Complete Monster Cleanup

Yeah we got rid of the rule since it has no basis on the rest of the site, and the thread is trying to move away from being separate from the rest of TV Tropes.

Yeah, like if someone wanted to, they could probably propose Comic!Syndrome, or Curry's IT, they probably could.

I... guess we could. I don't think it's confusing to list it as Books, no one's gotten thrown for a loop because of how Galactic Heroes is listed.

Tbh a proposal for Show!Maegor will literally just restate what he does minus a few crimes. I don't take issue with it but it seems strange, like taking a film version of a book and creating a page for it when there's no differences between the two which is not something I've seen done on the rest of the site, just a note that the film version exists.

What was basically said last time was that no one has to say, rewatch the IT Miniseries and do Currywise. But if they want too they can.

Tbf, the videos do mention that Maegor "set fire to the Riverlands, the Westerlands, and the Reach", I don't remember if the books went into that specific information about which kingdoms were impacted. Also, the videos mention that he great patron of the Alchemists' Guild and weaponized their wildfire which I am pretty sure is not in the books, but I could be wrong. It's not much of a difference, but still.

Either way, I have his proposal in my History and I am going to post it in a moment.

Edited by WatTambor on Jan 26th 2023 at 2:24:12 PM

That is actually kind of interesting that you bring it up. The way I look at it, Game of Thrones does have its own page separate from A Song of Ice and Fire and is obviously very different in many ways from the book series. I am thinking maybe that is what we should be putting more emphasis on, if something is different enough as a whole to get a separate page on the site rather than what the villain itself actually does. It could depend a lot but I think that the idea could work out.

If Maegor's got different crimes as Wat's saying it's a moot point either way. In this particular case I'd be fine with it then.

I mean, the adaptation can be different without a character being changed. That being said, if the minor differences to Craster's personality are enough for a separate entry, then it'll be difficult to find a character not worthy of a different one just by virtue of being presented onscreen instead of page.

Edited by 43110 on Jan 26th 2023 at 7:48:30 AM

Ok, about Makiko, if the anime is in fact original material, even if it is a sequel to the LN series, then she should be on both. This isn’t a case of Adaptation Displacement, this is a character who has additional crimes in another medium.

As for the groups rule, I always felt that, rather than focusing on a specific number as the cutoff, we should treat these on a case-by-case basis to see if the group members display enough personality and individuality. Ravok actually said something I was thinking- that we would presumably be okay upvoting/keeping such characters if they had just one less member, and how absurd that strikes me as. What would change if the traffickers had one less among them but their crimes stayed exactly the same?

Edited by MasterN on Jan 26th 2023 at 5:51:02 AM

Speaking of rewrites, there's these 2 Dood had pointed out that really need a touch up, they've been there since 2013. Granted I'm working from the writeups and what I can find from the trope page.

Originals

• Deathlist is a psychopathic, Nigh-Invulnerable cyborg who gets off on widespread carnage and considers the world to owe him a debt of pain. The most horrific thing he's done so far was to kidnap a mutant superheroine, jam a power-neutralizing device into her skull, then hack off her arms and legs and give her to his troops as a sex toy. Then, when she died after more than a month of torture and rape, he impaled her corpse on a pole with a thank-you message to one of her former teammates carved into her chest. Not even his Freudian Excuse - that his parents tried to kill him by crushing him in a garbage compactor - nets him any sympathy after that.
• Hekate is a wizardess supervillain-in-training whose rap sheet includes using a spell to enslave two of her classmates for a year, during which they were repeatedly raped and otherwise abused while being completely aware of what was happening but powerless to stop it, as well as the fact that the athamé she used in the spell was empowered by the ritual sacrifice of two young children. Not only that, but during a magical battle with Fey, after trying and failing to ensnare her in the same enslavement spell, she summons a trio of iron elementals using the promise of dozens of future sacrifices. To top all that off, she used her athamé to stab Jade in the heart beforehand, just to torment Fey.

