Poke the Poodle, let alone Kick the Dog => Allows self to commit morally ambiguous or questionable acts in order to fight (or while fighting) evil. [currently, this flaw would put a character somewhere in the type III - V range.]
- Has no evil intentions. Would never Kick the Dog for fun or selfish reasons. => Would Kick the Dog For the Evulz, or for money. [currently, this flaw would put a character somewhere in the type IV - V range.]
- Has overall noble intentions. Wants to save the world, help a friend, etc., and would do it even if there is no reward. => Is only doing it for the reward OR is doing it for completely nonheroic reasons (humiliating a rival, protecting their own interests, etc.). [currently, this flaw would put a character in type V]
- If there are other heroes, either works with them or does not oppose others' heroic objectives => opposes other heroes. Might make them a Hero Antagonist, or a type III - V, or a villain, depending on the circumstances and point of view.
- Opposes something worse than themselves or their own goals => is worse than what they oppose. That would make them a villain, not an Anti-Hero.
Are there Ideal Hero / Anti-Hero traits that don't fall within what I've listed? If so we should probably brainstorm them out here.
Edit: it occurs to me that there are three main categories in which these traits seem to fall: capability, temprament, and moral purity
edited 10th Dec '11 10:12:39 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
I'm a little confused about just how pragmatic a character has to be to fit in the Type III category. Many heroes resort to practical tactics now and again, but there are lines they won't cross.
For example, if somebody would lock the bad guy away (a pragmatic option, because it would stop them from doing further harm) but absolutely refused to kill them (even more pragmatic, because it would ensure that they'd never hurt anyone again, whereas imprisonment would carry the risk of them escaping), what would they be?
What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?I think when he said "pragmatic", he meant "practical/logical method or reasoning, but morally ambiguous/questionable".
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.^My thinking is that the Pragmatic Hero trope has a fair range. At one extreme, they could be just pragmatic enough that they clearly don't qualify to be a Knight in Sour Armor (who is grumpy but always ends up doing the morally admirable thing in the end anyway) to so pragmatic they are more Well-Intentioned Extremist than hero. However, at least usually, a Pragmatic Hero is still a hero first, The Unfettered second. Many if not most won't kill in cold blood unless they conclude it's absolutely necessary to accomplish their goal.
So by that definition, a Pragmatic Hero will, without hesitation:
- Shoot the Dog or Shoot the Hostage.
- Make a fake Face–Heel Turn (and pretend to Kick the Dog to get in) to spy on their enemy.
- Use a Zero-Approval Gambit.
A Pragmatic Hero typically will never:
- Kick the Dog outright.
- Engage in evil or morally questionable activities for pleasure or profit.
edited 29th Dec '11 9:54:38 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
Are we done with the crowner here?
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffI believe so. There has been overwhelming support to the trope-splitting option for a while now.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Yeah, I was wondering if the crowner was just so old that it had never been called.
Locking it now.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffThe leading option says to make each type a separate subtrope; does that mean according to the "specific tropes" mentioned at the bottom of each trope's descriptions? Some types have more than one trope associated with them in those.
edited 1st Jan '12 5:14:16 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
My understanding was we were going to just make a trope for each of the 5 types. Type I exists as Classical Anti-Hero (Incompetent, weak, or cowardly hero), type II is Knight in Sour Armor (cynical hero). Type III is Pragmatic Hero
, Type IV is Unscrupulous Hero
, and type V is Hero in Name Only
.
edited 1st Jan '12 11:33:51 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
![]()
To be honest, I think the Unscrupulous Hero entry could use some improvement, especially where it says that these characters are unambiguously on the side of good. The Type IV entry explains pretty well that the type could come in two distinct flavors, and the Unscrupulous Hero proposal fails to cover Anti-Heroes with selfish intentions but lines they won't cross, which the Sliding Scale Of Anti Heroes covered quite well, IMO. On the previous page, you named Jack Sparrow as an example of an Unscrupulous Hero, but Jack doesn't have "morally good" intentions. His intentions are pretty much always morally neutral; he just wants to protect his own freedom, but he has lines he won't cross and fights villains. Meanwhile, putting self-centered characters in Hero In Name Only would be too extreme. It's also a bit contradictory, as the "unambiguously on the side of good" detail conflicts with the descriptions in the next paragraph, which refer to characters who steal for the fun of it, which doesn't exactly fit under good intentions.
To be even more honest, with the many, many, many Character Sheets that designate the characters' Anti-Hero types, editing all of them to accommodate these changes would be a lot more trouble than the whole thing is worth. I just feel like this is nuking a city to kill some mice. If we absolutely need to scrap the sliding scale, though, I agree that the best option would just be to make Anti-Hero an index and include all the variations in there.
edited 9th Jan '12 6:56:06 PM by Lennik
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.The crowner results were (unfortunately*) overwhelming
That being said, getting rid of the type numbers is one of the most important things we're doing, since they meant nothing to people who weren't already intimately familiar with the sliding scale.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.I have started the launch clock for "Pragmatic Hero
" and "Nominal Hero
".
Last call for pre - launch changes.
edited 25th Jan '12 6:26:09 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
Anybody want to take Pragmatic Hero
? I'm not interested in doing it anymore because it's just not going anyewhere with me at the helm.
EDIT: Onaga Is Coming To Town has volunteered to take Pragmatic Hero
.
edited 4th Feb '12 8:26:10 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
Question: I heard the page is going to be repurposed as an index. How many types are left to launch? After they are launched, should we get rid of the examples? They are going to be in the corresponding pages anyway.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Crown Description:
The Pragmatic Hero YKTTW

I think Frodo is making the point of translating each category to a trope without keeping the number.
I recall seeing that one before—check on Lost And Found.
In any case, I think any attempt to preserve the linear scale will just lead the sort of fanwankery we're trying to avoid. With all of the ways there are to lack the qualities of a traditional hero, we're looking at a multidimensional system, probably with some amount of correlation between particular combinations of traits.
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.