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
Regarding the whole Tolkein thing, I think that the philosophical discussion of Tolkein's morals can, and probably should be left aside. Regardless of what the man himself believed, we are left with his works, and the universe that they present. We don't analyse the philosophical and religious leanings of other writers, and I think that's probably a good thing.
A far better argument against Melkor and Sauron is one that has already been made—they are literary archetypes at their purest, and possess neither the personality nor the characterization to qualify for the trope.
Including my own, we now have three votes to cut Nomoa Long
. If I can get more feedback on that it'd be great.
edited 15th Dec '12 12:35:33 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Now that, I disagree with in its purest form. Sauron is an archetype in Lord of the Rings, but Morgoth and Sauron get plenty screentime in the Silmarillion to how off their personalities. They aren't portrayed simply as elemental forces of evil at all there, but have intricacies to them, personalities, etc. The generic dark lord is on I think of trying to conquer everything just because. Morgoth and Sauron aren;t like that.
@ Nocturna
- I don't particularly see how cruelly cooking up a punishment like Hurin got to the most extreme form out of spite and revenge is a mark against complete monsterdom, honestly. Or how forcing to watch one's family be tortured and killed is just 'standard,' that's pretty basely horrific. And Hurin as a special case. We've seen Melkor and Sauron had just killed others in the way, or corrupted them. For Hurin? He went over and above
- The entire elven race weren't combatants. There were plenty civilians who died in what amounted to brutal purges (like in Gondolin, where only Glorfindel prevented mass slaughter of refugees.) A villain trying to kill those between him and his goal? Typical. Trying to exterminate or subjugate entire races? Not so typical
- 'Torture' is a wide term. Putting you on the rack? That's standard. Forcing you to watch a curse on your family come to pass over decades? Pretty out o the ordinary. Sauron killing you by chucking you into Mount Doom would be standard. Tossing you to Shelob or letting you rot with the knowledge a werewolf can creep in and eat you and your friends at any time? Pretty over and above. we have plenty villains who have 'torture' listed as a crime. and then there's what Melkor did to create the orcs
edited 15th Dec '12 12:51:37 AM by Lightysnake
A general proposal: Wouldn't it be good to edit the Main Complete Monster page and add a fourth criteria, which says that the actions must be on-screen and that OffscreenVillainy doesn't count?
edited 15th Dec '12 3:06:56 AM by Forenperser
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianSince we were discussing The Lord of the Rings, I have to remind people that The Silmarillion has also entries for Complete Monster.
And while it's completely offtopic, I like both the names "Silmarillion" and "Quenta"
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNone of the Tolkien main villains were Complete Monsters, and Sauron certainly wasn't one. I haven't read The Silmarillion, but in The Lord Of The Rings, he is just Evil Overlord / Orcus on His Throne.
@ Footsteps
You certainly are not obliged to comment on my examples, but you are obliged to treat me with the same respect that you treat other tropers. Responding to everyone else's examples but mine? That is not very respectful. And don't say about my attitude in here please; that has nothing to do with it. Also, you said that I am not commenting on your examples. Not always; I did multiple times. For example, back when we discussed Epic Mickey villains, you said that I haven't commented on them. I haven't because I gave my opinion on them already before.
@ Fighteer
I may me misunderstanding what you say, but why do you say that none of Tolkien villains were irredeemable? This doesn't really matter, because we said many times that you can be irredeemably evil and yet, not be a complete monster and that is actually fairly common. 60% villains are irredeemable. Only few qualify can qualify as complete monsters.
Peyton from The Hand That Rocks the Cradle is listed on the YMMV page. Her whole goal was to avenge her husband's suicide and her unborn son. Can we cut her?
I do want to clarify the 'irredeemable' factor, because I've been viewing it as 'no practical chance of redemption". Again, I can't ever see, except in works where it's rigidly defined, something as clear as "no redemption ever", especially in works like Star Wars where the Light Side is always an option.
For me, it's enough that the character will never choose redemption, and that's made abundantly clear, like Palpatine or Morgoth. It makes them just as evil if the reason no chance at redemption exists is because they'll always refuse it. IE: they're not redeemable because of anything good or redeeming within themselves, but because redemption exists as a metaphysical concept
I also don't feel entirely comfortable with saying because one fits an archetype, they can't be acomplete monster. Plenty of villains on the list fit an evil overlord archetype (Palpatine and Voldemort spring to mind immediately.
Now, I seem to be outvoted, so the issue will likely die, but I wanted to weigh in my two cents
edited 15th Dec '12 7:20:08 PM by Lightysnake
I think we've always discussed redemption before in the sense of, "could this character be redeemed without causing the story to cease functioning properly?" In the case of Palpatine, the answer is a pretty resounding no. If he was to turn to the Light Side, it would essentially break the story. Having read only parts of The Silmarillion I have to ask if that's the case for Melkor and Sauron. Given both of their willing abuse of I Surrender, Suckers!, I'd suspect it is.
Of the Tolkein villains under discussion, the only one I could possibly throw my vote to is Sauron. Melkor's such a personalityless satan ripoff that he simply can't qualify. He's going through the motions, fullfilling a very specific role in Tolkein's mythos, not because he's inherently or irredeemably evil, but because hey, Tolkein needs a devil figure. Glaurung, while a truly nasty bit of business (and possessing that vital thing which Melkor does not have, a personality) was created by Melkor and has evil bred into him. Everyone else is too small to qualify. Looking at Sauron's role in The Silmarillion he's the only character who I can see possessing the right range of personality, moral agency, and genuine personal nastiness to make it onto the list. Not necessarily saying I vote for him, but I wouldn't be against the idea.
A question actually, regarding Sauron, because if I read his article on the LOTR wiki I'll be here until I'm fifty: did he sign on with Melkor willingly? Also, what's his full list of crimes, beyond Numeanor, and the the business with The One Ring? I'd like to make an informed vote.
