During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.
IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to everyone I missed").
No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.
We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
What is the Work
Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard
Final Verdict?
Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM
$50 a day, plus expenses
In reference to Caleb from Blood, I will have to agree that all his atrocities are done off-screen. We're simply told that him being a murdering bastard is why he was offered to join the Cabal in the first place. As well, he is loyal to his few friends and his love, Ophelia. Sure, there are innocents you can murder freely without penalty, but you aren't required to kill them.
Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm inclined to agree on Gabool's sanity. Lots of Redwall villains are crazy, but when you're doing the I Have You Now, My Pretty routine with a bell you have officially crossed the line into clinical insanity.
If my memory's right, he also kills the searat brothers Bluddrigg and Saltur pre-madness. Now, Saltur I'm inclined to give him a pass on since it was a Duel to the Death, but why does he kill Bluddrigg again?
edited 11th Sep '12 7:50:03 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Avatar by Leafsnake
@Ambar: Swartt Sixclaw looks good.
@ Footsteps: Figurines on the desk 
Cipher: I agree, cut them.
Cabel from blood, I can see him doing bad things, but as for the stuff required to do by the game, and the heinous standard, I'm saying cut.
Sadako: cut
Samara: Keep her, she's a lot more evil, and isn't portrayed as having being horrible because of her circumstances, she just is.
edited 13th Oct '12 9:47:29 PM by DrPsyche
Again, I'd like to apologize for my protracted absence - I've been very busy.
As for the current items on the table... what are they, besides the Redwall books? I have read those, but it's been a while and they're not physically with me right now, so I'm not sure how much help I can be.
Although I fully support cutting Gabool. He doesn't really hit the heinousness standard even before losing his mind.
So that's myself, Nocturna, njrxll, and Sophia Lonesoul, all in favour of axing Gabool?
edited 11th Sep '12 8:24:54 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Think of the mooks!
@3095 You keep bringing up minor stuff like hypocrisy in regards to this trope. Why should I care about how much of a hypocrite a character might be when their crimes include attempted genocide? No Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking descriptions should be used here.
That said... is Myrrah capable of showing positive qualities to members of her own species? It might be the inversion of What Measure Is a Non-Human? - simply discounting a different species in favor of your own is more along the lines of Well-Intentioned Extremist behavior (and one that many heroes partake in as well).
@3096 Don't worry about making sure that entries are longer or shorter than they used to be. Just make sure they have all the information necessary to establish that they belong, and no extraneous information that isn't about their qualifications for this trope. Some entries get longer; some get shorter. It's the way things are.
@3100 First off, there is no success component to qualification for Complete Monster. This is why we keep giving credit for attempted murder, attempted rape, and attempted genocide. So it doesn't matter if he failed.
That said, the fact that he's an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist and Played for Laughs has me think he doesn't qualify.
@3105 Well, I did bring up the entire Monster.Webcomics page in post @2894. I'd love more feedback.
Finally, since I did mostly indulge in business - @3104, technically speaking, it's a Skitty Christmas ornament and a Wailord stuffy. But since you appreciated hearing about it... here you go. Love is in the air.
The Wanderer
I think I'll have that write-up done later today. (Since it's already tomorrow.)
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.
Counting my own there are three votes for cutting Malkariss, and two for cutting Badrang the Tyrant. Does anybody have any objections? Also, I could still use an opinion on Cheesethief.
Have to agree about Myrrah. If she can show empathy to her own, she's not this trope.
edited 11th Sep '12 11:09:30 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
With Cheesethief, I think we're facing the question that's come up once or twice before: does competence affect this trope? I don't believe there's ever been a conclusive answer to this question.
The guy would never pose as much of a threat as Cluny, because he's just so utterly dumb, and therefore seems to fail the heinousness standard. But as far as actual intent goes, he's utterly devoid of positives and pretty much just as bad. Which matters more?
I'll also support the other cuts proposed - Badrang wasn't really worse then the average series villain and was probably only on here for Protagonist-Centered Morality reasons. And Malkariss didn't really do much of anything.
edited 11th Sep '12 11:55:52 PM by nrjxll
I think one thing to remember in the case of Cheesethief is that he came in at a point in the series when not all the villains were being treated as Always Chaotic Evil. Cluny had Frogblood and a couple of the others press-gang a whole lot of his army, and some of them, like Killconey and Darkclaw, do seem to have some redeeming traits (Even Bad Men Love Their Mamas and Villainous Friendship in the one case, Undying Loyalty to Cluny in the second). There's also a whole lot more characterisation in general for the badguys. By the standards of that first story, Cheesethief is pretty disgustingly evil, albeit in a far more petty and self-serving way than Cluny.
