Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Hmm, I'm torn. At the Moral Event Horizon clean-up thread ( this specific post
) we came to an agreement that the MEH doesn't necessarily mean "the work never redeems the character after" moreso than it means "the moment that cements the character as evil and going too far". On the other hand, this is an audience reaction, so it can't be Played With. Either these are Moral Event Horizon examples, or they ain't.
(Also, for future reference, issues like these can and probably should go to the clean-up thread).
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I really don't think their subversions . An MEH exists on its own action. If it's valid it's an example. It can't be removed as an example because a good act at a later act does not unmake the horrific acts done prior. It was an MEH example when he slaughtered literal children and still is. As is any MEH act taken since then. The act us not 'erased' by doing one act at a later date. Especially when the act itself was to save his son not make up for his actions. I mean the force may indicate he's redeemed but attempting to evaluate a mostly passive questionable "force" morality is a debate for another time.
Edited by Tuvok
MEH is when a person does an act in which he cant redeemed himself. Since Vader did saved Luke, he did redeemed himself.
Apparently the status {{https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14984878480A61564600&page=6#comment-148}} means not necessary an act in which they cannot be redeemed but which shows they have morally gone too far. Vaders act of infanticide would indicate definitely MEH. Also one act versus decades of mass murder would in any other circumstances a questionable comparison. None the less this would be best taken to the clean-up thread.
"Redeemed" can be interpreted too narrowly. In Vader's case the idea is that it's shown that he still has good in him, so he's redeemed in the "religious" sense of the Force and forgiven by his son so that he doesn't have to die a monster, but if not for the Redemption Equals Death clause, he'd probably have a lot more amends still left to make, probably more than he ever could in life. There are degrees of redemption, and forgiveness.
Edited by Unsung
Guys, can we worry about the examples here and have any potential debates about MEH requirements moved to the thread? At the moment, we are technically accepting redeemed villains as per the thread.
Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Here's the thread to discuss this.
I believe the issue can be resolved by limiting Vader's examples to the points Vader/characters felt he crossed the line In-Universe, as he by and large wasn't forgiven by the galaxy even if he was by the Force/narrative.
ryanasaurus0077 included the following example in Live-Action Films: Darth Vader subverts this twice in the course of the saga. The first subversion happens in Revenge of the Sith when he slaughters the Younglings at the Jedi temple and later impulsively chokes Padme half to death (a broken heart ultimately finishes her off) when he thinks she led Obi-Wan to him, and the second happens in The Empire Strikes Back with his callous treatment of Lando on Cloud City. While both are horrible by themselves, they're both subversions as he ultimately redeems himself in Return of the Jedi with his Papa Wolf moment.