Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Isn't it supposed to be?

Well, it's not too bad of an image.

But I still don't know how to get them on the page.

@Overlord: We may have never done a formal effortpost on him (though again, those really aren't the be-all-end-all of things), but Baron Zemo was discussed not that long ago, IIRC, and the conclusion was that there was too much Silver Age goofiness mixed with his legitimately evil actions for him to count. Though he could theoretically easily be reinterpreted in an adaption as a CM, at least if they didn't go with the obvious choice of subbing in the Red Skull.

I think a common mistake in this thread is confusing discussing someone in an off hand manner and discussing someone indepth.

When Zemo was brought up before, it was only in the context of his Silver Age Avengers appearances, there was no mention of his actions in various Thunderbolts flashback issues, his appearance in Nick Fury and his Howling Commandoes, his actions in Zemo Born Better and his actions in Captain America: The Medusa Effect. Those flashback issues make his rap sheet way bigger, which is why I am only ready to do an effort post on him now, it took a while to track some of this stuff down.A lot those comics happened way after the Silver Age and his appearance in Nick Fury was a Silver Age appearance and that had him commit mass murder on a hundreds, if not thousands of German civilians. I think you can make a case for this guy if you put all his appearances actions and the flashback issues often give him some act of personal cruelty.

Edit: No offense, but I don't think it is remotely fair to dismiss discussion on a character who has been discussed before, but not in an indepth manner. You can't make an informed decision that way. I don't think we should ever dismiss discussion on a character if we have not discussed all the facts about them.

The point of an effort post is to discuss everything relevant about the character and I see no reason to oppose one on Heinrich Zemo, otherwise what is the point of effort posts in the first place?

edited 19th Oct '16 1:39:28 PM by Overlord

Here's the write-up I have of the Traitor in the Comes the Hero haunt from Betrayal at House on the Hill

• The Traitor from the haunt Comes the Hero is the human servant of a resident of Hell. Longing for immortality, the Traitor makes a deal that, in exchange for keeping their immortality, the Traitor will open up the gate to Hell, allowing the forces of Hell to enter the human world, destroying it. The Traitor brings their friends to the mansion, with the intention of murdering one of them to use as a human sacrifice. If the Traitor succeeds in performing the ritual and opening up the gate, the forces of Hell will begin to destroy the human world as the Traitor notes how sweet the screams of terror sound, enjoying how they can watch the carnage while being completely unharmed by it.

edited 19th Oct '16 1:48:58 PM by Awesomekid42

Say, Lighty, weren't you gonna propose Cain Madhouse?

I've got an idea for the Ace Attorney monster page since Redd White is on the page, why don't we have him using The Thinker and Mia on the ground dead with the caption "These characters will even kill your beloved mentor!" I could link the images if you guys agree.

So, I reserved discussion for Logan. I'm primarily interested in seeing the film since according the cast, Mister Sinister, Donald Pierce and Zandar Rice (all of whom are C Ms on X-Men) are showing up in the film.

edited 20th Oct '16 5:45:08 PM by Clown-Face

Anyway, I'll make the effort post on the other two traitors from Betrayal at House on the Hill that I had in mind. The first traitor is from the haunt Voodoo

Who are they? What do they do?

The traitor from Voodoo haunt, which will be the character who has the highest knowledge (unless a specific character named Zoe Ingstrom is in play. In that case, she'll be the Traitor, and I'll just refer to the Traitor as Zoe for now) is a doll-maker who creates dolls in the likeness of her "friends", and stealthily takes some of their essence to make them into voodoo dolls.

One of the explorers finds a journal owned by Zoe when the haunt begins. The explorer finds that the journal has multiple pictures of dolls with a big red X mark on them. The explorer then notices that the last couple of pictures are of dolls of the explorer and the explorers friends that are with him/her in the mansion, with the exception of Zoe, and notices that they haven't been crossed out...yet.

Zoe has been befriending people for the sole purpose of making voodoo dolls to kill them since before the haunt has began. The rest of the explorers are her newest victims. She hides the voodoo dolls around the mansion in areas that will slowly torture the victims of them (with the exception of one specific doll, where if the player fails the roll, that doll will be pushed off a window and the character will die instantly.) This ranges from slowly being burnt alive, slowly suffocating, being slowly driven to madness by mysterious dark forces, or getting impaled by thorns. The explorers must destroy their own voodoo dolls (apparently, if they destroy their own voodoo dolls, they won't die) to survive.

