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. "![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/thumbs_up_emote.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
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
Lord of Hell
Ok, I never read the manga, and I haven't watched the final arc of the Yugioh anime (except for Yugi's duel with Atem), but I always thought that Thief King Bakura was Yami Bakura before being sealed. That isn't the case?
edited 15th Jul '16 7:10:14 AM by Awesomekid42
Here's my effort post on Ob Nixilis since he got unanimous yes votes.
Magic: The Gathering: Ob Nixilis is a human Planeswalker who was a cruel, despotic tyrant in his mortal life bent on conquering his home plane. Eventually defeated by his enemies, Nixilis sacrifices his last loyal soldiers to summons demons who fulfilled his heart's greatest desire: the death of all life in his plane. Despondent over anyone having no one left to rule, his Spark ignited and he began wandering the Multiverse and scouring the life from every plane he came across. After turning into a demon from using the Chain Veil, Nixilis fled to Zendikar to use its mana to remove the curse but lost his Spark instead. Nixilis was willing to destroy Zendikar itself to regain his power and tried to devour the Zendikar's soul, and, failing that, finally regained his Spark by absorbing the hedron network keeping Eldrazi titan Ulamog imprisoned. As a final act of spite toward the world he hated, he awakened the titan Kozilek to ensure Zendikar's doom. Driven by his lust for power and conquest, Ob Nixilis was willing to raze the Multiverse to regain the humanity he never had.
edited 15th Jul '16 7:12:41 AM by LoreDeluxe
Think you're tough because you made it through Lord of the Rings? Real men survive The Silmarillion.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yami Bakura is a present day fusion of both Zorc and Thief King Bakura's souls.
I wanted to post this again for those who have also both read The Isle of the Lost and seen Descendants:
If a version of Frollo were to appear in the Descendants sequel, think he'd still count? If not, it would be them softening him up and that would result in Character Derailment. Yes, in this universe he has a daughter, but we don't know how he is with her yet and frankly, we're not sure we want to know.
edited 15th Jul '16 7:31:48 AM by futuremoviewriter
You have to read into his dialog. At no point does he say that he actually cares about those who were killed. He talks about the ghosts wanting revenge because he is going to use them to torture and kill Atem. His talks about the massacre are not "you killed my people and now I want revenge" but rather "you are just as evil as I am". He doesn't want revenge. He wants to prove a point.
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Speaking of, the image at Yu-Gi-Oh! is Yami Bakura, right?
CM Dates; CM Pending; CM Drafts
Yes, from the manga.
That's missing a few things. When he's asked why he wants to destroy the Pharaoh and the others, he simply asks if they've ever heard of Kul Elna, and Akhenaten says if he's a survivor of Kul Elna, it's impossible to reason with him because of the hatred he must have towards the kingdom.
And once again: the ghosts of his people and him facilitating that? Yes, he's a twisted, misanthropic psychopath. He was made into that because everyone in his homeland was slaughtered with only him surviving. That's a Freudian Excuse at its finest.
@futuremoviewriter: We responded to that; more specifically, Ambar did. I think we've made it perfectly clear hypothetical questions of this sort are bugging us.
Ob's writeup looks good, and a no on Bakura.
edited 15th Jul '16 7:48:25 AM by Scraggle
Like I said, you have to read into the dialog. Why does Bakura hate the kingdom? Is it because he lost everything he cared for? Or is it because the Royal Family claims that it is good when it isn't by their own standards. Bakura focuses on the latter, but not on the former. Judging by his dialog, he doesn't hate the Royal Family because they took his life. He hates them for their view on morality. Akhenaden isn't Bakura, so he doesn't know what he is feeling.
A massacre could change people, but does it add new traits, or does it awaken traits that were always there?
One thing surviving a massacre of everything you held dear as a child probably does is warp you into a twisted psychopath and murderer who's set out to prove that the people who perpetrated and benefited from it are just as depraved as you've become.
Either way, it makes him not a CM for us.
![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
On Bakura. His Freudian Excuse is quite solid.
I know unfortunately being that it's directed by Kenny Ortega who did Hocus Pocus (and the High School Musical trilogy), Descendants is a silly universe that took serious and intimidating villains like Maleficent and made each a Large Ham Played for Laughs. That being said there's a chance a villain like Frollo could be a Knight of Cerebus though.
Lord of Hell
@63954 Thanks
Anyway, the stand on Halloween seems to be 5 ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
's, 1 abstain, 0 's. Anybody else?
edited 15th Jul '16 8:18:56 AM by Awesomekid42
But using the magical items made from the flesh of the people who you are trying to avenge to resurrect an evil god that will kill everyone not involved in the massacre is not very justifiable, is it?
Hell, Shada looks into his heart and can see nothing but pure evil.
The key word in your argument is probably. I'm using what is presented in the story. Here is what is presented.
- Bakura was present for the massacre of his village.
- Bakura doesn't believe in the Royal Court's view on morality.
- Bakura hates the Royal Court.
- Bakura is a prick.
