TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Go To

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:

     Previous Post 
Complete Monster Cleanup Thread

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] 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

ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#826: May 7th 2012 at 12:35:56 PM

Because if a person is redeemed, it means they never crossed the Moral Event Horizon, which also means they were never a Complete Monster. To be irredeemably evil is the main component of a Complete Monster. If a person was never beyond redemption, they were never a monster.

It would be like saying, "Vegeta was a Complete Monster in the Saiyan Saga, but he's not in the Namek Saga."

Johan achieved redemption, which means he was never irredeemably evil.

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#827: May 7th 2012 at 12:40:41 PM

Historically, as far as the trope is concerned, the sole exemption to the redemption disqualification is if the character is a Karma Houdini. However, the character legitimately wanting to repent is an absolute disqualification.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#828: May 7th 2012 at 12:45:28 PM

And that's what Johan wanted since the anime, or at least it was what his good half wanted.

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#829: May 7th 2012 at 1:01:51 PM

Okay, you're missing the point I'm making.

In Monster, Johan is not redeemed. He has a completely psychotic and amoral personality that is the result of plenty of terrible deeds. It doesn't matter if he has a "good personality" or not (and I've heard arguments over whether that side is legit; I'm not going to rehash them here because it's actually not important to this discussion). The main and active persona of Johan Liebert in Monster is a Complete Monster. He does not get taken off because of a sequel series in a different medium tries to redeem him.

The simple fact is, in both the manga and the anime, Johan qualifies. He doesn't in the sequel novel by your account (and I'm seeing conflicting reports about Unreliable Narrator involved in that, so I'm not even totally comfortable with that designation in either direction). But the sequel in a different medium does not change what was done in the original.

Also, this isn't the first time this argument has been made. Let's move on instead of covering this well-worn path again.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#830: May 7th 2012 at 1:02:41 PM

That is correct. If a work is intended to be taken as a standalone effort, then what someone does in a sequel or spinoff of dubious canonicity is irrelevant.

edited 7th May '12 1:02:53 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#831: May 7th 2012 at 1:51:05 PM

Okay, I'll drop the debate. I just want the record to show that Another Monster is canon though and was written by the same man.

May I just ask for a link to where else this was brought up?

Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#832: May 7th 2012 at 5:17:12 PM

Wait, I came in late but I'm confused; is Another Monster not a Canon Sequal to Monster? Because if it is and this Johan got redeemed, that means he can't be a CM. If it's not canon, it doesn't count.

In case you're sick to death of that conversation, I have a new one; what about Gah Lak Tus in the Mavel Comics book section (which I cleaned up just briefy)? It is on there because it destroys entire worlds and hates organics with an instant revulsion, but I think Blue-and-Orange Morality comes into play here since it doesn't communcate with us at any point. The wave of suicides it cause was not a delierate action, but rather an unexpected side effect of it's aproach. I Know it sounds weird defeding an omicidal machine race, buI don'think it hits CM territor.

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#833: May 7th 2012 at 7:31:38 PM

The canonicity of Another Monster isn't clear. Moreover, upon doing some digging into it, since it's from the viewpoint of a completely different character, it's also not clear whether it's a genuine attempt at redemption. It doesn't help that there isn't even a fan translation of later parts as yet; I'm of the belief that the work (which was brought up in this thread earlier) shouldn't be picked at as yet.

Gah Lak Tus... he's from the Ultimate Marvel line, yes? The one that prepares planets for destruction by turning the entire population murderous against each other, correct? And one that, so far as we know, does not have any sort of altruistic bent like 616 Galactus? I think Gah Lak Tus still fits. I don't think Blue-and-Orange Morality disqualifies anyone for Complete Monster status (there are no notes to that effect anywhere that I can look). And GLT meets all the criteria for the trope. I'm fine with that one staying.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#834: May 7th 2012 at 8:14:45 PM

Again, can I just have a link to where else this was brought up? I'm just curious to see what happened.

ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#835: May 8th 2012 at 6:13:16 PM

I have another Complete Monster question. In my story, the Spyro Madness Saga, there are two characters who I intended to be monsters, but I got a complaint from an anonymous troper that one of them does not qualify. Here's the exact message he gave me. I'm marking the first monster's name as a spoiler.

Troper: Hi, I saw your entries under the Monster/Fanfic section about Terrador and Torment. I don't think Torment actually counts.

Terrador I can understand because of his Cold-Blooded Torture on his own daughter, but Torment can't possibly qualify. She's a living manifestation of Cynder's darkness. She's a Superpowered Evil Side for sure, but it's not like she can be any thing else.

Me: But Torment is literally Pure Evil. It's not like you can justify killing every last guest at a party.

Troper: All I'm saying is that it's in a demon's nature to kill. Please consider removing this entry.

So, should I delete my entry on Torment?

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#836: May 8th 2012 at 6:17:11 PM

It absolutely should be deleted, as should the other. We've always determined Complete Monster by audience opinion, not authorial intent; adding them for one's own work isn't really allowed.

That said, I tend to feel this sort of academic "in its nature" discussion matters less then the other details, so if these entries weren't added by their author, I'm not sure I'd make the same decision.

edited 8th May '12 6:19:04 PM by nrjxll

ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#837: May 8th 2012 at 6:22:54 PM

Okay, I'll delete Torment's status as a monster, but I still think Terrador should count. Everyone who's read it agrees that he's a monster who got what he deserved. And some even consider him a Karma Houdini for just going to prison.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#838: May 8th 2012 at 6:24:56 PM

Then let them add the entry themselves. Authors cannot decide whether their own character is a Complete Monster.

ChaoticQueen Since: Mar, 2011
#839: May 8th 2012 at 6:37:57 PM

Alright, I deleted their entries under Complete Monster as well as Moral Event Horizon. I also deleted the MEH and CM entries from the actual work as well as any CM potholes in the trope page entries that link to the work.

lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Since: Sep, 2011 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
#840: May 9th 2012 at 10:11:12 AM

I'd like to discuss Naruto.

The current page is a mess, but then, most Naruto related articles are. Anyway, after discussion with the Naruto thread, we found agreement that these entries are valid:

  • Orochimaru: has used countless civillians and even babies for his experiments, invaded an entire country and killed its military leader For the Evulz, and is presented as reprehensible from beginning to end.

  • Gato: Corrupt Corporate Executive who exploits an entire village and kills a heroic character in a cruel way. Has shown no redeeming traits.

We were not sure about these characters:

  • Tobi (Spoilers ahoy): His initial appearance is masquerading as a bumbling comic relief who is just acting like the odd-one out of a terrorist organisation. However, in his next appearance, he reveals his identity as the Big Bad and actual leader of the organisation, with a big list of crimes: attempting to murder an infant and his mother, sent a humongous monster on a village he wanted to destroy, killed seven Sealed Evil In A Person to obtain their powers and declared war on the entire world because he seeks to control it. No redeeming traits or sympathetic viewpoints have been given so far.

  • Hidan: This guy worships a God of Evil who dictates he must kill as many people as possible. He's a sadist responsible for a lot of murders, is a sadist who likes feeling the pain of his enemies before they die and has never shown any remorse, not even before his death. However, he was often for played for comic relief outside of battle. Does he count?

Not Complete Monsters:

  • Kabuto Yakushi: has shown shades of being a Noble Demon and received a huge flashback showing him in a sympathetic light.

  • Danzo Shimura: A Well-Intentioned Extremist who always has the best interest of the village at mind, even though he uses brutal and ruthless methods.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#841: May 9th 2012 at 11:06:17 AM

Ah, Naruto - I knew I'd have to deal with this one someday.

First, I have no problems at all with Orochimaru making the list. He's the one that actually popped up in what little I saw, and I can agree on him.

