What are your most hated fanfic tropes

[Theman]

I strongly dislike the non-killing heroic MCs. Especially if they go out of their way to save the villain, who just murdered and tortured kids or so. Not just not killing them, but actively preventing villains from dying because of their own stupidity.

Oh, and the MC is totally okay with committing any other crimes apart from killing for their own convenience.

Click to shrink...

Why? I mean it's usually done badly, but it could be done in a good way where the hero will just cripple the villain if they are at the level where death is warranted. In fact it'd be kind of interesting to have a worm fic where the MC takes a no killing drawback and instead just uses gray boy powers or turns the bad guy into a Servitor if they are evil enough to warrant death. At first criminals laugh at the no killing rule then the find him the most terrifying.

- YouTube

Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.

m.youtube.com

- YouTube

Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.

m.youtube.com

 

[Lightbringer]

My problem with 'no killing' rule is that I often see that has with a moral logic that is honestly not tied to any sense of good or evil.

So, let's say you don't kill because killing is bad.
So you would logically force the state to never kill.
But that never happens. For the MC, the government is somehow above their rule.

That not to say that often for those it doesn't matter whether you are killing someone who arguably deserves it, like Gihren Zabi.
The 'kill' is bad, worse than the bad guy who killed millions.

Come on. Killing is an action, it can either be a good action or a bad one.
You can kill people like Griffith, Gihren, Jamitov, Blue Cosmos, Joker and others, and others. That would not be a bad act.

Now if you kill the guy crossing the street? You are evil.

Often those guys SEEM critically unable to differentiate both, which means they are unable to say what is good or what is evil, to which the main question is 'why are you playing superhero then? You don't have the condition to do that '

 

[vinzzz001]

My problem with 'no killing' rule is that I often see that has with a moral logic that is honestly not tied to any sense of good or evil.

So, let's say you don't kill because killing is bad.
So you would logically force the state to never kill.
But that never happens. For the MC, the government is somehow above their rule.

That not to say that often for those it doesn't matter whether you are killing someone who arguably deserves it, like Gihren Zabi.
The 'kill' is bad, worse than the bad guy who killed millions.

Come on. Killing is an action, it can either be a good action or a bad one.
You can kill people like Griffith, Gihren, Jamitov, Blue Cosmos, Joker and others, and others. That would not be a bad act.

Now if you kill the guy crossing the street? You are evil.

Often those guys SEEM critically unable to differentiate both, which means they are unable to say what is good or what is evil, to which the main question is 'why are you playing superhero then? You don't have the condition to do that '

Click to shrink...

This describes it really well. Especially with MC who break laws left and right, yet this is the hill they'll die on.

More so you know from past events that the villain won't reform, will escape soon, and do it all over again. Especially with meta-knowledge.

 

[Stimpak Medic]

I strongly dislike the non-killing heroic MCs. Especially if they go out of their way to save the villain, who just murdered and tortured kids or so. Not just not killing them, but actively preventing villains from dying because of their own stupidity.

Oh, and the MC is totally okay with committing any other crimes apart from killing for their own convenience.

Click to shrink...

Reminds me of this manga I read like ten years ago, where the Mc had to clean up after all the goodie two shoes isekai mcs that didn't kill the demon king/bbeg, or otherwise died or screwed up. He basically had to kill the demon king/bbeg, and even sometimes the isekai hero that joined forces with evil for whatever selfish reasons. I think it was called something along the lines of "I clean up after the heroes leave."

 

[mogged]

I strongly dislike the non-killing heroic MCs. Especially if they go out of their way to save the villain, who just murdered and tortured kids or so. Not just not killing them, but actively preventing villains from dying because of their own stupidity.

Oh, and the MC is totally okay with committing any other crimes apart from killing for their own convenience.

Click to shrink...

On the other hand, it's also amusing when it's an MC who doesn't mind killing and crimes but an otherwise irredeemable antagonist gets a pass because the author couldn't possibly have their MC kill a girl ESPECIALLY an attractive one lol

 

[Stimpak Medic]

On the other hand, it's also amusing when it's an MC who doesn't mind killing and crimes but an otherwise irredeemable antagonist gets a pass because the author couldn't possibly have their MC kill a girl ESPECIALLY an attractive one lol

Click to shrink...

TSMT. Like I get hesitating to kill women is culturally, and to some extent biologically engrained in some of us, but god damn, sometimes "off with her head" is the only way to solve the issue.

 

[Theman]

My problem with 'no killing' rule is that I often see that has with a moral logic that is honestly not tied to any sense of good or evil.

So, let's say you don't kill because killing is bad.
So you would logically force the state to never kill.
But that never happens. For the MC, the government is somehow above their rule.

That not to say that often for those it doesn't matter whether you are killing someone who arguably deserves it, like Gihren Zabi.
The 'kill' is bad, worse than the bad guy who killed millions.

Come on. Killing is an action, it can either be a good action or a bad one.
You can kill people like Griffith, Gihren, Jamitov, Blue Cosmos, Joker and others, and others. That would not be a bad act.

Now if you kill the guy crossing the street? You are evil.

Often those guys SEEM critically unable to differentiate both, which means they are unable to say what is good or what is evil, to which the main question is 'why are you playing superhero then? You don't have the condition to do that '

Click to shrink...

I mean you could have a Superman tier guy who enforces a no kill rule on everyone, and will permanently cripple anyone who tries to kill would be interesting having a story where an entire army that is going to war or a police action gets crippled.

 

[Maou09]

I don't know if this counts as a trope, but I hate mind control. Both from a meta perspective and from a moral perspective. I won't speak much about the morality of it here, because that's mainly just my personal opinion and to each his own, but from a meta perspective, it's such an obnoxious tool that authors use to handwave potential conflicts.

One of the worst things a story can have is mind control. It's bad when the enemies have it, and even worse when the protagonist has it. It just saps away all the tension in a story. There's no stopping the mc from just mind controlling all his problems away. Especially in a setting where the MC's mind control is basically inviolable and the victims have no chance to get out of it.

The worst part about protagonists who use mind control is the author tendency to downplay how seriously fucked up that shit is. This is mainly done for protagonists who are 'good', or at least the author attempts to not make them come off as a complete piece of shit. There's a very big cognitive dissonance with a 'good potrayed' protagonist committing obvious acts of evil. You're not any better because you chose to mind control your enemy instead of just killing them. It's one thing when that shit is done for pragmatic reasons, but trying to spin it as a moral victory is ridiculous. It's like excusing rape.

 

[xihute]

You're not any better because you chose to mind control your enemy instead of just killing them.

Click to shrink...

I thought that's what's called the rehabilitation

 

[Avernus]

I mean you could have a Superman tier guy who enforces a no kill rule on everyone, and will permanently cripple anyone who tries to kill would be interesting having a story where an entire army that is going to war or a police action gets crippled.

Click to shrink...

I'm reminded of a novel where everyone avoided killing people because if you killed someone, their ghost would come back and do terrible things to you. The result being that the bad guys would indirectly kill people, so the ghost wouldn't have a specific target. Burning crops, rounding people up into camps and sealing them inside to starve to death, that sort of thing. Don't recall the title though.

 

[Stanley_Jeb]

I mean you could have a Superman tier guy who enforces a no kill rule on everyone, and will permanently cripple anyone who tries to kill would be interesting having a story where an entire army that is going to war or a police action gets crippled.

Click to shrink...

Funnily enough, one of the origins of Supermans choice not to kill is because its something which should only be done when its the only option to stop a threat. Of course, comic writers, having a bit more self-awareness than nowadays, realized that Superman is so powerful its never the only option fir him.

 

[Avernus]

Funnily enough, one of the origins of Supermans choice not to kill is because its something which should only be done when its the only option to stop a threat. Of course, comic writers, having a bit more self-awareness than nowadays, realized that Superman is so powerful its never the only option fir him.

Click to shrink...

Superman to Joker:

"Batman doesn't kill people because he has a code. I don't have a code. I just don't generally kill people."

"Generally?"

"Like you said, I'm vague."

Click to shrink...

 

[humon]

Superman to Joker:

Click to shrink...

Sounds a bit like the line from Machete

- "Please, Father. Have mercy"
- "God has mercy. I don't" *blam*

 

[Theman]

I don't know if this counts as a trope, but I hate mind control. Both from a meta perspective and from a moral perspective. I won't speak much about the morality of it here, because that's mainly just my personal opinion and to each his own, but from a meta perspective, it's such an obnoxious tool that authors use to handwave potential conflicts.

One of the worst things a story can have is mind control. It's bad when the enemies have it, and even worse when the protagonist has it. It just saps away all the tension in a story. There's no stopping the mc from just mind controlling all his problems away. Especially in a setting where the MC's mind control is basically inviolable and the victims have no chance to get out of it.

The worst part about protagonists who use mind control is the author tendency to downplay how seriously fucked up that shit is. This is mainly done for protagonists who are 'good', or at least the author attempts to not make them come off as a complete piece of shit. There's a very big cognitive dissonance with a 'good potrayed' protagonist committing obvious acts of evil. You're not any better because you chose to mind control your enemy instead of just killing them. It's one thing when that shit is done for pragmatic reasons, but trying to spin it as a moral victory is ridiculous. It's like excusing rape.

Click to shrink...

Nah this is a dumb argument guns and mind control and drugs are tools. If I hold you at gunpoint and force you to give me all your cash it's not the same as if I held you at gunpoint and forced you to suck a dick.

It's also not the same if I drug/roofied you to steal your money vs roofing you to have sex with you.

The same applies to mind control. Hypnotizing you to give me all your money is not the same as hypnotizing you to have sex.

 

[Avernus]

Nah this is a dumb argument guns and mind control and drugs are tools. If I hold you at gunpoint and force you to give me all your cash it's not the same as if I held you at gunpoint and forced you to suck a dick.

It's also not the same if I drug/roofied you to steal your money vs roofing you to have sex with you.

The same applies to mind control. Hypnotizing you to give me all your money is not the same as hypnotizing you to have sex.

Click to shrink...

No, mind controlling someone for money is like raping them for money (but worse); mind control is a violation in its own right.

 

[Lightbringer]

I mean you could have a Superman tier guy who enforces a no kill rule on everyone, and will permanently cripple anyone who tries to kill would be interesting having a story where an entire army that is going to war or a police action gets crippled.

Click to shrink...

Eh, no, I hate Kira Yamatos.

No, mind controlling someone for money is like raping them for money (but worse); mind control is a violation in its own right.

Click to shrink...

Would that make scamming rape?

 

[xihute]

Would that make scamming rape?

Click to shrink...

The better question is: Are taxes rape?

The answer is yes. The IRS fucked me in the ass.

 

[Lightbringer]

The better question is: Are taxes rape?

The answer is yes. The IRS fucked me in the ass.

Click to shrink...

I mean, they technically are, they would violate your physical integrity and harm you if you didn't pay taxes so...
IRS is a creeper.

 

[Avernus]

Would that make scamming rape?

Click to shrink...

Does it involve forcible brain surgery? Because to be even close to mind control it would have to.

 

[xihute]

Does it involve forcible brain surgery? Because to be even close to mind control it would have to.

Click to shrink...

Does forcibly changing the brain through use of sound waves counts?

 

[Avernus]

Does forcibly changing the brain through use of sound waves counts?

Click to shrink...

That would likely be fatal.

And no, "talking" is not "forcibly changing the brain through use of sound waves".

 

[Theman]

No, mind controlling someone for money is like raping them for money (but worse); mind control is a violation in its own right.

Click to shrink...

Yeah people will disagree. Flat out would you rather be mind controlled to give someone your wallet in a world where such a thing is possible? Or would you rather be beaten by a thug with a baseball bat until you give him your money? I'd rather the first for me personally.

 

[Avernus]

Yeah people will disagree. Flat out would you rather be mind controlled to give someone your wallet in a world where such a thing is possible? Or would you rather be beaten by a thug with a baseball bat until you give him your money? I'd rather the first for me personally.

Click to shrink...

You would have no choice in the matter. They could just combine the two; take your wallet, beat you half to death with a baseball bat for fun and make you genuinely praise them for it. You aren't even really there anymore, just whatever twisted thing they left in place to pilot your former body.

 

[Stimpak Medic]

You would have no choice in the matter. They could just combine the two; take your wallet, beat you half to death with a baseball bat for fun and make you genuinely praise them for it. You aren't even really there anymore, just whatever twisted thing they left in place to pilot your former body.

Click to shrink...

The fact that you even have to explain these concepts in the first place is insane, but this is a porn forum, so I guess people do need these concepts explained to them.

 

[xihute]

That would likely be fatal.

And no, "talking" is not "forcibly changing the brain through use of sound waves".

Click to shrink...

Haha, you got it.

From a certain point of view, it is

Every talk changes the brain, and so unwanted speech is a "forcibly changing the brain".
Ergo: the charismatic people are mind-controlling rapists.

(Would such a defence hold in the court? "My honour, he talked to me! It was obviously a case of self-defence.")

Does anyone know a sci-fi where communication is treated as an aggression? Only the Blindsight comes to mind, and it's not exactly that.

Edit:

The fact that you even have to explain these concepts in the first place is insane, but this is a porn forum, so I guess people do need these concepts explained to them.

Click to shrink...

I'm one of the confused. Could you explain to me why removing sexual element from the rape is the default option?

Edit 2:
A irl rape case I once read about in an article. Guys and girls were in a van, the guys closed the doors and pestered the girls until they had sex with them. There were no threats, only pestering going on for hours, and not being able to leave.

That's also why ass-long police interrogations have a high chance of getting false positives, people admitting to crimes they didn't commit because they were talked at for hours (I once watched a twelve-ish boy being interrogated by the police until they convinced him that he killed his little sister).

So, seriously now. I wouldn't call speech "mind-control" or "rape", but the line is a bit more blurry, and I can see people arguing for it.

 

[Avernus]

Every talk changes the brain, and so unwanted speech is a "forcibly changing the brain".

Click to shrink...

No, it's not. Not even close; that argument renders the whole concept meaningless by defining every interaction as "forcible".

It serves no function except as an excuse; by that logic beating a woman until half her bones are broken and she can't move then raping her is no different than sweet talking her into bed because both are "forcible".