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

My point was that if we go that route, we will probably have to deal with a bunch of edit wars. Some people are crazy. All I'M saying is that we would need to get ready to deal with the fallout. Also we would have a lot of work to do.

Edited by Threedogs123 on Oct 1st 2020 at 8:37:11 AM

We can handle the fallout.

For the Cartman explmple to be an MEH, it needs to explain how it permanently changed how the work treated him (seriously as opposed to comedically). I'd be OK with keeping that as an MEH if possible as it's apparently widely recognized, but if loosing that one example means removing mass misuse that a sacrifice we may have to make. That moment can go under Signature Scene preserving the impactfulslness of it regarding how fans see him.

Thoughts on disqualifying Designated Hero examples as by definition they are not portrayed as over the line despite audiences digressing?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Oct 2nd 2020 at 12:25:17 PM

Again, we might not be using that rule.

Cartman from South Park? Isn't that a comedy with Negative Continuity? Also, I'd be wary of listing Very Special Episode examples as they often have Negative Continuity problems too.

I've added the villain and played seriously aspects to the trope definition. I am not sure how to fit in the Negative Continuity aspect. In fact, I wonder if shortening the description to a structure along the lines of the one of Complete Monster might be advisable.

Yes, but it significanty altered his characterization, before it, he was jest a jerk and The Friend Nobody Likes, after it he became a straight up villain that was no stranger to downright sending his friends to Ry’leh!

Is that how his actions are portrayed/treated in-work? For a hypothetical Sadist Show / Negative Continuity MEH to work, the entry should explain:

1. How it is treated as stand out cruel even by the standards of the setting?
2. How it is portrayed/treated seriously as opposed to the normal comedically?
3. How does it change how they're treated in-universe/by the narrative?
4. How does said change stick in-work even if the continuity doesn't?

That Cartman's friends still treat him as a friend and none of the consequences that something this horrible should have caused stick is a big argument against it being against an MEH in-work.

The Joker is an example of how a comedic character can cross the MEH. Even when he swings back to comedic as opposed to serious, his MEH moments mean he's still treaded seriously by every competent and sane character and thus the narrative. I don't see how Cartman's consistently portrayed so seriously or that the show is serious enough to do that? Is "sending his friends to Ry’leh" treated seriously because that sounds like comedic sociopathy by the shows standards.

Ferot, please stop citing this as a rule. We haven't agreed to this. Even Septimus is skeptical about it.

Sorry, I was confused about that.

I'd be fine with Cartman crossing the MEH if the work made no attempts to dial their evildoing back. But as a Sadist Show extra care must be taken to explain how it's counts as opposed to something intended to be dismissed as the usual Comedic Sociopathy.

To be fair, since the work in question is a comedy with Negative Continuity I would expect that the character undergoes an in-story change of portrayal if they cross the Moral Event Horizon, even if we don't require an in-story change of portrayal as part of the trope definition.

I also think that the discussion of individual examples is a bit offtopic. We haven't ironed out all the details of the definition yet and there is a projects thread for example cleanup on this trope.

I asked MEH cleanup about the Cartman example. They said it counts as it's treaded as serious/lasting in-work.

I have possible definitions for MEH (which aren't mutually exclusive):

• The inverse of Heroes' Frontier Step; when a sympathetic/morally ambiguous character does/did something to establish them as unambiguously villainous (eg. when they irreversibly Jumped Off The Slippery Slope).
• An established villain does something stand out evil even by the standards of the setting and/or that invalidates any possible sympathetic/mitigating traits.
• A misdeed establishing them as villainous such any later/later revealed misdeeds, even if objectively worse, won't further/meaningly change how they're viewed/treated by audiences/the narrative.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Oct 3rd 2020 at 11:13:45 AM

The last two versions sound better to me, torn which one I'd prefer, but I think the second bullet is the way the trope is generally used according to the wick check.

Making sure that the character should have some moral agency, too. Characters who have no choice but to do evil may not be redeemable, but they also aren't people who ever could've been reasoned with or could've chosen to be better; if we take Complete Monster in mind, CM characters pretty much have to cross the MEH at some point or are otherwise irredeemable, but they also must have the choice to not be evil.

The second bullet sounds best.

So for Fallen Hero examples do they need to established as evil for some time before crossing the MEH?

