During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
- Why do a cleanup?: This trope definitely exists and has a well documented history of use. That being said, it frequently gets misused to a character who meets one of the components, namely that they are smart, charming while not necessarily even being a villain, or create good plans. While these are components, there is also a certain personality required, not to mention that all of the above are required to be present for a character to be a true Magnificent Bastard. As the trope attracts interest, it unfortunately brings in a lot of misuse and I thought the best way to rectify this would be a Perpetual Cleanup Thread, as is being done and has seen success with Complete Monster.
- What makes a Magnificent Bastard: Below is a list of the individual components to make this character. Note that they must all be present, not just some, which has lead to frequent misuse:
- Must be intelligent: Goes without saying, to be a Magnificent Bastard, the character has to be smart in the first place and use their brain to work towards whatever their end goal may be;
- Must be a Bastard: While going overboard in how vile the character is can be detrimental, a key aspect is the Bastard part of the trope, whether the character is an out-and-out antagonist in the work, some manner of Villain Protagonist, or something in between, they at least have some unscrupulous qualities to qualify for this trope;
- Must not be too detestable: Again, there is a ceiling on how bad the character can be before they just become too nefarious, blocking out the Magnificent part of the trope. A genocidal racist or child-raping Sadist aren't going to make the cut;
- Think on their feet: In addition to being a Chessmaster, a Magnificent Bastard, if the character deals with situations in which their initial plan is ruined, has to be able to pull a Xanatos Speed Chess and at least come up with a competent strategy to make up for lost time, otherwise they fail for being unable to think in tough spots;
- Have charm: Even if they don't necessarily make every character they meet fall in love with them and can even be detested by others, the audience has to find an amicable social relation to the character, or they are failing to make the impact required for this trope.
- What to do if a character is listed on a page but has not been approved?: They need to be removed, all candidates need to come through the cleanup thread first. The character could well count but they need to be analyzed properly and voted on first.
- Do we list Playing With this trope?: No; as a YMMV trope, this cannot be Played With, so we only want examples that are Played Straight.
- What do I do if I want a character to be listed as a Magnificent Bastard?: The greatest success Complete Monster saw for its cleanup effort was from the invention of the effort post format, so, borrowing from that, a troper wishing to propose a Magnificent Bastard will create such a post in the following format:
- Begin by describing The work, this will help establish the setting the character is in and for the reader to understand what kind of a scenario they are in;
- Summarize The character's actions, this will provide a listing for readers to understand what they do and how it applies to this trope because charm and lack of smugness are so crucial, this is a good time to be incorporating exactly the flavor of how they operate to explain this;
- List circumstances in which the character must Think on their feet, these are times where a wrench might be thrown in their initial plan and they have to adapt on the spot or even come up with a new scheme all together, this is also a good time to explain how the villain reacts to defeat when they have to face it, a true Magnificent Bastard won't break down into tears at the thought of death, they should have known such a possibility could occur and be able to handle it with more dignity;
- The competition, similar to the Heinous Standard dealt with for a Complete Monster, this section is to deal with how successful the character is in carrying out their plans compared to other characters. While, as a villain, they probably are going to lose in the end, it is good to explain how other characters handle the same situation. There is no exceptionalism case to be made for this trope but explaining the variety helps the reader have a better understanding of the proposal.
- How do you know when the character's arc is done so they can be proposed? When their tenure as a villain or antagonist finishes. This could happen in a single Story Arc in an entire work, a single work of a franchise, or the whole series in general. We'll show lenience to Long-Runners with constantly recurring candidates or series with outstanding continuities (ex. comic books), and it's entirely possible to count in a work or two but not in general for a reason like Depending on the Writer.
- What about candidates evil because of external sources? Those Made of Evil can qualify if they show enough individuality and tactical acumen — in other words, they have the personality to fulfill the magnificence requirement. Conversely, those brainwashed, especially if they're a better person without it, may fail the individuality aspect and cannot count.
- What if they are under orders from a higher-up? Depends. If the boss created the plans down to the letter and the candidate is just following them, sounds like we should discuss the boss instead. However, if the candidate takes creative liberties with the orders, adds their own charm and flair to them, fills in holes in the orders, and/or actively deals with obstacles their boss did not talk about, the candidate shows enough individual thinking to qualify.
