Rename (alt names crowner 4/2): Vorpal Weakness

The YKTTW sponsor launched it before a title was decided on and decided to go with...well, a really bad title that didn't have any support in the YKTTW discussion. The same person later put a big bold note on top of the page saying "This Needs A Better Title". So...yeah.

Anyway, if you go and look up "vorpal" in the dictionary, turns out it's actually unrelated to this trope. It's a made-up word Lewis Carroll coined to describe a sword in "The Jabberwocky", and it just means something like "really sharp or deadly or whatever", nothing to do with beheading.

Also, I feel like this isn't sufficiently distinguished from Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain, which, based on the description and the name, doesn't seem to actually be limited to the undead.

edited 20th Jan '12 12:53:22 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

That relies on the D&D definition of "vorpal", which is a kind of magic weapon that has a chance to decapitate on crit. A "vorpal blade" is used in Jabberwocky to behead the Jabberwock (unclear whether or not it was killed that way), which is ostensibly why TSR chose that word. It's not the dictionary definition or the original (made-up) definition.

Also, it does not seem distinct from RTHoDTB.

edited 20th Jan '12 12:01:26 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain is specifically only for The Undead based on the description (the name is a bit broad, though). This would be a supertrope.

But, yeah, the name is bad.

edited 20th Jan '12 12:03:15 PM by ccoa

Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up.

I don't understand why undead that are vulnerable to this deserve their own subtrope. There are plenty of undead which aren't, and plenty of non-undead immortals which are.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

That's what I thought too.

And Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain's description isn't really all that focused on the undead...that's more the Example as a Thesis (which I've since removed). Note how it also references Cranial Processing Unit, which is the robot version. Robots are (usually) not undead.

edited 20th Jan '12 12:45:17 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."

And the robot one isn't even about killing it either.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Hi guys, I'm the original YKTTW'er.

First of all, I flagged this trope as Needing A Better Title in a concession to a comment in the YKTTW thread (AFTER I had launched it; it's luckey I even noticed the comment) that "Vorpal Weakness" was no better than my original title "The Highlander Solution." If you guys don't agree that the title needs changing, fine by me; but it looks like you do.

As to Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain. That trope's description, as it is, seems pretty explicitly focused on the undead; and like it or not, I'm pretty sure that's what most people think it means. If you want it to be about anything that needs to be decapitated to kill it, as my trope is supposed to be about, I'd say you're going to need to overhaul that trope with a TRS thread, up to and including changing its name. Some may think the title sounds broad, but the phrase "removing the head or destroying the brain" comes directly out of old zombie movies (it was also used in Shaun Of The Dead in reference to such).

If you don't think the undead deserve their own subtrope, then you're not very familar with the culture of zombie movies/games. Trust me, the notion that "if it's a zombie, then you need to go for the head" is definitely a trope, despite the fact that there are plenty of examples to the contrary (i.e. undead beings that can lose their head and still not die). The existence of said examples doesn't change the reality that a lot of people - both real and fictional - labour under the impression that all zombies can be killed if and only if you shoot them in the head.

Furthermore, as I explained in the YKTTW discussion, this trope only overlaps with the "Removing The Head" half of the undead thing. Something which can be killed by shooting it in the head - as is often the case with zombies - is not this trope.

As for the reference to Cranial Processing Unit in Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain, I'd say that sentence is simply badly worded. As is, it makes it sound like the former is actually a supertrope of the latter, which it is not; it's only about robots. I'd say it should instead simply say "see also" or "Sister Trope to."

Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain is about zombies; or, if you prefer, undead. Don't like it, go and fix that trope, but be prepared for some opposition, and not from me.

edited 20th Jan '12 10:51:20 PM by HyperZ

I think that Vorpal Weakness*

and Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain are sufficiently different to be separate tropes. There's little misuse in the main pages, as most of the examples have the zombies in the latter and everything else in the former, though some examples could stand being shuffled around.

I see it more as an issue of Lumper Vs Splitter.

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

I don't really see the need to split them. As Bobby mentioned, lots of undeads apply it. Lots do not.

Robots have an excuse for having their own tropes because there's no particular reason for their head to be a "vital organ", since a robot's main computer could ostensibly be put anywhere IN the robot. Robots destroyed by head trauma are specifically modeled after humans, down to some of their internal workings. Which is a trope.

edited 21st Jan '12 3:59:37 AM by Ghilz

Hmm every instance of "Vorpal" it just means instant death IE Dynasty Warriors 4 Vorpal Orb which gave the ability to have an instant death charge attack chance on hit.

Now if this was Weakness to instant death attacks and spells ala Useless Useful Spell then I could see the name.

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

@Raso, I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

@Ghiltz, three things. First, this is not a matter of splitting versus not splitting. That would be the case if there were already a trope (sans the one I'm trying to make here obviously) about anything that can be killed only by decapitation, and we were debating about whether to make a trope only for undead. Instead, we currently have the latter and not the former; and the question is whether to change the latter into the former (which would mean its own trope overhaul and a name change) or create a new separate trope for the former (which is what I want to do). Either way, I think we agree there should be a page for the former.

In Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain, out of 41 examples (at the moment), I count 5 about non-undead, 2 about vampires, 1 about wights, and 2 about nonspecific "undead" (which may or may not turn out to actually mean "zombies" on closer inspection). The other 31 are all about zombies. Not counting the Real Life example at the bottom, which I would strongly argue should not be there (or at least, its existence says nothing about the scope of the trope); undead or no undead, this is supposed to be about cases where going for the head is the only (or very nearly only) way to kill something.

Note also that it's currently on the Undead Index and Tropes of the Living Dead. Even Horror Tropes somewhat implies undead; a trope for which Highlander is one of the most iconic examples is not a horror trope.

I also reiterate that, maybe you don't get the reference, but the phrase "removing the head or destroying the brain" necessarily implies zombies.

Bottom line, as of right now Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain is about undead. You can change that, or not, but you can't deny it.

Second, I frankly don't see why it's such a strong argument that there are lots of undead that don't die to decapitation. There are lots of Caucasian authority figures with ample hair, but we still have Bald Black Leader Guy.

Third, related to the above; I repeat, there are many fictional characters and real people who think that "zombie" is synonymous with "go for the head," regardless of the fact that that's not actually true. It's a trope, whether you like it or not. If Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain was "really" about everything and not just zombies, and a subtrope for undead did not exist, there would be no joke here, because there would be not trope to subvert.

edited 21st Jan '12 2:11:43 PM by HyperZ

The name is too general for what this is as Vorpal just means "Deadly" and gets used as "Instant Death" in games is what I was trying to say.

This trope's name is just "Deadly Weakness"...

edited 21st Jan '12 5:53:30 PM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

So, the options we have are essentially:

• Rename Vorpal Weakness.
  • Work needed: Rename and change the wicks to Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain that should go to Vorpal Weakness. Perhaps also a little tweaking in the descriptions, but not a lot.
• Merge Vorpal Weakness and Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain into a trope involving all creatures with a requirement to cut off or damage the head enough to kill.
  • Work needed: Rename*
    Which includes keeping a redirect to Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain.
    , rework the entire trope, and merge examples.

Did I miss anything?

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

Hm, could the current Vorpal Weakness trope be expanded to simply include where decapitation is debilitating? I've seen some where decapitation didn't kill a monster, just incapacitated it for later disposal. Perhaps Decapitation Weakness.

Fight smart, not fair.

Feather 7603: I'd say that sums it up, yes. I of course am in favour of the first option, for reasons described in previous posts.

Deboss: Maybe. If cutting its head off makes it, say, lose its ability to move, or stop being invulnerable to other forms of attack, then I can see that fitting. But there should be a line drawn between something like that, and "It's easier to deal with now that it can't see where it's going or use its firebreathing attack."

edited 21st Jan '12 9:22:28 PM by HyperZ

There is now a page action crowner for this trope here that includes the options Feather 7603 outlined. Feel free to add other options as you see fit.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Hooked.

I didn't write any of that.

I'm convinced that zombies deserve their own suptrope by the argument and the comic (and another one that was suggested for Genre Savy at one point). Let's keep this trope as the supertrope and rename it to something more descriptive.

So, wait, what exactly is the difference between Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain and Vorpal Weakness? Are we saying that Vorpal Weakness is a supertrope for "things that can only be defeated by decapitation" and Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain is a subtrope specific to the undead? Given how many examples in Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain are aversions, inversions, or otherwise not examples, I don't think it's splittable. It's certainly worth mentioning in the description that it's often the case with undead, but I don't think that "the exact same trope, but undead-only" is legitimate.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

has a point, but I think that the subtrope here of it being specifically about undead is actually enough of a thing to be a trope on its own. Vorpal Weakness is currently The Same But Less Specific. Maybe we should expand this one to cover more generally things where "there is only one way to kill this thing; anything short of that and they'll just get back up/regenerate", which could be soft-split to include a section for non-undead decapitation.

EDIT: Alternately, given the number of subversions/aversions it seems to have, we might also have a trope in "you decapitate it and IT KEEPS GOING"

edited 23rd Jan '12 3:04:10 PM by Pig_catapult

"Are we saying that Vorpal Weakness is a supertrope for "things that can only be defeated by decapitation" and Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain is a subtrope specific to the undead?"

Yes, exactly.

"Given how many examples in Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain are aversions, inversions, or otherwise not examples, I don't think it's splittable."

I refer you to the numbers I counted above; the vast majority of the examples currently there are about undead.

