My Thoughts On The Karma Houdini Trope

Yeah, pretty sure there's never been another user who was all "I'm going to make serious and unilateral changes to these tropes because I think it's for the best" and that people just said "yeah, totally!" to.

The issue is you going against basic TV Tropes policy and the simplest of rules and guidelines.

The fact that you seem to have some sort of persecution complex and can't seem to separate yourself from the changes you're proposing is worrisome.

Edited by ArthurEld on Feb 13th 2024 at 9:31:41 AM

Yeah, I'm sorry but big demands like this require a very good and substantial reason to justify them, and there are no citations that there's anything major going on with the trope beyond a hunch. If you want this proposal to be treated with any credibility, this needs proper citations via wick check, there's a guide to this. We simply can't just take your word for it and enable a drastic reworking of a trope if there isn't a proper survey and objective metric to determine how the trope is actually used to verify any claims that warrant them.

Edited by number9robotic on Feb 13th 2024 at 10:27:24 AM

So going back to some of the discussion on the previous page (I mostly skipped the weekend and then couldn't get into the right space to write this):

I should preface this by saying that I haven't actually seen the movie, getting my knowledge from TV Tropes and Popcultural Osmosis, so I may have some of the facts wrong when I describe this, but he's perhaps the most infamous example of this as it stands, to the point of being the first example mentioned on the original YKTTW (which, admittedly, seems to be setting it up to be a complaining page). Mr. Potter steals money from the Baileys' business and threatens to charge the protagonist with the crime, driving George to make his fateful wish that kicks off the rest of the plot, and... that's the last we see of the "real" Mr. Potter for the rest of the movie. There's no indication of any consequences for Potter, nothing showing him needing to give the money back let alone facing any legal consequences for his actions; as far as the viewer can tell, he's gotten the $8000 with no repercussions, while George gets it back only because everyone else in the town pitches in to bail him out. But this doesn't seem to be a deliberate decision on the part of the filmmakers, as they seem to be more concerned with saving George and showing how much worse things would be without him than setting up Potter as a villain to be defeated and then failing to do so.

To be sure, part of the point of the alternate universe Clarence shows George is that Potter would get much more of his way if it weren't for George, and as the film's Fridge and WMG pages suggest, there is some reason to think Potter could get what's coming to him after the film ends. (Also, this would still arguably fit your proposed "lack of legal repercussions" subtrope.) But it shows that even treating this as objective could leave out what would seem to be obvious examples depending on the criteria chosen; it's entirely possible that the OP's definition, restrictive as it is, would include Mr. Potter, depending on how much the alternate universe and Fridge Logic factors into it.

So...obviously we're not going to go along with OP's over reach of an idea.

In which case...what do we do next? Start a wick check looking for blatant misuse?

I don't think you can say Mr. Potter counts, because the story ends because of the ambiguity. It doesn't show him being punished, but it doesn't show him going away either. The ending just forgets him, which is maybe part of Potter's defeat. Although, defeat isn't punishment.

I also wonder how far this trope applies to Mr. Burns. In some episodes Mr. Burns evilness is an informed attribute, other times it is stuff like paying the devil. Obviously evil, but played for laughs. He is often not the antagonist.

I noticed that the real murderer from 12 Angry Men is an example. He isn't a character. I think there needs to be a concrete offense and more than an assumption that the villain got off.

Edited by ry4n on Feb 16th 2024 at 3:25:44 AM

Karma Houdini Warranty is coming up for TRS, so that misuse will be taken care of soon. As for Karma Houdini itself, I don’t think the character really needs to be a direct antagonist to qualify; as long as they did bad things and got away with it, it counts. Now getting rid of the complaining is a separate matter.

I don't know how I can say it without being rude, not that I am intending to, but to those who say that being defeated in battle or humilated doesn't count as karma should understand this:

Being defeated or humilated DOES count as bad karma. If a character does something bad and something bad happens to them either immediately or later, they don't count for the Karma Houdini Trope. Video Game Bosses that can be defeated fair and square don't count for that trope regardless of what others might think.

As the old saying goes, "What Comes Around Go Around!"

Granted, this whole karma thing is not always clear to everyone...not even me! I myself just wonder what two cents the Trope Repair Shop will be giving to the Karma Houdini Warranty Trope...and if they'll do the same for the Karma Houdini Trope in the future too! Far too often, the latter trope is frequently misused!

You still haven't shown us enough examples of this misuse, though. (And misuse from the current definition, not the tighter one you're pushing for).

Yeah, I'm not sure why you decided to bump this thread just to say the things noone agrees with you on again. That's not going to accomplish anything

Edited by Libraryseraph on Mar 20th 2024 at 9:20:41 AM