Discussion Main / ProtagonistCenteredMorality

Okay, removed.

This one, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Pakku's argument was that Aang disrespected their culture and teachings by teaching Katara waterbending. However, the chief of the tribe said that Pakku would probably accept Aang again if Aang and Katara apologized. She didn't apologize, and instead decided to start a fight instead. She outright refused to apologize.

Nevermind the fact that, in sneaking away to give Katara lessons, Aang was knowingly jeopardizing his training by annoying his best teacher.

Now, it definitely all worked out for the best but Aang did take unnecessary risks, Katara did fail to apologize, and Pakku, dogmatic as he was, was perfectly in the right from his own point of view, just not from ours. And as soon as he agreed with Katara's POV? Suddenly he's all cuddles and sunshine. Which is exactly what this trope is about.

Edited by 216.99.32.44 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

See, here's the thing. Yes, Aang disrespected Pakku's cultural beliefs by teaching a girl how to fight when girl waterbenders in his tribe are only supposed to be healers. But by that logic you could also say Moses insulted the Egyptians' cultural beliefs by telling them they couldn't keep Hebrews as slaves anymore.

Why does the episode dare to insist that Pakku is wrong? Because he freaking IS wrong. Objectively, and in every way. He's sexist, and uncompromising, and a total jerk about it. He IS the bad guy here, even if he doesn't agree with that.

To put it another way... Fred Phelps also believes that he is a good guy, also has the law on his side, and also embodies many of the same negative traits as Pakku (except with homophobia replacing misogyny). Yet you'll never see anyone claiming that we should "think of things from his point of view" or "respect his opinions."

EDIT: Just so we're absolutely clear, I'm not trying to sound insulting. I do totally understand why someone might consider this moment a case of protagonist-centered morality, I just very strongly disagree with that opinion, for the reasons I've mentioned. I think that at the very most this one is only arguably a case of PCM, and even then only in terms of Katara assaulting Pakku (which, really, is a crime and she probably should have been held accountable for it), not in terms of Pakku being considered wrong.

Edited by 216.99.32.45

That's exactly what the trope is, though. The character is presented as being completely in the wrong until they agree with the protagonists. See this: the very fabric of the fictional universe seems to be seeing things from the protagonist's point of view. Every single sympathetic character, the symbolism, the narration, judge characters as worthy of praise, condemnation or indifference depending on how much favor they carry with the "good guys". The protagonist themself can seemingly do no wrong, and even if there's anyone at all who would beg to differ, they're obviously a bad guy.

Katara's assault, Aang's breaking of the rules, never get treated as anything bad. It's a case of Values Dissonance, but the fact that Aang and company are shown as being completely in the right makes it PCM. Remember, Tropes Are Not Bad. Just because you agree with the Protagonist doesn't make it not this trope.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Firstly, all of my LOLs at comparing Katara to Rosa Parks, Martin Luthor King Jr and Ghandi.

Pakku was well within his rights to refuse to teach Katara and Aang if they are unwilling to accept his decisions. Decisions they agreed to honor when Aang became his student. Honor they then violated when they went behind his back. Not only that but they are outsiders, who arrived in the North Pole more or less uninvited, and therefore have no right to dictate to Pakku what he can and can't do.

More importantly, PHYSICALLY ASSAULTING SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM, regardless of whether or not their position is wrong, is objectively bad.

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create."

Katara crossed the line when she attacked Pakku (and to my mind should have been executed for it, but that's neither here nor there) when he refused to duel her. Not even mentioning the fact that, immediately beforehand, she directly admitted that what she was doing had nothing to do with Aang. She did it because he hurt her feelings.

We can argue all day long about whether Pakku's decision not to teach Aang was justified or not. It won't matter one single bit because the problem isn't Pakku not teaching Aang. It's Katara attacking Pakku and being portrayed as being totally in the right for it.

In summary: Katara did something bad and the show said it was good. It had nothing to do with Aang, or the Fire Nation's future genocide attempt. It was 100% all about Katara getting her feelings hurt.

Edited by 216.99.32.44 You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

It seems that there are two major arguments being made here, so I'll give a separate response to each:

• Katara's use of violence to solve her problems without any negative repercussions, and the audience being expected to side with her for it. The reason we're expected to side with Katara when she was insulted wasn't because "yay, a main character is kicking butt!" it was because a belittled minority stood up against discrimination. Or, on a more personal level, it's because a good person who was being wrongly mistreated stood up for herself against a bully
  • Incidentally, I think it's also worth noting that Katara lost that fight. While we were supposed to cheer for her attacking Pakku, we should remember that in the end it wasn't even violence that let her have her way, and she didn't get away scot free. Pakku completely owned Katara, humiliating her all over again. Only after he beat her did he decide to take her side, and only for his own reasons.
  • Regardless of which of us is right about whether or not violence was justified, the PCM trope is not defined as "a main character did something I disagree with and wasn't punished." At most this is an example of Values Dissonance, and not an example of PCM.

• The audience's intended feelings toward Pakku. This is pretty much the only area where I could see arguing that it's PCM. Pakku isn't really a better person once he chooses to side with Katara. He's still just as much of a misogynist jerk as he was before, he's simply chosen to make an exception for this one person, and for reasons that were pretty much entirely selfish (because she was the grand-daughter of the woman he wanted to marry). But because he's made this one exception we're supposed to think he's a nice guy now, and later in the series even a heroic figure. I will admit that in that one area I can see making this a PCM moment. At the same time, I could also see the argument that it's the opposite; Pakku was always a heroic figure who just happened to have a flaw, but we (and the main characters) were so busy focusing on the flaw that they didn't see it. Of course, in either case it was still the act of choosing to side with the main characters that opened up that facet of his personality to us, so... yeah, okay.

But as for the argument of "OMG Katara used violence now she's evul!"... no. Just, no.

Also, I'll have you know I am not arguing this solely because I don't want a show I like to be on the PCM page. I couldn't care less about that. I was only ever arguing because I believed that you were wrong, nothing else.

Truth be told, while Avatar is generally pretty good about avoiding this trope, there are times when it falls into it. For example: after Master Yu and Xin Fu trapped Toph inside a metal cage, she used metalbending to escape, then trapped them back in the same cage, and left them there, in the middle of nowhere, where they could potentially die long before they're finally found, even though they're both people who have lives and (presumably) families, and we're supposed to agree with Toph's decision just because they were jerks.

Edited by 216.99.32.45

Katara isn't (necessarily) evil for using violence, she's just wrong.

Belittled minority or bullied child, this isn't just "Katara did something I disagree with and wasn't punished" this is "Katara did something that is objectively wrong and was portrayed as being right about it".

By her own admission, she instigated a fight against someone, by assaulting them, because they were mean to her and at no point did the show treat this position as wrong in any way.

The fact that she lost doesn't mean she wasn't still shown to be right. Pakku was stronger and more skilled than her in every way, it's only natural that he would win in a universe that doesn't rely on Right Makes Might.

But despite losing, Katara still got what she wanted and she wasn't portrayed as wrong for attacking him, despite plainly being so.

The Morality, in this case, was Centered on the intended Protagonist in this encounter.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

That's the thing, though. I don't say that she was wrong. As someone who was bullied as a child, and who was only able to finally put a stop to it by kicking a few butts, I don't see anything wrong with standing up for yourself against a bully, or with using violence as long as you don't take it too far. (For example, I would agree that school shootings are absolutely wrong. Giving a bully a bloody nose, however, is something I would agree with.) Violence is not automatically bad. Violence is a tool, it's all in how you use it, and it's not like Katara was trying to actually kill or even seriously injure Pakku.

That's the big issue. I don't believe Katara was portrayed as right because she's a main character. I believe she was portrayed as right because a lot of people, including myself and apparently including the writers for the show as well, believe that bullies need to be stopped, even if that means punching them a few times. In other words, the "objective" morals that you claim the show violated for the benefit of a main character are not quite so objective or widely held as you think.

Because of that, I think the example works much better as Values Dissonance, rather than as Protagonist-Centered Morality.

Edited by 216.99.32.43

To put it simply:

Was Katara portrayed as right, solely because she's a main character and the main character has to be right?

Or was Katara portrayed as right because the writers believed that she was right, with her main character status being a mere coincidence?

In other words, would a secondary character in the same situation, who made the same choice as Katara have also been shown to be right? I believe that the answer to that question is yes.

Consider the morality of the show. Duels are commonplace, and accepted forms of resolving disputes. Martial arts are ingrained into every culture. It's a world where, if you have a problem with someone, challenging them to a fight is the acceptable and common way to work things out with people. It's also a world where, if you're challenged to a duel, the typical response is to either accept, or decline the challenge with some kind of grace and concession.

Pakku doesn't just decline the duel. He declines the duel and insults Katara's ability and character. He tries to decline the duel without any grace or concession—in effect, declaring he's right in the matter and Katara has no right whatsoever to question him, because she "doesn't count."

That, according to the culture of the world the show takes place in, is wrong. So Katara has been wronged repeatedly by Pakku, who is refusing to even acknowledge her as a person. Remember this is the same culture where Katara saying that Yon Rha isn't worth killing is an insult toward him, crueler than if she'd just killed him. By saying that he doesn't have to even acknowledge Katara's challenge, Pakku's delivering the same insult.

I think that gives Katara plenty of right to whack him upside the head.

Edited by 216.99.32.45

Exactly, yes. Couldn't have said it better myself. The Water Tribe may not be quite as into dueling as the Fire Nation with their agni ki duels, but they still do have them. At the very least you notice that no one in the room batted an eye when Katara challenged Pakku. The only nation in the world that seems to actually be against dueling is the Earth Kingdom, and even then only in Ba-Sing-Se.

