Reforming The Complete Monster

I've been thinking about this concept for a while. What exactly would it take? I'm not asking for a hero, I'm just asking for morally ambiguous/neutral.

Now then, inb4 "Complete Monsters are by definition irredeemable", I must ask everyone to keep an open mind. As we all know, Complete Monster itself is a very subjective trope.

So, what are your ideas on the subject?

edited 22nd Jun '11 1:04:27 AM by KSPAM

I know you used "inb4", but the fact of the matter is that what is subjective is whether any given character is a Complete Monster or not. The definition of Complete Monster is "beyond redemption". If he's redeemable, he wasn't a complete monster in the first place.

Seriously, when you try to go against a central part of the definition, it makes about as much sense as saying "I want to write a Fiery Redhead, but I want her to have black hair"

edited 22nd Jun '11 2:09:40 AM by Madrugada

I don't believe Complete Monster exists, precisely because I think everyone is redeemable given enough work.

Several thoughts:

Firstly, what in their psychological make-up causes them to do evil? If you change that, you could change their alignment. Generally, it's one or both of:

• something missing, namely whatever holds others back from doing that sort of thing, such as a conscience

• something added, which makes them desire to do certain evil things, such as Horror Hunger or a burning desire for revenge

Both together pretty much guarantees evil. Only one causes a morally ambiguous character, either someone fighting bad impulses (eg most Reluctant Monster types) or someone who only needs a reason to do evil (eg Harmony).

I have a character who was an Evil Overlord a long time ago, became Sealed Evil in a Can, and escaped to find that his people (elves) were dying out. So he decided to try to save his own kind from extinction. Still morally ambiguous because of his methods, but his goal is now fairly good.

I don't believe in Complete Monsters either. If you want to 'redeem' one, just make it to his advantage to help the heroes/save the world/give out candy on street corners, and unless he's an idiot he'll do it.

But then don't claim he's a Complete Monster.

There are Complete Monsters, especially rapists, serial killers and war criminals are beyond redemption. As for your question: Make the character instead Evilly Affable with Refuge in Audacity being the only thing that prevents him from being a monster. You can if you wish make the character a Retired Monster like Allistair Tenpenny from Fallout 3. The tricky thing with a Moral Event Horizon is that once you cross it, there is no turning back.

edited 22nd Jun '11 9:09:07 AM by AdeptusAlpharius

What exactly do you mean by redemption? Assuming it's not a religious definition, what does it take to be 'beyond redemption'? There's nobody who would never, in any situation, do something good, in the same way that there's nobody who would never, in any situation, do something bad. I'll accept that there are Complete Monsters in fiction, but not in real life.

I also find it interesting that you consider rapists to be beyond redemption, but murderers only if they've killed more than one person, presumably because Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil. Personally I'd consider murder worse than rape even if it's only once, on the basis that I and most other people would prefer to be raped than murdered.

edited 22nd Jun '11 9:54:58 AM by cityofmist

^ As someone who has been raped, I agree with you. I'm glad to be alive.

"Beyond redemption" in the sense that it's used in the definition of Complete Monster isn't religious. It means that the character is so thoroughly vile that nothing good he does can convince the audience to forgive him for the evilness he's done. The audience will not accept that he has become better.

That's a good description for fictional examples, but your whole definition is based around what the audience thinks of a character, and could never apply to a real person.

Go the route of Angel/us. That's how you "reform" a complete monster. The person who is the complete monster is not the same person who is the reformed one, even if they are in the same body, and are indeed the same person.

Sorta.

Would you be able to forgive or to feel sympathy for a rapist or a murderer? I most certainly wouldn't. While you can Love to Hate fictional rapists and murderers, there is just no way you can feel for them any sympathy in real life if you are right in your mind. That would be villain whitewashing to the point of insanity.

Also by reading this site's definition of a Complete Monster I could come up with numerous examples from real life. As mentioned, murderer and rapists fit the description quite well as much as those motivated by xenophobic and genocidal frenzy to commit the most vile crimes.

Yes, murder is a Moral Event Horizon, no matter how many victims you have killed. As for rape, I think it is rightfully concidered as a special kind of evil. Sometimes killing someone can be the right thing to do (self defense, to save someone's life, euthanasia) while I can think of no instance where rape can be morally justified.

Pardon?

edited 22nd Jun '11 2:08:45 PM by AdeptusAlpharius

edited 22nd Jun '11 2:08:15 PM by MrAHR

Yes. Yes, I could sympathise with a murderer or a rapist. I don't condone the crimes, but that doesn't mean the person who committed them automatically is beyond my sympathy or understanding. I don't like defining people in terms of good and evil, and certainly not as evil to the exclusion of all else.

Ah. No. That's where we're differing.

edited 22nd Jun '11 9:57:13 PM by cityofmist

It really depends. Was it committed with intent or was it an accident/beyond the control of the responsible party/started as a smaller offense but quickly escalated in the heat of the moment/thousands of other things. Nothing's ever really black and white, dude.

I would ask you to pardon me since I may not be as adapt in the English language as I orginally astimated myself, but you don't condone and thus don't forgive their crimes, so what kind of sympathy do you mean? Personally I judge a person by his deeds but even if you as such a monster who tries to reform himself, you are what you are, just putting on a different mask since we know what you are capable of.

The six million Jews for example surley weren't murdered by accident. For example those who take the machetes and happily hack entire villages to death are just as much guilty of crossing the Moral Event Horizon as the one ordering them to do it.

edited 22nd Jun '11 3:26:23 PM by AdeptusAlpharius

So you're saying that no human being is capable of change? And that the world is clearly separated into good and evil, black and white? That's an awfully immature way of looking at the world, I'm sorry to say.

The world isn't. But the point of a Complete Monster is just that. I think you are looking for "disproving the concept of a Complete Monster" not reforming.

Yeah, that's probably more to the point. Or at least, that's the starting point. Basically, I want to humanize and maybe even earn a supposed Complete Monster some sympathy.

I never said that the world is black and white. What I am saying is that some things can't be forgotten or forgiven. You may try to change, but that wouldn't make your past crimes go away as if they never happened.

You can indeed humanize a Complete Monster and making his motivations and Face–Heel Turn more realistic and less cartoonish. Are you familiar with Fist Of The North Star? If yes, you should read Gokuaku no Hana - Jagi Gaiden.

edited 22nd Jun '11 3:15:33 PM by AdeptusAlpharius

The idea of absolutes in and of itself indicates Black-and-White Morality.

All you need to do is to set up a situation where someone who's mostly done bad things has to or wants to do good things, and keeps doing good things. (This is easiest with a ruthless character rather than an outright sadistic one.) It's up to the reader to decide whether or not this equals redemption, and I'd advise against pushing too hard for sympathy—let it come or not come on its own.

edited 22nd Jun '11 11:50:01 PM by feotakahari

You assume things that aren't there.

The thing is you can be ruthless and evil for pragmatic or necessary reasons without being a monster.

edited 23rd Jun '11 1:52:35 AM by AdeptusAlpharius

Looking closer at what's been posted in this thread:

http://www.lucifereffect.com

Hitler was a complete monster. He was kind to his dog and treated it better than people. Still, he was a complete monster.

A complete monster is never "neutral" or "ambiguous" if they are a complete monster every fucking person who comes across them is going to see it.