Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster get usage counts
edited 15th Jan '13 1:45:24 PM by Fighteer
edited 15th Jan '13 1:45:24 PM by Fighteer
- What is a Complete Monster?: A Complete Monster is the most heinous villain by the standard of the story, with no positive traits (including redemption or motives) whatsoever.
- Why is this trope No Real Life Examples, Please!?: Because as the strongest Evil Trope, it's also the most controversial. Calling a real person evil is just asking for trouble, and there is no such thing as a 100% evil person or thing in real life. Not even Hitler.
- Is the capacity for making moral choices required for Complete Monster?: Yes. Someone who is controlled by someone else, programmed, or an animal is not a candidate. Similarly, an elemental force of evil cannot be said to be exercising moral choices; it does what its nature demands of it.
- What tropes do not go in Complete Monster?: You Monster! is a statement of an individual character's standards, not the story's. Nightmare Fuel and The Scrappy are about "scary" and "disliked", not "heinous".
- But what if Word of God declares the character a Complete Monster?: That is insufficient. While the author may have intended the character to qualify, this does not mean that they presented the character as a Complete Monster successfully.
- Then what good are statements in-canon or by the creator about their Complete Monster status?: Statements such as these are suggestions that we may have a Complete Monster candidate on our hands, but they cannot be offered as proof. We essentially take them as nominations, but we let their deeds speak for themselves.
- Does Offscreen Villainy count?: Never. It needs to be shown or else it's not intended as a CM. "Evil actions" cannot be an Informed Attribute. Gory Discretion Shot can still count, though. Show, Don't Tell applies here.
- What do audience reactions mean for this trope? What if the character is also listed as The Woobie or The Scrappy or has Narm or some other Audience Reaction listed?: They don't mean much. The trope concerns itself only with in-story portrayal, and audience responses at variance with portrayal do happen rather frequently. An example which gets compassion or laughter or other normally incompatible audience responses will require extra scrutiny, though.
- Do they have to succeed at what they try to do in order to count?: No, success is not a component of Complete Monster. After all, heroes succeed in fiction more often than not. What they consciously attempt to do is what matters.
- What if they do something that they didn't intend?: Generally, this doesn't count. What was done by accident is not enough. However, if the character finds out what they did by accident and is shown to be pleased at what happened, they may still qualify for that action.
- Can a group be listed under Complete Monster?: No. Groups lack moral capacity - only individuals have that. It is theoretically possible for each individual member of a group to qualify, but they most be shown and described as such individually.
- So just what does "heinous by the standards of the story" mean, anyway?: There are two parts to this. One - regardless of whether the character would seek it out, is it possible for the character to seek forgiveness for what they've done (in other words, is it truly heinous)? Two - are this character's deeds not eclipsed by anyone else (in other words, is it heinous by the standards of the story)?
- Can there be more than one Complete Monster per work?: Yes. However, each candidate must stand out in terms of kind or degree of villainy. A CM is always remarkable in some way, and second place doesn't count if both characters are in the same race.
- Okay, so the thread voted to keep a particular example off of the Complete Monster pages. Can it still go on the work pages?: No. This is against wiki policy for any trope - it either belongs on all appropriate pages, or it belongs on none of them.
- Sheesh, the policy is kind of draconian. What if the example is put up with an acknowledgement that it's only arguably an example?: No. Examples Are Not Arguable is also wiki policy on every page, not just this one.
- Alright, point made. What about an Alternate Character Interpretation that isn't explicitly refuted in the work itself?: No. The arguments for inclusion do not involve possibilities. We are only judging based on what's in-canon.
- In-canon? So what about a version of the character in an Alternate Continuity?: If the character qualifies in one particular continuity, then they will be included, but the write-up will specify which continuity or continuities that they qualify in. Similarly, they only get listed for Complete Monster on the trope page for the continuity in which they act as one.
- In that case, how do you handle Depending on the Writer?: We cite under which writers the character is a Complete Monster, similar to the above - and we make sure to note when Retcon rears its ugly head in such cases (or not, in a couple rare cases like The Joker).
- Alright, one last one - what about when the movie version is more evil than the book version of the same character?: We treat the movie-verse as a very-close-but-subtly-different Alternate Universe. As such, if a character only qualifies for one particular adaptation, they will be listed on the appropriate page only for said adaptation.
- So, just who decides which characters are put on the page?: Well, any troper that participates in the cleanup effort. Feel free to join, if it interests you.
- How does the process work?: Well, someone brings up a possible candidate and the work in which they appear. The character is then discussed in terms of their merits and flaws and how they relate to the trope. After review, the various participants give their vote. A clear majority will cause a particular action to take place. Roughly tied votes will generally result in no action taken until a majority develops.
- So, how do I suggest an example, either to be removed or to be added?: Just post the candidate and where they are from, along with your arguments for or against their inclusion. If few people have responded, bring it up again politely after a couple of days. We're busy folks; we sometimes miss things.
- Dude, we gotta add this example from last night's episode of...: Okay, we will automatically table all discussion on a character from an ongoing series. For one, it's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of something that was just enjoyed. For another, we don't know what the writers are going to do until everything is over. We don't want to put up an example just to have to take it down when the example turns out to be much less monstrous than it first appeared.
- I don't want to be redundant - how can I tell if my example was already discussed? This is a cleanup thread that's over a hundred pages long.: Search for your example's name with "complete monster" in the "Google Site Search" field. If the example was already discussed, it'll be in the first page or two.
- Would you follow this link to see what I'm talking about?: No. For one, Weblinks Are Not Examples, which is for the third time against wiki policy. For another, the point of this thread is to craft the best entries possible for the trope pages. This means writing a concise and insightful entry that fully describes the character in question. Relying on links to others does not provide insight - it just passes the buck.
- Why even bother with all of this? Why not just Cut List the trope?: We get this way more often than we like. Several reasons.
- This is one of the wiki's top attractions outside of the site. We do like keeping all those inbound links.
- It's a legitimate trope, and one of the oldest ones out there to boot.
- There are plenty of people who like working on projects like this.
- This is doing much better than it used to be. Seriously.
Resolved ItemsPlease do not bring up characters that have already been discussed. It wastes our time. Any discussion that has been concluded is permanently shelved unless:
- A new work in the same continuity is released featuring said character (alternate continuities don't count as they are treated as separate characters. This also means that if the discussion on Character from Universe A is closed, it doesn't apply to the same character in universe B, C or D).
- The person bringing up the discussion again proves that there was evidence that was not brought up in the discussion before. If people don't use the Search Function to see if it was brought up they get a warning to start with, repeated offenses result in suspension.
Absolutely Concluded And Will Never Be Discussed AgainBelow are some perennial favorites that keep coming up. This list will be edited as needed. If you bring these up or try to add them to the respective work page (or remove them, for validated CMs), at best we'll Face Palm at you and at worst we'll outright ban you. Note that this list may include characters judged to be a CM or not to be a CM.
- The Joker
Definitely a CM
- Infinite Crisis
- Superboy-Prime: As it stands now, he has been definitively shown as a CM.
- Harry Potter
- Bellatrix: Her relationship with Voldemort isn't love, thus not disqualified. She doesn't love Voldemort himself, she views him as the embodiment of her own Fantastic Racism.
- Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
- Volgin: His "love" for Raikov is nothing but possessive desire, and does not disqualify him.
- Toy Story 3
Definitely not a CMAnime
- A Bug's Life
- Hopper: Disqualified for redeeming feature (making a promise to his mother on her death bed and actually keeping it).
- The Incredibles
- Syndrome: Disqualified for having a sympathetic backstory and failing the heinous standard.
- Wreck-It Ralph
- Turbo: Insufficiently heinous
- The Bible
- Assassin's Creed
- The Lord Regent: Disqualified for having a redeeming quality (being in love).
- Fallout 3
- Werner: Cut for failing the heinous standard. The idea that he would kill a baby is purely conjecture lacking in-game evidence.
