What's going on here?: Justice Will Prevail

I started a YKTTW for The Good Guys Always Win and I got sent here...but something is clearly not right about this trope. According to the description, it looks like it's supposed to be the trope I was trying to create, but virtually none of the examples on the page (including the quotes and the image) use it that way—they're just about people saying the word "justice". I count one, maybe two good examples on the whole page. I'm looking through some of the wicks and I have yet to find any that match the supposed definition. Based on usage, it's actually either about the Stock Phrase or the same thing as For Great Justice. The page isn't really thriving either—only 110 wicks, which isn't terrible, but perhaps unimpressive if it's supposed to be the omnipresent idea it talks about in the description (and if it is, then most of them are incorrect).

When I made the YKTTW, I looked through a whole bunch of articles I expected to link to whatever trope we ought to have for The Good Guys Always Win (such as The Bad Guy Wins, Like You Would Really Do It, Near-Villain Victory, Invincible Hero, etc.) and I never found this trope. So I'mma say misuse by omission is heavy as well.

Before I looked at the examples, my initial instinct was to Entry Pimp the crap out of this underused trope. But now the conclusion I'm drawing from misuse of this caliber is that the description is actually completely wrong. I propose that we rewrite/redefine it to match usage and make it about the stock motivation, and maybe merge it into For Great Justice if they're too close.

Thoughts?

edited 5th Dec '10 7:49:13 PM by troacctid

I agree that this is a problem. Trim the examples down on a Sandbox version or something and see how many actual examples are left. It may just be easier to cut this and let your YKTTW take care of example gathering.

Your trope seem to be People Sit On Chairs. Justice Will Prevail is the valid trope that is left when the People Sit On Chairs factor is dropped.

I recommend discard the YKTTW and take no further action.

I looked through all the examples. I think the only one that matches the supposed definition is Shakespeare (Shakespearean villains always get their just desserts). All of the rest are using it as a Stock Phrase or as a character motivation or both. So...99% misuse?

Oh, forgot to mention, somebody did list it under the Stock Phrases index. So, like I said, I'm leaning strongly towards "description is wrong" here.

Omnipresent Trope does not equal People Sitting On Chairs.

"Good guys win" is an Omnipresent Trope because if it doesn't happen, the audience calls it a Downer Ending.

Bump.

My advice would be to take The Good Guys Win for the trope of The Good Guys Win and redefine Justice Will Prevail as a subtrope of Defiant to the End and Our Darkest Hour and those bunch.

I would just like to say:

   Bwahahahahahahah.   

I looked in the history of Omnipresent Tropes. The Good Guys Always Win was put by troacctid but was removed by Majutsukai. The explanation given?"Not omnipresent"

edited 20th Dec '10 8:16:57 AM by MagBas

I personally think The Good Guys Always Win is in no way People Sit In Chairs. I don't see how the hell you can figure that one when we have a trope called The Chick which is about...being a chick.

edited 20th Dec '10 8:36:33 AM by KingZeal

^Now, I believe The Chick is a little bit more than simply "being a chick."

edited 20th Dec '10 8:40:31 AM by SeanMurrayI

I know, and that's kind of my point. People Sit On Chairs is becoming a memetically overused phrase like most oft-Pot Hole'd tropes tend to b.e

Bump.

Only tangentially related to the above, but I wanted to add that this trope (or what it's theoretically supposed to be) is one of the biggest offenders in perpetuating the idea on this site that idealism equals Happy Ending. Idealism can mean a lot of things, and the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism is really about Optimism versus Cynicism. Just because a work has a happy ending doesn't mean it's idealistic, or vice versa.

If this is reworked into The Good Guys Win or that trope is created, can we please try not to perpetuate that idea while we're at it?

I don't quite understand the problem with Justice Will Prevail. The trope appears to be fairly straightforward in that character(s) believe that good will always trump evil, etc. In fact, I even added an example of Kanetsugu Naoe from Samurai Warriors.

So, am I Completely Missing The Point, or did someone already fix the trope?

The Good Guys Always Win really is one Omnipresent Trope? The Omnipresent Tropes page defines omnipresent tropes as tropes that are "intrinsically vital to storytelling itself" and The Good Guys Always Win sounds so "vital" to storytelling when Infant Immortality. Many works more cinical avert this without problems.

edited 21st Jan '11 7:20:12 PM by MagBas

I'd say that The Good Guy Wins is a near omnipresent trope. If it truly was an omnipresent trope, we wouldn't have The Bad Guy Wins.

Of the Sliding Scale of Villain Effectiveness, in the "Infinite" section "Many, many horror stories where the protagonists die or suffer a fate worse than death."Note:this is the only example of the scale this generic.Also, the first paragraph in True Art Is Angsty:"The experts have spoken! Only the grimmest of tragedies can effectively explore the fragility of human life, the crushing agony of love and regret, and other life-defining themes, such as why mommy never really loved you and the ultimate futility of happiness. Any story with an unambiguously Happy Ending is a piece of cheap commercial tripe." Of The Bad Guy Wins:"* This seems to be becoming more common in video games now. It seems game designers have become cynics and see the world as a World Half Empty, or are suffering from Creator Breakdown." , in other words, i guess that The Good Guys Always Win probably is less "omnipresent" that looks, is only more marketable.

edited 22nd Jan '11 6:34:51 AM by MagBas

Bump.

What exactly are you asking in ^^ that post?

Justice Will Prevail: "Compare For Great Justice, when this is explicitly stated in the opening, narration, or cutscenes."

For Great Justice: "Compare Justice Will Prevail (when this reason is actually given in the show)"

So apparently, the difference would only be where it's said, in one case in the narration etc., in the other in the show. But the description of Justice Will Prevail says nothing about that at all. It says the good guys win. It's not ambiguous. Where did this other definition come from? Is it because the quotes and the image feature someone saying this?

I'm going to go remove the link in For Great Justice at least, since currently it is inappropriate and not helping with the confusion.

Edit: Okay, maybe it's slightly ambiguous, because it says "lack of faith in this principle". However, there is no semanically correct way of interpreting that as meaning anything else than the principle that in the end, the good guys will win, since that's what it says earlier.

I'd say rename, and rewrite at least a bit.

edited 8th Jul '11 5:29:53 AM by VVK

I looked at the descriptions and examples for both tropes. Here's my take on the situation.

For Great Justice: a trope describing a vague/poorly thought out motivation for heroes. A basis for their actions that's almost an excuse for a fight scene. Something for a Monster of the Week show or Police/Detective series.

Justice Will Prevail: a trope about characters 'invoking'' the idea of justice. Its for morally ambigous shows, such as anti-hero fighting anti-villain or one where such distinctions are hard. "Justice will prevail" because both sides claim to be fighting for it.

There should be no problem with Good Guys Always Win, but a rewrite of this trope is in order.