What is Dark Messiah?

Back in the Description Improvement Drive thread, many people are confused about what Dark Messiah does, or should, cover.

At least from the page itself: "Out of this ambiguity comes a savior, someone who brings hope to the downtrodden and preaches a utopian vision of peace and prosperity for all. However, they aren't afraid to fight fire with fire. In a world where moral absolutes are impossible to find, they will use underhanded tactics, preemptive strikes, and other acts of Radical Terrorism in their quest to bring about that perfect world." This convinces me that this guy is a honest savior figure, but he's willing to use underhanded tactics and extreme means. This guy can either be an antagonist or a protagonist.

But what's alarming to me is this paragraph: "The "villainous" version of this character is usually hiding behind a more traditionally good messiah image. They may secretly be a Straw Hypocrite, but just as often, they are terrifyingly fervent in believing their messianic message and getting others to do the same."

That concept sounds distinct from the first one I mentioned. This one is commonly called a "False Prophet".

I'm also thinking of another concept "Messiah for the Bad Guys" - his idea of salvation, while (perhaps) genuine, appeals to some certain people, but not others.

Thoughts?

While I also see two types of Messiahs described (Knight Templar Messiah and Fake Messiah), I assume lots of examples are a blend of the two like a villainous fake Messiah using extreme tactics. As a lumper I am fine with one trope about people following saviors which they shouldn't.

"Messiah for the Bad Guys" sounds a lot like The Antichrist. As a concept, False Prophet sounds like it could be a separate but comparable trope to Dark Messiah^note The Antichrist already states that ACs are (mostly) False Prophets already, so make of that opinion what you will.. There was also a third concept brought up during the discussion on the improvement thread: ruthless "savior." Considering how Dark Messiah is described on Messianic Archetype as "the extreme Anti-Hero version," this concept seems to be the closest to what a Dark Messiah should be.

And if anyone thinks it's important, here is the first post on the Description Improvement Drive discussion about Dark Messiah's description. By the way, the following stuff from Dark Messiah that I put in bold is why the article is a mess:

Edited by Kevjro7 on Aug 28th 2020 at 8:50:21 AM

"I assume lots of examples are a blend of the two like a villainous fake Messiah using extreme tactics. As a lumper I am fine with one trope about people following saviors which they shouldn't."

That would just mean the two can overlap, but they're still distinct concepts. Besides, we do have Not-So-Well-Intentioned Extremist.

"Messiah for the Bad Guys" sounds a lot like The Anti-Christ.

Good, we have a page for it already.

"The Anti-Christ already states that A Cs are (mostly) False Prophets already, so make of that opinion what you will."

I think some Anti-Christs don't deceive people into believing that they will become people's savior. They make no lie that they're going to turn the world crapsack or do some other kind of grand evil, just that their target of follower are "certain" people (i.e the Evil Minions).

@ The bolded: I feel that the page is simply trying to be inclusive, and that is a good thing. Putting too much "absolutes" into the description could make the trope too rigid. Just that it's taken too far.

Currently, there is no clear distinction from The Antichrist nor a clear definition of what Dark Messiah is meant to cover. I have no problem with there being some overlap between the tropes (I think it's entirely possible for there to be characters who are both), but it needs to have a definition.

How about this:

Dark Messiah: An antagonistic Messianic Archetype who genuinely believes he's doing a good thing.

The Antichrist: A "False Prophet" who deceives his followers (either about himself or his goals) to gain their blind loyalty.

So Magneto would be an example of the former, Takaya an example of the latter, and Amon would be both (his followers serve him based on the false idea he was chosen by the spirits, but he still buys into his own hype).

