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:
Please see the Frequently Asked Questions and Common Requests List before suggesting any new entries for this trope.
IMPORTANT: To avoid a holler to the mods, please see here for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
When voting, you must specify the candidate(s). No blanket votes (i.e. "
to everyone I missed").
No plagiarism: It's fair to source things, but an effortpost must be your own work and not lifted wholesale from another source.
We don't care what other sites think about a character being a Complete Monster. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
What is the Work
Here you briefly describe the work in question and explain any important setting details. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with the work in question.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
This will be the main portion of the Effort Post. Here you list all of the crimes committed by the candidate. For candidates with longer rap sheets, keep the list to their most important and heinous crimes, we don't need to hear about every time they decide to do something minor or petty.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
Here you discuss any potential redeeming or sympathetic features the character has, the character's Freudian Excuse if they have one, as well as any other potential mitigating factors like Offscreen Villainy or questions of moral agency. Try to present these as objectively as possible by presenting any evidence that may support or refute the mitigating factors.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Here you compare the actions of the Candidate to other character actions in the story in order to determine if they stand out or not. Remember that all characters, not just other villains, contribute to the Heinousness Standard
Final Verdict?
Simply state whether or not you think the character counts or not.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:14:10 AM
The problem with Cesare...while he was initially on his route, he descends into nothing more but a pathetic, selfish, hysterical brat who doesn't really hold a candle to his dad in evil or cleverness.
Also, creepy as it is, we don't particularly list incest between two consenting adults as a negative. Cesare using her for his own ends certainly would. However, Cesare hardly seems the worst this world has to offerr
Now, can a character who doesn't start out as a CM become one? Yes, absolutely. Superboy Prime is a great example. Orochimaru is another (for now.) Sauron and Melkor as well. Griffith from Berserk is one of the most triumphant examples there.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:13:21 PM by Lightysnake
Red Hood'sShadow
So Villain Decay again eh? OK. He should probably be listed on the "never again" page then.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:13:01 PM by RedHoodsShadow
"Revenge is like sugar...its sweet but bad for you"![]()
![]()
That's true, but even when he turns evil, Hal just isn't heinous enough- his actions are pretty much those of every single supervillain you'd encounter in a cartoon (trying to kill the hero, wrecking the city over quasi-imagined slights)
Incidentally, because Metro Man is a Superman expy, Hal is definitely covering similar ground as characters like the Plutonian or Superboy Prime- why it is utterly terrifying for someone without responsibility to be so powerful, and if you compare him to them, you can see how much worse he could be if he wanted to.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:17:30 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiNot precisely villain decay. It's more that Cesare fails to pack that evil punch, especially compared to his smarter and more effective dad. Cesare reveals himself to be just a pathetic, spoiled brat with too much power. Now, this isn't a bar per see (see Joffrey Baratheon), but Cesare doesn't do much with it. I mean, killing his father is less heinous than it could be as daddy tried to kill him first. If he raped Caterina, it'd push him over the edge, IMO, but he never got the chance, Lucrezia's jealousy aside.
Red Hood'sShadow
![]()
There is also attempted murder for petty reasons, sadism, and For the Evulz, but of course those are pretty much par for the course too aren't they?
edited 14th Jun '13 12:17:53 PM by RedHoodsShadow
"Revenge is like sugar...its sweet but bad for you"Yes- I think the problem is that you are kind of going in the direction of arguing that villain is synonymous with Complete Monster, since unless they are an Anti-Villain (and even then), pretty much all villains are going to have some or all of those traits- if they didn't, they wouldn't be villains.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:19:16 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiBeing fair, I think that we do construe this in a confusing manner sometimes. Now, from what I'm reading, Hal is nasty, but a typical villain. He doesn't go over and above. I mean, being fair, Ramsay Bolton and Gregor Clegane could be said to be villains. They kill and rape people, it's what bad guys do. However, they do so over the top with it in such terrifying, creative ways, they go over and above and land in this category.
