Complaining: Generic Doomsday Villain

From my understanding of this trope, i think the idea should be to focus less on the internal motivations of the character and more on their role in the story. This is a character who constantly causes destruction, will not stop unless physically stopped, and is not willing/ able to communicate with the heroes about this. I think the name should indicate that, or else it'll end up being used for deciding which villains are not well motivated enough

Discar has a much better definition below

Edited by Tremmor19 on Dec 19th 2021 at 10:05:54 AM

Depends on what you mean by “not willing to communicate”- a villain who refuses to stop their evil acts even when the heroes plead with them to is, like, most villains.

In fact, “villain who’s only barely sentient” is what I figured the trope was in the first place. Ferot explains it well- the GDV is like a wild animal, it has no human or recognizable motives. And if this trope is indeed broader than that… then maybe it should be narrowed, because otherwise it is just “Flat Character villain”.

A monster-like human?

actually i think that is pretty much getting at the same idea, yeah, with the wild animal comparison

Edited by Tremmor19 on Dec 18th 2021 at 7:40:40 AM

Villain Without A Cause?

While I do like the Force of Nature name, that'd be better for a different trope, maybe a subtrope or something.

Part of the issue with the current name is that it attracts complaining. Names like Motiveless Villain or Characterless Villain mentioned on the previous page won't help any.

We actually have Non-Malicious Monster for antagonists who are more a force of nature than a villain because they lack any sapience/moral agency for their actions (as harmful as they may be to the heroes) to be categorized as "evil".

Edited by Adept on Dec 18th 2021 at 9:53:57 PM

Really? Because I’ve seen it used more when the monster is straight-up benevolent. Maybe that ALSO needs a rename if that is the case.

IS there any example of an Generic Doomsday Villain who's goal wasn't just destruction? That would effect how we define them.

I realized part of my objection with Motiveless was due to confusing motive with goal. GDV have goals even if they are basic, but motives, the reasons for those goals, can be lacking. Still feel Feral would better counteract misuse.

The goal should be nothing more complex than that of a non-sapient animal (the animal/feral part is how they are objectively separate from Flat Character) even if otherwise sapient/intelligent. Bank robberies and Take Over the World disqualify GDV because desire for wealth and power are too human/high-functioning. The Chessmaster and Manipulative Bastard also disqualify as such means they're too high functioning mentally to count.

Then how about Non-Sapient Villain?

Many of them are sapient, though.

That's misuse. The description of Non-Malicious Monster indicates that the character/creature/being is still dangerous. If the monster is straight up benevolent, the example should go to Benevolent Monsters.

I do wonder if there's a value for a trope about a Big Bad whose "motives" lack any depth (e.g. the generic take over/destroy the world) because they're not meant to be a real person/character, but simply as the final antagonist and the most dangerous foe the heroes have to take down.

Edited by Adept on Dec 19th 2021 at 6:49:46 PM

Giant Space Flea from Nowhere seems like the closest fit. Final Boss also can cover that.

I can't think of any "the generic take over/destroy the world" villain examples that were not complaints or parodies of such flat characters.

I think the page quote is a good indication of a trope: many older comic books and/or children cartoons have a "generic bad guy" who wants to rule or destroy the world for no particular reason. So yes, he is sapient and he is a threat, he just doesn't have much of a personality or motivation.

Often, later publications flesh out the villain or retcon him into a more layered character, but that does mean the old flat version is still a trope.

(edit) And "force of nature" villain is also a trope, albeit a different one.

Edited by Spark9 on Dec 19th 2021 at 4:59:45 AM

Exactly. "Flat Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain" was the original intent, and the wick check shows that's mostly how it's used. They're something that can talk, they'll have a token motivation, but someone who just wants to Take Over the World because they really like pollution should definitely count. As Spark said, sometimes this gets confused because they'll get more backstory and motivation appended later, but that doesn't change the original being an example.

I'm fond of the Villain Without A Cause suggestion, but honestly I'm questioning the way the wick check was sorted. Because Master N's definition seems unnecessarily narrow, it makes more look wrong than I think is fair. And the wick check didn't check for complaining, the actual reason for the thread, at all.

i like that definition much better than the one i proposed. I would also support a description rewrite, btw, since imo is not super clear right now which one it is.

But redefining it to mean “Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain” will just invite more complaining and shoehorning (this villain is boring, therefore a SMCV).

And the “One-Dimensional and cliche villain” folder is basically the complaining folder.

The thing, though, is motivations like “take over the world because pollution do be good” are still coherent motivations. This trope was probably meant for villains whose motivations are never stated because of lazy writing, which is something we do not want.

"Flat Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain", which Dastardly Whiplash covers, doesn't sound distinct from Flat Character. And is practically only ever used as complaining unless it's a self aware parody.

"Comedically Generic Villain" might be a thing.

I wonder if Flat Villain Motivation or Generic Villain Motivation or something like that may be a thing. Like, the motivation itself is the "flat" part. It would be a sort of supertrope to Take Over the World and similar tropes—the idea of a very generic and overdone Evil Plan.

Unfortunately I also worry that it would be a factory for complaining. Maybe it's one of those concepts that is a legitimate thing, but we can't trust the troperbase with it since it tends to be a complaining magnet. I remember a while back someone proposed something called Overshadowed By Fandom in the OBC cleanup and we determined that, while that is a legit concept, it just would not work as a page since it would be a drama magnet. Maybe this is similar.

Maybe it's not even a concept at all, and is just complaining. I don't know. I think there may be a concept in there about villain plans—Stock Villain Plans or something? Is this concept covered already?

...This might be more of a question for the Trope Idea Sounding Board, but I think it relates to Generic Doomsday Villain in that it's a similar idea. Does anyone think there would be overlap in any way?

EDIT: There's a list on Evil Plan of such "Stock Villain Plans". I wonder if it's worth splitting off into a separate trope though, like we did with Stock Parody Jokes? (Although I will admit that Stock Parody Jokes has itself had misuse problems, so not a good comparison.)

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Dec 19th 2021 at 3:46:42 PM

I feel like such a concept is a little too vague and subjective. What's a "flat" motivation, and how do you define it?

Well, like "I'm going to take over the world!" or "I want to become rich!" or stuff like that. Like, very overdone and common evil plans that villains (especially in children's media) tend to use.

Think of a typical villain in an 80s children's cartoon, or a bad superhero movie—what motivations do you usually think that villain would want? Something like that.

I'm kind of winging it here, and I do think it's too subjective, but it's just something I thought of.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Dec 19th 2021 at 3:49:18 PM

The main issue is that those motivations are common because they're so easily villainous. A Stock Evil Motivations index if we don't have one would probably work better.

I think the index idea is what I was thinking of. Maybe it'd be something to TLP some day.

Anyway I think Generic Doomsday Villain is a legit concept, I just think it needs to be reworked to be less negative towards the idea. A rename would probably work.