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

Up until his Heel–Face Turn, Vader did embrace his evil, but Redemption Equals Death.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

The argument is whether his actions were in fact a redemption at all. (I don't particularly care about Star Wars, I just use it as one of the more obvious examples of this being a problem.)

The other issue is if new material comes out that redeems a character everyone thought was irredeemable or if prequel material comes out that shows they arguably crossed it long ago.

"Let’s see who’s stronger: someone that has something to protect, or someone that has nothing to lose."

Which is why I use Vader as a go-to example of this problem; the work shows him to be redeemed by placing him with the "good jedi" at the end of the Original Trilogy.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

the work shows him to be redeemed by placing him with the "good jedi" at the end of the Original Trilogy to me sounds like a good reason to disqualify Vader from this trope. I don't know much about that series but from what I've heard in this forum, it's less a matter of the story being ambiguous and more a matter of audiences not accepting the Redemption Equals Death moment as such. I think in such cases the in-story portrayal needs to be used, not audience reaction. Tropes work better that way.

I am personally undecided on whether someone who seeks redemption but is shot down should count, although I am leaning yes.

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

So long as someone seek genuine redemption, it is not impossible for a bad person to escape the Moral Event Horizon even if it's unlikely. This is one of the issues with the trope. The other is determining where the point of no return would be since people have various different standards of what is forgivable and what is not.

I Septimus Heap's proposal "The deed marks a change in the portrayal of the character". If adopted we could make MEH non-YMMV means we can allow redemption (like Anakin/Vader which was contentious) as subversions.

A problem with MEH is it suffers from episodic troping; a trope is added before latter events invalidate it (in this case later events prove them redeemable). Complete Monster avoids this due to such a stringent approval process characters disqualified for later redemption are exceptionally rare, rarer than other tropes being cut for misuse. But such strictness is something we want to avoid if possible. And since MEH is a prerequisite to CM it makes sense MEH be objective.

I just realized the opposite of MEH, Heroes' Frontier Step, is not YMMV. It seems illogical for one to be subjective and the other objective if they're the same concept (a moment signifying an alignment shift to-from hero/villain).

My impression is MEH is "when audiences think the narrative has intentionally portrayed them as crossing the line". But I now like making it the non-YMMV "The deed marks a change in the portrayal of the character" better as it would fix all the problems with this trope. The following questions should be addressed before making non-YMMV:

• What if they have multiple MEH candidates?
• If they seemed to have crossed it in work only for it to be revealed they crossed it chronologically earlier? (I'd say which is the first to change how they're portrayed as even a worse deed doesn't matter if one's over the MEH which is about a change in alignment.)
• Can an Establishing Character Moment count if they don't yet have a portrayal to change? What if they're evil from the get-go as opposed to change to villainy?
• What if it is Played for Laughs? (Many examples complain about sadism in Sadist Shows. I'd lean to cutting those unless portrayed seriously in-work.)
• What about examples that don't stick due to Negative Continuity, Cosmic Retcon, or loose continuity?

Answering these should give enough objective criteria to make non-YMMV. (We should still keep the name Moral Event Horizon if possible as it's fairly well recognized outside this wiki.)

Sadist Shows like Family Guy and South Park wouldn't count for MEH because the Comedic Sociopathy is Played for Laughs. Complete Monster has this listed under "Resolved Items" for this reason.

Also it wouldn't count with works that have Negative Continuity and a recurring villain. Captain Catastrophe took over the planet, finally? Who cares, any continuity will be forgotten in the next game, go Save the Princess!

Edited by ccorb on Sep 29th 2020 at 5:53:51 AM

Rock'n'roll never dies!

Aren't we also leaning toward not inherently having it mark a change in portrayal, as that's murky and limiting?

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

My impression is we're trying to make it more limited because the overbroadness and murkiness as is is leading to problems.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 29th 2020 at 4:25:55 AM

Another question I have to ask: Should we have a heinous standard? When does Kick The Dog become MEH? And should we move all of the cruel actions committed by redeemed characters or Redemption Equals Death characters to Kick the Dog, or remove them entirely? And one more thing: If a Big Bad orders a particularly sadistic dragon to murder a town of innocents or blow up a galaxy, should that be given to the Big Bad or said Dragon or both?

I despise the idea of it being as restrictive as MB and CM, but if we're gonna make it objective, we might have to.

Edited by Klavice on Sep 29th 2020 at 5:19:05 AM

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

Well MEH was formerly Rape The Dog but it got renamed because people were misusing it as "Kick the Dog but more."

Rock'n'roll never dies!

And I think the unnecessary reference to rape was also a factor.

Reminder that Kick the Dog is act with no purpose save to show the characters evilness. It’s possible to cross the MEH for tangible purposes (like greed or revenge) without a KTD.

That’s why MEH and KTD are not interchangeable as it seems there’s confusion about. KTD can and is oft used to make/add to an MEH, but they are separate, thought related, concepts.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 29th 2020 at 8:42:24 AM

Back in the day, Moral Event Horizon and Complete Monster were packaged under a trope called Rape The Dog. It was split, renamed and eventually cut because people kept thinking it was a worse version of Kick the Dog. Perhaps it's the same confusion carrying on after the trope cut.

I am somewhat partial to whether a MEH crossing should be a change in portrayal but one thing I'd like to ask is for a consensus that examples which are redeemed in-story (such as Darth Vader in Star Wars) cannot count. And a consensus that works with Negative Continuity or these which are Played for Laughs also don't count. These are kind of the low-hanging fruit of this trope.

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

My thoughts:

• to those redeemed in the eyes of the narrative (fans digressing falls under Unintentionally Unsympathetic). The question is how long do we wait to see if later episodes/installments redeem them (which would be fixed by making it non-YMMV as thus subvertable)?
• to Negative Continuity (unless the change in their portrayal remains consistent but I know of no such examples).
• Played For Laughs examples (unless anyone knows of such examples).

My impression is we have a consensus it only applies to villains (ie. those the narrative portrays as villains), right?

Should we bring some MEH exiles here to discuss any questions/issues about them? Or are we not a that point?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 30th 2020 at 12:35:53 PM

What about villains that had redeeming qualities but lost them over time? Are they still good? Fallen Hero, Villain Protagonist (like Light Yagami) and so on.

I'm all for redeemed villains going though, but what about Designated Heroes?

Edited by Klavice on Sep 30th 2020 at 5:14:42 AM

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

For the former, the MEH is when they do something that undoes any good they did prior and/or invalidates any potential mitigating traits/factors.

For Light from MoralEventHorizon.Death Note:

• Just when Light Yagami crossed the line from Anti-Hero to Villain Protagonist is a matter of debate, if he ever did. Just check out some of his most notable candidates:
  • Light's murder of Lind L. Tailor in the very second episode. Up until then, he had killed criminals and could be seen as a Well-Intentioned Extremist. He immediately decides to kill Lind because the latter called him evil, showing that his ego and pride came before any kind of moral concern.
  • Light arguably crosses the line early in the story when he Naomi Misora, one of the two FBI agents investigating him, while her fiancée Raye Penber was an Asshole Victim, Naomi’s murder is particularly cruel. Afterwards, Light's murders just get more and more extreme until after Kiyomi Takada, his former girlfriend and now follower, kills Mello. She calls him from Mello's truck, naked, crying and terrified. He coldly tells her to continue writing as many names as she can, and hangs up. Then, as the task force is driving to find her, Light writes on the piece in his watch that the poor girl dies by burning to death, so that all the evidence will be destroyed. This act of utter heartless cruelty cost Light all but the most diehard of his fanbase.
  • The murder of Naomi Misora in particular is one of Light's cruelest acts in the series. It's not so much that he kills her, but the way he does it (forcing her to commit suicide) and the fact that he tells her that he's Kira the moment before the Death Note takes effect, just to see the look of horror on her face as she realizes what's about to happen. As if that wasn't enough, once the Death Note takes effect, he taunts her with offers to get her in touch with the Kira Task Force, knowing that she can't do anything about it.
  • Seeing him kill Aiber and the Yotsuba group, the former was killed right in front of his 5 year old son, the latter was killed just as they were starting to turn over a new leaf. Wasn't he the one who made a point that those who atone for their crimes deserve to live?

I’d say murdering Naomi Misora was the MEH as that’s when his portrayal shifted he showed such sadism and dog kicking absent prior about it it invalidated any arguments for well-intentionedness he might have had and notes no-one save the leather-pantsers defended him afterward.

For the latter, I’d say Designated Heroes are exempt from MEH as by definition they are not portrayed as over the line despite audiences disagreeing. Any such complaints can go under DH and are the sort of complaining this thread is supposed to fix.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Sep 30th 2020 at 8:31:02 AM

I like the non-YMMV idea. I always sway this topic back to the show that always reminds me of the MEH, BoJack Horseman. The titular protagonist is meant to be a shitty person, and while at first he appears to be a typical Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist, a few key actions turn him into somebody unforgivable, both in-universe and to the fans, and his portrayal becomes much more serious. However, there's still always a chance that he could get better and isn't too far gone, yet it's also clear his impact on others and his in-universe reputation is irreversible.

If we make this objective, it sounds like it has the grounds for a deconstruction - yes, the character crossed the line, this is what his spiraling into a much worse person does to his psyche, is the MEH a realistic and permanent thing or can somebody undo what seems undoable. It feels weird to cut the Moral Event Horizon entries from this show's page when the idea is brought up in the show so much. (Either that or I'm misunderstanding the trope. It's about the actions in the narrative rather than how the audience reacts to them, right?)

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

Well, we're discussing which actions in the narrative and if they can be objective because they might be audience reactions to specific events in the narrative.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I think that characters which lost their redeeming qualities over time can count. The important thing is that the reverse shouldn't happen.

If nobody objects, I'll rewrite the description a bit to make it clear that only villains who are not redeemed in-story count and that neither Negative Continuity nor Played for Laughs deeds count.

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

I'm okay with that. And Bojack is one of those adult cartoons that takes itself seriously but still has elements of black comedy. I feel like most of Bojack's cruel acts aren't played for laughs, while someone like Eric Cartman should probably go since his MEH crossing with feeding Scott Tenorman his parents (and Cartman's own father) ground up into chili is pretty much played for laughs. Eric also shows redeeming qualities at times especially in the newer episodes where he realizes he's a douche and tries to change. But he still has plenty of moments of cruelty.

Edited by Klavice on Oct 1st 2020 at 12:11:57 PM

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

Agreed, the Scott Tenorman incident is played for very dark humor, and rarely even brought up in later episodes.

Edited by Javertshark13 on Oct 1st 2020 at 6:08:35 AM

All due respect, I disagree on making it non YMMV or cutting Carman's example for three reasons; first, that would mean we would have to do a lot of work to remove all the dozens or hundreds of purely opinion examples which would take months, second, we would be upsetting many tropers who would not be happy with their examples being cut and could lead to many edit wars and flame wars, and third, everyone in universe reacted with horror at what he did and he himself mentioned that as the worst thing he ever did in the two part episode about Family Guy, plus I have seen many people call it his MEH even off site. As a side note, even adult comedies can have a Very Special Episode or a Knight of Cerebus, like with the person in charge of Troll Trace.

Tough shit. We can't bow to people who'd lash out if their misuse gets cut. Your other points are somewhat reasonable, but this isn't something we can stress over. Might people be upset? Yeah, maybe, but that's the price of cleanup.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 1st 2020 at 10:59:58 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness