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
Honestly (from my viewing) the film presents the Autumn People not as "people who need to feast on their nightmares" and more "people who want to feast on their nightmares, when they're not brainwashed into doing so." Dark reveals this to Charles in a kind of mocking way, as if saying "yeah we're literal demons, got a problem with that?"
Edited by nwotyzal on May 15th 2021 at 1:59:31 AM
Yeah, but if they just wanted to feed on nightmares, Dark wouldn't be saying happiness could literally harm them...
Believe me, Dark is one I wanted to do and see up for a while. Just let me mull it over for a time, since like I said, this might call for some allowances to the rule, but I want to hear what others have to say.
Jackie, Advisor's film is its own continuity, right?
Regardless of what we do with Dark, my concern is if we allow exceptions to the agency rule, that could open a Pandora's Box full of worm cans.
Edited by ACW on May 15th 2021 at 5:10:44 AM
That is also a valid concern. II mean, for say, Castlevania Lord of Shadows, I'd be more willing to see a discussion on someone like Zobek even if the Lords of Shadow are the literal dark sides of former saints, since they're capable of moral standards and even love, while Zobek is also fully adept at just being a normal businessman when he actually wants to be, as opposed to people literally harmed by pure love.
Then again, we have made a lot of allowance for other villains depending on cosmologies.
While the film does make Made of Evil apparent, him being able to be killed by positive emotions makes me say no.
Also, I'm probably forgetting something here, but I don't really recall him saying that hapiness harms him in the film, and even if he did, there isn't really a lot of evidence in the film to back it up, Dark isn't even killed by it. (I did look at the trope page and that does look like an issue for the book version)
also, I included the You Tube link in the EP to anyone who wants to watch the movie.
Shit, I did not realize it would be this divisive here.
Edited by nwotyzal on May 15th 2021 at 2:18:41 AM
Last night, I was watching First Kid (Woods might count, going by his internet predatory, stalking, attempted kidnapping, and murder) and wondered something, does Disney have any evil peoples from their live-action movies that aren't from an adaption to something like a Marvel or one of their remakes? I am pretty sure they do, it's just rare. Maybe?
Just throwing something out here:
Don't we also allow Made of Evil deities that can at least comprehend the concept of good and evil? Like, for instance, a villain who's fully aware of his nature and not only knows it, but relishes it completely. From what I've been reading, Mr. Dark seems to be superb at acting Faux Affably Evil, and he's clearly enjoying what he's meant to do while still acting chummy.
Also, reading the summary, it seems that the protagonist in the book knowingly weaponizes said "Happiness". Just how loose is the whole "Killed by Happiness" thing?
For whatever it's worth, I would be more than happy to have a discussion on potentially updating the "agency" rulings to allow a little more leeway for certain characters. Now, someone like Legends!Grievous, that's a case of agency that does need a rule against, because his mind was altered against his will to twist him into a more evil person.
But someone like Dark (novel or film) who—by all accounts—gives off the impression of being a willfully evil bastard, but one whose very nature is hurt by good...that's one I'd be willing to see the agency rule be a bit more lenient on. Because everything about the character screams "pure evil CM", except a supernatural aversion to good and love, but the plot doesn't seem to treat it as a genuine problem for Dark—he seems to relish in being evil, and that's the kinds of cases that I'm more willing to potentially give some slack to if the rules were updated.
I'm not saying to open the floodgates and let a downpour of characters downvoted in the past for any agency issues be relitigated, not at all, just that—if the thread as a majority found it worth considering—we consider the idea of amending the rule to let more questionable cases of agency be given leeway. Someone whose mind was altered, or who has heavy schizophrenia, or a big deal is made that they have no choice in the matter, those are obvious no-nos. But someone who—from the sounds of it—like Dark whose "agency issues" aren't really discussed or imparted to him beyond "he's so evil that happiness and love hurt him and his minions", that's one I'd be happy to see go up.
But this, as I said, would require a full-on discussion about the agency rule and whether it should be slightly amended. Because as is, under the current rules, it's far more questionable if he should be given that leeway.
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!If that is the case then I'd probably be fine with his film version without any rule amending, though his novelization definitely sounds like he falls under the "dies from hugging and love" bit so would need more discussion regarding rule amending
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!

Yeah, but that's the literal weakness of the Autumn People still. Love runs contrary to their very nature.
Other Autumn People have the issue even in the film, as I recall. It's one thing to indulge in sadism and pain, it's another when the power of love hurts them. Remember Mr. dark's specific line: "happiness makes them rot"
However, TBH, this is making me wonder if the agency rule itself is flawed in some capacity. Let me mull this over.
Edited by Lightysnake on May 15th 2021 at 1:55:32 AM