I don't disagree that the personality trait will impact the narrative. It's the lack of consistency in the portrayal / lack of a distinct pattern in the narrative that's the issue. Going back to Angry Black Man / "Angry Black Man" Stereotype, the character being consistently portrayed as being angry is tropeworthy because it's being used as a stereotypical depiction / critique of black people's reactions to racism. That's what makes it tropeworthy. Same with why Scary Black Man exists (again an imperfect trope that needs to be cleaned up): a stereotypical depiction of black people used in media. Played straight examples of these characters are those in which they are just that trait because the point of the stereotype is in its reductiveness. A black guy being angry, even if it was the entirety of their personality, wouldn't be tropeworthy in of itself unless there were specific story lines they were involved with/ roles they play in a narrative. There wouldn't be a distinguishing pattern.
I don't think there's enough of a distinguishing pattern to being a "nice person" and there's too much inconsistency in what is meant by "nice" for that alone to be all that informative either.
But that's just my take on things.
That's fair. Like I keep saying, I agree that the actual usage is inconsistent and vague, and that the description itself is a little generalized. I just think the actual concept I'm referring to in my posts is a trope, and that's been my main argument. In the way I interpret Nice Guy it's fully tropeworthy... but the way people actually use it is a mess.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI also agree that "primary/ defining character trait" doesn't have to mean "flat character". there are lots of tropes which define character by traits can apply to either flat or rounded characters, as long as theyre a notable element of the character.
We do need a clearer definition to avoid every character who isnt actively a Jerkass
My best bet would be something about— this character is nice even in situations where most people wouldn't be, and/or is unusually easy to get along with. most character are nice to their friends
also, i think we should explicitly mention that traits like "brave", "heroic" and "morally good" are not part of this trope. you can be a heroic Nice Guy, but it's neither nessisary nor sufficient to qualify
Edited by Tremmor19 on Nov 20th 2022 at 2:03:46 PM
I, too, think of Nice Guy as being about characters who are polite and friendly even in situations where they might be expected to become upset. Characters being generally well-mannered is "chairs" in the sense that it's not really a defining trait; it's just how normal people normally behave.
Another way to put it is that there must be some effect of their niceness on the story or on their relationships with other characters. It should be called out or remarked upon. There should be at least one citable moment that specifically demonstrates how they are nice in contrast with expectations or how other characters behave.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 21st 2022 at 8:22:45 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Right, that's why I was trying to make a distinction between "normal nice" and "Nice Guy", because most people and characters are generally "nice" in the sense that they're not outright mean, but Nice Guy is the step beyond that where they're pretty much nice all the time to the point where it dos impact their story and conflict.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI'd say no because their lack of emotion/stoicism would overshadow any other personality trait they might happen to have.
Macron's notesYeah, neither of those seem like proper usages. I wouldn't say it's impossible for a robot or something to count as a Nice Guy (Vision comes to mind) but not if they don't really show emotions, at that point you could say their kindness is more due to logical pragmatism or programming.
Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 21st 2022 at 8:12:53 AM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallSo I'm thinking that, most likely, Nice Guy is just a very common trope that will remain a very common trope even if used 100% correctly. But the description could be tightened to exclude examples of characters that are obviously not what were looking for, like
- characters that display no emotions or friendliness
- characters that are "nice once you get to know them"
- characters that are just normal levels of polite being added because they're not actively a dickhead
- examples where it's being used to mean "brave" or "morally good" rather than "nice"
- characters who are nice occasionally
Looking through the on-page examples, I'm seeing characters described using words like: friendly, kind, gentle, mild- mannered, non-aggressive, humble, easy-going, sweet, compassionate, polite etc
also, is "emotionally stable" part of what were looking for? it feels related but I'm not sure
Why do emotions factor in to an evaluation into a character's niceness? If niceness is being defined by being polite, friendly, mild-mannered, calm, and kind, as Tremmor is suggesing, I don't see why there'd be an automatic writing off of characters who are The Stoic or Emotionless.
If for example a robot's rationalism leads it to the conclusion that generosity, kindness, and taking a "do no harm" stance in most interactions are optimal, would that not make them a Nice Guy?
Edited by amathieu13 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 4:23:02 AM
Well... I guess it comes from a question of what's actually kindness. Someone who is stoic or literally emotionless would more likely do these things not out of a sense of compassion or empathy, but because logically it's the right thing to do. I guess I just feel like genuine kindness comes from an understanding of emotions — you're just more aware of the weight of your actions and what your kindness means, not just in that you "did a good" but in terms of the actual emotional connection being made.