- What about Character Development? An MB is something a character can develop into... a nice person who plots well might become more morally gray as the work goes on and hits the "Bastard" criteria, thus making them viable. Likewise, a Smug Snake might shed their ego, become more understanding of the threat others pose and gain the personality or "Magnificent" criteria, likewise making them viable. Conversely, a character who looks like this trope might suffer from a Sanity Slippage or just get outed as not being as smart as they thought they were and become incompatible with MB.
- Can an MB be a good guy? Not in the conventional sense... it is required they have at least some dubious traits lest they fail the "Bastard" criteria. That being said, a character who pulls a Heel–Face Turn or eventually stops taking villainous actions is still fair game: as there was a point in time where they were both "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and they've merely adapted as time goes on. Now... if such a character begins showing other issues (i.e.: becomes prone to freak outs or starts getting outwitted) then they're compromising their Magnificence and will probably be deemed a cut. What's important is stylishly operating while at least for some time being willing to take at best underhanded methods to see a job done. A Heel–Face Turn in itself isn't a disqualifier but they do have to have been "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and afterwards can't start slipping on the former front.
- What about characters whose stories can take different routes?: When proposing a character in a form of media that has them in multiple story routes. Said character must be consistent with their characteristics in all routes. (ex.: Can't have an example who shows promise on one route yet fails in another.) The only exception is if a later installment of the series confirms the character's actions which made them worth proposing are the canon route.
- Is there a timeframe rule like with Complete Monster?: Yes, please wait two weeks until after the work has concluded before proposing a character (again, usually using the North American air date). As is the case with CM, we want to give a reasonable time frame so that everyone interested in seeing the work has done so and can participate in the discussion without having anything spoiled.
- What about groups like with Complete Monster?: This is a point of divergence between the two tropes. While CM does not allow for a single entry encompassing more than three characters lest their heinousness for crimes becomes too watered down, with MB as long as they are treated as one "unit" it is acceptable to lump all characters provided they share acts of charm and intelligence.
- Can I propose my own work's character as a Magnificent Bastard?: No, this is a YMMV subject and the creator of a content is way too biased to be able to evaluate the criteria we're looking for without a second opinion taking over. That being said, you are more than welcome to encourage someone to consume your creation and if they feel a character counts, are more than welcome to suggest them.
- My example/edit has been approved, but the example subpage is locked! How do I get it added?: The moderators do not add examples to locked example subpages in the MagnificentBastard/ namespace directly. Rather, you need to do the edit to a sandbox page that follows the format Sandbox.MagnificentBastard<Name of the example subpage> (e.g for MagnificentBastard.Fullmetal Alchemist it's Sandbox.Magnificent Bastard Fullmetal Alchemist) and on a Friday, ask in the locked pages edit requests thread for the content to be swapped in.
Thread rules
When voting a troper must specify the effort post they're voting on and cannot merely vote on "Everything I missed" as in the past it has indicated the poster didn't read the effort post and is guessing instead of analyzing.
Resolved items
In general, a character listed on this trope is considered "settled". This means they should not be challenged unless information used to list them was incorrect or information was missed in the initial discussion.
However, when re-litigating a candidate, the same rules apply for when they were originally proposed. If they do not have five or more upvotes than downvotes for approval upon a re-litigation, including votes from the initial discussion if they do not change, then they are a cut.
This especially applies to the characters listed below, who have been discussed excessively and repeated attempts to get them listed/cut may result in punitive action for bogging down the thread.
Definitely an MB
- Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers: Any sadism Darkrai displays is limited in effect thanks to the game's nature and any cowardice which can be inferred about him is Alternative Character Interpretation about his tactical retreats.
- Avatar: The Last Airbender: Azula's Villainous Breakdown is undone in the sequel comic Smoke & Shadow where she regains her composure and ends up stable and in control enough to count.
Definitely not an MB
- South Park: The show's frequent use of vulgar comedy and mean-spirited humor leaves any potential candidates devoid of the dignity or charm to qualify.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:15:22 AM
Riley puts it out quite well.