EDIT: Looked over Sauron's wikipedia entry. Assuming it is accurate I can see him qualifying. My votes to cut Melkor and all other characters listed in Tolkein's works remain unchanged.
edited 15th Dec '12 10:00:44 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
To correct you in a sense, Ambar, we do see Melkor's...character. He's not some remote devil figure, but the early chapters of the Silmarillion deal with him as a character: his fall to evil, his personality, his actions...whereas Satan in the bible is a very remote elemental embodiment of evil, Melkor? He's spiteful, vengeful, greedy, vain, lustful, cruel, and at times the text deals with his fears and reluctance to engage in certain actions (like the duel with Fingolfin as he was genuinely frightened of him.
It's definitely unfair to say Melkor lacks a personality. That's in full force, and the Sil gets into his POV at points
He's not a remote character, but he's so obviously satan that I have trouble qualifying him. When I read The Silmarillion I don't feel fear, or anger, or anything at Melkor. I just feel, "oh, he's The Devil. Of course he's doing that." Melkor has to be a bastard, because of the role he is playing, as opposed to anything really innate in the character (also, while he's not much like the Biblical Satan, he has a fair bit in common with the Paradise Lost take on Satan). Sauron, conversely, was someone I could actually hate, as he's not quite as archetypal, nor does he have an obvious Judeo-Christian analogue.
Off-topic, the Biblical Satan possesses a personality in the Old Testament. The only problem is, it's not an evil one. He's God's prosecuting attorney more or less. It's not until Revelations, honestly, that he suddenly transitions to Pure Evil (whicch, by the way, I think is a fine redirect for the trope. It's Irredeemable Villain that's got to go. Pure Evil nicely encapsulates what the trope is all about).
edited 15th Dec '12 10:49:00 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
Okay, I'll admit it: I have no idea how "Melkor is a Satan Expy and therefore is not a Complete Monster" is supposed to make sense. Frankly, I think this whole discussion has gotten much too extra-textual - we should be judging the characters by what's explicitly in the books, and on that grounds, I don't think any of them qualify.
I do agree that the Pure Evil redirect should not be cut. I've actually used it in the past to help explain some of the misuse-causing-misconceptions about the trope.
edited 15th Dec '12 11:31:50 PM by nrjxll
Here's what's explicitly in the books, though:
Melkor starts by smashing the lamps of the world, which plunges it into darkness.. He pretends to reform when they create the trees of light and capture him. He proceeds to manipulate the Valar and elves, before bringing in Ungoliant to suck the life out of the trees after he pierces them with his spear.
Morgoth proceeds to murder the elven king to steal his Silmarils, and flees pursued by the Noldor. Many, many Noldor die thanks to his actions.
He attempts to rape Luthien, the most beautiful and one of the most virtuous beings on Middle Earth.
Everything Glaurung does is, by proxy, Morgoth' doing, as he forces Hurin to see it all as a form of torture.
His creation of the orcs is a Moral Event Horizon in of itself, as he takes Elves and tortures them so horribly that by the time he's done, all that remains are a twisted, ruined race of monsters devoted to destruction and earth
He commits what amounts to genocide by having Gondolin destroyed, and sics his Balrogs on the civilians who are saved only through Glorfindel's intervention. He also corrupted one elf and turned him against his own kind,
And numerous instances of slavery, murder and destruction directly attributable to him. Based on his deeds, his lack of remorse, and everything else, I don't see how he doesn't qualify based on action alone. He's not just an evil overlord archetype, he does some extraordinarily evil things right on screen in The Silmarillion
edited 15th Dec '12 11:52:46 PM by Lightysnake
![]()
I'm not actually trying to say that means he shouldn't count (sorry for the confusion). Just that because of the way it's handled in the books, it detracted from my own personal ability to see him as one. I got too irritated with the author to hate the character.
I agree thought, that the discussion has gotten far too metatextual. A few posts back, I noted that we don't analyse other author's religious leanings or philisophical beliefs when we do write-ups for their characters. Also, as Lightysnake noted, if we're going to axe any villains from a universe where redemption exists as a metaphysical contstruct, then we better slash all the Star Wars examples.
I've also found a snag in our use of "they're archetypes." First of all, Tolkein helped to create some of those archetypes. Secondly, Complete Monster is in and of itself, a pretty big archetype, and one of the oldest tropes in the book (with roots in mythology). With that in mind, I don't think we can honestly use it as an argument against Melkor and Sauron, both of whom are designed to be mythological antagonists.
Looking this over I have to say that, much as I don't like the character, I can't really think of a good objection to Melkor. He doesn't necessarily have my vote, but I think I'll have to withdraw my objection.
edited 16th Dec '12 10:21:38 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Someone (by the name of Overlordwarner) re-added the South Park Complete Monsters again to the YMMV page. I thought there wasn't a note on the page, since there wasn't one on the top, but there was one right above the CM entries. Going ahead and reporting this guy.
edited 16th Dec '12 10:22:44 AM by LargoQuagmire
I am almost tempted to create a page Monster.Comedy with the content "Whoops. Complete Monsters cannot be comedic. Move Along, Nothing to See Here" or somesuch to link from comedy YMMV pages.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou know what, with all the misuse culminating in characters from comedies being listed, I'm tempted to suggest that we insta-delete any entries from a comedic work. I'm also tempted to add info to the analysis page pertaining to common traits of the confirmed examples so that people get the general idea on what's expected to being a monster.
32_Footsteps was right about people not understanding what true evil is. This must be the reason behind the misuse in the first place. This is getting crazy!

So what do you guys think of Andross? Should he be cut?
Starfox Command isn't necessarily canon, from what I gather, though.