If the player who's playing as Zoe (or whoever the Traitor is in this case) killed more than half of the other players, that player wins the game, the other explorers are killed, even the ones who destroyed their voodoo dolls, and she happily flips through the pages of photos of her other victims before crossing off the explorers. She enjoys the feeling of satisfaction, but it's short-lived. She then decides to go find new "friends".

Heinous by the standards of the story?

Outdone by the immortality seeker I mentioned previously, but she doesn't have access to the armies of Hell. She's one of the handful of traitors who was already a serial killer before the haunt even began, having an entire scrap-book filled with pictures of her victims, and even if she fails to kill anybody in the particular haunt, her previous victims shows that she has one of if not the highest body count out of all traitors in the game that aren't dependent on winning the round or not.

Freudian Excuse?

None.

Any other mitigating factors?

The person who's playing as the traitor has to let the other players know if they're in the correct room where their doll is, and to give hints of where their specific doll is, giving the other players a fair chance. But this kind of screams Gameplay and Story Segregation considering how this happens even if the traitor is on an entirely different floor than the person who's receiving the hints. I also don't think it would be much even if the traitor gave them the hints in universe since that wouldn't be so much as standards as making things entertaining.

Final Thoughts?

Now for the other traitor. This one I take note of because this haunt has little to no supernatural elements in it as well as the characters all being family members in this particular haunt.

Who are they? What do they do?

The Traitor in the haunt A Little Night Murder, which will be the player who failed the haunt roll that triggers this haunt, is one of the relatives of the wealthy Old Man Presticott. After Presticott's death by falling from a flight of stairs, the lawyer reads his will and tells the family that everybody except for the Traitor will be receiving part of Presticott's fortune. Presticott and the Traitor hated each other. Maybe that's why Presticott wasn't surprised when he found out that the Traitor was the one who pushed him to his death.

The other family members will receive Presticott's fortune if they spend a whole night in the mansion. The Traitor makes a plan with the servants. Because they'll receive the fortune if the other family members don't receive it, they decide to spend the whole night trying to murder the other family members, with the Traitor acting as their leader. S/He's willing to murder his family all for the sake of money kind of makes him stick out in my eye.

If the Traitor wins, and the other family members are murdered, s/he thanks the servants for their help...by poisoning their drinks so that they''ll all die. That way the Traitor will get the fortune all to themself despite his promise to share the fortune with the servants.

Freudian Excuse?

He and Old Man Presticott hated each other...that's it. Nothing about the reason why they hated each other (and judging by the Traitor's willingness to murder his family, killing Presticott even before the Traitor found out what the will was, odds are Presticott had a good reason) or if the Traitor was treated poorly by the family. Just a greedy selfish member of the family who'll kill anybody who gets in their way of fortune.

Any other mitigating factors?

Nope.

Heinous by the standards of the story?

This one I'm not quite as sure on as I was with the Traitor of Voodoo. Killing your family and all of the servants who helped you is certainly more heinous than the average traitor in most scenarios who typically will only kill the explorers who aren't their family members in those situations, and nothing else, but with how far short this one comes out in comparison to the traitors of Comes the Hero and Voodoo, I'm not quite as sure.

Final Thoughts?

Slight to A Little Night Murder traitor. S/He's effectively just a regular human as opposed to the two traitors with super-natural powers I proposed, and murdering your family definitely strikes me as more heinous than the average antagonist of this game.

edited 19th Oct '16 3:27:45 PM by Awesomekid42

to Zoe Ingstrom and the other traitor.

Traitors, I think.

Has the Decepticon Justice Division from Transformers: More than Meets the Eye been proposed? All the members (except for The Pet and Nickel) qualify, as evidenced by their character page here.

First, the link to the character page didn't work (at least it didn't for me. Thankfully your link to the main page did). Second it's not only about having no redeeming qualities. It's about if they're above the standard in heinous levels. For example, that Forestock character doesn't seem to have anything redeeming, but nothing on his page strikes me as him being monstrous. Third, you don't have to ask if they've been discussed. I've made this mistake plenty. There's a search bar for you to look it up. If it looks like it hasn't been discussed, do an effort post on it.

Finally, it looks like none of them count because of this tidbit.

• Band of Brothers: Their loyalty to the Decepticon cause is matched only by their loyalty to each other.

edited 19th Oct '16 5:26:57 PM by Awesomekid42

Groups do not and cannot count. If you think a particular character counts, effortpost them individually.

the other traitors

I have something I'd like to suggest two for the quotes page. They're both from Dr. Gedouin from Blue Exorcist.

Welcome, unsightly cockroaches. I am the head of this Illuminati eastern research facility...Michael Gedōin. How dare you invade my sanctuary. This is the sanctuary of the experiments on the Elixir of Immortality! Those who invade the sanctuary deserve only death! I will make you fully understand the extent of your sin. I will exterminate every last one of you!

— Chapter 59, introducing himself to the cast.

I don't. I haaaate humans! Surely you know that you use various animals in your scientific experiments. You slaughter other beings in order to live. That's the kind of living creatures humans are! Shouldn't you use your own selves in the first place? Humans using humans in experiments, this is only fair!

— Chapter 59, after Rin asks him if he thinks his experiments are ethical.

edited 19th Oct '16 6:18:40 PM by Animeking1108

First one doesn't strike me as that monstrous. He's pissed that people are trespassing and is going to kill them for it. Doesn't even hint at his sadism or how inhumane his experiments are.

Second quote is a little better I guess, but more about summing up his own views rather than making him come off as monstrous IMO.

to the Bishop, Mengdu, and all three traitors.

For the DJD, their leader Tarn was discussed a while back and ruled not to be a keeper.

Anyways, time for that candidate. This one comes back all the way from the 1930s - 1933, to be exact. Our candidate originates from Murders in the Zoo, a film about - what else? - murders in a zoo. The murderer? In the spirit of Halloween, here's our man Eric Gorman.

Who is Eric Gorman? What has he done?

Eric Gorman is a millionaire zoologist and big-game hunter involved with bringing back a plethora of wild animals to a zoo he's helping to fund. He's a smart fellow, but he's also very, very possessive. Not of any animals, mind you, but of his unfaithful wife, Evelyn Gorman, who's seeking divorce for the arms of another man. Eric is violently protective of his wife, and the film opens with just what he does to any potential rivals to his marriage... on an expedition in the Indo-China area after learning one of his colleagues kissed Evelyn, Eric literally stitched the man's lips together in a scene regarded among the most brutal in 1930s cinema, tied his arms back, and left him out in the wilderness to be killed and eaten by wild animals, which befalls the man not a day after Eric leaves him out. The news is disclosed to Eric on his way back, to his hidden satisfaction.

Eric heads back via boat alongside his wife Evelyn back to the US, where Eric quickly picks up that Evelyn's in a covert relationship with another man, named Roger Hewitt. Eric quickly devises a plot to rid himself of Roger; he manufactures himself a snake head loaded with a generous dose of green mamba venom, has a anti-venom made just in case (this'll come back to bite him in the ass later), and, once he arrives back in the US, arranges with the zoo's publicity manager - Peter Yates - to host a feast commemorating the animals he's brought back. Eric invites Roger to the feast and has him sat next to Evelyn, directly ahead of him. As the festivities go on, Eric uses the mamba head to fatally poison Roger and puts the blame on an escaped mamba. The feast falls into chaos and Eric and Evelyn go back home as the zoo is put under lockdown. Evelyn, however, isn't exactly inclined to believe just any snake bit Roger under the circumstances, and accuses Eric of murdering Roger. Eric denies the accusations, at first, but when Evelyn locks Eric in his room and sees, through a window, him tucking away the mamba head, Evelyn panics, takes the mamba head, and rushes over to the local scientist, Dr. Woodford. Eric stops her in the middle of her approach to Woodford's house and admits to the murder, and starts making domineering advances onto the unwilling Evelyn. When Evelyn exclaims she intends to expose Eric for the murders, Eric tosses her over the bridge they're standing on without a second thought and watches with vague pleasure as his wife is torn apart by alligators.