- Bakura wants to summon a dark evil god to kill everyone.
- Bakura uses the massacre to torture the Royal Court.
- Bakura's heart is filled with nothing but pure evil.
edited 15th Jul '16 7:59:34 AM by SatoshiBakura
@Ambar @Scraggle I didn't know that was directed towards me. I have both read the book and seen the TV movie for the record. I haven't finished the sequel Return to the Isle of the Lost yet, but while Frollo doesn't appear in either the first book or the movie, his daughter Claudette is mentioned as being the bellringer for the school. In the book more so than the movie, the Isle is shown to be a Crapsack World in which the villains' children are either spoiled rotten and/or deprived of love because their parents are incapable of being good as it's not natural to them. In-Universe, Maleficent is deemed the worst of the worst when we all know that distinction probably goes to Frollo. This is because while any sequel crimes don't count because the sequels in this universe don't exist. All the original movies existing prior to these works means all the same heinousness applies and by those standards, Frollo counts and Maleficent doesn't. I know we can't surmise Frollo based on just a couple sentences, but think about this, he clearly doesn't oppose the fact that she's given the same job he forced upon Quasimodo before he died and was resurrected. That likely means having a daughter did not change him and he's still awful. He may not ever appear given the fact that they can't sanitize him because he's not a character that can be sanitized. Since it's way too early to tell, best thing to do is to wait and see.
I only bring it up because the ideas fascinate me and I wanted other opinions. How the hell did a man like Frollo have a daughter and how the hell does he treat her? I'm not suggesting him right now (it's not even close to time for that), but I want to discuss just how twisted and interesting this portrayal of him could really be if done right.
edited 15th Jul '16 8:11:56 AM by futuremoviewriter
Once again: justifiable doesn't matter. That makes him a villain lashing out at people not involved. Sasuke Uchiha wants to massacre everyone his brother died to save because he feels his brother's life was far more important and hates all of them for making his brother suffer. This is not justifiable.
The villain of the novel Elantris wants to destroy an entire nation for the death of his wife nobody currently alive was responsible for. This is not justifiable.
Rau le Creuset wants to annihilate just about everything that lives because of his tortured past. This is, again, not justifiable.
What it does do however, is introduce a small chip of light into the darkness, and makes it so this isn't simply evil for evil's sake, or that they have a valid excuse for falling to the dark side. In the case of Bakura (And let's not even get into Shadi's less than perfect record with people), we have a guy who became evil because everything he knew and loved was destroyed in front of him so the blood of his people could be used to forge the gold that became the Millennium Items.
It strikes me a very valid Freudian Excuse to explain why he became so evil.
to the Purge villains and Bakura.
to Halloween
Anyway I know some people have been unhappy with people saying "this guy might count" before proposing a character, but I have an actual important question before I propose a character I have in mind and I think some recent proposals show the danger of proposing a character before getting all your facts straight and I like to be a bit cautious some times.
Anyway this character is connected to Iron Man's origin and I swear Iron Man's origin gets retconned every couple of years, to the point its a guess which version is cannon. I think Tony getting injured in Afghanistan is likely the most recent canon version.
Anyway the villain who I have in mind was Wong Chu, who was Iron Man's first villain. He was the one who kept Iron Man imprisoned and forced him to build weapons. He died after his appearance or did he? He was originally part of the Vietcong, but that was retconned to being more of a generic terrorist who worked for the Mandarin in 1991. There is a flashback where the Mandarin killed, but that was told from Mandarin's perspective, he tends to be liar, who even lies to himself. Anyway a story from 2000 said that Wong Chu survived and became a powerful, sadistic, drug lord and slave master, which is where the bulk of his crimes were committed (that story was told in then present time, so it doesn't rely on flashbacks). Then in 2007 Iron Man's origin was retconned again so that he was injured in Afghanistan and Wong Chu had nothing to do with that.
Can a character be disqualified for wonky continuity?
This cover is a good indication of how awful he is in that 2000 story:
edited 15th Jul '16 8:51:07 AM by Overlord
Halloween
Abstaining on Warrens.
Bakura and Owens.
Lightysnake has summed up why the Thief King doesn't qualify.
Caleb Warrens, Edwidge Owens, and Thief King Bakura.
If a version of Frollo counts in Descendants at some point of time, we'll discuss him then. Talking about him right now is completely irrelevant, futuremoviewriter, so please, let the subject go.
I'm going to echo something Lightysnake said by the way, and something that a few others have mentioned before—we are, I think, sometimes much too quick to dismiss a Freudian Excuse solely because a candidate's crimes are out of proportion to what happened to him. Disproportionate Retribution is not a disqualifier. What matters is if the excuse explains—not justifies, not excuses, but explains—what they are doing. So long as there is a direct line between excuse and action, the excuse is in effect.
Thief King Bakura is a good example. There's a direct line from "Kul Elna was slaughtered" to "bring down Egypt". It's insanely disproportionate, but the line is there and obvious for anybody to see.