Point is, in their world using violence to solve problems IS acceptable. Therefore letting Katara assault Pakku isn't a case of PCM, because it's not violating the show's own morals. So, again, that's Values Dissonance, because the show holds a moral stance that a large segment of our own society does not.

As I said, though, I will concede that Pakku himself may be a case of PCM. So how about something more like this for the example:

• Pakku from Avatar The Last Airbender. In his first appearance he's antagonistic, misogynist, and condescending, culminating in him insulting Katara and then refusing to duel her, a serious insult in the Avatar world, where dueling is still considered the most appropriate way to settle disputes. After Pakku changes his mind and chooses to teach Katara waterbending, however, our view of the character completely changes. All of a sudden he's a nice, heroic figure who acts lovingly and respectfully, and all of his failings are completely swept under the rug.

Edited by 216.99.32.44

Well, it's been 72 hours and there's no further discussion here, so I'm going to go ahead and put up the new example.

Wow, sorry I missed this discussion, but what a laughable bending of this trope. Oh hey, TROPE BENDING.

Seriously.

Katara was 100% in the right, not because she is the protagonist, but because sexism isn't right. Hitting the guy in the head and forcing him to fight her was the only way to even make him acknowledge her. This was the only way. That should be painfully obvious. Why is this even in debate unless we're simply going to declare that any time someone does something that agrees with the protagonist, the morality is Protagonist Centered?

Also, he changed his mind because he wasn't 100% an ass - he got owned and owned literally by the granddaughter of a woman he legitimately loved who left him because of the sexism he supported within his own society. It's called "Character Development." Holy crap, Zuko is an example by this standard.

Edited by 69.172.221.2

Sexism being right or wrong is meaningless. Katara attacked Pakku because he was mean to her. Not for any other reason. She's 100% wrong, and the only reason it's not Protagonist-Centered Morality is because the setting inherently encourages violence as a means of conflict resolution.

And he didn't get owned. He casually defeated her without trying. Unless seeing the necklace and being inspired to nepotism counts as being owned.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

Katara attacked Pakku because he was mean to her. Not for any other reason.

Did you watch the same show as the rest of us?

Nor did he casually defeat her without trying. He beat her handily, but it was made clear that he did have to actually put some effort into it.

Well, that's still more right than claiming he got "owned and owned literally."

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

My recollection (been a while since I saw the episode) is to the effect that the show took some effort to avert the Straw Misogynist that would be expected- he's a complex character; also, it would be easy (and most works would do this) to have Katara win, but she doesn't (she's morally right but he has the advantage of being a warrior with years of experience). There's also the aspect that he doesn't change his mind because he's convinced by Katara's argument (nor as mentioned because she beats him (which would disprove his "women are weaker" argument), since she doesn't win the fight)- it is because of an independent personal connection.

But yeah, he was wrong because he's a sexist jerkass, not because of Protagonist-Centered Morality.

Edited by 216.99.32.45 Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki

Did you watch the same show as the rest of us?

I must not have. I watched Avatar The Last Airbender. What did you watch?

Edited by 216.99.32.43 You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

Odd, because in the show I watched, Katara had several reasons, valid ones at that and clearly explained both in the show and in this discussion, to attack and challenge Pakku.

I guess you just weren't paying very much attention to it.

As I said before, speaking as a person who was bullied in school and who only was able to put a stop to it by fighting, I can say that I don't see anything wrong with giving a bully a bloody nose.

Buuut, that's a debate that could go on forever. Heck, the question of whether or not violence is acceptable has been being argued for thousands of years, pretty much for as long as humanity has existed.

Huh. I had a completely different initial take on that episode: that Pakku wasn't being a misogynist at all - that it was normal for him to insist every student have the training and control to at least do basic first aid before you teach them anything else, like segregating new judo students from the class until they have the basics of falling without hurting themselves - and that he went along with Katara's assumption to see where things ended up. Aang was starting from scratch and didn't have the time for a traditional or complete education, especially when there was an obviously more advanced student right there who could both learn and later teach him the more important discipline. Given there was no hint that Pakku disrespected the woman teaching the children healing (I apologize for not looking her up, but wouldn't remember Pakku by name either if it wasn't right here) and he showed absolutely no sign of misogyny after the duel, it seemed a reasonable assumption he never was one. Sokka's later experience with a sword master who ends up "fighting him to the death" over being deceived about Sokka's nationality just to prove he couldn't care less about it may have reinforced that impression.

Yep, he was. Se above.

Question: I did not watch the show, but only to be sure, did Fitz receive any brainwashing beyond the Fake Memories?

No, not really. I probably phrased it wrong. I meant that the Fake Memories were the brainwashing. He along with others was placed in a virtual world and had significant portions of their life changed. By the time they encounter him, he’s a different person. That person gets erased in the end.

I read in the removed example in Broken Aesop that the show frequently preaches that "the circumstances of one's life don't matter because everyone has freewill". Is this true?

No. The closest the series comes to that message is with Ward going out of his way to not be redeemed. It’s not even an actual aesop.

Edited by SatoshiBakura

I concur. The trope does not apply, and it would take a serious stretch of the imagination and logic to make it apply.

Sorry it took so long to come back.

Anyway, it does count as Protagonist-Centered Morality and I already made my case why. If the protagonists and the story at one point establish your life circumstances don't matter, only your free will, and use that as a basis to why it's justified to punish an antagonist, but then turn around and exonerate their friend based on his life circumstances, whether real or imaginary, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that all the evil acts he committed, he did so under his own freewill, it counts as Protagonist-Centered Morality due to the Moral Dissonance that ensues which benefits the protagonists and their loved ones.

You can't use the argument that if you live a bad life and choose to do bad things, you're a bad person because you chose to do bad things of your own freewill, regardless of your life circumstance, but then turn around and say that your friend isn't at fault because he thinks or was tricked into thinking he had a bad life, while ignoring the fact that he had freewill.

And yes, Framework Fitz and realFitz are the same person, only with different memories. The "former" isn't dead nor erased, he just regained his real memories, but all of his actions are still realFitz's.

And to Mag Bas, in the spirit of fairness of this discussion, I was the one who added that post, not someone else.

Edited by NEX7

While the case has been made its does not fit the trope. Because Fitz literally did not have a choice he was brainwashed and remade into a new image. As for Simmons actions she was dealing with basically an advance NPC. One that did not have an option or choices like Ward. But made as is to fit a narrative. So the trope does not apply. Also Ward never actively helped them. In Season 2 he tried to manipulate Daisy to free him. Escaped from a prison transport enroute to be punished for actual crimes he commuted. He then captured Bakshi as if to help them , then basically stole him back when it was convenient for him. He never admitted any wrong doing , or apologised so why would the Team treat him any different? No apology, never really helped them, and the one time they thought he was trying to help Kara he used her to kidnap and torture Bobbi. Choices he made versus a version of Ward literally created to fill a role who never made a choice just written by the program to play a part.

Edited by Tuvok

Hell, they actually gave Ward a chance after the HYDRA mission, and he went out of his way to completely wreck his chance at redemption, even though it was inconvenient for him. So no, Ward never attempted redemption. because if he did he would go out of his way to stab his former teammates in the back again.

And yes, getting your memories replaced , especially against your own will, counts as brainwashing. And considering how far back those memories went, it turned him into a different character. Framework!Fitz isn't redeemable, but Real!Fitz is. And Real!Fitz could still be saved. Ward could not.

If Fitz came out of the Framework and was still his Framework self, then maybe I could see where you are coming from. If Fitz still remembered the real world while in the Framework, but still evil, then I would see where you are coming from. But that's not what happens. Fitz is different. But Framework!Fitz is gone after he awakens in the real world. That personality is completely gone, and Fitz genuinely regrets what he has done. Ward does not.

@Tuvok

That's not the point. The point the story makes is that, even if Ward wanted to help them, which he was trying to do while captive by SHIELD, as he was still passing them information, the team stated very clearly that no matter what, even if he was sorry, they weren't going to forgive him because he had a choice, and they don't care what his life circumstances were, and where planning on getting rid of him, one way or another, after all was said and done. Likewise, Fitz, even if he had his entire life and all of his memories rewritten, still had a choice to not kill Agnes or Mace, and still chose to do it, and the protagonists are now saying that it not his fault because he was tricked into believing he had a bad life, while ignoring that Fitz did have the ability to choose.

"As for Simmons actions she was dealing with basically an advance NPC. One that did not have an option or choices like Ward. But made as is to fit a narrative. So the trope does not apply. Also Ward never actively helped them. In Season 2 he tried to manipulate Daisy to free him. Escaped from a prison transport enroute to be punished for actual crimes he commuted. He then captured Bakshi as if to help them , then basically stole him back when it was convenient for him. He never admitted any wrong doing, or apologised so why would the Team treat him any different? No apology, never really helped them, and the one time they thought he was trying to help Kara he used her to kidnap and torture Bobbi."

Yeah, and that is why Ward was treated as a villain. Framework Ward is a construct of Ward would have turned out like if he hadn't met Garrett. And Ward did try to apologize (whether genuine or not) to the team why on the Bus for one last mission together, and they made it clear that they were never going to forgive him.

And even if Framework Ward was an NPC (debatable), he is still an NPC which did no wrong to team Coulson and could have saved Agnes, but chose to listen to Simmons and give her a chance and show Fitz mercy, only for it to cost Agnes her life, and is still treated like shit by Simmons, despite all of it, and we're supposed to sympathize with Simmons in all this.

