What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/CompleteMonster

ccoa
moderator
topic
06:36:36 PM Apr 8th 2012
Real Life examples are not and will never be allowed for this trope.

For one thing, no real human being is completely free of all redeeming qualities.

For another, real life example sections exist on probation only - the moment they cause problems like Natter, Edit Wars, or Flame Wars, they go. The Complete Monster real life examples cause all three.

Therefore, we will not have them. Don't ask or nominate anyone.
FinalStarman
09:53:29 AM Apr 23rd 2012
And another one: this trope is all about how the author wants the audience to view a character. Real Life hath no author, ergo No Real Life Examples.
Shaoken
06:43:38 AM Oct 14th 2012
That's incorrect; the author's intent is irrelevant to determining if a character is a Complete Monster.
Slimbship4
05:24:52 PM Oct 25th 2012
edited by Slimbship4
In other words, we must be cautious on instances where the author intended the character to be sympathetic but whatever we see says otherwise. Same goes for the inverse. I suppose more focus is going to be placed on how the audience thinks of the character regardless of author intent. There's a reason this trope is YMMV in the first place.
Shaoken
04:11:18 AM Mar 31st 2013
Although it's soon (relatively) going to be a main page trope since the amount of criteria and precedent on who can qualify has removed any hint of subjectivity, since Monsters are only added by concensses based on their deeds.
More
topic
07:48:14 PM Jun 15th 2014
How can you make a Complete Monster likable?
angelthread1w9
topic
04:38:01 PM Jun 8th 2014
Are you guys sure this and Woobie tropes are only tropes meant to be described by the way the audience feels about them and not what they actually are?

I mean, Ensemble Darkhorses and Scrappies seem to definitely be a matter of how famous or infamous people feel about them, or things like Growing the Beard and Jumping the Shark are a matter of when the audience thinks things got better or worse for the story in question, but these type of tropes... They kind of seem to be a pretty accurate enough description for them to be an actual trope.
Tightwire
topic
04:17:20 PM May 6th 2014
We need a link to Moral Event Horizon somewhere in the description.
SeptimusHeap
11:21:05 PM May 6th 2014
Ask here.
Furienna
topic
06:44:38 PM Feb 7th 2014
I can somewhat understand that this article is closed, but what if you want to add a new example? Because I have a good one...
SeptimusHeap
12:32:59 AM Feb 8th 2014
All discussion of this trope goes here, for the record.
Codafett
topic
04:15:40 AM Dec 3rd 2013
edited by 50.13.110.34
If Complete Monster is a YMMV trope, then why is it so exclusive and treated so seriously?
Telcontar
moderator
06:29:54 AM Dec 3rd 2013
Because "YMMV" doesn't mean "anything goes". I believe there are also plans to make it non-YMMV in the future.
Codafett
04:10:02 PM Dec 3rd 2013
edited by 50.13.110.34
Isn't that exactly what it means though? "Your Mileage May Vary" aka "You may not agree with this, but here goes anyway".
Telcontar
moderator
01:29:26 AM Dec 4th 2013
No.

Cliché Storm is another YMMV trope, but if a work has only one cliché then that work is simply not an example. If someone listed it as an example, it would be removed. If dozens of people began listing every work they found boring as a Cliché Storm, we might have to define it more strictly and vet all examples.

In the same way, Complete Monster requires certain criteria. They used to be less strictly enforced, but that led to massive misuse and people added characters who contradicted the trope description. This meant it had to become more exclusive and more discussion was needed.
Codafett
04:45:06 PM Dec 4th 2013
Doesn't really prove me wrong. But they should accelerate those plans to make this trope a Non-YMMV.
SeptimusHeap
06:35:23 AM Dec 6th 2013
There is a lot of work still to be done before we can go ahead.
Niria
07:51:01 PM Jan 21st 2014
Was this trope more misused than others? Every trope gets examples that should not have been added. As long as there are No Real Life Examples (and I agree that there should be no real life examples), it doesn't need extraordinary care IMO. I think there is sometimes too much concern here about defaming fictional characters.
SeptimusHeap
12:00:59 AM Jan 22nd 2014
Actually, "defaming fictional characters" is not the issue in the slightest. The issue is people trying to shove bad examples into Complete Monster. That exists even without a Real Life section.
Niria
06:03:46 AM Jan 22nd 2014
It's obviously always a bad thing when a trope is misused. Looking at the discussion, it seemed to me (even though I don't think I ever tried to add an example; I think I've tweaked an example or two to add context or a link or something, but that's all; so it is not about anything I want to add) as if there was much more concern about the misuse of this trope than of misuse of others.

Maybe there's a good reason for that, in that it was being misused a lot more or something. I was just concerned that it could be blown out of proportion with this trope just because it's extreme, as that consideration shouldn't make it more serious as long as there's no Real Life section.
SeptimusHeap
06:14:19 AM Jan 22nd 2014
Well, this trope attracts a lot of interest. That's why we are so strict with it. Other tropes tend to run into manpower problems if you try to handle them the way this trope is handled.
KantonKage
topic
02:42:37 PM Aug 27th 2013
Isn't this trope Darth Wiki worthy.
Shaoken
01:21:27 AM Aug 30th 2013
A cleanup effort going for three years says no.
Johnny1993
topic
12:43:28 AM Aug 20th 2013
Should the comic book version of the Joker be considered a Complete Monster? I'm pretty sure you have to be consistent to be this trope, and that's the one thing he never does.
Shaoken
04:59:19 AM Aug 26th 2013
The only thing required to be consistent is your lack of redeeming qualities, which is the one thing that has been consistant with the Joker. No matter what the main DC universe Joker is a CM because he's done so many horrific things with no redeeming qualities. Just because in some stories he acts a bit less henious doesn't change the fact that underneath it all he's still just as bad.
AidanMclaren
topic
09:40:37 PM Jul 26th 2013
I've noticed that this entry keeps getting deleted from most articles, is this a universally agreed decision or vandalism? If it's the former, what's the explanation for that?
Shaoken
10:37:07 PM Jul 26th 2013
It goes through the cleanup thread; before an example can be added to the page it has to get approval first (by consensus on whether or not it meets every criteria identified, not just the big three). Any Zero Context Examples and examples added without going through the approval process get automatically cut, any that go through the process and get passed go on the YMMV page.

We also cut down on potholes because nine times out of ten its all misuse.
Kafkaking
topic
01:54:48 AM Jul 25th 2013
Is there any way to add Karen from "the smokers" on here, she's a psychopathic cereal rapest, who claims to do it "not just for use, but all women everywhere", nearly rapes Jeremy (the nicest guy and one of the vary few likable characters in this film), she even has the gull to blame it on "men" and claims she's like Gandhi, it gets to the point were she makes Griffin from red zone Cuba look like a saint
Larkmarn
06:14:06 AM Jul 25th 2013
My god. Tony the Tiger and Cap'n Crunch better watch their backs. She already hit Snap, Crackle, and Pop.

Serious answer: Take it to this thread.
Johnny1993
topic
08:24:59 PM Jul 2nd 2013
The entry on Angra Mainyu makes him rather similar to Melkor. Wonder if Tolkein was doing that intentionally
AmbarSonofDeshar
10:38:12 PM Jan 20th 2014
Don't know, though given Tolkein's Christian leanings I doubt it.
SeptimusHeap
topic
07:02:48 AM Feb 26th 2013
Re cut request: This trope has been in much better shape thanks to the cleanup, and it has more than 2000 wicks and inbounds. Please do not cut it.
SeanMurrayI
08:27:18 AM Feb 26th 2013
There's no way a motion to cut is ever going to be granted for something THIS massive.
SeptimusHeap
02:59:08 PM Feb 26th 2013
Sinc ethe request went through and broke the page history - Webarchive
Cherry_Lover
06:12:26 AM Feb 27th 2013
What the hell happened here?

I saw this listed yesterday, but there was no button to press to say "no, don't delete this"....
Trivialgent
topic
11:16:34 AM Jan 23rd 2013
Is a single TRS discussion REALLY grounds for a team of moderators systematically going over every single topic on the entire website and getting rid of any connection between Ghetsis and the Complete Monster trope?
Telcontar
moderator
12:23:34 PM Jan 23rd 2013
A number of tropers, after discussion, have concluded Ghetsis doesn't fit and therefore applying Complete Monster to him is misuse. I expect you are free to challenge the conclusion they came to.
Shaoken
10:15:40 PM Feb 26th 2013
Actually he is not; Ghetsis is on the never list, that is the "we've already gone over everything to do with the character multiple times and there is no further avenue of discussion left uncovered so that any future discussion of the character will only go over old ground and serve to clutter the thread."

Simply put, he was brought up, debated, and cut, then remained cut when several different tropers brought him up again. Unless a new game with Ghetsis is released the discussion is well and truly closed, any attempts to re-add him in spite of that will cause mods to get hollered to.
ading
02:27:38 PM Apr 18th 2013
If, however, he can find something that was not brought up in any of the discussions, he may be able to.
AnewMan
02:27:12 PM Apr 20th 2013
Honestly, I think just about everything was brought up in the discussion. The users who were against Ghetsis' inclusion grasped at straws to disqualify him, citing that he "fails at baseline heinousness." Even though every other criteria was hit, and Ghetsis stands out as more evil and despicable than the other Big Bads of Pokémon, even when compared to Cyrus.

I've got several arguments as to why Ghetsis is a valid example of a Complete Monster, but unfortunately I cannot bring it to the discussion because he's been permanately disqualified via the "Never Again" list. -_-
AnewMan
02:27:28 PM Apr 20th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
[Double Post]
ading
03:15:55 PM May 3rd 2013
edited by 216.99.32.44
^ If he fails at baseline heinousness, he doesn't qualify. That's not "grasping at straws", it's the single strongest argument that can be levelled against an example of this trope.
Shaoken
06:55:21 PM May 25th 2013
^^ Just because nobody agreed with your decision doesn't mean they were grasping at straws. Don't be a sore loser.
Greener223224
06:04:46 PM Jul 1st 2013
What does "baseline heinousness" mean?
Telcontar
moderator
02:31:14 AM Jul 2nd 2013
How evil a character has to be in order to be considered for Complete Monster.
Shaoken
06:15:28 AM Jul 6th 2013
It's basically used to keep villians from kid's shows from being brought up. In such a hypothetical work an unlikeable bully who enjoys being a dick to the other kids is truly henious if every other character is nice and sympathetic, but when you put them on the same page as torturers, rapists, murderers and other colourful characters there is just no justification for them being anywhere near this trope. Before the cleanup thread really kicked into gear you even saw such characters added to the pages with the justification being "x was making fun of y."

As a guideline if a villian isn't really going above and beyond standard villian fare then they're not really hitting that baseline standard we've set up. That includes trying to kill the hero since that is more or less what the majority of all villians try to do.
darkrage6
topic
12:20:46 PM Dec 11th 2012
Vaas and Hoyt from Far Cry 3 definitely should be on the list.
Shaoken
10:52:51 PM Dec 20th 2012
Then go to the cleanup thread in Special Efforts and state your case.
ConnorBible
topic
01:07:02 PM Nov 8th 2012
I don't see why Brian's family from The Breakfast Club doesn't qualify. They abuse, guilt-trip and humiliate him to get perfect grades to boost their already Jupiter-sized superiority complexes and apparently don't give a fuck that he could've, you know, KILLED HIMSELF. Hell, most of the parents, with the possible exception of Claire's, could qualify. Andy's dad pretty implies he's done worse stuff than taping buttocks together a long, long time ago and that he's grooming Andy to be as evil as him.
Shaoken
10:55:56 PM Dec 20th 2012
Take it to the cleanup thread.
ading
01:56:50 PM Mar 31st 2013
That sounds way too mild.
Craver357
topic
05:56:32 AM Oct 17th 2012
Why can't a group of villains in general counts as complete monsters, despite doing a lot of bad things?
Shaoken
10:55:40 PM Dec 20th 2012
Because groups lack Moral Agency, which is one of the qualifiers in being truly henious as per the cleanup threads long, long refinement of the trope. Not only that, but being a Complete Monster means being head and shoulders above the crop in terms of evilness, whereas if a group was counted as a Complete Monster then everyone in the group is roughly as evil as each other, which contradicts the truly henious part. Finally, groups are typically large, and there's no concievable way that every single member of it is Truly Henious for the above reasons, so that's misuse of the trope. If you could prove that each member counted individual as a Complete Monster, then there's no point in labeling the group as one instead of just the members.
Charsi
topic
03:32:28 PM Oct 7th 2012
Are they evil or just heinously selfish? I mean do they do horrible things for some gain or just for the pleasure of seeing others suffer?
MrDeath
07:31:17 AM Oct 8th 2012
What are you talking about?
Charsi
02:16:19 PM Oct 9th 2012
A sociopath who ruins anyone if he has to in order to make them get out of his way to his goals, or a sociopath who simply ruins harmless people as a hobby?
Shaoken
06:44:17 AM Oct 14th 2012
Depends on the standard of the work and the full details. Both could count or not count depending on all the details.
MrDeath
07:52:47 AM Oct 15th 2012
In other words, this is a pointless question because it apparently assumes all Complete Monsters are the same.
Gene0129
topic
07:13:28 PM Oct 6th 2012
Why was "death metal" removed from the music section again, considering when most of the people in those songs did completely FUCKED UP SHIT BEYOND TELLING?
Nithael
07:58:07 AM Oct 7th 2012
If you're talking about the "Death Metal songs with gore in it in general" example, that's because we don't list "in general" or "everybody in X genre" examples. If you think one particular example or several might count, you can go to this thread to discuss them individually.
dilong
topic
09:06:30 AM Sep 7th 2012
what about

