From YKTTW
Sci Vo: Good choice. This works for me.
Large Blunt Object: @
Uknown Troper: As discussed in the
YKTTW, this page
isn't about who can cause the
Earth Shattering Kaboom, it's about who can and wants to wipe out everything. Daemon Princes barely qualify; Necrons and Tyranids manifestly do. Why do you keep removing them?
Uknown Troper: Because they're
mindless. I'll give the C'tan their due and the necrons may count despite being mindless robots (because they
had a hatred for other living things while they had brains), but the Tyranids are the
Horde Of Alien Locusts who act purely on biological imperatives. And many Daemon Princes can and will exterminate civilizations and planets for fun, even if they don't necessarily seek the undoing of everything — not all of the trope's examples do.
In fact, most of them don't, because that's more of a
Nietzsche Wannabe trait. Even the C'tan don't expressively seek the eradication of everything, because that would destroy their food source.
Large Blunt Object: "Clearly defined reasons for destroying worlds". They're hungry. That is a clearly defined, terribly obvious reason, and the results are the same. Nids and Necrons are also borne out better by other examples already in this trope: Imperiex is basically the same as the Necrons (doing it because they're programmed to) and the Tyranids as Galactus (do it to live and grow). And as I understand it, the C'tan see eliminating all life (and certainly eliminating the Warp) as the final step in their victory over the Old Ones, and will go back to munching on stars (/each other) once their vengeance is complete.
Our disagreement here is probably the result of an ambiguous trope name and summary. My solution is adding, for clarity, something like "The Omnicidal Maniac isn't satisfied with the
Depopulation Bomb, the
Colony Drop or even the
Earth Shattering Kaboom; its aim is, for whatever reason, to cause death and destruction on a mind-bogglingly massive scale." Possibly contrasting it further with
Earth Shattering Kaboom and
The End Of The World As We Know It would help. Any objections?
Uknown Troper: My problem with this is that the
Omnicidal Maniac is, at least in my mind, the trope of the villain (and usually the main one) who destroys worlds. And not in a Marvin the Martian "It blocks my view of Venus" way (that's
Mike Nelson Destroyer Of Worlds), but the guy who'll make the cities run red with the blood of the innocent, reduce that
Throw Away Country to rubble and even destroy the world... Because he
can. If you go by Luca Blight, Lobo, Kefka, Marduk, Nihilus — they're all sentient single beings who can and will let worlds burn in their wake by flexing their muscles. And while they may have other ulterior motives, it's ultimately because they
can. That's what makes them
villains. The scale, here, is actually less important than the motive.
Galactus, to me, isn't even a good example because he isn't actively malevolent (he needs to eat worlds to live), and the tyranids are an even worse one because, on top of that, they're not even properly
sentient.
Large Blunt Object: So we have a split between the "villain who causes insane amounts of damage because they want to", which probably fits the "Maniac" part better (as well as having a whole slew of 40k examples in its own right) and the "thing that wipes out everything for whatever reason", which probably fits the "Omnicidal" better. Should we split this into two different tropes?
(And the jury's still out on whether the Nids are sapient, IMO.)
Uknown Troper: I know. They just lack the... Personality to be a proper example to me. They're prime, nay,
great examples of the
Horde Of Alien Locusts, but that's about it. They're not... Maniacal enough in my mind. I mean, the Daleks are an example that a species
can be omnicidal maniacs, but they do it because they're, as far as I know, insanely xenophobic and
want to wantonly destroy All That Is Not Dalek. If I can visualize it:
This
◊ is an omnicidal maniac.
I don't think we need to split this into two tropes, though, because frankly, I think that if we're going to make a trope for 'thing that wipes everything it comes across without malice or reason', it's probably going to be a short list. And if we're going to make it 'for any reason'... I dunno if it will be any longer. You could try ykttw — perhaps you'll get some examples there. But this, to me, is the trope of the villain who does mass destruction primarily out of malice. And tyranids aren't malicious.
Large Blunt Object: That one doesn’t seem to have a particularly clearly defined reason, and anyway seems a little more Genocidal than Omnicidal to me, and puts far more emphasis on the “Maniac”... There are already scores of villain archetypes who do horrible things straight out of malice. To me this trope is about the effect rather than the cause, since we don't seem to have a trope for larger-scale destruction than the specific
Earth Shattering Kaboom, apart from the much more vague
The End Of The World As We Know It. I propose all characters, races, devices and other things which do insane, galaxy-toasting amounts of destruction,
with or without a motive, to "Omnicidal Horror" (or Galaxy Shattering Kaboom, or some less ambiguous, less fun name like "Destroyer Of Everything"), which includes the
Planet Eater, some
The End Of The World As We Know It and the
Horde Of Alien Locusts, as well as multiple-
Earth Shattering Kaboom devices. Villainous types who have the means as well as the motivation for this - your kind of Maniac - are included but are not the only thing... I'm certain there must be one just for that type of villain in
Villains somewhere.
Uknown Troper: ...Or you could add them to the bottom of
Apocalypse How, which
is a trope about degrees of destruction, cause nonwithstanding, the bottom category of which should serve.
Large Blunt Object: Oops. Missed that one. Do what you want with this page, then.
That Other 1 Dude: Disputed:
- In Avatar: The Last Airbender, Big Bad Evil Overlord Fire Lord Ozai wants to Take Over The World, but finds that it's a lot more work than he anticipated. So, in the series finale, he decides to just destroy the rest of the world, so that only his own country is left.