Personally, I'm on Side A, but I can see why others might disagree.
The Moron
And in other news, as previously promised, an EP!
What is the work?
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Boom! Studios) is a modern revamp of the classic Buffyverse. It's set in 2019, allowing for a more modern retelling of the original story, striking a decent balance between old stories for the old fans and new takes for the new ones. As part of this alternate universe was, of course, an Angel spinoff, which later turned into an Angel + Spike spinoff. Of course, with Angel comes Wolfram & Hart, and with Wolfram & Hart comes Lilah Morgan.
Who is Lilah Morgan? What does she do?
Lilah Morgan, a high ranking official at Wolfram & Hart, is introduced when she kidnaps Fred right under Spike and Gunn's noses. Taking her on a helicopter ride and comforting her by untinting the windows, Lilah reveals that she works for the Senior Partners - in this continuity, a Composite Character named Baphomet. She goes on a long speech talking about how Fred has always had people telling her who she's supposed to be, and Baphomet is giving her a chance to finally make a choice for herself. Despite her nerves, Fred is convinced and enters Baphomet's room - at which point, Lilah locks the door, and Fred is possessed.
Upon being possessed by Baphomet, Fred goes on a small killing spree of W&H soldiers, which Lilah later reveals was her entire plan all along - she wanted Fred to escape because it's part of Baphomet's plan to fully possess Fred. When a Feeder demon begins wreaking havoc in Los Angeles, Fred calls Lilah to talk. Lilah promises that she tells Fred nothing but the truth - not what W&H want her to hear, the unbiased truth. Using that promise, she convinces Fred to perform a ritual to give up her will to Baphomet, who then gives his power to Fred and begins corrupting her. While she uses that power to stop the Feeder, she begins Slowly Slipping Into Evil in the process.
With Baphomet effectively corrupting her, Lilah forces her into the position of President of Wolfram and Hart, corrupting her even further through requests like signing off on a planned oil spill and giving a speech encouraging her workers to spread misinformation campaigns online. Ultimately, though, Team Angel find out where she is and come for her; Baphomet tells her that plans have changed, and she must make Angel kill her. Lilah doesn't even blink, reminding Angel of the centuries of horrors he's committed, tells Kate that she's the reincarnation of Angelus' most loyal creation, tells Gunn that his cousin's killer has worked for them the whole time, and caps the whole thing off by telling Angel that she knows how he really feels about Spike.
That last one finally pushes Angel over the edge, and while she tells Angel that killing her won't change anything, Angel is willing to risk it and snaps her neck.
Is she Magnificent?
Oh most definitely. She's calm, cool, and collected, plays Fred and Team Angel like a fiddle, slowly corrupts its most morally just member via a demon lord, and ultimately every one of her plans is a complete success, even her own death. She reveals that, ultimately, everything that happened to Angel in the comic series was ultimately due to Wolfram and Hart, and thus her, and even when she dies she makes sure to take a parting shot at everyone and stares her killer down with calm eyes. Easy yes.
Is she a Bitch? Too much?
She is most definitely a bitch. She willingly works in a high position in Wolfram and Hart, manipulates Fred into being possessed by Baphomet, doesn't care at all about her co-workers dying, and ultimately gets herself killed so that Team Angel can't save Fred - honestly, if it weren't for a single line revealing that she's genuinely devoted to Baphomet because she owes him, I'd be going for a crossover with CM. However, because it's a Buffy world we're dealing with, she doesn't go overboard either.
What's her competition?
Basically nonexistent. Fred plays right into her hands despite any of Angel's attempts to prevent it, and the only reason why Fred eventually overcomes the possession is because a good Goddess comes out of nowhere to stop it (the series was cancelled during the final issue's development so it got severely truncated).
Mitigating factors?
Like I said before, I'm not 100% sure what to think about her death. It's 100% willing on her part, but it's on someone else's orders. However, ultimately, even though it's incredibly weird, I'm willing to forgive it. Her method of getting herself killed involves deliberately pushing all of Angel's emotions until he finally snaps, and she makes sure to get one last parting shot on everyone in the room before she goes, so even if she's dying on someone else's orders, I think she's still fine.
