Not Counterparts!: Magnificent Bastard

^^Changed!

edited 4th Jun '11 8:34:51 PM by NoirGrimoir

The Chessmaster definitely, I'd say. Manipulative Bastard I'm a bit more iffy on, largely because of, well, the implied bastardliness.

Of course, I'm also opposed to purely heroic characters being Magnificent Bastards for the same reason (though I'm fine with it including anti-heroes) which seems to go against the general consensus of this thread, so...

edited 4th Jun '11 8:33:29 PM by MasterGhandalf

Eh, I don't think they do, that's the point. This was bad-guy only which makes no sense because there are plenty of 'good guys' who use the same tactics. With all the Anti-heroes around who can really say what a 'hero' will or will not do? Unless there is some fundamental difference in what they are doing I don't think we need different tropes.

Well, I wanted more people to have a say but in the interest of getting things done, I'm going to switch out the descriptions. If someone makes a stink it can always be switched back.

If anyone wants to move anti-hero or heroic examples over from Guile Hero, that can be done now.

edited 9th Jun '11 4:31:33 PM by NoirGrimoir

In a way, I think the Magnificent Bastard has to be, well, a bastard to at least one or more of the parties involved. I think just in his/her makeup, this character is capable of antagonizing his opponent to a degree that many heroes simply aren't willing to go to. He/she has an air of disdain bordering on outright arrogance for the opponent and pawns, whether he's heroic or not. Case in point, I think James Bond (at least, most of the film versions, I can't speak for his characterization in the books) can qualify as a Magnificent Bastard because he's the type who knows he's better than most of the people he goes up against and has no problem letting you, or them, know it. He's still extremely heroic, but even if you're on his side, he has no problem putting one over on you and having you believe he's a complete son-of-a-bitch. On the other hand, consummate Guile Heroes like Indiana Jones may be gruff, but they don't carry that air of disdain about them, the supreme confidence that they'll pull off whatever it is they're planning to do, the touch of arrogance that I think most Magnificent Bastards have to have in order to qualify.

Should the trope's name be changed? Why call the tropes "Magnificent Bastard" and "Guile Hero" if they're not restricted to villains and good guys respectively? Also, the Write a Magnificent Bastard page will need a rewrite too to match the Magnificent Bastard rewrite.

edited 17th Jul '11 11:47:31 PM by 411314

The description used to state that the MB is "good at being bad" which would suggest it was not about good guys, yet now it says the MB "can be aligned on either side of a conflict" which suggests it can be. Was the definition changed?

edited 18th Jul '11 4:10:16 AM by neoYTPism

According to the OP, there was a YKTTW which was pretty much a heroic Magnificent Bastard. (Heroic Schemer, I think?) From that, everyone just concluded that the Magnificent Bastard could be either heroic or villainous. Or both.

This trope just keeps getting messy, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. I don't know why there's so much misuse; it's pretty clear what criteria a character needs to be a Magnificent Bastard.

Here's the outline of how it goes: The two essential tropes to this character are to be both a Chessmaster and a Manipulative Bastard. A Chessmaster who never personally positions the characters where he wants them by using their emotions against them, is not a Magnificent Bastard. A character who is suave and able to play on people's emotions, but doesn't have any overarching plan or goal in mind is not a Magnificent Bastard, only a Manipulative Bastard. A character who is neither is definitely not a Magnificent Bastard, though some people seem to think they still are.

The other necessary quality is charisma, which is where the YMMV comes in. This is why a Smug Snake can never be a Magnificent Bastard, at least, not in fiction; he can be a devious character with an overall plan in mind, and skill in emotional manipulation, but once his arrogance costs him his admiration from the audience, he's lost the charisma, the only part he's lacking to become a Magnificent Bastard. The reason it's difficult to make a character both a Complete Monster and a Magnificent Bastard is because in order to do that, the character needs to be as monstrous as he is charismatic (not in-universe; a charismatic Dark Messiah may be a Complete Monster, but not necessarily a Magnificent Bastard. On the flipside, a character may not seem as obviously charismatic in-universe, and may be perceived as monstrous, but the audience can see their brilliance and flair, and so, this character can be a Magnificent Bastard.); certainly a difficult balance to strike, and one which is definitely YMMV; obviously, people have different thresholds for when an act causes a character to stop being a brilliant, charismatic Magnificent Bastard, and when he starts being an unforgivable monster.