@Satoshi Bakura

"Hell, they actually gave Ward a chance after the HYDRA mission, and he went out of his way to completely wreck his chance at redemption, even though it was inconvenient for him. So no, Ward never attempted redemption. because if he did he would go out of his way to stab his former teammates in the back again."

You mean to inject Fake Memories into Ward themselves? If you honestly believe that Fake Memories are brainwashing, then what team Coulson was advocating was brainwashing their enemies, themselves. That doesn't really sound like a chance at redemption.

"And yes, getting your memories replaced, especially against your own will, counts as brainwashing. And considering how far back those memories went, it turned him into a different character. Framework!Fitz isn't redeemable, but Real!Fitz is. And Real!Fitz could still be saved. Ward could not."

No, no it doesn't, and no, Fitz was still the same person, just with a different attitude because of a different, even if imaginary, life. The proof is that if Framework Fitz died, "real" Fitz would also have died. And since the team argues life circumstances don't matter, only choices do, they can't say Fitz isn't accountable for because his imaginary life circumstances compelled him to do evil.

Again, I state, you cannot literally say "We all have traumatic lives and it didn't turn us into psychopaths. You're a bad person because you choose to do bad things, regardless of your life circumstances", but then, when one of your friends does evil things because he is put in an even more traumatic life (even if an imaginary one) say "well, you can't be held accountable because of the life circumstances you thought you lived", while ignoring that he still had freewill and he chose, of his own freewill, to do all the evil things he did. It's literally Moral Dissonance that benefits them. And even if Fitz could still "be saved", he still chose, of his own freewill, regardless of life circumstances (which is what the protagonists had always argued before) to kill Agnes and Mace. By the standard of the protagonist and the story, Fitz is still responsible because he made a choice to kill, regardless of the life he had imagined he lived.

"If Fitz came out of the Framework and was still his Framework self, then maybe I could see where you are coming from. If Fitz still remembered the real world while in the Framework, but still evil, then I would see where you are coming from. But that's not what happens. Fitz is different. But Framework!Fitz is gone after he awakens in the real world. That personality is completely gone, and Fitz genuinely regrets what he has done. Ward does not."

Even if Fitz regretted it, he still did it and the story says he shouldn't be held accountable, whereas past villains, such as Cal and Ward, even if they did regret their actions, were still held accountable and faced some sort of consequence, such as Cal with his own Fake Memories, courtesy of SHIELD, and Ward (whether he regretted it or not) being made clear that he was not forgiven and that he was no longer welcome, not to mention that this was only after they needed him for a mission, whereas before they tried to kill him mutliple times.

Arguing that Fitz can't be held accountable is like if there was a case where a boy was kidnapped, and the kidnapper, after years, convinces the kid that it is ok to kill people who abused him. As such, the kid eventually believes it, and returns home, and kills his parents, who abused him. The judge in that case later says "I don't care if you were abused or not, or kidnapped or not. I don't care what the situation was, you had a choice, and you chose to murder two people." and thus gives the kid the death penalty.

Later on, when the judge's own son develops amnesia, a person convinces the judge's son that they're brothers, and says, "Hey, our parents abused us and we were planning on killing them as revenge." The judge's son buys the story, and goes on to kill the two people he thought were his parents, only to regain his real memories afterward. That very same judge cannot now argue "Well, you have to take into account the situation my son found himself in, having lost his memories and being manipulated." while ignoring that he had freewill, which he used as the standard on which to give someone in a similar position and motivation, the death penalty, and be portrayed as justified both times.

Edited by NEX7

What justifies his punishment is not the morality of the protagonists but the actions of the person being punished. He commited terroism, murder and was punished for it. By his actions . Not some hippocritical standard. By his choices not by some AI rewriting him. Thats why the trope does not apply.

Edited by Tuvok

You really do not get the whole deal with Ward, do you? It's not merely his actions, but that he refused to repent them that justified their treatment. Fitz at least had the decency to actually regret his actions. Ward never did stop being evil, and went out of his way to wreck any chance at redemption he had. Fitz did not, and as soon as he got his memories back, became good. Ward is punished because he continued to be evil no matter what circumstance they gave him. Fitz is not punished because he became a legit good guy after regaining his memories. It's as simple as that.

Actually, Fitz is in fact briefly punished when Simmons (his own Love Interest) locks him up alongside Aida, and is only let out when Aida snaps.

And your analogy fails for several reasons. First of all is the fact that if it is keeping with the show, guy 1 would plead innocent and get a longer sentence then guy 2, who would plead guilty and get a reduced sentence. The judge would also have to add on the fact that guy 2 had a mental defect which prevented him from fully grasping the situation (because amnesia is in fact a mental condition). And most importantly, don't say that Fitz merely got amnesia and someone else told him this. He got most of his entire life rewritten and given a new personality by an A.I. who then manipulated him into acting his part. In order for the analogy to be correct, the person manipulating guy 2 would not only need to be extremely detailed, but force in new memories somehow, and then lead guy 2 into murdering.

"You mean to inject Fake Memories into Ward themselves? If you honestly believe that Fake Memories are brainwashing, then what team Coulson was advocating was brainwashing their enemies, themselves. That doesn't really sound like a chance at redemption."

There is a difference. Coulson gave him a choice to get the new memories. Fitz never had a choice. And I was talking about after it, where Coulson was in fact willing to let Ward walk free with his memories intact, and only decided to go after him went Ward kidnapped and tortured one of his agents.

If anything, the fact that they were willing to forgive Ward at all at that point backs up how Fitz was treated after the Framework arc.

@Tuvok

Again, I'm not saying that Ward wasn't a bad guy, but the morality and justification of the protagonists does play a crucial role in Protagonist-Centered Morality. It's right there on the main page. If the protagonists are willing to punish a man and use the justification it by saying that doesn't matter what he went through in life, he chose to do bad, but then they're willing to turn around when their friend, when placed in the exact same position, also does bad, say that it's not his fault because of his life, simply because he's their friend, then it does qualify as protagonist-centered morality. They are holding two people to two completely opposite, contradictory standards, and are portrayed as justified both times, so it is Protagonist-Centered Morality.

@Satoshi Bakura

> You really do not get the whole deal with Ward, do you? It's not merely his actions, but that he refused to repent them that justified their treatment. Fitz at least had the decency to actually regret his actions. Ward never did stop being evil, and went out of his way to wreck any chance at redemption he had. Fitz did not, and as soon as he got his memories back, became good. Ward is punished because he continued to be evil no matter what circumstance they gave him. Fitz is not punished because he became a legit good guy after regaining his memories. It's as simple as that.

The problem is the team had made it very clear, multiple times, even when Ward was helping them, that even if Ward genuinely did regret his actions, the team had no intention of ever forgiving him, and they were portrayed as justified in it no matter what. The only circumstance they ever gave him was once when Coulson said that either Ward accepted the deal of he himself having Fake Memories implanted (which you consider to be brainwashing) or being killed. There was never any other circumstance in which they ever gave him the option of not being punished.

> Actually, Fitz is in fact briefly punished when Simmons (his own Love Interest) locks him up alongside Aida, and is only let out when Aida snaps.

That's not really a punishment, considering Fitz didn't do anything aside from talk to Aida briefly, nor was Simmons planning on keeping him there for a long-period of time.

> And your analogy fails for several reasons. First of all is the fact that if it is keeping with the show, guy 1 would plead innocent and get a longer sentence then guy 2, who would plead guilty and get a reduced sentence. The judge would also have to add on the fact that guy 2 had a mental defect which prevented him from fully grasping the situation (because amnesia is in fact a mental condition). And most importantly, don't say that Fitz merely got amnesia and someone else told him this. He got most of his entire life rewritten and given a new personality by an A.I. who then manipulated him into acting his part. In order for the analogy to be correct, the person manipulating guy 2 would not only need to be extremely detailed, but force in new memories somehow, and then lead guy 2 into murdering.

Again, the problem comes from the judge saying that he would have executed the first person, no matter the circumstances, simply on the grounds that he still had the ability to choose, but then ask his son to be spared because now he conveniently decides that circumstances matter, just because it is his son.

If you really believe that a Fitz had no control simply because of what his life was rewritten, A) it is honestly no different than believing that someone who does have amnesia has no control over their actions or the ability to choose, which is not the case, B) if that were the case, then it goes against everything the protagonists initially preached whenever they said "We all had traumatic lives and it didn't turn us into psychopaths, because we chose not to let it to." So either way, it goes against the ideals espoused by the protagonists.

> There is a difference. Coulson gave him a choice to get the new memories. Fitz never had a choice. And I was talking about after it, where Coulson was in fact willing to let Ward walk free with his memories intact, and only decided to go after him went Ward kidnapped and tortured one of his agents. If anything, the fact that they were willing to forgive Ward at all at that point backs up how Fitz was treated after the Framework arc.

Except the choice Coulson gave was either new Fake Memories or be killed. Again, I'm not saying Fitz had a choice in having his life rewritten; I'm saying he had a choice to not pull the trigger on Agnes, or to torture, or to order the missiles that killed Mace, and he still chose to. Again, to say he never had that because his whole life was rewritten is to pretty much say that people are defined by the lives they've lived, and not by their freewill or ability to choose, which, once again, goes against what Team Coulson had initially said, which was, and I repeat "We all had traumatic lives and it didn't turn us into psychopaths, because who chose not to let it to."

And while I do admit that, yes, Coulson was temporarily willing to let Ward walk free, the rest of the team wasn't and even stated on the Bus that they wished Skye had managed to kill him and that they were never going to forgive him, so much so that Simmons even tried to kill Ward while they were on a mission together.

