Follow TV Tropes
"Designated Evil is when a writer paints the solution to a problem, committed by a protagonist, as indisputably wrong or evil, but either doesn't make an alternative action clear, or shows the audience that the alternative would have been ineffective." The protagonist is the hero of the tale. Did the author mean "antagonist", or villain? The rest of the article seems to be describing the Designated Evil act as having been committed by an antagonist.
Nope. 90% of the time the action is Shoot The Dog, committed not necessarily by the main character, but by someone who is nominally on the side of the good guys, but painted as Jumping Of The Slippery Slope, He Who Fights Monsters or something similar, even though in context there was no other option. Of course, it CAN be done by the villain because Tropes Are Flexible, but generally it will be a good guy or an Anti Hero.
Moved this here for discussion:
I think this example misses the point of the whole scene. First, it leaves out that the turning point for Frankie is not simply killing the Subsiders, it's seeing someone whom he turned into vampire against her will preferring to kill herself rather than live as a monster. It's this that makes him reconsider what he put his brother through. Second, as with the dwingling human food supply, I think the point it misses is that the entire vampire society was doomed and devouring itself because of its terminal dependence on blood. Killing the Subsiders may be Necessarily Evil from the vampires' perspective, but they wouldn't have existed in the first place if so many people didn't choose to become predatory monsters and hunted humanity to extinction.
And that makes the entry invalid... how exacly? As long as mass killing of Subsiders is presented as wrong it's this trope, unless you have other solution that wouldn't be as bad, and you yourself have said that it's Necessarily Evil. The point of the entry isn't going into excesive details of the plot, it only needs to explain how the trope is in play.
I was going to side with you, but then I reread the description.
Designated Evil is when a writer paints the solution to a problem, committed by a protagonist, as indisputably wrong or evil, but either doesn't make an alternative action clear, or shows the audience that the alternative would have been ineffective.
The thing with Edgecomb is that the work (through Cho) offers the point that her mother's job is at risk and the rebuttal is... "so what?" The work itself doesn't point out any alternatives for her other than saying "well she should have risked it anyway." If the work had said "your mom's job wasn't at risk" then I'd be 100% down to pull, but it just... doesn't. It just treats her like she should've taken the risk, not that the risk isn't there.
So yeah. My gut agrees with you on every single point, but upon further consideration I lean towards leaving it in. I won't fight very hard, though.
That said, the last bit strikes me as very odd. Is there any reason whatsoever to think Cho wasn't telling the truth? Where does that come from?
"Designated Evil is when a writer paints the solution to a problem(...)" The thing is Marietta's decision wasn't really a solution to the problem, but what caused problems in the first place. DA was working for months at the time and her mother wasn't at any risk of losing a job because of it. Considering that Umbridge wasn't any closer to finding out about DA than at the begginning and Marietta knew the risks when she joined i say this doesn't fit the description not because there were other solution to the problem(then again like i said solution is "not join at all") but because there was no problem to solve to begin with.
The problem in this case is Marietta's mother losing her job. The narrative didn't give any reason to think her mother's job wasn't at risk, and didn't offer any solution other than "risk it." If the narrative scoffed and said "no, her mother was never at risk" then that would be one thing, but it never does anything to dismiss her problem as not a problem. It just says "well too bad."
I've read part five in my native language, so i'm not entirely sure, but the translated versions didn't even say that she was afraid her mother might lose her job, only that it's hard for her because her mother works in the ministry. If i got a quote from original version it would probably be easier. Anyway like i said Marietta was DA member for months and it didn't cause any problems for her mother because it couldn't since ministry didn't know about DA. And if old Edgecombe had problems at work unrelated to DA and Marrietta thought she might save her job by selling out DA... Sorry but if Marrietta's mother screwed up, then selling out friends to save her definitely isn't the right way. In any case while old Egdecombe working in ministry was mentioned the book simply never went into details so we don't really know what exacly was at stake. Logic dictates that DA couldn't have been a problem at the time because ministry didn't know about them. IF they did, Marietta's mother could be at problem, but like i said they were working for months without problems or reason to suspect there might be problems. Selling out 28 people because of something that may or may not ever happen doesn't seem like solution to the problem without any alternatives.
There was an episode of That's So Raven where Cory's school stops selling soda to cut back on sugar. In response, Cory starts selling home-made soda. This is treated as morally wrong, and is forced to give people their money back. Would this count as an example of this trope?