So basically, the formula for this trope is: Chessmaster + Manipulative Bastard + Charisma = Magnificent Bastard. Xanatos Gambits, Batman Gambits and Xanatos Speed Chess are optional, though they are very likely to go hand in hand with this type of character. Having a character pull one of these off doesn't make them a Magnificent Bastard, something which a lot of people don't seem to realize. And yes, it is alignment neutral: it's just that usually it's Anti Heroes and villains who are this trope, because Manipulative Bastards tend not to be morally upstanding characters in fiction.

edited 30th Jul '11 5:11:58 PM by tropetown

So if the tropes making Magnificent Bastard are objective, why is this trope subjective?

Because a lot of what makes a Magnificent Bastard what he is, is likability, and likability is subjective.

This. Like I said, the charisma is the only debatable part, since it's a subjective quality.

It's also just incredibly difficult to put your finger on what it is exactly that sets a Magnificent Bastard apart. You just sort of know one once you've watched a few episodes. When I think of this trope, I think first of Doctor Doom, Kain, the Cigarette-Smoking Man, Scorpius and Ben Linus, but if asked to describe what made them so entertaining to watch, I'd have a very difficult time putting it into words.

So... Magnificent Bastard implies being both a Manipulative Bastard and The Chessmaster, but the converse is not implied?

You can be a Manipulative Bastard and The Chessmaster, without being a Magnificent Bastard, yes.

Agreed; my favorite example would be Pirates Of The Caribbean's Cutler Beckett. He's both a Manipulative Bastard and a Chessmaster, but he's not a Magnificent Bastard because he lacks personal magnetism (most of the fanbase and the other characters hate him) and he's too arrogant to be good at Xanatos Speed Chess. The former is essential for the true Magnificent Bastard, and the latter is more like icing on the cake, but without either a character can still fulfil some of the Magnificent Bastard requirements without actually being one. A "partial" Magnificent Bastard will, IMO, usually come off as the more competent flavor of Smug Snake.

Also Magnificent Bastards tend to come dangerously close to winning, or actually do win. You can have the traits of a magnificent bastard but if you are constantly upstaged by the hero then you're probably not an MB.

edited 25th Aug '11 7:45:54 PM by NoirGrimoir

Like I said, if a character doesn't have that MB charisma, he won't be a Magnificent Bastard. That's really the only YMMV part; some MBs are obvious examples (David Xanatos,DCAU Lex Luthor,Vetinari etc.), while others who fit the Chessmaster and Manipulative Bastard criteria are not, since they come too close to other non-charismatic tropes, like Smug Snake (Beckett) or Complete Monster. Constantly losing without making any gains at all, no matter how smart you may seem, more or less disqualifies you from being a Magnificent Bastard. Repeatedly challenging the same person and expecting to win with the same tactics, or different, equally poor tactics, smacks of overconfident Smug Snakery, not the intelligence needed for a Magnificent Bastard, who should be able to outsmart the hero enough to be a credible threat.

edited 26th Aug '11 2:37:19 AM by tropetown

I've always thought a Smug Snake is basically someone with the basic components — Manipulative Bastard and The Chessmaster — but lacking the intelligence and charisma to make it work. A failed Magnificent Bastard, basically. And they usually end up outsmarted by the real deal. The difference between Scorpius and Commandant Grayza, basically.

I want to disagree, but every example I can think of actually does fit that description. However, I'd think that this is more of a coincidence, though; it's just that Magnificent Bastardry is the way most writers like to show that their villain is clever, so Smug Snakes tend to reflect that idea, but fail.

edited 12th Sep '11 11:53:38 PM by tropetown

From the real-life example section of the trope:

It doesn't, why would you think that?

See the entry quoted in the post.

edited 13th Sep '11 6:34:06 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

It's an artifact from when the trope was only for villains.