Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

If I recall (been awhile since I read through YYH), wasn't Sakyo said to be responsible for all (or a good number) of the evil deeds in Chapter Black that eventually led Sensui to decide that Humans Are the Real Monsters and plot to turn the world into a literal Hell on Earth?

Sakyo and Younger Toguro were definitely in cahoots to swindle Tarukane, but that doesn't mean that Tarukane can't be a monster in his own right. The issue I have is that there's no particular defining evil deed that stands out to me (his "pets" don't really qualify, and his attempts to bring Yukina to tears before the Toguro brothers get involved are more Offscreen Villainy).

edited 8th Jul '13 12:57:53 PM by DriftingSkies

I'm not aure. I don't recall if he was involved with what Shinobo saw or not.

In the anime, he is. He's shown presiding over the 'party' Shinobu busted.

However, while Sakyo and Toguro were in cahoots, Tarukane was manipulated only in the sense of "Get the Team Urameshi here, then take a dive." Toguro never suggests anything to Tarukane. Tarukane comes up with his nastiness all on his own. Just because Sakyo takes advantage of him being a stupid complete monster, it doesn't mean he isn't one.

however, the torture is not offscreen villainy in the anime. We see flashbacks of him torturing Yukina physically, Kuwabara sees the flashbacks of him doing other things, and he basically tells the Toguro brothers to torture her and force her to cry with explicit approval of what the Elder does to the birds.

Then there's the fact he had the guy who tried to save her gunned down and later taunts her about it. Quite onscreen.

edited 8th Jul '13 1:17:53 PM by Lightysnake

My issue is he seems to know it's wrong, but can't stop, and there is the affection he shows for the girl(I can't spell her name) in the Dark Tournament arc.

I don't think that's a disqualifier in of itself. Sakyo never really shows remorse, just awareness of what a monster he is. It lends a new depth to him, and he realizes nothing happened to make him what he is.

But his affection for Shizuru isn't fake. He seems genuinely protective of her and he's real rattled when she sees him before his suicide, before giving her his lighter and wishing her farewell.

sorry to interupt this discussion but Yami Marik/Melvin is listed for Yughio Abridged, should we cut him?

I say yes. Way too Played for Laughs.

I'm sort of appalled you even need to ask.

It's never wrong to ask, especially for this trope/thread.

In other cases, yes. But there isn't a proverbial snowball's chance in hell a character like that would qualify. I don't think discussion is really needed in this case.

@lightysnake: The new entries for the characters from Neverwhere look good to me. The new Babylon 5 entries also look good. Just put in Saiya Man's grammar tweaks in and it should be good to go.

@14342: Agree with pretty much all of those decisions, but, unless there are some redeeming qualities to her not mentioned, it sounds like Emi counts too. Also the latter half of the Medusa entry should be unspoiled.

@14376: A character can't qualify as both a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds and a Complete Monster. If you're going to argue that Porky counts as a Complete Monster you'd have to prove he isn't a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds. Any time a character is listed as both tropes then one of the tropes is being misused.

@14380: Keep Grace, cut the others and despoil the entry.

Re Sons Of Anarchy: I'm fine with cutting all of those characters from Sons Of Anarchy except for O’Phelan. Stahl sounds like she never really gets out from under the shadow of her past redeeming qualities and doesn’t sound heinous enough. The rest have redeeming qualities. O’Phelan’s really the only one who sounds bad enough to qualify.

Re Wonder Woman: Yeah, cut Genocide for no moral agency. I also agree that Alkyone doesn't count for this trope. She sounds bad but compared to what others have done (Dr. Psycho, Genocide, Ares, etc.), she doesn't really sound like she meets the heinous standard. I mean if non-CM Cheetah can cannibalize a kid and not count, I don't see how Alkyone's attempted murder of an infant can be any more heinous. Throw in possibly being influenced by Genocide's soul in her next appearance and I'm just not sure she qualifies.

