Tragic Villain vs. Complete Monster

On one side we have the villain that rose to villainy due to circumstance and feel sorry for: the Tragic Villain.

On the other you have the villain who is pure evil, has zero redeeming qualities, and you hate with a burning passion: the Complete Monster.

So which of these types of villains do you prefer and why?

You do know that it's not a simple dichotomy of one or the other, right? The notion that either you are a tragic antivillain or a CM is one we've been fighting in the CM Clean Up Thread for years.

To answer the question, preference isn't necessary. Either archetype or any in between is workable depending on the story you want to tell.

Honestly...i feel like i am falling with that "dichotonomy" in my work, the Big Bad is all the evil in the world but the Co-Dragons are lovable poor guys who lost all. Is a issue?.

Personally...agree with Ambar, all is about how you write the character. I choose a well written Complete Monster over a lousy attempt to Tragic Villain. But if the Tragic Villain is made well i gonna choose him too.

Is all about how you write.

edited 23rd Oct '15 1:20:54 PM by KazuyaProta

[EDIT]: Never mind.

edited 22nd Oct '15 8:51:26 PM by nekomoon14

I actually disagree, there can be a simple dichtonomy berween the two.

Complete monsters might not be realistic in real life, but in fiction they do exist and when they do they are forces of nature more than people.

edited 23rd Oct '15 10:48:34 AM by RPGLegend

I don't think you understand what a "complete monster"—as used on this site—is, in this case.

Because not only is the existence of such things in real life possible, and sadly not even a unique thing with just one or two people in history being that, but "complete monsters" are not really a force of nature; not by default, in any case.

The "complete monster" trope is an audience (meaning subjective) trope that applies to characters that the audience finds beyond redemption of any sort. You could have a villain who is basically ineffective but is a complete monster due to their approach to it and their beliefs. And likewise, you could have a villain who sweeps through the story like a cataclysm rather than a person and kills named characters aplenty and tortures them by dozens and yet is not a complete monster because of their approach to it. And people like that, both kinds, exist in real life too.

Exactly, I'm not talking about in wiki use, as I already said, in fact I agree with the wiki. I think the reason it's missued for characters that are more complex than what some wiki users might believe. The moment we know anything about these characters beyong their evil acts it becomes subjetive as you said.

Of course they don't exist in real life, that's my point,in fiction they might exist.

I will create one right now: One day a man decided to rape kids and murder orphans and he did becuase he liked it and enjoyed their suffering, but what he enyoed the most was killing kids infront of their parents and watch them beg for mercy giving them a glimpse of hope, but there was no mercy. He did it so daily.

edited 23rd Oct '15 12:27:18 PM by RPGLegend

And if you go at it that way, then I don't think your first comment actually applies.

Because, and sorry if I am being rude, the question asked in this thread hinges on the definitions as used on this site. So if you use another, completely different, definition to mean the same thing then you aren't really replying to the question; in fact, I'd say that you are closer to making a mockery of the question if you do that and not even explain that to anyone when you know that the definition you use is different.

But it matters not, I don't particularly care either way. Just please, for the sake of clarity of discussion and minimising confusion and the degree to which your messages are taken wrongly, when people use terms capitalised to mark them as tropes and those tropes do actually exist, in those particular discussions use those terms to mean what the tropes they are are supposed to mean rather than whatever meaning you assign to them.

That being said, the thing is that being a "tragic villain" (as used on this site) or a "complete monster" (also as used on this site) are not the only two possible states no matter how you look at it unless you dumb the whole thing down to a level that makes it all pointless. Thus, it isn't a dichotomy; thus it can't be a dichotomy, because there's more than just two states/groups that the whole of it is divided into.

I think you misunderstood. I am not really playing "personal dictionary", so I will explain myself in other words

Is the wiki right in pointing that "complete monster" is an audience reaction an therefore sujetive? yes of course.

Could you create like the wiki says a "The most heinous characters played seriously with no redeeming or altruistic qualities?" yes of course. The key being that a character is only known by his actions.

Take for instance the character I created above, you literally know nothing about him, that's what makes him "a complete monster" as a role not as an audience reaction.

Exactly a story can "dumb down" it's morality given it's fictional. You migth argue it's bad storytelling, but it's possible all the same.

edited 23rd Oct '15 12:44:46 PM by RPGLegend

In simple terms: Humanizing a character (that is giving any information about them beyond their evil actions) is what makes the trope subjetive.

edited 23rd Oct '15 12:50:37 PM by RPGLegend

I'll just stop. Because this is getting pointless. And yes, you are playing personal dictionary right now regardless of whether or not you use said dictionary, but that is no longer of any relevance to me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. A pity; I was looking for a thought provoking conversation and a learning experience; rather than "being right". I'm open to new persectives all the same.

edited 23rd Oct '15 1:03:43 PM by RPGLegend

New perspectives are one thing, and I do not mind looking for those outside of this thread. Here, however, doing that just derails the thread into a weird direction and makes it harder to actually reach general consensus on what actually is the case.

I don't use the words that are trope names to mean what they mean on this site, outside of it. However, when the words become a name of a trope, they start meaning exactly what the trope means when you are talking about the tropes. That is why I'd objected to your free-minded redefining of what the words meant. Anywhere else it would have been fine, but right here and now it was ... well, kind of improper.

That being said, since I'm already derailing the whole thing, yet again I might add, I'll also add this. If we ignore the name being a trope and thus having a rigid meaning and go with your definition, then yes, it could be treated as a dichotomy and explored as such; just not if the name has that rigid meaning because then the two tropes don't cover everything and aren't even really on the same axis.

This talk is so weird...But again, A Complete Monster can be complex. He can.

edited 23rd Oct '15 1:32:13 PM by KazuyaProta

This thread is veering wildly off-topic. In any case, there is a wide, wide range of villainy between the Tragic Villain trope and the Complete Monster trope. Hell, in the case of Tragic Villain there's a whole range of villainy folded within it, that starts at Anti-Villain and works its way up.

The idea that I have a personal definition is just a straw man, which I would be grateful if you stopped becaus it's just misleading. My view is that humanization is the cause of subjectivity . There's quite a difference between both.

edited 23rd Oct '15 2:14:28 PM by RPGLegend

You are doing a really, really, really bad job of explaining yourself.

Since this is your only clearly stated statement, I will respond to this. True, but you are taking this to an extreme. Humanizing a terrible villain may make someone in the audience less likely to view them as a Complete Monster, but is not guaranteed to. It also depends on the kind of other information that pertains to them. You could even tell the whole life story of a villain and have them still be a Complete Monster. And that is why it is possible for a real life person to be a Complete Monster.

Regarding on whether there is a dichotomy between the two tropes, it appears that by the trope definitions that there would be, but I could imagine that there could be some overlap depending on how a character is interpreted.

edited 23rd Oct '15 5:53:44 PM by shiro_okami

Real life CM examples are actually forbidden by the wiki, so I'm not sure there's a lot to gain from this discussion of if a real person can qualify.

As far as I see it, there's nothing that says real people can't qualify.

The problem lies with what being eligible means about one's character, and the potential consequences of applying it to someone who is not already dead but rather still very much alive, and the resulting flame wars as people tend to be quite opinionated about things of this sort. Not to mention the many people who'd think it a good idea to add whatever latest popular politician to the list if those examples were allowed, which is pretty much vandalism but we can't deny that there would be people doing that.

I hate to break this to you, but literally everyone has personal definition. We all put somewhat different connotations on the wording, even if we use a literal denotation (which we for the most part don't).

This sentence is Chewbacca Defense-level nonsense.

While forbidden by the wiki for whatever reason, art imitates life or attempts to. There's plenty to be had in the discussion of it doing so or failing to do so.

edited 24th Oct '15 9:14:12 PM by Night

It is, in fact, against the rules. If you would like to test that, go to the Clean-Up Thread and ask about it. The ban was put in place on the basis that a) we are incapable of knowing every single thing that an actual person has done or of getting inside of their heads and b) that finding an actual human being who has never once, in their life, done anything decent, is virtually impossible.

Now, as Night has pointed out, a rule against posting them doesn't mean you can't get some value out of talking about the idea here. That said since there isn't a single real life example posted anywhere on the wiki, any examples you cite are going to be even more subjective than usual.

I don't want to start ranting at you because that would be pointless so I'll say this: you are reading into it wrong. When thinking about whether or not, hypothetically, a real person can be a "complete monster", we do not care about whether or not it is banned on this site but rather about whether or not it is a possibility in the world somewhere. And there aren't any rules of the world that say something banned by TV Tropes by default cannot exist.

The ban was put there to avoid gratuitous flames, because we really do not need those at all. And the very fact that there is a ban in the first place means that, the ban aside, a real person qualifying for the title is indeed a real possibility. Whether anyone would is another matter entirely, and obviously even if someone did qualify we wouldn't add them because of the ban, but there really, as far as the world itself is concerned, is nothing that says no real person could qualify.

So really, "oops".

It really isn't. Again, the ban on real life examples is not there to stop flame wars. The Clean-Up Thread handles potential flame wars. The ban on real life examples is there because, once again, to actually be a CM you must have no redeeming traits whatsoever and have never had any good intentions and when dealing with real people proving that is a virtual impossibility.

People aren't archetypes, and no real human being is likely be a provable CM.

If you apply the CM trope to a person in real life, then it ceases to be a trope but rather just something you're calling someone you hate, fear, and are repulsed by. Human beings shouldn't get to categorize other human beings as though they were characters or storytelling devices. In the end, either we're all Complete Monsters or none of us are, and I choose to believe the latter. There are irredeemably horrible people in the world to be sure, but that doesn't make them Monsters devoid of redeeming qualities or having done good deeds at some point in their lives.

As far as the original topic goes, the answer is that it depends. I'll enjoy a well written Tragic Villain more than a poorly written Complete Monster, and a well written Complete Monster than a poorly written Tragic Villain.

I'll just say that I still disagree with you on that, Ambar Son Of Deshar; your argument once again does not convince me and at this point I am quite certain that either I am doing a rather bad job at explaining what I mean, or you are doing the same about seeing what I mean, and quite frankly I do not think either of us needs to waste time on trying to get to the heart of the issue when we can just agree to disagree and leave it be.

So that is that from me on that particular issue, unless you really want to continue that (which I presume you do not).