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
I don't think that anybody in Stardust counts as a Complete Monster. Not even Lamia. Granted that I haven't read the book; I have only seen the movie.
Also, what about my examples?
edited 26th Oct '12 5:35:33 AM by Krystoff
I found a potential non-example in the Comic Books subpage. Here it is:
"All of the characters in Wanted. We're talking about people who, when they take breaks from secretly running the Ancient Conspiracy that keeps a Crapsack World in its current state, amuse themselves by going on killing sprees and raping random people and sometimes take sojourns to other dimensions, where they can also kill and rape. They all hate and fear Mister Rictus, whose fondness for occasionally eating people may be the least worrying thing about him. Not even because he's more evil than them, but because he's so unpredictable - no one can tell what he might do next and he could (and eventually does) turn on them as well. The same reasons why other DCU villains hate and fear the Joker - which makes sense, since Rictus is a Captain Ersatz version of the Joker to begin with"
For starters, there's that heinous standard thing that isn't even evidenced and that this is basically listing a group of people as monsters. And listing every character as one is just plain lazy. I think if we plan to keep it, only Mister Rictus can be listed as one.
What do you guys think?
edited 26th Oct '12 7:37:30 AM by Slimbship4
That entry is terrible. "Everybody in a work" cannot be a CM. If there's a case to be made for one or two individual characters, let it be made, but the example as is should be cut entirely.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
![]()
I thought the BIONICLE example I brought up had the most non-distinguishing use of the trope, you've proven me wrong. If Rictus is so bad, they can re-add and expand on him, that said, that's a pretty bad example, and it should get axed.
Also, I deleted Dale "the Whale" Biderbeck, thanks for discussing him.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:52:13 AM by DrPsyche
Hmm... I owe @4103 a response. Sorry about that.
Enemy Within even specifies that it's a subtrope of Split Personality. So, based on the agreed-upon criteria regarding such cases, he wouldn't qualify. If you want to argue for his inclusion, you're going to have to first convince a majority in this thread that one portion of a Split Personality can qualify. And to give you a heads-up, I'm actually not one of the ones you have to convince; I already believe that they should, but I've been outvoted on the issue multiple times in the past.
I agree with @4129 about Tarkin versus Palpatine in Star Wars. Both of them are distinctly evil in different ways (the former being about the cold banality of evil while the latter is the personalization of evil), and both stand out in their own way. I guess the important distinction, which we hint at in the FAQ, is that style matters.
@4138 Hmm... I'm inclined to think movieverse Septimus deserves to stay. Killing for power means just as much regardless of the kind of power it is. In fact, killing for political power instead of magical power feels like enough of an issue to make him stand out. I don't mind that his ghost is subject to being "evil is a loser," because he does sound like a legit threat until his death. From the description, I'm inclined to keep him.
@4141 Sigh, the rush to include examples from the Hot New Thing is never going to go away. Given how little is there, I vote to cut them all and direct folks to come in here and offer justification on why they belong.
@4146 According to everything I've read about the movie, all of the actions described in Szell's writeup from Marathon Man were on-screen. Why do you disagree?
Godfrey from Robin Hood 2010 betrays his Blood Brother, burning villages is a regular atrocity, and killing the blind guy is going above and beyond. That honestly sounds much worse than merely killing your foes.
Hyperion of Immortals - I think it depends on just what they show of him in regards to his family. Is he ever shown with them in flashbacks? Does he mourn them during the movie? I need more detail; as written, I'm inclined to allow it.
@4148 Questions about Word of God are covered in the FAQ in the first post.
@4153 Terrible; no groups, and I can't imagine anyone standing out to being a Complete Monster if everyone is terrible. Also, it really doesn't go into detail on anyone; I even have my doubts about Rictus (whose name alone makes me think that they weren't subtle about making him a Captain Ersatz of The Joker).
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.So about the Criminal Minds clean up...having the write-ups and rewrites for, The Fox Lucy, The Boston Reaper, and Cy Bradstone more or less ready to go, I'm about ready to request the changes to the page. However, it occurred to me that while lots of people have commented on the rewrites, only myself, Largo Quagmire, and 32_Footsteps really weighed in on the question of possible cuts, and all I really said was that I agreed with most of Largo's decisions. With that in mind, I thought I'd provide my own reasoning for the cuts and keeps, independent of Largo's, and see if I can get some more opinions on the matter. Here
is Largo's original post and here
is the link to the subpage for those who are interested. Anyway...
Season 1:
Karl Arnold, aka The Fox. I'm actually rather iffy about this one. In his first episode, "The Fox", the focus is far more on capturing him, than on what he's actually doing. The only thing we know for sure about his crimes is that he kidnaps a family, plays house with them for a few days, then kills them all, starting with the kids and ending with the father. His characterisation is largely based around his OCD and his rage over the dissolution of his own family, and it's actually possible to feel some sympathy for him, awful as he is. It's not until "Outfoxed", several seasons later, that he's retconned into being a child molester, and is personality is overwritten to be that of a calm, creepy pervert who is desperate to see the pictures from the BAU's most recent crime scene. Since the episode is the obligatory Silence Of The Lambs ripoff this isn't surprising, especially since they also need to make him into someone The Boston Reaper would choose as a penpal. I don't know. For those who are interested, Largo posted a possible rewrite for him here
.
Jacob Dawes. As Largo noted, he spends most of the episode out of focus, and since the show is replete with sexual sadists (including horror shows like Frank and Mason Turner) I'm inclined towards cutting. I don't think he really meets the heinous standard.
The Mole. Doesn't really do much honestly. He might seem bad in Season 1, but later villains are so much worse. A treacherous bastard, but I don't know if he measures up, though I suppose a case could be made that treason is in a class of its own.
Season 2:
Jamal Abaza. Okay, Jamal actually believes America is evil for one thing. He's motivated by the fact that he thinks an American airstrike killed his son. He also seems to actually like and respect Gideon. I'd cut him.
Carl Buford is a child molester, which is vile, but he only killed one kid. On this show, that puts you on the low end of the totem pole. I'd cut him.
Tobias Hankel suffers from Dissociative Identity/Multiple Personality Disorder. Tobias himself is innocent, and Charles and Raphael are figments of his imagination. He's clinically insane, and probably isn't even competent to stand trial. Cut him.
Charles Holcombe. I don't know. He's a Knight Templar, and as the BAU agents themselves note in their profile, he can only do what he does because he believes he's doing the world a favour. On the other hand, good god does he go too far, and there's no excuse for the way he torments them beforehand. I could be persuaded to go either way by a good argument.
Season 3:
Floyd Feylinn Ferrell. He's disgusting and frightening, but he also hears voices in his head telling him to commit his crimes. He rationalises these voices as being from Satan not because he wants to be a devil-worshipper, but because the only way he can live with the guilt of what he's done is by seeing himself as an agent of Ultimate Evil. Even his tricking other people into committing cannabalism is done not out of sadism, but a desire to spread the guilt around and assauge his concience. He'd also never be competent to stand trial, and was in fact institutionalised in a mental home and put on antipsychotics (which stopped the urges at the cost of making him gain over a hundred pounds) when he was a child. Cut.
Glenn Hill appears for twenty seconds and his worst crime is offscreen. Cut.
Season 4:
The Boston Reaper. We'll be keeping him. He's the standard of evil that the show's other monsters have to be measured against. For those who haven't seen it, my rewrite on him is here
Danny Murphy. I can get onboard with this one. Yeah, the kid only has one murder to his name, but he's also what, seven years old? He's as heinous as he's capable of being, shows no remorse, and is a sadist to boot. I mean seriously, cramming airplane parts down your little brother's throat because he broke your model? Drop dead kid.
Season 5:
I haven't seen "Mosley Lane" but it sounds like Anita counts. The example needs a rewrite though, from someone who has seen the episode. In particular the line about fans thinking she's worse than The Reaper should be axed.
Ronald Boyd I don't really have any issues with, going off the description. Omar Morales, however, commits no crimes onscreen, vile as he may be. He should be cut.
The example for "The Internet is Forever" is badly written and provides no information.
Season 6:
James Stanworth should go, bad as he is. He doesn't measure up to other killers of the same type.
This is also where we'll be adding my write-up for Lucy. It's on this page
.
Season 7:
Cy Bradstone stays; a rewrite can be located on this page
. He may be handicapped but it earns him no sympathy, and he's one of the more viscerally awful villains around.
Randy Slade's crimes are in flashback only, he gets little characterisation, and he doesn't seem as bad as some others to me. I'd lean towards cut, though I might be persuaded otherwise.
The Piano Man is mostly Offscreen Villainy.
JB Allen is mostly Offscreen Villainy as well. What he does is horrid, but in the same season as Cy Bradstone, I don't know.
Malcolm Ford is a Domestic Abuser and kidnapper. He's not a serial killer or a mass murderer. The Company is a group. They should both go.
I haven't seen the episodes with Clark Preston or the Grandmother, but they both sound like keepers, though we might want a little more information on what the Grandmother did.
edited 26th Oct '12 12:06:44 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Danny Murphy. I can get onboard with this one. Yeah, the kid only has one murder to his name, but he's also what, seven years old? He's as heinous as he's capable of being, shows no remorse, and is a sadist to boot. I mean seriously, cramming airplane parts down your little brother's throat because he broke your model? Drop dead kid.
I'm a bit cautious here simply because... well, he's a child, and it takes a while for the human brain to develop a functional moral compass. Kids of that age are capable of some seriously fucked-up stuff simply because they are kids of that age - sociopathy, for a start, is basically partially arrested mental development at the age of five.
What's precedent ever done for us?
I don't know about that though. There have been other young killers on the show before, and they've recieved more viewer sympathy. Even Jeremy Sayer from Season 6, psychopathic sexual sadist that he may be was easier to empathise with, given his issues with his mother. Danny on the other hand is from a good family, has no reason to do what he did, and is profiled in show as a textbook sociopath. When confronted with what he's done he shows no remorse, no sadness, or any other reaction, to his brother, or his distraught parents. When asked if he's sorry about it, this is his response: "He was always breaking my stuff. I'm not going to miss that."
It should also be noted that at nine years old, Danny's old enough to have "murder is wrong" be a part of how he thinks. When you combine the murder, with the fact that he tortured a puppy to death, and his absolute lack of effect, he becomes pretty damn frightening. This is something that the BAU agrees with, and it's why, despite his age, he's going to be locked up at the end of the episode.
edited 26th Oct '12 12:16:17 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Looking through past discussions of the Video Game subpage, I did see that there have been subpages that have been touched upon and locked. Just wondering if there's anything that's been missed and clarification on the following I have observed:
- For Jak And Daxter: Had long moved Praxis back into the sandbox while determining that the rest of the examples don't count. Wondering about additional input, since I may be inclined to remove the Well-Intentioned Extremist label on his character page mention if this is so (given the thoughts of one who has played the game).
- For Myst: Sirrus also long moved back to the sandbox while determining that everything else either doesn't qualify or is just too poorly-written to justify keeping in their current forms. Pretty much hoping for discussion on these two bullets here.
So, I was taking a look at Monster.Anime And Manga as well as YMMV.Monster.
I said before that I don't think Johan is a Complete Monster. In fact, I still believe that. But I'm not here to talk about that. What I do want to talk about is that his CM entries don't really say anything about Johan's deeds. The Anime and Manga page kind of does, but it mostly talks about how Johan might not be one. Frankly, I'm saying Johan needs a rewrite.
@ 4158 Karl Arnold is right on the line for me. I would have to watch the episode for myself. From what I know of the show if the child molestation wasn't mentioned in his first appearance then it wasn't in the original character design and that kind of thing gets mentioned if it is occurring. To me that would mean that the first version of the character probably doesn't meet the heinousness standard of the setting. Given this I think that the write-up would have to be clear that he counts only because of the added details in his second appearance.
I've requested that my write-up for Lucy be added to the Criminal Minds subpage as it had enough votes. I've also asked them to switch out the entry on The Boston Reaper for my rewrite. I'll do some touch up on the one for Cy Bradstone, get it approved, and then make the request for it as well.
EDIT: Okay, second attempt at a rewrite for Cy. I didn't want to completely remove the bit about torturing his dog, as it shows he's been evil for a very long time, so I decided to find a better way to work it in.
- "Proof" gives us Benjamin "Cy" Bradstone, whose mental disability makes him unique, but not even slightly sympathetic. Pretending to be far more handicapped than he is, Cy lures women out of the public eye, forces them into his shed, rapes them, uses sulfuric acid to burn away their senses, and then stabs them to death. If they don't like the way he looks, he takes their eyes. If they spit when he kisses them, he takes their sense of taste. If they don't like his smell, he burns out their nostrils. His video journal reveals that he has been like this since he was a young boy, and that gloats that he brutalizes women for the same reason that he used to beat his dog: because it's fun. We eventually discover that he is targeting women who remind him of his sister-in-law, whom he attempted to molest when they were both teenagers. When his niece puts on a cheerleader costume that reminds him of her mother she becomes Cy's final victim. After his arrest, his brother Matt (who has always been supportive of Cy, going so far as to offer to let him move in with him) demands to know why Cy did this; Cy laughs in his face, and tells him that he has always hated Matt and was planning to deafen and then kill him one day. A ragingly misogynistic psychopath who just happens to be handicapped, Cy is fully aware of how awful his actions are, as evidenced by this message he leaves for Matt:
EDIT:
This is one of my problems too. I think I'll try and do my own rewrite, including what Largo put in the previous attempt, and incorporating the retcon. Here we go:
- Karl Arnold, aka The Fox, is the first "family annihilator" to appear in the show, and the only one to put in more than one appearance. Debuting in "The Fox", Arnold uses his position as a family psychiatrist to seek out families that he feels are dysfunctional (that is, where the father is not the dominant personality), stalks them, and then kidnaps them while the neighbours believe them to be on vacation, using his control over the children to keep the parents hostage. He keeps them separated from one another for days, then brings them together for one last supper, after which The Fox marches the entire family into the basement and kills them, starting with the children and ending with the father. Upon his capture, The Fox explains that he does this because his own family fell apart due to his obsessive-compulsive, controlling nature, and he wants to show how much worse things can get when the head of the household isn't quote unquote "strong". At this point, it's still possible for the viewer to have sympathy for Arnold, due to the fact that the episode focuses on his OCD and the fact that he's having a mental breakdown. This does not hold true in "Outfoxed", his second appearance. Interviewed by the FBI for help with another family annihilator, Arnold comes off as calm and in control, repeatedly asking to see pictures of the crime scenes, coming onto Prentiss, taunting Hotch for his marital problems, and gloating about the fact that before he killed the families he took hostage, he would beat the male children, and rape the female ones. This revelation, coupled with The Fox's smug, superior demeanour, and the fact that he's become penpals with The Boston Reaper (laughing as he tells Hotch that The Reaper is coming for he and his family) wipes out any sympathy the viewer might once have held, and puts him firmly in this trope.
edited 30th Oct '12 8:44:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
@ 4157 I'm not entirely sure if that's an accurate statement to call the Valeyard a split personality, I used Enemy Within because its the closest thing I could think of. He's a Regeneration of the Doctor, he wasn't made by Discord, the Doctor naturally regenerates into him, Discord just did the killing to make it possible. I just lack a trope that accurately describes his relationship with him.
If I had to give a comparison to someone else who DOES qualify, think Danny Phantom's and Vlad Master's relationship to Dan Phantom. A being BORN from them, but leagues more evil than either of them combined. The Valeyard was BORN from the Doctor in that he's a Regeneration, but he's not a part of his personality, he's a complete person like any of the Doctor's other regenerations. It's just, while the basis of the other Doctors are the positive aspects of the Doctor, the Valeyard's base was the negative aspects. He IS a complete personality, the Doctor is not merely a 'voice in the back of his head', the Doctor is not present in his consciousness at all and he laughs off something that would've brought him to the surface. It takes killing the Valeyard and destroying the template he used to keep regenerating into him for the Doctor to return, and Discord theorizes that the Valeyard will be judged separately from the rest of the Doctor's soul when his judgment day comes or may have simply gone straight to Hell when killed even though the Doctor lived on. If the other Regenerations of the Doctor are all complete people, which they're treated as both in this story and the canon, then the Valeyard is as well. He was just born from the worst aspects of the Doctor's personality. Does that make it more clear?
edited 26th Oct '12 5:08:47 PM by Godzillawolf
For Criminal Minds:
- Karl "The Fox" Arnold: Good with keeping with Ambar's rewrite from 4169, and the excentuation of his evolution in his second appearance.
- Jacob Dawes: Ok with cutting for not reaching the heinous standards.
- Bruno Hawks: Cut for not meeting the heinous standard.
- Jamal Abaza: Has loved ones and thinks he's acting against evil. Cut.
- Carl Buford: Cut for failing the heinous standard.
- The Charles Hankel and Raphael personas of Tobias: Depending on the situation, I can be okay with adding a Split Personality. That being said, other than the adultress murder, the entry doesn't list him/"them" as doing anything I consider especially heinous. I'm alright with cutting.
- Charles Holcombe: Leaning towards keep.
- Floyd Feylinn Ferrell: He feels guilt for his actions and his insanity causes him to be Driven to Villainy. Cut.
- Glenn Hill: Say cut for Offscreen Villainy.
- Reaper: Keep with Ambar's rewrite.
- Danny Murphy: Neutral.
- Anita: Keep.
- Ronald Boyd: If his actions are onscreen, keep.
- Omar Morales: Cut for Offscreen Villainy.
- Internet is Forever Unsub and accomplice: Cut unless someone offers a rewrite going more indepth into their actions, motivation, etc.
- James Stanworth: Cut for failing the heinous standard.
- Lucy: Based on Ambar's write-up, I vote for adding her.
- Cy Bradstone: I think I already voted keep and said I liked the rewrite.
- Randy Slade: Leaning towards cut for not meeting the heinous standard.
- The Piano Man: Depends how much is Offscreen Villainy. Leaning towards cut.
- Clark Preston: Leaning towards cut. He seems more callous and greedy than utterly psychopathic.
- JB Allen: Depends how much we see, but he definitely sounds like a keeper.
- Malcolm Ford: Cut for failing the heinous standard.
- The Company: Group, so an automatic cut.
- The Grandmother: Going with cut. Her abuse doesn't sound as bad as the tortures other Unsubs have committed. Unless she was deliberately conditioning her grandson to be a Serial Killer, I can't see her meeting the heinous standard.
edited 26th Oct '12 6:59:41 PM by OccasionalExister
Regarding Charles/Raphael and split personalities in general, my take on it has always been as follows: if the show is realistic at all, I think they shouldn't go on. That is, if the person is portrayed as suffering from DID, and the show treats it realistically and as a mental disorder, I think we should cut them. That's the case in Criminal Minds and as such, I'm inclined to axe them.
Now that being said, if we're dealing with some sort of fantasy example, that's different. A lot of shows—and anime & manga in particular, I've noted—will portray the other personality as a totally separate person, with their own goals, no desire to protect the original personality, and a whole host of other unpleasant habits. I'm thinking of cases like Dark Marik in Yu Gi Oh or The Beast in Berserk. In cases like that, I'm all for adding them.
The Valeyard in this case is more like that. The setting is a post apocalyptic world ruled by Discord and inhabited by magical ponies, and he himself is...well, a regeneration of the Doctor. Like I said, I don't even know if it qualifies as split personality or not. But the setting is definitely more fantastic and he's portrayed as decidedly different than the Doctor is.
Of all the possible crossovers...that's decidedly weird. Ignoring questions of whether he qualifies or not (because I won't touch the My Little Pony fandom with a ten foot pole) I would be inclined to count that as a separate entity.

@Nrjxll: Yeah, the falling from the tower scene is played for laughs.
edited 25th Oct '12 10:43:55 PM by DrPsyche