There are examples (Griffith) where there MEH doubles overlaps with their Face–Heel Turn. Or can those overlap as their MEH doubles as their establishment as a villain? If so I the second.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Oct 3rd 2020 at 11:19:20 AM

Yeah, I am not keen about the second version. I think that a Fallen Hero becoming a villain can occur because of their MEH crossing, not previously to it.

I am a little undecided on whether MEH requires more of a "the story changed the portayal of the character" or more of a "the deed is outstandingly evil by the standards of the character" qualifier.

Well if we used the former, it would prevent people from bashing (former) villains on shows with Rousseau Was Right themes who got redeemed when a viewer didn't think that was right.

We already get this a lot on YMMV pages and on DMOS.

Edited by ccorb on Oct 4th 2020 at 7:47:49 AM

That can be done much more straightforwardly by making it clear that characters who are redeemed in-story don't count. And by cutting examples like Darth Vader who exemplifies this pattern of misuse.

My problem with "the deed is outstandingly evil by the standards of the character" as a qualifier is that it is "Mr. Krabs had gone too far" all over again, inherently an opinion. It retains a personal judgement, like in the following example:

• Animal Farm: Napoleon's definitive crossing of the Moral Event Horizon, the moment when you know he has become no better than Farmer Jones, the animals' original oppressor, is when he sells Boxer, the most hardworking and loyal of all the animals on the farm, to the knacker because he is injured and no longer able to work in a cruel and heartless You Have Outlived Your Usefulness moment.

Right. The second bullet is objective and the others are more subjective.

I guess it shouldn't have to be an "established" villain or a character who is evil before they cross, but they should be a villain after crossing. Like they shouldn't still be treated like a hero or an ambiguous character; they've crossed the line and regardless of if they were a hero before or not, they're definitely a villain now and can never redeem themselves.

In other words, the second one, but with the allowance for the characters to not already be villains when they cross it, which the second two do allow. It'd still have to be evil by the standards of the work and mark the character as beyond redemption according to the narrative, but they wouldn't necessarily have to be a villain first for it to apply.

Basically, I guess it depends on if we put the deed first or the character's morality first.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 4th 2020 at 3:28:17 PM

My concern with the "change in portrayal" idea is that if we make that an inherent part it becomes way too limiting. I'm fine with it being a potential way the trope could be used, but I'm not fine with it being a necessary part, as pre-established villains shouldn't be excluded.

Pre-existing villains would not be excluded by a "change in portrayal". To borrow from an existing example from Sluggy Freelance, Dr. Schlock orders the murder of Feng in front of Oasis to try and get her to cooperate. He went from an affable, Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain (or possibly Anti-Villain) who was always on the run, to the Big Bad of the strip's Myth Arc. Murdering Feng just sealed the deal that he can never go back.

That's still too limited. The wick check is full of examples of villains- full on, non-sympathetically-portrayed villains- doing things so bad they can't be redeemed by the standards of the work. The work set standards and they crossed it by doing something above and beyond, proving them to be genuinely evil and not just petty or capable of redemption.

If we go with the "change in portrayal" rule, well, there goes a vast majority of the examples we have. That's why I'm so opposed to it- it's way too restrictive.

I think a change in portrayal is a valid trope, but I'm not sure it should be lumped in as a criteria for MEH. I think it could stand alone and overlap.

An MEH from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic removed for one of them and the species as a whole being redeemed. It shows how MEH has a problem with Speculative Troping.

• In Dragon Quest, the adolescent dragons, who are initially portrayed merely as obnoxious Jerkasses, bring Spike along on a "raid" that involves stealing phoenix eggs away from their parents and smashing them, simply because they think it's fun. They don't change their minds when the newborn babies hatch, either.

Their redeemability was shown 7 years after this example, longer than any reasonable waiting period (5 years is the longest for any non-RL tropes). The actions were played seriously and the most heinous attempted thing in the series by this point and before the show became big on forgiveness. They didn't know the series would continue this long so they had no plans to redeem them at the time.

Is there any way we could have thought this wasn't an MEH at the time? If not seems MEH is Speculative Troping as it is when audience assume they will not be redeemed.

However we define MEH should address this problem. Making it non-YMMV and thus subvertable is the only fix I can think of save giving it the same approval process as Complete Monster (a last resort I doubt as viable given how exponentially more MEH candidate there are than CM).

Moving it out of YMMV would be fine.