IDK. That's just my take. I could be wrong but it just feels like extreme stoicism, especially stoicism based in extreme logic, typically ends up making characters much more cold, pragmatic, and generally not understanding about how other people feel. So is it really kindness when they do something "nice", or just what they think is the smart way to act?
Or, to give an example: Would a therapy AI chatbot be considered "kind" just because they're scripted to say kind things, especially if that's the only way they're programmed to act? I know it's a little extreme, the AI doesn't even have free will, but it's still a form of kindness that comes not from genuine empathy but from a robot acting on what the developers intended.
Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 3:32:54 PM
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallEdited by Negacube on Nov 22nd 2022 at 3:39:23 PM
The "most interactions" was me hedging. The situation I have in mind in which the robot may choose a self-serving option (like survival) over complete selflessness is when another actor is harming others or self-defense. I don't think being "nice" means completely self-effacing. That's what that example was getting at. Sorry if i wasn't completely clear on that.
![]()
If a character has no emotions but always treats other people in-universe politely, respectfully, and with no ill-will, would that not make him a Nice Guy? Adding on, if characters in universe comment on this character's niceness, regardless of having emotions or expressing them, would that not make them a Nice Guy in the work?
Edited by amathieu13 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:32:49 AM
If it helps with figuring out what the trope is actually supposed to be, here's
the oldest Internet Archive copy of the page.
![]()
Ehhhh... I guess for me it depends on motive, not just attitude. Kindness isn't just about doing nice things, but about the intent of the nice things. IMO.
A robot certainly could understand and care about the emotions and happiness of others, even if they don't necessarily have empathy. Such a robot's kindness would come from a place of wanting people to be happy.
Alternatively, a robot could be entirely working on a pre-defined set of objectives to "make people happy". Said robot might do kind things but their motive would be to do their objective, not to actually be truly kind.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
I get the line you're trying to draw, I just don't really think that has much to do with the presence of emotions in the decision making process and conflates "niceness" with "kindness" too much. While the two often overlap and are used collooquially to mean the same thing, there's some work done on distinguishing between the two
.
For me, niceness doesn't necessarily mean kind so much as it does being agreeable, pleasant, generally inoffensive, and other-regarding. Kindness can be nice but nice doesn't necessarily mean kind, in the same way that Good Is Not Nice
Edited by amathieu13 on Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:21:51 AM
A robot that is programmed to be courteous but does not experience genuine emotion would not seem to be an example. They should have some kind of agency in that they could choose to be a jerk if they wanted to.
As I said earlier, to be tropeworthy, a Nice Guy should be unusually nice. That is, they should display friendliness, courtesy, and/or an even temper in situations where most people would be upset or angry. In some cases this can have a pathological source, such as being brainwashed or being afraid of conflict.
A Straw Vulcan may be extremely polite, but that's not because they are "nice"; it's because they are suppressing emotion. There's a difference. Use the most applicable trope for each example.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 22nd 2022 at 8:30:53 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
so what would be your take on my example from earlier?
"If a character has no emotions" — this is the sticking point for me. I don't see emotionless characters qualifying for Nice Guy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
i asked because the example fits what you wrote earlier
, but from this, it seems like to you emotions are necessary and the rest is just sufficient. Got it. I still disagree with that perspective, but it helps in understanding how both of these takes relate to one another.
A character who is emotionless cannot be in a situation where they might be expected to become upset, because they never get upset (because that would be an emotion).
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.![]()
again, depends on how you define niceness. If you define niceness as "pleasant, inoffensive, and generally agreeable
", then whether or not the character is upset is irrelevant as niceness is more about how they interact with others and social appropriateness.
me? not off the top of my head
You're changing your reference definition. You said that they were being inconsistent with their previous definition given
, which I quoted.

Eh, I see what you're saying, but it's little different? Like, "being angry" isn't a trait so much as a state of being, and being a nerd is a label, also not a personality trait in the same way that "being nice" is. Nice Guy affects how the character acts, their relationships with the other characters, the way they're percieved in and out of universe, and even the sort of drama (or lackthereof) that they're likely to get into.
It's not just "being nice" on occasion, though we all agree that this usage is misuse, so I'm only bringing this up because it's similar to your point about Angry Black Man and "being angry sometimes". It's who a character is consistently which is why I find it a tropeworthy attribute, and why in general I think personality tropes are tropeworthy as long as they don't go into the "this person was nice once" direction.
If they're genuine personality traits (as in, consistent and well-defined), then they will impact the narrative.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall