Needs Help (New Crowner 11 April 2021): Moral Event Horizon

Yeah, I still don't like how "exceptionally heinous by the standards of the work" got approved while "exceptionally heinous by the standards of the character" did not, considering that this is a character trope. Granted, "standards of the character" might be weirdly worded, but basically it means (to me) "significantly worse than previous actions the character has done." Or at least that the character doesn't act equally evil constantly. (Unless they're parodically crossing the line further every time.)

I almost wonder if people voted on the "heinousness" criteria just because they recognized the wording from Complete Monster and figured it sounded credible, without considering what this trope really is now, or what it ever was. It's not Complete Monster Lite, or at least shouldn't be. The way heinousness comes into play shouldn't be identical.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 18th 2021 at 11:53:11 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Yeah, I voted up the character one personally. Makes way more sense.

MEH isn't some big thing that marks a villain as the most "evilist of the evildoers". It's just the action that marks the character as not being redeemable. Again, this is why I take issue with the change criteria as well, though I can see how the shift to being seen as irredeemable might be enough of a change to make the issue minimal. And I can see why other people voted for it even if I didn't.

But "exceptionally heinous by the work's standards"? Why was that one voted up?

...Okay. Look. I know nobody'll want to do this. Nobody wants to have a do-over crowner. But we might need one. Not for all the criteria- just the ones people have been disputing. This thread is spinning it's wheels but all that has been accomplished so far is that people are getting angry and confused about what's happening. While we can't just erase everything decided so far and pretend the previous several pages never happened, we do need to move on at some point. But these issues just keep bogging us down. We need some way to finally resolve them.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 18th 2021 at 12:21:35 PM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The exact wording on the criteria is "the deed is outstandingly evil by the standards of the story," although I'm not sure if that's really a difference to be honest.Depends. If the serial killer's murders have similar methods to the most common murders, yes. If one of the murders has an outstandingly brutal method compared to the most murders, no—that one could count.Nothing; it's only the Moral Event Horizon that has to be taken seriously (in-work at least), not everything else. Anything before or after the horizon doesn't have to be taken seriously.

That's why I said I'm not sure if that's a difference.

Edited by Kevjro7 on Feb 18th 2021 at 10:19:20 AM

So it seems the consensus is the move the Vilest Deed draft to Darth Wiki?

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

"By the standards of the work" and "by the standards of the story" sounds like a Distinction Without a Difference, so I'm guessing we would have had the same outcome regardless of which word we used for the option that was chosen (assuming it was still chosen).

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 18th 2021 at 11:57:47 AM

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

~@Ferot_Dreadnaught:

Completely irrespective of whether the community decides they want to adopt the "Intentional Change in portrayal" bullet, your current proposed version of it has a double negative that makes it say the opposite of what I believe you intended:

Was

supposed to be something like

or alternatively

I agree with Jay that we should have some sort of do-over crowner. After the Getting Crap Past the Radar crowner fuck-up, I don't want to take any drastic measures without being absolutely certain they work in this context.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Yes, a do over crowner would be good. But "heinous by the standards of the story" is basically saying "Guess what? If this character is not a Complete Monster, they don't count. Simple." And really it would be like saying out of all of the Harry Potter examples, only Voldemort crossed the MEH because his deed of ordering the Crucix curse to be used was seen as the worst of the bunch.

Then we'd probably have to re-evaluate CM again, remember the dark days when the trope was split from Rape the Dog and made into two tropes? I'm sure no one wants to do that and cut everything to a single page with only one example per franchise. (Fan works don't count)

Of course this is assuming we add a rule to both this and CM to only allow "the most heinous deed in the work". Which I would oppose completely.

Also what do we do for characters under Ambiguous Brainwashing? (Why isn't this a trope?) The cast of Danganronpa V3 was only compelled to murder because they were all brainwashed into different personalities, as characters in an ultimate real fiction story. However, it's implied Korekiyo is the exception as while his sister was likely made up, the story of him being a serial killer likely wasn't as he still talks about it in other modes of the game, though debating the canonicity of those modes and Danganronpa V3 as a whole is a can of worms that split the fanbase. For those cases, do we count the brainwashers themselves, or the characters who acted on brainwashing?

I have no objections to the trope being made objective, but before that, we need to hammer this out, and all come to a similar conclusion on everything.

Edited by Klavice on Feb 19th 2021 at 12:45:45 PM

Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.

Ambiguous Brainwashing sounds like More than Mind Control and if that treated as leaving enough agency to count as an MEH is case by case.