Furthermore, I can't believe this needs to be said, but any Dark Messiah should be a Messianic Archetype - they must be a Chosen One, or have a pack of fanatic devotees, or other such trappings of that trope. Otherwise, a Dark Messiah is just a Well-Intentioned Extremist, like Ozymandias.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Aug 29th 2020 at 9:30:22 AM

I think a case can be made that the trope is being misused even considering its terrible description. Even though it does make it clear this is about a Messianic Archetype of some kind, there are way too many Well-Intentioned Extremist/Visionary Villain examples on the page.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Aug 29th 2020 at 11:21:21 AM

The Antichrist has a lot of trappings (Christian symbolism, frequently the child of Satan) that many "False Prophet" Dark Messiahs lack. This is not a split that makes sense, and it won't actually reduce misuse

Edited by Libraryseraph on Aug 29th 2020 at 10:49:26 AM

I think Antichrist implies that this one actively brings about as many destructions as possible, or at the very least wants to take over the world. And more than often, his/her followers actively know and aid him.

Meanwhile, False Prophet sounds more like good o' fashion scamming that relies on a lot of trickeries. And the followers are usually tricked into it and can/will turn on them the moment the truth got out.

Also, not all Well-Intentioned Extremist believes that they're the real savior (they can aid the one they think to be the savior, for example), but Dark Messiah do believe themselves to be so. So while a Dark Messiah is a Well-intentioned extremist, not all extremists are Dark Messiahs.

Example: Lucy in Elfen Lied is the Antichrist hellbent on killing everyone, and has at least one clan thinking she's their savior. But she's not the Dark Messiah, since she doesn't want to save anyone or thinking of herself in a good light. She's also not a False Prophet because she never declares herself to anyone or anything's cause aside her rage.

Edited by Mei-may on Aug 30th 2020 at 1:07:20 AM

But if all Dark Messiah's are extremists then we need something to specifically affirm what makes them different.

Like Ozymandias and Dr. Breen are bad examples of a Dark Messiah and they are still on the page. The former even believes his way is THE ONLY way to save the world from a nuclear war, yet he has no messianic trappings. While Dr. Breen is a sellout, a quisling who doesn't even believe in the tripe he spouts in his breencasts, and even has a slip of tongue to prove he's not as loyal to the combine as one would think. But i would assume his position in the page is due to his eloquent performance.

Kane from Command and Conquer is a good example of a Dark Messiah. He's a villain with the Messianic archetype traits but moved for bad with a cult of fanatical followers. He's both cordial and ruthless, to be effective at what he does.

Compare Ozymandias and Kane, and you can see significant similarities but key differences in trappings. After all, what is a Dark Messiah without their religious trappings or fanatical followers? There is also methodology to consider, Ozymandias manipulates people while Kane gathers up followers for his cause through presenting himself as a holy savior.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Aug 29th 2020 at 8:24:03 AM

Yeah, as a twist of a "messianic" figure, Dark Messiah ought to be a leader figure, who brings promise of "salvation", through underhanded means. Not all Well-Intentioned Extremist present themselves as messianic figures.

With that in mind, Krishna from SMT IV is another good example of that type of villain.

From his page: " Krishna presents himself as the much more agreeable third option compared to Lucifer and Merkabah, promising the people salvation. It quickly becomes clear that he's willing to kill countless people to get there, not to mention his salvation itself means everyone will die. He continues calling it salvation right to the very end, however, suggesting it wasn't just a façade and he had a messiah complex. "

Defining a Dark Messiah through how they gather their followers is quite restricting. I do agree that they have a lot of underlings could contribute to the Dark Messiah image, but the core is that they must believe themselves to be the savior and do something with that thought. Both Ozymandias and Kane think of themselves as the messiah and push for their goal, that's the important point.

Some trope page's examples of not having followers include Anders in Dragon Age 2. This guy fancies himself as the savior who ignites the mage-templar war and he certainly gets the job done, but does he has fanatic followers? No, he has mages in the mages underground but they are not crazy for his cause but mostly for themselves.

Another is Seymour from FFX. This is the guy who wants to destroy the world to save everyone from pain. No one knows what's he actually plans, they only obey because he's a Maester of their religion. So in truth, he has no actual fanatical followers. He still counts as Dark Messiah because he wants to give the world something he thinks is good.