For Gato, I need a bit more detail. He sounds evil, but I'm not getting just how evil he may or may not be.

For Tobi and Hidan, we have to apply what I would call The Joker Standard - basically, what does their sense of humor and the like play in the story themselves? Does it cause characters to needfully take them less seriously (i.e. it isn't just Obfuscating Stupidity)? Is it the kind of thing that only other sadists or the like fun humorous in-story? Can you really feel sorry for them, given what they've done?

Alternately, you can say, "if these events were tweaked such that The Joker did them in a Batman comic, would they fit the character?" If your answer is "yes" to that question, they're still a Complete Monster. (Based on what was provided, I suspect the answer will be that they both are, but more information may sway that assessment.)

For Kabuto and Danzo, I agree, neither of those two are (although this doesn't stop them from crossing the Moral Event Horizon later and thus qualifying after a certain point).

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Since: Sep, 2011 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
#842: May 9th 2012 at 11:28:07 AM

Lesseee...

Gato was only around for one arc, and was a pretty minor villain. He's been exploiting a small island nation and left them in poverty by taking control over shiptrading. When they try to build a bridge in order to find alternate ways of trading, he attempts to kill those working on it.

In flashbacks, we see that he executed the person the townfolks called a hero by having his henchmen cut both of his arms because he stood in his way. At the end of the arc, he's unceremoniously killed by an antagonist. Also, no Alas, Poor Villain flashback, which happens for most villains in the series.

I think Tobi is a case of Obfuscating Stupidity. He deliberately acts all ridiculous because he's sneaky and doesn't want people to take him seriously, mostly in order to gather info without hindrances. After he drops his persona, he hasn't had any sympathetic/sorry moments. Scheming/fighting/being deadpan or being an ass. That's pretty much it.

Hidan isn't Obfuscating Stupidity. He's a hot headed loudmouth who's paired with a stoic no-nonsense attitude guy. Because of the difference in their personalities, we get the humor. When he's fighting, he's mostly played for fear, because of how Ax-Crazy and sadistic he is. Nothing sorry about him—he's the most unrepetant character in the series. No flashbacks either.

edited 9th May '12 11:29:16 AM by lu127

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
MONEYMONEY Since: Nov, 2011
#843: May 9th 2012 at 2:12:53 PM

Hey, somebody added Loki from The Avengers to Film page. I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on the description, I think that he may count.

  • Loki in The Avengers. The first thing he does is using mind control on most of the characters. This wouldn't be considered bad, but the characters would still retain some of their personalities. He also crosses the Moral Event Horizon for killing Agent Phil Coulson by stabbing him. He then locks his brother Thor in his imprisonment cell and drops it from the airship, fully intending to kill him. He throws Iron Man out a window and kills about eighty people. And, when Thor was telling him that there was still hope to save the world from the alien invaders, Loki seemed to agree, but then stabs Thor anyway.
    • Not to mention his talk with Black Widow where he threatens her about making her flay Hawkeye, where she literally calls him a monster.

However, as written above, in Thor, he is a Well-Intentioned Extremist. Assuming that it is the same Loki, does his status is Thor negate his CM status in The Avengers. Do we remove him??

Also, I want to ask; if he qualifies than should we request to move him to a Disney page?? The Avengers has been distributed by Disney Company.

edited 9th May '12 2:19:57 PM by MONEYMONEY

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#844: May 9th 2012 at 2:12:58 PM

Okay, to me, Gato sounds like he falls short. He certainly sounds evil, and he doesn't sound like he has much in the way of redeeming features. That said, his actions don't sound "beyond the pale," as the saying goes. His actions sound bad, but not heinous by the standards of the story. Is this from the same early arc that featured Zabuza (i.e. the guy that hired Zabuza)? If so, he seems a bit too petty and venal - like he'd water down the meaning of the trope if we included him. (In short, I think he fails the first criteria.)