Le Creuset is another good example. There's a direct line, amazingly, from "my life is a horror show" to "I will kill everyone"—or at least there is once you realize that he thinks he's performing a Mercy Kill. He's wrong, but that doesn't change how he thinks, or that the psychological damage his "father" (genetic donor?) dealt out to him at an early age has so warped his thinking that this sort of mindset is totally understandable.
Robert Quarles is a good example. Being raped by the men his father pimped him out to has completely destroyed his notions of what is sexually appropriate. End result, he starts assaulting male prostitutes to try and process what happened to him. That direct line is, once again, there.
edited 15th Jul '16 9:25:03 AM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Wild Child
Switching to a no on Warrens. That Benevolent Boss point probably should've been addressed in the effort-post.
Anyways.
Who Is He?
Captain Leon Rom is the main antagonist of The Legend of Tarzan. He's a Belgian captain, as well as a slaver sent to take over the African Congo. Now, while he's taking orders from King Leopold, he's the most prominent villain in the film.
What Does He Do?
Rom was sent to the Congo to mine for diamonds; however, in truth, he plans to use the diamonds to pay for an army that he will use to take over the Congo. He is also the mind behind a slave trade that is capturing natives and shipping them off for slavery.
During one of his expeditions, Rom's group is killed by an African tribe that controls the diamond regions. Rom survives, and bargains for his life by claiming that he can give Tarzan over to the tribe (who want to kill him for murdering the chief's son). Rom orchestrates Tarzan's arrival to the Congo, and he and his men proceed to ambush the village they're staying at. Rom kills the tribe's leader, burns the village to the ground, and kidnaps the natives. He also kidnaps Jane, who he hadn't expected to come. He decides to hold her hostage to lure Tarzan to him.
Tarzan and George Washington find out about Rom's plan, and decide they must stop him. At the same time, Jane escapes with a native that Rom's group tried to kill, and they find themselves in the same area as a tribe of gorillas. Rom's men gun down several gorillas before fleeing with Jane. He then takes Jane to Boma to await the arrival of the army.
Tarzan triggers a stampede through Boma, destroys the town, and feeds Rom to a group of hungry crocodiles.
Mitigating factors
And this is why I don't think he counts. First of all, slavery is a heinous crime, no doubt about that, and the fact that Rom is explicitly stated to plan to enslave hundreds of natives is deplorable. However, unfortunately, I don't think it's onscreen enough. The most we really see are natives being shipped off to slavery, but that's about it.
Second of all, a lot of the more heinous actions committed in the film are not done on Rom's orders. Rom's men shoot at several natives, dump a caged native in the river to drown him, and shoot several apes. It's in Rom's presence, but he's not the one who orders it. If he had directly commanded these actions, I'd argue he's heinous enough, but since he didn't, I don't think his men's actions should count towards him. Thus, all we get is one murder (the tribe's leader) and an attempted murder (Tarzan).
Redeeming traits?
This also gives me pause. Aside from Rom's politeness, which can just be brushed off as Faux Affably Evil, there's his interaction with Jane. He's surprisingly polite to her while holding her hostage. During the scene where she makes a break for it, he shouts for his men not to shoot her. When Jane is surrounded by gorillas, Rom goes in to save her. He also never really hurts her at all while she's being help captive.
This could probably just be pragmatism, since he's using her as bait for Tarzan, but I think that was worth mentioning.
Final Thoughts?
With the Offscreen Villainy, his onscreen actions not really being bad enough, and dubious redeeming moments, I'd say that Rom is a .
edited 15th Jul '16 10:03:43 AM by Clown-Face
Why so serious?
I need to say that Disproportionate Retribution does not automatically invalidates a Freudian Excuse. Bakura is angry because his home was slaughtered to the last man by the forces of the Pharaoh's kingdom, leading him to see the kingdom itself as guilty. He's not sympathetic, but in his opening fight, he explains himself with "have you ever heard of a village called Kul Elna?" With clear hatred and rage, and one of the priests states Bakura is a survivor whose hatred must surpass belief specifically because of surviving that event.
So, gonna have to downvote him. Having your hometown slaughtered to make Millennium Items is going to warp you. I can't see him as a keeper. And how does him talking about how the ghosts of his murdered people want revenge invalidate a redeeming quality? That's even more redeeming because he's out for revenge for the sake of his people.
Bakura being driven insane with hate, pain and rage and deciding "I will destroy the kingdom this deed was done to benefit and kill everyone inside" is not evidence he abandoned redeeming qualities. Any more than Sasuke "I will annihilate everything my brother sought to protect because it made him sacrifice his life" Uchiha gave up his love for his brother with that whole thing.
Bakura is not a good person. He's a brutal, sadistic, cruel monster who relishes the pain of his enemies and wants to wipe out a country and revive a dark evil god, but he has a valid Freudian Excuse and cares for his people. That invalidates him from the list. There is a MASSIVE gap between "sympathetic villain" and "complete monster." I don't care if he's 'justified', I care if he's got redeeming qualities and a valid excuse.
edited 15th Jul '16 7:08:16 AM by Lightysnake