So no, the team wasn't willing to forgive Ward, no matter what. Their treatment of Fitz is completely different. Whereas Ward was only given the option of potentially not being killed on the condition that he received Fake Memories, which was a condition he only obtained because Coulson had no other options, which Coulson wasn't happy about, and even then Ward continues to receive hatred and vitriol from the team, and a murder attempt; Fitz was not only immediately forgiven, but the team even says that none of his actions were his fault because he lived a bad life in the Framework, despite having previously stated that trauma is no excuse to do evil.

Edited by NEX7

You keep on taking the situations out of context. Let's look at the situations for each of them.

• Ward: Without brainwashing betrayed SHIELD and killed several operatives. When they imprisoned him, he acted like he did not do anything wrong. He broke out during a prison transfer and murdered several people, including a senator. He then joined up with HYDRA, and only betrayed them because Whitehall betrayed him first. He then breaks into an air force base to steal a prisoner. He only comes to them when he is captured. Throughout all of this, he shows no remorse for his actions, and makes it clear that he is not repenting. And even then, Simmons's attempt at killing him is portrayed as wrong. And then he goes out of his way to keep being evil.
• Fitz gets kidnapped in forced into a virtual reality simulation of the real world. He has his memories altered, which effectively turns him into a different character (you say that he is the same, show itself treats him as a different character). These new memories are never used as an excuse but rather as an explanation for why this Fitz is different. Daisy and Simmons only hold out for him because they know that their Fitz is trapped underneath the evil one. Once he gets out of there, he is immediately remorseful, and the characters once again emphasize that they were different people. He does not act evil again.

You claim that real!Fitz and framework!Fitz are the same, but both the story and characters treat them as different. You also push the fact that it is about the backstories, which is blatantly false. Fitz's situation has nothing to do with his fake backstory, but rather that he is in truth a different person. That's how the show portrays it.

Wards options were what they were because of his actions he took of his own free will. In real life it doesn't matter how horrible your childhood, how you were abused. The moment is decided the moment you choose. Ward life took the turn the moment he tried to kill his brother. It turned the moment he choose to escape punishment. To escape personal responsibility something his younger brother said was his motif. Ward decided he was not at fault for the actions he took. Which put him under Garrett. He decided he did nothing wrong and choose not to accept responsibility for betrayal and murder. Which showed the team he was not about redemption only about his pain and how put out he was. This is why Framework! Ward is not an example to show what Ward could have been . Framework!Ward never made a choice, or decided to accept certain truths about himself. Because he was an NPC written for a part. No choice to be made. Ward made choices, he chose not to accept his part in trying to kill his brother. He refused to see himself as the badguy and recognize other peoples pain and hurt he caused. He choose to run his own narrative were it was all about him. Choice, defined Ward. Framework! Fitz did not have one.

@Satoshi Bakura

The fact that the show chooses to portray Framework!Fitz and "realFitz" as two different people doesn't mean they are. Evidence? If Framework!Fitz dies, "realFitz" also dies, because they are the same person. He is Fitz, but with a different personality because of his memories. And yes, it is used as an excuse in Fitz favor because it is used as a justification for why Fitz shouldn't and doesn't face punishment. And for the record, no Simmons was not portrayed as being in the wrong for attempting to kill Ward, and Ward only rejoined HYDRA at the moment to continue helping Coulson, he stated as much during his phone call with Skye after dropping off Bakshi.

> You claim that real!Fitz and framework!Fitz are the same, but both the story and characters treat them as different. You also push the fact that it is about the backstories, which is blatantly false. Fitz's situation has nothing to do with his fake backstory, but rather that he is in truth a different person. That's how the show portrays it.

Which is what I'm arguing. The story portraying Fitz as being a different person is another aspect of Moral Dissonance and Protagonist-Centered Morality of the show. You cannot say to your enemies that your life does not define who you are or become, but then turn around and say that your friends aren't themselves because their lives made them different people. It's hypocritical and self-serving.

@Tuvok

Except that, A) Framework!Ward lived a different life than Ward, since he was thought by Victoria Hand, and not Garrett, B) The events that played out with Ward were mostly due to Garrett being dead due to Coulson having never joined SHIELD, meaning someone else came to recruit Ward, B) With Framework!Ward, you actually have a case of saying he is an NPC, since realWard is dead, whereas Framework!Fitz and "realFitz" are the same person, because if Framework!Fitz dies, "realFitz" also dies, showing it is the same person, just with a different attitude because of a different life. Whereas Framework Ward could be compared to a clone or robot modeled after an individual (which you could heavily make the case for being a different person thn the original), Fitz is more akin to a person who has amnesia (which is the same person, just with a different or lack of memories). Fitz, regardless of his memories, had the ability to not pull the trigger on Agnes, or torture people, or kill Mace, and still chose to do so, anyway.

And the team had already make it clear multiple times that, no matter what, even if Ward genuinely regretted his actions, he was never going to be forgiven.

And last but not least, what makes this hypocritical is the justifications that the protagonists use for the punishment of the first but lack of punishment for the latter. They argue that a person's life does not define them or affect their ability to chose, which is why Ward needs to be held accountable. But the moment Fitz lives a different life, they immediately argue that it isn't his fault because his life made him into a different person and affected his ability to choose, which is completely contradictory to what they initially preached. These are literally two polar opposite ideologies that the protagonists are holding simultaneously to justify punishing their enemy but exonerating their friend.

Edited by NEX7

Heres the problem. Your main proof is Framework!Ward having lived differently that reality Ward. Except the main point. He didn't. Framework!Ward is not an alternate version of Ward. He was computer code written to serve a function. Also moral dissonance would be treating Ward and Fitz differently for doing the same thing. Except they did not. Fitz never made a choice. Had no option. Ward not only had choices , but multiple options. He could have accepted punishment, could have accepted that he did bad things by choice. He had choice. Framework! Ward did not and neither did Framework!Fitz. SHIELD are not hypocrites for dealing with an unrepentant terrorist who literally blamed everyone else for his actions including torture of Simmons as not his fault. In the end the moment he betrayed SHIELD, killed multiple agents and tried to kill Fitzsimmons. Was the moment he was treated accordingly as a terrorist and traitor. As such they treated him as such because thats was what he was and acted as. They treated Fitz as a victim because unlike Ward he had no choice.

@Tuvok

> Heres the problem. Your main proof is Framework!Ward having lived differently that reality Ward. Except the main point. He didn't. Framework!Ward is not an alternate version of Ward. He was computer code written to serve a function.

Except that they did live the same life until he ended up in jail. At which point he met Victoria Hand instead of Garrett. And even then, I argue that you may be right about Framework!Ward not being Ward/being just a computer program, because reality Ward is dead. That is not the case with "Framework!Fitz" and "realFitz". The two are the same person, just different personalities because of different memories of their life, and the proof lies in the fact that if one dies, so does the other.

> Also moral dissonance would be treating Ward and Fitz differently for doing the same thing. Except they did not. Fitz never made a choice. Had no option. Ward not only had choices , but multiple options. He could have accepted punishment, could have accepted that he did bad things by choice. He had choice. Framework! Ward did not and neither did Framework!Fitz.

First off, Moral Dissonance is saying you believe in one thing but then doing another. Even if Framework!Ward didn't have a choice, Framework!Fitz did have a choice, since he is realFitz. He had a choice to not pull the trigger on Agnes, he had the choice to not torture Inhumans, he had the choice to not kill Mace, and yet he chose to do all those things.

> SHIELD are not hypocrites for dealing with an unrepentant terrorist who literally blamed everyone else for his actions including torture of Simmons as not his fault. In the end the moment he betrayed SHIELD, killed multiple agents and tried to kill Fitzsimmons. Was the moment he was treated accordingly as a terrorist and traitor.

Except they are hypocrites. Not for the above; they are hypocrites for saying to their enemies that the life you live does not define who you are and the choices you make, but then, when their friend lives a bad life and makes bad choices because of it, do a complete reversal and say that he is not at fault because his life affected what choices he chose to make (therefore arguing that the life you live does indeed affect the choice people make).

> As such they treated him as such because thats was what he was and acted as. They treated Fitz as a victim because unlike Ward he had no choice

No, by the team's own philosophies, Fitz was not a victim. He and the team constantly say that if they lived bad lives they would still turn out to be good people (and argue that they did), because they made the choice to not let their lives affect their decisions. Yet when they have that theory disproven in the Framework, and are shown that, under different circumstances, they would have turned out exactly like Ward, their go-to defense is that none of them are at fault because their life affected their decisions, which is the complete opposite of what they initially argued.

Edited by NEX7

Again, the show itself treats framework!Fitz and real!Fitz as different. The trope is objective, and if the show objectively does not follow, then it does not count.

And here is the thing with Fitz: it wasn't that he had a bad life in the framework, but rather that it was guided in such a way by both Aida and the program for Fitz's father that he was effectively forced to take up such a role.

So again, stop making the issue about the backstories, because it is not about the backstories. It's about the possibility of redemption and how one ultimately can be redeemed while the other cannot.

@Satoshi Bakura

> Again, the show itself treats framework!Fitz and real!Fitz as different. The trope is objective, and if the show objectively does not follow, then it does not count.

And again, that's hypocritical, you cannot make the claim that your life does not affect who you are, then turn around and say that someone is a different person because they had a different life. These are literally two opposite, contradictory beliefs.

> And here is the thing with Fitz: it wasn't that he had a bad life in the framework, but rather that it was guided in such a way by both Aida and the program for Fitz's father that he was effectively forced to take up such a role.

