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

No, it does not. Earlier, I gave the example of Fate Zero where Kotomine Kirei is the Big Bad while Angra Mainyu (an impersonal force identified as the "root of all evil") is the Bigger Bad.

The description given by King Zeal in post 91 is a perfectly fine introduction paragraph to the trope. The main thing we have to agree is what the parameters are. So, simple questions:

• Can the Bigger Bad become a Big Bad of a certain arc? I think we are all in agreement that they can, usually as a Final Boss sort of thing, you've defeated everything else along the way. Unicron in Transformers tends to be this way, has ties to the origins of the entire Cybertronian race and IS the ultimate evil of the setting that they eventually confront.
  • Relatedly, can there be a Bigger Bad of a Bigger Bad? Offhand that sounds like a "No," but Serial Escalation can sometimes produce odd results, especially when the setting has changed. You have the Biggest Bad of a universe, but later find the Biggest Bad of The Multiverse.
• How much influence can the Bigger Bad have before they become just a normal Big Bad via The Man Behind the Man? Can they be a shadowy figure the current Big Bad knows and is in communication with, but are not calling the shots?

At best, we can move the trope to a new name and redirect Bigger Bad to the new trope, but we can't just get rid of the "Bigger Bad" page as it has over 2500 wicks.

In fact, according to Wick, because it has over 2500 wicks, we can only "stand back and stare in fear and/or awe" due to how popular the trope is.

edited 25th Aug '14 11:10:43 PM by KarjamP

Let me answer your questions:

• Can the Bigger Bad become a Big Bad of a certain arc? Yes, and the reverse can happen as well. If the Bigger Bad becomes the Big Bad of a certain arc, they still remain a Bigger Bad for all seasons before it (and after it if they survive and go back to being distant from the story).
• Can there be a Bigger Bad of a Bigger Bad? Well a Bigger Bad is supposed to be the cause of anything non-idealistic happening in the setting. However, one Bigger Bad can be the cause in one particular setting, while another can the cause in the whole universe. And you can add another in between just antagonizing a part of that universe. All of them are a greater evil than the Big Bad, just that some are greater than others. So yes, there can be an Even Bigger Bad.
• How much influence can the Bigger Bad have before they become just a normal Big Bad via The Man Behind the Man? The Man Behind the Man and Bigger Bad can overlap if The Man Behind the Man remains distant enough from the story. If they weren't distant enough, then they would be a Big Bad. The Bigger Bad must not give orders to the Big Bad, but they can corrupt the Big Bad to make the Big Bad work for them. They allow the Big Bad to do their own thing and don't interfere unless it's in their interests to do so. For The Man Behind the Man to be a Bigger Bad, they must stay out of the way for the most part.

Definition first, title later.

edited 26th Aug '14 4:23:47 AM by SatoshiBakura

I completely agree with Satoshi.

What we have down so far. If we edit the Bigger Bad description, we won't entirely replace it, but we will edit corresponding parts to our definition.

The Bigger Bad is a character, force, entity, or organization that is responsible for a non-ideal (i.e., pessimistic, cynical, dangerous or flat-out Crapsack) reality or worldview that fuels the fictional setting in which the story takes place. They are responsible for antagonizing the setting as a whole, while doing little or nothing to actively harm or hinder the Protagonists like the Big Bad currently is. They may or may not have a connection to the Big Bad, but the Big Bad is the person that has caused or engineered the current Conflict. The Bigger Bad is just in the background of the story, doing their own thing, and it just so happens that "their thing" is on a higher level that the Heroes can't or won't deal with in this story.

The Bigger Bad can become a Big Bad of a certain arc and the Big Bad can be Kicked Upstairs to Bigger Bad. If the Bigger Bad becomes the Big Bad of a certain arc, they still remain a Bigger Bad for all seasons before it (and after it if they survive and go back to being distant from the story).

There can also be a Bigger Bad of a Bigger Bad.A Bigger Bad is supposed to be the cause of anything non-idealistic happening in the setting. However, one Bigger Bad can be the cause in one particular setting, while another can the cause in the whole universe. And you can add another in between just antagonizing a part of that universe. All of them are a greater evil than the Big Bad, just that some are greater than others.