Final verdict?
Her death may be on someone else's orders, but since she does it by manipulating Angel into killing her, I'm inclined to say yes to her. What about you?
If it's completely deliberate and she arranges it herself I'm willing to give her a yes.
RIP Toriyama
Same here, so long as it's made clear she's doing this as a deliberate, cunning scheme, I'm more than happy to see her go up.
Alright, so long as there's no outright objections? I'll try to get up an effortpost for CW!Grievous by tomorrow. I find myself going with the "Side A" department as it were, and while I can't say Grievous will definitely go up, I do feel like the argument is there and think it's a discussion more than conducive to be had on a thread designed for discussion and cleanup.
Tonight I dine on monkey soup.
Hmmmm. I'd absolutely support Grievous based on Tartakovsky but my issue is the continuity of Clone Wars still broadly fits into the overall canon of Legends, canon discrepancies or no (like which Jedi Grievous strikes down actually die, for instance). Continuity hiccups like those are common across the whole of Legends; it's scarcely limited to just Clone Wars.
My heart is absolutely for an EP on Grievous given how weird his characterization is compared to the rest of the series, but I'm opposed to it on technicality because it's just a case of Early-Installment Weirdness and he's still ultimately the same coward Grievous is in Legends canon.
Yeah she does handle the on the spot details quite well, as we typically want of our Dragon-type keepers.
Jaded Techie Fox
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
to Laegjarn and Lilah
The Moron
To simplify, the conversation basically goes:
Baphomet: The plan has changed. Make Angel kill you.
Lilah: That wasn't the original plan.
Baphomet: Deal with it.
(Angel walks in)
Lilah: Well, if it isn't the scourge of Europe. Guess what? You're too late - Fred is already long gone, Baphomet's replaced her, Kate is a reincarnation of Angelus' greatest creation, the vampire Gunn wants to kill works for us, and BTW, you're in love with Spike.
Like I'm severely summarizing but she goes from "wait, what" to "pushing everyone's buttons all at once" within a single panel
Well she's nuts but it's genuine loyalty and great improvisation on her part. I'm down for her listed!
Yes to Lilah. I was hoping she'd be like that. Also yes to Laegjarn. Seems like Fire Emblem has become the series of games with the most keepers so far having at least one per game.
I'm under the impression if something potentially D Qs a character whether it be ambiguously canon or not, we should keep it in mind and ultimately decide if ROTS and CW should be separated and thus part of its own canon, or part of the EU. In other words while we have counted people who didn't succeed completely but still played the competition like a fiddle, but if we consider this a part of the EU canon I'd say no.
I don't see how Edelgard functions as a comparison here. Three Houses has multiple routes but she's the same character in all of them. Grievous is pretty much solely depicted in this manner in this one work, which was written (or at least released) before any of the others.
Edited by Riley1sCool on May 8th 2021 at 9:19:45 AM
I meant she only succeeds in the Crimson Flower route and is executed in all other paths. Grievous succeeds in CW and quite a bit of the EU but dies in Ro TS.
Edit: Never mind, I understand... Sorry for the confusion.
Edited by Klavice on May 8th 2021 at 9:26:28 AM
I'm Sad Frogerson.
I'm not going to weigh in on the Greivous discussion since I haven't seen Clone Wars (sacrilege, I know).
But if we're going by the argument that a single installment of the Legends continuity can be isolated and have a character qualify even though the films would technically disqualify them, couldn't you apply that same logic to Palpatine? Like, you could find some Legends story where Palpatine isn't 100% evil incarnate and have him voted up as a Magnificent Bastard, even though every other Star Wars story says the opposite?
That's the same line of logic I'm seeing here.
Constantine, Ares, Technus (my favourite character from that show), Laegjarn and Lilah
![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
Cat
Personally I feel like the Grievous thing is too reliant on Early-Installment Weirdness.
The issue for me..The Clone Wars cartoon is absolutely canon with multiple strokes...a lot of the events depicted are canon, the fight with Anakin and Asajj, Durge and Obi-wan happened, it was made clear on the old Star Wars databank...
So...I'll hear it out, but it might be a tough one for me.