Re Monster.Yu Yu Hakusho: Agree with the cuts and keeps lighty proposed @14431.

edited 8th Jul '13 4:59:25 PM by OccasionalExister

Didn't we have a rule some place that a character can't count if their evilness is Played for Laughs?

Yes. Keep in mind, a villain CAN still be Laughably Evil and a CM (key example: The Joker).

I do need to point out that Cheetah cannibalizing a kid might very well be idle boasting on her part. She never even approaches doing something like this onscreen and it's directly at odds with her. She's nasty and doesn't hesitate to kill people when she's caught up in bloodlust, but she does have standards and is a Fallen Hero in some of her appearances

If it's only said, doesn't it count as Offscreen Villainy anyway?

Didn't Genocide also kill kids though? At the end of the day, I'm just not seeing how Alkyone stands out in the heinous department.

By the way, an example was added for Film.The Lone Ranger without being brought up here first: Butch Cavendish. Now, having seen the movie, I completely agree he counts, but since he wasn't brought up here first, should I remove him until the forum makes a decision on him? I'd be more than willing to eventually bring up the arguments for his inclusion, but since the movie came out only five days ago I'd be willing to wait two weeks as per usual when a new movie, book, etc. comes out.

edited 8th Jul '13 6:27:52 PM by OccasionalExister

Re: Yu Yu Hakusho examples: for Elder Toguro, Gonzo Tarukane, Dr. Ichigaki, and Mukuro's Stepfather. for all the rest.

I'd actually say cut Tarukane, keep Sakyo. It's pretty clear through Tarukane's arc that he's Sakyo's Unwitting Pawn.

I'm with Lightysnake in saying...so? Sakyo didn't make him do any of his heinous actions: he would've done them all regardless and was doing them before Sakyo ever started his plan. He just happened to be playing into Sakyo's hands at the time of the arc, especially by hiring the Toguro brothers. But kidnapping and torturing Yukina in the first place? And killing the guy who tried to rescue Yukina, then using that as a psychological grip on Yukina? All him. Hell, even calling up his fellow gangsters to take wagers on human and demon lives was his idea, rather than Toguro's or anyone elses. Sakyo benefitted from that because he's a Magnificent Bastard who knew Tarukane would do that given his nature. Also, he was arguably somewhat more heinous that Sakyo in that Sakyo was a clear-cut psychopath who wanted to exploit demon world for his own ends, whereas Tarukane was much less insane: he was doing everything for pure greed.

Then there's the fact he had the guy who tried to save her gunned down and later taunts her about it.

"Taunting" is pratically an understatement here. He essentially tells her that "people die because of you. You're worthless in anything except making me rich!" Basically, he commits murder on his own ex-lackey and uses this as deliberate means to Break the Cutie. As Kuwabara says, it's despicable and inhumane.

@ACW: Y'know, I'm getting so sick of having to go over the difference between Played for Laughs and Laughably Evil.

edited 8th Jul '13 6:43:00 PM by AnewMan

@ACW, there's a difference between the villian finding it funny, and it actually being played for laughs. The Joker is the former. Generally, even though he's trying to play his crimes for laughs, the writer isn't and uses the dissonance to make more horrific and creepy. This can go for many villians, I was talking about Black Comedy where it's actually meant as funny by the writer.

edited 8th Jul '13 7:20:29 PM by shoboni

Catch-22

• Complete Monster: Aarfy. Among the novel's nastier characters, Milo really can't be defined by human morality and Colonel Cathcart is so over-the-top he becomes funny. This guy has no excuse. He's a serial rapist who kept one of his victims locked up in a closet for an hour before just murdering her outright, and enjoys bragging about his, ahem, "conquests". When a loophole in military policy allows him to pull a Karma Houdini, Yossarian realizes that the United States Air Force really is corrupt beyond redemption.

I can't tell whether or not the entry is calling the Air Force a CM.

Did we ever discuss these Castlevania examples?