The Man Behind the Man and Bigger Bad can overlap if The Man Behind the Man remains distant enough from the story. If they weren't distant enough, then they would be a Big Bad. The Bigger Bad must not give orders to the Big Bad, but they can corrupt the Big Bad to make the Big Bad work for them. They allow the Big Bad to do their own thing and don't interfere unless it's in their interests to do so. For The Man Behind the Man to be a Bigger Bad, they must stay out of the way for the most part.

Do we have anything else to add, or are we in agreement?

I guess you agree with me then.

edited 26th Aug '14 7:42:12 AM by SatoshiBakura

Let me try one more.

The Bigger Bad is a character, force, entity, or organization that is responsible for a non-ideal (i.e., distressing, pessimistic, cynical, dangerous or flat-out Crapsack) reality or worldview that fuels the fictional setting in which the story takes place. They are responsible for antagonizing the setting as a whole, while doing little or nothing to actively harm or hinder the Protagonists like the Big Bad currently is. They may or may not have a connection to the Big Bad, but the Big Bad is the person that has caused or engineered the current Conflict. The Bigger Bad is just in the background of the story, doing their own thing, and it just so happens that "their thing" is on a higher level that the Heroes can't or won't deal with in this arc or installment.

That last sentence is the key to this trope: for the arc or installment in question, the Bigger Bad is way beyond the protagonists' known goals. The Big Bad's goals are those that the protagonists are focused on stopping, and they have no plans of stepping higher on the Sorting Algorithm of Evil, either being unaware of the Bigger Bad, seeing them as a problem for a Hero of Another Story, or leaving them for some other type of higher power. Further, the Bigger Bad must not give direct orders to the Big Bad (as that would make them The Man Behind the Man), but they can give them a vague purpose, discreetly use the Big Bad's plans to further their own, or be responsible for some negative factor that is forcing the Big Bad's hand. In any case, they allow the Big Bad to do their own thing and don't interfere unless it's in their interests to do so.

They can, however, become the Big Bad of a different arc if they start to directly antagonize the heroes, and they can graduate back to Bigger Bad if they return to antagonizing the overall setting beyond the heroes' final goal. It's also possible to have a Bigger Bad Ensemble, where multiple entities responsible for the setting's negativity can cooperate or take turns doing so. You can also have "tiers" of Bigger Bads, where one antagonizes the hero's city, another their planet, and another the entire universe.

---

EDIT: LOL, wow. Satoshi ninjaed me with the same idea.

edited 26th Aug '14 7:34:11 AM by KingZeal

First, switching "Bigger Bad" to Background Villain, because the planned definition indicates a background character. Also switching "Big Bad" to villain, because that's what usage indicates.

Based on this, they are no longer a Background Villain if they are a typical villain: the two tropes are exclusive in your mind. They may return to the position, but a character cannot be a villain and Background Villain during the same story arc. You're switching your superlatives. Mostly because you can't decide if "setting" means "where the story takes place" or "a location within the story". You're using Most when you discuss "a location within", and More when you discuss "where the story is". Your early proposal of "Ultimate Evil" implies Most of "where the story is". Your dismissal of my suggestion contradicts that you'd prefer More for "where the story is". This is inconsistent. If we stop defining them in terms of superlative comparisons, the problem goes away.

Now this sounds like (the intent of) Big Bad or Manipulative Bastard.

By the way: Vegeta is not a Big Bad, as the definition intends.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

You're using circular reasoning here. This is only true if we accept "Background Villain" as an indicative name of the trope, which I don't think it is. A Bigger Bad can be right front and center of the story, but if the heroes aren't interested, or focused, on stopping them, they can still be a Bigger Bad.

A good example of this would be the Aldmeri Dominion of Skyrim. They are extremely visible in the setting, and many of them will make their ultimate goals apparent to you. You can even fight or kill individual members of it if you like, but that makes not a dent in the Dominion as a whole, nor does it make them consider you a threat. You are beneath their notice throughout the story, and you can never take any action against them directly, and you never know if any of your actions ever hinder (or even help) them.