I don't see the Palpatine argument myself. This is a highly exceptional situation— this Grievous was literally written and released on a different template and before the version we eventually saw in the film and further EU. It's not a slippery slope where we'll just approve anyone on those grounds. This is an extremely special circumstance and not just some random EU work.
Like, Palpatine debuted with his original characterization. Any work trying to alter that has to contend with classic Palps, no matter what he does. This version was written by different writers without the knowledge of what Grievous would become as things changed in production.
The argument that the Broad Strokes are there to disqualify him definitely makes sense to me, even if I disagree, but I don't feel this line of discussion is really opening the floodgates to just anything being Depending on the Writer.
Edited by Riley1sCool on May 8th 2021 at 10:16:51 AM
RIP Toriyama
Yeah, I'm still planning to propose Grievous, but this is not—I repeat, not—solely a case of Depending on the Writer to such a point that we can just throw up any character under anyone's pen in any story. Palpatine has been an established character for ages with a plethora of different stories featuring him, and he debuted as a monster in the mainline films who got outdone by his own smugness, and pretty much all characterizations of Palpatine across all Legends or canon Star Wars solidify that characterization.
This is a very, very unique case, here. This was Grievous' first onscreen appearance, and he is written so drastically different than any other variation—be it in the movies or in the other Clone Wars show—that he comes off as frankly an entirely different character and "General Grievous" In Name Only from what he was later turned into. Under Tartakovsky's pen, for his first major appearance onscreen, as depicted in this one single show, Grievous is a stoic, cunning, hypercompetent badass that contrasts everything about what he became when George Lucas decided on a whim to change him up for Revenge of the Sith and throw the old characterization out.
This is an immensely special, extraordinary, unique case where Depending on the Writer might work out because of several factors, but this is by no means some attempt to "cheat the system" or claim that any character can now count if we find a single story of them being magnificent when they're otherwise not this trope.
Tonight I dine on monkey soup.
Professor Gigachad
I understand what your getting at Ravok and I do think your intentions are good. But it always starts out with one "Special Case" and then goes to another and then another.
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
Well, that's why we have a thread— to pick through these things case by case and determine where there might be mitigating factors. If we're doing our jobs right that won't happen.
I don't know how to explain that this isn't some breaking point where suddenly we're gonna start going "Oh, but it's a special case" every time. I cannot stress enough that this case has some serious mitigating factors to even be considered. Most things like this, we're gonna shut down out of hand, and that idea is certainly not without precedent... we've done so many times in the past.
Edited by Riley1sCool on May 8th 2021 at 10:37:34 AM
The Moron
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I need to be asleep right now, but all I'm gonna say is that implying that having a conversation about an incredibly unique situation is going to lead to a snowball effect that leads to trope abuse really isn't a great look. I'll admit upfront that I'm gonna be a hard sell on this one, but I'm at least willing to hear it out - it really is a unique situation where the MB characterization came first instead of later, and it's so drastic a shift that they're practically two separate characters.
RIP Toriyama
Yeah, Riley is right, here. We're not children being handed a loaded gun—we're a group of people who have been doing this for years and use common sense and logic to discuss the topic at hand. If Grievous is downvoted by "technicality" connecting him to cowardly versions, so be it, totally understandable. But if he's upvoted, it's not like some great floodgate will have been opened and shitty candidates will start pouring in and we won't have the common sense to address them with the same logic and reasoning we always have.
Tonight I dine on monkey soup.
Professor Gigachad
Maybe I'm looking at this too narrow I will just let the EP go. I will say though Star I wasn't trying to say that us having the conversation was bad and I am okay with an EP happening even if I am likely to downvote it. I am more talking about if he ends up getting upvoted what I am worried it may lead to.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on May 8th 2021 at 10:43:34 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
I'm kinda neutral on it, but I ultimately lean towards side B. Like, there are a bunch of Continuity Snarls between CW and the rest of the verse, but it's pretty clearly intended to be a direct prequel to ROTS, which doesn't have Grievous count. I'm willing to hear the argument (and Grievous really is a badass in the show, so really I would love to have him), but I just feel like even if the characterization is drastically different, it's clearly meant to tie-in to canon.