Proposed rewrites

• Deathlist is a psychopathic Cyborg who has an obsessive desire to spread carnage for his own sadistic pleasure. Responsible for the horrific butchering of innocent men, women and children, Deathlist reaches a new height of depravity when he kidnaps an innocent mutant superheroine. Removing her limbs and jamming a device into her skull, Deathlist has the mutant subjected to a month of torture and rape by his own troops. Deathlist later kills her and leaves her body as a taunt towards her teammates.
• Hekate is a sadistic sorceress who aspires to become something much worse. Sacrificing two children to learn a spell, Hekate uses her newfound magic to mentally enslave two of her classmates for a year, keeping them aware while they were raped and abused. Later trying to use the same spell on Fey, Hekate summons three iron elementals to brutalise her, promising them dozens of sacrifices. To spite Fey, Hekate stabs Jade in the heart, just to torment her foe.

And here's the Tommy one with potholes.

• Issues #35-36-"Katie" two-parter: Tom Dawson, father of Tommy Monaghan, is a seemingly respectable businessman who hides a monstrous ego. A frequent client of the prostitute Katie, Dawson repeatedly threatened her if she ever tries to trick him. When Katie got pregnant with his child, Dawson burns down her house with her 3 young children inside it to protect his reputation. Tailing Katie to America, Dawson then brutally mutilated her to cover up his tracks. 30 years later, Katie's child Frances, along with Tommy return to Ireland in which Dawson retaliates with butchering Frances and then attempts to kill Tommy.

Thoughts?

Good work Wet and adding to N's point (which I agree with) on the same note, they'd suddenly become kosher if one had redeeming qualities the others lacked since it would be only three... I think there could be some work on the rule here so it allows for nuance rather than just what looks like an arbitrary cut off.

I've always been barely acceptable of 3, and only under extremely rare circumstances.

4 is a large leap I'm simply not willing to budge over. As I said in a previous post, I'm gonna hold to my conviction and formally request a cut for the Tales from Halloween quartet so this is set in stone.

Moral agency and offscreen villainy are vague enough to be open to negotiations, but the group rule is am actual number that leaves no interpretation.

Edited by LoreDeluxe on Jan 26th 2023 at 6:30:33 AM

The issue that comes with this is where exactly would we draw the line, like we need to set the cutoff somewhere, like would it suddenly be bumped up to 5, 6, maybe 7, like no matter where it is set we are gonna have weird cases like that where a group would count if their was only one less. And how exactly would we be able to draw the line when a group is able to count and another isn't, if we aren't using numbers as a deciding factor.

And the point that the CM criteria focus on individuality is a good point. When we start to get to this point it does get really hard to say someone really stands out as truly distinct individually when there is 3 others doing the exact same crimes. I know it does suck to lose some otherwise easy keepers due to this but I haven't really seen anyone give a rebuttal to this.

Edited by Ordeaux26 on Jan 26th 2023 at 6:29:32 AM

You have been given a rebuttal: the crimes are shared across a group who functionally act as a unit, the group is still quite small and we're discussing the addition of a particular case wherein a fourth may be considered. I greatly dislike the claim that you haven't been given a counter simply because it's not something you agree with. I do concur additional scrutiny is needed for three or four and personally I wouldn't go further than that, which obviously we all are going to draw different lines on but this is a democratic thread about trying to determine what constitutes a purely evil character. There's merit to this talk and I appreciate the points on both sides but kindly don't claim the opposition is ignoring an aspect of the criteria, I said I felt there's room for nuance in discussion and I am very unhappy to be told I and others aren't fully addressing arguments because they happen to be a point we don't concur on.

If we need to set an absolute limit, we can just say 4 is where the cutoff ends.

Edited by Snoketrope on Jan 26th 2023 at 8:00:21 AM

Well the idea I am thinking of is if we set the limit at 4 instead of 3 then what if we get a case where their is a group of 5 with the same crimes who act as a unit of sorts? The same argument would be used of "it feels weird that if their was simply one less than they would count" just with an extra 1 number to each part of the argument.

On the flip side if we somehow wind up with a trio who come across as utterly generic and forgettable I have no issue with being leery or taking downvotes there. This is by nature not a hard science.

That’s going to be on tropers to assess what they’re reading and determining if they’re dealing with an actual candidate for this trope or just a faceless group of evil. We are going to need some good faith in the discussion and voting process.

Edited by 43110 on Jan 26th 2023 at 9:41:42 AM

And let me just note, again, that I'm really, really tired of the "if we allow (X), it could lead to people wanting (Y)!"