1: emperor taychon(or is he a woobie destroyer of worlds??) 2: erwin(from pac man world 3) 3: metal sonic 4: nitros oxide from crash team racing 5: the elementals from crash wrath of cortex 6: the evil twins from crash twinsanity
Nithael
02:15:11 AM Sep 8th 2012
If you want to discuss some candidates, please go on this thread. Don't forget to read the FAQ on the opening post first.
Camberf
topic
01:00:09 PM Aug 30th 2012
Lola "Princess" Stone and her father, the torturers from "The Loved Ones" qualify. They show no remorse and lack any semblance of humanity. And they kill that poor dog.
Camberf
01:02:11 PM Aug 30th 2012
Also, "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" is scary specifically because it shows a Complete Monster from his perspective.
Craver357
topic
04:39:34 AM Aug 24th 2012
Is labeling a villain a Complete Monster when they're really not and the fact that they have a few redeeming qualities in them considered Ron the Death Eater applied to a villain?
SeptimusHeap
08:38:11 AM Aug 24th 2012
If these redemming qualities are real, no, it's not Complete Monster. If they are just fan stuff, it's Ron the Death Eater.
MasterMetallix
topic
09:29:09 PM Aug 7th 2012
edited by MasterMetallix
I couldn't find DCAU here, but I checked later and realized it was indexed under a different subpage, and now I can't delete this post....
promptjump
topic
11:32:15 PM Aug 3rd 2012
I'm having an issue with a redirect; whenever I click the Live Action TV subpage, I get redirected to Victim of the Week. Could somebody please fill me in? I'm not sure these tropes are equivalent.
MrMediaGuy
topic
09:32:02 PM Jul 19th 2012
I'm kinda confused here.

Pete Docter said that a true villain is an unrealistic character, and that's why most of the Pixar villains have redeemable qualities.

But isn't the point of a villain to be intimidating and terrifying? The way most of these examples are treated as really, really scary makes me think a Complete Monster is the best kind of villain. For exampe, why do you think people prefer Lord Shen over Tai Lung? Shen didn't have that deep of a personality; I just saw him as an Generic Doomsday Villain Evil Overlord trying to kill everyone. But everyone LOVES him because he's a vile, sadistic, cruel, Nightmare Fuel-inducing, city-destroying, murdering, asshole, more so than Tai Lung.

In fact, I think ALL of the villains I've ever created are Complete Monsters, because I want them to be cool like Lord Shen. (Example: Iron Rose from Cold Blood.)
RLNice
04:21:14 PM Dec 7th 2012
Except Lord Shen did have a (faint) Freudian Excuse. Which is probably why he was so cool.

I can think of plenty of sympathetic villains that are cool. Darth Vader, Davy Jones, the Operative from Serenity, etc.
TiggersAreGreat
topic
01:30:06 PM Jun 30th 2012
So, what's the difference between a Jerkass and a Complete Monster? I ask this, because both types are unpleasant and there seems to be a degree of overlap between the two.
sniperfish
01:57:53 PM Jun 30th 2012
Jerkasses are more unpleasant than anything. They're annoying but not entirely life threateningly dangerous, at worst a Jerkass can probably be someone who doesn't care about anyone, and on occasion might cross the Moral Event Horizon.

A Complete Monster on the other hand is someone who is more than unpleasant, they're downright evil. They have already gone far past the Moral Event Horizon, and have no regrets about it. The value of one's life means nothing to them other than a means to reach a end. What they do can mean anything from murder, to rape, to mass genocide.
ading
04:40:19 AM Aug 7th 2012
A Complete Monster is far more than just "unpleasant". They are pure evil with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. A Jerkass is unpleasant but are at the very least on the good guys' side, giving them at least one redeeming quality.
Slimbship4
05:29:53 PM Oct 25th 2012
To summarize, A Jerkass can be either a good guy or a bad guy while a Complete Monster is exclusively a villain.
SotiCoto
topic
08:52:32 AM Jun 11th 2012
I've started noticing an odd trend: That entries in Complete Monster match up rather closely with entries in Rooting for the Empire in a great many cases... for the same characters.

As such the latter page describes in detail why a character is rooted for because they're not actually all that bad, and everything they do is somewhat justified, etc etc... and at the same time, there are paragraphs over this side about how those same characters are irredeemably eeeeevil for all the awfully horrible things they do.

I'm not saying the tropes are 100% mutually exclusive, but the justifications given in Rooting for the Empire tend, where accurate, to disqualify said characters from Complete Monster status... for way too many characters.
ClassyMyths
topic
03:21:56 PM Jun 6th 2012
Telcontar
moderator
02:02:10 AM Jun 7th 2012
No, they can't. Redemption is enough to disqualify them from this trope, though it would then fit under another, IIRC.
ChaoticQueen
topic
08:04:45 PM May 3rd 2012
Johan is widely considered to be the poster-boy for Complete Monster, but does he really qualify? He never had a chance to be any thing else, and Another Monster shows us that Johan took that second chance Tenma gave him to be a better man. Plus, he had Dissociative Identity Disorder and one of those identities honestly wanted to stop, shown when he gives money to a prostitute so she can start over.
Telcontar
moderator
11:30:38 PM May 3rd 2012
There's a thread in Special Efforts to discuss things like that.
WillBGood
topic
06:55:25 PM Apr 19th 2012
Can't fix due to Edit Lock, but do you want to add Monster/The Godfather to an index?
BigglesTh9
topic
03:24:28 PM Mar 9th 2012
BRING BACK JOHAN! That is all.

(Or at least provide some justification for taking the picture down.)
Shaoken
06:38:00 AM Mar 11th 2012
Images must be related to the medium the page describes. Since this is just an index, it goes without an image.
BigglesTh9
01:15:14 AM Mar 20th 2012
But then why do most trope pages have an image? Why, for instance, does Big Bad have an image when it's just an index for sub-pages?
Shaoken
05:48:48 PM Apr 27th 2012
Because none of those pages have had the amount of trouble that this one has.
mortimermcmire
topic
01:40:03 PM Mar 7th 2012
Added "A Criminal Mind" (the Lawrence Gowan song, not the TV show) to Music, because the narrator practically PERSONIFIES this trope.
Camberf
topic
07:58:48 PM Mar 1st 2012
Kevin Khatchadourian, from "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is just about as unremittingly evil as any character I can think of. His mother was always the only one who he showed his true colors to until he was in his mid teens, when he (SPOILER ALERT) killed his father, little sister, and quite a few of his fellow students for no reason. It's never clear why he is the way he is, but he fits this trope to a T, never showing that he is capable of any feeling other than hate. By the end of the film he has successfully ruined the main character's life in the most horrific way imaginable. Kevin has no Freudian Excuse, and the closest he comes to any kind of remorse is, after spending 2 years in prison, admitting that even he doesn't know why he did what he did.
Jordan
08:02:29 PM Mar 1st 2012
From the reviews of the movie I've read, he actually would be a good example- sounds like he's explicitly presented as devoid of any humanity/redeeming qualities.

Congratulations, Camberf, you are the first troper to post an actual example of a Complete Monster in the Discussion page.
GoldenSpot5
topic
06:58:23 PM Mar 1st 2012
Now I know not many people like the movie Delgo, but I do and Sedesa, the big bad, certainly qualifies. First she doesn't fallow orders to strike peace and instead has her armies attack the other village. Her only "Excuse" was saying that there speeches was superior because they can fly. Then she poisons her sister in law the queen and attempts to do the same to the king, but she gets caught and has her wings removed and sent into exile. While there she only gets worse, She gains the trust of the tribes that live out there and then kills the treble leaders to gain control of there armies. Then using help of a fellow general she frames another general for treason and then frames Delgo for kidnapping the princess, when she was the real culprit. She try to cut off the Princess wings and almost dethrones her brother and I can't remember if she killed him. But during the final battle the floor of the castle starts to collapse and she falls through. Perhaps she should have followed orders.
troacctid
07:56:37 PM Mar 1st 2012
What you've done there is list a bunch of bad things she's done.

Doing a bunch of bad things != Complete Monster.
GoldenSpot5
08:35:05 PM Mar 6th 2012
I forgot to mention she started a war between the two main tribes just so she could have a her army come in and kill both sides so she would win. I just want her listed. She did all this for power.
GoldenSpot5
08:35:17 PM Mar 6th 2012
I forgot to mention she started a war between the two main tribes just so she could have a her army come in and kill both sides so she would win. I just want her listed. She did all this for power.
captainsandwich
topic
01:27:46 AM Feb 19th 2012
Why must a complete monster be completely devoid of altruistic qualities? Altruism can be horrific provided it is sufficiently twisted. Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed. Altruism doesn't say who the loyalty is to, or how it is acted upon.

Also why must it be played with revolution, hate, and or fear at all times? Some people might not realize the person they are dealing with is a complete monster at first.
Shaoken
11:03:55 PM Feb 28th 2012
Because if they have altruistic qualities (which your example fails to meet, that's Disportionate Retribution).

They must be played with revultion, hate and/or fear at all times when their nature is own. If the character doesn't realise it's a CM then they don't, but if the characters don't act in such a way when revealed that would indicate the character isn't a Complete Monster by the standards of the story.
MrDeath
07:20:51 AM Feb 29th 2012
Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed.

...How does that in any way, shape, or form fit any definition of "altruism"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
323347
topic
06:44:21 AM Feb 3rd 2012
bison and akuma faom street fighter 2
Goldenheart7
topic
09:52:14 AM Jan 1st 2012
This is just an Idea for an entry. Mesogog from Power Ranger Dino Thunder should be a qualifier. Despite having the sympathetic Anton Merser, Mesogog is the evil alter ego who is determined to separate from Anton. Now for his atrociousness: He lied to Trent (White Ranger) when he made the trade for the Dino Gems when he said he would give Anton (Who he had separated from) back then he tries to kill them. To power his machine he takes the power from his right hand man Elsa when she points out he needed a power source to give it a boost to start it. He Mind Rapes his henchman when they fall behind or fail. And the fact his master plan is to bring about a new Dino age. If you think about it that would mean many people would louse their lives. Through all of the power ranger series Mesogog is played seriously at times. So being destroyed by all the power in the Dino Gems was vary amusing.
thomwim
05:56:58 PM Jan 5th 2012
You may add extra info here.
Capa
topic
07:09:36 PM Dec 20th 2011
I'm wondering why Syndrome from the Incredibles isn't listed on the CM page? He seems like a pretty good example of one. Let's see. "The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way." Check. He has a Freudian Excuse, but that isn't enough to excuse his crimes.

"The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story." Check. Syndrome's actions are not Playedfor Laughs and even one of his henchmen is shocked by his villainy.

"They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes." Check. The only reason Syndrome wants to be a superhero is satisfy his own ego and he never shows regret for his evil acts.
Shaoken
09:32:50 PM Dec 27th 2011
Take it to the forums, special efforts section. You can find a link in several CM source files.
Roy
topic
04:07:09 AM Dec 17th 2011
I've always tought of that: is there some fictional malicious animal examples who could be qualfy as Complete Monster ? You know, like the lions from The Ghost and the Darkness or the Raptors from the original Jurassic Park ?

doomsday524
10:25:02 PM Jan 14th 2012
Or Jaws? No. Wild animals don't have the discernment or mental capacity to be this trope. Trying to eat other lifeforms is just their nature.
DominusTemporis
01:01:51 PM Feb 21st 2012
Not to mention the raptors tried to eat those annoying-ass kids. Show of hands, who else was cheering for the dinos in that scene...?
CJCroen1393
09:16:21 PM Jun 24th 2012
I wouldn't have been able to bring myself to. I saw too much of myself in the boy (I used to babble on and on about dinosaurs too).

Also, this trope would only apply if the animals in question were intelligent enough to be aware of right and wrong. Jaws, Jurassic Park and that other movie don't qualify.

ABLb0y
topic
12:31:49 PM Dec 15th 2011
I noticed Blue from Sucker Punch is listed, and I found a great picture of him. Can I put that in the image links thingy?
thomwim
12:22:56 PM Dec 27th 2011
You may certainly go agead and do so.

