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
Here's General Orlov from Octopussy:
What's his plan? He's a Soviet General Ripper and a Glory Hound who want to use his armada to conquer Western Europe, since both the west and the Soviets wants to step down on the armament, something he deems as weak. All the other generals rolls their eyes in disgust with before he's shut up. He then goes behind their back on a plan to opt the west for further disarmament, giving the Soviets the edge anyway. Said plan involves setting off a nuke at a western military base where a circus show, hosted by Octopussy is being held and make it look like a accident. And yes, that means that thousands people, including children are present. Something he doesn't give damn about, in Bond's word.
Redeeming features? He goes out with a smile after being shot, stating that he'll be a hero to the Soviet Union, as he's convinced that the plan will work. But he plotted this behind the other generals backs who clearly disapproved the war and his Glory Hound attitude and that he was involved in jewel thievery with Kamal Khan on the side makes it more likely that it was all about him.
Heinous by Bond standards: He's definitely the worst in the film. Octopussy had a Heel–Face Turn after she was left to be killed with the rest of the circus and she wasn't even involved in the plan. Kamal is Affably Evil and his dragon Gobita (despite his Knight of Cerebus persona) is less arrogant than his boss and the nuke the circus plan was Orlov's to begin with. And as far as body count go. His plan failed and only a few people were directly killed by his actions, but if it had succeed, the invasion would surely kill millions, which is more than most James Bond villains, including Complete Monsters.
What's your take?
edited 23rd Jul '15 5:21:46 AM by Hawaii_Knut
Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!!![]()
No CM candidates in the Layton and Wright game. White and Gray Morality and Disney Death / Everybody Lives are in effect throughout.
to Hetty. I'll take the word of someone who's read the rest of the series (I just read that chapter) on relative heinousness. Regarding possible redeeming qualities, she (it, really, as it's actually some demon-prawn) is really pretty transparent in manipulating the good guy. Baseline heinousness is the only reservation I had at first, but we already have Henri de Guémént as a precedent for one child killing being sufficient.
to Wallflower boy and Orlov too.
I hate to flog a dead horse, but I was looking over the discussion we had about Nurse Ratched at the end of last year (regrettably, I wasn't around at the conclusion). I had cast a keep vote but it wasn't included in the final tally
. This would mean that there was only a one-vote lead in favour of cutting - and that's insufficient, right?
So I noticed on the Bones YMMV there's an improper CM entry for Christopher Pelant. I don't think he was discussed here, but I feel he counts so here's an effort post on him.
Who is he ?
Christopher Pelant is a Serial Killer and skilled hacker, who believed the government was corrupt and had a pretty high opinion of himself. His first kill was when he was in high school when he asked his guidance counselor for a recommendation for Stanford but she refused. So Pelant hacked into her computer to forge a recommendation himself, and killed her with a katana. His first two major hackings where when he shut down the senate website and shut down the pentagon security system. He was arrested and put under house arrest.
What does he do ?
In his first appearance, he successfully removes his ankle bracelet and kills a woman, leaving what's left of her (a spine and skull) to be found infront of a statue of Abraham Lincon, with a message "Where is the Rest of Me?." He leaves the rest of the bones in a storage area where the FBI keeps information regarding its informants. He reaches out to a reporter who previously covered his trial, and gives him all the details of his crimes and the FBI's corruption, only to get nervous and kill the reporter, then hacks various hospitals to have Krane's body cremated before an autopsy can be made. When brought in for interrogation, Pelant doesn't deny being responsible for the murders, but also points out that his ankle monitor gives him a solid alibi.
In his next appearance, in the season seven finale, Pelant, who is up for the possibility of parole, frames Brennan for the murder of her friend, Ethan Sawyer, a schizophrenic mathematician whom she had asked for help with the case, exploiting the fact that his delusions included a belief that Brennan's new baby, Christine, was a 'demon'. Altering video footage and using supplies stolen from the Jeffersonian, he ensures that people who love Brennan would be demoted and/or put off the case,Additionally, he framed attorney Caroline Julian, causing her to be suspended, by hacking into her bank account and made it appear she was secretly assisting Brennan. Booth is demoted to "desk jockey" due to him being Brennan's "mate" and him being assigned the case would cause a conflict of interest. Brennan returns in the eighth season première when she finds evidence of an old crime Pelant committed that allows him to be re-arrested, but Pelant is transferred to Egypt after he creates fake citizenship records for himself. In that episode, Sweets decoded Sawyer's triangle code and concluded that, for unknown reasons, Pelant "wants one of us to kill him", foreshadowing the latter's death; it is likely that Pelant developed an infatuated fixiation on Brennan because he knew that it would provoke Booth further
Later in that season, Angela and Hodgins (who strangled Pelant into unconsciousness when they previously met) wake up with a skinned body above them. They figure out that it was Pelant who placed it there. They identify the victim as a private military contractor and track Pelant to his place of work. Pelant hacks into a security firm's firewalls and takes control of a drone and targets a school full of children in Afghanistan. At the same time he hacks into Hodgins' bank accounts and starts draining all his money. He forces the team to make a choice between the school and the money and Hodgins' chooses the children while Booth and Flynn pursue Pelant. In pursuit of Pelant, Flynn is shot and injured by robotic machine guns while Booth opens fire on Pelant, grazing his face from behind, and causing severe damage to his right side. He drains all the money from Hodgins' account so now Hodgins is broke. He is last seen stitching up his face with supplies he took from a dead veterinarian.
In the season eight finale, Pelant uses his hacking skills to manipulates a woman named Anna Samuels into killing FBI agents who were involved in a raid on a separatist religious cult that went wrong. He has been stalking Booth and Brennan since their last encounter. At the end of the episode, Pelant is in hiding and calls Booth coercing him to call of his wedding to Brennan threatening to continue killing innocent people if he doesn't or even tells her why he's doing it.
By the ninth season Booth and Brennan make up, and it's implied Pelant is still spying on them. Part way through the season, he turns the Jeffersonian team's plan to "flush" him out against them by murdering Booth's colleague, Flynn. During the investigation and autopsy, the team realize that Pelant had deliberately used Brennan's defleshing techniques and sent subtle clues using content from Sweets' old dissertations and research papers Pelant tries to woo doctor Brennan, thinking that he would be able to win her over based on his analysis of Sweets' research, which 'confirmed' that Brennan can change her mind about people. In the end, however, Brennan refuses Pelant, who thought that Brennan would pick him instead. Though he has the intelligence, Brennan still wants him dead, even if it means her death. Booth calls Pelant's bluff, shooting and killing him, and then proposes to Brennan, telling her the truth behind his refusal.
Redeeming Qualites or a Freudian Excuse
None. He has it out for the government for arresting him for something he did, putting countless soldiers lives in danger. He is motivated purely by his ego and he plainly sees other people as objects, and a possessive villainous crush is the closest he has to love. The guy is an egotistical, vindictive, controlling psychopath.
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."I think Orlov may count. His fanaticism seems more based on personal ambition and his insane views on strengths rather than a moral standard, and a world war between the US and Russia would turn nuclear very quickly, leading to countless millions of deaths. You have to get to Stromberg and Drax to get around to that level.
I think Ratched was a cut as well. AS for Hetty...I can't see it. Hetty's supposed murder of the sister is offscreen villainy. And even hen, Duke Guement may require a reevaluation. Hetty doesn't rise past the baseline level in my view. And Lunar, if you want to argue a point that's fine. I'd only ask you do it politely. I mean this sincerely, but I'd prefer you not get modded or suspended.
I voted yes for SCP 106 myself.
beast: he sounds like he counts, but you left out a heinous standard section. I'd like to know more about that before I give a final vote.
Someone mentioned examples from Castle and Flashpoint...can those be elaborated on? Any effortposts?
edited 23rd Jul '15 7:28:38 AM by Lightysnake
Orlov I think.
- I think Ratched was a cut in both forms.
- For McLeach, now that I think about it, wasn't it not just trying to kill the kid, but the manner in which he did so, and the toying with him by raising and lowering the crane?
- Pelant: Seems bad, but how does he compare to the other killers on the show (especially with the only current CM Gravedigger)?
Regarding the heinous standard, Bones is one of those shows that use the "Killer of the week" formula, much like Criminal Minds, as well as CSI and Law and Order franchises, that said I think that in order to compare Pelant to the Gravedigger, is by looking at their bodycounts/attempted bodycounts. The Gravedigger has a count of four and attempted at seven, while Pelant has a successful count at seven (as well as three other kills by proxy) and the attemped drone strike at a school for girls in Afghanistan, with the promise to kill several innocent bystanders.
edited 23rd Jul '15 8:17:17 AM by Beast
"It's like...a cliff, and if I do it, I'm just gonna...fall." "I think we're already falling."That drone strike may be enough for a
(though was he really gonna do it? It looks like he forced a Sadistic Choice; if he really wanted to do it, couldn't he've made the drone unhackable? Although OTOH the fact that he even forced it is likely enough).
Some thoughts on Orlov... it's been a while since I've seen that particular Bond film, so anyone can correct me, but he sounds like a doubtful case where there are serious issues both in possible redeeming traits and the actual scope of his plan.
I really don't think we can call him out on nuclear genocide unless there's some proof that he specifically included that scenario in his evil plan. If not then it's just Fridge Horror. That he uses a nuke for the incident doesn't matter, not unless he's expecting it to escalate into a full missile exchange from there. First strike was a specific (and open) part of NATO policy during the Cold War, but how does the film deal with this (or portray this accurately at all)? Is he seriously expecting his own country to be nuked into a wasteland due to MAD? He strikes me as someone who's in serious denial about that possibility, since he fully expects to be seen as a national hero, and for the Soviets to take over all of Europe successfully.
Which also brings us to how he feels about his country; he may be trying to start a war to conquer Western Europe, but he sounds more like a Well-Intentioned Extremist who thinks he's confronted by defeatist generals that might lead the USSR to its doom. The Soviets were generally paranoid about being destroyed; 40 years earlier the primary power on its western periphery, Nazi Germany, nearly did so. We'll need some serious proof that a) he's only concerned for himself and b) that nuclear war is an actual part of his plan, which seems like it's being heavily inferred here.
edited 23rd Jul '15 9:52:22 AM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"On the subject of Madec, framing someone for murder, making him slowly starve/freeze to death, then trying to kill him with dynamite for funsies is pretty heinous to me. Maybe not as bad as some examples, but as long as people aren't doing worse in context that seems pretty bad.
edited 23rd Jul '15 9:38:11 AM by PhiSat
Oissu!![]()
The nuke was intended to make it look like an accident of the western's park, thus making them call for nuclear disarmament and withdraw support from the US. Orlov would then use his immense tank armada to invade Europe.
And as for the Well-Intentioned Extremist part. It rings hollow to me, as he was plotting this behind his comrades backs and he stole russian jewelry, incl. Faberge eggs and replaced them with fakes in a get rich scheme on the side. I suppose I could have described that part more, but I felt it was a minor thing at first.
Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!!So 'nuclear war' isn't even on the table, or he's forgetting about the English and French nuclear arsenals, assuming that's not part of the disarmament package. But that just means his plan/the film's plot is nonsensical, not that it's a qualifier.
As for your second point, the problem with that is that plotting behind the other generals' backs doesn't actually negate the possibility that he thinks he's defending his country by whatever means necessary, since he seems to think they're not acting in the country's best interests in the first place. Nor does running a jewel theft scheme that is completely unconnected to his plans for Soviet conquest; that just makes him greedy, it doesn't mean he thinks the people are expendable. I'm also doubtful that a born-and-raised communist would have that much attachment to imperial relics.
edited 23rd Jul '15 10:17:50 AM by Morgenthaler
You've got roaming bands of armed, aggressive, tyrannical plumbers coming to your door, saying "Use our service, or else!"![]()
That's not the same thing as starting a nuclear war. He's trying to make it look like an accident so he can later invade other countries safely, not to have it escalate into armageddon.
![]()
Pelant if I wasn't clear (the bombing of the school is what does it).
Administrative Issues
- Spider Man (6) and JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (5) are the only works with 5+ but no subpages. Keep it that way for now?
- The comics pages name change. If a majority's opposed fine, but can I at least get some feedback?
edited 23rd Jul '15 11:39:01 AM by ACW
The unnamed boy and Pelant
Orlov
I think that Jojo should probably get a subpage since it has 5 examples and is ongoing. Spider Man is already on a subpage, so I could take or leave it, though it only has one less entry than The Punisher, and is of course ongoing.
edited 23rd Jul '15 11:50:04 AM by Camberf

Speaking of qualifying without a huge rapsheet, look at Matt Engarde. His crimes include murder, kidnapping and attempted murder, driving someone to suicide, and attempting to kill his hostage by starving her. That may not seem like much to someone from Berserk for example and commonplace in Grand Theft Auto, but in a fairly lighthearted game series that just has some sick sick people, it's enough. Imagine how small the pages would be if we only counted "the most heinous character in any given series" meaning Big Bads only. This is only hypothetical of course.
By the by, did Layton vs Wright have any examples? I haven't played it yet, but I'm guessing no since I don't recall anyone being brought up from that game.
Finally, can someone tell me why Dual Destinies got an M rating here? There's really nothing any darker than Justice For All which was rated T here. I don't recall rape or pedophilia being in the game.
edited 23rd Jul '15 2:53:08 AM by Klavice