![]() ![]() This can also be used to show how Villainous Ethics Decay is in effect, if an older generation of villains proclaims that they have standards only for a Viler New Villain to come along and show that they have no such standards. In rare cases, a Heel–Face Turn can even develop from the villain taking a Redemption Quest as a direct result of the conflict (most likely from Heel Realization). Can also make it so that a conflict where both major factions are malicious has someone for the audience to root for. Can contribute to making an Anti-Hero or Villain Protagonist A Lighter Shade of Grey than their enemies. " You Monster!" and " Screw the Money, I Have Rules!" are used as common vow when this trope is in effect.Ĭan lead to an Enemy Mine if the evil is another villain. Some villains may maintain their standards through use of a Villainous Vow. I Gave My Word is another common variant, which may let the heroes agree to Combat by Champion. In a community of supervillains, expect a Complete Monster to be The Friend Nobody Likes. Complete Monsters themselves can never play this trope unless the example is either subverted later or Played for Laughs, as they will stoop to whatever low they can to carry out their goals. The Complete Monster in particular has a tendency to provoke invocations of this trope on the part of other villains, due to having next to zero moral standards (if that, and even then they're never treated as a mitigating factor for their ilk) and committing atrocities even their fellow villains see as vile. The typical format of their declaration is usually along the lines of "I may be Y, but I am/am not an X Y!" (as seen in the picture) The trope title is frequently spouted by the Noble Demon, in order to justify his evil self-identification. In older works, or historical fiction with authentic moral attitudes, common examples are breaches of Sacred Hospitality, treachery against one's leader, or general breaches of oaths. If your story takes place in a Mob War where one side is slightly better than the other, it's most likely because the " good" side has standards. Common gangster-story examples are to have the Neighbourhood-Friendly Gangsters, by contrast with the Ruthless Foreign Gangsters, refuse to sell illegal drugs or to be disrespectful and abusive in their treatment of the women who they pimp. The most common taboos of this type in contemporary Western works involve sexual violence or ill-treatment of children. It is particularly ironic when two characters display this and their different understanding of morality by objecting to each other's crossing. Also to show how complex human beings can be, what is acceptable for them and what drives them to make different choices in different scenarios. ![]() Why, after all, should a criminal think shooting a particular single orphan be worse than killing every single orphan in the Throwaway Country, or a serial killer be upset by petty theft, or.? This might be deliberate, however, in order to show the Moral Myopia of the villains and make the viewers question what is right, what is wrong, and if there even is such a thing as “more wrong”. This can be strange if handled badly, with one character objecting to someone's crossing a line even if they have crossed many, many others, leading to confusion and possibly an unintentional edge into Blue-and-Orange Morality. It may be specifically invoked to prove that it's OK for our hero to work with villains who have standards when the need is great enough. Another way that it's used is to keep a villain safely on the "still sympathetic" side of the Moral Event Horizon give him something that he simply will not do. It's often to show that a new villain is really bad if even Doctor Annihilation is appalled by them. One of the easiest ways to highlight just how bad something or someone evil is: have an otherwise-remorseless villain reject it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |