Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: I don't think that trope means what you think it does
, started by Ghilz on Mar 16th 2011 at 6:49:08 AM
The fate Suprmeekry rp was bad.
Wouldn't the name imply a tendency for Paragons to rebel? The description (and laconic) says that is when the guy that everyone trust decides to be evil and everyone goes acord.
Shoulnd't we change the name?
Just for the record: I have removed several examples that were wrong, and there are probably more. It says quite clearly, and in more than one place, that this is about when the paragon rebels AND LEADS OTHERS WITH THEM. Not just "this guy was elite and rebelled."
Hide / Show Replies
But why should it? There are still plenty of examples of elite that rebel, and that's all the name of the trope says too. Why is it necessary for them to lead others down along with them?
Reading the history, the description was changed to turn "leads others with them" into a requisite in 18 September, by Discar.
That's, uh, a pretty big change to do without TRS.
Especially since the YKKTW was definitely done with the idea of "the best of us becomes the worst villain."
EDIT: Okay, looked at the edit itself. He did in September... of 2011. And redid the whole description, which wound up changing the definition a bit. So... yeah.
Edited by 156.33.241.8 Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Oh, well, that's nice. Answering to the question "why should it?", well, because it's in the description. You don't just look at trope names and make up your own definitions. But if the trope was just changed by someone, that's a whole other matter. The description should just be changed back too. I guess this should go in TRS. I don't want to get caught in one of those discussions currently, I just pop by here occasionally without taking any stress over it, but if someone's energetic enough to fix this, that would be a good idea. Maybe I should go revert my edits that were making this confirm to the actual current description.
Unless someone's going to revert the Trope description, I'm going to start removing examples because the contrast is pretty jarring.
Perpetually Confused
About the LOTR examples:
Sauron never was mention as being someone's #2 before he turned, so he;s not this trope.
Saruman is never said to be the strongest of the Valar, only that he was the leader (which he got through political maneuvering).
Hide / Show Replies
Saruman is not a Vala. He's a Maia. And the Valar chose him to be the head of his order. So while he may not have been the strongest, he was the leader. So it counts.
Also, interestingly, both Sauron and Saruman were considered great pupils of Aulë before they turned to the dark side. It might be because they were so good at creating that they wanted to create something against the natural order, just like Morgoth, who was the most powerful Vala.
You're not talking about fitting the definition actually given on the page.
I'm adding Saruman back in. It's made quite plain he was widely considered the greatest of the wizards before he became corrupted, and Aragorn (one of the most knowledgeable main characters) believes his reputation was fully earned.
I don't know if this is really the place to put forward the idea, but I don't really like the definition as given compared to the trope name. That it requires a group defection. I feel like the name is a bit inaccurate, I guess?
"The Paragon Always Rebels" sounds more like an alignment neutral rebellion. The bad guys also have paragons, right? A "Paragon" is just a person of exceptional merit, in keeping with the values of the order in question. The concept in the name, to me, seems to emphasize that a person who rebels was someone of note, someone special. Someone who represented a great deal of hope for the future, only to abandon the ideals that he had once championed. Rather than being a former Hero who has become disillusioned and dispirited, the Paragon rebels either before or during the heights of heroism. Proactively, with purpose.
Or is that already a trope and I just haven't stumbled onto that page?
We recently got a Real Life example in Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney.
Edited by MithrandirOlorin
In some depictions, doesn't General Zod qualify?
Also I think Harvey Dent has this quality in The Dark Knight Saga especially since in "Rises" his Fall appears to be exposed.
The issue with Satan/Lucifer is complicated (And it's Word of Milton more so then Dante). Lucifer is an incorrect translation, but the passage does have Satan in my mind in my opinion. The issue is this Open Rebellion is still yet future, right now Satan is actually a Magnificent Bastard still holding his power and authority as both God's Prosecuting Attorney (That's what Diabolos (Meaning Accuser) translated The Devil literally implies) and the Archon of the Kosmos (AS he's called in John) while opposing God's will indirectly though other Fallen Angels and Demons. SO he's actually closer to Darth Sidious then Darth Vader.
The Idea of Michael as the lead Angels is chiefly Apocryphal, he is the National Guardian Angel of the Nation of Israel, various other Angel shave the exact same Rank, but their all on Satan's side.
An arguable Biblical Example of this Trope on a purely Human scale is Jeroboam, who is chosen by God to rule the Northern Kingdom after God takes it form Solomon in punishment for his falling away. But Jeroboam immediately then falls into Idolatry himself purely out of Political Expediency. And indeed the whole of the Northern Kingdom's history goes badly because of it.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Description incompatible with many examples and actual usage
, started by MarqFJA on Feb 11th 2012 at 5:01:26 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman