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
A troper at the Maya and the three ymmv
page keeps interfering with the entries
Yep to Athena!
The whole point of our loosening restrictions was to allow for characters who do get the detail and weight attributed to their crimes even if not everything is blatantly "in your face" onscreen, and I think Lecktor hits that. We get the details that his attacks were so horrific it left victims either in ICU for years or mental hospitals, we get him trying to get Will's family massacred in the present, Lecktor's presence is felt throughout the film, he's portrayed as a massive sadist who left Will fucked up, etc.
Here's my thing: would those hesitant feel more inclined to count him if we saw a single crime scene photo of one of his murders? Because if so, that's the entire point of the new rulings, by my metric, that such a slight, damn near useless-otherwise "visual cue" to a crime to give us a loophole around Offscreen Villainy doesn't have to be shown for the crimes to be attributed to the baddie. We went over this: if weight and detail are ascribed to the crime, by our new standards it's fine to discuss, and the weight and detail of Lecktor's past crimes are there. His victim count, how bad the attacks and slayings were, fates of victims who barely survived, Will's trauma, Lecktor's presence felt throughout...
If we wind up disagreeing on this one and Lecktor doesn't go up, alright. But in that case, our looser restrictions are gonna need to be gone over again, because this is the exact kind of case that the looser restrictions should allow for.
Edited by Ravok on Nov 10th 2021 at 9:35:23 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Hey guys. Just wanted to bring this up; As some of you may know a few weeks ago Xor from the first Star Wars KOTOR game was approved by the thread. However, I checked the Star Wars CM page, and I couldn't find Xor's entry anywhere. Here's the original draft from Ravok by the way:
Original video game: Xor is a vile xenophobe who stands out even as a minor sidequest villain as the most disgusting character in the game. Violently prejudiced against the Cathar race, Xor took part in the brutal Mandalorian genocide of the race, gleefully killing Cathar "in the air, on the land, and in their homes, just to see them burn." After the complete genocide failed, Xor went on to enslave all female Cathar he could while killing the males. The source of Juhani's greatest suffering, Xor killed her father years ago, an act that also drove her mother to death, before trying to turn the child Juhani into another of his slaves, an act he attempts yet again when he runs into Juhani years later, bragging all the while of his assistance in the massacre of her world and the death of her family.
Edited by Connor2107 on Nov 10th 2021 at 9:46:56 AM
Yeah with Lektor I feel that if we are going to disqualify him everyone else that has been put up with this rule needs to go.
The swaps haven't happened yet you can find Xor on Monster Star Wars.
'd by ![]()
Anyway, being against the newer standards is fine, and if one is against them then alright, I completely get your reasoning against Lecktor, because by the older, more strict standards, no, Lecktor wouldn't count because none of his victims are "onscreen."
But to those who did approve of the new rulings, Lecktor hits them. When a story goes in detail about a character, the victim bodycount, ways the killer screwed with the police, we have an onscreen, mentally fucked up survivor in Will, the character tries for more victims while stuck in a tiny cell, the film deliberately paints the way the character killed his victims as so brutal it drove a cop to mental problems and makes Will shudder...I think by that point, asking for a loophole of a single crime scene photo or something of the like—as the old rules would have—when the rest of the story, details and character would be exactly the same otherwise in painting Lecktor as a monster...it feels overly strict, to me, and like we're still weighted down by years of "well things are this way and should stay that way" without much consideration into examples like Lecktor where the weight and brutality is hefty, which is why the new rulings were discussed to allow more discussion on cases like it.
"Film is a visual medium and so we need visual proof of crimes" isn't really something I'm feeling works when video games are also a visual medium but we're apparently willing to "let those slide" because of in-game notes and such...well films have their own in-game notes: detailed discussions and dialogue from characters about the crimes and the nature of them and Lecktor, Will as a surviving, screwed up victim, and Lecktor later trying to use Dolarhyde as a tool to annihilate Will's family.
Edited by Ravok on Nov 10th 2021 at 9:51:01 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Btw anyone mind commenting on NTG's post
As he brings up a good point for Desmond
Edited by miraculous on Nov 10th 2021 at 10:03:30 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."My issue is as follows:
Lecktor is a nasty villain from Will's past, sure. But he's not the main villain and not the focus of it. Has he traumatized Will? Yes. But the chief villain of the movie is Dolarhyde. Lecktor is, in effect, defanged by the time the movie begins beyond his interactions with Will and on the case.
The answer is, if we saw photos if it would bring it out of offscreen villainy? I'd say yes. Even then, it might be debatable, because Lektor never breaks free the way Hannibal does in Silence of the Lambs, where the later film adaptation of Red Dragon at least demonstrates having murdered and served a flautist for dinner.
Lektor might be important and we've loosened restrictions to some extent, but he's a bit of a test for me in how far I'm honestly willing to go and an example of some who might otherwise fit, but just can't quite hack it. Especially with Dolarhyde who commits more visceral onscreen crimes (in addition to being a rapist, burning Lounds alive...
I don't think there's enough for Lecktor to take it away from offscreen, especially with Dolarhyde around and the film medium cements that for me. People are free to disagree with me, of course, just my POV atm
Edited by Lightysnake on Nov 10th 2021 at 10:10:00 AM
Mostly understand the argument, don't agree but I understand it, however I don't think we should remotely hold what Lecktor does in Silence or Red Dragon against Lecktor here, this is a unique film canon that has jack to do with those, so I don't think it's really worth noting "Lecter does (X) in those" when that's not what's up for debate nor does it affect his qualifications here.
Lecktor's not the main threat, but he's a very large presence who takes up a solid chunk of the story to discuss his crimes and details of them, and ends up trying to get Will's innocent wife and kid killed from inside his cell while fondly reminiscing about his many victims which are discussed further by outside sources. If a single photograph would be more swaying, alright, but I personally don't think our newer rulings should be constrained by something as arbitrary as "but do we see a single square image that shows a bloody body?" when everything else is the same in detail, character discussion and weight around Lecktor.
But if we still want to make that distinction of "we need a visual cue", then let's discuss that and make it clear that that's what we want and need, and decide Lecktor doesn't count by that metric.
Edited by Ravok on Nov 10th 2021 at 10:15:23 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!Oh, I agree. The film came out in 1986, two years before Silence was written. My only intent with that was in regards to how Lector's crimes are portrayed between the films. Silence takes a moment where Clarice is shown pictures of Lector's victims, including one where we're informed he ripped a nurse's face apart and ate her tongue. We don't see the photos, but Clarice's reaction tells us a lot.
I think it's a combo of factors...Lecktor is a presence, thanks to Cox's performance. But I think the lack of visual cues and Lecktor's crimes not having the full weight behind them as Dolarhyde's own is what sways me. The only real evidence of the aftermath he leaves, unlike guys like Gottfried and Savoyard, is Will himself and their conversations.
Well then how about a bit of a compromise on Lecktor that I've been considering:
In the Manhunter second draft screenplay—available here
for reading—Lecktor is much the same character. Victim count, details about crimes, dialogue is almost word-for-word the same...except 3 details:
1. He's established to be a cannibal who consumed his victims
2. The scene that Silence took involving showing Clarice the EKG of Lecktor's heartbeat as he mauled a nurse's face with his teeth is here, with Chilton showing Will an EKG of Lecktor's heartbeat as he describes how it never rose as Lecktor attacked the nurse
3. We get actual photographic proof and descriptions of his attack on Will and how much it resembled his other attacks
How about we say that screenplay!Lecktor passes muster with these details to him—since he's otherwise almost the exact same—and vote on that one? Would everyone be more comfortable with that one going up?
Edited by Ravok on Nov 10th 2021 at 10:39:07 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!I just checked out Former Complete Monsters, and I noticed that Vanitas was listed in "Moral Agency Issues". I won't deny that he doesn't fit if he falls into this disqualification, but that would imply that he was proposed and accepted. So I checked out the history section in Birth by Sleep, and it seems like he was lumped in with master xehanort. That's definitely not unheard of, but was this really how Vanitas was represented as a CM? The write-up didn't even do much to highlight his actions.
Everyone look at my sandbox

I think I will go with
Lektor, I am not personally the biggest fan of the idea of treating film differently. I also still haven't got many opinions on Steve Gardner.
Edited by Ordeaux26 on Nov 10th 2021 at 9:18:17 AM