I asked you multiple times to read previous pages and look at the wick check. You were using arguments that were either objectively untrue or just flat out subjective. If you read back you might not agree but you'd at least understand our reasons. Then we'd both have an easier and more constructive debate.
Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 7th 2021 at 11:30:51 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallDeciding what messy tropes are is literally the purpose of the Trope Repair Shop. And this forum does not make decisions lightly.
What has led to the change has been covered extensively in the previous pages of the thread. This was not an impulsive redefinition.
FWIW, I don't think anyone is upset that you voiced your opinions. The issue is more that you're not looking at the wider context. You've been jumping to conclusions and that makes it impossible to discuss with you.
Put simply, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallOn the TLP draft, one troper said
"I really don't think this is sufficiently different from Moral Event Horizon." This supports my theory that most people just thought MEH was "anything that I think is the worst thing a character did," not a deed that marks the character permanently evil. Hopefully, MEH becoming objective will eliminate that misconception.
A theory also supported by my wick check, in which the act was what was emphasized in a majority of cases.
That's backstory, so probably not, but I'm not entirely sure. It's definitely fit for Kev's TLP draft if nothing else.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThoughts about adding these to Sandbox.Moral Event Horizon?
A Moral Event Horizon has to be:
- An intentional, lasting change in portrayal: This is a moment meant to firmly establish a character is now irredeemably evil. If they weren't clear-cut villains before they are now. If they were introduced being so evil or later get redeeming character development it's not this trope.
- Early enough to show the change: It does not qualify if they get killed off, leave, or otherwise have no further or meaningful appearance in the narrative so soon afterwards there's no time to show the change in portrayal.
- Committed knowingly and willfully: If they were brainwashed, tricked, blackmailed, threatened or otherwise forced into committing the act it does not count if they wouldn't have willfully done it otherwise. Young children are normally exempt as lacking the intelligence or agency to be aware of the wrongdoing, thought exceptions exist. Likewise accidentally or unwittingly committed wrongdoing doesn't count unless they show no regret or are pleased with the outcome.
- Stand out evil: It must portrayed as especially heinous by the moral standards of the work and universe it's set in. (Crime/detective show that regularly deal with murderers, rapists, or other criminals who's actions would be over the line in other works wouldn't count those as they are the settings normal level of evildoing unless it was stand out evil compared to those examples.)
- Serious and sticks: It does not count if the moment is Played for Laughs or has no lasting changes or consequences due to Negative Continuity, especially if it's a Sadist Show where such is the norm. Exceptions are if the deed while comedic is treated seriously in-work (in-universe characters react with horror/outrage) and the change and consequences stick despite the work otherwise having Negative Continuity.
- Committed by individuals: Groups lack moral agency and redeemably can vary between its members. Thus groups are exempt unless it's small enough that all it members can be individually judged to have crossed the line per the above criteria. (Mooks lack the characterization for their actions to change how they are portrayed, their wrongdoing instead being attributed to whomever commands them.)
Just because a character is now treated as irredeemable doesn't necessarily mean they're treated as pure evil. They can still be sympathetic if they have or keep other redeeming traits or regret their evildoing but believe they have no choice but to do so. It just means they will not undergo any developments that make them less evil, or such will be subject to Ignored Epiphany or Heel–Face Door-Slam.
A related concept is the Complete Monster, a super-heinous villain with no redeeming traits. Not everyone who crosses the Moral Event Horizon becomes heinous enough to be this. Conversely, while a Complete Monster is definitely over the line it's possible they not commit a Moral Event Horizon if they're treated as already over it as opposed to crossing it in-story.
The Good Counterpart to Moral Event Horizon is Heroes' Frontier Step, when a character commits a noble deed that firmly establishes that they are indeed heroic and even pure. Likewise, Like a God to Me is when a character has done something so awesome other characters fall over themselves to praise her/him.
See Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil, Slavery Is a Special Kind of Evil, Kinslaying Is a Special Kind of Evil, and Treachery Is a Special Kind of Evil for acts that are very likely to be treated as a Moral Event Horizon. Kick the Dog is pointlessly cruel acts meant to show they're evil beyond mitigating pragmatism and Jumping Off the Slippery Slope is an act that leads to them committing increasingly unjustifiably evil actions which often overlap with Moral Event Horizon.
Compare Always Chaotic Evil for when any member of a race or group is treated as over the line by default, Beyond Redemption is when in-work characters give up trying to redeem them, and This Is Unforgivable! for when characters state a line has been crossed. Slowly Slipping Into Evil is when it happens over the course of the story as opposed to a single dramatic moment.
Contrast Shoot the Dog for when morally reprehensible acts are done for the greater good, I Did What I Had to Do where they defend their reprehensible actions as necessary, and Asshole Victim and Kick The Son Of A Bitch for when evil isn't over the line as it's directed at those who deserve it. Such may not negate a Moral Event Horizon if they have no real remorse for the harm caused or innocences hurt as collateral, it's excessive or just an excuse for wrongdoing. Even Evil Has Standards and Everyone Has Standards is when characters morally refuse to cross such a line. All Crimes Are Equal, Felony Misdemeanor and Easy Road to Hell is for actions treated as unfairly teated as unforgivable by the work.
Also contrast Designated Hero, Designated Villain, Designated Evil, Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Unsympathetic for when they're portrayed as having crossed they line but audiences digress or for the latter two think there are factors being unfairly ignored. Never Live It Down and Once Done, Never Forgotten is for when it's never forgiven unfairly ignoring mitigating circumstances or redeeming development afterward.
No Real Life Examples, Thanks! Calling a real person a villain is not allowed here.
Fixed and added the thing about children .
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Feb 13th 2021 at 7:37:26 AM
So I have a question. If a Villain was Evil All Along but pretended to be a hero for say... 75+ hours of a JRPG, then becomes a Complete Monster through The Reveal, does that work under the new rules?
Do you think Eric Cartman feeding Scott Tenorman his parents as chili would still count despite South Park having Negative Continuity?
Here's looking at you, kid.We talked about it at length and most of us agree it counts because there is some continuity there - Cartman is depicted as a sociopath instead of just a brat from that point on.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.![]()
South Park's only example of Negative Continuitynote was patched with a retcon, so it doesn't have NC.
On the DVD commentary for the Scott Tenorman episode, Parker and Stone actually said there was a debate among the show's staff about whether that was going too far, and they seemed to think that it wasn't because Cartman didn't personally kill Scott's parents. That seems to imply that it wasn't intended as an MEH by them.
Edited by Javertshark13 on Feb 14th 2021 at 5:54:51 AM
Eh, it's still a turning point in Cartman's character, and it sounds like they only made him not directly kill his parents so he would be just vile enough to make the episode work without jumping the shark entirely.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Yeah the character I was thinking was Dickson from Xenoblade Chronicles. I feel like cutting Evil All Along characters would be literally asking for an TV Tropes riot.
Basically his MEH would be shooting Shulk In the Back killing him and releasing Zanza (who was ALSO Evil All Along) just when Egil is about to redeem himself is what I would consider his MEH. I mean there's also taunting Melia after he and his fellow Zanza disciple Lorithia, turn every remaining pure blooded High Entia into monsters.
Guys, this isn't the place to discuss specific examples. We need to finalize our decisions.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
Crown Description:
Moral Event Horizon has a much tighter definition now. Should it be an objective trope?

Edited by immortalfrieza on Feb 7th 2021 at 8:27:17 AM