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

More cross-posting from cleanup talk: I would like to argue that characters whose actions are still sometimes Played for Laughs after the MEH can still count as long as the MEH itself is not Played for Laughs and the character is still treated seriously to some extent by the narrative. This is specifically referring to Eric Cartman as there's some debate over whether his shift in character to be an unambiguous antagonist instead of a bratty little kid counts as a MEH.

I'd agree on that. Cartman may be portrayed comedically a lot of the time, but what matters is that the moment in which he crosses the MEH is taken seriously and that it marks a change in the portrayal of Cartman.

Agreed. Any deeds being portrayed comedically or seriously after they cross the horizon are irrelevant if the character is still evil. The only deed that needs to be serious is the Moral Event Horizon.

Me, I am concerned is that listing Cartman will be used by people as a justification for shoehorning examples in from other Black Comedy works. Also, the example on YMMV.South Park needs to talk a bit more about what exactly the MEH is.

Regarding keeping it YMMV I think "outstandingly evil by the standards of the story" is going to be a problem. While the destruction of Alderaan in Star Wars is a pretty straightforward example - it did single-handedly get its perpetrator listed on Complete Monster after all - I think we'll see more marginal cases where folks disagree.

But the difference between something like Family Guy is that the horrific acts usually don't result in a consistently different treatment of the character from that point on. If you can't definitively point to a single action that marks the character as officially irredeemable to their peers and the audience, and instead you put out everything the character does as so many shoehorns do, then it probably won't count anyway. I think we'll be able to avoid shoehorns better by establishing that the act itself has to be played seriously in some regard - it cannot be a primarily comic moment.

I also hate the term "outstandingly evil for the standards for the story" and I think it would make more sense to make it "outstandingly evil for the character" since it's mostly about how this marks a change in a character's portrayal. Multiple other characters in a story can be treated as irredeemably evil, but this would indicate a major character also taking that turn.

Again, this is not Complete Monster. At least not the way I see it.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 11th 2021 at 5:10:25 AM

I agree with that and feel Cartman could stay so long as we follow these guidelines.

And as said before, the difference between Cartman's humanitarian chili and say, Mr Burns from The Simpsons or Quagmire massacring the Simpsons and raping Marge, is the latter two characters are often in the right at times and aren't as antagonistic as they used to be. Quagmire is still a Dirty Old Man who dates women for their bodies but Peter has arguably done equally if not worse things in recent years. Also NC shouldn't be an issue if the character remains evil or isn't portrayed as being in the right often. Meanwhile Cartman hates Jewish people, and does regularly awful things that it's no surprise to see he's evil again.

As for Mr. Burns, I feel like his character is way too inconsistent for him to stay on the page. I feel we could make this objective but then there's the question of should we have a heinous standard, like CM? I get this isn't CM but we risk characters who are mere Jerkasses like Iggy from Hey! Arnold being listed.

Like if someone rapes a little girl, burns down an orphanage, and is a serial killer, would that DQ a twisted pedophile, who isn't played for laughs? Like Herbert from Family Guy is also played for laughs more than Eric and I feel there's some inconsistency with his characterization.

Edited by Klavice on Jan 11th 2021 at 3:42:29 AM

I think the difference is that there can only be one Complete Monster per work, while multiple characters can cross a MEH and become evil. So while the deed should be considered evil in the context of the work, it doesn't need to be more evil than other evil acts from the work. I can't quite speak on characters like Mr. Burns or Quagmire as I haven't seen either show enough to tell (nearly all of my Simpsons knowledge is from early seasons) but I do know that a Cutaway Gag like the Quagmire raping Marge example is almost guaranteed to not count by nature of being a) purely comedic (albeit very dark comedy) and b) totally detached from the plot.

Oh, I guess I took the "Exceptionalism" point on Administrivia.Complete Monster too narrowly (and the point about "Individuality" saying, "this trope is about the worst possible villain, and if members of a group are all roughly equal in heinousness, none of them stands out enough") but my point is that we don't really need as strong an exceptionalism clause because this is really more individual to the character than comparisons to the work as a whole.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jan 11th 2021 at 7:29:20 AM

Since when is only one Complete Monster allowed per work?

I do agree that characters like Quagmire committing horrific acts doesn’t count, as for it’s pretty much never played seriously or taken seriously In-Universe. Has anything ever done by a character in Family Guy been taken seriously enough for it to count as a valid MEH example?

Yeah, the genre of the work shouldn't be a factor. What matters is the actions and portrayals of the characters. I don't watch SP or FG, but it sounds like South Park takes the chilli thing seriously and doesn't forget about it come future episodes. It impacted the character to the degree needed for the trope.

I think we should do a single prop to determine if we should keep it in YMMV. Jay and I seem to agree on it being a trope but I don't know if that's consensus yet. Personally I think it'll be easier to define it as a trope so we don't have constant "arguable" entries.

Crowner sounds good.

I've made a crowner to determine the page's YMMV status.

I was told to bring my concerns here so I guess I will. Mostly the fact that because of the new criteria now Tarkin's destruction of Alderaan no longer counts as one even though it is one of the most cited crossings I have seen and Leia even invokes in the Star Wars radio that this action puts Tarkin in his point of no return and he lost any humanity he had. And it is even in the Image Links section.

Thing is, it simply doesn't count under the new definition. While it certainly was a extremely evil act, it doesn't mark a change in his portrayal. And it was also pointed out that the deed doesn't even stand out by Star Wars standards- planetary destruction has been committed by many other characters.

I do understand that my point is if that no longer qualifies by the new criteria I am not sure I agree with the new criteria.

Why not read the last few pages of the thread to see why we have this new criteria? We didn't make it arbitrarily.

If the criteria really has to stay this way than whatever, but I feel this should at least be allowed to be kept for being an Invoked example.

What makes it invoked? Does one of the characters deliberately set up for this character to cross the line into irredeemable status?

In the official Star Wars radio, Leia says that destroying Alderaan was his point of no return and that he lost any humanity he had.

That'd be a Discussed example.

Though I can't put that down since the trope is YMMV and YMMV can't be played with.

Not yet. We're running a crowner now (hasn't been hooked yet) to see if this should become a Mainspace trope. Scroll up a bit to find it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jan 11th 2021 at 9:03:22 AM

We're discussing whenever it should be YMMV or not right now, though, and many of us are leaning towards it being objective.

Huh, missed that.

Edited by jandn2014 on Jan 11th 2021 at 9:08:44 AM

We actually have a single-prop crowner about whether to keep in in YMMV. Should be hooked soon.