Pet Peeve Tropes and how to deconstruct them

[Cipiteca396]

I guess for today I'll say my Pet Peeve trope is "Evil does Evil Things".

It makes sense normally. The bad guys have to do bad things, otherwise they aren't really bad right?

The problem is that a lot of the time a character does evil things to prove how bad the not-evil things they do are. "This person just murdered their own brother and sold their country out to multiple foreign invaders in a mad grab for power- because they are gay!"

Usually it's directed towards politics or philosophy though. Rather than saying that 'it's natural for bad people to do bad things', the implication is that 'only a bad person would do this thing, because it's bad'.

 

[CarburetorThompson]

I guess for today I'll say my Pet Peeve trope is "Evil does Evil Things".

It makes sense normally. The bad guys have to do bad things, otherwise they aren't really bad right?

The problem is that a lot of the time a character does evil things to prove how bad the not-evil things they do are. "This person just murdered their own brother and sold their country out to multiple foreign invaders in a mad grab for power- because they are gay!"

Usually it's directed towards politics or philosophy though. Rather than saying that 'it's natural for bad people to do bad things', the implication is that 'only a bad person would do this thing, because it's bad'.

Evil ‘cause evil only works if you do D&D rules like all vampires are evil. Why? Because it’s in their nature idk. Even when it works correctly it’s not good for a story or enjoyable to read.

 

[BenJepheneT]

you're a big guy

 

[Wohendum]

People bringing modern morality to situations of the past when society didn't live by the same rules, hold the same values, or even celebrate their culture in the same way we do, or even have a culture even remotely similar to ours. Like the "beating a dead horse" example: slavery in fiction. I'm really getting tired of reading stories where somewhere in it, slaves become a part of the plot somehow, and then the reader spends nearly an entire chapter lamenting the inhumanity of it and crying and complaining about how awful that medieval society is because of "woe is me they does slavery". Seriously, shut the hell up. And then they'll drop constant reminders of their opinion on the subject as if they want to reassure their readers that they don't agree because.....and? Why does everyone insist on trying to dump modern morality into a story where the world itself, has almost no similarities to what we call modern society? Even when its practical to take part in this aspect of this medieval society, nah, people would rather moan and whine about it and spend chapters preaching the values of freedom and just...not telling a story.

In 200 years, values will most likely be completely different, just like 200 years ago, values were not the same as the way we see them now. In 200 years, people will potentially consider us freaks or weirdos for what we now consider "right and proper." I'm not even arguing about slavery, its just the most prominent example and I get annoyed at people dropping comment after comment about "why don't he end slavery in that world bruh!!!". Leave modern morals out of stories that happen in worlds that are anything but modern. The modern world isn't in any position to be trying to judge anyone.

We are not enlightened.

What the hell makes us so morally superior anyway? Nothing. We just assume we are. We have no actual meter to grade ourselves against anyone because no such impartial and authentic measurement exists. It's all personal opinion and belief based on the way we were raised in the time period we were raised. That's all. That is all that decides what we think is proper and what we believe to be right and wrong. Nothing else. If we were born in Germany and grew up around the time Hitler was prominent, most of us (and don't bullshit and pretend otherwise), would have been adamant supporters of Hitler.

 

[Irl_Rat]

People bringing modern morality to situations of the past when society didn't live by the same rules, hold the same values, or even celebrate their culture in the same way we do, or even have a culture even remotely similar to ours.

This complaint is only valid in the circumstance of an isekai'd protagonist that has power to change the world. Because isn't it odd that someone with modern morality with look at chattel slavery in their new world and think "this is fine." Despite the fact they have the power to influence society because of protagonist powers but ignore the issue because "muh slave harem."

And I will once again iterate my point about how isekai can explore modern people trying to force their values on a pre-modern society and how that would affect such a world.

 

[greyblob]

People bringing modern morality to situations of the past when society didn't live by the same rules, hold the same values, or even celebrate their culture in the same way we do, or even have a culture even remotely similar to ours. Like the "beating a dead horse" example: slavery in fiction. I'm really getting tired of reading stories where somewhere in it, slaves become a part of the plot somehow, and then the reader spends nearly an entire chapter lamenting the inhumanity of it and crying and complaining about how awful that medieval society is because of "woe is me they does slavery". Seriously, shut the hell up. And then they'll drop constant reminders of their opinion on the subject as if they want to reassure their readers that they don't agree because.....and? Why does everyone insist on trying to dump modern morality into a story where the world itself, has almost no similarities to what we call modern society? Even when its practical to take part in this aspect of this medieval society, nah, people would rather moan and whine about it and spend chapters preaching the values of freedom and just...not telling a story.

In 200 years, values will most likely be completely different, just like 200 years ago, values were not the same as the way we see them now. In 200 years, people will potentially consider us freaks or weirdos for what we now consider "right and proper." I'm not even arguing about slavery, its just the most prominent example and I get annoyed at people dropping comment after comment about "why don't he end slavery in that world bruh!!!". Leave modern morals out of stories that happen in worlds that are anything but modern. The modern world isn't in any position to be trying to judge anyone.

We are not enlightened.

What the hell makes us so morally superior anyway? Nothing. We just assume we are. We have no actual meter to grade ourselves against anyone because no such impartial and authentic measurement exists. It's all personal opinion and belief based on the way we were raised in the time period we were raised. That's all. That is all that decides what we think is proper and what we believe to be right and wrong. Nothing else. If we were born in Germany and grew up around the time Hitler was prominent, most of us (and don't bullshit and pretend otherwise), would have been adamant supporters of Hitler.

wow I see the exact opposite: readers telling the authors to have the MC 'make use' of the slave. and they get quite mad (rightfully so) when an MC relinquishes power over their slave. just stop reading shonen.
also the hitler comment is very retarded

 

[Wohendum]

This complaint is only valid in the circumstance of an isekai'd protagonist that has power to change the world.

That isn't a very valid argument. I have two .44 Magnum revolvers that I have conceal and carry licenses for so that I can carry them with me when I go outside of my house as long as I don't openly brandish them. I also have decades of Taekwondo & Boxing under my belt which means I'm not just some random bozo in a hand-to-hand contest. If I witness someone robbing a store, just because I have the capability, the training, and the armaments to deal with the situation, I am not obligated to do so just because I can.

Because isn't it odd that someone with modern morality with look at chattel slavery in their new world and think "this is fine." Despite the fact they have the power to influence society because of protagonist powers but ignore the issue because "muh slave harem."

Also, I very much doubt the vast majority of people, even on just this site alone, if they were isekai'd tomorrow into a world where slavery exists, would go out of their way to abolish it just because they come from a society where it doesn't exist. Sure, 1 or 2 of us might, but most people aren't going to go out and make waves to alter an society entrenched in slavery just because they discover they have the power to. I don't believe it. Most people aren't altruists for the sake of altruism. Their has to be a catch, a reward, something to drive us to do it besides "its the right thing to do." Human nature doesn't function that way. And if the world we are isekai'd to, functions well enough on slavery, and we ourselves begin to profit off of slavery somehow when we become apart of this fantasy-theoretical world, very few of us, potentially none, are going to step out of that comfort to disrupt that said comfort.

also the hitler comment is very retarded

Explain how? Because it's not wrong. If we grew up in Germany during that era, we would have been supporters of his just like most of Germany was at the time. He literally rode into power on the backs of the populace who were convinced he was the man of the hour come to save Germany that was practically running on life-support at the time. Sure he did some questionable things even during his rise to power years, years before the death camps were a thing, but it didn't affect his popularity during the 30's when he was in the process of gaining control.

 

[Irl_Rat]

Human nature doesn't function that way. And if the world we are isekai'd to, functions well enough on slavery, and we ourselves begin to profit off of slavery somehow when we become apart of this fantasy-theoretical world, very few of us, potentially none, are going to step out of that comfort to disrupt that said comfort.

This concerns how the typical isekai'd protagonist is a white knight good moral type character, which necessitates that they should have some strong feelings about something they are taught is wrong.

If we assume the protagonist is a normal person then it would be interesting, even ideal, to see their inner conflict with the situation they are presented with. They don't have to change it, they can tolerate or even use it to their advantage. But I would prefer it be deeper than virgin uses slavery to get some maidens.

That isn't a very valid argument. I have two .44 Magnum revolvers that I have conceal and carry licenses for so that I can carry them with me when I go outside of my house as long as I don't openly brandish them. I also have decades of Taekwondo & Boxing under my belt which means I'm not just some random bozo in a hand-to-hand contest. If I witness someone robbing a store, just because I have the capability, the training, and the armaments to deal with the situation, I am not obligated to do so just because I can.

It isn't a valid argument because you don't understand the point. I mention "the ability to change the world" because that factor removes the possibility that the protagonist would reason that they shouldn't attempt change because they don't have the power. Someone who has actual skills to stop a robbery is more likely to act than someone who has no clue what to do.

And it returns to the issue of my personal experiences with op characters with a hero complex that only activates when an author decides it needs to.

If the character is portrayed as villainous or morally grey then I just want to hear their train of thought.

 

[Wohendum]

Someone who has actual skills to stop a robbery is more likely to act than someone who has no clue what to do.

Real life people? Nope. Very few people do anything just because they can unless they can gain something from it. A reward. Something more than just a good feeling in their heart. If you work for an organization that feeds and clothes homeless kids, yes you do the job because you like the work, but if they stopped paying you, you would not continue to do the job. You just wouldn't. Because warm feelings and good vibes are not enough to move most people to do something.

Most people are morally gray, with only the outliers or exceptions being black or white. So no, you would not get droves of people doing something for the sake of good just because they had the power to do so. Especially when the alternative is easier, and most likely more profitable in more ways than one.

But a fiction character? Sure. Because they are made to do so by the writer.

 

[Irl_Rat]

Most people are morally gray, with the outliers or exceptions being black or white. So no, you would not get droves of people doing something for the sake of good just because they had the power to do so. Especially when the alternative is easier, and most likely more profitable in more ways than one.

Damn it's like you just can't understand what I'm communicating. More likely to act doesn't necessarily mean a jump from 2% to 90%. I say people with the capacity to do something are more likely to than those who can't because it's more profitable. Their chances of success are higher so they are more likely to obtain whatever reward without incurring failure. Or should we disagree on that as well?

I would prefer not to argue too much on the average person since our own experiences shape what we consider average. My personal perception is very similar to yours and most people behave "heroically" most likely due to desire of recognition, societal conditioning, or potential reward. But if there can extremely evil people then the opposite should be true as well. Unless we want to debate that Jeffrey Dahmer is actually very morally nuanced and that most people would be just like him given the circumstances.

 

[greyblob]

Explain how? Because it's not wrong. If we grew up in Germany during that era, we would have been supporters of his just like most of Germany was at the time. He literally rode into power on the backs of the populace who were convinced he was the man of the hour come to save Germany that was practically running on life-support at the time. Sure he did some questionable things even during his rise to power years before the death camps, but it didn't affect his popularity during the 30's when he was in the process of gaining control.

are you only talking about pre ww2? you said "around the time Hitler was prominent" and that's not just the 30s.
Nazis ruled with an iron fist. any opposition was crushed immediately. there was nothing but supporters or docile citizens and I do not believe the majority were "adamant".
germans weren't okay with burning humans before, after, or during Hitler's rulet. their values did not change in a 10 year period. Hitler's racial opinions were of a radicalized minority and does not reflect the whole populace of germany. your example is flawed hence why using Hitler here is retarded

 

[Wohendum]

My personal perception is very similar to yours and most people behave "heroically" most likely due to desire of recognition, societal conditioning, or potential reward.

That's the only point I was making. Anything else, besides people inserting modern morality into un-modern worlds, is something you alone were arguing and not me.

More likely to act doesn't necessarily mean a jump from 2% to 90%

I wasn't putting a certainty on the likelihood of what they would or wouldn't do. I just said it's highly unlikely they would even if they had the capability. Yes, it would most likely be those that could, that would do something, but I'm saying most that can, most likely still wouldn't do anything.

Apparently, we are having a discussion that is paralleling one another, but not quite intersecting. We diverged somehow and I apologize for that. Maybe I wasn't be clear enough.

I would prefer not to argue too much

I didn't know we were getting close to being heated. I was enjoying this actually. My apologies again.

 

[Irl_Rat]

are you only talking about pre ww2? you said "around the time Hitler was prominent" and that's not just the 30s.
Nazis ruled with an iron fist. any opposition was crushed immediately. there was nothing but supporters or docile citizens and I do not believe the majority were "adamant".
germans weren't okay with burning humans before, after, or during Hitler's rulet. their values did not change in a 10 year period. Hitler's racial opinions were of a radicalized minority and does not reflect the whole populace of germany. your example is flawed hence why using Hitler here is retarded

A lot of people were caught up in anti-Semitism. But I am unsure of whether this was extreme enough to the point that everyone would outright love concentration camps. Most would go along because they would prefer that they and their family not be sent there as well, similar to how the populace of communist countries just ignore atrocities because they like the living option.

Apparently, we are having a discussion that is paralleling one another, but not quite intersecting. We diverged somehow and I apologize for that. Maybe I wasn't be clear enough.

Average internet discussion where two people are practically venting about two similar but not identical topics. I will not apologize for getting distracted since it was fun. You don't have to apologize either.

I didn't know we were getting close to being heated. I was enjoying this actually. My apologies again.

I wouldn't consider it as heated. More like I draw a line in internet discussions since there be people out there with the most warped view of morality possible. Like excusing genocide because the dictator ordering it supports your whacky ideology.

 

[Wohendum]

germans weren't okay with burning humans before, after, or during Hitler's rulet

You are implying they knew. They didn't. We wouldn't either if were in that time period. not until after the war was over and definite proof was available.

are you only talking about pre ww2? you said "around the time Hitler was prominent" and that's not just the 30s.

I specifically stated during his rise to power, when his popularity was off the charts. And also said 30's, which is when his rise to power occurred. You must have skimmed I suppose.

there was nothing but supporters or docile citizens and I do not believe the majority were "adamant".

Yes, he was wildly popular even up to the early stages of the war when he invaded Poland. They were adamant supporters. He had just brought a Debt and war indemnity-ridden, poverty-stricken Germany from its Wehrmacht era into being perhaps the premier power of Europe in record time. People weren't starving anymore.

germans weren't okay with burning humans before, after, or during Hitler's rulet. their values did not change in a 10 year period.

Again, you are implying they knew. They didn't until the war was almost over. Also, Anti-Semitism was far more prevalent than a "radical minority". It was commonplace because the German people believed in Hitler and his statements. You are incorrect here.

your example is flawed hence why using Hitler here is retarded

My example was astute. Your understanding is flawed and retarded apparently.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Wow, was it Godwin's law?