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

• Complete Monster: Satan, natch; he manipulates every atrocity in the game just to try to get back into heaven, and during his final clash with Gabriel, he repeatedly tries to break him, first by trying to appeal to his doubts and fears, then by promising to do horrible things to Marie. His ultimate demise is surprisingly much more satisfying than Dracula's. Zobek may or may not qualify, given that he was being manipulated, but he still did some pretty nasty things.

Castlevania: Rondo of Blood

• Shaft, an evil priest who is responsible for the bloody resurrection of Dracula and the kidnapping of the Distressed Damsel below to sacrifice for the vampire lord.

There's a difference between the villain finding it funny, and it actually being played for laughs. The Joker is the former. Generally, even though he's trying to play his crimes for laughs, the writer isn't and uses the dissonance to make more horrific and creepy. This can go for many villains, I was talking about Black Comedy where it's actually meant as funny by the writer.

The problem is, and this is what we keep running into, that audiences do find things the Joker says and does to be funny. Writers don't play his worst actions for laughs, and his actions get no laughs from anyone other than him in-universe, but he's still a constant source of Black Comedy. (The pencil trick, anyone?) And that's where the confusion comes from. Someone will say "X is not a Complete Monster 'cause he's too funny and comedic! A Complete Monster cannot be Laughably Evil", then someone else will say "But The Joker or Kefka are Laughably Evil." And I'm always thinking that we'll eventually reach the moment where Joker and Kefka get cut from the trope for failing this supposed "no comedy" criteria. People have got to learn the difference: Played for Laughs = being treated as a joke in-universe (a heinous deed is committed, and none of the other characters really care), Laughably Evil = a villain who is evil and seen as such in-universe, but has traits that make him or her amusing to the audience (all other characters will hate this guy for his heinous deeds, but out of universe, he'll have a fan following because of being so entertaining).

If Xykon isn't cut, we are in NO danger of losing villains for being funny.

I remember hearing HUGE debates over Xykon's qualification in the past, though. People were all "he's Played for Laughs. He doesn't count!", very much like with these Abridged series villains. I don't know Xykon, so I can't say whether or not he does. But it just shows that this controversy existed before and still does.

For Melvin I will say that no, he doesn't count since, for all his attrocious behaviour, the other characters do not show him the level of fear, hate, and disgust that their original canon counterparts showed to Yami Marik for his crimes, since they're dubbed over to say whatever instead. They all just hate him for being the bad guy, which is pretty standard. Therefore, whenever Melvin says or does something monstrous, it's usually meant as a big joke. THAT is being Played for Laughs versus being a Laughably Evil Complete Monster.

Why are we even having this discussion? It's long been established policy that Laughably Evil villains can count for this trope. Now, telling the difference between that and Played for Laughs can be more difficult sometimes (and I tend to err on the side of caution when dealing with works I don't know), but the basic rule is not in doubt.

I want to propose cutting Ashnard from Monster.Fire Emblem

Why? He's a heinous and evil villain, but at the same time, there is at least one scene that presents him in a sympathetic light. It involves some commoners talking about how Ashnard wasn't so bad to the common folk living in Daein, and how even a commoner could, if he were strong and dedicated enough, eventually rise to knighthood, something impossible in other beorc nations (notably Begnion) due to the nobility and various nepotism. In that vein, several of the common folk looked upon him sympathetically, especially looking back given how under Begnion rule, their overlords were enslaving the men and essentially trying to crush Daein's spirit and destroy them as a people and a country,

Yeah, that's not sympathy. Ashnard wants to create a world where the weak die, so all those commoners would get devoured by the system he wants.

Ashnard lets any person advance in his ranks, not out of nobility, but Pragmatic Villainy in he wants the best army he can.

There's no rule a villain has to be a cackling psychotic who never does anything smart. He's a psychotic egomaniac who only thinks those with strength deserve to live and rule.

edited 8th Jul '13 9:07:21 PM by Lightysnake