Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

I don't know why it would matter if the Engineers were Asshole Victims, genocide is still genocide. He's easily heinous enough, the regret over killing Shaw is the biggest issue with him.

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:44:51 AM by TommyFresh

David's not one I'm comfortable going up... there's just enough ambiguity with some of his qualities he likely fails the clause.

Nobody in the Kirby series counts. Zero's questionable agency that comes with being the source of Dark Matter aside, it has zero characterization and motivation outside of "random creepy white thing you have to defeat." There's no effort to make it into a character and thus is an example of a character actually being disqualified under the GDV rule.

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:45:58 AM by Scraggle

Yeah, Kirby's the series where nobody currently counts, but where I could EASILY see getting a CM eventually.

EDIT: I have a few games; Magolor has characterization but probably isn't heinous enough (and may have been possessed); Yin Yarn doesn't really have the former nor is he really that heinous.

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:58:30 AM by ACW

I'm hard-pressed to see how that'd ever happen, honestly... virtually every villain with some character has a bevvy of mitigating qualities (Magolor, Sectonia, Haltmann) and those that don't have any redeeming qualities are pretty much invariably not characterized enough to fit the trope (and I think the only real exception to that rule is Marx, who isn't anywhere near heinous enough anyways). Kirby is a series that's thin enough on story and character I really don't see the potential of a true CM coming any time soon (never mind the continually increasing heinous standard... the villain of the last game tried to exterminate all organic life).

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:49:33 AM by Scraggle

got 'd twice while typing and it disproved my points

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:52:22 AM by MahStache

A few creepy smiles does not equate to a measurable character. We have zero insight into Zero's character. It has no lines, we have no idea what it wants, why it does what it does, where it came from, zilch.

Zero doesn't qualify. That's that.

EDIT: Whoops. Ignore this.

edited 2nd Jun '17 7:50:54 AM by Scraggle

Someone like Magolor but without redeeming qualities and the goal of Haltmann? I could see that happening.

BTW, Scraggle, I read Scars yesterday. Yeesh. While Wakefield was set up, he takes Disproportionate Retribution to the extreme.

edited 2nd Jun '17 8:03:56 AM by ACW

That would be fascinating and with the way the franchise is going I can see it getting one soon. Hell, Dark Mind would be one if he got characterization.

If we get a modern Kirby villain who isn't played sympathetically it will probably be a CM as the newer games usually try and flesh out their villains a lot more, and give them actual dialogue. That's the problem with ones from the old games actually counting, they don't say a single word.

Yeah, Wakefield is disgusting for all intents and purposes... easily one of the most repulsive I've posted. Ravok found him initially and wasn't convinced he was heinous enough on the first read-through (although a comparison to characters like Joshua Wright I think turned him around). It says something about this thread when we have to debate whether or not a character like Wakefield is heinous enough for the trope.

Yeah. I mean, it's only one victim. But considering it's an 11-year-old, and he tortures, rapes, and cuts her up (while she's still alive), he seems heinous enough to me (I can't comment either way on the Joshua Wright comparison, as I haven't read that work). The only issue that could be raised is if he's sane enough; he seems to have snapped.

Also, what was with the scene near the end of him driving another student (?) home?

Works for me. We can chalk it up to him maintaining his facade.

edited 2nd Jun '17 8:16:22 AM by ACW

Nothing redeeming, if that's what you're wondering.

David

Given David's mitigating factors involving Shaw, I'm leaning towards .

Here's my write up for Cho'gall. I will add it to the drafts for right now, but also take it to the Warcraft page reformatting and tweak some more there.

