Definitely not #2. I'm not even certain how that would work.
Loser
I support the third option because the current image does not seem to me to reflect the trope. If someone has a better title though I will listen to that.
"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d
Bloodthirsty Knight? Bloodlust Knight?
edited 20th Jun '10 5:48:00 PM by BLOODPOUCH
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
It would be best to keep some part of the name intact, so we don't confuse people.
But that's assuming it needs to be renamed, and that might not be necessary.
Well, if (remember, if) we are to rename it, we should pick something that doesn't imply necessary knighthood from the character.
I'm going to say #3.
I don't see the misuse on my crappy little wicks check and the thing has about the same number of wicks and external links as when we decided that Xanatos Gambit was too big to fail. The characters that we get are nearly all characterised as warriors, you would need them to be to fulfill the trope condition. If you take a warrior, throw on some combat focused honour system, what do you get? Knight tugs on certain imagination chords and we can't call for more imagination in names then throw a fit when one works by imagination.
Raven Wilder
If we're going to change the page image for Blood Knight, may I throw in a suggestion?
◊
I vote for #3
Knight in Shining Armor isn't just a reference to knights, so I don't think we need a new name.
Oh wait... it is... Baka TV Tropes
edited 20th Jun '10 7:25:59 PM by Sackett
3 is fine. No need to go changing a whole freakin' trope just so somebody can have a picture of Kenpachi up. Stick with the Frazetta.
edited 20th Jun '10 10:08:30 PM by Daremo
Creed of the Happy Pessimist:Always expect the worst. Then, when it happens, it was only what you expected. All else is a happy surprise.
I see the Awesomeness.
Three. Please.
Fight smart, not fair.
Gotta trope, dood!
This post was thumped by the Eldritch Flyswatter of Horror
Gotta trope, dood!
Gonna go on and parrot everyone else. The trope may not explicitly deal with knights, but it pretty much requires one to be a warrior of some type, and knights are warriors, so...
They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?
Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
I say 1). The current title doesn't reflect the meaning to me.
Not that I have any better suggestion...
It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
Viking
Definitely keep. It's a good trope name, even if it doesn't have a whole lot to do with actual knights.
My Namesakes
I'm all for #3, but I also think we should add a relevant caption for the image (something like, "War Is Hell? Not for this guy") regardless of what image we decide on.
I also want to know the exact differences between the Blood Knight and the Boisterous Bruiser tropes. They are both about characters who enjoy combat, but I can not see any clear differences.
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass."
Student of Story
Boisterous Bruiser is any Big Guy who likes to have a lot of fun. For example an athlete who plays his game, then goes out and lives it up by partying and drinking with the guys he was playing with. You can hear him laughing and telling funny stories all the way across the room.
The Blood Knight is a guy who lives solely for fighting, combat and war. Outside of combat he may be as party happy as the Boisterous Bruiser, or he may be a cold blooded monster who would gut you like a fish the moment you try to talk to him.
Obviously there's a lot of room for overlapping, since most people with a love of war are likely to have a personality similar to the Boisterous Bruiser, but one doesn't necessarily equal another.
And for the record, my vote would be for option 3. Someone has to be really determined to be literal about the title in order to arrive at the idea that it's solely about knights, especially since most examples have little to do with knighthood.
As a by the way, does anyone else think the paragraph about the origin of the name is needlessly long and convoluted? Seems to me that absolutely nothing would be lost if it was reduced to a single sentence and a link to the magic card in question.
edited 2nd Oct '10 8:59:56 PM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
I'd suggest wishing good luck to people who are so literal minded they think it has be a literal knight and then going on about our lives.
edited 2nd Oct '10 9:11:43 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
What Eddie said.
The Shadows Devour You.
Oh for crying out...
Look, I'm all for clarity, but if you're this literal-minded all hope is lost for you...
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
Upon reflection ... You know, I think I may have been one of those arguing on the side of "It has to be a knight!" at one point. The thread is gone, so there is no record.
The character does have to be martial. Not just warrior, but code-adhering in some way. Soldier, knight, up to his/her ass in bushido — one of those people.
edited 3rd Oct '10 9:32:00 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
I see the Awesomeness.
Courtesy Link
While determining a new picture for the trope in this thread
, we came a across a conflicting situation: It would seem that some people were misled into thinking that the trope was related to knights, so even if the voting is already done, we cannot proceed to change the picture unless we deal with this, which has led to the page being locked for several weeks already. The available options would be:
Thoughts?