He had the choice to not pull the trigger, and chose to; he had the choice to not torture Inhumans, and chose to; he had the choice to not kill Mace, and chose to. The moment the protagonists made the claim that "Traumatic lives do not make you a bad person, only your choices do." is the moment that they pretty much said that you always have a choice, regardless of your life or memories, and you, at the end of the day, are still responsible for your actions.

> So again, stop making the issue about the backstories, because it is not about the backstories. It's about the possibility of redemption and how one ultimately can be redeemed while the other cannot.

Except this is about backstory. Backstories are literally the center theme of this discussion. You cannot have protagonists argue that your backstory doesn't matter or affect your ability to choose, but then say that your friend isn't at fault for the choices he made because he had a different backstory. It doesn't matter if one could be redeemed or not, when you say that your choices are independent from your backstory, then it doesn't matter whether you had Fake Memories or whatever sort of life or even perception of life, you still are solely responsible for your actions.

Edited by NEX7

The only reason why backstories are at the center of discussion is because you are making them, when in fact in the show itself that is hardly an issue. The protagonists never used Fitz's fake backstory to justify his actions. Framework!Fitz is portrayed in the show as different from real!Fitz, and is portrayed as irredeemable. Real!Fitz is redeemable. Real!Fitz had his choices taken away and given to another personality.

Backstories are not center theme of this discussion despite you wanting it to be. But choice , or lack of. Ward always had a choice. A choice to accept responsibility a choice to earnestly accept blame and try for redemption. He did not. Because to do so would be to admit fault and as seen with Kara death, Simmons torture he cannot accept fault because that would shatter his world view of himself. But Framework! Fitz never had a choice. There is the difference.

@Satoshi Bakura

@Tuvok

The moment a character talks about backstories, especially in the context of them being important or not in shaping up who you become, is the moment it becomes relevant to the story. And backstories are at the center of discussion because Fake Memories are based exactly on backstories. The moment you have Fake Memories as one of the central issues of an arc, then backstories do become a theme.

You cannot say "The life you live and the memories you have of it have no influence on the choices you make." at one point, and then later on say "The life you live and the memories you have of it do influence the choices you make." and have both arguments be portrayed as justified. Especially if both are used in your convenience of being used as an argument against an enemy, and the opposite is used in the pardon of a friend.

Real!Fitz didn't have his choices taken away from him. He had his memories changed, but he was still very capable of not pulling the trigger, or killing Mace, or torturing Skye, if he didn't want to. The problem is he wanted and chose to.

Second, Ward never had a chance for redemption. The team made it very clear that they planned on killing him the whole time after he gave information. The closest they gave him to "redemption" was injecting him with Fake Memories themselves, and that was only Coulson, the rest still wanted to kill him.

Again, if the show makes a point that backstories play no influence on the person you end up becoming and the choices you end up making, then they can't later argue the exact opposite, and say that your life and the memories you had of it made you become a certain type of person and choose to do certain things (even if those were new or different memories of your life) that you are not at all responsible for the choices you made.

Edited by NEX7

The back stories do not matter for one important factor. Choice. No choices were made by Framework! Fitz. No options given, no context given. His psyche was literally reshaped by Aida to fit a purpose. Just as Framework!Ward was an NPC created to fit a purpose. Both lacked choice to determine what they would be based on the backstory and false memories. Real Grant Ward did. He chooses to never accept blame. He chooses to take the easy way out when Garrett made the offer. He choose to play poor me when held captive by SHIELD. He chooses to see himself the misunderstood victim instead of the man who murdered innocents. He chooses. Choice. Why real Grant Ward was different from Fitz. He had one, Fitz did not.

First of all, the theme for Ward's story is "just because you claim to have a bad life does not give you justification for evil actions". The theme during the Framework arc is "memories can make someone a different person". They are not contradictory.

However, being a theme does not have anything to do with how the protagonists treat Fitz. Framework!Fitz's backstory is borderline non existent (only that his dad issues were fixed) and his actual relationship with his father is what's focused on. The protagonists never use his backstory as justification, but rather the fact that he's not the same person, and that the real Fitz is in fact redeemable. Ward never let himself be redeemed and never repented.

Maybe we should get a mod, because I'm not sure we are going to get anywhere.

Edited by SatoshiBakura

@Tuvok

Again, the problem is that the protagonists themselves always argued that at the end of the chance, the only thing that matters when making your choice is your free-will, not your life or the memories you have of it. The latter two are ultimately irrelevant in the face of free-will when making a choice.

Therefore, it is irrelevant if Fitz had a choice or not when having his memories altered. I do acknowledge that he didn't have a choice. However, despite the change in his memories, he still had complete control over his body and he still had free-will, at the end of the day, which was what the protagonists previously argued was the only important thing (which the story portrayed as correct and justified).

Yet, now, when one of the protagonists did evil things because of these memories, the protagonists argue that he isn't at fault because he had his memories altered which should be counted as a factor when making a choice, and once again, the story says that they're correct.

And again, Framework!Ward is actually a part of the Framework, so one could actually argue that he is or isn't something of a clone of Ward who lived a different life. That is not the case with Fitz. Framework!Fitz and real-Fitz are the same person, and the proof lies in the fact that if Framework!Fitz dies, real-Fitz dies. Why? Because they're the same person, only acting differently because of different memories.

@Satoshi Bakura

> First of all, the theme for Ward's story is "just because you claim to have a bad life does not give you justification for evil actions". The theme during the Framework arc is "memories can make someone a different person". They are not contradictory.

That's not where the contradiction. The problem is that the protagonists and the story argued against Ward, saying that your free-will is the only relevant thing when making your choices, and that the life you lived is irrelevant to the choices you make and the actions you take, and the person you become. But in the Framework arc, when Fitz, one of their own, has his memories altered but nonetheless still retains his free-will, and yet still does evil things out of his own choosing, the protagonists and the story argue that Fitz can't be held accountable for his actions because he had memories of a bad life, which led to him doing those bad things, all the while ignoring that Fitz still had free-will and was in complete control of his actions. Those two statements and stances are contradictory.

> However, being a theme does not have anything to do with how the protagonists treat Fitz. Framework!Fitz's backstory is borderline non existent (only that his dad issues were fixed) and his actual relationship with his father is what's focused on. The protagonists never use his backstory as justification, but rather the fact that he's not the same person, and that the real Fitz is in fact redeemable. Ward never let himself be redeemed and never repented.

The protagonists and the story argued that Fitz wasn't to blame or be held accountable for his actions because he had his memories of his life altered, while ignoring that he still had free-will, which is the direct opposite of what they argued with Ward, which was that the life you live and the memories you have of it are irrelevant; the only thing that matters when judging someone for their actions is their free-will. That is what the protagonists and the story had always previously argued, yet are now switching to the life you live and the memories you have of it should be taken into account when judging someone for their actions, because they do play a role. This is exemplified by Ghost Rider himself, who, when looking at Fitz, says that Fitz is not at fault and shouldn't be held accountable, despite Fitz having free-will when he did the things he did. This is a direct contradiction to the story's and the protagonists' previous statement free-will, and free-will alone is the only thing that matters when making a choice, not your life or the memories you have of it, and that free-will is enough of a reason to hold people accountable for their actions.

> Maybe we should get a mod, because I'm not sure we are going to get anywhere.

Agreed. I'll get a mod.

Edited by NEX7

Remove the example. This discussion has been in favor of removal for more than a month, and in-universe it just doesn't fit. This is the arbitration as requested. Please abide by it.

If there is a legitimate subset of the fandom that perceives it this way, you may be able to make a case for Misaimed Fandom.

Yep. Bringing here for further discussion.

• In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Professor Snape's open favoritism of the Slytherins—giving them extra points, shaming the Gryffindors in their presence, tipping the scales so the Slytherins look good and the Gryffindors do not—is used to characterize him as a Jerkass who refuses to see past House loyalties and focus on individual students. By the end of the book, the Slytherins have won the House Cup, largely due to Professor McGonagall penalizing her own House for Harry, Ron, and Hermione's reckless behavior. Yet when Dumbledore (a Gryffindor) uses the Leaving Feast to award Gryffindor enough points to put them in the lead, snatching the House Cup from the Slytherins at the last minute and giving it to the Gryffindors, it is portrayed as a happy ending and a triumph.

This is the point Omega pointed above.

• Throughout the series, Professor Snape regularly humiliates the Power Trio and the other Gryffindors in front of their Slytherin classmates. These actions are always used to cement Snape's Jerkass status, and are shown to have a disastrous effect on Neville Longbottom's psyche. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, fake!Moody Transfigures Draco into a ferret and forcibly bounces him around like a ball, which is Played for Laughs. The physical and psychological effects of this^note and you know there had to be some; the guy lost control of his body, wasn't even human for a few minutes, and was humiliated in front of the whole school by a highly respected authority figure are never addressed. At least in this case Moody was chewed out by Professor McGonagall, the school's local Reasonable Authority Figure, which is more than ever Snape ever seemed to get for the same behavior.

Moody got pretty big What the Hell, Hero? from Minerva, and while Ron was happy thatMalfoy got his just deserst Hermione took Minerva's side.

• In Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Dolores Umbridge forces Harry to write his punishment lines with an enchanted quill that would eventually leave his hand permanently scarred with said lines. This is, of course, presented as morally wrong. In the same book, Hermione secretly curses the "Dumbledore's Army" signup sheet so when Marietta Edgecombe betrays them (under pressure), the word "SNEAK" breaks out in acne across her face. None of the characters seem to see any problem with this. Few fans seem to see any problem with this. Rowling said that it left a few permanent scars, followed by "I loathe a traitor!" The film version of the situation, incidentally, simply had Cho dosed with truth serum.