A subversion of "zombies are killed by headshots," such as the comic I linked above (which I got from an example already on the page), is still a concept that relates specifically to zombies.

"I don't think that "the exact same trope, but undead-only" is legitimate. "

First, it's not the exact same trope; zombies can also be killed by shooting the head, and to my knowledge that's actually used far more often than cutting off the head, at least in modern works. Vorpal Weakness only includes decapitation, not headshots. Second, I say again, if you don't think the undead-specific form is a trope, you clearly don't know anybody who's a fan of the zombie genre.

Again, that comic would have no joke if it weren't a trope.

"Maybe we should expand this one to cover more generally things where 'there is only one way to kill this thing; anything short of that and they'll just get back up/regenerate'"

"Alternately, given the number of subversions/aversions it seems to have, we might also have a trope in 'you decapitate it and IT KEEPS GOING'"

We have those; Achilles' Heel and Losing Your Head respectively.

edited 23rd Jan '12 4:48:29 PM by HyperZ

Ah. Whoops. Thank you for pointing me at those.

Iiiiignoooorrre meeeeeeee

That's because Removing the Head or Destroying the Brain, as currently defined, is about the undead. But what I was counting wasn't "undead vs not-undead", it was "played straight vs everything else". The examples have 20 played straight and 20 averted, subverted, played with, partial, or otherwise not-actually-an-example. Half not-played-straight examples is not a healthy trope.

So we expand the definition of Vorpal Weakness to removing or destroying the head. No biggie.

I'm not saying that it's not a trope, I'm saying we need a general "can only be killed by headshot/decapitation" trope instead, because the undead-specific version isn't subtrope-worthy — not all undead are like that, and not everything that's like that is undead, and it's played exactly the same way whether it's undead or not. We don't need a completely separate trope when a single line in the general headshot/decapitation trope along the lines of "often the case with zombies and other undead" would serve the same purpose.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I figure there's no point in trying to change your mind, Native Jovian, but in the interest of the discussion itself:

You misunderstand what I meant by "it is trope." I'm saying that the idea that "if it's a zombie, then you kill it by going for the head," is a trope. Again, that comic would have no joke otherwise. Quite simply, I say that the undead-specific variation is subtrope worthy.

And not to sound condescending, but to be perfectly honest I think that if you disagree, you are unaware of the culture surrounding the zombie genre.

I would not call myself a fan of the zombie genre, but I know a bunch of people who are. One such friend once made a comment to the effect of "The immortals in Highlander can only be killed by decapitation; therefore, the immortals in highlander are really zombies." Another time, we were having a discussion about how to defend against a zombie attack on a certain location; and on the subject of what weapons to use, I said something similar to what you're saying, that just because it's undead doesn't mean you can kill it with a single headshot. The reaction I got - from a different friend - was basically "What are you talking about? Of course it does!"

These incidents are not why I'm arguing for an undead-specific trope page, but they serve to illustrate my point. It's a trope. If you think these people are being silly, that doesn't change that fact.

I say again, that doesn't matter. I already illustrated this with Bald Black Leader Guy, but really, you could say this about practically any trope that associates one concept with another. Not every character who dies early in a story is black, and vice-versa. Not every female protagonist has a staff, and vice-versa. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I suspect that you'd find there are a lot of examples that are not documented on that page; BUT, even without that, there are "examples" on that page which should actually count for multiple. For example, "George A. Romero's zombie series." That's several defining examples right there.

First, that is simply not true. Entire tropes exist which have very few if any straight examples.

Second, a bunch of examples of zombies that are killed by going for the head, plus a bunch of examples where the characters think they can kill it that way because it's a zombie but are proven wrong, still equals a trope about zombies.

Third, at most that would mean the non-straight examples (or rather, those that aren't a deliberate reaction to the straight examples) should be removed. There's nothing wrong with a trope that has 20 or fewer examples. And again, what's written on that page actually constitutes a lot more than 20 straight examples; to say nothing of how many straight examples remain to be added (there's probably a few over in Vorpal Weakness that could be ported over).

On a final note; not that I'm saying we should dismiss the discussion, but I'd like to remind everyone that whether there should be two tropes is not the original purpose of this thread. (I don't mean in terms of the intent of the first post by Troacctid, I mean the drive to get this thread created in the first place once the TRS was no longer backed up.) The point of this thread was to change the name, because "Vorpal Weakness" isn't good enough. The argument over lumping vs splitting was actually a derailment. And, this issue was in fact settled in the YKTTW thread when I launched the trope. Again I'm not saying this means we should stop the discussion "just like that," but I thought it bared pointing out, since people seem to have forgotten this.

edited 1st Feb '12 7:58:16 PM by HyperZ

There have been no posts here in over two weeks, and the current vote is 8-3 for keeping both tropes and changing the name. Shall we consider this debate resolved, and move on to what to change the name to?