Tobi definitely sounds like he belongs in, in that case.

As for Hidan... does anyone take him less seriously because of it? It's a bit of a moot point if nobody in-story (except fellow evil characters) takes him to be at all funny. I'm starting to suspect he does qualify, but I need to know more about how they treat him in-story. (I think how he fits the second criteria is the deciding factor here.)

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
MONEYMONEY Since: Nov, 2011
#845: May 9th 2012 at 2:18:58 PM

[up][up] I am sorry, but looks like me and 32Footspets put a comment at the same time[lol]

So, read what I said because this is another important thing, because I am discussing a potential removal of some other villain (Loki from The Avengers).

32_Footsteps Think of the mooks! from Just north of Arkham Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Think of the mooks!
#846: May 9th 2012 at 2:24:41 PM

First off, I believe that the Disney namespace is specifically for the Disney animated canon. We are not moving every property related to the Walt Disney Company under that namespace... as humorous as it might be to see the article header "Disney: Kill Bill".

So, anyhow, beyond establishing that anything related to the Marvel films belong in the Film/ namespace...

We are dealing with the same Loki as in the Thor movie, so we do have to consider that he was a Well-Intentioned Extremist there, with bits of Jerkass Woobie and "Well Done, Son" Guy as well.

That said, it's possible to walk away from all that. It's possible to hit the point in which you don't deserve sympathy, no matter how many times you were the puppy that was kicked. The point in which no amount of previous abuse can justify your part in continuing the cycle of abuse. In short, the point in which pity is wasted, because you no longer deserve it.

So the question is, did Loki hit that point in The Avengers?

Well, first, good thing I don't care about spoilers. Second, much of what he is doing strikes me as fairly cut-rate villainy. Why is killing someone like Agent Coulson (who, from what I can tell, is on the other side from him) a Moral Event Horizon move? Loki's attempt on Thor's life is more like Sibling Rivalry ramped Up To Eleven, and the bit about using Iron Man to kill about 80 people seems like like callous ignorance of where he was throwing Stark instead of conscious evil.

The threats towards Black Widow are the only thing that have me considering it, and even that is context-dependant.

Maybe Loki actually does qualify, but not with that godawfully written entry. I say cut, cite to this thread, request a lock, and have the troper who wants it included come in here to offer a much better justification than that.

[down] Technically, Kill Bill is a Disney film just as much as The Avengers. Kill Bill was produced by Miramax. The Avengers was produced by Marvel Studios. Both are subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Company.

EDIT #2: Okay, technically, Miramax isn't owned by Disney anymore (as of 2010). That said, they were owned by Disney when both Kill Bill movies were made.

edited 9th May '12 2:32:24 PM by 32_Footsteps

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.
MONEYMONEY Since: Nov, 2011
#847: May 9th 2012 at 2:27:52 PM

[up] Wait, what do you mean by sayng "Disney:Kill Bill". Kill Bill is NOT a Disney film...

Just remove the entry but maybe WITHOUT locking the page, because there were no Edit Wars yet.

edited 9th May '12 2:29:33 PM by MONEYMONEY

TriggerLoaded from Canada, eh? (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
#848: May 9th 2012 at 7:00:10 PM

I say no to Loki. While a charming and effective villain, he didn't strike me as absolutely heinous. Just an effective villain... Though he still lost, obviously.

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
Shaoken (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
#849: May 9th 2012 at 7:58:23 PM

No to Loki. People need to understand that it's 100% monster, not a villian you dislike. Plus, whoever put it on there used subpoints, which is another big no no. I'll remove it now.

MONEYMONEY Since: Nov, 2011
#850: May 10th 2012 at 12:11:26 AM

He's already gone. I sent the user a private message that he wants Loki back, he can come here and discuss, but I think that your points are enough to negate his CM status. I don't think that the user will be able to convince anybody. I haven't seen the movie, but the description doesn't sound very monstrous to me.


Total posts: 326,048
Top