There is a difference between getting your arm cut for being apparent Attention Whore and geting few pimples for getting 28 people including your best friend thrown out of school.

• Order of the Phoenix also brings us a moment where Harry witnesses a memory of James Potter tormenting Snape^note James uses a cleaning spell that causes Snape to cough soap bubbles, dangles him upside down, and is just about to pull down Snape's underwear when the memory ends as their fellow students look on. To this point, Malfoy's bullying of the Power Trio and Neville had been used to characterize him unequivocally as a Plot-Irrelevant Villain; but when Harry mentions the incident with James, Lupin and Sirius dismiss the bullying with phrases like "people change" and "you can't judge a person by something they did when they were fifteen." Throughout the rest of the series, Malfoy^note whose bullying was bad, to be sure, but nothing like what James dished out continues to be portrayed as a contemptible character in large part because of his bullying. James, on the other hand, is nearly always spoken of positively, although it is implied that he never sought Snape's forgiveness for the continued mistreatment.

Malfoy beign Jerkass is treated as what it is, him being Jerkass. Harry is most definitely not OK with James being Jerkass when he was young, and him seeing the scene results in Broken Pediestal, and the only didn't result in Calling the Old Man Out because James was already dead(Harry actually went for the next best thing). Lupin and Sirius do NOT see it as something to be proud of, but all in all James's dickery isn't exacly Moral Event Horizon, and while he was a dick at school he changed.

• Half Blood Prince also has a scene where Harry, upon discovering Draco in the throes of a nervous breakdown, uses a curse with heretofore-unknown effects^note but one that Harry had discovered in an old textbook that he had, to this point, assumed belonged to Voldemort; the curse, furthermore, was simply described as "For enemies," so Harry knew it was dangerous to defend himself against an attempted Cruciatus Curse from Draco. This curse winds up slashing Draco's chest to ribbons, and it is made clear that had Snape not been near enough to hear the commotion, Draco would have died. Yet while he recovers (from both the curse and his nervous breakdown), readers are expected to sympathize with Harry, whose detentions are keeping him from attending Quidditch practice and spending time with his girlfriend. In the weeks following, Pansy Parkinson is portrayed as unfairly judgmental for "vilif[ying] Harry in the eyes of the entire school," even though Harry is responsible for nearly killing her boyfriend^note when Harry could have easily Stunned or temporarily paralyzed him instead; he had already mastered the Full-Body Bind and Stunners several years prior to this moment, and whose attack may have well worsened Draco's already-fragile mental state.

The only person who defends Harry after this is Ginny. Literally everyone else(Harry himself included) thank that what Harry did was horrible. While he's obviously not happy with being punished he knows he deserves it.

• In the climax of Half-Blood Prince, Dumbledore reveals that he knew Draco had been ordered to assassinate him. Dumbledore says that he knew Draco was behind the accidental poisoning of Ron Weasley and the severe injury of Katie Bell, and points out how "halfhearted" those attempts on his life were, guessing (correctly) that Draco never wanted to kill him in the first place. Dumbledore, in other words, knew who was hurting students, knew why he was doing it, and knew that a heart-to-heart with Draco most likely would have stopped it, and yet he allowed it to go on in favor of helping Harry unravel the mystery of Voldemort's Horcruxes. Dumbledore is never called on the carpet for this, nor is he held responsible for allowing the damage to continue^note even though he could reasonably be charged with criminal negligence.

Dumble knew that Malfoy was behind it but had no evidence. He did what he could and sent Snake after Malfoy to keep an eye on him, and Snake actually tried to stop Malfoy from making other moves like this by claiming it's Stupid Evil. Dumble couldn't do much more without evidence and without blowing Snake's cover.

The last two examples look legit.

I think the first one is somewhat legit in that "getting the House Cup taken away from them at the last moment is shitty" thing because that's... alarmingly bad. Even as a kid I thought that was cruel to the Slytherins but it's considered a blatant happy ending for everyone that matters.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I see your point... very well, this one goes back.

Another zero context example:

And my edit (the advertising edit) was not about the protagonist realizing his something about our morals; there's nothing in my addition that implies that he ever does realize it, and because the advertisement is narrated by Robotnik, it never directly condemns Sonic for torturing him. I argue that the Protagonist-Centered Morality comes in when the advert expects its viewers to know that this particular Robotnik is a Complete Monster in his respective adaptation, and side with Sonic, despite Sonic using electric torture on Robotnik for no apparent reason. The advert is essentially downplaying the fact that Sonic, who is typically a hero, is kicking the dog, and that Robotnik's torture only makes sense if one watches the Sat AM show. Perhaps my example is actually a Square Peg Round Trope, and thus deserves to be deleted anyway, but don't accuse it of being something it's not.

the definition to "realize" that i used was "To make real; to convert from the imaginary or fictitious into the actual; to bring into concrete existence; to accomplish."

Edited by MagBas

I understand.

First is blatantly not an example. Your Terrorists Are Our Freedom Fighters is a blatant theme of the show, and heroes get called out on everything constantly. Like, everything. Constantly. It's a Gundam show. War Is Hell is a major theme.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Another zero context example:

• Supper Smash Bros: Mishonh From God is full of this because of Sara's beliefs. Basically, if you're not Christian, heterosexual and conservative (you can't be one or two of those things, you must be all three), you're a villain, even if you show no qualities of being one.

As I understand it, the point of the trope isn't "Do we the viewer consider this an immoral act?" but "Would the show itself consider this an immoral act if the bad guys had done it?" And the answer is yes, Eddington's use of bioweapons is presented as his Moral Event Horizon.

On the other hand, the episode doesn't shy away from saying it's ethically dodgy that Sisko does it - he specifically says he's playing into Eddington's perception of him as a villain. So I'm equally unsure, but for different reasons.

The good guys do occasionally murder (possibly innocent) people who get in their way, particularly in the Tamuli. Considering what they're fighting, they're still the good guys though.

Seems like that would make it Black and Grey Morality.

"God created man because God likes stories." - Elie Wiesel

Oops, wrong spot.

Edited by 216.99.32.43

Whoops.

Edited by azul120

I'd say sure. Especially if Discord used brainwashing and it was considered heinous, then it's truly a double-standard.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

So Brainwashing for the Greater Good is always PCM? Even when there are little to no alternative?

No, but it's PCM if brainwashing is shown to be heinous when the villain does it, and not remarked upon when the heroes do it.

If BFTGG's flaws are addressed In-Universe and they get called out on it, then it's not PCM. It's when it gets ignored that it overlaps with this.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Question- the Mane 6 cared that he used brainwashing- and not mere manipulation(as the Wonderbolts in the episode of the Key of Loyalty)? If i am remembering well, when mentioning this in the start of the episode, the expression that was used was "tricked" not "mind-controlled".

Edited by MagBas

This is used to "The hero realized something wrong following my morals"(meaning of the viewer in question) or " the hero realized something wrong following the morals presented in the own work". Apparently, the example in question qualifies to both.

I'd say this has to go.

Angel is good, Faith is evil. Angel would go on to save lives, Faith would go on to take them. While the show started out black and white "All demons are bad, all humans are to be saved" it very quickly went away from that. If it had been Xander, or hell, a random civilian, the same choice would've likely been made.

Not to mention Buffy was called out on it. It's not like everyone was like "okay, yay! Go kill Faith!" but rather "well, we suppose it's the only way." Hell, Xander still says it's not worth it.

So yeah, cuttign this.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Also, Vegeta's "Face–Heel Turn out of nowhere" was the result of mind control, NOT him being a dick. (He claims to Goku that he's not really mind controlled, but it's heavily implied that's because a part of Babidi's mind control involves making the controlled person THINK they're still using free will.)

...And? So? Therefore? What series are you talking about? What example are you talking about? How is any of this relevant to the trope?

Context. Make your argument.

Actually, he potholed "Family Guy" to Brian's name. It's there.

It's generally considered bad form (—> Word Cruft) to pothole a work name under a character.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I recognized the work right away. Didn't change the fact OP's statement... really didn't make any sense on its own.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I think it's both. Being culturally relevant in a way that makes it inaccessible to others doesn't mean that it values a protagonist over less-important characters, it just means that the less-important characters are only morally inferior when viewed from a particular lens.

Thanks.

Yes, there is a weekly deadline. Twilight spends the whole episode freaking out because the week is almost over and she hasn't sent a letter.

Twilight's behavior is portrayed as wrong, but she gets rewarded for her behavior (she only has to do 1/6th of the assignment herself, and only has to have it done whenever whoever's writing the letter feels it needs doing.) She never has to make amends to the ponies she harmed. She apologizes to Celestia, but that's because Celestia is her teacher and the only thing Twilight cares about in the entire episode is Celestia's approval or anger at her actions. The fact that the rest of Ponyville was mind-raped into a violent, angry mob only matters because Twilight abused her power for her own gain; the actual harm done to Ponyville's citizens is unimportant, and the fact that "using magic to stir up trouble because it's too peaceful for your tastes" is exactly what Discord does is never mentioned.

Protagonist Centered Morality isn't just about the protagonist never being wrong, it's that their role as the hero of the story makes them too important to punish or judge... which is what happens here. Twilight gets a brief scolding after she causes a major public disturbance for selfish, stupid reasons, and then we're told that actually, it's not Twilight's fault for catastrophizing so much that she mind rapes an entire town in order to maintain a perfect report card, it's her friends' fault because they didn't dignify her utterly unreasonable fears and couldn't convince her to calm down because she refused to join them. If an episode blames other characters for what the protagonist does, and then rewards the protagonist for screwing up, with the wrong-doing be focused on disappointment in the protagonist and not the harm they caused, what else is that but Protagonist Centered Morality?