Footsteps, I know you read the series in volume form, so I'm spoil blocking this thanks to the finale of this arc of Rosario To Vampire. If you object to me doing this before the volume is out and you've read it, say the word Which reminds me: With Her recent death I think we can update Gyokuro Shuzen's entry. Mind if I do a rewrite?
edited 14th Jun '13 12:25:07 PM by Lightysnake
@13906 We're not voting on the 13-year old novel, character, though. We're voting on actions from an episode less than two weeks old. Each adaptation is treated on its own merits, also as per the FAQ.
I'm also of the belief that "I don't care to explain" is a very bad reason to break rules set up for this cleanup effort.
Describing the reaction to the Red Wedding as "raw emotion" is not condescension. It's a fair description as the emotions evoked by the Red Wedding were very raw. This is not any attempt to pass judgment on the reactions to the episode in question; it is an observation to the reactions to the episode seen both in this thread and elsewhere. The fact that you feel this description is condescending makes me feel justified in my description - it appears you've taken offense at what I see as a neutral statement of fact.
Moreover, you are inserting words into my mouth. I never said that we should table discussion of television's Frey for 10 years. In fact, I never specified a time frame in which to wait, so saying "10 years" is a strawman argument. I'm inclined to wait until next season, yes, but I want to wait at least two months, to give time for things to digest. If the argument is good now, it'll be just as good two months from now.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.![]()
I agree with that. It is kind of a "know it when you see it" distinction. I think another part of it is also the fact that the Moral Event Horizon is distinctive from Complete Monster. A lot of villains will cross the Moral Event Horizon, but being a Complete Monster pretty much means living on the other side of the Moral Event Horizon.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:28:25 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wiki![]()
you're right, we're not voting on the novel character. The thing is, though, the vast majority of the votes are from people who've read the book. We knew the Red Wedding was coming, and we'd removed the book character already. I don't see how we're letting our emotions dominate things here when we were all quite prepared for the Red Wedding. I was certainly emotional when I read the book about 7 years ago, but right now, we've all pretty much come to a consensus the books are much, much darker than the show, which allows Walder, portrayed as worse on the show, to qualify for us.
I believe that waiting a year 'till next season to decide is abusrd. It is clear to most books readers that Show!Walder is a slightly different character than Book!Walder. For all we know, the show may turn Ramsay into a Woobie next season. If something similar happens to Old Walder, and he becomes more sympathetic by next season, we can always come back here, discuss it and cut him. Now however, this season is over, and Show!Walder (unlike his book counterpart) hasn't displayed any redeeming qualities or valid excuses for his actions yet.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane."For all we know, the show may turn Ramsay into a Woobie next season."
I agree with your argument, but I think this is kind of Not Helping Your Case. Besides the unlikelihood of that particular character being presented sympathetically, there really isn't any precedent on the show for a seemingly totally evil character being revealed to be sympathetic (This part isn't really directed at you- my point is just that this isn't a work where I would expect an irredeemable character to suddenly become a woobie).
Note that while Jaime Lannister is revealed to be more heroic than he initially seemed, even in his first appearance, he clearly had redeeming qualities.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:48:51 PM by Hodor
Edit, edit, edit, edit the wikiEven in the books, Jaime seems despicable because everything is from the Starks' P Ov when he's viewed. Everything he does has some justification. Bran out the window is the worst and the most horrible thing he's done, but Jaime is clearly disgusted with himself and doing this to protect the woman he loves and their children. his attack and killing of Ned's men is done to protect Tyrion, whom Jaime views as kidnapped wrongfully, and whose safety Jaime is clearly worried over.
Ramsay by contrast, is a torturer (Jaime despises this), a murderer (ok, Jaime is this, too, but never for fun), and a rapist (something Jaime never even considers). There is a very, VERY minor possibility it will be revealed Ramsay loved his mother, but I kind of doubt it at this juncture given the sheer proclivity he has towards killing family members when they inconvenience him.
Oh, we have the relationship between Moral Event Horizon and Complete Monster again. This one's pretty easy to explain.