- Fallout: New Vegas
- Mass Effect 2
- Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker
- Pokémon Black and White
- Ghetsis: Fails heinous standard.
- The Legend of Korra:
- Yakone: Fails heinous standard compared to Ozai and Unalaq.
- The Fairly OddParents
- As this is a comedy with loads of Negative Continuity, no matter how meanie-pants the characters are, they cannot qualify as CMs.
- My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic:
- Any character because it's a lighthearted kids' show and fails the heinous standard.
- South Park:
- SpongeBob SquarePants
- Any character, period, whether from the cartoon or the film. They all fail the heinous standard and it's a comedy. Yes, even Plankton, Dennis, and Mr. Krabs.
edited 18th Feb '15 9:44:14 AM by SeptimusHeap
edited 25th Oct '10 12:33:51 PM by Fighteer
edited 25th Oct '10 2:55:07 PM by 411314
- 1. Jenner
- 2. Hades
- 3. Drake
- 4. Briar Cudgeon
- 5. Gaston
- 6. Two-Face
- 7. Poison Ivy
- 8. Khan
- 9. Krudge
- 10 and 11. Lex Luthor and Nuclear Man
- 12. Megabyte
edited 25th Oct '10 7:16:45 PM by 411314
- There are a lot of nasty villains in Star Wars, but Tarkin is the only canon movie character who ever ordered an entire inhabited planet destroyed only to make a point.
- Not every imperial feared or felt disgusted by Tarkin, but as Wookieepedia puts it, "Tarkin was not remembered entirely positively within the Empire; among those Imperials unsettled by the destruction of Alderaan and the existence of the Death Star, some scapegoated Tarkin as a rogue agent whose use of the Death Star did not represent the Empire as a whole."
- The only real justification for his use of the Death Star was the Tarkin doctrine, and even then, it was completely unnecessary.
- No regret: check.
- Redemption: Tarkin never sought redemption, or thought he needed it, and it's pretty hard to imagine that happening.
- The guy literally murdered a bunch of kids in cold blood at one point.
- Even Tarkin was not 100% comfortable around him, with good reason.
- Anakin had a pretty angsty past, but still...
- No regret: Vader may well fail this one. In the prequils, Anikin certainly knew regret.
- Redemption: Seeing as he's the trope image for Redemption Equals Death, Vader fails this test.
- There are a lot of villains in The Fairly Oddparents, but Vicky's misdeeds are the driving force behind the main plotline. She abuses and picks on an eight year old For the Evulz, making him so miserable, he's selected as one of the most miserable children in the world. At some points, she's just a cruel, angry teen; later, she seems to move towards attempted murder.
- Your Milage May Vary as to her fear factor. Adults had little reason to fear her, but pretty much every character younger than Chip Skylark literally shakes with fear at the mere mention of her name, and in this show if you're not a magical being, rock star, superhero, etc., Adults Are Useless.
- Vicky's past varied Depending on the Writer, so again, it's not 100% clear. In some cases, Vicky's excuse is rather pathetic. However, in some versions of the story, Vicky actually has a medical condition that makes her evil against her will.
- No regret: in Snow Bound and The Switch Glitch Vicky seems to "get it" that child abuse is wrong, and essentially reveals to Timmy that had things gone differently they might have been friends. Post - flanderization, she is much, much less sympathetic.
- Redemption: Vicky is semi - redeemed briefly in some episodes, but these always end in Face-Heel Turn via Status Quo Is God.
- Syphile locks a child in her room for an entire week and kills a cat by bashing it against a wall in front of said child. She also tries to kill The Protagonist in a fight and assasinate her adopted mother. In her defense, in both murder attempts she challenged her victim to a duel rather than kill in an unfair fight, and the setting is a Crap Sack World.
- Syphile is absolutely hated by The Protagonist, but ~80% of the other characters in the story consider her pathetic.
- Syphile's past is a victim of a Retcon, so it's a bit fuzzy. In one non-canon story, she was raped by two older adopted sisters. It's clear she was forced to care for Ariel against her will in all continuities. And her family refused to help resolve her problems at school that led her to become The Unfavorite.
- No regret: Ironically, Syphile comes to regret nearly everything other than the major misdeeds listed above.
- Redemption: Syphile ends up rescuing another child imprisoned wrongfully, and heroically stands up to Quain, but fails miserably to redeem herself in full.
- The only character in the series who proposes a murder.
- His henchman, Sullivan, is clearly intimidated and occasionally shocked by his schemes. Even Nicodemus takes him seriously, though Jenner is a deluded fool in his eyes.
- Jenner does it for political reasons, but he also tells Sullivan that if his plan fails, bad things will happen to their people. So at least he has an argument that makes some sense on a non - completely amoral level.
- No regret: check. Not so for Sullivan.
- Redemption: nope.
- Trying to force Belle to marry him, trying to kill the beast, and being an all around Jerk Ass. He does stand out as the nastiest villain, because it's a G - rated musical.
- Dispite being a Bad Boss, the other villagers don't fear or become disgusted by him. He's a hero in the eyes of everyone but the inhabitants of the castle and Belle's family.
- His Fantastic Racism toward Beast is pretty understandable - Beast is The Boo Radley. On the other hand, his excuse for his mistreatment of Belle's family is basically that he's the best she could hope for, so why the complaining? He sees himself as helping her family.
- No regret: check.
- Redemption: nope. Disney Villain Death. Later revived on House of Mouse as the resident Large Ham and Cosmic Plaything.
- Amung Batman's foes, Ivy doesn't stand out enormously to me, since other villains in the series gleefully launch plans that would kill thousands or more. But she does at least seriously consider wiping out mankind altogether, so maybe that counts as "above and beyond" Evil with a capitol E.
- Though Baman takes her wiles very seriously, Freeze doesn't seem to fear or be disgusted by her (maybe he would if he knew everything...). The Dynamic duo seem to find her at least marginally sympathetic.
- She was mistreated, but Catwoman was treated just as badly by her Bad Boss, and her evil plan was rather less genocidal. However, Ivy's mind may have been affected by the accident, and she's arguably a Well-Intentioned Extremist.
- No regret: check, but only because she was betrayed multiple times. She regretted her enemies actions led her to genocidal action.
- Redemption: no. It's not clear if she would have been willing to consider seeking it.
- Mudering or attempting to murder or mind - control two starship crews, just to see the pain in one man's eyes. Hardly the only genocidal villain on Star Trek, but his singleminded hatred makes him stand out.
- Feared by other villains: gets the "We have won, you can stop now!" speech from his own son. Check.
- Khan has good reason to want revenge, but seriously? This is Revenge Before Reason Turned Up to Eleven.
- No regret: he does deeply regret the loss of his son, but not the deaths of innocent deck hands.
- Redemption: nope. "For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"
- Killed a freighter crew for target practice and to keep a secret, and killed Kirk's son to prove his seriousness.
- Feared by other villains: big check. However, he's so Obviously Evil it's Played for Laughs.
- His excuse is basically that he's a Klingon. Keep in mind though, that in his view Kirk is a dangerous war criminal who may intend to destroy his people.
- No regret: check.
- No Redemption: check.
- Tried to kill over a million people just to conduct a real estate scam. Of course, supes' other enemies aren't exactly angels either.
- Miss Tessmocker and Otis certainly are fearful of him. Superman takes him seriously. However he's Affably Evil, and it's Played for Laughs.
- His excuse seems to be that he's the greatest evil genious in history and has to live up to his potential.
- No regret: check.
- No redemption: check. The closest he comes is that he does suffer humiliation.
- Tries to kill Superman, and it isn' clear what his motivation is.
- Superman takes him seriously. To Lex he's just a particularly Bad Ass Mook though.
- Excuses: unclear. Arguably Nuclear Man was created to kill Superman and may have been effectively brainwashed.
- No Regret: as far as anyone can tell. He's not very talkative.
- No Redemption: check. However, Nuclear Man was defeated in part because of The Power of Love.
edited 25th Oct '10 10:25:48 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV
- He was created to be a superhuman super-soldier, then exiled for deciding to be something more than an order-taker. Basically, he's exiled the first time for being what he was made.
- After he's picked up by the Enterprize, he's re-exiled to a planet Kirk has deliberately chosen for being "barely habitable".
- Kirk's choice of a planet that will strain the abilities of the superhumans results in the death of Khan's human-normal wife.
- he does set a troll on fowl manor expecting it to kill everybody inside, but IMO that's not so much "truly horrendous" as it is a more extreme version of the What Measure Is A Non Fairy feeling most of the fairies have, and he was intending to save holly (so he could become a "hero," granted, but he wasn't actively planning for her to die). then, he started a goblin rebellion against the LEPrecon, but his intention was not to Kill 'em All, but to frame his enemies and rise as a "hero," again, so he could get awarded the commander position. personally, i don't think there's anything "truly horrendous" in his repertoire, just standard villainy.
- after his first plan fails, he ends up disfigured and gets demoted to a recycler (a fairly demeaning job). he's largely taken as a joke by the other characters for most of the second book, until his involvement in the rebellion is revealed— and even then, one could argue foaly was never actually horrified by him; scared for his life, yes, but mainly scared to be framed as a criminal, and actively trying to play on cudgeon to distract him enough to find a way to reveal the plot to the rest of the characters. and to be quite honest, his death was kind of hilarious. i mean, what are the chances?
- he wanted power (to become commander of LEPrecon), and in the second book, he wanted power + revenge. standard villainous motivation. perhaps the fact that people made fun of him because he got disfigured would count, but as it was basically his fault he got disfigured, it's hardly a justification.
- i don't think he showed any regret at any point. i might be wrong, though.
- no possibility of redemption. he dies when his evil plan is found out, basically hoisted by his own petard.
edited 26th Oct '10 8:26:35 AM by carla
John Dread, from Otherland:
- Actions: Serial rapist and sociopathic murderer, schemes to take over Otherland from his boss and when he succeeds, goes on a virtual apocalypse involving the most depraved torture and excess imaginable. Plans to inflict horrible disasters on humanity using his control of the 'Net.
- Relationships: Dread's boss, Jongleur, thinks of him as a useful tool, like a rabid attack dog, but barely recognizes him as a human. Everyone else who meets him is terrified and disgusted by him and considers him the worst thing ever. Even the psychologist who evaluated him as a child thinks he's Evil incarnate.
- Justification: He has one hell of a Freudian Excuse: his mom intentionally tortured and abused him, intending to create a sociopathic monster to unleash on the society that she hated.
- No regret: Are you kidding?
- Redemption: He gets a Fate Worse Than Death in the end, and the mere knowledge that he technically doesn't die makes the cops prosecuting his case feel as if a grave injustice was done.
Pryrates from Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn:
- Actions: Weasels his way into his king's confidence and manipulates his love for his deceased wife into making a Deal with the Devil that ultimately results in him being possessed by the Big Bad in eternal torment. Delves into the blackest of Black Magic, engineers wars and betrayals, and delights in the terror he inspires in people.
- Relationships: He is, bar none, the most despicable character in the story; everyone but him gets at the very least an Alas, Poor Villain treatment. Even the villainous humans, except his pawn King Elias, are terrified of him. The Big Bad, however, regards him as a mere mortal tool to be discarded once You Have Outlived Your Usefulness.
- Justification: His backstory is not discussed at all. The most he offers on his own behalf is that, "I am what a man who accepts no limits can become."
- No regret: He delights in evil, laughing at his enemies' fear and torment.
- Redemption: He dies horribly when he tries to turn the tables on the Big Bad for his own power.
edited 26th Oct '10 9:42:28 AM by Fighteer
edited 26th Oct '10 6:33:08 PM by Fighteer
edited 26th Oct '10 8:08:27 PM by neoYTPism