It's just a movie. Calm down.

I agree with the points staying. For "Boast Busters," there's already a discussion of that one and the Canterlot upper crust ponies here. I don't think it would be harm to put it back. As for the Pinkie one, I agree because sometimes she may (unintentionally) cause trouble, and causing trouble is wrong, whether you mean it or not. Pinkie Pie is Innocently Insensitive, and if the writers keep ignoring the behavior, it veers into this trope.

I'm the one who put it back. I'm sorry I didn't bring it here, first. But the thing is these examples do cross into that territory. There was no reason for the cast to act how they did to Trixie. The Canterlot populace, while slightly snobbish, didn't warrant having their private party crashed and damaged. As for Pinkie, she gets away with a lot, mostly with "It's just Pinkie Pie" as the reason why.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

The Trixie example is the only one that counts as this, in my opinion; in this instance it was clear that Rarity, Applejack and Rainbow Dash were being competitive and jealous. Trixie didn't start antagonizing them until they started shouting at her.

As for the Pinkie examples, I think that even if she was in the wrong re: Luna and Cranky the examples were a little too hard on her. Pointing out that she was taking her "screaming and getting scared is fun" bit too far in the former is one thing, but complaining that she doesn't get Called Out And Punished is kind of ridiculous. Fandom is too obsessed with seeing characters be punished in general. As for Cranky, she DID realize she did wrong and worked to right it, and then eventually let him have his alone time. It's not PCM if her heart is in the right place and she just went about it the wrong way.

As for the Canterlot Upper Crust, the ponies didn't crash the party to be mean. There was never any malice in their actions. They were trying to have fun in their own ways and liven up what they thought was a boring party. That's not exactly a punishable offense.

For Pinkie, she terrorized Cranky, stalked him through town, invaded his personal space and destroyed-albeit accidentally-his personal possessions. With Luna she caused her to once more be feared and shunned and almost caused a relapse back into Nightmare Moon. Both times she's treated as doing the right thing, the latter called a 'genius' by Twilight.

As for the Canterlot Garden party, their behavior is treated as harmless shenanigans when they crashed a private party, caused a lot of damage and basically ruined it. Again, they're treated as being in the right when, again, what they did was pretty horrid.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

But it's just Pinkie being Pinkie. No one rewarded her for stalking Cranky, they rewarded her for fixing her mistakes and doing something he'd actually ENJOY (reuniting him with his lost love). And didn't they also explain to Luna that they were pretending to be scared because it was fun and not because they disliked her?

It WAS harmless. They didn't crash the party out of malice. Their methods were wrong, but I don't think they deserved to be punished for an honest mistake. They thought the upper crust needed to have some fun.

Frankly, I think this fandom is too obsessed with calling ponies out. The Trixie example and Twilight's friends in "A Canterlot Wedding" are the only examples I can think of where the mane cast WERE wrong; Trixie was just a showpony doing her job and Twilight's friends had already learned a lesson about taking her concerns seriously.

You are correct about the fandom being too obsessed with calling people out (for example, calling Dashie out for the hospital thing and Twilight accidentally switching her friends' destinies), but I still think those examples fit.

Accident or not, Pinkie didn't learn the lesson of not forcing people to like you and respecting other people's personal space. Her pestering Cranky is shown to be in the right, despise it being wrong. The mane cast crashing the party isn't shown as a terrible thing, even it it is. Pinkie did admit she was wrong for destroying Cranky's book, but she didn't think it was wrong to annoy and stalk him.

I don't think Pinkie nor the Mane Cast deserve to be punished, but they should at least be called out on their behavior.

This trope is about the story ignoring the bad behavior of characters. Since the episodes ignore the bad behavior of the mane cast and portray them in the right, then they belong on this page. It's not for bashing characters and complaining about them not getting their comeuppances. That's what Karma Houdini is for.

Edited by 131.118.228.9

Abot Pinkie pestering Cranky to be her friend:

If i am remembering well, in the first episode of the series, Pinky created a surprise party in Twilight's house and she and the other members of the Mane Cast declared themselves her friends(out of note, in the time Twilight was worried with Nightmare Moon and with no interest in friendship). Is this situation similar?

...what does that have to do with the example fitting to be on this page or not?

Ms CC 93 basically said what I want to say. Their behavior, wrong as it was, wasn't called out in-episode. And it was wrong, too. The ponies at the Garden party had said party ruined by the Mane Six, but it's on them to 'loosen up' and enjoy the new fun party. As for Pinkie, her behavior is ultimately shown to be in the right even though what she did was absolutely horrid.

Well-intentioned or not, their behavior was rude and wrong. And as for 'calling them out', one of the strengths of the show is the main characters have flaws. They have strengths and weaknesses. Their weaknesses and wrong actions can't be brushed under the rug.

In the case of Pinkie with Cranky and Luna, Rarity, Applejack and Dash with Trixie and five of them at the Canterlot Garden Party, their actions were wrong. And the only real justification we have is, "They're the main characters". I'm sorry, but they were wrong and need to be called out on it when they mess up.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

About the "...what does that have to do with the example fitting to be on this page or not?", because the Twilight example implies that the motive to the treatment of Cranky was because of his status as loner, not because of his status as secondary character. Beyond this, the Twilight example implies means is virtually impossible call out Pinky by this behavior without turn this moral broken, considering that the entire Mane Cast acted of a similar form than Pinkie with Cranky in the very first episode with the own protagonist of the series and this was portrayed positively.

Edited by 200.187.121.2

The situation really isn't similar. Twilight and Pinkie's first encounter was actually pleasant, unlike Pinkie and Cranky. Twilight also expressed no real verbal disapproval about the party, nor did it damage any of her personal property. And she didn't stalk Twilight or follow her when she left the party.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

Thank you for agreeing with me RK_Striker_JK_5. You basically took the words out of my mouth lol.

I agree with RK_Striker_JK_5 that the situations were different because Pinkie was being friendly towards Twilight and she wasn't being obnoxious like she was to Cranky. Those were two different scenarios. Pinkie was in character in the first episode, while she was flanderized in the episode with Cranky.

I do think the examples should be added back. They just need to be rewritten so it doesn't look like it's attacking Pinkie or the Main Cast because this page isn't for bashing or bias.

But...Pinkie IS called out. By Cranky himself. And that's why she takes steps to correct herself by doing something he'd actually appreciate. And he does tell her he needs to be left alone at the end.

Maybe the Luna example does fit. It's been ages since I've seen the episode so I can't remember just how bad the situation was. But CRANKY is never punished for being mad at Pinkie, so it's not a straight-up case of PCM.

And yes, if these examples MUST be used, word them better. Too much of this page comes off more like it's attacking the main characters and demanding they be punished and whipped at the stake for their errors rather than pointing out that the problem isn't dealt with in a way that addresses them being wrong.

I'll put all the examples back, because "A Friend In Deed" still counts as an example and because the story ignores Pinkie's behavior, not Twilight and Cranky.

Pinkie admits she was wrong for destroying the book, NOT for stalking and pestering Cranky, so the example still fits.

Like I said, I will rewrite the example because this page isn't for bashing anyway.

Edited by 131.118.228.9

With Cranky, he tells her to go away... and she stalks him all over town. She doesn't get the message at all and it's only deus ex machina and a total asspull that saves her in the end.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

That's what I just mentioned! Pinkie only felt remorse for damaging his property, not for annoying him.

"But CRANKY is never punished for being mad at Pinkie, so it's not a straight-up case of PCM."

So it's wrong to get legitimately angry at someone for annoying you and destroying something you forever cherished?

Can we just agree to add the examples back, rewritten, since these episodes do count as an example, and just stop arguing? (no offense)"

Edited by 131.118.228.9

About the "Pinkie not followed Twilight" thing: If i am remembering well, after the surprise party, the entire Mane Cast(including Twilight) was to the Summer Sun Celebration and after the apparition of Nightmare Moon, the entire Mane Cast followed Twilight- and continued following she after she protest about this(because the mission was dangerous, if i am remembering well).

It's still a different situation. Twilight didn't do that because she was annoyed. She did it for their own safety. Cranky was just irritated by Pinkie Pie annoying him.

It's still a different situation. Twilight didn't do that because she was annoyed. She did it for their own safety. Cranky was just irritated by Pinkie Pie annoying him.

"So it's wrong to get legitimately angry at someone for annoying you and destroying something you forever cherished?"

I meant, if this were PCM, Cranky would be punished as a Bad Guy. The series DID treat him as though he had the right to be upset that Pinkie destroyed his scrapbook-which he did, and Twilight even told Pinkie afterwards that she came on too strong.

Oh okay. Thanks for clearing it up. I will rewrite the examples later without it coming off as bashing and complaining about characters.

Okay, I'm all for rewriting the Pinkie/Garden party ones... but can we please just put the Trixie example back as is? There really was no good reason for them to act the way they did to her when she arrived, and how they treated her at the end was pretty damned rotten.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

I added them back, and some of them didn't even need to be edited. I guess fans can be just too sensitive sometimes.

It can be lampshaded, as evidenced by the page quote.

Edited by 108.48.88.58 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

No, it's not because it's an In-Universe reaction trope.