They actually make for an interesting study in contrasts—the savage warlord who doesn't care about his own troops and has an in-universe reputation as Satan in disguise, and the snivelling Dirty Coward and Neidermeyer who abuses his authority, kills people when they get in the way of his own promotion, and is essentially jerkass Up To Eleven.
Avatar by Leafsnake
@ Footsteps: Thanks for sharing the photo.
Here's my opninion of a few of those webcomics, most are based on descriptions I found on the Monster page or YMMV.
Webcomics: Order of the Stick: Xykon is the only good example. Bloodsoak has the potential to become one if she ever returns, but she's done nothing onscreen, so cut her. I find it fortunate that only Xykon was on the Subpage, but maybe the others were deleted and kept on the YMMV (To tired to search the page's history I'm afraid)
Grim Tales: From What I read, Him is the most clear cut and Oogie Boogie and Dark Danny pale in comparison. Mandy is more ambiguous, but Ultimately, I say cut her to.
The Cyantian Chronicles: Rama needs to be elaborated more on, (His raping is off panel, so no) if that is all, I say cut. Filaire and Niram: very poor examples, they just say they're similar to Rama, Similar how (i.e. what actions have the committed)? cut. Shour Rashon fails heinous standard.
Kid Radd example needs to be elaborated on in the YMMV, but the webcomic subpage entry looks good.
Dead of Summer: Alan Stone What a dick. I say keep, but get rid of the ALLCAPS
Mob Ties: Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil, keep.
Deegan: keep
Blade of Toshubi: keep Toh, Kohi doesn't list deeds.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
For Cheese, I'm reminded of Starscream from the various Transformers series - one of the nastiest Decepticons out there, but just too pathetic to quite hit monster status.
What's precedent ever done for us?
The Singing Cat
Any more thoughts on Log a Log Tugga Bruster?
I'm too old to be cute dammit
Of course Dwayne counts as a monster! There's nothing sympathetic about him at all and he has no qualms about killing someone.
That is not how we talk to people in this thread.
Murdering people isn't an auto-qualifier. You have to say why that makes him 100% evil and how he does not have one single decent quality about him.
I want to dispute the deletion of Ace Swift from Turnabout Storm:
- Complete Monster: As it turns out, Ace Swift was easily this, not having earned his reputation through being the best of the best, but rather through using any and all means to blackmail his toughest competition into giving him wins - up to and including threatening their families. In short, he's the pony version of Redd White.
- Blackmailing competitors into losing to him makes him a bit of a Jerkass, but hardly a complete monster. What really takes him into complete monster territory is what he does to Cruise Control. Basically, Cruise's sister is seriously injured, and the only hospital able to keep her alive is Canterlot. Unfortunately, Canterlot hospital is only available to nobles and celebrities. Ace pulls some strings to get her into Canterlot hospital...and holds this over Cruise's head, forcing him to compete and lose to Ace. If Cruise doesn't cooperate, Ace pulls his sister out of the only hospital able to keep her alive. In short: Ace is willing to let an innocent filly die in order to maintain his (already ill-deserved) reputation as Equestria's best athlete and earn money from the bets. It's not hard to sympathize, or even agree, with Cruise when he says he's glad that Ace is dead, and maybe give the murderer a high-five.
He's clearly across the Moral Event Horizon, he inspires disgust from his own accomplice and he showed no redeeming qualities or any indication of remorse. The only reason I can see to disqualify him is that the story starts after he's dead, making the above Offstage Villainy - but that's kind of required for an Asshole Victim and a Posthumous Character, and in my view it doesn't make characters like Samuel Ratchett and Stefan Tanzic less of a Monster.
I miss the days when "We are a buttload more informal" actually meant something.
Think of the mooks!
@3115 To expand on what @3117 said, here's the quote from the trope page:
Dwayne is not at all played seriously. This is the point that we typically gloss over the most, because we deal with dramas of various types. There's a reason that we deliberately make sure very few comedy villains land in this trope - their monstrousness is usually Played for Laughs in a comedy, which is not the reaction a true Complete Monster has.
