Discussion Main / KarmaHoudini

I've noticed that a lot of the characters listed in this section are ones that made a Heel–Face Turn but were never punished for crimes or bad acts that they previously committed. How exactly are we defining "karma"? If a person is The Atoner and ends up doing more good than bad, are they still a Houdini for not getting punished for the bad? Could karma sometimes prefer restitution to punishment? Also, if a person's actions are morally wrong but actually do result in a greater good, does a lack of punishment still make them a Houdini?

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Troper tales section seems to have been recently scrapped, started by neoYTPism on Nov 19th 2010 at 2:32:28 AM

Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: improve (page action crowner), started by taltamir on Dec 18th 2010 at 5:07:27 PM

Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Misused, started by Rognik on Jan 7th 2019 at 10:22:45 AM

Would Akio from Shoujo Kakumei Utena count? At the end, Anthy walks out on him but the last we see of him, he is still in his tower, plotting new schemes. For all we know, Akio will reboot the duel system (now without the Rose Bride) and go one as before.

are the title characters of Phineas&Ferb really a subversion of the trope? we see on a few occasions that Linda would not approve of what they did even if they just want to have fun. yes, her and other parents tend to respond in Knight Templar ways but that just seems ridiculous to me and I'm not sure that should be factored in.

Could it be splitted between actively avoiding karma because of planning, skills or victorious challenge (the true "Houdini") and avoiding karma only because the chance never occurred, someone else grant him the avoidance or even luck (not a true conjurer, more a Karma Jumper I would say)? i.e. the assassin manages to destroy all the evidence and gets another guy framed while all witnesses are slain by him, so he walks away whistling, or he is discovered by the police but escapes from a secret passage to never be seen again, this is a true Karma Houdini who tricks his deserved fate... but if the weapon with his fingerprints is lost in the dump by a moron detective, or is stolen by a criminal who didn't know, or is dropped in the sea during a fight without anybody noticing, it's due to someone else, it's luck for his side.

What is the parallel trope for a protagonist?

If a villain never gets punished because they turn good are they still a Karma Houdini?

I'm starting to think that people misuse this trope a lot to the point that if you ever do something perceived by the fans as bad and then you didn't die because of it, then you are a Karma Houdini. Never mind if you felt horrible about it, never mind if you made up some of it, you did one bad thing and then you deserve a Karmic Death, otherwise you're a Karma Houdini.

What the hell? Since when we try to act like Gods and decide what's bad, what's good, what deserves punishment and what doesn't?

This trope not applying to non-villains make no sense. Is it not supposed to mean lack of punishment for reprehensible things?

Although Fast Eddie overrode lu127's decision to make Karma Houdini villain-only, is it okay if we still cut or rewrite the examples of complaining about characters not getting adeqate comeback. Some of the "crimes" that tropers write are petty.

For example: someone wrote that the Cutie Mark Crusaders got away with getting into a fight that freed Discord.

Granted they were wrong, but they didn't intentionally do anything bad. Plus, they also had to write an essay, which is an adequate punishment.

Since the current ruling seems to be that a character does not need to be a villain to qualify as a Karma Houdini, I decided to rewrite the list of reasons why a character might be spared from karma to take this into account (the old list was getting a bit bloated anyway). If no one minds, I'll put this on the Analysis page rather than the main page, but I decided to vet it here to make sure it was okay first. If it would be problematic, let me know.

In fiction, like in Real Life, people don't always get what they deserve. So how does a Karma Houdini happen? How does such a black-hearted scoundrel, or hero who has gone a little too close to the edge, get away with it all? There could be a number of reasons.

