Protagonist vs Antagonist: David vs Goliath or Goliath vs Goliath?

[Mindfire]

One way around the "now that the villain is dead, the hero is the most powerful one in the realm" trope is by having the hero's power lost in the final battle (the cost of destroying the villain), returning them to the status of a mere mortal.

I hate the trope. When the heroes train to the peak of power or collect all the magical plot artifacts only to be stripped of their power at or following the final confrontation. It just feels contrived. I mean, they did all that work and they don't even get to keep the power? THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT?

 

[wordwalker]

I hate the trope. When the heroes train to the peak of power or collect all the magical plot artifacts only to be stripped of their power at or following the final confrontation. It just feels contrived. I mean, they did all that work and they don't even get to keep the power? THEN WHAT WAS THE POINT?

Agreed... if the author has let the story become just about the power, plot coupons, and so on. If this world's version of world peace, the girl/boy back home, and so on have actually come off as appealing too, there's still a point.

(But even then, it seems like the author's planned the power to go away on cue, like it was never there except as slow-motion deus ex machina. Which is just a weird dynamic for power to have.)

 

[Mindfire]

Agreed... if the author has let the story become just about the power, plot coupons, and so on. If this world's version of world peace, the girl/boy back home, and so on have actually come off as appealing too, there's still a point.

(But even then, it seems like the author's planned the power to go away on cue, like it was never there except as slow-motion deus ex machina. Which is just a weird dynamic for power to have.)

That, and it's like they never considered the full implications of this awesome power. They never even bothered to ask "so what will the heroes do with this power afterward? What uses could it have? Will they be corrupted by it or use it to better the world?" They saved themselves from having to think about such things by simply making the power evaporate, as you said, on cue. It's lazy writing. You can't have something exist solely to solve a problem, and then solve any problems created by its existence by simply making it stop existing! It's beyond deus ex machina. It's titanus ex machina.

It just seems like if you were going to have the power exist just to enable the heroes to defeat the bad guy and then disappear without leaving any impact on the world, you might as well have done the story without the power and thus without the lazy obvious plot device.

 

[wordwalker]

That, and it's like they never considered the full implications of this awesome power. They never even bothered to ask "so what will the heroes do with this power afterward? What uses could it have? Will they be corrupted by it or use it to better the world?" They saved themselves from having to think about such things by simply making the power evaporate, as you said, on cue. It's lazy writing. You can't have something exist solely to solve a problem, and then solve any problems created by its existence by simply making it stop existing! It's beyond deus ex machina. It's titanus ex machina.

Exactly. Plotting ought to be about cause and effect, not cause and [Author's Eraser Marks].

 

[ThinkerX]

That, and it's like they never considered the full implications of this awesome power. They never even bothered to ask "so what will the heroes do with this power afterward? What uses could it have? Will they be corrupted by it or use it to better the world?" They saved themselves from having to think about such things by simply making the power evaporate, as you said, on cue. It's lazy writing. You can't have something exist solely to solve a problem, and then solve any problems created by its existence by simply making it stop existing! It's beyond deus ex machina. It's titanus ex machina.

Which was what I was getting at earlier.

Still, there is the 'EarthSea option'. The first book (and in a sideways way, the second) deal with Geds rise to archmage. Yet, to defeat Cob, Ged sacrificed his power, and appeared in subsequent books as a herdsman. His sacrifice was logically consistent with everything that went before.

 

[Mindfire]

Which was what I was getting at earlier.

Still, there is the 'EarthSea option'. The first book (and in a sideways way, the second) deal with Geds rise to archmage. Yet, to defeat Cob, Ged sacrificed his power, and appeared in subsequent books as a herdsman. His sacrifice was logically consistent with everything that went before.

Yes and that's why it works. (Although honestly I think the Earthsea books went downhill after The Farthest Shore. They should have ended as a trilogy.) It is logically consistent with Ged's character and the events up to this point. The path of a mage in the Earthsea books was always more about self-mastery than about the power they gain, similiar in spirit to martial arts. In fact, they prefer to use their power as little as possible. So when Ged makes that heroic sacrifice, even though he's lost his power, he's achieved the pinnacle of self-mastery that all wizards strive towards. In that sense, he may not have power, but he's still the Arch-Mage. Taking Ged's power away isn't the author backtracking, it's still moving forward. On the other hand, what we're talking about is more like unto this trope, which is one of my most hated tropes of all time.