Cho'gall, the former right-hand of Gul'dan, is the mad prophet of the Twilight's Hammer whose apocalyptic goals serve as a grim reminder that the Burning Legion aren't the only monsters out amongst the stars. Born a two-headed ogre in their capitol of Highmaul, Cho'gall's ambitions and power lust eventually led to his failed assassination and exile. Swearing vengeance on his kinsman, he sought out new forms of power and learned fel magic from Gul'dan, fully intent on betraying him and his demonic masters, and void magic from the Pale orcs beneath Oshu'gun who taught him of the Hour of Twilight prophecy. Cho'gall made fulfilling this apocalyptic prophecy his life's work, and formed the Twilight's Hammer clan to make it a reality. He would go on to raze Highmaul and slaughter its people and aid the Horde in their genocidal conquest in the First and Second Wars. Gathering new followers in droves, he carved new prophecies into the Pale orcs and skinned them all to make the Twilight Canticle: the unholy book of the Void. Many years later, he attempted to resurrect the Old God C'thun by sacrificing the young half orc Med'an, and enslaved his mother Garona and used her to reignite full scale war between the Horde and Alliance. His final attempts at fulfilling the Hour of Twilight involved healing a wounded Deathwing and using the fallen Aspect to ignite the Cataclysm, and ultimately put Azeroth within a inch of annihilation. While Gul'dan is iconic for showing how far one can fall to evil serving the Fel, Cho'gall revels is showing that one can fall equally as far in service to the Void.

Where for now should Cho'Gall go on the current Warcraft page?

I just got finished reformatting the Warcraft Page. I removed the notes under each entry sicnce no other subpage looks like that, merged the two sections since the characters have all become omnipresent in the games as well, and created a tree for Gul'dan similar to the one for Randall Flagg from the Stephen King page. Tell me what you think.

I guess I should also bring up one other point of contention while I'm on Warcraft. I believe Doctor Theolen Krastinov needs to be cut, because, at this point in the game, he not only meets the general heinous standard of the setting but also isn't as bad as some other minor antagonists that have been introduced. Other Scourge necromancers have done similarly sadistic experiments, evil cultists have been sacrificing people in mass for several expansions now, and the individual demons in the Burning Legion are shown to torture people to death, steal their souls, and use those souls to empower their machinery. It's easily comparable to the Van Zant or Tao Pi Pi situation from Dragon Ball and I'm surprised he hasn't been pushed for a cut already.

He seems like a cut.

I tweaked Cho'Gall's entry and modified the header a bit.

David, I don't see any sign that he really cares about Shaw and that it's not an act.

Abstain on David.

The Fire Emblem Echoes discussion will have to wait. I haven't finished the game yet thanks to unexpected responsibilities.

edited 2nd Jun '17 9:41:57 AM by erazor0707

If David doesn't care about Shaw why is he holding up the act when he's all alone?

Cut Krastinov

edited 2nd Jun '17 9:44:47 AM by Lightysnake

David for 99% monster, it seems he has enough qualities to avoid falling into this trope and that scene seems to be genuine in contrast to say Ramsay throwing his own sister's body to the dogs.

for Krastinov, I actually tried bringing him up to be cut before but that discussion went cold.

Officially, since the Dreadlords fail the heinousness test when I discussed with Lore Deluxe as to if Balanzzar should be effortposted, I feel that we've officially run out of new examples for Warcraft to be discussed until they introduce one of the void lords or prove that the Old Gods have moral agency.

Also I am so excited for tomorrow's discussion!

edited 2nd Jun '17 9:56:47 AM by xie323

I probably overlooked the flute eulogy because my brain recognised it as just David creating stuff because he's an artist, so it kind of faded into the back of my mind. Doesn't help I saw the film three weeks ago now.

And Lighty, I assure you I would never knowingly be dismissive of mitigating qualities. What's the point? It just cheapens what we do.

I still stand by my initial assessment (though a second viewing may change my mind) and I also stand by my respect for those who disagree with my EP. I believe he was made to be super ambiguous and divisive. I also appreciate Scraggle's comments that he isn't comfortable with David's inclusion.

So, anyone from Supernatural?

Don't worry, Polar, I'm not accusing you of anything. I just feel for David to be properly approved/rejected, we need to discuss this in detail.

As for Supernatural...well, spoiler time, but:

Nobody, IMO, counts right now. The Princes of Hell are not as heinous as Azazel (and they literally operate at the same tier as him, being sibling demons with similar or equal powers, while Azazel has his love for his children to keep him out of this trope)...Crowley does a full Heel–Face Turn and a Heroic Sacrifice at the end, no oneshot villains counts, which leaves...Lucifer casts off all his redeeming qualities and he's easily heinous enough to count but has impaired agency from having borne the Mark of Cain to seal the Darkness, which has terrible results for your morality...

I could see making a case for Lucifer, but as of memory now, that's where I stand

edited 2nd Jun '17 10:14:23 AM by Lightysnake