(Looks to the discussion about Katara) This depends. If this is "the protagonist made something wrong and was portrayed as right", this is so objective when Designated Hero- in many cases, the author portrays the protagonist as being correct not because he is the protagonist but because the author genuinely believes that an action is morally correct- and is near impossible prove that this is not the case in many cases.

This is not one because this received a lot of "down" votes in the "Pages that need the YMMV banner" thread in the "Projects: Long Term/Perpetual " page in the forums.

This was a good cut.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

Thanks..I was just about to do that...I wish people would stop deleting valid examples because they disagree.

Edited by 216.99.32.43

You're welcome.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

There is valid example and there is up for debate. Put the Boast Busters example back down.

Um.. can you provide reasons why? The example contains some logic for why it belongs but you're not really providing a reasoned argument against it. (I've never seen this, so I have no actual stake either way.)

Edited by 216.99.32.45

This example really isn't up for debate, Magically Me. It is protagonist-centered morality. There was no reason for Applejack, Rarity or Rainbow Dash to interrupt Trixie's show, and all three are massive hypocrites about it. And in the end, they mock the destruction of her cart and her honest efforts against it despite not even trying against the Ursa Minor.

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

Thanks for the correction. Maybe you can put it back up if you want to. I don't truly disagree i do think it's pretty rude to interrupt a show cause you don't like it. sorry didn't meant to begin an argument. You can put it back up. Bye:)

For future reference, when you delete something, it's a good idea to include an edit reason. Deletions are more heavily scrutinized for potential vandalism.

It's all right, Magically Me. I'm just a little... testy about this particular entry, and this episode. ;)

Trekkie, Brony, Warsie, Whovian and many more.

The problem is that the behavior is treated more as wacky hijinks instead of supremely, call-the-police-levels of obnoxious. There's only so much one can claim they weren't trying to ruin everything, before one has to point out that with the way they were acting, what the hell were they expecting?

Their actions are treated as bad in the "I stole a cookie from the cookie jar" level of badness, instead of "I could have accidentally crushed someone's skull in with a croquet mallet" level of badness.

Edited by 216.99.32.45

I agree with that entry. It's a valid example of the trope. I do believe that the cast was wrong to invade a party that they were not invited to and not get called out on it. Sure the Upper Crust ponies were assholes, but there is no excuse for the mane cast's actions. Examples shouldn't be deleted just because you disagree.

No, no, I put the entry in, and am willing to entertain the argument. He's right in that what they did wasn't depicted as intentional in the former, and it was depicted as bad in the latter. Besides, the OP didn't remove it, merely asked about it.

But I argue you can only claim "it was unintentional" only so much, after which the argument sounds more like they are dodging responsibility. As for the second one, it's not that it wasn't treated as bad, it's that it wasn't treated as bad as it should have been. There's a difference between Wacky Hijinks and Making A Complete Ass Of Oneself. The show treats the Mane Cast's actions like the former, when it was solidly in the latter.

...Say what now?

What you've written is very hard to understand. Something about Aang being ultra-conservative about Airbender society, which I don't remember... Something about morals behind the rules being broken...

At a guess, you're saying that the rule was wrong so it's okay for them to have broken it.

Bologna. Not liking a law doesn't give you the authority to ignore it. Aang and Katara are visitors. Regardless of whether the laws not to teach advanced waterbending to women were in some way wrong, they're still laws and they still need to be followed, especially by outsiders who have no say in the matter whatsoever.

What further enforces it is that they broke these laws and the most they suffered for it was a stern talking-to, and they were portrayed as totally in the right, even after Katara assaulted Pakku.

There's nothing to discuss here.

Edited by Eagal You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

Visual novels and comics are two entirely different things. And I have seen other VN sections on the site, just none that I can remember off the top of my head. Sorry!

I haven't read Twilight (and don't plan to), but this really reminds me of how a Friendly Neighborhood Vampire, Kostya, acts in the Night Watch. He tries to be a Vegetarian Vampire, as do his parents, but he's furious when the human protagonist kills a vampire, who was one of his friends, even though that vampire was going to eat a human.

This might fall under the Sliding Scale Of Vampire Morality- even vampires who have all the perks and few of the disadvantages just aren't going to be that concerned with human life.

Hodor

I think you mean Sliding Scale of Vampire Friendliness.

"That's right—Bella is the Cullens' pet."

That is made of awesome.

Edited by swallowfeather "God created man because God likes stories." - Elie Wiesel

The Doctor points out "People are dying for me. I won't thank you for that." Despite this, she continues what she's doing. Furthermore, Amy points out later that despite Madame Kovarian's death being retconned, she still did it - so yes, despite the universal retcon, it still counts according to the narrative.

Edited by QueenofSwords

They're both separate examples, though. There's more to contrast than to compare. The River Song example was a fixed point in time, while the Hungry Earth/Cold Blood was a malleable point. However well intentioned, the mother doomed the peace talks when she killed the prisoner. River's story is going backwards. We're seeing her character development devolve. River's in a Stable Time Loop with The Doctor. When Amy met her in the Angel two-parter, she was working for a pardon. We didn't know why. She had to be sent to prison to complete her part of the time loop and warn the Doctor about the Pandorica Box and make sure the Doctor learns what he's supposed to do.

Edited by EMY3K

I agree that River should be up there, definitely. Regardless of character development/devolvement (which count as justifying edits, by the way), she still committed horrific actions in-story that were barely even glanced at overall. Even in River's personal future, only her actions of "killing a good man" are looked at askance. However, it shouldn't be used in comparison or in contrast to Ambrose's actions in "The Hungry Earth/Cold Blood", as they're entirely different instances, and they're not compared in-story.

ETA: I went ahead and cleaned up the example, deleting questionable edits ("devolving" or not, she's still yet to be called out on it in-story) and getting rid of the comparison. If the Hungry Earth is still counted as an example, it can be added back.

Edited by QueenofSwords

The comments about devolving are not a justifying edits. It's not about calling her out. River isn't as clear since her timeline is going backwards from the Doctor's . It doesn't make her any more right about nearly destroying time. However, the comments fit with the trope since her morality is a little different than everyone else's. And she does still qualify as a protagonist. This isn't Karma Houdini.

I'm sorry, but for some reason, what you're saying isn't quite clicking with me (lack of sleep, I'm sure). People are aware that we ran into River backwards for most, if not all, of her appearances, so difficulties in following aren't an issue. Furthermore, regardless of her "devolution", her actions still fit with the trope. Morality being different belongs in either Values Dissonance or Moral Dissonance, however; it's better taken over there. This trope is about a character's actions being treated as fine in-story when they're not. It's not about bashing characters you don't like, it's not about defending characters you do like. It's about pointing out examples in-story. Furthermore, her actions in the library aren't, as yet, treated as a punishment/reward for her actions; it's better taken to either Driven to Suicide, Redemption Equals Death, or Stable Time Loop.

Edited by QueenofSwords

Exactly. Her actions till fit. According to the tropes, characters who fall under this trope do qualify for Redemption Equals Death. I'm not trying to be defensive ans I apologize if I am. However, pointing out that what happens in the library still fits in the trope. She either is an example or she isn't.

I'm sorry, but each time I've spoken to you about your habit of defending characters you like on this wiki (we've done so a few times), yes, you have gotten defensive. Anyway, as it's not made clear what, exactly, her actions in the library are, actually troping them might be better left to YMMV/WMG/Discussion pages of the respective tropes. Furthermore, as her actions weren't treated as anywhere near crossing the Moral Event Horizon in-universe (for all that out of universe, it's often viewed as such) and her actions were all but forgotten (going by Amy's description of her as a "good girl" in the most recent Christmas special), it's uncertain where it goes, or whether it qualifies for Heroic Sacrifice, Driven to Suicide, or Redemption Equals Death. As such, it's probably best to just leave that sort of thing out for now until we see how her actions are treated later on in the show.

Edited by QueenofSwords

Most times, it's been in defense in a character you don't like and you never seem to listen to my point of view. I feel like you always seem adamant that my opinion is wrong. It's hard for me to think logically when I feel like rebuked when I give an opinion someone doesn't like. It is a big flaw of mine and I'm sorry that I'm not always successful for reigning it in. I'll try harder, but I would appreciate it if you weren't so quick to declare me at fault.

Agreed about leaving the library out of the the trope. At this rate, who the hell knows where Moffat is going?

Edited by EMY3K

I don't dislike River. I'm merely adding tropes that fit. I'd rather not shove my own opinions all over a wiki when they're supposed to be neutral, and I dislike other people doing it, as well; I just prefer to stick tropes, "good" and "bad", where they belong. And you're hardly being rebuked for having an opinion, just the fact that you tend to shoehorn in Justifying Edits and delete things you don't like. Furthermore, your constant edit warring has been brought to the attention to the mods in the past (by someone else, no less).

If you have a problem with me, please feel free to PM me.

Edited by QueenofSwords

Marty wasn't trying to change anything in the first movie, though. He also didn't turn his hometown into a shithole.

She had mystical confirmation that Lord BELIEVED the only way to break his brainwashing of Superman was to kill him. And she'd just cut Superman's neck with her tiara. She had the situation under control for the moment. She could have cold cocked Maxwell to stop him from taking control.

And while normal people may be justified in shooting someone to stop them from shooting someone else, these three have always held themselves to a higher standard (in the then current continuity. Golden Age does not count for this discussion.)

Edited by gibberingtroper

ttp://www.comictreadmill.com/images/2005twelvedays/maxlord-thumb.jpg

I refer you to here. In the background, as Wonder Woman is asking the question, Superman is standing clutching his bleeding neck, not strangling Batman. She already had this under control.

Edited by gibberingtroper