(Sorry, I'm only here for reading articles and trying hard to do the research.)
ABLb0y
topic
09:32:50 AM Dec 1st 2011
So... Doesn't Bad Girl count? I mean, No attempt to portray her actions positivly? Check. Evil character (In this case, Travis) Disgusted by her actions? Check. No regret? Well, here's a quote: "It's just a job, the daily grind." So, yeah, I think she counts.
Stealthy
11:26:52 PM Dec 2nd 2011
If evil is 'just a job' for a character, they're a Punch Clock Villain. The two tropes do not overlap.
AquaRegia
04:20:05 AM Dec 5th 2011
I shot this one down earlier, and I'm not willing to budge here. Bad Girl's evil acts are almost completely implied (unless you count batting cloned gimps as a Moral Event Horizon sufficient enough for her to qualify, and that's too silly). Implication "can" potentially be used to put a character into this trope, but that's largely because the implication is tied to a something that really brings it all home, like actions, the results of those actions, etc. The thing about implication is that this trope is tied not only to its requirements, but to more esoteric values; this is the reason why the average Generic Doomsday Villain rarely, if ever, deserves its place on this page. Sure, they might want to destroy the world, but there needs to be more than that. There needs to be something that really relates this action to the viewer (or the player or the whatever) in a way that simultaneously shocks and appalls them and really convinces them that guy is absolutely horrible

Bad Girl, as a character, is completely detached from any of this. There's nothing about her that genuinely drives home the point that she's a Complete Monster. She's insane and evil and her dialogue exists to enforce this, but we don't see anything, be it actions or results, that really consolidates any of that in one, loathsome package. That just does not make a solid entry for this trope and serves as nothing but a poor example from which characters who hardly qualify get their entry pass.

Even if you rely on that implication to place her here, she's pretty much a parody of this trope: She's an exaggerated example who crosses every line twice up to and including, may I inculcate this, beating down cloned gimps for fun and sport. Travis's disgust towards her is more or less an intentionally half-hearted invocation of Even Evil Has Standards out of a sense of contextual obligation; to enforce this comedic exaggeration rather than to establish that she really is bad news. In the end, she might be creepy and/or disturbing, but Bad Girl isn't this; she doesn't have the weight to be a Complete Monster, and her portrayal really makes no attempt to give her said weight.
thomwim
12:23:50 PM Dec 27th 2011
What series is Bad Girl from?
Voyd211
05:30:08 PM Jan 29th 2012
Webby
topic
08:14:22 PM Nov 25th 2011
What was decided in the TRS thread?
Shaoken
08:59:26 PM Nov 27th 2011
To keep but clean up the pages, then lock them once done so nobody could add examples without taking it to the forums first.

Here's a link to the clean-up page, please use it if you're planning on doing any editing: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=14#342
doomsday524
topic
07:14:38 PM Nov 25th 2011
You know, a character doesn't have to be sympathetic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic. After all, there are plenty of people in Real Life who are complete assholes.
AMNK
07:14:28 AM Dec 8th 2011
edited by AMNK
Read No Real Life Examples, Please! and Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.

EDIT: Forget it, misread your post. However, I'd suggest you to do that kind of objections in the forums.
WhiteBear
03:47:19 PM Dec 12th 2011
edited by WhiteBear
"A character doesn't have to be sympathic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic."

Real Life doesn't have the luxury of giving people multiple points-of-view to understand the nature of, say, asshole-ish classmates or nerve-grinding co-workers in the same way a work of fiction can. In a TV show, you can learn why an antagonist acts the way they do or see some redeeming qualities in them from A Day In The Lime Light episode. In real life, you have no way of getting into the minds of everyone who has ever been slightly unpleasant to you.
doomsday524
10:08:11 PM Jan 14th 2012
edited by doomsday524
Yeah, maybe, but there are people who are genuinely vicious and irredeemable too. That's a given. I think having at least one enhances a work. The sentence saying it's unrealistic or for some reason simplistic for a work to have this? Let's see, Hitler, Stalin, etc, and most probably know from our lives some people that failed empathy 101.
ading
05:25:00 AM Feb 14th 2013
Do you know why they did what they did? If not, then you can't really say whether they could be redeemed.
AmbarSonofDeshar
10:45:51 PM Jan 20th 2014
^^Hitler was nice to his dog. Stalin loved his adoptive son.
Brainiac0982
topic
10:00:48 AM Nov 20th 2011
Edit request: Could someone please add links to the subpages Monster.Doctor Who and Monster.Super Sentai?
Stealthy
topic
09:38:21 PM Nov 18th 2011
edited by Stealthy
Could a character who is a completely irredemable villain whose actions are played seriously and commits atrocities truly horrific by the story's standards BUT is generally loved OOCly because Evil Is Cool be considered a Complete Monster?
Jordan
10:11:52 PM Nov 18th 2011
What does OO Cly mean? I'm guessing you mean "by the audience", in which case, I guess so. I mean like the Joker is a pretty popular character and tends to be considered one of the better examples of a complete monster.

I do think though that it's more usual for a complete monster to be a character loathed both in-series and by the audience.
Stealthy
02:04:52 AM Nov 19th 2011
edited by Stealthy
It's a Play By Post RP term meaning 'out of character', so...yeah. Alright, that's good~
thomwim
topic
08:41:38 AM Nov 12th 2011
Would a character qualify from another character's point of view? In The Fairly OddParents, Timmy thinks that Vicky and Mr. Crocker might be Complete Monsters.
Jordan
08:48:59 AM Nov 12th 2011
No, just no.
ading
05:02:35 PM Nov 14th 2011
edited by ading
No. Besides Vicky and Crocker are Played for Laughs.
thomwim
09:20:05 PM Nov 17th 2011
Good point. In Crocker's back story, he actually cared about his fairies.
ading
04:45:31 AM Aug 7th 2012
edited by ading
Besides, Crocker's a Harmless Villain who can't accomplish anything without someone else's help. However, although Vicky doesn't qualify, she is often treated like one. In one episode, she was even explicitly stated to be the most evil person in the universe.
RLNice
04:24:26 PM Dec 7th 2012
If the other character voices this view, then it's You Monster!.
ading
05:39:29 AM Feb 14th 2013
^ No, You Monster! is a Stock Phrase. This is about the way other characters act towards her, not what they say.
Tifforo
topic
12:28:25 PM Nov 4th 2011
I know we've decided not to have real-life examples, but can we have real-life quotes on the quote section?

  • Carl Panzram:
    • "In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy [read: rape] on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry."
    • "I wish all mankind had one neck so I could choke it!"
    • Last words: "Hurry up, you Hoosier bastard, I could kill ten men while you're fooling about!"
ading
05:00:56 AM Nov 8th 2011
Having quotes from a Real Life person is calling that person a Complete Monster, which violates the purpose of No Real Life Examples, Please!.
Shaoken
topic
03:46:54 AM Oct 22nd 2011
I don't think anyone is going to read this far down, but this is about rule number one.

Over in the Mass Effect discussion we've had a big arguement and discussion about what constitute off-screen. The problem is that most of our examples happen off-camera. The compromise on the matter came down to how much of the after-effects were shown; if we were simply told this but not given any proof, it counted as off-screen. If we walk through the facility where horrible experiments were preformed, saw recordings of them talking about what they were doing, saw the effects it had on their victims etc. that counted enough for the trope.

Anyway, how much leeway is there on the definition of "off-screen" out of interest?
ading
05:54:13 AM Oct 23rd 2011
I never really thought about it but I agree too. Perhaps a more reasonable criterion would be "if it's not clear whether or not they actually committed the horrible act we have been told they commit, then they fail to qualify."
Jordan
01:51:49 PM Oct 24th 2011
I agree too. That criterion is likely referring to Offstage Villainy. Villainy that is directly off-camera is still clearly going on.
ading
02:11:14 PM Oct 24th 2011
^ Offstage Villainy is about the villain's actions not being seen by the hero. What is being proposed is that only if there is no proof that the villain's actions were actually committed does it disqualify them-innocent until proven guilty.
Shaoken
05:00:39 PM Oct 24th 2011
Pretty much what ading is saying. If the only evidence we hear (no pun intended) is another character saying this happened, it fits the "no offscreen villiany" rule. If you're told about these crimes, and then later events happen which refect the same crimes, then it counts as tying the two events together.

For example you're told about all the experiments a scientist would do on his own staff, and then later you come across one of his labs with the staff there experimented on, and when you confront the guy the person who told you about what happens confirms his identity. That sort of thing, where there is a clear link between what oyu see and what you hear.

I guess a counter-example of what wouldn't count is if you're told a guy makes a sport out of torturing children, but at no point in the game do you see him torturing anyone or targetting children.
ading
04:54:03 AM Nov 4th 2011
What happened to brony's post?
Shaoken
12:00:24 AM Nov 14th 2011
Probably got deleted due to Brony continuing to push on the Discord isse.
Paireon
topic
07:52:43 PM Oct 12th 2011
The Western Animation subpage's discussion link leads to the Western Animation general discussion page instead of the trope-specific discussion page it should lead to. Can anyone fix it, or at least tell us why?
Paireon
topic
11:14:34 PM Sep 28th 2011
edited by Paireon
Gonna remove mention of my cleanups on the subpages, since the TRS thread is gone anyway. Real Life this year's been a rollercoaster, hence my relatively sporadic troping and inability to do a full cleanup as I intended; sorry. Any mentions on locked subpages, should any be left, should be removed by those with the clearance to do so.

BTW, I still intend to do some cleanups when I can.
HiddenFacedMatt
topic
11:13:34 AM Sep 4th 2011
I added the following to the Disney discussion page, but I should probably add it here too: —- Do Jafar and Maleficent really belong on the list? Even if they are lacking in redeeming qualities, their villainy seems to be taken a little more lightly than that of other examples. I think applying the Complete Monster label to Jafar and Maleficent diminishes the value of applying it to Frollo and Lotso.
Paireon
10:57:28 PM Sep 28th 2011
edited by Paireon
*Facepalm* Again with Maleficent? I'll try to see what I can do there (though the Disney subpage is probably still locked). I argued long ago that she doesn't quite belong there.

EDIT: Well, someone else with higher access than me removed them already. So that's one problem solved.
fifimcfeef
06:53:04 PM Oct 22nd 2011
Not sure if Ratigan would count. I mean, Padraic is sometimes played out for comedy.
ading
05:11:27 PM Oct 23rd 2011
Ratigan is mostly played for laughs, and most of his acts don't seem to be CM-level (and before someone mentions it, we don't actually know that he drowned widows and orphans. The only evidence we have is his minions mentioning it. Innocent until proven guilty.)
fifimcfeef
05:36:18 PM Oct 24th 2011
All right, Padraic. You're good to go.
Glixinator
topic
10:25:03 AM Sep 4th 2011
I think Jaffar from Fire Emblem Elibe counts. He was born an Empty Shell, who crossed the Moral Event Horizon becoming an Enfant Terrible, and that was before the Big Bad found him and turned him into a Tykebomb, the story begins well after that. Pretty much every character either fears or hates him if not both, from their first interactions with him. While he does have a Heel-Face Turn, the circumstances around it involve Love Redeems where the object of his affections is A FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL which pushes him even further pasted the Moral Event Horizon given that his A support with her makes such an excellent case for why statutory rape is a crime. Hell even after his Heel-Face Turn, he still does not regret his past crimes and he get one character giving him death threats and another actually making attempts on his life, with only the need for his skill and the fear of He Who Fights Monsters holding them back.
AmbarSonofDeshar
09:08:17 PM Sep 25th 2011
But he does turn around. He joins the party, the girl genuinely loves him, and in-so much as he can, he loves her back. A CM has no redeeming traits, not even minor ones.
Paireon
10:54:16 PM Sep 28th 2011
edited by Paireon
I agree with Ambar on this one. That he remains a deeply unpleasant character even after his Heel-Face Turn is pretty realistic IMO- switching camps in a war is relatively easy, actually changing who you are take a lot more time and effort, and even then you'll always have some traits of who you were originally (barring amnesia or any of a plethora of only-true-in-Hollywood stuff). It'll probably take years for sucha character to realize the full import of his previous villainy, and possibly even longer for him to feel remorse, if ever.
BowsertheSecond
topic
08:29:42 AM Aug 7th 2011
Would Miles Axlerod from Cars 2 count? Let's have a look at the criteria:

  1. Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, however every action the other villains do are under his direct order, including murder and sabotage.
  2. Axlerod is rarely played for humor, his villainous side being humor-devoid completely.
  3. His motivation: money. That is all.
  4. Axlerod shows absolutely no empathy for any of his actions.
  5. The story makes no attempt to redeem Axlerod at all.

If not, them perhaps Professor Zundapp:

  1. Being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod's Non-Action Big Bad, he is shown cold-bloodedly committing, or at least attempting to commit murder multiple times on-screen.
  2. Zundapp is sometimes used for humor, but this doesn't undermine his evilness.
  3. Unlike Axlerod, Zundapp's motive is revenge for being considered a lemon.
  4. Zundapp shows zero remorse for his actions.
  5. No attempt is made to redeem Zundapp.
ading
05:43:53 PM Aug 14th 2011
Attempting to commit murder doesn't count, they have to actually commit the crime.

Also, there may be no attempt to redeem Zundapp or Axlerod, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to visualize.
GrendelGrendelGrendel
05:06:45 PM Aug 17th 2011
This trope seems to stretch to accomodate pretty much any unsympathetic villain someone feels like adding. I kind of question whether it's a worthwhile category at all.

The best way I can sum up my subjective understanding of the original trope is: a villain whom the audience despise, and are happy and satisfied to see die. That excludes all "cool", amusing or sympathetic villains like Darth Vader or the Joker, characters the audience like to watch because they find their villainy entertaining (rather than sickening), and it also excludes most one-dimensional or poorly-written villains since the audience isn't invested enough in them to care.

