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
Dale sounds like an easy keep.
@Demon Duckof Doom: I have no problem with the quote being added.
@Biggles Th 9: if you have counterpoints/new information I suppose an effortpost is fine. I don't think that was the only reason they were voted down but I don't think an effortpost would hurt.
edited 22nd Apr '17 5:18:53 AM by TommyFresh
Yes to Alex and Alex, but a late no to Alex (Delarge), heh heh. And a very, very easy yes to (Dang it!)Dale.
@Biggles: Ha, now that's funny: I missed the first discussion regarding Chara and after finally getting around to playing Undertale, kinda wanted to re-effortpost him/her myself since I read the discussions and wasn't convinced by the reasons he/she ultimately didn't get written up. So I'm all for a re-discussion if you want.
edited 22nd Apr '17 5:54:36 AM by FriedWarthog
Though, if Biggles has counter-arguments, that would fall under the "new evidence" rule and would probably be okay.
EDIT: Also, here's what's pending:
- Ocarina!Ganon (CyberXIII)
- Vonotar the Traitor; Zakhan Kimah; Archdruid Cadak (LoreDeluxe)
- The Collector (OE)
- Lightysnake
- Ravok
- Scraggle
- Quartermaster Temple from Space Ghost (2005 DC series)
- Judge Carter
- Purple Eyes rewrite
- The Creeper rewrite
edited 22nd Apr '17 6:18:58 AM by ACW
Incoming effort post. I can see this one being lengthy.
Who is the Fallen Child? What does he/she do?
The Fallen Child (otherwise known as Chara) was the first human being to ever fall into the Underground, where monsters were driven after losing a war with humans. Chara was adopted by the Dreemurs, the monarchs of the realm, and raised alongside their son Asriel.
Chara, already a misanthrope, shared a plan with Asriel: Chara commited suicide by poisoning so that Asriel could take his soul and use its power to go to the surface to slaughter as many humans as possible. Asriel, who was a Nice Guy, went along with the plan to please Chara, but couldn't bring himself to harm anyone. He carried Chara's body to the surface to lay it to rest and was killed by humans who thought that he'd killed the child.
Note that it's stated explicitly that Chara was in control when Asriel carried his body. With no other motive apparent, it seems that he'd set Asriel up to die as a contingency plan - if Asriel didn't go through with the plan to attack humans, the crown prince's death would cause another war between monsters and humans.
After Frisk falls into the Underground, the disembodied Chara begins to corrupt him, driving him to kill every monster that crosses his path (see the following heading where I explain this in detail). In the ending to the Genocide route (where the player does just that), the game ends with Chara in full control of Frisk and using his new godlike power to destroy the world. He offers to undo this only if Frisk sells his soul to him.
In a subsequent playthrough, Chara will override the normally happy ending of a Pacifist run, the game ending with Chara going on an off-screen killing spree.
Moral agency
This was the sticking point in the previous discussion, so I'll address it here.
As Chara is an Evil Counterpart to the player character, and only does his worst deeds when the player chooses to be evil, many see his morality as being somewhat linked to the player's.
However, in the Genocide ending, Chara claims to be directly responsible for raising Frisk's "Level of Violence". Because said level is functionally the same as standard RPG levels, gained by slaying foes, this means that Chara's influence is responsible for each kill Frisk makes. In this light, it seems that how good or bad Frisk acts is a measure of how successful Chara is in corrupting/possessing him.
It's also worth noting that the Genocide run is the only path in which Chara overrides the player's control of Frisk, with the final boss of a normal playthrough becoming a Cutscene Boss as Chara one-shots him.
As mentioned above, subsequent playthroughs will end with Chara, now owning Frisk's soul, doing evil even if the player does good.
Redeeming qualities, Freudian Excuse, etc.
Asriel cared about Chara and was convinced he/she felt the same way - arguably he/she did at some point. Even so, Chara corrupted Asriel, almost made a mass murderer of him and caused his death (as mentioned above, the last bit didn't seem wholly unintentional). In the Genocide run, Chara, in full control of Frisk, seems to hesitate slightly before killing Flowey (who is Asriel reincarnated), but does so anyway, quite gruesomely, to continue his/her genocide crusade. No remorse is shown after the fact.
It's implied that Chara has some sort of Dark and Troubled Past and was suicidal at some point. We never learn any details about this, so I can't see it as disqualifying.
Verdict
While a somewhat ambiguous character, Chara is an unrepentant Omnicidal Maniac by the end of his/her story arc and responsible for nearly everything that goes wrong. I'm leaning
edited 22nd Apr '17 7:21:31 AM by BigglesTh9
Gonna add in a few points of my own:
Before his/her plan to merge souls with Asriel, Chara accidentally poisoned his/her adoptive father Asgore and nearly killed him. He/she is mentioned by Asriel to have laughed it off, so feel free to interpret that however you wish.
I should also mention that there seems to be a theory that's been picking up steam from the community that Chara is the game's narrator, and that going through a Genocide run corrupts him/her into becoming a bloodthirsty sociopath. Thing is? There is absolutely no evidence for this in canon since the minute Chara's "presence" manifests when starting a genocide run, Chara is bloodthirsty and violent and seemingly wanting to egg the player on to kill monsters they come across. That, and the narrator and Chara have completely different speech patterns, mannerisms, and whatnot, but that's neither here nor there.
Not to mention that Chara's willingness to not only kill *everyone*, monster and human alike puts the kibosh on any speculation that Chara cares for mosnterkind, but that his/her willingness to override the happiest ending and kill everyone, even his/her own adoptive parents after that really drives it home.
So yeah, I'll give a yes to Chara/The Fallen Child.
edited 22nd Apr '17 7:33:12 AM by FriedWarthog
I still kind of feel like the degree of control over the player Chara has is too ambiguous honestly. The details of the character are really ambiguous and I'm not sure the protagonist's actions in the Genocide route should be laid solely at the Fallen Child's feet. It seemed to me like the player's actions allowed the Fallen Child to take control rather than the other way around.
That too.
Chara describes his/her role in this quote:
'Together, we eradicated the enemy and became strong. HP. ATK. DEF. GOLD. EXP. LV. Every time a number increases, that feeling... That's me. "Chara." '
That makes it explicit that Chara either corrupted Frisk by suggestion or Demonic Possession.
If the player's role in determining a villain's success was relevant, we'd have to cut a whole lot of Western RPG examples.
edited 22nd Apr '17 7:58:50 AM by BigglesTh9
I am of the opinion that Undertale, as a game, is supposed to be a test of character for the player. What they are in the dark as it were. To that end, I think that Chara is as much tied to the player actions as the state of the setting, and that he is as much a Player Character as Frisk (who did you name again?). So until the rules about casting moral judgment on RL people changes, I'll consider this troping players by proxy and judge accordingly so
.
At the very least should they pass the benchmarks, the example should mention that they qualify on a specific path only (probably redundant given their presence is limited to that path).
By the way, I am wondering if anyone would took a look at Soul Nomad & the World Eaters?
edited 22nd Apr '17 8:19:45 AM by MorningStar1337
Well, this Chara, whatever it is, is fairly contentious.
Now, I don't know much about Undertale save that it is a massive video game deconstruction with a fanbase so loyal I can barely comprehend it.
But I can see this character is probably not gonna make it by virtue of not enough people supporting it. Should it be added to the Never Again List? Probably not. There's not enough of a consensus to say it definitely doesn't count. Perhaps if it had been brought up 5 more times, it would be necessary.
As it stands, by virtue of intentionally avoiding Undertale information which is almost impossible because it's Undertale. I shall abstain.
Why's it not on console, doe?

Oh my God.
You're the worst.