I wouldn't mind removing the stand out heinous criteria if we can find another way to address this which was the reason it was argued for.

Works where an action heinous enough be an MEH in other works is commonplace don't treat them as the character changing significants required for this trope. But that goes back to the change of portrayal if they were already evil debate.

Is there an example of something treated as an MEH was wasn't stand out evil by the setting standard? Or something treated as an MEH despite happening due to brainwashing? That would help narrow down what is/isn't an example.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Feb 19th 2021 at 1:42:53 AM

If memory serves, "exceptionally heinous by the standards of the work" was the formulation I proposed. I was trying to balance the following considerations:

• We don't want instances of Poke the Poodle being listed under Moral Event Horizon nor things that are completely trivial by the setting's standards. There should be some minimum standard of evil.
• We don't want to simply clone the criteria for Complete Monster word-by-word. Because of the cleanup thread on that trope, its definition has a lot of unstated implications that are not necessarily wanted on this trope.

I am in favour of running a re-do crowner but it's a big step to do so. And given the mess that the first crowner did, I think we need to clearly hammer out what the proposed criteria are before putting them to a crowner.

Edited by SeptimusHeap on Feb 19th 2021 at 10:52:09 AM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

A "minimum standard of evil" makes sense, but that's not the same as being exceptionally heinous for the setting, it's having a heinous standard. Basically, you want the MEH to cross the baseline heinous standard, but we can do that without having it be exceptionally heinous by the standards of the work. If they're the only villain, sure, that works just fine, but if there's an ensemble, someone's always going to be more heinous or evil in different ways, and this trope is specific to each character's arc and presentation.

I know what you were going for, but the wording of it seems to have backfired.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think the baseline standard can be as simple as "must be considered an evil act in-universe."

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Anyone else ready to call the current crowner? It got 11 upvotes and 2 downvotes since the ATT advertisement and the Vilest Deed TLP that linked this thread. I think it's time to stop delaying the inevitable.

How about a baseline standard of "extra emphasis is placed on the evil deed"? That would:

• Address how works with high evil standards (crime shows that deal with murder too often to emphasis all of them) allow examples (treaded as extra heinous or personal).
• Allow examples who's limited means prevent them from committing evil on the same magnitude as the series standard (Shou Tucker) as they're treaded as equally heinous.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Feb 19th 2021 at 3:18:09 AM

I still think that MEH should be used for an action the makes a character irredeemable.

By the way, is that Vilest Deed Darth Wiki page going to be created or are we waiting on that?

Edited by Ordeaux26 on Feb 19th 2021 at 4:24:17 AM

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

The question is how do we determine if an action makes a character irredeemable? That's the point of these criteria.

We all agree there; it's just a matter of hammering out how the narrative portrays the MEH and what sort of characters can have one.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Whatever action the audience thinks made a villain irredeemable. Basically, I think it should be an Audience Reaction about what action people think made an irredeemable villain irredeemable to begin with.

Edited by Ordeaux26 on Feb 19th 2021 at 6:00:54 AM

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

Which is YMMV; the crowner has pretty much already agreed to make this a normal trope, on the basis that "The action that makes a character irredeemable" can easily be done intentionally by the narrative and that the Wick Check demonstrates a good number of wicks that already treat this like an objective trope.

In fact, this is why Vilest Deed was drafted in the first place.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 19th 2021 at 9:01:42 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Vilest Deed has already been discarded though and nobody has made the Darth Wiki page yet.

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

...Right. But that doesn't mean it won't exist. We just need to hammer this out first. Vilest Deed can wait.

And "hammer it out" doesn't mean "debate over and scrap everything that has already been decided"- only to resolve the lingering issues we still have.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 19th 2021 at 9:03:27 AM

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I am not saying to scrap it I am just saying my opinion on what I think the trope should be, but it is clear people don't agree with me. If you want my opinion on the lingering issues I don't think the criteria needs to be this strict.

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

It's less that we disagree and more that the discussion has just moved past the point where your version of the trope can really exist- since your idea has already been rejected by the thread, there's just not much that can be said about it beyond "sorry, but it's not like that anymore".

Anyway, what parts of the criteria do you think need to be less strict?

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I don't think the change in portrayal criteria is necessary, villains can still have an irredeemable act without them changing significantly, and this one seems to be causing the most issues. As already discussed outstandingly evil acts seems a bit too much it should probably just be acts that aren't standard.

CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes

I agree with those things; those are also the two things that might change if we set up a final crowner.

Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness