Literary tropes that suck donkey balls

[Big Phil]

Mods, feel free to move this to Fantasy if you think it belongs there.


Here's the question: what are the stereotypical behaviors, characters, tropes or cliches that writers (even including some good ones) use to their detriment?

I'll give some examples:

1. The super-duper difficult entry requirements that kill or disqualify 99.9999% of applicants to a special group... but then in later books every Tom, Dick and 'arry seem to be able to qualify, and eventually rather than being a specialized, elite organization, now they are a massive horde.

2. Wooden characters that are all alike. Best example I can think of is anyone in a David Eddings novel. All the male protagonists are sarcastic, witty, kind, but kind of dumb (especially when it comes to women), while the women are all sarcastic, bitchy, bossy, but basically kind people. Villains are all openly evil, vicious, and possess a fatal flaw that the heroes can exploit.

3. Heroes all start as ignorant farmboys. Virtually every hero I can think of (Luke Skywalker, Frodo Baggins, Pug/Milamber, Belgarion, Rand al'thor, Richard Cypher, etc.) starts off as a country bumpkin who gets whisked off his farm to combat or escape from some great evil, but they quickly blend in with more urban societies with no problems (while always longing for their country roots), and magically are able to comprehend complex social rules and expectations they've never encountered before.

4. Good = stupid, while Evil = slightly less stupid but arrogant and pompous.

5. Everyone is stupid but the hero and his friends (who, as in point 4, is also frighteningly stupid). The Harry Potter Ministry of Magic (and virtually all adult wizards) fall into this category. They're stupid to the point where you wonder how they manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The idea that magic/psionic powers/alien invaders/God(s)/whatever are real, but modern people are super skeptical and refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Given that modern people as a whole aren't very skeptical at all I find that fails the suspension of disbelief test. And it mischaracterizes scientists terribly; if an actual wizard or vampire or whatever showed up and clearly demonstrated his "supernatural" nature he'd have fewer problems with scientists pretending he doesn't exist than he would with beating off the ones dreaming of a Nobel Prize for figuring him out.

[Zixinus]

We'll get a litany of complaints from everyone in no time here.

[Mr Bean]

We'll get a litany of complaints from everyone in no time here.

Could you bothered to provide one instead of just spamming? It's still an Off-topic thread and not testing just quite yet.

I'll shoot
7. An colliery of the Abyss posted, that of the skeptical person in the world that obviously contains magic who continues to be skeptical time after time. Not just modern people but in history pieces or far future. The X-Files was the best example of this, Dana Scully from the X-Files is the classic example of this. She always insists on science despite the fact she's seen magic shit before. If she was a good scientist in the X-Files world she would not being saying "Insert X thing is impossible because Science says it can't happen! Never mind just last week I saw thing Y which violates the rules of science that was a one off thing!

If she had been a true good scientist after seeing a man who can see through walls or one who starts fires with his mind she would have said "Ok is this a hoax of some kind or are we dealing with an as yet unknown force/ability to science?" Instead of going to "hoax" every single time.

[Anguirus]

I couldn't agree more with Abyss AND Bean, but it's hard to think of other alternatives that allow "urban fantasy," in which we get the advantage of setting a work in the "real world" and the other advantage of using crazy fun supernatural shit. It still bothers the hell out of me to see variations on the same excuses every time and is probably why I can't get into urban fantasy, except in RPGs where I will accept just about any explanation that lets me gun down orcs with an AK.

Another one that's wearing a little thin is the depiction of scientists in less serious works, and even many allegedly serious ones. A character in such a work is not so much a scientist, but instead possesses Science Power that lets one synthesize antidotes to Ebola out of leaves, twigs, and monkey blood, revolutionize the technology of a billion year old alien civilization by looking at it and tweaking it, that sort of thing. These sorts of characters are probably more prevalent in movies and TV shows (Sam Carter, I love you, but I'm looking at YOU!), but certainly they are in literature too.

[Ghost Rider]

Another one that's wearing a little thin is the depiction of scientists in less serious works, and even many allegedly serious ones. A character in such a work is not so much a scientist, but instead possesses Science Power that lets one synthesize antidotes to Ebola out of leaves, twigs, and monkey blood, revolutionize the technology of a billion year old alien civilization by looking at it and tweaking it, that sort of thing. These sorts of characters are probably more prevalent in movies and TV shows (Sam Carter, I love you, but I'm looking at YOU!), but certainly they are in literature too.

Worse still they never write this shit down.

My other fave that is a corallory to the above is the lack of research these groups perform on these subjects that they claim mastery over. Magic gets hit the most, but super science applies. In magic, most of these yaboos get stumped by something they have never ever ever thought of, except they would've if they actually did a little research instead of going "IT WORKS!!!". For the laymen user, that's great. But when the greatest and most learned minds of that group go "Ummm...whizzle wazzle?"

[Big Phil]

Another one that's wearing a little thin is the depiction of scientists in less serious works, and even many allegedly serious ones. A character in such a work is not so much a scientist, but instead possesses Science Power that lets one synthesize antidotes to Ebola out of leaves, twigs, and monkey blood, revolutionize the technology of a billion year old alien civilization by looking at it and tweaking it, that sort of thing. These sorts of characters are probably more prevalent in movies and TV shows (Sam Carter, I love you, but I'm looking at YOU!), but certainly they are in literature too.

Worse still they never write this shit down.

My other fave that is a corallory to the above is the lack of research these groups perform on these subjects that they claim mastery over. Magic gets hit the most, but super science applies. In magic, most of these yaboos get stumped by something they have never ever ever thought of, except they would've if they actually did a little research instead of going "IT WORKS!!!". For the laymen user, that's great. But when the greatest and most learned minds of that group go "Ummm...whizzle wazzle?"

Is this worse today, or was it worse 50 years ago? Old movies (from the 40's, 50's, and 60's) tended to have scientists who could immediately answer virtually any question and solve any problem. The Atomic Submarine and Destination Moon are the movies that immediately jump to mind for me. It seems like today they at least show the scienticians saying they don't know and then figuring out a solution just in the nick of time.

[Johonebesus]

Wooden, stereotyped characters aren't a trope, just bad writing.

Frodo wasn't an ignorant farmboy. He was basically part of the aristocratic class, and was apparently pretty well educated for his time and place. Though a bit provincial, he was probably more literate than most commoners in Gondor.

Once cliché I hate is the nerd versus everyman situation. Too often there is some sort of nerd/scientist/bleeding heart liberal who over-analyzes the situation and is too sympathetic to the villain. His actions usually make the situation worse or even create the crisis. Then the "normal" person comes in and wields the powers of his gut and his black & white eyes to cut through the crap and get the job done. If the two argue, the action guy turns out to be right. It was really bad on Stargate, where Jackson was so often the maid in distress until plain old O'Neil saved the day by trusting his gut, often supplemented with a little violence.

[Bakustra]

The thing with urban fantasy is that I could put together a logical, understandable argument as to why you want ludicrously skeptical characters to maintain the whole combining modern day + magic, but.

Firstly, most people writing it got it from either the X-Files or White Wolf's World of Darkness depending on how nerdy, or else from somebody else who got it from somebody else, and so on. I just probably put more thought into the tropes than the majority of these writers ever did.

Secondly, I don't think that it really needs that sort of skepticism unless you want a specific sense- that is, conspiracy fiction with more obviously fantastical stuff. But we really don't want a dozen iterations of The Da Vinci Code and Dhampirs, do we?

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'd just like to rant in on the side of abyss. It really torques me off when scientists are depicted as stogy and close-minded and they bellow things like "That's impossible!" or "Inconceivable!" when confronted with something that seems like magic.

Science is the process of learning to understand that which is not understood. If a scientist confronted with a magician is screaming about how this must be a hoax or that it's impossible, he's a piss-poor scientist.

I find that a good way to estimate a scientist's reaction is to pick the reaction of the Mythbuster closest in attitude to the scientist you're writing, then dial down the fun and humor factor to the appropriate level and dial up the rigor. For example, upon seeing a guy throw a ball of fire from his hands and incinerate a 20-foot radius of cardboard cut-outs, the immediately asked question would be "How did you do that?"

If the answer was "Magic," then of course skepticism is going to come into play - but after investigating the possible ways to do it with known technology (an endeavor in which the Mythbusters are probably more adept at than the average scientist, but give the eggheads some credit here, they're not stupid,) they'll start looking into the obvious questions: How did you do it - in that how did you trigger that effect? Can you do it again, how often can you do it, is it draining to do? Can anyone learn to do it?

Before long your scientist has busted out the marbled white and black notebook and an inkpen and is taking detailed notes about the whole process. If the results can be reproduced (which, depending on the nature of the magic system in question, might require you to dig up the same guy, or it might be a well-detailed manual on how anyone can cast a fireball,) then someone will reproduce the results, and now all of a sudden the mystical is peer-reviewed and getting attention.

A scientist confronted with something he doesn't understand will seek to understand it. He will observe, hypothesize, and then test his hypothesis by experiment if possible and ethical to do so, not rant and rave about the impossible despite clear evidence in his face to the contrary.

[The Dark]

Frodo wasn't an ignorant farmboy. He was basically part of the aristocratic class, and was apparently pretty well educated for his time and place. Though a bit provincial, he was probably more literate than most commoners in Gondor.

Sam was the only "lower-class" hobbit in the Fellowship. Pippin was the only son of the Thain of the Shire, and Merry was his cousin and the only child of the Master of Buckland. Frodo was a Baggins, which was among the wealthiest families in the Shire, if a bit eccentric. Frodo's mother was a Brandybuck and a Took (her father was Merry's great-grandfather). Hobbits tended not to leave the general area of the Shire (Buckland was technically outside the Shire, in Bree-Land), but they weren't uneducated peasantry.

Extending it to the other characters, Boromir is the heir of the Steward of Gondor, Legolas is the son of the King of Mirkwood, Gimli was a cousin of both the Lord of Moria and the King Dain Ironfoot, and Aragorn was the Chieftain of the Dunedain and heir to Isildur's throne. Other than Sam, every member of the Fellowship comes from at least the gentry, if not the nobility.

[Eulogy]

The dumbshit idea that technology is evil and we should return to nature. Nature is not good; nature is the reason we continue to advance our tech! But ignorant neoluddites would have you believe otherwise.

Also, related to the one above, is that humans are inherently evil and we can't be redeemed. There's a differnece between cynicism and outright misanthropy.

Karma Houdinis. We want the villain to get his just desserts in the end, dammit! This shouldn't be real life!

Tragedy for no good reason. When everything is great and the heroes are about to get the happy ending they earned, something terrible happens and turns it into a bittersweet ending at best. The world blowing up for no reason, the dog suddenly dying of an invented disease, the bride getting shot on her wedding, the sacrifice that did nothing, all are BULLSHIT plot devices asspulled to rob the characters of their rewards and to spite and anger the viewers.

Characters that should know better do something stupid because the plot requires it. In video games, this often takes the form of an obvious trap in front of you, and the only way to progress is to fall for the trap.

Similarly, characters who are forced to or tricked into doing something because of Fate. It's a dumb, dumb cop-out and is the putrid offspring of bad writing.

Being a Butt Monkey, when that person doesn't deserve to be one.

[Stofsk]

We'll get a litany of complaints from everyone in no time here.

Could you bothered to provide one instead of just spamming? It's still an Off-topic thread and not testing just quite yet.

I'll shoot
7. An colliery of the Abyss posted, that of the skeptical person in the world that obviously contains magic who continues to be skeptical time after time. Not just modern people but in history pieces or far future. The X-Files was the best example of this, Dana Scully from the X-Files is the classic example of this. She always insists on science despite the fact she's seen magic shit before. If she was a good scientist in the X-Files world she would not being saying "Insert X thing is impossible because Science says it can't happen! Never mind just last week I saw thing Y which violates the rules of science that was a one off thing!

If she had been a true good scientist after seeing a man who can see through walls or one who starts fires with his mind she would have said "Ok is this a hoax of some kind or are we dealing with an as yet unknown force/ability to science?" Instead of going to "hoax" every single time.

Uh what? Dana Scully is usually the one that's usually right for fuck's sake. Mulder believes any stupid bit of nonsense that he comes across, Dana is the one that's sceptical this is true, but she's doesn't conform to your characterisation of her. She has updated her views when confronted by evidence, but unlike Mulder she won't believe in anything without proof. (to be fair to Mulder, he strongly believes in getting proof as well, he just pushes the envelope more and has different standards for what constitutes proof)

[Mr Bean]

If she had been a true good scientist after seeing a man who can see through walls or one who starts fires with his mind she would have said "Ok is this a hoax of some kind or are we dealing with an as yet unknown force/ability to science?" Instead of going to "hoax" every single time.

Uh what? Dana Scully is usually the one that's usually right for fuck's sake. Mulder believes any stupid bit of nonsense that he comes across, Dana is the one that's sceptical this is true, but she's doesn't conform to your characterisation of her. She has updated her views when confronted by evidence, but unlike Mulder she won't believe in anything without proof. (to be fair to Mulder, he strongly believes in getting proof as well, he just pushes the envelope more and has different standards for what constitutes proof)

I'm referring to everything after the first season
After the first season they have dealt with
One Genuine psychic and 1 fake
Three Aliens, only one proven fake
One Immortal man who eats people's livers
A jersey devil
Fucking Werewolves

The first season had a mix of could it be? And it fucking is. As in the stories tended towards either questionably paranormal or possibly paranormal and a few... yeah that's fucking paranormal. Which is why past Season 1 Skully should stop frigging scoffing everyone someone claims to be psychic, you met someone who was, or says they might be a shapeshifter, you've met two. Or aliens, since you've dealt with several.

Or by the time season 3 rolls around you've met and SEEN a guy who can throw fucking lighting bolts! There's no damn reason to be such a hard core there's not such thing as magic person in season 4 and season 5!

[Bakustra]

One trope of urban fantasy that really annoys me is a simple one: a cobbled-together, nonsensical cosmology. Let us take the Dresden Files series. You have vampires of three different molds, functionally three different kinds of werewolf, angels, demons, fallen angels, loa, fairies, "outsiders", ghouls, zombies, wizards, skinwalkers, and more just appearing on-screen. Momentary mentions give us Hindu gods, Aesir and Vanir, another kind of vampire, and so on and so forth. This is not necessarily a problem... except that the main background is a generic modern Christian sort of thing, with a ecumenical Heavenly Host.

But then, you have the overall plot incorporating "outsiders", who are from all appearances just super-demons that everybody treats as though they were Lovecraftian aliens. So we have a God that created the heavens and the earth, and yet invaders from outside the universe... it gets worse by incorporating vodoun into the mix, since that's not really compatible with either in a cosmological sense (be a kickass system for magic, especially in urban fantasy) let alone the incorporation of Hinduism, Norse Myth, Navajo legends or any of the other stuff (where do vampires come from?).

While this would not be a problem if it were acknowledged, the whole thing just feels thrown together cosmologically, and there's no reason why it should be. You should address the problems with cosmology, either by rationally unifying them together, or by picking a cosmology and sticking to it. Otherwise you end up with the problem of why there are four different Creators. Then there's the whole separating demons from fallen angels, which is minor but amusing. I think somebody played a little too much Planescape! :v

[Gaidin]

One trope of urban fantasy that really annoys me is a simple one: a cobbled-together, nonsensical cosmology. Let us take the Dresden Files series. You have vampires of three different molds, functionally three different kinds of werewolf, angels, demons, fallen angels, loa, fairies, "outsiders", ghouls, zombies, wizards, skinwalkers, and more just appearing on-screen. Momentary mentions give us Hindu gods, Aesir and Vanir, another kind of vampire, and so on and so forth. This is not necessarily a problem... except that the main background is a generic modern Christian sort of thing, with a ecumenical Heavenly Host.

But then, you have the overall plot incorporating "outsiders", who are from all appearances just super-demons that everybody treats as though they were Lovecraftian aliens. So we have a God that created the heavens and the earth, and yet invaders from outside the universe... it gets worse by incorporating vodoun into the mix, since that's not really compatible with either in a cosmological sense (be a kickass system for magic, especially in urban fantasy) let alone the incorporation of Hinduism, Norse Myth, Navajo legends or any of the other stuff (where do vampires come from?).

While this would not be a problem if it were acknowledged, the whole thing just feels thrown together cosmologically, and there's no reason why it should be. You should address the problems with cosmology, either by rationally unifying them together, or by picking a cosmology and sticking to it. Otherwise you end up with the problem of why there are four different Creators. Then there's the whole separating demons from fallen angels, which is minor but amusing. I think somebody played a little too much Planescape! :v

Does he credit any 'High God'(on the level of Oden, let's say) with being the creator? Or are there merely a bunch of 'High Gods' whose mythos involves creation? A mythos which may or may not actually be accurate in-world. They're cobbled together because those higher beings are there own level of supernatural society and one is no more true or false than the other. They're all there. They all squabble amongst each other. They're to the supernatural what the kings and queens are to the 'normals'. And they basically have the political and physical power in their domains to match it.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Does he credit any 'High God'(on the level of Oden, let's say) with being the creator? Or are there merely a bunch of 'High Gods' whose mythos involves creation? A mythos which may or may not actually be accurate in-world. They're cobbled together because those higher beings are there own level of supernatural society and one is no more true or false than the other. They're all there. They all squabble amongst each other. They're to the supernatural what the kings and queens are to the 'normals'. And they basically have the political and physical power in their domains to match it.

It seems to be implied (surprise) that the Christian God is the creator and that the other gods are powerful but lesser beings that depend on belief for power or for access to our world. Dresden meets Odin actually. It would bother me less if it turned out that the Christian god was just another supernatural critter feeding on belief instead of him just happening to be the one "real god".

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I didn't get the impression that he was the "One True God" so much as the most popular and thus the most powerful. In one of the books, Dresden actually discovers a way to turn himself into a god, should he wish to, so it seems like the rank and standing of the various supernatural entities is a fluid thing.

[Todeswind]

I'm regularly confused by the "we must solve this alone" solution that pops up in literature and fiction so much in situations where there seems like really no reason they don't approach an authority figure except plot convenience. The worst offenders of this are in literature with a child protagonist ala Harry Potter. It's a common trope in fanfiction to comment on how something like, oh let's say a quill that writes with your own freaking blood, really should be brought to the attention of another teacher or how when you start hearing voices that nobody else can it might be a good idea to talk to a doctor.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers the Animorphs series but it was a series that always bugged me as a child for the simple reason that I couldn't understand why the animorphs didn't just fly to the White House as Bald Eagles during a photo op and just demorph and explain to the president that the planet was in danger. Presumably the Yeerks weren't in any position to take over an Earth prepared to fight off an invasion for them to use such an insanely roundabout method of taking over the freaking planet. I remember one book in particular entirely based around the concept that the Yeerks were trying to sneak a host into the white house so ostensibly the President was not a host for the first half of the book series.


While I'm on the subject what the heck is up with aliens doing secret takeovers of the planet earth? You honestly expect me to believe a species capable of creating the technology necessary for faster than light travel can't figure out a way to make a pathogen that can take us out? The X-files (admittedly not a book) is the clearest example of this bizzare roundabout thinking, if aliens wanted to take over earth why would they invent smallpox freaking bees when it would be easier to just make the virus airborne and toss a canister of it in every airport? If they have teleportation and mind control then isn't such a roundabout method of taking over the world entirely pointless?

[weemadando]

Does he credit any 'High God'(on the level of Oden, let's say) with being the creator? Or are there merely a bunch of 'High Gods' whose mythos involves creation? A mythos which may or may not actually be accurate in-world. They're cobbled together because those higher beings are there own level of supernatural society and one is no more true or false than the other. They're all there. They all squabble amongst each other. They're to the supernatural what the kings and queens are to the 'normals'. And they basically have the political and physical power in their domains to match it.

It seems to be implied (surprise) that the Christian God is the creator and that the other gods are powerful but lesser beings that depend on belief for power or for access to our world. Dresden meets Odin actually. It would bother me less if it turned out that the Christian god was just another supernatural critter feeding on belief instead of him just happening to be the one "real god".

There was the same issue in Supernatural. You have an episode where there's a council of "other gods" meeting and then Lucifer turns up and murders them all effortlessly, because angels are from the real god and real god RULES!

[Faqa]

I'm regularly confused by the "we must solve this alone" solution that pops up in literature and fiction so much in situations where there seems like really no reason they don't approach an authority figure except plot convenience. The worst offenders of this are in literature with a child protagonist ala Harry Potter. It's a common trope in fanfiction to comment on how something like, oh let's say a quill that writes with your own freaking blood, really should be brought to the attention of another teacher or how when you start hearing voices that nobody else can it might be a good idea to talk to a doctor.

I'm not sure if anyone remembers the Animorphs series but it was a series that always bugged me as a child for the simple reason that I couldn't understand why the animorphs didn't just fly to the White House as Bald Eagles during a photo op and just demorph and explain to the president that the planet was in danger. Presumably the Yeerks weren't in any position to take over an Earth prepared to fight off an invasion for them to use such an insanely roundabout method of taking over the freaking planet. I remember one book in particular entirely based around the concept that the Yeerks were trying to sneak a host into the white house so ostensibly the President was not a host for the first half of the book series.