The remains of Evelyn's dress are fished out by two boys who sneak into the zoo, and Eric continues to act the part of grieving husband, having the zoo shut down and intending on having Woodford arrested for criminal negligence (for context, here? Eric's essentially trying to have a completely innocent man arrested for his own murders for just about no goddamned reason - Woodford hasn't even presented much of an obstacle to Eric at this point in time). Woodford, however, discovers something; the bite marks that killed Roger fail to meet up with the bite marks of a common green mamba. Woodford calls Eric over and accuses Eric of killing both Roger and his wife by putting two and two together. Once Woodford makes the error of prattling on to the man he knows is a dangerous killer instead of, say, calling the police, Eric uses the mamba head to poison Woodford as well. To create a convincing seen, Eric takes the actual green mamba they've been storing, bludgeons it to death, and puts it near Woodford's dying body, calling over Woodford's assistant/daughter(?) to help create a more convincing scene. The assistant, however, picks up pretty quickly the scenario is a ruse, and gives Woodford a timely injection of the anti-venom that just saves his life. Eric, incensed, swiftly attempts to kill her, and in response the assistant swiftly bats him off and has the police called, leading to a group of cops to chase Eric into the closed zoo. To make his escape easier, Eric pulls a switch which lets out all the dangerous animals he's been enclosing. Bad move on his part... he fends off the cops but the animals go right after him after a bit of simply attacking each other, causing Eric to flee for his life obliviously right into the exhibit of an anaconda. Three guesses as to what happens next.

Any mitigating factors?

No. Eric's attachment to his wife is, again, a classic case of psychopathic possessiveness that bears no real love on his part. He says "everything I've done I've done because I love you" but I don't think that sentiment bears any honesty considering Eric essentially tries to force himself onto her even when it's clear Evelyn despises his guts and tosses her to be torn apart by alligators without a second of hesitation when it's clear she's no longer going to sit quietly. Evelyn is a possession to him, so pass on that department.

As for heinousness... I'm not going to act like three murders, another two attempted, and some collateral damage is exactly the be-all and end-all of all heinous crimes, but keep in mind this was back in the 1930s where Eric's kinds of crimes were notably disturbing for the time period (pre-Code or not). And disturbing his crimes are; two of Eric's murders are an of especially grisly sort and it's clear he's willing to commit murder a hundred times over with no guilt on his part so long as it benefits him in the end. With both that and Eric's low resources in mind (he's a millionaire but about the most exotic he ever gets is a few nifty plans and his little snake head) I'd say Eric more than comfortably passes the baseline at the least.

There aren't any other factors to disqualify Eric. He's got a good facade as a normal man - all faked, of course - and admires animals more for their savagery than as actual beings. The film makes no attempt to humanize him, he's a clear sadist (evident by his wicked smile when he forces his wife into the alligator pit), he hasn't an inkling of any remorse on his part, and I think he's a stand-out for the era.

Conclusion?

I'd say Eric counts.

Thoughts?

edited 19th Oct '16 7:50:31 PM by Scraggle

Eric Gorman.

Eric.

Eric

@ De Carta We are not voting on the bishop anymore. Lighty, Scraggle, and Ravok made excellent points of why he doesn't count (even if they might not fully convince me).

edited 19th Oct '16 7:51:43 PM by emperors

to Eric

So few things I am gonna inform;

First a question; does anybody object for me to request adding images that I proposed? If not, I will propose them tomorrow.

Secondly, I decided to watch some WWII movies that take place in the Pacific. We have so many Nazis and I think it is finally time to look for some Imperial Japan candidates. The movies I am particularly interested in are City Of Life And Death, Black Sun: Nanking Massacre, as well as The Great Raid. If any of those movies have candidates, please let me know.

Finally, I recently ordered a new movie called Valley of the Wolves: Iraq. It is about Abu Ghraib incident in Iraq War. Warning to some people; the movie is super Anti-American! And apparently the Big Bad is a US soldier who is a fanatical Christian and enjoys killing civilians. Expect an effort-post on Tuesday.