And another one is Archer of Nasuverse, the Dark Messiah who kills many people to save the world. Does he think he's doing a necessary thing? Yes. Does he have fanatical followers? No, in fact, most people hate him. Same with his father Kiritsugu.

Or take Renegade Shepard of Mass Effect, all the bad things Shepard (and we) could do are for saving the galaxy, but do we even see any cultist chasing after us and swearing eternal loyal (Conrad Verner is not counted)? What we have are most often grudgingly NP Cs who just give in. But Shepard can still be counted as the Dark Messiah. They save the world, with a lot of deaths and miserable people along the way.

Dark Messiah can have followers but that shouldn't be the only thing that defines them, just of several. If having fanatics is a must then every example in the trope could mention a cult, loyal followers, or how the example gathers them. But generally, we only get the example's belief and general actions.

Though, I suddenly think we could just make it clear in the trope's definition about the types of Dark Messiah. Keep the ruthless Well-intentioned Extremists with the savior-delusion part but divide the structure of their group and their role into something like:

• The Cult Leader (the one with active, truly fanatical followers)
• The Silence Dark Messiah (for those with no cults, no actual followers, and usually work alone or with a small group with somewhat equal standings)
• The Trickery Messiah (whose underling don't necessarily believe everything their leader says and simply work for them for different reasons, which could involve manipulation, or duty, or just simply because said mooks don't know.)

Edited by Mei-may on Aug 30th 2020 at 2:20:16 AM

I still disagree with making Dark Messiah only include Well Intentioned Extremists, since that would end up excluding characters like Griffith, who otherwise fits perfectly

I shall continue this talk later, i'm a little occupied.

Rather then just being for extremists. I'd rather go with wanting to usher in a new world or order personally. Which can be good or bad depending on the character and his aims.

But that's only the trope as it is now. The entire point of this discussion is to rework the trope and maybe split it. Griffith might not end up being included in Dark Messiah, but he'll still be listed in another such trope.

Dark Messiah is a common term used for a lot of characters outside of TV Tropes, but that doesn't mean every character that can possibly be described with that term should be in the page. Not it it's causing problems.

Honestly, we all have such different visions for what this trope is and what should be done about it that I really think the only way we'll get to an agreement is with a crowner.

At this rate, we might need to take Dark Messiah to the Trope Repair Shop.

I don't think it's too confusing myself. It's someone who has the trappings of the messiah, but they either:

• Act as one for the villains
• Are actually evil.

There's no need to make them just a WIE. A Dark Messiah can and should include someone who's leading the world to ruin for their own ends.

That's The Antichrist, not Dark Messiah.

Doesn't the Anti Christ require you to be themed for the legions of hell (as stated in the first paragraph of the trope)

Theirs also the issue that when characters are the Anti Christ. Their usually referred to as being that in the work itself.

Edited by miraculous on Aug 29th 2020 at 11:32:13 AM

or some sort of Christian significance, i believe

No one is making Dark Messiah a trope just about WellIntentionedExtremists! It shouldn't be a trope just about well-intentioned extremists! People thinking stuff like that is why it's in this sorry state right now. What's being discussed is whether that trope should be a part of this trope or not, but Dark Messiah will always be far more than just that.

As for The Antichrist, Unalaq is listed there. He has no legions or christians motifs, but I can still see why he's there. Should he be in there? Maybe, maybe not. Tropes Are Flexible, but if he can remain there, we need to clarify that The Antichrist can also be for other religions.

Edited by DBZfan102 on Aug 29th 2020 at 3:52:12 PM

@12: The problem with using existing examples to judge the trope's definition is that the whole reason we have this thread is that, as currently used, it's all over the place. Like, I'm not sure I'd consider any of those characters to fit any trope I'd conceivably call Dark Messiah.

If we need a clearer definition, right now, we can decide if a character who considers themselves savior and will do bad things for it can be called the very basic of Dark Messiah or not. Do they need (fanatical) followers as default? Then we check whether they should have religious themes.

But I have a feeling trying to make it attach too much to religious theme could get it mixed up with the Antichrist page.