There's no requirement that a trope be "balanced" so I'm not sure what you mean by it being "one-sided."
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
There isn't? Then why do we have YMMV, and why do most articles include some balance and attention to both sides of an argument (not counting non-encyclopedic ones for TV Tropes guidelines)?
We have YMMV, because some tropes are subjective. Again, what do you mean by the trope being "one-sided"? You need to be able to clearly define the problem if you want it fixed.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
Being "militantly neutral; so devoted to not taking sides that they lash out against both Good and Evil without distinguishing between Friend or Foe" doesn't necessarily reflect stupidity. It could reflect, for example, an aversion to being too widely liked or hated (similar to Jerkass Woobie), a love of chaos for its own sake, a desire to prolong or moderate a long-range conflict, or a desire to keep oneself from becoming too attached to either side.
Using "stupid" in the name of things that are inherently and by definition unintelligent is okay. In fact, calling them "stupid" is being fair. However, here it just comes across as the authors expressing their dislike of the trope.
Stupidity is a lack of ability to learn and understand. "Stupid neutral" characters can be plenty intelligent; they just operate on a moral framework that doesn't prioritize Good or Evil.
As for clear definition, I'll pull some phrasings from the article:
- The use of the word "stupid" to refer to this morality stance.
- "The problem comes when" - Just stop there. How can a plot device be objectively problematic? (Within the canon of the story, an event could shift the balance unilaterally in favor of Evil, and thus be inherently negative, but that's not at all what "stupid neutral" characters do.)
- "misguided morals" - According to whom? Even within the work, according to whom?
I'm not against there being articles for tropes like this. In fact, I think it may well be worth distinguishing this from other types of neutrality. But by God, pick a name that isn't so inherently charged. "Cancellation Neutral"? "Balance Neutral"? "Reversal Neutral"?
Something like that would need to go to TRS. Feel free to take it there, but I don't think you'll get very far, unless you can show that the current description is causing problems in the types of examples it attracts.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
I've changed a bit of the wording to up the neutrality, and I tried hard to make it fit rather than seem like natter. (For once, this was harder than avoiding the evil second bullet point.) I don't think anyone should still take issue with that...
I will note that you change to the last line is awkwardly worded, and really unnecessary. One big issue I'm seeing is that you keep talking about justifications and reasoning. Those would be be different tropes.
My alignment is Chaotic Cute.
Of course the sane way to play True Neutral Druids is to have them be on the side of the people who AREN'T trashing their wildernesses. They're True Neutral like Treebeard.
Since my edit has been reverted, I think I ought to voice my concern here:
The article's way too one-sided. This is a common problem here among the "Stupid X" articles, but especially this one. At the very least, SOME kind of disclaimer regarding what "Stupid" does or does not mean in this case is necessary for the intro. Just make it sound non-natter-like, because apparently I can't.
Hide / Show Replies