Like it says, he's not trying to destroy the entire world out of nihilism, he's destroying everything outside of his country so he can take over.
Kerrah: Anyone else feel we should remove all the Flanderized examples ("this guy can destroy a planet so he qualifies")?
Uknown Troper: I did. Took out:
In order to counteract this. Also rewrote the entry a bit. Feel free to undo it if you feel affronted.
Antheia: Unknown DK: Why did you take out the Davros picture and example? I've got the impression that he is otherwise considered a
perfect example of the trope (see for instance
Doctor Who (character sheet)).
BritBllt: Re-added
Life, The Universe, and Everything, but with the emphasis on Hactar rather than Krikkit's inhabitants. While they're unwitting pawns to some extent, Hactar itself definitely falls into the category of "a villain who actively seeks the destruction of whatever world the setting is based in to the exclusion of everything else, and is both aware of what he's doing and fully motivated to do so."
BritBllt: Removing some examples that seem to be Flanderizing the article...
- Doomsday is almost the definition of this trope. Created by being literally killed thousands (if not millions) of times, once sentient, he decides to destroy everything. Initially, he just goes after anything that's a threat to him... before deciding that EVERYTHING is a threat. The only thing stopping him from succeeding is that he does it all by hand, minimizing the destruction.
Doomsday's just a big, rampaging
Kill All Humans sorta monster. It can't destroy the entire DC setting and has no plan to do so. Listing characters strictly by their destructive intentions is a dangerous slippery slope: everybody from the Incredible Hulk to Jason Vorhees would count.
- Nero from Star Trek doesn't want to destroy everything...just everything but Romulus.
Nero's definitely not an
Omnicidal Maniac, as explained by the entry itself. He only wants to destroy his enemies' planets. He has an entry in
Woobie Destroyer Of Worlds, which is the best fit for him.
- Quinn Dexter, the antagonist in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn trilogy, fits this trope to a T. It's made all the worse, in a universe populated by Bee People, Corrupt Corporate Executives, and Al Capone's Space Mafia, in that he's just a teenage kid from Canada. Not only is he a card-carrying Satanist who would sooner rape you to death than look at you, he also terrifies the ghost who's possessing him into submission. Could very well be the poster child for Chaotic Evil alignment.
I haven't read the books, so he might be one, but the way that entry's written really makes it sound like he was shoehorned in due to scariness and badassery rather than being a threat to all of existence. If he actually is an
Omnicidal Maniac, it'd be better to rewrite the entry to emphasize how he's a threat to existence.
Unless the Labyrinth is actively seeking to destroy the universe at large, it wouldn't count. It's not enough just to perpetually torment a particular group of people, even if they're an entire race of people. If it
is rampaging through the universe and killing everything, that's a different matter.
- Nyarlathotep from the Cthulhu Mythos probably counts for this. While just about every Eldritch Abomination in Lovecraft's works can and will end the world if given a chance, Nyarly is the only one who seems to have it as his goal (the rest are pretty much mindless or completely alien, and the end of the world is not their goal but rather something that just happens if they wake up or are summoned on Earth). It's not quite clear why exactly he wants to do it, other than the fact that getting mankind to nuke itself to oblivion seems to amuse him.
I really don't understand all the love Nyarlathotep gets: he was barely even mentioned in Lovecraft's stories (maybe he figures in other mythos stories, I dunno). At any rate, he doesn't seem a particularly better example than the other beings in Lovecraft, and all the entities in Lovecraft are tricky: since the setting spans universes and eons, and most of them are just out to destroy Earth and modern humans, it's hard to say if any of them entirely qualify as Omnicidal Maniacs. At any rate, if Lovecraft needs a mention, it'd probably be best to make it a vague one that mentions the whole mythos.
- Gnarly has style and a humanly comprehensible, if extremely cruel, sense of humor. Also, it's not really the case that in the Mythos, the Great Old Ones are evil beings who want to exterminate humans or destroy the Earth, though it's something they might bring about inadvertently, without caring, just as you might walk across your yard and step on an anthill without even noticing it. They're not good or evil in any humanly understandable way. They are utterly, incomprehensibly, alien, and not all of them are even sentient in the way we understand that word (hello, Azathoth. Yes, I'm talking about you). They don't care about humans. They don't care about the Earth. If they think of us at all, they perceive us as something akin to bacteria. Only Nyarlathotep—and the Mi-Go, but we're talking about the Great Old Ones, not bit players—finds humanity (or any other sentient life) sufficiently interesting to be worth communicating with. The Elder Gods—Nodens and his pals—don't really care about humans either.
- Dr. Wily in MegaMan Battle Network wants to destroy the net because the Net Navi project was chosen over his robot one. He deserves to be here because Everything is Online. Civilization will crumble. People will die.
It's another slippery slope. Wiping out modern civilization isn't really the same thing as an
Omnicidal Maniac, and allowing people who are just trying to usurp or destroy the modern world would open the door to lots of people who don't come anywhere near this trope... for instance, Tyler Durden from
Fight Club would qualify.
Doom Tay: What if the
Lampshading question of "why do you want to kill everything" is answered with "So I can create it anew, and how I want it to be"? Is that a subversion or aversion, or a different trope or what?