VILLAINS:

• The Bad Guy Wins - He's achieved his goals and struck down all who could oppose him. It would feel cheap to resolve the situation with a random heart attack after that.
• Redemption Is Cheap - It's all well and good for a villain to see the light and change sides, but once that switch is flipped it's all too easy to forget about all the mayhem he caused before that moment (especially if the victims weren't named characters). Even if Redemption Equals Death, one heroic act at the end isn't enough to make up for a long career of dog football.
• But What About That Guy? - The Sorting Algorithm of Evil, and the story, has left the villain behind, and a much larger threat has taken over. Once the heroes have dealt with Entropus the Destroyer of Worlds, sometimes the story forgets that there's still an Evil Emperor ruling his kingdom with an iron fist.
• Horrible History - The story is based on a true story, where the antagonists were never brought to justice. If the writers care at all about historical accuracy, the villain will be a Karma Houdini by default.
• Executive Meddling - In some very rare cases, the author/filmmaker does write an appropriately grim death scene for the villainous character, but Executive Meddling determines that it's too gruesome, hurts the flow of the narrative, makes the movie run on too long, and so forth.
• Slipped the Sequel Hook - The writer may have left the villain alone so that he could return to cause more mayhem in a future sequel (and hopefully recieve his just desserts then). But sometimes the sequel never gets made, for any number of reasons...
• Sequel Blues - ...Or the villain paid the piper in the previous outing. However, now he's back for the sequel, or another author or franchise has decided to bring him back for more.
• Prequel Blues - Even if the villain was defeated in the first outing, the creation of a prequel means that the villain has to survive the events of the prequel. And many times, the situation at the start of the original implies that the antagonist will win...
• The Untouchable - The villain is simply too powerful for the heroes to handle. This tends to be the case in stories where the heroes are simply ordinary people thrown into a bad situation beyond their control; the best they can do is survive the story.

NON-VILLAINS:

• Not My Enemy, Not My Problem - The character in question was never an enemy of the heroes. No matter what reprehensible things they might have done in the past, they have no reason to punish him for those.
• The Dark Hero Wins - If the "good guys" are crossing the Moral Event Horizon, then we're either dealing with a Villain Protagonist or a very dark setting where the protagonist is no better than the foes he opposes. At this point, their victory would make them a Karma Houdini by definition.
• What Did I Do? - The protagonist sees nothing wrong with their actions, and neither does the author. Values Dissonance caused by time or an author with a skewed code of ethics have turned a heroic figure of yesteryear into a dark Anti-Hero today.
• Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind - The character may have done all sorts of horrible things in the past, but he's not doing them now, is he? If the audience doesn't see an event happen, it's all too easy to forget. The Retired Monster often falls under this.

Alright, I think we really desperately need to do something here.

I can totally understand why you're trying to make this trope villain only. I think cutting down on Complaining About Shows You Dont Like is a good thing.

That said, the way you were going about it was all wrong. At best the previous description merely implied that the trope was villain only. It's never explicitly stated and as such a lot of people don't realize it. When they then post their example only to be jumped on they feel victimized. The fact that there are so many people on this discussion page complaining about it should be proof of that.

So, in order to try and fix this issue, I put a big bold-faced note on the main trope page in order to make it absolutely clear that this trope is villain only.

What happened to the Real Life section of Karma Houdini? Where did it go?

I've been seeing a lot of Natter about how a certain Karma Houdini isn't really one when you think about it, like when it's assumed that the subject gets what's coming to them.

I think we ought to add a trope about karma that is merely inferred rather than explicitly shown or stated. (I tried to add it to YKTTW earlier but my damn internet refuses to behave...)

Hi there. I'm a current troper here at TV Tropes, and I would like to add in something of an algorithm test to help people understand if the Karma Houdini the work they are interested in are of the kind the cast and its innocents are suffering from, so that their minds do not break solely on Grimdark Apathy Syndrome, because that sucks balls.

Problem is, where could I post this test at? Thank you for replying and see you later.

Would a villain being sympathetic enough that punishment would seem overly harsh be an acceptable reason for an author to use this trope?

Does tsundere violence(IE Love Hina) ever count for this trope? I would think that slapstick damage that doesn't even stay is just a form of comedy, and this trope actually refers to legit evasion of (viewer perceived) justice..

Should this be YMMV? I saw an example on a page that is debatable.