@3116 There are plenty of people here that I find use specious logic. The answer is not to attempt a Flame War. That's against the rules, and it's not the kind of person any of us want to deal with. Use logic to take down bad points. And if you feel someone is getting ridiculous in terms of posting bad suggestions, use the Holler button and ask for a mod to intervene.
EDIT: @3118 Offscreen Villainy is one of the biggest marks we will have against someone. Quite simply, Offscreen Villainy doesn't count. If there are flashbacks that show what the character did, those will count. But it has to be shown. Straight-up admitting that the character didn't do any of that in the course of the story and never in a flashback is coming in here and admitting to those of us in this effort that the character doesn't qualify.
edited 12th Sep '12 6:39:22 AM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Okay, you're wrong on several fronts:
- He's no Redd White, he didn't take a statue and beat someone's skull in. The only similarities is that both blackmail people for their own gains.
- He threatens to have someone's sister thrown out of a hospital she's in true, which would lead to her death, but that just means he doesn't care about other people. That is not the same as killing someone with your own hooves.
- On that front; he had nothing to do with Cruise's sisters accident, so it's not his fault she's in it. And she would have died if he didn't pull those strings. So in essence all he is doing is threating to stop helping her. A horrible thing, but it's not a Complete Monster action.
And finally, every last thing you described happened entirely offscreen. Not even a flashback. Redd White brained a woman in his introduction, and the rset of his actions, while less henious, built off that. Swift...doesn't. He died in the first minute of the series.
Even though Xykon qualifies, his entry should be rewritten. Having a zombie dog kill some birds is far from heinouness standard and I don't think his method of killing the Sapphire Guard qualifies either.
Mind raping a group of innocents into slaughtering eachother while cracking sick jokes doesn't strike you as heinous?
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
Lost in Space
Xykon's evil is played for Black Comedy, but that is not intended to make it less heinous In-Universe. In Start of Darkness, as a young child he raises his pet dog as a zombie and watches with approval while it kills and eats a bird. As a teenager, he zombifies his own grandmother, murders and zombifies the man who offers to train him as a sorcerer, then murders and zombifies his parents for letting the man in.
That's all before he moves out of his parents' home and starts on the Evil Overlord business in earnest. If that doesn't qualify someone as monstrous, I'd really have to ask what your standards are.
The only reason he hasn't conquered the world by now is because he's lazy, not because he's sympathetic in any way.
edited 12th Sep '12 7:01:40 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
They are not innocent in that sense, they are his enemies. Perhaps you have a point anyway. I am no longer sure.
I can't understand why you consider hunting non-sentient animals heinous. The other things you mention are not in the entry.
I also have a nitpick about Lily Weatherwax: Believing she is heroic makes her a Tautological Templar (Edit: Or a case of Blue-and-Orange Morality). To be a Well-Intentioned Extremist she would have to be well-intentioned.
edited 13th Sep '12 3:38:13 PM by Lophotrochozoa
Lost in Space
(sigh) It's not heinous. It's designed specifically to subvert the idea that Xykon had a tragic Freudian Excuse for his adult behavior. It establishes his evil, which only escalates from there. If the entry is poorly written, I'll take a look at it and correct it when I have a chance.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
re: Redwall:
I agree that Malkariss doesn't count. He's just not at that level of heinousness.
I'm not sure that Cheesethief counts. He's just too stupid to ever be the threat level that the other characters on the list are. On the flip side, though, he is rather unrepentantly evil—even if he is rather petty about it—and that likely wouldn't change even if he were more intelligent and thus more of an actual threat.
Also with you that Badrang the Tyrant doesn't quite make the heinous standard. There's a lot of evil characters with slaves and a lot of villains who treat their subordinates poorly (pretty much every single one, actually). I suspect Badrang has the punch he does mostly because he kills an important named character who's not 1) a badger lord, 2) a hare, or 3) already old (i.e. not one of the normal classes of good guys who get killed).
Gabool the Wild: The only things we really see him do pre-madness are hold a bunch of slaves (not even that inhumanely, compared to several others), try to kill Mariel (which I'm not sure entirely counts, as she did try to kill him first, albeit for enslaving her), and psychologically torture and then try to kill Joseph because he wouldn't/couldn't give Gabool the information Gabool wanted. I'm not sure that that's enough to land him on the list. And post-madness, I think he fails the "sane enough to have a sense of right and wrong" criteria.