It hasn't happened with Offscreen Villainy or agency loosening, and yes, if we set the hard rule at 4, then that would be the hard rule. Just like if we ultimately decide to make it 3, that'll be a hard rule. 3 is still a group, and if we want that to be the "limit", ok then, but someone else wanting the limit to be 4, or even case-by-case, is just as valid. These "where would it end?!" and "it's a slippery slope!" arguments, plainly, are pointless when the discussion happening right now is to clarify where it "ends", and some folks simply believe loosening it to 4 is where it would end. If you "barely accept" 3 as it is, that's your right, but the discussion is valid and I don't like the argument against it being "we can't trust ourselves to take situations case-by-case and someone will find a group of 5 and cause trouble over it."

Edited by Ravok on Jan 26th 2023 at 6:44:40 AM

Here is another removal on someone I may need some time explaining right now but here we go I guess. I am actually not looking forward to this believe me.

• Children Of The Living Dead: Abbott Hayes was a vicious Serial Killer and Serial Rapist in life. Upon being murdered in prison, Abbott returned from the grave as a hyper-intelligent Flesh-Eating Zombie. Leading a horde of zombies in an attack on his hometown, Abbott was forced to go into hiding after the outbreak was contained, but not before killing Deputy Hughes. Fourteen years later, Abbott resurfaces, intending to restart the outbreak. Abbott kills and infects those around him, transforming them into his new zombie horde, and leads them in a brutal assault on the town, resulting in the deaths of many innocent people. Whereas the other zombies were mindless flesh-eaters, Abbott shows clear intelligence and awareness and sought the death of all who lived.

My biggest problem is those reasons I am about to mention. Abbott Hayes pretty much lacks any personality or characterization in him. All he does is simply grown and that's it. He's one of those mute zombies with little personality if anything. He did show some sadism such as burying a guy, and turning the teens into zombies at the graveyard. Other than that's all there is to him since it really isn't enough to show his full personality and I think that's a big problem with him. Another thing is that his motive is pretty vague as it's completely unknown why he wanted to kill everyone besides being evil of course.

He also suffers from the Bradford issues and if you don't know what I mean it's this. Dude has very high resources as he possesses while also having a large hoard of zombies on his side yet he barely uses it meaning he hold back way too much. The only thing he does is kill 4 people, and a dog, and then try to kill the heroes. Not to mention there were zero casualties at the fight scene and when he accidentally cause a road accident. To make matters worse his crimes as a human such as rape were completely off-screen with no impact or mention on the story whatsoever. If you think about it they are both kinda standard and tame for the horror genre.

Edited by Echidna on Jan 26th 2023 at 10:29:14 AM

Yeah I’d really like to see more of examples than this one (imo good) group of candidates you found to claim a slippery slope here.

Edited by 43110 on Jan 26th 2023 at 10:23:06 AM

IDK What to say to that one right now.

Only four kills for a guy that has an entire army of Zombies, man that is really underwhelming. I will probably say cut unless there is more.

Echidna: I don't think 43 is talking about your cut motion, which incidentally, I would like to ask how many deaths the other zombies he lead cause?

Depending on the number, a cut may be in order.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jan 26th 2023 at 9:51:42 AM

Doing some research into the film, the rest of the zombies only kill a single person.

Abbots EP.

Gonna read through the 4 candidate discussion to gather my thoughts.

If the stuff he did in life is offscreen, then there doesn't seem to be much to be really tie him together for the genre.

As the group rule discussion, we've been adding on to it since the beginning. This was originally set in as the Individuality rule for the trope.

Groups lack moral agency, as it's always possible for them to shift blame among each other, claim they were victims to a mob mentality, or otherwise evade full moral responsibility. Further, this trope is about the worst possible villain, and if members of a group are all roughly equal in heinousness, none of them stands out enough.

We then eventually added this in as a clause once we jumped up to allowing 2 then jumped up to 3.

Note that the consensus has occasionally permitted examples where a group of two or three distinct individuals is written up together because they function as a team.

There's clear evidence that we have allowed more and more candidates together over the trope's lifespan. I guess here is where we're again discussing when enough is enough.

Besides the two quartets that have been brought up, we're you also wanting me to bring up an trios I have issue with? That will take some time to pour over the pages.

My overall feelings now are if each member of a group can't effectively be written up separately, then we've fundamentally lost the individuality aspect of Complete Monster.

Edited by LoreDeluxe on Jan 26th 2023 at 7:02:14 AM