Misused (titles crowner 10/2/14): Bigger Bad

Was Dark Bakura working on any kind of instructions from Zorc, or was he doing it entirely on his own? If the former, I'd be inclined to say that Zorc was simply the Big Bad; if the latter, it seems to me more like a (rather unusual) use of this trope.

It's very strange and vague. From what I can get, Zorc corrupted Dark Bakura in the past, but he doesn't do anything other than that. Dark Bakura wasn't taking orders, but working on his own free will.

edited 22nd Aug '14 6:26:41 PM by SatoshiBakura

Personally, I'm one of those people who found this trope way too narrow. Why do we need a page specifically for "Villain who is not the big bad but more powerful than him"?

I say we scrap it and just make a page for villains not controlled by the big bad period. It doesn't really matter, if say, the villain is more powerful than the big bad but becomes his servant, partner or pawn does it? The big bad is still in control. If the big bad is not in control of this person, then we're on to something.

And the big bad doesn't have to be less powerful to not control another villain either. Another villain can simply operate outside of the villain's area of influence and have a chance, meeting with the heroes. Take Shinichiro Jokosaki making a cameo in Digimon V-Tamer 01. You wouldn't even know he's a villain without reading the prior story, you'd just think he's a Jerkass. So when V Tamer reprints C Mon its was "Whoa, he was the villain of another story." Then there were the filler villains for the V Tamer crossovers. Two out of three were very dangerous entities but had nothing to do with V-Tamer's Big bad and nothing they did would have changed, whether Daemon existed or not.

Or maybe one villain is specifically recruited to help deal with another villain. You know, like Hannibal Lecter in Red Dragon. Hannibal's villainy is largely in events prior to this story and would have happened regardless of what the current cannibal killer is doing, who'd be doing it without Hannibal's existence, but he's still of significance-much significance.

Of course, I launched Fake-Hair Drama with the long term goal of it absorbing Dodgy Toupee, because I thought that was to narrow too. I really think if you have a concept that does not have a page already you should be going as broadly as you can with it, so we don't end up with a bunch of confusing samey pages later. Point being Big Bad is the corrupting force that makes the story work. Other villains can exist, to give the world more depth, to show other stuff happens without the big bad(or protagonists) but the bottom line is the big bad is still the direct cause for the mishaps that set this tale in action. Compare Hero of Another Story for another way of adding depth to a setting.

edited 23rd Aug '14 6:39:07 AM by IndirectActiveTransport

The problem with that is that Bigger Bad is trope worthy. There is a difference between a villain who is more powerful than the Big Bad and a villain that is not specifically involved in the plot. And the original intent for this trope was that this would be the highest evil force in a series if it wasn't the Big Bad. I say definitely trope worthy. But we could add a trope to be the villainous version of Hero of Another Story.

edited 22nd Aug '14 7:16:11 PM by SatoshiBakura

I can get behind that. Not sure Villain of Another Story is a good name (despite it sounding cool), but that's just the first thing that comes to mind.

Like I said, it's a contextually complicated trope. If the individual in question was actively involved in a previous story and was directly controlling the person everyone thought was the Big Bad, then they are simply the actual Big Bad of the story. We are currently only in agreement that a Bigger Bad has to be disconnected in some way to the actions of a previous Big Bad, but connected enough that they are more than just a new Big Bad of the current story arc.

Beyond that, things get complicated because of questions like:

• Did they know what has been going on so far in the story? Were they keeping tabs on what the Big Bad was doing?
• Were they actually influencing the Big Bad or are they just a different or higher faction of evil?
• Do they have loftier goals than the previous bad guy or is it the same basic idea?
• Can there be a third tier of a "Bigger Bigger Bad"? A Bigger Bad to a Bigger Bad. Like each villain was working more or less independently and are defeated in turn, but there is an actual hierarchy that forms an ongoing narrative of greater enemies to face.

In many cases, those questions do not have obvious answers from what we are given in the story itself.

I think it should be left open-ended. It shouldn't matter if they know what's going on in the story, whether they were influencing the Big Bad or are just seperate, whether they have loftier goals then the Big Bad or the same goal, or if their can be a third tier. It should just be villain who is bigger than the Big Bad.

No, and No. The Big Bad was never a page about power. The Dragon and The Brute are not always but often are more powerful than the big bad, we even have a page for particularly powerful dragons.

The difference is the dragon and brute are still under contol, either directly, through manipulation or are at least doing what they are doing as some general consequence of big bad's presence. Villain who operates outside of the big bad's influence therefore should not be limited to villains more powerful than the big bad. All that does is retroactively limit the scope of all the older pages.

Consider we can already have a story with more than one big bad. Personally I don't think their should be any distinction between those who work together and those who work independently but you all can have that divide. This is where I draw the line. It's too narrow and makes all the other villain pages narrow by proxy.

edited 23rd Aug '14 7:03:29 AM by IndirectActiveTransport

First, what I meant was bigger then the Big Bad. Power has nothing to do with it. Though I will say that was a fault on my part. And second, like I said this is trope worthy. Narrow does not equal not trope worthy. A villain that is bigger than the Big Bad deserves a mention. Think of it like this: If we made a trope about villains who are not involved in the story and it absorbed Bigger Bad, I will guarantee you that someone will try make another trope about a baddie who is behind the Big Bad. Again: Narrow doesn't equal not trope worthy.

Edit: And Big Bad Ensemble and Big Bad Duumvirate do deserve to be seperate tropes. The former talks about independent Big Bads while latter talks about Big Bad partners. They're narrow, but tropeworthy.

edited 23rd Aug '14 7:25:20 AM by SatoshiBakura

To me, the argument about what the trope's about here means that the trope, in its current incarnation, may not as easy to define as we'd thought.

Change the name, it's rather deceptive as is.

Okay, I think I have a set definition for Bigger Bad. Anyone who would like to argue about it can do so.

The Bigger Bad is the villain who is bigger than the Big Bad, but less involved in the story, as they would then be the Big Bad. How much they are involved in the plot or how much influence to the plot they have doesn't matter. They are just the villain bigger than the Big Bad, but less involved in the story.

edited 23rd Aug '14 12:50:44 PM by SatoshiBakura

The point is they don't have to be "behind" the Big Bad at all. They can just exist, doing their own thing, with the actual story more or less beneath their notice.

Fixing that.

I will hold a poll to see how well liked my Bigger Bad description is. Vote if you like my description on Bigger Bad, or vote if you don't like it. I will state my description again.

The Bigger Bad is the villain who is bigger than the Big Bad, but less involved in the story, as they would then be the Big Bad. How much they are involved in the plot or how much influence to the plot they have doesn't matter. They are just the villain bigger than the Big Bad, but less involved in the story.

For a general idea? For what actually goes on the page verbatim, you might want to clarify "bigger" (i.e. more powerful, has greater influence on the setting as a whole, etc.).

Greater influence on the setting as a whole. More powerful can also be Dragon-in-Chief.

NO, we are not in agreement. As I stated in my previous post, saying that the Bigger Bad must be disconnected from the Big Bad in some way but connected in other ways is what is causing all of the confusion in the first place. IMO, the way to fix the trope is to make a clear definition, either the Bigger Bad is connected to the Big Bad in one way or another or they are are not connected to the Big Bad at all.

@ Satoshi Bakura: What about the relationship to the Big Bad? Does the Bigger Bad have any relation at all to the Big Bad or absolutely no relation? I think this aspect should be incorporated into the trope definition, since I think this is what is mainly causing the confusion.

But the problem isn't whether or not the Big and Bigger Bads have a relationship to each other. The problem is if the current, immediate conflict that drives the plot will be settled if the Big Bad is defeated.

The way I see it, the Bigger Bad is a framing device; he or she does nothing more that create the circumstances or foundation for the current plot. (For example, maybe they're a God of Evil, maybe the Big Bad planned on defeating or overthrowing them someday, maybe the Big Bad was Forced into Evil, maybe the Big Bad is a low ranking goon in a larger organization). In any case, the Big Bad was the driving force steering and driving the current conflict. The Bigger Bad paved the streets he/she is driving on.

edited 23rd Aug '14 7:14:15 PM by KingZeal

The relationship between a Big Bad and a Bigger Bad doesn't matter. The Bigger Bad can have a relation with the Big Bad, or they can be completely distant. Either way, they're the Bigger Bad.

edited 23rd Aug '14 7:23:49 PM by SatoshiBakura

I think where we're running into trouble is that, by definition, a Bigger Bad cannot also be a Big Bad, but whether or not a villain is a Big Bad is often a matter of perspective. In a one-off book or movie, it can be pretty easy to say who the Big Bad is, but when you're dealing with an episodic or serialized narrative, things get murkier.

Take, for instance, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the show that coined the term Big Bad. If you watch the episode "Dopplegangland" from Season 3, Vampire Willow is that episode's Big Bad; she's the one orchestrating the episode's plot and bossing around the other villains. That episode does feature a brief appearance by Mayor Wilkins, a villain who seems to have a lot more authority then Vampire Willow, but since he's not doing anything to further that episode's plot, he's the Bigger Bad. But if you then watch the entire third season, it becomes clear that Vampire Willow was just a Monster of the Week while the Mayor is the Big Bad, and the First Evil who appears in one episode is the Bigger Bad. Except the First Evil later becomes a Big Bad in Season 7, and if you look at the series as a whole, there's no Big Bad at all, since no villain is the driving force on the show for more than a single season.

See how confusing it can get?

This thread could use a wick check. That way we could tell how it's used on the wiki.

Bigger Bad is very much a transient trope, a character may be the Bigger Bad in one part of the story and eventually turn into the Big Bad. Your example perfectly illustrates why determining the role in the story of the Bigger Bad and Big Bad is a big issue.

IMO, the Bigger Bad must have several aspects:

• They have greater power or influence than the Big Bad.
• They do not come into direct conflict with the heroes, and are not expected to by the heroes. If the heroes realize early on in the story that they need to defeat a certain character to resolve the conflict, then they are the Big Bad even if they don't show up until the final act and all prior villains in direct conflict with the heroes are The Heavy.
• They are connected in some way to the Big Bad, from causing the Big Bad to become a villain to the Big Bad being their subordinate.

edited 24th Aug '14 10:49:44 AM by shiro_okami

The Bigger Bad doesn't have to be connected with the Big Bad. It doesn't matter. The Bigger Bad can either be connected with the Big Bad or not.

Edit: My description will now include that:

The Bigger Bad is the villain who has greater influence on the setting as a whole than the Big Bad, but doesn't directly effect the story, as they would then be the Big Bad. How much they are involved in the plot, how much influence to the plot they have, or if they're connected in any way to the Big Bad or not doesn't matter. They are just the villain that has greater influence on the setting than the Big Bad, but have limited to no effect on the story.

edited 24th Aug '14 12:44:40 PM by SatoshiBakura

You still did not include in your definition what you mean when you say "bigger than the Big Bad", or even what you mean when you say "less involved in the story". Your definition is more about what the Bigger Bad is not rather than what he actually is.

edited 24th Aug '14 11:27:53 AM by shiro_okami