That is, in my opinion, a fantastic example of a Bigger Bad that is not in the background, thus making that name not only non-indicative, but counterproductive.

"Setting" is an ambiguous term. S/he's using it correctly.

Vegeta is not some random nuisance or low-level employee that was sent by a greater villain. He was THE villain of the Saiyan arc. He was the cause of, reason for, and engineer behind, every single thing that happened in that arc. Frieza had nothing to do with it. Frieza didn't even know about it (or so he thought). Frieza had no interest or goals for the planet Earth himself. The entire arc, from beginning to end, was Vegeta's own personal mission.

edited 26th Aug '14 8:14:48 AM by KingZeal

"First, switching "Bigger Bad" to Background Villain, because the planned definition indicates a background character. Also switching "Big Bad" to Villain, because that's what usage indicates."

Okay first of all, we haven't decided on a name change yet. And Big Bad is meant as a comparison to Bigger Bad. You effectively screwed over the questions and the answers by changing the tropes.

"Based on this, they are no longer a Background Villain if they are a typical Villain: the two tropes are exclusive in your mind. They may return to the position, but a character cannot be a villain and Background Villain during the same story arc."

I never suggested that at all. In fact, what you are saying is exactly the same as what I said.

"You're switching your superlatives. Mostly because you can't decide if "setting" means "where the story takes place" or "a location within the story". You're using Most when you discuss "a location within", and More when you discuss "where the story is". Your early proposal of "Ultimate Evil" implies Most of "where the story is". Your dismissal of my suggestion contradicts that you'd prefer More for "where the story is". This is inconsistent. If we stop defining them in terms of superlative comparisons, the problem goes away."

I'm not being inconsistent. I said a particular setting as in a more definite point of where the story takes place. Whole universe implies everywhere else. Particular part of the universe implies that it's larger than a definite point in the universe, but not the whole thing. And I had no earlier proposal for Ultimate Evil. What are you talking about?

"Now this sounds like (the intent of) Big Bad or Manipulative Bastard."

Notice I never said that The Man Behind the Man aka Bigger Bad was using the Big Bad. Manipulation could be involved, but the Bigger Bad has higher goals than the Big Bad that don't involve coming in contact with the heroes.

"By the way: Vegeta is not a Big Bad, as the definition intends."

Actually he is: Freeza never used him. He corrupted Vegeta but he had no intention of destroying Earth.

Honestly, I think you are just making up stuff to argue about. The problems don't come from my answers, but from you changing around the tropes.

Edit: Now I've been ninjaed by Zeal!

edited 26th Aug '14 10:17:32 AM by SatoshiBakura

I guess a way to look at it is that the Big Bad is the biggest threat in the current Myth Arc, the conflict is over when they are defeated (in principle, there are tropes like Dragon Their Feet and Dragon-in-Chief). The Bigger Bad is the biggest threat within the current scope of the mythology, but so distant to the current conflict the heroes don't have to concern themselves with them yet.

By the way, this is what I was talking about with people getting so caught up in word choice. All it does is force people to reword things but unless the description repeats itself with five redundant sentences it serves no purpose beyond starting arguments.

Semantics are a crucial part of trope definitions. Using a broad term where a narrow one would suffice (or vice-versa) often results either in a completely different trope than what was intended, or an unclear trope with a lot of debates.

For example, I don't think the words "the biggest" are necessary in the second sentence of the first paragraph. That narrows the trope down to either one example in a work, unless every Bigger Bad is on the same threat level. That doesn't mesh with a universe like, say, The Elder Scrolls or the Marvel Universe, where there are multiple deities that cause problems.

Do we agree on the discription so far? Or are there still improvements to be made?

Semantics are sometimes important when it comes to specific examples, but in trope descriptions you actually want to be broad enough so that you don't shut out legitimate examples because of semantics. For instance, suggesting that a story with a Bigger Bad must has a cosmic element to it.

Using simply inaccurate terms is bad, but you can get so caught up in semantics that it halts anything from getting accomplished.

Are you talking about someone in specific? Because neither Satoshi nor I have suggested that.

Although, I want to lay off the topic for a while so somebody else can chirp in and comment/make suggestions.

I think we really need to lay off the semantics. They don't make for good trope differentiation in 99% of all cases and create lots of arguments as to what counts or doesn't count - or what to define the trope as.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Will we ever reach an agreement? Or will this take forever? Remember, the point of redoing the description is to make this trope broader.

edited 26th Aug '14 11:10:25 AM by SatoshiBakura

I've seen how prolonged debates that don't lead anywhere happen. In some cases, crowner options that are unimplementable are the culprit. In most cases, an insistence on semantics and bright lines at the expense of broad brush definitions causes prolonged arguments. Finally, if people can't agree on something, a crowner to gauge which opinion on said something has consensus is useful.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I will be waiting for more opinions on the current definition. And just in case, no Crazysamaritan, we will not replace Big Bad with Villain, nor will we get rid of any references to Big Bad in general.

The Bigger Bad is a character, force, entity, or organization that is responsible for a non-ideal (i.e., pessimistic, cynical, dangerous or flat-out Crapsack) reality or worldview that fuels the fictional setting in which the story takes place. They are responsible for antagonizing the setting as a whole, while doing little or nothing to actively harm or hinder the Protagonists like the Big Bad currently is. They may or may not have a connection to the Big Bad, but the Big Bad is the person that has caused or engineered the current Conflict. The Bigger Bad is just in the background of the story, doing their own thing, and it just so happens that "their thing" is on a higher level that the Heroes can't or won't deal with in this story.

The Bigger Bad can become a Big Bad of a certain arc and the Big Bad can be Kicked Upstairs to Bigger Bad. If the Bigger Bad becomes the Big Bad of a certain arc, they still remain a Bigger Bad for all seasons before it (and after it if they survive and go back to being distant from the story).

There can also be a Bigger Bad of a Bigger Bad. A Bigger Bad is supposed to be the cause of anything non-idealistic happening in the setting. However, one Bigger Bad can be the cause in one particular setting, while another can the cause in the whole universe. And you can add another in between just antagonizing a part of that universe. All of them are a greater evil than the Big Bad, just that some are greater than others.

The Man Behind the Man and Bigger Bad can overlap if The Man Behind the Man remains distant enough from the story. If they weren't distant enough, then they would be a Big Bad. The Bigger Bad must not give orders to the Big Bad, but they can corrupt the Big Bad to make the Big Bad work for them. They allow the Big Bad to do their own thing and don't interfere unless it's in their interests to do so. For The Man Behind the Man to be a Bigger Bad, they must stay out of the way for the most part.

edited 26th Aug '14 11:25:39 AM by SatoshiBakura

I was referring specifically to the argument on what counts as the "setting." My example was theoretical but something that can and has happened in these TRS discussions. I would say also a major problem always arises when people say "There can only be one per series," because it just leads to arguments over what/who is "the one."

In that case, you, Satoshi and myself seem to be on the same page.

Yeah, that is hard. The most anyone can agree on is "wherever the story takes place". The extent of the setting is difficult to agree on.

Edit: Here might be some helpful definitions: The setting is the extent of where the story/series takes place (where the characters actually go). The universe goes beyond that extent (the characters don't go to a place beyond the setting).

Our definition needs to be edited to fit both setting and universe.

edited 26th Aug '14 4:45:23 PM by SatoshiBakura

Nothing's going on, so I might as well post setting vs. universe again.

• The setting is the extent of where the story/series takes place (where the characters actually go).
• The universe goes beyond that extent (the characters don't go to a place beyond the setting).

We should update the definition to include both setting and universe.

Honestly, the current proposed description sounds too technical to me. It reads like lawyerspeak. Keeping the basic definition but rewriting the description itself, I'd go with this:

edited 27th Aug '14 8:26:55 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.