Seems more like Informed Wrongness to me.
Deleted the Supernatural example. Felt too much like agenda pushing.
I removed the Discworld examples because I'm pretty sure they don't count. Neither Vimes's shooting of Wolfgang nor Carrot's stabbing of Cruces was portrayed as evil - Vimes only notes that the former came uncomfortably close to counting as murder, and Carrot is explicitly referred to as "a good man" in the scene where he kills Cruces. In fact, they both maintain the running theme of the Watch books that killing people for the right reasons is often a good act, but as soon as you start to enjoy it you're Jumping Off the Slippery Slope.
I've removed the section on The Incredibles, for a few reasons:
The removed text follows:
Deleted New Jedi Order example for several reasons.
1. The Vong, horrible as they are, are not Always Chaotic Evil. In fact, they have a thoroughly opressed slave caste who hate their superiors and don't support what they're doing and a very active internal resistance, and several books (particularly the Edge of Victory duology) dedicated a lot of pagetime to humanizing individual Vong. Using a virus to exterminate their race? That's genocide, and it's not cool. It's certainly not something Luke Skywalker can support and remain remotely in-character.
2. The Alpha Red virus is a virus. As in, something that can and will mutate. If released across an entire galaxy, there is every chance that it will jump from the Vong to galactic natives. In fact, this is what happens when the virus was released on a small scale in the last book. As the characters point out in-universe, Alpha Red stood a very high chance of exterminating both sides.
3. The Vong are the Star Wars universe's unchecked masters of bioengineering. Even if they weren't able to cure Alpha Red in time to save themselves, they're more than capable of figuring out what was happening to them and responding in kind. This also would have destroyed both sides, and is also explicitly pointed out in-universe.
4. The Vong spread themselves incredibly thin while taking over the galaxy, anda good percentage of them were killed doing so. That's why there were few enough of them left at the end that they could fit on one planet (a planet which, by the way, was introduced in a prequel-era EU novel that tied into the NJO released around the time the series began, so it can't even be called an Ass Pull- it was obviously meant to be an integral part of the Myth Arc, but the only characters who knew about it were either determined to keep it secret or a Trickster Mentor who never gave a straight answer about anything).
5. And finally, comitting genocide on your enemy with a bioengineered plague thematically goes against everything Star Wars stands for. If the good guys win by comitting a war crime on such as scale that Emperor Palpatine is kicking himself in the afterlife for not thinking of it, something is very, very wrong.
In short, the books very clearly spelled out why the idea was neither morally acceptable nor practically possible, and I'm honestly a little disgusted that anyone would think there's anything "designated" about the evil of comitting genocide via biological warfare. To use a real-world analagy, it's the moral equivalent of the Allies ending WWII by using nukes to exterminate the entire populations of Germany and Japan, as well as everything produced by either civilization.
EDIT: Also, the troper who posted that entry seemed to think that Luke was the only person who was against using the virus. In fact, a large number of characters were (including all of the Jedi and most of their allies); Luke was merely the most vocal.
The example on Dazno from Naruto should be removed. Not only is it incorrect by claiming that Danzo is knowen as evil only because of the Uchiha Massacre while there are plenty of other reasons, which also make one wonder if the Massacre was less for the "Greater Good" than it was for Danzo's ambitions, but the poster is talking about an event which has still haven't been fully reveled to the readers, so we can't judge if it was necessary.
Also, being Jewish, I find attempting to justify genocide with "the Uchiha were all evil" unbelievably offensive.
I completely agree. Especially, since the example says appeasement is asking for trouble and makes the Hokage look weak. It's better to murder am entire people than to make compromises? I'm deleting this.
Can somebody who knows this series cut down this example?
How is this different from Designated Villain?
Designated Villain is a person who the story defines as evil. Designated Evil is an action the story defines as evil.
Designated Villain is an antagonist. Designated Evil can be performed by a protagonist.
Actually, a character can be a Designated Villain and a protagonist simply because a character can be a Villain Protagonist.
Is it just me, or is the example on the page description way to complex for casual consumption? Going into the legal system of a fictional world doesn't seem at all necessary to drive home the main concept, which is actually pretty simple.
That's what making a Laconic page is for. Not every trope has to be wrapped up into a nice little paragraph-sized bite for quick reading.
Community Showcase More