As things are, I think the only thing to be done is either to scrap the trope, or else to redefine the requisites to be wholly objective, which might be limiting enough to finish it off anyway.
Paireon
07:51:58 PM Aug 23rd 2011
edited by Paireon
Actually that's the old, old definition of the trope. The new one is quite bit tighter, with its criteria list. And you'll note that several "entertaining" villains (The Joker for example) ARE still included despite their fandom because their entertainment value simply isn't enough to mask how much of a monster they are (most people think the Joker in The Dark Knight was the best thing in the movie, but nobody except the most stupidly rabid fans will deny that his actions were completely beyond the pale).

The subjective heading is mostly due to those Fan Dumb who disagree with their favorite Draco in Leather Pants being here, or conversely Fan Haters who want to add anyone they hate in a given work.

As for Cars 2 villains... well, I'm not familiar enough to judge; just keep in mind that some of the criteria are actually not that easy to weigh.
BowsertheSecond
08:01:01 AM Aug 27th 2011
edited by BowsertheSecond
Alright then, here's a more in-depth look at the criteria for Axlerod:

  1. Now Miles Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, but he’s also a Chess Master, having plotted the entire operation from the start. When Lightning McQueen announces that he will be using Allinol in the final race, Axlerod organises for Lightning to be killed, which would have succeeded only if Sarge hadn’t switched out the fuel. His backup plan involved strapping a bomb to Mater and detonating it when Lightning was close enough, killing him, Mater and any numerous others close enough to it.
  2. Axlerod holds a suave, charming façade in public to hide is cold, scheming ways. The difference is clear during his speech in Italy at the Lemon meeting. He boasts about how the racers are having their engines blown out by the Allinol to discredit alternative fuel and that he and his Lemon followers will become rich and powerful, but when speaking to the press after the race, he sorrowfully admits that Allinol will not be used for the final race.
  3. Axlerod’s motivation appears to be fuelled by greed, wanting to become the richest car in the world. This appears to eclipse the other motive of being considered a Lemon, as it is unclear if Axlerod has always been one, or if he was converted to one as part of his scheme.
  4. Axlerod shows no empathy for his actions, even going as far as to thank Lightning for choosing to use Allinol and how he hoped that Lightning could prove that others were wrong about it being dangerous, all the while knowing that he had secretly organised Lightning to be assassinated.
  5. Axlerod is incarcerated at the end of the film, and no form of redemption is attempted.

Now for Zundapp:

  1. Zundapp is the main physical threat present in the film, being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod. Zundapp callously tortures and kills Rod Redline in Japan and is seemingly unfazed at this, so this is largely routine for him. Later in the London race, Zundapp is about to detonate the bomb attached to Mater, knowing full well about all the other characters that would be caught in the blast radius.
  2. Zundapp is considered a serious threat by Finn and Holley. As for the humor, Zundapp has small bouts of silliness, but these moments don’t undermine his evilness.
  3. Zundapp has a slightly stronger Freudian Excuse than Axlerod, wanting revenge for being considered a Lemon. This does not however make up for his actions.
  4. As mentioned above, Zundapp is unfazed by his actions throughout the film.
  5. Like Axlerod, Zundapp is incarcerated and is not given any chances at redemption.

MrGriffin
09:49:21 AM Sep 1st 2011
edited by MrGriffin
I got a question: Does Lottie from Nick Cave's "Curse of Millhaven" and the protagonist of the Tiger Lillies' "Terrible" count as Complete Monsters?

P.S. Forgive me my mistake. I accidentally replied to this topic, instead of creating new one.
Paireon
10:45:59 PM Sep 28th 2011
No prob, we all make mistakes. As for your question, well, what did these characters do? I'm not familiar with these songs (same thing for other tropers I suspect), so recounting the actions which may qualify them would be helpful.
MrGriffin
01:26:55 PM Oct 15th 2011
Lottie is a 15 year old serial killer who terrorised her town because "all God's children got to die". When she got captured, her only remorse was that she have no possibility to hurt anyone anymore.

And "Terrible", well, I'll just leave an entire song here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKwW_TREA6E
Ben10fan
topic
07:17:59 AM Aug 5th 2011
about the first rule for this trope, does a character have to succeed in horrible actions? Steele from Balto deserves to be called a Complete Monster yet he only ever tried to kill anyone.
ading
05:44:52 PM Aug 14th 2011
Yes. If this is the case then delete Steele. Only problem is the Western Animation page is locked.
lightning37
11:43:53 AM Aug 16th 2011
I haven't seen that movie, however what the page says is that he refused to let the dogs deliver things to the village and left the kids doomed, so does that indicate anything?
Paireon
07:38:57 PM Aug 23rd 2011
If ultimately the others managed to deliver the goods in time and nobody was hurt too badly, then he wouldn't fit, since one of the criterias is your actions actually causing enough damage to be considered irredeemable. There would have to be at least one dead or crippled for life kid in this situation for him to count on this criteria.
RLNice
04:27:05 PM Dec 7th 2012
This doesn't make sense to me, since regardless of whether a character succeeds or not, the malice in their actions is the same.
Scarface675
topic
02:31:26 AM Jul 6th 2011
edited by Scarface675
nvm
LairOfRockwhales
topic
07:12:03 PM Jul 4th 2011
How long before every single article on tvtropes is YMMV?
SpellBlade
07:36:52 PM Jul 4th 2011
Read What Goes Where on the Wiki, under YMMV.

In theory, Your Mileage May Vary on nearly all tropes. Who says that a Happy Ending is happy, for example? In practice, what we mean by a significant judgment call is exactly the duck test outlined above- an item falls under YMMV if people often disagree about it. Either we can figure this out from the definition, or a huge natter infestation wherever the item is mentioned clues us in. Either way, it gets stamped with the "subjective" stamp and relegated to YMMV subpages, where the varying of mileage and resulting natter will not get in the way of the objective tropes.
captainmarkle
topic
07:27:19 AM Jun 28th 2011
Could this page be put as a subpage of Live Action TV Complete Monster somewhere?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/DoctorWho
DanGenesis
topic
09:07:04 PM Jun 13th 2011
edited by DanGenesis
This is a question that's just bugging me - A complete monster shows no regret over heinous acts.

Regretting a heinous act in the sense that they regret that it wasn't more heinous (or rather that they could have easily made it more heinous - for example, accidentally destroying an entire city and almost all its people, and they regret that it wasn't on purpose) would still qualify for that, right?
DoktorvonEurotrash
04:28:47 AM Jun 21st 2011
No, the possibility you mentioned is not what that requirement is about at all.
lightning37
topic
04:12:51 PM Jun 8th 2011
Okay, if Coach Keller wasn't this, he was definitely one of, if not the biggest recurring Jerkass on the show (he might be Played for Laughs, Dan just did a terrible job with him). That said, here are two characters from Drake & Josh that I feel should be brought up:

The criminals from The Movie. Replacing Josh's G.O., unfairly making money, and (kidnapping and) trying to drown Drake and Josh?! Plus they were two of the most wanted guys in the US (I haven't seen that movie in some time, though, but that's what I recall).

Dr. Favisham from "My Dinner with Bobo". He tried to cook and eat a monkey, locked Drake and Josh in a closet, and even escaped arrest (though that's typical in Schneider-verse).

Officer Gilbert from the Christmas movie fails, though, because he has a Freudian Excuse and also fails the last criteria. Would either of the two I mentioned fit, though?
ading
06:02:13 AM Jun 24th 2011
I don't know about The Movie, but Dr. Favisham doesn't actually succeed in any onstage villainy, so no.
lightning37
03:14:27 PM Jun 29th 2011
Well, I haven't seen Go Hollywood in years, but since noone has objected to that, I added the criminals already. If anyone has reason for them to be removed, do mention.
xVanitas
topic
11:45:31 PM Jun 4th 2011
edited by xVanitas
According to the Playing With page, a Subverted Complete Monster is a character purposely doing heinous and terrible acts to achieve a Zero Percent Approval Gambit...

From the page itself : "Emperor Evulz is pulling off a Zero Percent Approval Gambit: he makes it seem like he's an irredeemable monster, so heroes and villains alike will unite, leading to a better world."

I know an example that does this.

Could it still be added to this page?

I'd like to add it to Anime and Manga, the character is from the series Code Geass. It's Lelouch towards the end of the series.
Slicer37
09:02:03 AM Jun 5th 2011
edited by ading
No. I know what you are talking about, but if a character subverts a troupe, you shouldn't put him on unless there is a section for it, which there isn't.
ading
05:52:17 AM Jun 25th 2011
I believe you're thinking of aversions though I could be wrong.
redjirachi
topic
12:58:42 AM May 21st 2011
If a villain shows the typical Complete Monster traits yet they have an adequate Freudian Excuse, where do they fit in?For example,say Emperor Evulz is a monstrous psychopath who slaughters innocents For the Evulz because the group that raised him horrifically tortured him-to the point you'd expect someone to become as monstrous as Emperor Evulz.If all other specifications for this trope are fit,except for an inadequate Freudian Excuse,what trope do they belong to?
SeraphimSwordmaster
04:53:20 AM May 25th 2011
That example seems more like a Laser-Guided Tykebomb Up to Eleven. The Complete Monsters would be the people who raised him like that.

I don't think a Freudian Excuse is enough to excuse anyone from being really, really evil though. If Emperor Evulz in this instance were to, say, pull a Kefka and destroy the world for the fun of it, that would be pushing towards the Moral Event Horizon.
DARTHYAN
topic
06:09:40 AM May 19th 2011
I can understand the YMMV stance, but sometimes there are clear cut examples (the dresden files is chock full of them, including the guys who caused the rwanda and cambodia genocides for shits and giggles)
Anaheyla
01:20:24 PM May 20th 2011
Clear cut or not, there's always going to be someone who argues that a character who is obviously a Complete Monster isn't. Sad but true.
SeraphimSwordmaster
03:47:39 PM May 20th 2011
If this trope is going to be YMMV, then I think we need to find some kind of "watered down" version of this trope.

Like it or not, Manipulative Bastard has basically become that for Magnificent Bastard, and if we're going to be prancing around debating over whether characters stick hordes of demons on their former comrades as a sacrifice to attain power, and rape innocent women while forcing their lovers to watch while they're pinned down by said demons are evil, then we need some way of saying "These people are bad" without narking off the DILP'ers.
KSonik
06:20:16 AM May 25th 2011
DILP is the least of our problems.
ading
01:53:47 PM Oct 24th 2011
^^ "Not a CM" doesn't equal "not evil"!
lightning37
topic
04:04:04 AM May 4th 2011
edited by lightning37
This might be a bit much, but does anyone think Coach Keller from Zoey 101 should be added? He forced his students to run lots of laps even when he knew they were exhausted (requirement 4), and if they came back from disc golf, he threatened to make them run the same amount of laps they would have run had they not changed electives. He also made Chase and Michael do things like take a beating from a child (I think), and he forced Zoey to join the wrestling team for the sole purpose of putting her in the tournament, making boys forfeit against her and then take her out so another guy would get in the final match without being tired out. (She did get to play in that match, but still.) Not surprisingly, Zoey was appalled by this (requirement 2). He doesn't have any excuse for this that I know of (requirement 3). Am I missing a time when he was good? "But it's Dan Schneider world, everything is Played for Laughs!" Not everything. Some things that happen in his shows are utterly shocking (iSell Penny Tees, anyone?). While some of you might see him as Comedic Sociopathy, I don't. What do you guys think?
WhiteBear
09:40:55 PM May 16th 2011
Eh...sounds more like a Sadist Teacher or a Jerkass to me. See above posting: Jerkass /=/ Complete Monster.
ading
09:20:19 AM Jun 16th 2011
Doesn't really sound monstrous to me.
Nothingtoseehere
10:35:36 AM Nov 5th 2011
Yeah, definitively sounds more like Sadist Teacher.
doomsday524
09:46:44 PM Jan 14th 2012
I'd hate to have someone like that for a teacher, but he doesn't belong up there with mass murderers.
wswordsmen
topic
03:44:50 PM Apr 18th 2011
Someone with the power to edit locked pages needs to add all the anime and manga pages to the index (or remove the subpages from the other ones). Just to keep it consistent.
WhiteBear
topic
09:51:18 AM Apr 8th 2011
Why do some people think being a Jerkass automatically means you're a Complete Monster? Is it really fair to put Jerkasses who Kick the Dog on the same page as villains who Mind Rape children, attempt to enact genocide, or basically do anything that goes beyond what a schoolyard bully couldn't even be capable of thinking?

Also, some people need to learn the difference between sociopathy being played for drama, and sociopathy being played for laughs.
ading
04:02:37 PM Apr 13th 2011
edited by ading
I don't think anyone thinks that. I do think some people think that being a Jerk Ass means you cross the Moral Event Horizon, however.