In the Animorphs case, it was specifically because they DIDN'T want the Yeerks to go "right, fuck this" and start a full-out invasion, because they would have won. Not optimal for the Yeerks, because they would have lost a lot of host bodies, but humanity would be enslaved by the end. Further, keep in mind that for most of the series, the Animorphs had no illusions of stopping the invasion on their own - it was purely a holding action until the Andalites got there. Granted, THAT didn't work out terribly well either, but again - even at the end, Earth couldn't have fought off the Yeerk armada on it's own - it was the Andalite fleet that had to do that.

So yeah, not really a good example, because both sides had a vested interest in keeping things on the down-low. The Animorphs so as to have a fighting chance, the Yeerks so as not to waste host bodies.

Harry Potter illustrates the point just fine, though.

[Dahak]

The idea that magic/psionic powers/alien invaders/God(s)/whatever are real, but modern people are super skeptical and refuse to believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Given that modern people as a whole aren't very skeptical at all I find that fails the suspension of disbelief test. And it mischaracterizes scientists terribly; if an actual wizard or vampire or whatever showed up and clearly demonstrated his "supernatural" nature he'd have fewer problems with scientists pretending he doesn't exist than he would with beating off the ones dreaming of a Nobel Prize for figuring him out.

I really don't have a problem with that, given how good people are generally with applying cognitive dissonance to themselves and things like inattentional blindness. Human perception is not super-objective.
I don't find it hard to believe that you will have people that edit out things that don't fit their world view (like vampires or stuff).

[Todeswind]

In the Animorphs case, it was specifically because they DIDN'T want the Yeerks to go "right, fuck this" and start a full-out invasion, because they would have won. Not optimal for the Yeerks, because they would have lost a lot of host bodies, but humanity would be enslaved by the end. Further, keep in mind that for most of the series, the Animorphs had no illusions of stopping the invasion on their own - it was purely a holding action until the Andalites got there. Granted, THAT didn't work out terribly well either, but again - even at the end, Earth couldn't have fought off the Yeerk armada on it's own - it was the Andalite fleet that had to do that..

It's been a long time since I read those books so my memories are admittedly vague.

[Garlak]

"Blue and Orange Morality."

If it were just animals that were considered to be amoral, that'd be fine. But when thinking, language-using beings are described as being "neither/above good and evil" it pisses me off. NO, dude, if something tortures puppies and burns kittens "as part of its nature" then it's fucking EVIL and should be killed off for being a sociopathic/psychopathic threat, rather then accepted in the same way that you accept being wet when in the rain.



"Balance of Good and Evil."

There is cause and there is effect. Action and consequence.

The idea of giant, metaphysical scales that tally up every "point" of good and evil and make sure to balance it out is... it's a disturbing concept. It pisses me off.

Saving one child from falling and scraping their knee, does not mean a different child should get their knee broken... and as a consequence miss an event, get picked up later, have it heal badly, and have events go to hell in a handbasket "for want of a nail"... and all to "balance out" the initial random act of keeping a kid from falling over and injuring him/herself.

The first action was a random act of kindness. The response was a pre-meditated act of.. practically sabotage that had to have obtained the direct blessing of Murphy himself to go that wrong.

There is no way to win in such a system. You can only try to keep up. And it's much easier to use a domino effect to wreck things than to use the domino effect to make things better.. Good is good. Good is normal.

Good is not, and should never be, in some kind of "balance" against evil, one where it has to fight defensively and barely hang on. And it shouldn't give the assumption that, if Evil were ever to be defeated, somehow there would be "too much" good and the victors would turn into some kind of oppressors that copped off heads at the slightest offense... and it would all be treated as too much GOOD, rather then what it really is: the "forces of Good" going batshit insane and turning into monsters.

Balance does not work that way. Hell, zero-sum does not work that way.

The Laws of Thermodynamis for example, do however. (To quote irregularwebcomic, the laws are; "you can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get out of the game.")

Sorry for rambling.. It's just this view of "evil is necessary/natural" presses my Berserk button in a way nothing else does. Because I didn't even KNOW I had a "Berserk button" until I read about this concept! (Not to say I couldn't lose my patience; but losing patience takes time and effort, or taking advantage of crankiness..)


[Rant taken, mostly, from a Spacebattles.com post.]

[Big Orange]

It was really bad on Stargate, where Jackson was so often the maid in distress until plain old O'Neil saved the day by trusting his gut, often supplemented with a little violence.

But strongly suggesting teleporting up an alien enhanced hydrogen bomb to destroy the villain seems like a lot of violence.