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
I think I can support Sandman even if he isn't the best schemer in the Spidey movies. That honour naturally goes to Otto Octavius or Norman Osborne. I'm not a fan of Spider-Man 3, I feel like it's easily the worst of the original trilogy of films, and Venom wasn't really an established character yet in the MCU which made his appearance in that film not as memorable. You know what I'll abstain for now.
I'm abstaining on Onaga as both sides have made relatively good points.
Yes to both Catwomen though.
Edited by Klavice on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:04:53 AM
Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.
Professor Gigachad
You know this debate, along with the thing with Onaga and that Die Hard character has got me wondering. If we are going to keep going with the idea that competition does matter and each MB needs to be of roughly equal intelligence. Maybe we have been too lenient with the whole competition angle. Like I have seen most proposals not even putting that in as a factor (which is admittedly something I am guilty of as well) and whenever the problem comes up many users dismiss it as even mattering to begin with. Maybe I am alone but I am wondering if maybe some of the MB pages could use a massive revaluation with this in mind.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:06:06 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
I disagree, I've made note via a mitigating factors section and detail if someone seems "outplayed" and why it is/isn't a problem, I know jackie, Lighty, Ravok, Scraggle and STAR all do the same as well and Emerald has sure been great with it giving us breakdowns on some of his breeding grounds he's found like A Practical Guide.
As for a massive overhaul? I've gotta say I'm rather staunchly against that particularly when I've worked on subjects with lots of MBs like Highlander with Lighty and Hackers, both of which I was upfront about the competition angle and from what y'all as my colleagues have likewise done a stellar job.
Edited by 43110 on Jul 27th 2022 at 7:09:44 AM
As I pointed out, we do see times when Sandman/Marko uses his powers or environment to his advantage and things he just automatically realizes he can do on the fly at that—i.e. hiding in the sand truck and shaping a giant hammer out of his fist—that shows he uses quick-thinking and strategic awareness rather than just brute strength. His waiting to catch who he thinks is Spider-Man in a trap and then help make arrangements to lure the actual Spider-Man into a much bigger trap also help with that. His not being a science genius like Doc Ock also compliments him too since it does still take a stance of plan and execution to get him to be as challenging as he is not just in physicality, so it DOES speak to why it's right for him to count.
Very fascinating debate. Again, who has Ms. Marvel?
Edited by futuremoviewriter on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:15:27 AM
Professor Gigachad
I'm not talking about characters that are outplayed. I am talking about cases where the villains are working independently of each other but still need to be of roughly equal intelligence and planning.
I do understand that an overhaul and mass cutting of this scale would be a tough pill to swallow but if we want to maintain this idea I feel it might be necessary. I am not saying it will be for every case but some maybe.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:15:33 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB SandboxesIt depends on how we define "outplayed". Technically it should be obvious but at times it's not, like if an MB candidate was thwarted by a Spanner in the Works or breaks their suave facade for a bit.
Like we wouldn't take Gundham Tanaka down simply for being spotted by Fuyuhiko Kuzuryu in the Funhouse which was the only reason he was even able to be caught. It really depends on if the "competition" is able to outsmart AND doesn't have less resources. Like obviously a police chief is going to have more resources than a circus clown. I'd say we judge them based on resources or if they have a handicap to overcome. Like the reason I feel both Keyes and Dogen are able to count is because they have different resources, and one is blind and is able to bargain with the most dangerous assassin known to the Attorneyverse. I wouldn't cut any of the current AA examples for instance as they stand on their own as smartest characters in their respective games.
I don't think we need any more restrictions on what a MB can or can't do.
Edited by Klavice on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:21:31 AM
Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.
Quite honestly Ordeaux, I have no clue how you intend to evaluate this standard you're adding in... I think we've done a fine job and it's not about me finding this "a tough pill to swallow" or being emotionally unable to play by the spirit of the rules, I just frankly don't understand what you're intending to do: If someone sits through a work and thinks "Hey X, doesn't quite seem as sharp as Y" is that the reason we'll be cutting them on? I genuinely don't understand what you're proposing and how you intend to implement it and tbh I think most of the thread is going to be with me on this one.
Still leaning yes on Flint here personally.
Yeaaaaaah, this all seems somewhat flimsy and I'm not really into the idea of an "overhaul and mass cutting."
RIP Toriyama
Don't see any need for any talk of "overhauls", we all have been pretty consistent on discussion of characters compared to others and I do not think we have ever even pretended that our standards on this thread for "intelligence" were as strictly competitive as, say, CMs for the heinous standard. I'm not gonna advocate chopping characters from works with lots of characters because "well this baddie of the week isn't as smart as this other baddie of the week, so cut." Pointless discussion IMO and not one anyone has ever had an issue with before, so don't see why we'd start now.
Onaga sounds like a Yes to me. I'm a very light No to Sandman tbh, just barely. I feel his feats of intelligence are extremely tame and pretty much always revolve around "use abilities to overpower his foes." His attempt to hide from the cops fails and he just thrashes them, his "trap" to lure in Spidey to the construction site is mostly Venom's doing, and in the end his biggest scheme is "absorb a bunch of sand and try to crush the heroes." Even his final scene isn't some grand, awesome Heel–Face Turn where he helps save the day, he just gets beaten, has a heart to heart with Spidey, and then leaves. Really, really good character who is tragic as hell, but I feel he probably runs into the DCAU!Mr. Freeze problem: his primary narrative beats are tragedy and pity, and any bouts of coolness or smarts he shows are ultimately second fiddle to being a pitiable figure who doesn't accomplish pretty much anything he does. I wouldn't mind him going up, but I just don't really feel he's got quite the "oomph" to him.
Am a Cut to Sandaaru as well with 43's points in mind, good work!
Edited by Ravok on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:25:36 AM
Tonight I dine on monkey soup.
The Moron
I admittedly remember Sandman being way more pitiable than magnificent. Call me an abstain, though I wouldn't be surprised if a revisit of the movie brought a cut - it's just been way too long since I've seen the movie for me to vote strongly either way.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yep, that's pretty much how I remembered it being. Gonna have to go with a slight no to Sandman.
I'm admittedly not seeing a major issue with Onaga, though I do see Ordeaux's point, so I'm just gonna abstain on him - same with Sandaaru
Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Jul 27th 2022 at 7:28:32 AM
Quite right. I agree 100% with 43. This Reevaluation should only be necessary if contradictory information joins us. I'm also sick of people slapping Smug Snake on characters that aren't always polite to their adversaries, hell I feel SS needs to go to TRS. But if we're simply judging "Hey this person wins in the end, they count over the character that didn't!" or something. Like I would NOT be up for cutting L just because he technically "loses" to Light.
Edited by Klavice on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:27:34 AM
Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.
And here comes the saviour who remembers the film! Gonna flip to a no there, still abstaining on Onaga for the time being!
Also if that's all on the overhaul bit, may I request we get back to voting? We've got good debates going on Sandaaru, Onaga and the Sandman I think our time is much better spent on (ignore if you've already voted on everything!)
Edited by 43110 on Jul 27th 2022 at 7:27:11 AM
Lizzid people!
I guess I'll say no to Sandman then.
Edited by AustinDR on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:27:24 AM
Professor Gigachad
I wasn't trying to add in a new rule I honestly thought that was a thing, since with the Die Hard characters we were comparing them against each other despite them all being in separate films and we are doing so now with Sandman. Is my knowledge of how this works just that bad.
I'm sorry for derailing the thread my mistake.
I guess I will say no to Sandman.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:32:58 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB SandboxesThanks Ravok for the additional information. No to Sandman keeping an abstain for Onaga.
Sandman's problem as Ravok stated was that his pitiable pathetic nature outshine his brilliance. Not necessarily that Doc ock and Norman are better planners.
Edited by Klavice on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:29:55 AM
Fair warning: I can get pretty emotional and take things too seriously.
"Cool. Coolcoolcool."
Switching to no on Sandman looking at Ravok's arguments.
Edited by Bullman on Jul 27th 2022 at 6:33:06 AM
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
I can completely understand if Ravok's thinking is what puts Sandman squarely into near-miss territory. The arguments of him being too tragically empathetic and probably too ineffectual too have a lot of validity to them in the end. I figured since Darkman counted, it'd make sense if Sandman/Marko did too, but Darkman even if he can't achieve his goal of making the synthetic skin formula permanent not only succeeds in everything else, but puts a lot of both thought and planning in it all even without being a science genius like Doc Ock—which he is.
Edited by futuremoviewriter on Jul 27th 2022 at 4:41:03 AM
But behind but I'll just say say cut sandaaru and ![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
sandman per ravoks arguments.
Professor Gigachad
Alright since Onaga is looking to be pretty divisive I will tally up the votes.
Yes: 6 (ACW, dood (I don't know if he changed his vote or not), Riley, Ravok, Snowy, G)
No: 3 (myself, Blazing, Library)
Abstain: 5 (43, Reddish, Bullman, Klavice, STAR)
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jul 27th 2022 at 6:48:13 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
Sorry to say, but to Sandman. While he's slightly smarter than your average muscle, he still comes off as way too much of a brute forcer. The cops weren't really outsmarted as they were completely having no knowledge about his very bizarre powers. He never really once gains any intellectual edge over any significant character, with Peter firmly besting him, Brock manipulating him into an alliance, and Harry taking him down in his giant form.
Reading Onaga, will vote in a bit
EDIT: Really don't know about Onaga. I don't seem to see anything majorly mitigating with him, but I'm really unfamiliar with MK lore. Looking at arguments I think I'll lean towards a slight yes, but could be easily swayed
Edited by Snowy66 on Jul 27th 2022 at 6:33:16 AM
Hey Ordeaux I see you took Sandaaru off the CM-MB Crossover box but do you mind checking the votes? It's been two debates and I just wanna be sure he's being given a fair shake even if the second talk is mostly seeing downvotes.
You know after thinking over switching ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
Onaga
Switching to Sandman and cut Sendaru
Edited by G-Editor on Jul 27th 2022 at 9:45:51 AM
Professor Gigachad
Oh ops, I didn't think of that yeah I will check, though it seems inevitable he will be cut at this point.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jul 27th 2022 at 6:48:46 AM
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
Professor Gigachad
Okay checking the original discussion on Sandaaru, there weren't enough upvotes to offset the downvotes he is getting now. So yeah looks like he will be cut.
CM Sandboxes, MB Sandboxes
That was more just food for though... just like with the Die Hard candidates I'm not trying to have people imagine a fanfic where they go at it and have to compete but I would like to pause and consider how effective Ock is as a Mad Scientist baddie vs. Flint's thieving thing he's got going on.