Alright, so in TRS Badass Gay came up for discussion and it was agreed that there appears to big problem with the Badass X tropes in general, which needs to be sorted out until something can be ruled on for Badass Gay.
Here's a courtesy link: TRS page
. And Badass page with its subtropes. You can also visit the sandbox page here.
Noted Problems include:
- Tropes are just listings of characters people thing are badass who happen to have a certain trait. (The Badass + Trait Problem)
- Badass X as a naming scheme is actually very vague and doesn't give a lot of insight into what the character trope actually is, assuming it is a trope.
- Badass X as a naming scheme proliferates the use of Badass + Trait 'tropes'.
Suggested things to do include:
- Make it a requirement that a badass character trope means a character is "badass because of a trait", or "badass in spite of a trait".
- Renaming away from the Badass X naming scheme as much as possible.
- Cut, redefine or re-purpose things that are just Badass + trait.
There are also a lot of tropes that seem to be valid character-types, but have the naming scheme 'Badass X', when there's more to the trope than that. There are also a lot of prop or event or whatever tropes that need to be gone through as well.
Edited by Berrenta on May 15th 2020 at 7:39:14 AM
Maybe we need a combination pattern; that is, if two or more definitions end up having consensus the compound definition is used.
That would require two crowners; one for what to do with the page and another to define the trope if the option in the first crowner is "redefine". And that would require a way to deal with a deadlock, i.e a "default" outcome.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@1226: I don't see anything "negative" about my phrasing. And it's only "snarky" insofar that it shows how the definition is actually going to be used. It has the potential to be applied to almost everyone and everything. We need to find a definition that prevents that.
We need to try to be as exact as possible with our definitions, because this trope has been proven to be prone to misuse.
Also, what if the character bravely faces 1000 superpowered alien monsters, but only manages to defeat 100 in a valiant last stand? He didn't "deal with" the danger, but isn't he Badass though?
@1228: I think we should formulate all possible combined definitions now, and add them to the crowner as separate options.
edited 11th Sep '15 8:35:04 AM by Rjinswand
Please stop using the word "competent". That could mean capable of anything from fighting to cooking to reading to carpentry. Only Serious Business has a chance of making the latter three "badass" by any definition of the word. Furthermore, this is a "high level supertrope" and so it has to be broad.
Also, defeating 100 out of 1000 superpowered aliens singlehanded would definitely be "badass" in my opinion. First of all, this character would be fighting all 1000 at once. Second, unless this character is also a superpowered alien then defeating each one of them will difficult. Finally, a Last Stand where 100 of them go down would demonstrate fighting ability, bravey, determination, resilence, etc. In other words, every definition we've been talking about.
More fuel for the "Too vague to be a trope" fire.
Badass is People Sit On Chairs.
edited 12th Sep '15 8:46:35 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@1234: The word "competent", in my opinion, is the most clear term to describe what we're talking about. Yes, it can mean a very broad number of things, and that's the point I'm talking about. We should define where the limits are, or else the trope will essentially mean "anyone competent".
I agree that a high level supertrope should be broad. However, I'm not sure it should be called "Badass" then.
And I agree, my hypothetical example is badass. The point is, he doesn't fit under your suggested definition of Badass, since he wasn't "strong/skilled/tough enough to handle the danger". He didn't stop the horde of overpowered aliens, 900 of which are now on their way to destroy his Doomed Hometown.
That's what I was talking about. I think a Badass doesn't have to be powerful, or to succeed. A Badass has to exceed his power level, which might still be insignificant enough compared to the thread. The point is, he managed to defeat 100 superpowered aliens on his own, regardless of whether that "dealt with the danger".
@1235: I personally don't think "brave" or "not a coward" should define a Badass. If anything, a Badass should be "exceptionally brave". A "brave" person isn't scared to stroll through the streets at night. An "exceptionally brave" person isn't scared to stroll through enemy territory during the war at night. A "brave" person isn't scared to climb on the roof to decorate the house with Christmas lights. An "exceptionally brave" person isn't scared to climb on Mount Everest. A "brave" person isn't scared to risk getting his finger burned. An "exceptionally brave" person isn't scared to risk his life.
@1236&1237: I also don't think it's PSOC. More like, it's an empty title without a specific meaning. Different tropers assign different meanings to it.
1. To continue your hypothetical example, and make it match my definition, the character was using You Shall Not Pass! so that his hometown could evacuate. It was a Suicide Mission. He has the bravery and "competence" to handle this task.
1.5 If a person does something "badass" and fails, then wouldn't they look stupid? It's like the Darwin Award winners.
2. I don't like the term "badass" either. I consider it a slang word that has many different meanings and might fall out of use in a decade or so.
Rather than a crowner to decide on a single definition it might be possible to have traits that people believe are a necessary component. For example, let's say you have these options:
- Fighting ability
- Cool
- Brave
- Taking on stronger opponents
- Competent
Someone could vote that they believe Badass requires all five traits, or perhaps 1-3 and 5 or only 2. Then we see which traits people most strongly believe are necessary for the trope and build a definition out of that.
edited 13th Sep '15 6:52:37 PM by Arha
Meh, I am inclined to go with @1223's crowner suggestion (either with laconics or with sandboxes) under a general "None of the options should be treated as mutually exclusive. If more than one option ends up having consensus, we'll arrange for that later" principle.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThat could work. Though I think Arha's suggestion would be simpler. "These are the possible components of the Badass trope. Vote up ones you think are an important part of the definition, vote down ones you don't. They are not mutually exclusive."
While I like the idea of voting on Laconics (or sandboxes), threads tend to stall as no one is willing to write anything up.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.I like the idea of voting for possible components. This could be put up quick and it would be simpler than voting for different definitions. At the crowner's conclusion, we will have an indisputable idea of what the troper hivemind believes the term "badass" means. It will focus our discussion towards a nuts and bolts re-definition.
Personally, I think that if we include a word like "cool" in the crowner, and if that option is the highest, then we should make "badass" a fanspeak term. We can't make a definition out of "cool" because it would become a YMMV trope.
@1239: The thing is, this hypothetical hero failed. This hero is hypothetical, but I remember seeing similar examples.
@1240: I'd rather suggest everyone to post their favorite combinations, and then we'll add them to the crowner as distinct options.
Deciding a trope definition is not a smorgasbord. Here's the situation we'll get this way:
- I'll (hypothetically) vote for "Is exceptionally brave".
- Some other tropers will vote for "Wears a clown hat".
- As a result, my vote would be treated as support for Badass being defined as "Is exceptionally brave and wears a clown hat". While I didn't really vote for that.
And the most important part is: Badass is a high-level supertrope. Which means it should be one specific trait. Not a collection of various mix-and-match traits. It should be one trait, or it could just be a fanspeak page.
So to reiterate: if someone supports a combination of these traits, post it. I'll add it to other crowner options.
edited 14th Sep '15 3:45:25 PM by Rjinswand
Restating my former combination with modifications: "Brave enough to face danger and strong/skilled/tough enough to handle it, whether mentally, physically or supernaturally (Last Stand, You Shall Not Pass!, Suicide Mission etc. count as 'handling it'). Anyone that would win a Darwin Award does not count, and simply being "cool" or "manly" is not enough to qualify."
I like that. Does it have to be every instance, though? Because sometimes there are people who fit that description but in one fight, for example, they may lose badly for some reason (usually just they have the Idiot Ball at that moment).
edited 15th Sep '15 2:57:43 PM by lakingsif
OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!![]()
I like this version of your writeup. But I'm still not sure how Last Stand or Suicide Mission count as "handling it". The entire point is that the character doesn't handle it, but does it heroically.
That kind of also encompasses lakingsif's point. In my opinion, a Badass doesn't always have to win. To the contrary, there are many Badasses who lose. The point is, how they do it.

Yes and No.
Yes; a competent fighter who is a coward is going to stay away from situations where they could fight. A brave guy who is not a competent fighter is going to get his ass kicked.
No; I said 'face danger', not 'do well in a fight'.
Also, I like my phrasing better. It's less negative and snarky.
edited 10th Sep '15 2:45:29 PM by ChaoticNovelist