Further, can a protagonist be a Karma Houdini if they're on the darker rungs of the Sliding Scale Of Antiheroes?

Does it count as a Karma Houdini if a character is not shown being punished, but it is assumed that they will be?

I was wondering this after seeing this trope mentioned in the Headscratchers page for The Iron Giant.

To be specific, in that film, Mansley orders a nuclear missile to be launched into the middle of a crowded town, right in front of the general. I'd assume he was arrested after that, but it isn't explicitly shown.

I believe Karma Houdini should be renamed to show that only villains fit this trope. I recently included Arthur's D.W. on this list not knowing this only applied to villains. The name Karma Houdini just doesn't say that.

On the Live Action TV page, Sam Puckett keeps getting deleted due to not being a villain. I'm sure there are other characters aside from her who are displayed as heroic but haven't been erased ;

Is there a similar trope for heroes? As in, the hero escapes karmic punishment?

Are Vegeta and Buu from DBZ karma houdinis? Before the story both were responsible for destroying who knows how many planets of populated beings without a shred of remorse. In the series itself Vegeta slew a bunch of Nameks and bragged out it later. He abandoned his son for the early part his life willingly. Against Cell he allowed Cell to achieve his perfect form and he allowed himself to be controlled by an evil magician to have the power to satisfy his pride. Yet, after the Frieza saga no one ever really calls him out on any of his crap or about how he had killed who knows how many without a shred of remorse. Does his heel face turn somehow protect him or does his past and getting the crap beat out of him numerous times count as Karma?

Pretty much the same with Buu. Does the fact Evil Buu is insane to begin wtih and later killed and Fat Buu is pretty much naively innocent make Buu not a karma houdini?

I think a picture of DW a from Arthur would be better for this trope as most of the Wall Banger examples for this show involve her so she would be the perfect poster child for it.

When did this trope shift from being about a horribly villain who totally escapes, unpunished for their crimes - which is a nice, neat and entirely straightforward trope - to being about complaining about a character did something a bit mean and it was never addressed? One example involves a woman splashing water on a man's face, as far as I can tell. Seriously?

Isn't this pretty subjective? After all, what's an "appropriate" or "proportional" punishment depends very much on who you ask, unless you're in a court of law.

Their is a small problem with the picture. The episode is from season 5, and he doesn't get shot until season 6.

the description of the Karma Houdini trope is basically "Laser Guided Karma misses". The description for laser guided karma is that it is an unrealistic and anvilicious space whale aesop.

There are 3 issues with it: 1. If it is merely a subversion of another trope, why does it merit its own name?

2. Since it subverts the unrealistic space whale aesop by having a realistic "nothing happens" why is it even mentioned? might as well make a trope called "gravity". And naturally, because it is something so mundane there are a ridiculous amount of examples, enough that each medium gets their own page.

3. A good number of the examples actually are not subversions of laser guided karma, but an actual opposite; the opposite is where villains don't just get away with doing bad things, but they get away with doing things that there is absolutely no logical explanation how they could have gotten away with it...

I think the best approach is to amend the definition to fit #3, where its not that villain gets away, but that they get away with no punishment where there is no logical explanation on how they could escape retribution.

I have a question to ask: What if the villain "does" get a punishment, but the punishment is so weak compared to the villain's actions that in the end they still get away scot-free, but only with a few consequences.

Does that qualify as a Karma Houdini? Or does the Karma Houdini have to receive no punishment whatsoever?

"Some authors simply grow enamored of particular characters, and don't want to see them punished or killed (even if the character did just happen to cook the heroine's button-cute little brother in a stew and serve it to her with a side of foie gras)."

lol, Nightmare Fuel much?

Added "because it's funny" to the list of reasons. One of the big ones that comes to mind is Garland Green's fate in Con Air, the scene of him getting away with his crimes was only kept in the final movie because test audiences laughed their asses off at it.

The paragraph about most Karma Houdini's being Magnificent Bastards bothers me a lot. A bit about the audience sometimes wanting the villain to get away with it all is fine, but usually this is not the case.