First, a Moral Event Horizon is an action. A Complete Monster is a character. That's a pretty solid distinction in and of itself.
Now, how a Moral Event Horizon intersects with Complete Monster is tricky. For one, there are arguments about whether it's appropriate to say that the Moral Event Horizon can happen with a character that's presented as a Complete Monster from the get-go. That's really an argument for another thread, but it is correct to say that a Complete Monster must have crossed the Moral Event Horizon at some point (it's technically written into the trope description for CM, as "irredeemable").
That said, merely crossing the Moral Event Horizon isn't by itself sufficient for CM-status. If the character can successfully maintain an endearing trait, they can cross the MEH without becoming a CM.
In short, all MEH moments can be flags for CM status. But not every MEH shows a CM, and it's arguable that a CM may never have a true MEH shown.
Also, if folks are up for going to "unsettled business," I've finally watched all of the requisite episodes of Bones to judge the two characters listed on the page, as well as one that was removed pending review and one that hasn't been brought up yet. My thoughts, in order of appearance:
- Howard Epps: He's the first serial killer that appears on the show. The problem is that the first three deaths to his name happen before the show's start (one of the ones in question was the one he was in jail for when he's first introduced), and his second appearance is more of the same problem. His third episode involves two fresh murders on his part (a firefighter and his ex-wife), plus an attempt on a third (the heroine). There are two issues with him. One is his pretty low on-screen body count (again, two that were within the time frame of the show, none of his old ones shown in flashback). Two, his Norman Bates-like mother issues. He does wish that he murdered her... but he also freaks out and gets upset when Brennan tells him that the FBI arrested her. Plus, all of his worst actions happen when the Gravedigger (below) had already made an appearance. If nothing else, I think that it shows that Epps wasn't quite as heinous as the Gravedigger, so I'm inclined to cut.
- The Gravedigger: Her first appearance shows her kidnapping Brennan and Hodgins and burying them alive. This actually isn't a case of Protagonist-Centered Morality; she just randomly picked the two (and Hodgins was just a "why not" throw-in). So right off the bat, she manages to go further than any other murderer in the show thus far. She later targets Booth as well, plus tries to kill Hodgins and Brennan again (this time with a bomb) in her second appearance (although this one strays into Protagonist-Centered Morality). She also attempts to pin blame for her actions on Angela (though more as a ploy in court than anything else). Given how far she goes, how distinctive she is in applying psychological terror in addition to murder, and the usual slate of sociopathy involved (also, given that she got killed by a Knight Templar, she's not coming back), I think she's a keep, but the current entry needs a huge rewrite.
- The Gormogon: It's eventually revealed that four characters are under consideration when discussing this plotline. One is the former Gormogon - all of this one's crimes were done decades before the show, and his one appearance was as a senile old man. Not qualifying, just serving as background for the current killer. The current Gormogon is only shown for about a minute (long enough to get killed), and receives absolutely no characterization. Moreover, it's strongly suggested that he started killing his targets (all members of the Knights of Columbus) because he believed that killing members of secret societies would benefit society as a whole. So overall, I'd say he was a generic villain who only received two minor bits of characterization - one of which was Well-Intentioned Extremist. The first apprentice of the modern Gormogon is the only one who actually commits a murder shown, but said murder is his only appearance (though it's suggested that he was responsible for at least one other Gormogon murder). The Ghost, and not onscreen enough to qualify. Finally, the second apprentice is Zach Addy, who had tons of positive characterization both before The Reveal of him as the second apprentice and after. Plus, he revealed that the only crimes he did was to act as The Mole and to cover things up. And he repented in a later appearance for going that far. So he's an easy no. In short, nothing connected to Gormogon qualifies in my opinion.
- Christopher Pelante: The one not previously described. His first two appearances involve him playing cat-and-mouse with the team, them trying to figure out how he commits his crimes when he's got a monitoring anklet (he does get in at least three murders in this span). While more heady than some of the other criminals, not as bad as others above. It's his third appearance, where he tries to trap Hodgins in a Sadistic Choice (either lose all his fortune or allow a bunch of children to die - a bit of a failure of one because Hodgins had no issue choosing to save the kids), where he goes further than any villain the show has had to date. His most recent appearance (the last episode of the eighth season) included multiple blackmail attempts, using hidden bombs to threaten innocent people unless the main characters did something (including forcing Booth to cancel his and Brennan's wedding, just because). He also is heavily implied to now have brain damage due to being shot by Booth, although that happened after the attempted Sadistic Choice incident. I'm not sure how to play this one... we could wait to see more Pelante in the future (pretty much guaranteed by the series), or rule that Pelante from before the brain damage qualifies from his actions but any future actions are mitigated from said damage.
In short, I'd say that the Gravedigger sets herself apart for the torture she's willing to commit, and Pelante sets himself apart for the sheer level of murder he's up for inflicting. Everyone else from the show is overshadowed by these two.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.The Gormogon plotline in general was a bit confusing, and there are plenty of reasons for that (from what I can tell, it got hit with Writer on Board, Executive Meddling, and bits of the writer's strike).
When the Gormogon first shows up (under the name "the Mother's Son Killer" - Gormogon is a much easier name to type), it's first thought that there's just one cannibalistic killer under that title. It's eventually revealed that it's a serial killer tradition that works like the Sith of Star Wars (which is even discussed in-universe). The terms that the tradition themselves use is "Master" and "Apprentice." The Apprentice helps out the Master kill specified targets until they can build a whole skeleton out of significant portions of targets (such as fingers of a violinist and the jaw of a lobbyist). The heroes are on the trail of the current Master, but they do eventually find the skeleton assembled by the previous Master, and even track down said Master.
Part of the problem is that they never make clear who, between the current Master and his first Apprentice, who did what beyond the first Apprentice doing the one murder shown on screen (though there is cannibalism of the victims, but that's exclusively the Master). Much of what's gleaned about any involved in the Gormogon killings is from then-new character Dr. Lance Sweets, FBI criminal psychologist and profiler (and given various hints shown and later Word of God, the original planned Master).
The short answer is, I think it's what happens when you try to discuss this trope and our qualifications for it in terms of what was actually a giant production clusterfuck.
EDIT: Also, technically speaking, nobody uses the name Gormogon for themselves. "Gormogon" is the name that the heroes give to describe what they initially think is one serial killer, later to describe the case rather than an individual (though Brennan does call the current Master "Gormogon" in the climax to the storyline).
edited 14th Jun '13 1:37:00 PM by 32_Footsteps
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.@Hodor. Yeah, the example with Ramsay was extreme. What I meant is that if a character who is currently considered irrdeemable right now, turns out to possess sympathetic quialities (e.g. Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds ) next season, we can always come back here and decide that he doesn't fit anymore and should be cut. But those qualities may come up in the 8th season or the finale. That doesn't mean we have to stall his characerization for three or more years.
edited 14th Jun '13 1:55:59 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.@13933 I'm doing my best to simplify it, actually, though I bet another fan of Bones would say I'm oversimplifying it. It doesn't help that it basically revolves around secret societies (the original, historical Gormogons were basically a group of guys who got kicked out of the Masons and gathered to discredit them... you're just supposed to take it on faith that in the show, this somehow progressed to a secret society devoted to literally eating every other secret society while acting like Sith Lords), which are practically a "make as confusing as possible" card for writers.
If anyone wants the ultra-condensed version, I recommend that three of the Gormogon candidates be disqualified for Offscreen Villainy and Well-Intentioned Extremist reasons (as the latter was what little characterization they got), and the fourth eliminated for insufficient heinousness in addition to having positive features.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

@Anew Yes, Scar's been closed. He's not to be mentioned again. I know, I've tried.
edited 14th Jun '13 12:10:17 PM by RedHoodsShadow
"Revenge is like sugar...its sweet but bad for you"