Follow TV Tropes
I don't understand why this trope doesn't allow Real Life examples...I mean I understand why Real Life examples for Face–Heel Turn aren't allowed, but a Heel–Face Turn is good since you aren't really calling someone evil and you're actually sympathizing with the character.
By saying that the side they were on was evil. In either case, you're defining some real life group as "evil."
Do they have to have been "evil" before, though? I think there's room for real life examples in this trope, just with a higher bar to cross than most tropes have for it.
The one example I had in mind is Bill Gates: I mean seriously, who liked Bill Gates in the 1990s? He was the butt of jokes everywhere from Slashdot to The Tonight Show for his monopolistic ways. But 20 years later, he's freaking curing polio in the developing world. He's transformed from a scheming robber-baron nerd nobody liked into the billionaire Mother Teresa. That has to qualify for a real-life Heel Face Turn!
No, because there is no evidence he was "evil". The trope is about evil/villain.
It's because then you're calling everybody who agreed with the person formerly evil. Like... If I say that somebody did a Heel–Face Turn when he converted from Islam to Christianity, then I'm framing Muslims as evil.
Shouldn't this trope be listed under Goodness Tropes instead of Evil Tropes like Face–Heel Turn
You can list it on both.
In the description: "This usually makes for a good plot, for three reasons"
I think the bullet list it's missing one: "It can be used to add an element of dynamic tension to the narrative: is the face-turner *really* a reliably good guy now, or is s/he still working for (or tempted to go back to) the Dark Side.
I'm thinking particularly of Snape, in the Potter series, which has the interesting spin on this trope that the Face Turn took place in the back-story. Rowling plays off the uncertainty about Snape's conversion right to the end and that becomes one of the central forces driving the story's forward momentum.
I'm not comfortable with what all to put on this page, so I don't want to do it myself, but shouldn't the game Rumble Roses and Rumble Roses XX be listed? I mean, it IS a wrestling game and the whole "Heel/Face" thing is integral to the game, with every girl having a heel and face persona.
With all the recent discussion I've seen about changing the name of various entries, I think it's about time this gets fixed for two reasons:
1) I am a wrestling fan, I use wrestling boards and these are described simply as 'face turns' or 'heel turns'. Nobody uses 'face heel turn' or 'heel face turn' for the other reason...
2) ...because they're really confusing! People have talked about renaming tropes like Funny Aneurysm Moment which, while it doesn't jump off the page at you, at least makes sense if you think it through for a second. This, on the other hand, doesn't because both this and Face Heel Turn could easily mean the other trope. I, for one, have never been able to keep straight which way around they go and it's very irritating.
So there y'go. Discuss.
Addendum: As if to perfectly encapsulate this complaint, I've just seen somebody (I think on the Blue and Orange Morality page) claim that Oskar Schindler made a Face–Heel Turn. You see what I mean about it being confusing?
I agree! The name of this group of tropes really Bugs Me. It's a damned simple concept and there is no reason to use such an obtuse name for it.
This really needs to be changed. I have never in my life as a wrestling fan seen it called a "heel face turn" other than this website. It's just a face turn.
Wouldn't the new image be Just A Face And A Caption? Darth Vader is a good example of a Heel–Face Turn, but the picture by itself doesn't demonstrate the trope at all.
Well, in context, it makes sense. I think it fits the trope better than the Zebra Girl image.
Personally, I'm in favor of something from ''Incorruptible," which is centered around a heinous supervillain who turns good. In the first issue he shields a police officer from the bullets fired by his former goons.
◦Timid wanna-be villain Andrew got one in Season Seven
No. It happened at the end of season 6. The raping murdering Nerd Herd had been the Big Bad for most of season 6, but as soon as they murdered Tara, Buffy told us that they were the Good Guys and followed Andrew's plan to nuke Sunnydale.
Likewise, in Angel, the gang captured the Villain of the Week and were about to punish him. Andrew turns up with a regiment of Nerdettes/Potentials and force Angel's gang to let the Villain o free to rape and murder again.
Loghain is not an example of this trope, nor is he The Dragon. He isn't in cahoots with the Archdemon (he actually spends the better part of the game denying the fact that there is a Blight), nor do his beliefs really change if he joins the party. Loghain is a Well-Intentioned Extremist who crosses the Moral Event Horizon within the first few hours of the game, a fact that he and even both his own daughter and the fanatically loyal Ser Cautherien recognize. Alistair doesn't "throw a sulk," he's rightfully outraged at the miscarriage of justice permitting a man who'd committed far too many atrocities to list here, including a few that hit Alistair very hard, go free. Therefore, I am removing him as an example. If anyone wants to argue the issue, please respond here. Thanks!
But he was an antagonist who can turn to the side of the protagonist. You don't have to be The Dragon to the Big Bad of the story to be a villain within it. And the dude, no matter how well intentioned he was, is definitely a villain in the game.
As for Alistair, this is unrelated, but I think his reaction is a bit too over-the-top. I mean, you're not pardoning him. And killing the man on the spot is hardly justice, he'd suffer more if he had to live in humble humiliation.
I'm not necessarily supporting adding it back. I'm just trying to argue the other side of the matter a bit. I can see why you'd take it off.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?