[004]
Tyoria
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The alignment question wasn\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \
to:
The alignment question wasn\\\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \\\"wait people argue over the Type IV\\\'s alignment?\\\") A lot of people argue over it and many other people are baffled by the amount of arguing that goes on over it, especially given that it\\\'s a D&D exclusive concept that so infamously does little but lead to fights that they\\\'ve actually changed it.
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. You\\\'re seeing a lot of violence and it\\\'s constantly glorified. Therefore the trope is about the glorification of violence. Well no not \\\'\\\'quite\\\'\\\'. It does often/almost always glorify violence. But it has the \\\"antihero\\\" part as a necessary justification. There is \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' good to be said for what these characters do, besides how cool it looks. They\\\'re given a pass for torturing and eviscerating because the people theyr\\\'e doing it to are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He can do all these things \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' to the heroes and innocents or other good people. He too is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. But he need not have any sort of pretext that makes that \\\"good\\\". Now, \\\'\\\'in practice\\\'\\\', you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and give him sympathetic, antiheroic traits, and that may happen a lot. Then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. You\\\'re seeing a lot of violence and it\\\'s constantly glorified. Therefore the trope is about the glorification of violence. Well no not \\\'\\\'quite\\\'\\\'. It does often/almost always glorify violence. But it has the \\\"antihero\\\" part as a necessary justification. There is \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' good to be said for what these characters do, besides how cool it looks. They\\\'re given a pass for torturing and eviscerating because the people theyr\\\'e doing it to are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He can do all these things \\\'\\\'exclusively\\\'\\\' to the heroes and innocents or other good people. He too is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. But he need not have any sort of pretext that makes that \\\"good\\\". Now, \\\'\\\'in practice\\\'\\\', you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and give him sympathetic, antiheroic traits, and that may happen a lot. Then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The alignment question wasn\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \
to:
The alignment question wasn\\\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \\\"wait people argue over the Type IV\\\'s alignment?\\\") A lot of people argue over it and many other people are baffled by the amount of arguing that goes on over it, especially given that it\\\'s a D&D exclusive concept that so infamously does little but lead to fights that they\\\'ve actually changed it.
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. You\\\'re seeing a lot of violence and it\\\'s constantly glorified. Therefore the trope is about the glorification of violence. Well no not \\\'\\\'quite\\\'\\\'. It does often/almost always glorify violence. But it has the \\\"antihero\\\" part as a necessary justification. There is \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' good to be said for what these characters do, besides how cool it looks. They\\\'re given a pass for torturing and eviscerating because the people theyr\\\'e doing it to are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He too is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. But he need not have any sort of pretext that makes that \\\"good\\\". Now, \\\'\\\'in practice\\\'\\\', you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and give him sympathetic, antiheroic traits, and that may happen a lot. Then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. You\\\'re seeing a lot of violence and it\\\'s constantly glorified. Therefore the trope is about the glorification of violence. Well no not \\\'\\\'quite\\\'\\\'. It does often/almost always glorify violence. But it has the \\\"antihero\\\" part as a necessary justification. There is \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' good to be said for what these characters do, besides how cool it looks. They\\\'re given a pass for torturing and eviscerating because the people theyr\\\'e doing it to are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He too is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. But he need not have any sort of pretext that makes that \\\"good\\\". Now, \\\'\\\'in practice\\\'\\\', you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and give him sympathetic, antiheroic traits, and that may happen a lot. Then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The alignment question wasn\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \
to:
The alignment question wasn\\\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \\\"wait people argue over the Type IV\\\'s alignment?\\\") A lot of people argue over it and many other people are baffled by the amount of arguing that goes on over it, especially given that it\\\'s a D&D exclusive concept that so infamously does little but lead to fights that they\\\'ve actually changed it.