EDIT: Never mind.
Kersey475
topic
05:04:14 PM Mar 13th 2011
So if a writer successfully manages to pull off a character who is a Complete Monster and a Magnificent Bastard, would they essentially have created the ultimate villain?
Lunacorva
05:02:05 AM Jan 3rd 2012
edited by Lunacorva
Oh. God. Yes

I call these kinds of villains: Magnificent Monsters
TropeADope
topic
05:00:54 AM Mar 1st 2011
I was going to suggest Shan-Yu from Disney's "Mulan," but I was stumped over the "adequate justification" thing. He's a total beast, to be sure, and he was apparently up to his villains' antics before the events of the movie (note how everyone knows who he is and is appropriately concerned when his name is mentioned!) He said he was invading China because the building of the wall "challenged his strength."

Me, I don't think that's really justification, but rather just a flimsy excuse for him to invade and pillage what he finds inside the wall.

Other than that, he's irredeemably evil: look what he did to the village, even smiling when he said they should "return" a stolen doll to its owner; the classic "How many men does it take to deliver a message?" line (one!); and the rest of his shenanigans.

What say you, tropers?
71.80.226.45
10:33:42 PM Mar 8th 2011
I think many don't want to give him a complete monster label because the conflict in the movie is based on the Xiongnu Conflict with China( from what I heard it was much greyer on each side).It is inexcusable that he burned down civilian villages but his reason for invading could be deeper than just challenging the emperor.There was good reasons why the Xiongnu would despise the Chinese but it doesn't justify Shan-yu's actions.I have a feeling the reason why he's merciless because he has a long hatred for the Chinese and therefore he sees know no need to show grace to even civilians.The thing is because they don't exist as a ethnic group anymore they are easier to demonize and give a historical villian upgrade.The other thing is during the conflicts with the Xiongnu, the Chinese committed war crimes against Xiognu villages as well and even stirred up trouble between tribes to get them from rising up against the Chinese.One last thing that could make a good reason why Shan-yu climbed the wall,from what I heard the wall cut through the land which historically northern Xiongnu tribes were said roam in.I not justifying his evil actions but I believe there were more behind those words when he said the wall challenged his strength.
TropeADope
01:41:19 AM Mar 9th 2011
Yeah, quite probably more than meets the eye; I was going by what they showed in the movie. Maybe the Great Wall was his own Berserk Button or something. I thought it just gave him a weak pretense to invade something else, as if he needed one anyway.

But whatever is, is. We can always add him later if someone changes their minds. Thankyouverymuch. (Yes, I speak Elvis.)
217.202.159.42
topic
11:55:04 AM Feb 26th 2011
how about nicky santoro from martin corsese's casino?
Komodin
03:47:12 AM Feb 27th 2011
What about him?
71.80.226.45
topic
10:07:10 AM Feb 25th 2011
I'm surprised no one has put Peter Griffin and Louis Griffin on the complete monster list.They have done too many atrocities to be excused as heroes or even anti-heroes.Man,even Homer isn't this bad and Marge is still a pillar of morals.
Komodin
10:13:17 AM Feb 25th 2011
They still have moments where they're not complete tools. Therefore, they're not complete monsters.
neoYTPism
10:17:18 PM Feb 25th 2011
That and they're played primarily for laughs, (contradicts part 2) Peter is given the excuse of being too stupid to know better, (contradicts part 3) and they are occasionally portrayed as having good in them. (Contradicts part 4.)

Granted, I don't watch much Family Guy, but I don't think such a show would have a genuine CM in it.
Kira1987
topic
07:55:25 PM Feb 18th 2011
I've noticed that you have removed this trope from works pages. If that is the case, you should do away with this trope altogether. If it can't be featured on a works page or character page attached to it, its existence is pointless.
SomeNewGuy
08:04:59 PM Feb 18th 2011
Its a YMMV trope, so it's not pointless, its just supposed to go on the work's YMMV pages only.
Kira1980
06:51:10 PM Feb 19th 2011
Why?
KSonik
04:24:27 AM Feb 20th 2011
Because it is subjective
Kira1987
12:01:52 AM Feb 21st 2011
Name one trope that is not subjective.
Komodin
12:09:13 AM Feb 21st 2011
Why?

It's extremely subjective in that different people have different ideas on what constitutes a "complete monster", and it tends to bring an excessive amount of natter to whatever page they're on.
nuclearneo577
12:28:30 AM Feb 21st 2011
But if someone can contest an example here, its not an example. We need to clean it.
CaptHayfever
09:28:29 AM Mar 7th 2011
"Name one trope that is not subjective." Tonight Someone Dies. Want me to name another? Scout Out. Or another after that? Fake-Out Fade-Out. Or a couple dozen more?
SeraphimSwordmaster
04:29:34 AM May 16th 2011
You know, I get that some villains have a debatable Complete Monster status, namely the Well Intentioned Extremists and any villain who is significantly pretty, but when we're disputing whether, say... people who murder entire villages and attempt to genocide the planet in a bid to become gods for their own selfish reasons; or magistrates who abuse their positions of power to tax innocent people until they can no longer afford to even feed their families, taking away their children when they fail to do so, and feeding them to wild animals before using their political power to get off scot-free for all of their crimes ; or a demon who poses as a loving father and priest after getting his Dragon to wipe the memories of the town clean, using the prayers of the unwitting populace to power an even stronger demon all in preparation for a coming apocalypse; or people who mind rape innocent women over a period of several years into being their loving subordinates, backstab everybody who's ever trusted them, play Frankenstein with souls in order to transform them into villainous super-soldiers, hypnotise their enemies into stabbing the aforementioned innocent girl to near-death, and then start tearing up a whole city full of innocent people who never hurt anybody just because they wanted to demonstrate their powers ; or men who Mind Rape siblings into falling in love so that he can use their offspring to sire a dark god while at the same time reconstructing an empire that oppresses and enslaves the masses while also sacrificing them en masse to said dark god, with several murderers, chronic backstabbers and even a rapist all working to support said evil empire; or a woman who leads an organisation that persecutes people just for being born different and lobotomises them if they get too out of hand, eventually deciding that the best solution to their problem is to Kill 'em All after one of them commits an act of terrorism by blowing up what is effectively a church that has been trying to keep the power struggle in balance ; or The Joker are evil, I honestly have to ask What in the hell is wrong with us as human beings?! Just because it's fictional doesn't mean the actions are any less evil.

We wouldn't be disputing this if it was about real-life rapists and serial killers with no Freudian Excuses.
KSonik
11:04:30 AM May 28th 2011
any villain who is significantly pretty. Wait, who actually debate that good looking people cannot be CM material? Also one of the requirements of being a Complete Monster is that they must be completely devoid of altruistic qualities, so it certainly makes sense that Well Intentioned Extremists can never be Complete Monster.
SeraphimSwordmaster
08:21:57 AM Jun 5th 2011
You see, I subscribe to the opinion that if a WEI goes too far in their pursuit of what they deem their "well-intentioned" goal that they qualify. Prince Weiss from Arc Rise Fantasia, for example. He manipulates his half-brother(s), orchestrates a grand scheme to deprive an enemy country of its power source so that his can use it, invades said country without a formal declaration of war so that he can kill its religious leader personally... The game tries to justify this by saying that he's a WEI and this is serving some higher goal, but it doesn't really change the fact that a lot of people are dead, and many more are left without the aforementioned power because of him. The fact that his WEI goal is insinuated to be "get rid of the gods... so (he) can take over instead" also factors in. Not very altruistic, is it? Yet, like I said, the game tries to put this in a positive light. I personally don't buy it. I believe that a WEI has to have some kind of moral compass or some personal rules that they won't break to avoid Complete Monsterdom. Weiss, on this particular hand, is very much a villainous unfettered.

As for the "significantly pretty" point, well, okay. I admit that part of that might just be me ranting and I apologise for it. Still, there are characters like Sephiroth whom some will legitimately, completely ignore the wicked acts of and focus entirely on how bishie he is. Then there's Hojo from the same game; an extremely abusive father (as in: never let the mother of his son hold the baby before sending him off to be raised as a Super Soldier) with no redeeming features, who does everything For Science! / For the Evulz. Yet, when I tried adding CM to his sheet (in the days before it was YMMV)... I think it took twenty-two minutes for someone to come along and delete it with a reason like, "Hojo's not a monster". And against all logic, Evil Is Sexy has once-upon a time applied to him as well, despite being a Gonk. Bit of a pattern, methinks. And If he's not a monster, then why does he tick all five boxes of the trope?

For one that bugs me even more; the Big Bad of Berserk. Sacrifices everyone who risked their life to save him to attain ultimate power? Check. Restrains The Hero's girlfriend and rapes her into a state of insanity? Check. Said rape going on to corrupt their unborn child so that it enters the world warped and malformed? Check... We could be here all day. Yet some still try to rescue the guy from Complete Monsterdom. To quote his character page; "A handful of fans like to dismiss his Moral Event Horizon during the Eclipse. Some fans go further by claiming that Casca ENJOYED being raped."

I really don't agree that such evil characters can be spared from being called monsters.
ading
04:41:31 PM Jun 27th 2011
edited by ading
^^^ There are plenty of people who believe that NOONE in Real Life is this trope. That includes serial killers and rapists without Freudian Excuses.

Secondly, just because the "evil" element of the trope can be made objective, that does not mean every other element is.
doomsday524
07:30:11 PM Nov 25th 2011
edited by ading
Not even Adolf Hitler (even with his Freudian Excuse) or Josef Fritzl?
PrometheusUnbound
07:26:38 AM Dec 9th 2011
I think after you've crossed the Moral Event Horizon, the Freudian excuse is no longer adequate. You're going to kick me for saying this, but I don't think Hitler was a complete monster. He was under the delusion of doing something good for the world. Fritzl is a definite case as all he cared about was serving his despicable urges at the cost of those in his care.
ading
12:50:18 PM Dec 9th 2011
Real Life examples is just Flame Bait.

^ A Complete Monster CAN think what they are doing is good. Hence, a Knight Templar can be a Complete Monster. A Well-Intentioned Extremist can't be this trope, because they have some regret about what they are doing, but feels it is necessary for a greater good.

Also, a trope is YMMV if people often disagree about it. People often disagree about CM.
Nacked
topic
02:39:34 PM Feb 11th 2011
Does anyone know why Complete Monster now has a YMMV page, or what the examples in it are on about?
Fighteer
moderator
08:48:01 AM Feb 12th 2011
edited by Fighteer
Looks like someone did it by accident. I put it on the Cut List.
redjirachi
topic
06:49:32 PM Feb 4th 2011
I still hate the fact that no-one in Real Life is considered a Complete Monster,despite exhibiting the qualifications.Doesn't Pol Pot count for the miserable existence he caused his people?Doesn't Stalin count for the murder of tens of millions simply because they were an interference,not to mention his Lack of Empathy in the later days.Doesn't Caligula count for being utterly depraved?I swear,there are some people in history that have done things that other monsters in fiction have done,and with similar lack of a viable Freudian Excuse
MagBas
06:57:55 PM Feb 4th 2011
edited by MagBas
Based in discussions i read this is partially because is impossible determine that someone in Real Life have no good qualities and partially because the tropers Jumped Off The Slippery Slope.
Fighteer
moderator
07:36:21 AM Feb 5th 2011
What Mag Bas said, plus the fact that it is impossible to keep people from going crazy on the Real Life section of this article once it's been started. We don't give a flying flip about Real Life examples.
CaptHayfever
07:02:20 PM Feb 10th 2011
edited by CaptHayfever
Because some political wingnut will post Obama ("health care = socialism!"). Then in retaliation, some opposite-side wingnut will post Bush ("warmonger"). Then somebody will post Clinton ("adulterous perjurer"). Then someone else will post Reagan ("the devil"). Then FDR ("New Deal = socialism!"). Then Nixon ("was totally a crook"). Then JFK ("started Vietnam"). Then Jackson ("Trail of Tears")... Next thing you know, every US President except maybe Lincoln ("suspended habeas corpus") & Teddy ('cause we're all just too scared to call him one) is on the list.

We aren't saying that no one in real life is considered a Complete Monster (for example, we do all seem to agree on Hitler & Stalin), just that having a Real Life section on this article will turn into (& has in the past turned into) a never-ending mudslinging based on Minor Injury Overreaction.
ading
05:10:03 AM Feb 14th 2011
edited by ading
I don't think we'll get every US president, but we will get (in reverse chronological order):

Obama

Bush

Clinton

Bush

Reagan

Carter

Nixon

Johnson

Kennedy

Truman

Roosevelt

Wilson

Jackson
AMNK
11:27:41 AM May 7th 2011
ading
02:10:36 PM Jun 29th 2011
^^^ And then someone will add something completely random that doesn't even have the qualifications of those examples, like Justin Bieber ("will be the death of all good music").
PulpoOscuro
01:25:45 PM Nov 3rd 2011
And then we'll start getting people who are just trolling, like the Ted Turner example near the top of the discussion page.
Kahran042
topic
04:28:33 PM Jan 30th 2011
Any work wherein the villain is one of these is obviously the work of a complete hack. I am not being sarcastic. This is genuinely what I believe.
Hello86
04:36:28 PM Jan 30th 2011
Why's that? I want to hear more. (I'm serious)
Kahran042
04:44:19 PM Jan 30th 2011
Because they obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of characterization, so they can only write flat characters like this.
Vox
05:03:26 PM Jan 30th 2011
So you think it's impossible for a Complete Monster to have any kind of depth?
dontcallmewave
05:30:11 PM Jan 30th 2011
.*cough* Voldemort *cough*
Kahran042
05:49:42 PM Jan 30th 2011
No, it's just that my definition of a Complete Monster (notice my lack of a link to the same page) is a villain without depth.
Jordan
05:50:17 PM Jan 30th 2011
Wouldn't that be a tautology?
CaptHayfever
08:49:50 PM Jan 30th 2011
So you think any author who writes a villain without depth, even just once, is a complete hack?

