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
Has anyone seen Harry Brown? This is on the YMMV page, but not on the film page, and hasn't been brought up here.
Complete Monster: Noel Winters. He is a psychotic, misogynistic, sadistic teenager and the leader of the gang of chavs living on the estate, and he often abuses women for sexual pleasure while also engaging in regular acts of brutality, a lot of which he films on his phone. He and his gang regularly abuse Leonard to the point that the old man eventually tries to fight them with a bayonet - but the gang overpower and kill him, whilst filming his death on one of their phones. Although (whilst captured and being tortured by Harry) Marky admits that, whilst he and the others only really meant to scare Leonard, Noel was the one who ended up stabbing him. And Noel himself even urinates on the dead man's body. Later, during a riot on the housing estate, he is found hiding with help from his also-psychotic uncle. Having been confronted by Harry (and also having found a female police officer trying to call for help), Noel's uncle tells him to strangle the officer, and Noel takes pleasure in sadistically strangling the woman - and actually encourages her to struggle for her life, as he watches her die!
Ok, here's a Literature sandbox with no author folder. Permission to request?
I'm going to say cut on Majora based on this discussion. Also, after what Morgenthaler said I perused Blue-and-Orange Morality and good freaking God it's a mess. Someone tried to list every alien species from Animorphs, and that was just one of the more obvious screw-ups. That trope needs a clean up almost as badly as this one. With that in mind, we might want to stop citing it here, as it's clear that few people on the wiki actually know what the trope is about.
Okay, to go back to the Majora thing, I would vote
and my personal leaning is that in any circumstances of genuine ambiguity we go towards cut. If there's a good chance they are literally Made of Evil or have Blue-and-Orange Morality or anything like then the burden is to prove that the character doesn't get disqualified.
Just something quick about Majora.
Let's remember that Majora itself is just a Mask that's clearly has its own powers. For the entry, are we putting him as the Mask, or Skull Kid!Majora itself? Skull Kid himself clearly is not evil. Just mischievous. Majora's actions while worn notably are much more dangerous than Skull Kid's regular type of actions(he's implied to not try to really hurt others like Majora's influence made him do). Without being worn, he just comes off completely as a nutcase and nothing more. Also, the whole child thing at the end. Now, I haven't played in ages, but wasn't he not worn by Skull Kid when you talked to him while on the Moon itself? If that's the case, then I'd say Made of Evil or the Blue-and-Orange Morality.
Another issue I have with it is that it didn't have any real morals and Skull Kid's own morals kept Majora(while worn) from going too far. I mean, not that he isn't a dick. I'm thinking that the morality part is too hard to tell, and he lacks none unless worn, and Skull Kid himself almost always kept him in check from destroying the world outside of, clearly, the Moon falling at best.
Also, being that I haven't played the game in a while, could we list his exact troubles caused? Again, I do think the morality is impossible to tell since 3 different ones exist. Skull Kid is just a cute little troublemaker, Majora himself has none(from what we can tell, he doesn't really understand good or evil, even in the final battle, it's just a game to him), and then the combination of them both, where morality clearly does exist.
Shadow?Yeah, comic Trask is not a qualifier. In his first appearance he had Eviler than Thou pulled on him by his own creations, and more recently he was revived by Bastion using some techno-organic mumbo jumbo that bound him to the latter; unlike guys like Stryker and Graydon Creed he helped Bastion entirely unwillingly, and when Bastion's control was momentarily broken the first thing he did was shoot himself.
For the Litearture sandbox I'm going to make a Hercule Poirot header and put the The ABC Murders and Curtain examples under it.
@Morganthaler: You think that Majora wants to make friends, I think that it just views other sentient beings as objects for study. I don't see either of us giving way here. But the way that Majora describes the Skull Kid as "mere garbage" after he outlives his usefulness doesn't suggest someone who seeks to form meaningful relationships.
@Shaoken: Made of Evil is a specific kind of origin story. If someone wants to argue against a candidate on that ground, the burden of proof is on them to outline the facts (without conjecture) of the character's background. As it stands, we know nothing about Majora's origins, only its actions over the course of human history - this is in marked contrast to Exdeath. And there are at least a few approved C Ms whose character sheets include Blue-and-Orange Morality.
@Irene: As Majora refers to Skull Kid as "a puppet", it seems that all the actions committed by Skull Kid between obtaining the mask and separating from it are a result of Majora's Mind Control.
I would say that any Complete Monster that has Blue-and-Orange Morality attached either needs to be taken off the list pronto for lack of moral agency or needs to have Blue-and-Orange Morality removed because it doesn't count. The same way that any Eldritch Abomination needs to get taken off the list because a proper Eldritch Abomination is on such a greater scale that our moral agency can't apply to them.
I still need a list of his heinous actions first.
Mind Control alone might not mean much as if his acts aren't severely heinous while combined with Skull Kid, likely because the latter is preventing him from going too far. The only one I can think of that is severely heinous is dropping the Moon at best. And that comes off as a pretty generic doomsday thing.
Shadow?Having not actually played the game - I'm pretty sure he tries to crash the moon into the earth.
TBH, I'm not even sure how Blue-and-Orange Morality even came up in relation to Majora. Its actions are explicable in terms of a mixture of sadism and curiosity, rather than guiding principles.
I don't see any innate friction of Eldritch Abomination and Complete Monster. The only thing that all abominations have in common is the bizarreness of their physical form and powers. While they're incomprehensible things to us, some of them understand us just fine, and take pleasure in human suffering.
To bring this back a few dozen pages, did we get a consensus to cut Jake "The Snake" Roberts from the Pro Wrestling section? As it stands the entry begins with "As a heel" which is one of those sort of statements we want to move away from. If we leave that on then we're going to have issues where people keep putting up characters in just their villain personas and say "well you made an exception from Jake Roberts."
He's clearly disqualified; his Heel–Faith Turn was the same character which violates the "No Redemption" clause and his last appearance as of yet had him come out as a hero again.
Can we just put a blanket ban on pro wrestling examples? Even without the inevitable Heel–Face Revolving Door, I don't see any wrestling promotion ever pushing someone up to baseline heinousness to begin with.
![]()
Yeah, we got a consensus to cut Jake. I (very reluctantly)removed his entry from YMMV and in the revised page just left Ox Baker. ![]()
Read Ox's entry. Two murders I think meets the baseline heinousness standard.
![]()
![]()
To me personally, ambiguity means cut.
edited 25th May '14 1:30:01 AM by ACW

Oh sure, it can help solidify, but the character needs to be pretty damn bad already.