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. Glorified violence and excused violence aren\\\'t the same thing. Type V must by definition be \\\'\\\'excused\\\'\\\' violence -- at least to some degree. That\\\'s why they\\\'re anti-heroes, even if only on a technicality. With that moral question satisfied, they are \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' free to partake in \\\'\\\'glorified\\\'\\\' violence, knowing that the people they\\\'re torturing and eviscerating are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. Now you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and make him more of an antihero, VillainProtagonist type and then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. Glorified violence and excused violence aren\\\'t the same thing. Type V must by definition be \\\'\\\'excused\\\'\\\' violence -- at least to some degree. That\\\'s why they\\\'re anti-heroes, even if only on a technicality. With that moral question satisfied, they are \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' free to partake in \\\'\\\'glorified\\\'\\\' violence, knowing that the people they\\\'re torturing and eviscerating are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. Now you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and make him more of an antihero, VillainProtagonist type and then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
I\\\'d like to do some work on this page when I get the chance. I think it may take a while. =/
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The alignment question wasn\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \
to:
The alignment question wasn\\\'t directed at you at all. (The initial query was, \\\"wait people argue over the Type IV\\\'s alignment?\\\") A lot of people argue over it and many other people are baffled by the amount of arguing that goes on over it, especially given that it\\\'s a D&D exclusive concept that so infamously does little but lead to fights that they\\\'ve actually changed it.
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. Glorified violence and excused violence aren\\\'t the same thing. Type V must by definition be \\\'\\\'excused\\\'\\\' violence -- at least to some degree. That\\\'s why they\\\'re anti-heroes, even if only on a technicality. With that moral question satisfied, they are \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' free to partake in \\\'\\\'glorified\\\'\\\' violence, knowing that the people they\\\'re torturing and eviscerating are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. Now you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and make him more of an antihero, VillainProtagonist type and then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
Okay, let\\\'s see what got changed here. From:
See also: \\\'\\\'\\\'BloodKnight\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'PsychoForHire\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'HeroicSociopath\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'VillainProtagonist\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'EvilVersusEvil\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'TheUnfettered\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'KnightTemplar\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'WellIntentionedExtremist\\\'\\\'\\\' (depending on how extreme), \\\'\\\'\\\'TokenEvilTeammate\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'ByronicHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'NinetiesAntiHero\\\'\\\'\\\', \\\'\\\'\\\'AntiVillain\\\'\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\'UberMensch\\\'\\\'\\\'.
\\\'\\\'\\\'VillainSue\\\'\\\'\\\' is the ultimate extreme of this trope.\\\"
To:
\\\"ByronicHero, NinetiesAntiHero and HeroicSociopath are specific tropes of Type V.\\\"
Difference here being your list is of tropes that commonly fall under Type V (but can often go elsewhere on the list, or not fit on the list at all), while the three tropes there are by \\\'\\\'definition\\\'\\\' Type V.
What about VillainSue? I believe you are letting your dislike for the reception of a Type V anti-hero obscure your understanding of its definition. Glorified violence and excused violence aren\\\'t the same thing. Type V must by definition be \\\'\\\'excused\\\'\\\' violence -- at least to some degree. That\\\'s why they\\\'re anti-heroes, even if only on a technicality. With that moral question satisfied, they are \\\'\\\'also\\\'\\\' free to partake in \\\'\\\'glorified\\\'\\\' violence, knowing that the people they\\\'re torturing and eviscerating are {{Complete Monster}}s worse than the character doing the torturing.
Whereas nothing about VillainSue mandates the character need in any way be anything shy of a 100% CardCarryingVillain who does things ForTheEvulz and whatnot. He is glorified to an obvious degree, the author has made himself into a dark avatar. Now you can take a VillainSue and have the author try and make him more of an antihero, VillainProtagonist type and then he \\\'\\\'\\\'can\\\'\\\'\\\' be a Type V anti-hero. But he is not, by definition a Type V antihero like the other three, ByronicHero, NinetiesAntihero and HeroicSociopath.
Which of the others on that list should stay? Hmm. TokenEvilTeammate is the most arguable. It\\\'s hard to see how you can have a TET and have them not wind up as a Type V, because presumably the team is out to save the world from a worse threat than their buddy. Most of your other ones, though, I\\\'d say I can see why they would be taken out if brevity was a factor. It might not be a bad idea to include \\\"commonly found among these types\\\" of tropes among the definition, though, so I\\\'m not totally on board with cclospina\\\'s just \\\'\\\'cutting\\\'\\\' it, as opposed to distinguishing it from the tropes that are by definition the type listed.
As to Type I, I\\\'m not quite seeing the two different archetypes rolled into one there, TBH. I don\\\'t really know how to elaborate further. It seems like they go over nearly the entire spectrum rather than being confined to \\\"Type 2.5\\\" (in between current types II and III) and \\\"purely nasty amoral characters\\\". It seems you have types who don\\\'t quite make it to II without being unkind enough to be III, as well as those who are [=IIIs=], [=IVs=] and even a handful of [=Vs=]. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s at all possible to simply break the trope up and wind up with neat categories.