Jordan: Yes. It is indeed a tautology. "Complete Monsters aren't deep villains because my definition of Complete Monsters says they aren't deep villains."
Vox
03:49:06 AM Jan 31st 2011
I disagree completely. Alan Moore writes many such characters and gives them depth (see: The Comedian, Adam Susan, Mr Hyde) and he's pretty much the exact opposite of a hack.
KSonik
05:10:50 AM Jan 31st 2011
edited by KSonik
Actually I am not too sure the Comedian is a Complete Monster. He is probably a case of Even Evil Has Standards. But he is a horribly cruel person.

Still, your argument doesn't make any sense Kahran.
ading
02:16:30 PM Jul 28th 2011
So basically, you hate this trope because you have redefined it to what you want it to be, and then criticized the real trope because of your imaginary trope? (Well, not imaginary, but not Complete Monster. More like Generic Doomsday Villain.)

^^^^^^ Also, yeah. What about Voldemort?
Voyd211
05:17:26 PM Jan 29th 2012
Ahem.... Johan Liebert. Complete Monster does not equal Flat Character, it just means that it's a bit more difficult to write correctly. Badly done Monsters just seem generic, while well-done Monsters are terrifying.
CaptHayfever
topic
11:31:35 PM Jan 28th 2011
edited by CaptHayfever
[Deleted. The infobox line about subpages was brought to my attention. Still, the little scale icon showing up in the middles of sentences, even on potholes, is incredibly annoying.]
411314
topic
12:22:35 PM Oct 25th 2010
It seems to me that some of the requirements apply to the vast majority of fictional villains, or at least ones I've read about or watched, so I'm not sure how it's not true that almost EVERY villain is a Complete Monster with villains who aren't this trope being rare.

'The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.'

What qualifies as "truly horrendous"? If murder is truly horrendous regardless of weather or not it's an especially painful murder, then almost every villain fits this since almost every villain wants to murder the good guys and that's the primary thing that makes them a villain.

'The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around who aren't this trope, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (and in particularly disturbing stories with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.

(emphasis mine) "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right" seems to contradict "The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times", and the "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable" contradicts "but can still be one if done right". And it's not clear what "at best" means. Also, this seems like another one that just about any non-comedic villain could fit. If you're one of the good guys and the villain is trying to kill you, then of course you're going to be afraid of them. Anyone would be afraid of someone who wanted to kill them.

'There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.'

There are stories about characters who tragically become evil like Doctor Horribles Sing A Long Blog and perhaps Othelo, but in most stories, we don't learn the villain's excuse other then wanting money or power.

'The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.'

Yet another one that's true of most villains.

'Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.'

The "no chance of redemption" part is also true of most villains, though not so much the "no fate worse than death is too extreme" part.
Fighteer
moderator
12:55:25 PM Oct 25th 2010
Why is this getting crossposted in the Discussion thread? Just provide a link to the forums!
Paireon
07:27:35 PM Oct 26th 2010
What Fighteer said. The Trope Repair thread is there for a reason, people.
MagBas
03:09:01 PM Jan 14th 2011
Looks that the thread expired.
ading
03:53:11 AM Mar 11th 2011
edited by ading
I think you're misunderstanding the criteria.

1. It's not about wanting to do horrendous acts, you have to actually do them. 2. It's not just the good guys that have to fear/hate/revile them, it's also the other villains (if there are any, that is.) 3. agreed. 4. agreed. 5. This is inherently subjective, but really? most villains have no chance of redemption? Also, you seem to be ignoring the "The only way the story could come to anything resemling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed." part.
Paireon
topic
02:11:11 PM Oct 22nd 2010
OK, someone needs to do it, so I may as well bite the bullet. I'm planning on a large-scale cleanup of the trope's subpages during this coming week. Natter and other extraneous text will be excised, examples with insufficient explanations will be expanded, and those not quite fitting will be pruned. I love this trope, but it's become utterly bloated like one of those 100-pound babies you see on Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.

Anyone willing to discuss this is welcome; I'll post this in the forums.
Fighteer
moderator
06:13:01 AM Oct 23rd 2010
Good luck with that. I'm serious; CM has one of the highest burnout rates of page minders of any trope on the wiki.
Paireon
09:56:15 PM Oct 24th 2010
Yeah, I know. Thanks. Just started a Trope Repair Shop topic if you want to give any input.
neoYTPism
topic
11:26:32 AM Sep 19th 2010
Also, it says in the Disney section that Shan Yu has the biggest body count of any Disney villain. Are they sure about this? I thought that title would belong to Frollo, who threatened to burn down all of Paris, and made considerable progress towards that goal before he was stopped. Sure, Shan Yu burned down whole communities, but they seemed to be rural ones without as high a population density as the city Frollo burned down a significant chunk of.
Paireon
09:58:41 AM Oct 8th 2010
Well, Ancient China had a pretty high population, and if memory serves, the capital was much further south than Beijing, meaning that Shan Yu must have cut a very large swathe of the countryside to get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, late medieval Paris had about 100 000 inhabitants, tops, so Frollo having a lower body count makes sense to me.
Mistermister
topic
07:13:46 PM Sep 17th 2010
Subjective? What's so subjective about this trope? Complete Monsters are horrifically cruel villains with absolutely no regret with what they did. This is about as subjective as the Magnificent Bastard trope.
lrrose
09:39:16 PM Sep 17th 2010
edited by lrrose
It seems like they've just given up on cleaning up this article. There are some villains who are portrayed as being irredeemably evil and are acknowledged as such. Suikoden II's Luca Blight is a good example. This reeks of laziness.
neoYTPism
11:24:38 AM Sep 19th 2010
Well, seeing as how morality is TECHNICALLY subjective, as is the notion of whether or not they have a sufficient excuse for their evil deeds, I guess that puts this trope into arguably subjective territory.
70.134.66.117
05:49:08 PM Sep 28th 2010
lets keep fixing this trope. i dont want to see Mr. Krabs or Alejandro here again.
MagBas
06:31:35 PM Sep 28th 2010
edited by MagBas
I also guess that we must keep fixing this trope, this trope yet have one strong non-subjective factor. Let's examine the requisites one by one:
  • The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.
    • "Truly horrendous acts"- subjective. "the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light"-non subjective. "Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by the distant Mook don't count"-non-subjective.
  • The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (in particularly disturbing stories, with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.
    • Totally non subjective.
  • There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.
    • Totally subjective
  • The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
    • Totally non-subjective.
  • Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel-Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.

And this without look to the villain types that never are Complete Monsters:Anti-Villain, Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, Well-Intentioned Extremist, Harmless Villain, Worthy Opponent, Sympathetic Murderer and Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain are all non-subjective.
Paireon
09:59:31 PM Oct 24th 2010
Thanks for this, Mag Bas. I'll be using it as semi-guidelines to keep in mind for my cleanup attempt.
Iaculus
04:25:37 AM Oct 25th 2010
Point Three can get an automatic pass, though, if the story doesn't even mention something that could be vaguely considered as a justification or Freudian Excuse. Some Complete Monsters just don't get that much backstory.
ading
02:17:38 PM Jul 28th 2011
Point 5 is still inescapably subjective, though.
BigglesTh9
04:29:41 AM Nov 29th 2011
The idea that morality is subjective reeks of many things: chiefly laziness. Yes, there are many instances right and wrong are unclear. But we'd all agree that torturing people For the Evulz is wrong (and even if none of us thought so, it would still be so). We could at least try to decide on a threshold for "truly horrendous acts".
ading
05:47:08 AM Feb 14th 2013
^ evil acts=/=evil people. And even then, there's still the issue of "do they have an adequate Freudian Excuse". The problem with deciding on a threshold is that even if we did, it would still be impossible to agree on what passes that threshold and what doesn't.
neoYTPism
topic
04:16:29 PM Sep 14th 2010
I was thinking of removing Cruella, Grimhilde, and maybe Maleficent from the Disney section... though I'm not very familiar with Maleficent... I actually added her beforehand even though I haven't watched the entirety of the movie she's from. Cruella's mostly cruel to nonhumans, Grimhilde to one or two humans, and Maleficent to her minions and a few humans. The list has since grown so much that I feel compelled to remove all but the most clear-cut cases of Complete Monster status.

I was also thinking of adding Zira (see the Complete Monster, Freudian Excuse, and Alternate Character Interpretation sections of the Lion King 2 trope list) but I'm not sure if she qualifies. Would she?
neoYTPism
11:25:13 AM Sep 19th 2010
Never mind. Already added her. Where should I take any discussion about whether or not she belong though?
CarlosMunez88
topic
02:23:15 PM Aug 18th 2010
edited by CarlosMunez88
Why exactly are "Real Life" examples of Complete Monsters not allowed? A) The possibility that someone who admires truly dangerous people will troll this site? B) The fact that most of them were political figures?
Nebro_Gnosis
07:25:52 PM Sep 3rd 2010
Probably because it would get out of hand really fast. The likes of Hitler and Stalin are obvious, but before you know it people will be adding, like, Hugo Chavez or George W. Bush or Sarkozy or whatever.
ManwiththePlan
07:09:15 AM Sep 7th 2010
Or Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon or Tony Blair....you get the point.
Fighteer
moderator
07:20:35 AM Sep 7th 2010
Because we are not about Real Life on this wiki. Tropes do not apply to real people by definition. Real Life is tolerated as a category if it stays on topic and is always subject to being excised if it threatens to devolve into a Flame War or attract Natter.
Nithael
01:56:46 PM Sep 9th 2010
Also, as an unnamed troper said in the archived discussion of the trope,

" As I see it, the problem is that in real life, unsympathetic villains are so overwhelmingly common as to render any listing pointless. In the past, people just added on to the list any murderer or dictator they happen to think of, whether they're particularly monstrous or just an ordinary example of human cruelty. Obviously, I'm not sole arbiter of this, so feel free to shout me down, but I predict it'll just turn into a really long list of nasty people and a bunch of discussions about whether such-and-such was really so bad and so on. "
94.12.107.254
11:24:18 AM Dec 11th 2010
Has anyone seen The Cove? If you have, you'll know that in Taiji, Japan, there exists a horde of Complete Monsters. It's implied that they kill dolphins just for fun or to prove how manly they are and some of them are known to be very young. They also wanted the meat, a primary source of mercury poisoning to be used in school dinners. You just have to look up the symptoms of mercury poisoning to know how much nightmare fuel is involved. And school dinners are compulsory there,
94.9.133.108
topic
06:51:53 PM Jul 24th 2010
Mr. Burns? Seriously? Yes, he's evil and he blotted out the sun among other acts, but that's still a far cry from this trope. To say he doesn't elicit sympathy sounds...wrong to be honest. Also, crossing a Moral Event Horizon in and of itself does not mean they've become a Complete Monster.
Inferno232
07:03:09 PM Aug 6th 2010
edited by Inferno232
Mr. Burns is intentionally a Complete Monster in the show. He's willing to do ANYTHING for a buck, or just For the Evulz. However, where this gets tricky is that he's played for laughs. Very few Simpsons villains are ever taken seriously. Barely anything in the show is taken seriously. Occasionally there may be a moral or a political Take That, but that's it.

In other words, he's an example of how this trope can be played comedically. He completely lacks morals and if he has standards they aren't very high.
Anaheyla
topic
03:36:00 PM Jul 18th 2010
How in God's name can this trope stay afloat when there are always fifty people ready to jump to any given character's defense as to why he's not a complete monster and argue any attempt to label him as such into the ground?
Jerrik
03:44:02 PM Jul 18th 2010
Is this about Sasuke?
Inferno232
07:00:29 PM Aug 6th 2010
From what I've seen, it's about ay given character in any given medium.

"Hannibal EATS PEOPLE. People who would HAVE NEVER HARMED HIM. Defenseless people!" "... Well, he's very charismatic!" "Yeah, lay off our cannibal! He's clearly an anti-hero!" "... *FacePalm*"

TiberiusBlaze
05:52:50 PM Sep 20th 2011
Hannibal is capable of empathy. He empathises with Clarice Starling, his mother, father and sister, Lady Murasaki, Mason Verger's sister and the children Mason has abused. He's not an antihero by any stretch of the imagination but he is a Well-Intentioned Extremist. He is protective of children, kind to those who are kind to him and (usually) chivalrous towards women. Complete Monsters have NO redeeming traits. They have empathy for no-one. Hannibal Lector, while undeniably an evil man is by no stretch of the imagination a CM.
doomsday524
07:34:29 PM Nov 25th 2011
edited by doomsday524
Yeah. Hannibal can show empathy.
Etheru
topic
08:59:56 PM Jun 1st 2010
edited by Etheru
The whole Family Guy argument about whether or not Quagmire and Peter qualify as monsters or not gets on my nerves. I haven't watched the show all that much, really, and I can't determine whether or not they qualify, but let me ask, should they be in the section? The argument needs to end.

