Is anything worse than a Complete Monster?

I know that by definition, the Complete Monster is unsympathetic and irredeemable but does anyone else think that monsters vary in vileness, some are petty thugs that cross the moral event horizon whereas others are much worse.

This may be a bit subjective but there's a difference between calamitously evil villains (Darth Sidious, The Horned King, Red Skull, etc.) and the relatively petty psychopaths that if anything, are less evil due to their selfish but otherwise comprehensible goals. What I'm asking is that is there possibly a less sympathetic trope than complete monster, one where an individual is actually devoted to the destruction of morality and often devoid of the human goals that most monsters have?

Complete Monster is not simply a "pinnacle of evilness" trope. Check out this and this about what Complete Monster is about, trope-wise.

A God of Evil with Dystopia Justifies the Means motivation maybe?

We are not here to grade villains on an absolute scale of badness. That's an exercise you may engage in on your own time.

I've unlocked this thread. Keep the discussion on a meta-level, that is, talking about the concept rather than just listing off characters who don't meet the criteria for inclusion on the Complete Monster page but that you think are horrible, and steer clear of complaining about Characters You Think Should Be On The "Complete Monster" Page But Aren't, and we'll see where it goes.

edited 29th Jun '14 6:10:15 AM by Madrugada

Also recall that we've had people propose "99% Monster" or the equivalent tropes in the past and we've shot it down because, again, tropes are not a contest.

"We are not here to grade villains on an absolute scale of badness." I can certainly see why, but is it safe to say that your quintessential card-carrying Evil Overlord is worse than a Jerk Jock? I've come to realize that a CM simply depends on context and presentation more than anything else and that a kid's show monster may appear as a Big Bad Wannabe on a more serious work.

With that being said, do all monsters fit the criterion of The Sociopath? A lot of them have fairly tragic backstories but is the separating line of these monsters from a Jerkass Woobie the fact that the sympathetic villain is aware of their actions whereas a monster is unaware or simply indifferent and thus doesn't hesitate when crossing the moral event horizon.

What makes a Complete Monster does indeed vary based on the tone of the work, but it's worth noting that there's also a "minimal heinousness" standard. A Jerk Jock will never qualify under any circumstances, for instance.

I dunno, I can think of a few Jerk Jock characters who have attempted rape and murder on their rap sheets.

Those actions rarely rise to the standard of CM due to their generic place among the annals of villainy.

edited 30th Jun '14 8:20:14 PM by Fighteer

I'd say The Scrappy trumps all.

I think to answer the OP's question, on this site, there is nothing worse then a Complete Monster, because a Complete Monster is a bit of catch all trope for totally unsympathetic villains who do really awful things. There can be a wide of variety of characters who are monsters, there can be different types of monsters, not mention different works have different standards. You can have a monster in both an R rated movie and a movie for kids, as long as the villain in question is heinous by the standard work. A darker work requires a darker villain, while a lighter work can have a CM, if they meet the basic heinous standard and have no redeeming qualities.

A work can have more then one CM, but since a Complete Monster can never be overshadowed in terms of evilness, all Complete Monsters have to be uniquely evil, a genocidal dictator and a violent serial killer are both bad people, who operate with different resources and have different methods, for example. If someone kills 3 people, but has a valid Freudian Excuse or loves someone else, while another person kills 20 people and has no excuse and only cares for himself, only the second will be considered a monster.

You have monsters that are grand, you can have monsters are petty and have s smaller scope, as long as are both devoid of sympathetic qualities and go beyond basic villainy (a regular villain may rob banks, while a monster will commit rape and murder for his own enjoyment)

edited 7th Aug '14 9:26:25 PM by TheOverlord

That's an Audience Reaction, which is on a different level than Complete Monster. A CM can be defined within a work itself, while a Scrappy is about what the fanbase thinks.

The Overlord, I know this is kind of a late reply but there still are differing degrees of evil, even outside of Complete Monster.

Say you have an Ax-Crazy Serial Rapist with no redeeming values that happens to kill and rape a few people and [[Sadist enjoy doing so]]. He has no goals outside of inflicting pain and dominating others, has an extremely lame if any Freudian excuse, and dispatches of maybe 5 people before his defeat.

Your next villain is practically composed of hatred and misery, happens to be a God of Evil that believes Dystopia Justifies the Means with a clear cut and fully conscious view of human suffering and will stop at nothing to maximize belligerence. He carries may have some redeeming qualities though, like genuine selflessness towards his evil plans and the fact that he really likes his pet cat despite his multi-billion people genocide and the fact that he'd destroy all of existence if he didn't prefer to extend human suffering.

Now by definition the 2nd character would not be a complete monster, but in all honesty, he's quite a bit eviler than the 1st character and most complete monsters for that matter. There's a pretty good difference of morality between being a petty psychopath or sadist and being a megalomaniacal, cataclysmic, "pinnacle of all evil" and there are both complete monsters and non-complete monsters in each category.

"Complete Monster is a bit of catch all trope for totally unsympathetic villains who do really awful things."

Definitely not a "catch-all". The criteria are very specific. It's not just "a really bad baddie". It's a point in an area, not at (or near) the end of a line.

edited 13th Sep '14 9:53:18 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but "Complete Monster" implies that they are beyond redemption, that no matter what, they will always be that evil scumbag.

So to answer your question, for "is there anything worse than a Complete Monster" - No.

There can be "more powerful" and "more deadly", or even "more villainous". The trope takes specific criteria to meet, not an absolute judgement on 'how evil'. As another said, it is an area on a map, not a point on a line.

But there's not really a trope out there that is worse than "Complete Monster", is there? I can personally understand if there are tropes for "more powerful" or "more deadly", but otherwise, is there really a trope, or a need for a trope that shows that Complete Monsters can be more villainous?

There isn't one, and I don't see why there would be a need for one. A work isn't limited to only one Complete Monster, and what constitutes a Complete Monster in one work has no bearing on any other unrelated work.

We do apply a minimum standard of heinousness that applies broadly across all media so that kids' shows don't get CM entries for bullies and Jerk Jocks and stuff like that.