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
Complete Monster is a hard trope to apply. I have to keep reminding myself "it's not the worst villain in a story, it's a villain who crosses a specific line, and never looks back".
I'd like to try and propose Mother Gothel from Rapunzel's Revenge again, seeing as she was mostly overlooked. I got perhaps three people to vote on that.
She's the closest you can get to an evil overlord in a Wild West setting. She uses her growth magic to keep her personal garden lovely and lively, while maintaining a cruel famine within her magic's reach, and it gets bigger every day.
She heavily taxes anyone within her reach, and an early panel in the comic suggests she kills people who can't pay (despite the fact that it's because of her famine that they struggle to keep up). She also can't stand thieves: when Rapunzel's father steals some of her produce to help his wife's cravings, Mother Gothel has him killed, and Rapunzel kidnapped.
She had the paid workers in her mines driven out and replaced with slaves, her magic has unpleasant side effects on the wildlife, and Rapunzel wasn't the first kidnapped child raised to be loyal to Mother Gothel.
There is only one possible redeeming trait, and that is Gothel's feelings for Rapunzel. Even after Rapunzel travelled from the tree she was trapped in, all the way back to Gothel's manor, to get revenge, all Mother Gothel said was "You've turned out exactly as I'd hoped." While there is an argument there, it seemed more like a possessive relationship, and in the final showdown, she is clearly trying to kill Rapunzel.
for Gothel.
I have a question? Does murder still count toward the heionuess standard even if all the persons victims are assholes? Say there is a work where both the villain and Anti-Hero are killers, and the antihero kills 10 assholes while the villain kills five innocent people, is the villain still overshadowed?
jjjTearis is indeed canon. But my question is, do we count bonus material?
For example, it's revealed that in Star Wars Episode VII that Palpatine genuinely cared for Vader. Would we count that even though it's not present in the original trilogy? I know we don't count Dissidia when discussing Kefka as it is non canon, but if a canonical work gives a monster villain a plausible excuse, would we count that.
edited 26th Mar '15 3:16:15 PM by Klavice
@ bobg: As Ekinmak stated, it's really a case-by-case basis depending on how much of an asshole the anti-hero's victims are. A Cowboy Cop who shoots 10 unrepentent rapists or Mooks is probably not going to disqualify a bad guy who kills five innocent bystanders for shits and giggles. It only becomes disqualifying when the "hero", say, kills people who are merely rude. That sort of Knight Templar attitude can turn the hero themselves into viable candidates. There's only so much Moral Dissonance a work can include before it becomes hard to figure out where the heinous standard is supposed to be.
@ Klavice: Re: Canon works: Yes.
edited 26th Mar '15 3:41:23 PM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"bobg: Yeah, pretty much case-by-case.
Klavice: So what to do about Iris?
As for Palpatine: Episode 7's not out yet. But if he did indeed care for Vader, then he would probably have to be disqualified (at least Canon!Palpatine; Legends!Palpatine could probably stay). How crazy would that be???
edited 26th Mar '15 3:51:04 PM by ACW
Here is an effort post on The little man:
Who is he? What does he do?
The original version of The coachman. He takes Candlewick (renamed Lampwick in the Disney version) and Pinocchio to The Land Of Toys. He has a stagecoach pulled by two dozen donkeys (not 20, I made a mistake). The donkeys all wear white shoes. When one of the donkeys throws Pinocchio off, The little man bights off half of its right ear. When the same donkey reveals it can speak and tries to warn Pinocchio, The little man repeats the process with the left ear. Eventually, the stagecoach arrives, and Pinocchio and Candlewick are let loose in the Land Of Toys. The little man than leaves. 5 months later, The little man returns, captures Pinocchio and Candlewick (who have transformed into donkeys), waxes them (I believe that would be very painful), and sells them into slavery.
Does he meet the baseline standard?
Let's see, he turns little boys into donkeys, waxes them, sells them into slavery, keeps some of them to pull his stagecoach, and bights off chunks of their ears if they try to warn the other boys. Yeah, I say he meets the baseline. He's even worse than Disney's version. At least Disney's coachman did not bight off chunks of the boy turned donkeys' ears or wax them.
Is he bad by the standards of the story?
Yes.
Any migrating factors?
No.
Any thoughts?
jjjFirst question: Did you read the original tale? An effortpost kinda hinges on that presumption.
As for the little man's credentials, what do other bad guys in this work do? Are there other bad guys? Being worse than the Disney version is not a qualifier in itself if the work is much darker and cynical to begin with. I think I read somewhere that the protagonist himself is a lot more mischievious in the original, though I suppose not to the extent that he affects the heinous standard, as he's just a brat. Is the little man character human, supernatural, or something else? But most importantly, and I reiterate the point I brought up earlier, is he portrayed as a karmic force or not?
edited 26th Mar '15 4:31:58 PM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"@ Morgenthaler: Yes, there are other villains. Pretty much all the villains try to kill Pinocchio at some point, but The little man is doing child abuse on a way, way, way bigger scale. He takes kids to the place on a regular basis. The donkeys are proof he's done it over two dozen times before. There are actually a lot more boys in the stagecoach, although we never see what happens to them. There is clear evidence he has been doing this for a long time. He's no less human and no more a force of karma than the Disney version.
The one arguemant that I could see you making, is that he has more resources than the other villains (the cursed toy land).
The work is not crawling with bad guys however, there are three others: The Fox and the Cat, and the green fisherman. The terrible Dogfish does not count because it's just an animal.
edited 26th Mar '15 4:53:58 PM by bobg
jjjOkay, yes it was hypothetical and I was thinking if Palps got a redeeming quality at all. Loving Vader was just an example. For instance if all of a sudden we found out he was possessed by some kind of space devil or something. EXTREMELY unlikely, but you never know with sequels what might happen to make a previously irredeemable villain somewhat sympathetic.
Then why even bring it up? Is it even a remotely realistic concern?
John Gieger may count. But cut Fluke and Richard.
@ ST 89: I'll do an effortpost on Fortinbras. He might well count. He doesn't do much at all in the first game, though, and a lot is based on what's revealed about him in the fourth game
@ ACW: I believe the live action Jackal from Fist of the North Star counted. Jackal is an amalgamation of the characters Jackal and Jagi I believe in the film.
@ bobg: You avoided my question, but I'll presume that's a yes. The thing is bob, that effortpost contains basically no new information you haven't already given, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that you've simply read a synopsis-compounded by the fact that you've actually skimmed through works before and then came here with a surefire effortpost until someone points out something you missed. I'm not categorically opposed to any nomination, but this is an older story, written in the 19th century, with different atittudes, crueler endings, more unsympathetic protagonists, and more potential for karmic retribution being portrayed as something that people simply had coming for them. The fact that, as you say, every other villain tries to kill Pinocchio (whereas the Disney version had only Stromboli and the Coachman doing anything on that level) is rather telling. I, personally, would like some stronger evidence before making a keep vote.
edited 26th Mar '15 5:27:01 PM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"![]()
Shall I add Film!Jackal to your to-do list?
Ah, found it, on this page
.
edited 26th Mar '15 5:19:10 PM by ACW
To elaborate on other villains, there is a Green Fisherman who thinks Pinocchio is a fish, so he kidnaps him and attempts to cook him. There are also Honest John and Gideon who are also worse than in Disney and attempt to hang Pinocchio. Stromboli is not as bad as he was in Disney and let's Pinocchio go (he is not even named Stromboli in the book. That being all said
to the Little Man.
To be honest, I could not find the original story, although I was able to find A LOT of character and chapter summaries. I admit that Pinocchio was a brat from everything I read, although I just assumed that to be bad writing ( I have no concept of Values Dissonance and always view everything from the standards of modern day USA, wether it's in another country, or just a different time, I have no respect for different cultures). Everything I found states that there are four villains in the story: The little man, The fox and the Cat, and the Green Fisherman. The Fox and The Cat are swindlers who try to murder Pinocchio, while the Fisherman tries to eat Pinocchio. The Fox and The Cat get hit HARD with karma: The Cat becomes blind, the Fox becomes crippled and he has to sell its tail for money. The original depection of Stromboli (called the fire eater) is actually much nicer than the Disney version, and gives Pinocchio 5 golden coins. Candlewick is sold to a farmer and ends up being worked to death, and from what I have read, it's not played off as karma at all, as Pinocchio is very sad about this. While the other three villains are themselves attempted child murderers, The little man sells hundreds of little boys into slavery, resulting in them being worked to death as with Candlewick. While I can not find the book, from everything I have read online and everything I have studied, I see no reason why he doesn't count.
jjj@Morgenthaler: About Richard, yeah, I do remember that scene. He strokes the dead man's hair and looks sad, although I don't recall him crying. Whether he was genuinely sad or pretending to act sad to put on a show for the other Chinese police officers in front of him is up for debate though.
I write stories and shiz. You can read them here.

@ Hodor2: The donkeys are some of the little boys transformed. He keeps 20 of them as slaves to pull his stagecoach, and if any of them try to warn the other boys, he bights chunks of their ears off.
jjj