To argue about it more clearly, let's put up the qualifications.

  • The character must personally engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count. The Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes him becoming one through Character Development.
  • The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all. If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.
  • No justification or Freudian Excuse is present, or adequate to explain away the deeds if one exists.
  • The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
  • Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel-Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.
neoYTPism
06:36:43 PM Jun 2nd 2010
edited by neoYTPism
I'm not sure about Quagmire, but I think Peter's "evil" is WAY too mild to deserve the Complete Monster label.

EDIT: Since you put the qualifications there, I'd say "if other characters don't take this character seriously they fail to qualify" is more than enough of an indication that Peter fails to qualify.
Etheru
03:02:39 PM Jun 3rd 2010
This discussion was just to kind of end a conflict that's been going on about if they qualify or not, I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify.
neoYTPism
05:20:48 PM Jun 3rd 2010
"I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify." - Etheru

Then I would point the blame at those who continue to call those characters Complete Monsters. Obviously, they do not meet the criteria, which should not be a surprise since their "evil" is very mild and dealt with way too lightly to come close to the category.
Etheru
10:00:20 PM Jun 3rd 2010
edited by Etheru
I'm sorry about that, I wasn't really pointing the blame at you, sorry for coming off as aggressive, but I'll direct them to this discussion the next time they do it...

Wait, somebody else already did.
neoYTPism
topic
09:29:58 AM May 30th 2010
So is a "Complete Monster" defined by the extent of evil and/or the lack of moral justification for their actions, or does it also imply that they aren't supposed to be funny or cool while doing so? I recall a previous definition of "Complete Monster" on this site implying the latter, (though it seems to have been changed since) but what about the Joker from Dark Knight? I haven't watched the movie, but that villain is considered funny and cool while also being considered extremely evil, and from the Joker scenes I've seen I agree.

But if the "Complete Monster" category depends on said villain not being cool or funny, then wouldn't that suggest that "extremely evil" villains who are also cool and funny (like the Joker) should be put into a separate category of villain?
Iaculus
10:47:10 AM May 30th 2010
Well, we've got Evilly Affable for that.
neoYTPism
01:30:32 PM May 30th 2010
So if the idea is that "Evilly Affable" is the category for those who are funny/cool while being extremely evil, whereas "Complete Monster" is for those who aren't, then why are some characters in both categories?

T Vtropes should just pick an approach and stick with it. Either: A) "Complete Monster" refers to how extremely evil they are and just that or B) If it doesn't include ones who manage to be cool/funny, then it never should.
Iaculus
01:51:07 PM May 30th 2010
It's an evolving wiki with multiple contributors, not a Hive Mind. You see folks who are in the wrong section according to the description, you shift 'em over yourself.
neoYTPism
04:18:28 PM May 30th 2010
Yeah, but when the description itself changes, it's hard to tell what category they fall into, especially when sometimes they fall into both. (Dark Knight's Joker comes to mind)
insofar
07:34:08 PM May 30th 2010
"Funny" and "cool" are subjective. How the villains are perceived by individual viewers is of no issue because the page had long been rewritten to emphasize objectivity.
neoYTPism
01:11:23 PM May 31st 2010
Ok then, so wouldn't that suggest that "Complete Monster" refers to how evil they are, and isn't affected by how funny or cool they are? So shouldn't things like "funny" and "cool" (which I agree are subjective) be treated as irrelevant when discussing whether or not a character fits the category of "Complete Monster"?
insofar
01:25:16 PM May 31st 2010
Yes, I completely agree with that. Anyway, these tropes are not mutually exclusive.
RavenWilder
topic
11:07:39 PM Apr 9th 2010
edited by RavenWilder
Created a single proposition crowner about possibly splitting Complete Monster into two seperate tropes here.

Please let me know what you think.
SomeGuy
topic
01:36:53 PM Apr 9th 2010
I've completed the process of spinning off all examples into their own pages. Not really sure why someone only did it halfway.
xie323
04:12:37 PM Apr 9th 2010
Cause they're too short?
SomeGuy
04:18:31 PM Apr 9th 2010
edited by SomeGuy
True, but it's not like they were that short. The spares looked fugly as all heck crowded onto this page. Better to have a uniformly aesthetically pleasing layout than one that looks vaguely ugly.
xie323
08:27:29 PM Apr 10th 2010
Or merge them into an "other" folder.
insofar
05:05:12 PM Apr 11th 2010
Thank you, it really did look awfully ugly.
Paireon
10:12:30 PM Apr 21st 2010
edited by Paireon
Good idea, but I'd push it one bit further. Although standard policy is "add new articles at bottom", I think related entries should be put next to (before/after) each other for ease of browsing and consultation. I already did it for the "videogames" page (admitedly that one was already pretty tidy, I only had to move 3-4 entries, so separate entries for Nasuverse, Armored Core and Wild Arms could be seen simultaneously/successively). What do other tropers think?
Monsund
topic
06:51:59 PM Apr 5th 2010
Most of the Complete Monster example here are fairly ugly or old. So I'd say mentioning unattractiveness is a common trait with fictional Complete Monsters.
insofar
06:58:37 PM Apr 5th 2010
No, most aren't. And even if they were, our examples here do not comprise a comprehensive list. The reason I keep removing it is because it is averted as often as it's deployed (if it's deployed intentionally at all), and it takes up space. The write-up is already too long, and people are obviously not reading it (hence the examples that are constantly contested and deleted), so we should be getting rid of anything that isn't directly related to the trope.

You may simply be looking at an inversion of Beauty Equals Goodness, which, again, is incidental to this trope.
Monsund
07:03:52 PM Apr 5th 2010
I wouldn't say averted as often as deployed. Bishōnen CompleteMonsters are rare and generally have a Freudian Excuse. Yes there are some attractive villains that are absolutely vile CompleteMonsters, but they are far outnumbered by old, plain, and ugly CompleteMonsters.

If you want to shorten it, go ahead but it still deserves a mention.
insofar
07:51:41 PM Apr 5th 2010
But what does the Freudian Excuse have to do with it?
Monsund
08:10:49 PM Apr 5th 2010
Attractive Villains are more likely to receive one. Not there aren't ugly villains with FreudianExcuses and attractive CompleteMonsters with none.
Gilphon
12:05:14 PM Apr 6th 2010
edited by Gilphon
I can see what you're trying to say, but honestly, most of the characters that spring to mind when I think of this trope are not particularly ugly. A Complete Monster is are commonly given good looks to create a creepy disconnect with their personalities, or because the author has just decided that Evil Is Sexy, or because of some 'Fallen Angel' symbolism or what have you.

It certainly doesn't belong on the checklist, since I don't think anyone's arguing that there's no such thing as an attractive Complete Monster.
Monsund
02:40:31 PM Apr 6th 2010
edited by Monsund
May I ask what characters you think of when you hear Complete Monster?

This is interesting discussion and I want to seee where it will go.
Gilphon
05:54:57 PM Apr 6th 2010
Well, the first character to come mind is of course Johan from Monster. Szayel Aporro from Bleach, Envy from Fullmetal Alchemist and the Major from Hellsing come behind him. The Major is admitted not particularly attractive, but he's not exactly monstrous either. On other hand, Johan is fairly attractive, and Szayel is downright homoerotic. Envy has a monstrous true form, but his regular one is fairly average.

Note that I was trying to be as objective as possible with my picks, choosing only the first ones that came to mind.
Monsund
07:20:43 PM Apr 6th 2010
I'll do a quick rewrite. Tell me what you think.
insofar
09:25:35 PM Apr 6th 2010
edited by insofar
I think the word "most" doesn't belong in any objective write-up. Again, it's not really that there aren't any old or ugly complete monsters, just that this type of thing is neither necessary nor common enough to point out in the introduction. If anything, we might be looking at a common clause of Beauty Equals Goodness which should become a subtrope in itself. But to jam it in here, where it's not really all that relevant, is a bit gratuitous.
76.89.145.110
09:49:55 AM Aug 29th 2010
I do have one question. What is it called when the actions of the complete monster (the ones that cross the moral event horizon) follow a clearly identifiable and consistent pattern? For example, said evil actions being directed the most severely towards family members (including the complete monster's own), groups with a clan identification (an "extended family" setting, if you will), romantic settings (all bets are off when it comes to a very serious love interest of one of the main characters about to reach fruition, preventing a family a progeny from taking place or making it, to put it lightly, miserable), and issues concerning national affiliations of other characters (another extension of the family metaphor).
PrometheusUnbound
06:57:45 AM Nov 27th 2011
What about Commodus from Gladiator? He's one Hell of a Complete Monster but he's pretty Bishonen-like. This, combined with his Freudian Excuse usually eanrs him the Draco in Leather Pants treatment online.
insofar
topic
10:51:01 PM Apr 4th 2010
edited by insofar
The writeup is waaay too long. No wonder people aren't reading the article and we end up with examples that in no way apply. I'm thinking of pruning the corollaries to the basics - no attempt at atonement, no adequate Freudian Excuse, no well intentioned extremism. Most of the rest seem to be frequently subverted and really do nothing to prove the rule.

Also, there is absolutely no reason for the corollaries to be so elaborate. If you need a paragraph to explain the clause, it means that the initial statement needs to be reworded into something more accessible and concise.
doomsday524
09:22:38 PM Jan 14th 2012
I disagree that a Freudian Excuse is enough to get out of this trope. After all, Hitler had a Freudian Excuse since his stepfather used to beat him. It didn't excuse committing genocide on millions of people.
ading
02:00:58 PM Mar 31st 2013
Lots of people in Real Life committed genocide. There are so many people in Real Life who have done heinous actions that the standards for a real person to be an example are so high they're impossible to meet, or at least would have to make Hitler look like Gandhi.
SomeGuy
topic
05:55:19 PM Apr 3rd 2010
Deleted the page image. Just a Face and a Caption, makes no sense to anyone not familiar with the series in question.
insofar
07:48:07 PM Apr 3rd 2010
Just a Face and a Caption is as Exactly What It Says on the Tin as it gets. How do you confuse it with someone pointing a gun at a young child?
SomeGuy
07:56:07 AM Apr 4th 2010
For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti-Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time. It takes more than pointing a gun at a kid to be a Complete Monster.
sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
01:22:43 PM Apr 4th 2010
71.112.48.200
01:24:16 PM Apr 4th 2010
I disagree, Someguy. With a trope name like that it's implied that he doesn't just point and gets the point across just fine to me.
insofar
03:21:53 PM Apr 4th 2010
"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."

I think it's rather safe to assume that most people will not construe the horrified looking kid who appears to be no older than ten as a hardened crime boss, nor find anything remotely heroic in a guy indifferently pointing a gun at anyone.
Seikai
12:35:07 AM Apr 5th 2010
Gotta agree with insofar. That's making a broad, very intricate assumption. Who automatically thinks that some emotionless-looking guy, pointing a gun at a terrified little boy has such an elaborate reason like that? That's like saying a picture of some maniac burning down an orphanage and killing newborns wouldn't illustrate this because people would automatically assume that the orphanage was evil and the newborns were devil incarnates.
SomeGuy
01:30:44 PM Apr 9th 2010
Are we reading the same page here? I'd wager roughly three-quarters of the examples involve villains engaging in acts roughly ten times as evil as "point a gun at a kid for reasons not clear", and I'm including the iffy examples in that prognosis. I think a good argument can be made that the relatively low threshold for villainy implied by that picture is part of the reason why examples keep cropping up that really don't pass muster.
insofar
05:13:09 PM Apr 11th 2010
The reason why the image of Johann pointing the gun at a small, petrified child conveys the idea so successfully is because it's a realistic action. It's disturbing and chilling in its simplicity and plausibility in a way that a flanderized maniac cackling over thousands of corpses can never be.
74.197.103.196
11:36:29 AM Jun 10th 2010
edited by 74.197.103.196
While what I've read about Johann definitely qualifies him for the spot, why can't we put up a universal picture for complete monster, such as a picture of You-Know-Who?

...This is like the fifth time I've made a link to that guy. I need to stop posting about Complete Monsters. Or at least use another example...
insofar
12:39:20 PM Jun 10th 2010
Oh my CHRIST, Real Life examples aren't allowed for a good reason.
dontcallmewave
03:11:03 PM Jan 25th 2011
edited by ading
True, in most cases Real Life Complete Monsters are not allowed, but that is only because most likely not everyone would agree that the Real Life example was a Complete Monster. In regards to Hitler, however, you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed.
Fighteer
moderator
05:03:33 PM Jan 25th 2011
Irrelevant. Real Life people cannot be examples of this trope. Violate this rule at your peril.
67.223.208.204
08:45:06 PM Apr 5th 2011
edited by ading
Well... How about an image of John Snyder from The Hitcher? Definitely more familiar.
Jordan
08:47:48 PM Apr 5th 2011
Who?
ading
06:04:13 PM Jun 10th 2011
What the hell is The Hitcher and who is John Snyder?
Tifforo
02:04:49 PM Nov 4th 2011
edited by Tifforo
"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."

The guy with the gun is BEHIND the child, and the child is looking backward at him terrified. It's obviously not self-defense. It's also obvious from the positioning and the expression on the man's face that he's not some terrified fugitive desperately using the child as a hostage to save his own life.

I will agree that pointing a gun at a kid does not guarantee that a character fits this trope. The circumstances you described would be an example of why it doesn't.

Unless you have a picture of someone with a smoking AK-47 in hand raping a pile of bullet-filled nuns and orphans (that isn't High Octane Nightmare Fuel), the current picture works. Actually, even that wouldn't guarantee it, because what if the nuns were all carrying a deadly disease that almost necessitates killing them and the character has a Freudian Excuse for raping them? Maybe we need to show the shooter's nice-looking parents trying to stop him, and have Jesus in the background shaking his head in disapproval! That still wouldn't prove that the shooter doesn't have positive qualities, though, so we'll need the shooter to be wearing a nametag that says "Ted" and have a piece of paper in-view that says "Ted's positive qualities: none. -signed, someone with good judgement who's been watching him since he killed his twin sister in the womb." We should throw in a speech bubble in which Ted says "I'm doing this because I hate everything good!" as a safety measure in case it's not clear enough. Wait! I forgot irrefutable proof that the person with the smoking gun who's the only armed person visible is the shooter!
SomeNewGuy
topic
04:42:07 PM Apr 3rd 2010
Will whoever keeps deleting the Whatley examples cut it out?! Or at least give a reason why they don't count?! They seem pretty heinous, given the descriptions.
LadyGaga4ever
topic
01:52:40 PM Apr 3rd 2010
What a minute, A Complete Monster cant be a Draco in Leather Pants? This Trope has seen more than one characters be a rare example of both.
MegahunterX
02:29:00 PM Jan 25th 2011
edited by MegahunterX
I have only one word to support your theory: Sephiroth.
ading
09:27:15 AM Feb 11th 2011
Where does it say that a Complete Monster can't be a Draco in Leather Pants? Of course they can.
BlueKevlar16
05:26:42 AM Apr 4th 2012
It's a disturbing trend, but even Complete Monsters, even RAPISTS can be DINLP. See Franklin from True Blood.
Paireon
topic
10:49:20 PM Mar 26th 2010
Okay, who deleted Sasuke from under the Naruto examples? I'd like a good explanation for this one, because it seems to me that he's a pretty good way over the horizon. Pwning Danzo would normally count as Kick the Son of a Bitch, but doing it by stabbing THROUGH one of your new Nakama with the same dispassionnate nonchalance you show when slaughtering Mooks, you're not a very nice person anymore. Now we need to get him a new wardrobe, preferably without as many leather pants.
Jerrik
10:57:35 PM Mar 26th 2010
I haven't really been a part of it, but there has been quite a bit of discussion about Sasuke being a Complete Monster on the character page and the forums. You should probably check one of those places.
74.197.103.196
11:32:04 AM Jun 10th 2010
edited by 74.197.103.196
Threatening your former friends? Telling loyal lackeys that You Have Outlived Your Usefulness? Having a Freudian Excuse that is pathetic compared to the crimes you have committed? If he's not there already, he's really, really close.
80.127.21.134
07:56:14 AM Aug 12th 2010
edited by 80.127.21.134
The fact that he has a Freudian Excuse and needed 400 chapters worth of Start of Darkness to get where he is should tip you off regardless of how pathetic you view his storyline to be but even then, all the examples you mentioned happened within hours of each other and contradict previous behaviour, we have better tropes for this: Roaring Rampage of Revenge, Go Mad from the Revelation and Villainous Breakdown. Also keep in mind that Zabuza used to be this trope, until he was redeemed, Gaara was this trope, until he was redeemed, Nagato was this trope, until he was redeemed. Naruto characters have gone in and out of this trope way to easily in the past, something that really shouldn't be possible with Complete Monster as it is supposed to be the absolute worst of the worst a villain can be, Kishimoto doesn't seem to believe in people being beyond redemption, save the few that are in the trope right now.
Herok1ller
11:39:10 AM Nov 20th 2011
doomsday524
07:48:52 PM Nov 25th 2011
edited by doomsday524
There are multiple characters, Orochimaru, Madara, Gato, Hidan, and probably Kabuto being the most obvious ones, who he seems to emphasize very clearly are beyond redemption, so although redemption is a theme, I disagree that he doesn't beleive some people are so bad they do not have any good in them and fit as CMs.
Paireon
topic
11:49:29 PM Mar 12th 2010
Removed Ulic Qel Droma from comics. The mere fact that he found genuine redemption instead of being a Karma Houdini disqualifies him for this trope.
Madrugada
moderator
09:21:54 PM Mar 19th 2010
Removed Xykon from The Order of the Stick. When the example starts out "[he] will vary between this and Evilly Affable since his Moral Event Horizons are also Crowning Moments Of Awesome just out of how stylish they can be..." he's not a Complete Monster. Being Evilly Affable; varying between Complete Monster and something else; and having Crowning Moments of Awesome are all incompatible with really being a Complete Monster.
insofar
12:16:21 AM Mar 21st 2010
Subjective vs objective again. This trope was rewritten to be objective, so anything that involves "awesome" or "fandom" has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria of the trope anymore. If the villain is comic on purpose, that's another thing though.
VVK
02:26:09 PM Mar 23rd 2010
Well, he is, among other things. I agree about his having no place here.
Fighteer
moderator
02:52:06 PM Mar 23rd 2010
Xykon is also Crazy Awesome. A comedic work cannot have a Complete Monster almost by definition without veering into Black Comedy.
Paireon
10:30:08 PM Mar 26th 2010
edited by Paireon
The comedy when Xykon decides to get serious is very, very black, when it doesn't disappear altogether. He's a rare case (like The Joker) where his Crazy Awesome CMOAs can cross the Moral Event Horizon and still count.
sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
01:42:06 PM Apr 1st 2010
edited by sovvil2008@yahoo.co.uk
No Just No. I, someone who actually read Order of the Stick, can actually vouch against Xykon's inclusion here. I mean, come on! True, some of his actions are not really portrayed as being funny, but those are a few exceptions. Xykon is the poster boy for Evilly Affable and most of his atrocities are not just portrayed as being funny, but they are funny. Seriously, for example, do you gasp when he sacrifices his minions?. Do you really cry for the death of the celestial? And if you still don't believe that Xykon doesn't deserve to be here, well... would a Complete Monster have a substantial fanbase? Well, would they? A Complete Monster is not just someone that is "really, really evil" but someone who is irredeemable in ways that are not, I repeat not entertaining to the audience. The mere fact that Xykon would have his own section on the Order of the Stick Crowning Moment of Awesome page eliminates him from being a Complete Monster
Elle
07:32:06 PM Apr 14th 2010
The description of Complete Monster has been revised again after a long-ish Trope Repair Shop discussion and you might want to re-evaluate Xykon in light of it. It no longer excludes characters based on likability and allows more room for Magnificent Bastard and Affably Evil / Evily Affable characters, focusing on their deeds and motivation.
Paireon
07:52:27 AM Apr 22nd 2010
Agreeing with Elle. Ali Al-Saachez, Kefka and Johann have substantial fanbases, yet are also Complete Monsters. I've read the entire run of Order of the Stick as well, and while under the old, subjective trope definition he wouldn't have fitted, the new more objective one fits him like a glove.
ading
03:15:38 AM Feb 25th 2011
being Evilly Affable and having Awesome Moments are both compatible with being a Complete Monster.
Paireon
topic
04:52:11 PM Mar 6th 2010
edited by Paireon
OK, I talked about this before (and so have others), but I really don't think the Maleficent and Gaston entries (under Western Animation) should be there. While both are very clearly Bad People(tm), I don't believe they fit the standard, as none really go above and beyond in their evil.

For starters, Maleficent is an early modern take on The Fair Folk, and while in the thirties and early forties she might have seemed monstrous, by current standards she's pretty much run-of-the-mill Classic Villain material. Sure, you cheer her death, but at the end, virtually all of her evil deeds are undone, nobody's left traumatized (or even dead, if I remember), and her idea of Mind Rape isn't particularly scary for anyone over 12. I haven't heard anyone ever mention how loathsome she was; most consider her pretty awesome. As for Gaston, I'll admit he's a walking talking Kick the Dog moment, but it makes him look more like a cartoonish Jerk Jock than this trope. He's even Evilly Affable enough to have undergone a minor Memetic Mutation once upon a time; most people think of him as an amusing (if villainous) buffoon for his acts. Complete Monsters aren't that entertaining (except The Joker, but he's a special case).

So, both are far too entertaining for this trope, and their bastardry doesn't translate into a desire to go through the screen and throttle them like other examples. If these two stay, we might as well add Cinderella's stepmother (who was a lot more personal about her villainy), Ursula (who sought to inflict A Fate Worse Than Death rather than just death to the heroine and her father), Clayton (who's much more sinister and duplicitous), and Jaffar (who probably pushes villainy as far as it can go without crossing the Moral Event Horizon). And all of those still aren't as repulsively, nightmarishly evil as Frollo or the evil queen from Snow white.

Maleficent is Nightmare Fuel because she goes One-Winged Angel. Frollo is Nightmare Fuel because he's a murderous, sexually obsessed bigot who plans a small-scale genocide while using his position and his faith as justifications for his atrocities. Methinks the difference is pretty big.
SomeGuy
08:24:47 PM Apr 4th 2010
While you make a good argument it would be a lot less disorienting if you expressed your concerns on Western Animation Complete Monster discussion page, where the examples are actually located.
MacPhisto
topic
05:33:29 PM Mar 5th 2010
I see that the Big Bossman has been added under Professional Wrestling, but whatever happened to Jake "The Snake" Roberts entry?
Paireon
03:51:09 PM Mar 6th 2010
No idea, but I remember it too, just not well enough to rewrite it. I think it fit the trope pretty well by Professional Wrestling standards. It definitely should be put back in IMO.
Marikina
05:05:18 AM Mar 25th 2010
edited by Marikina
Removed some of the examples under Professional Wrestling. The Randy Orton, CM Punk, and Bossman entries don't affect the tone of the work, and in the case of Orton and Punk either men can be faces again without a major change in character despite their actions (in fact, Orton already has done so).
Marikina
11:18:07 AM Mar 27th 2010
edited by Marikina
"Larfleeze: Sorry but BBM basically torturted Big Show for shits and giggles and Punk managed to turn a mixed reaction to his Straight Edge gimmick to total hatred with one promo. It stays."

The trope write-up pretty much says it takes more that a laundry list of For the Lulz and being Obviously Evil to be a Complete Monster. It doesn't matter how many vile acts the Bossman did; as your write-up itself stated, the whole thing is played for laughs, and to be a Complete Monster means to have your actions affect the story in a serious manner.

Same goes for Orton. The thing with Eddie and Rey is Cheap Heat at best, and nobody cared about what he did to the Mc Mahons. And one year later he's a popular babyface, despite being the same character.

And one promo alone doesn't make Punk an entry.

MacPhisto
03:25:40 PM Apr 3rd 2010
Orton & Punk may not belong, but the Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played for Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism.
124.158.42.68
08:16:17 PM Apr 4th 2010
"The Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played For Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism."

It takes more than a character doing things For the Evulz to be a Complete Monster. As the trope definition itself states, "the character should affect the tone of the work". The Bossman's entry itself admits that his angles come off as humorous and Crosses the Line Twice; there;s a reason why it's inducted into Wrestle Crap. Which is why IMO it doesn't belong.
MacPhisto
05:58:04 PM Apr 23rd 2010
fair enough, though if it was Played Straight, he would've been right up there with Johan.
76.89.145.110
09:45:30 AM Aug 23rd 2010
This is likely will raise a few eyebrows, but I am curious if it is possible for a Complete Monster to pretty much step out of the role and begin the process of atoning for the past. I'm not referring to the character in question becoming an immediate protagonist or antagonist (too much too fast on that one). I am referring more to the character being successfully able to extricate themselves from a rather fixed position, and then pretty much begin the process of going along an alternate path.

There are a few constants I can think of in this kind of scenario that may prove to be unavoidable. First, upon giving this thought, I don't see any way a character can ultimately do this without some form of help (though the initial decision to begin the process would need to be up to them). Second, I'm thinking that the character in question would need to avoid the original circumstances that were the main acting stage for the malice (probably best if the people hurt by the character don't see too much of him/her as well).

That's about all I can think of for right now actually. I guess I'm kind of getting tired of this type of position being seen as something that ultimately possesses the highest degree of endurance (in terms of character traits, never ever getting out of it no matter what, how long and severely it affects other characters and the world setting, etc) then any other character development out there. Then again, I also may be lacking in some understanding in terms of the attributes and motivations involved in the Complete Monster. I'd like to know what others think about this one.
Fighteer
moderator
11:04:41 AM Aug 23rd 2010
76.89.145.110
02:11:24 PM Aug 24th 2010
Actually, this does take some of the edge off and gives some space with which to work in this regard. Can't say that I can understand how a Complete Monster forms in the first place (this is only my opinion, and will be happy to see arguments in this regard).
back to Main/CompleteMonster

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy