Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Belhifet

Belhifet should probaly have his entry dual posted to Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate.

Hmm, I think I might know how to do that...I'll have to reformat the whole page, but that's doable. I'll put that on my to-do when I have time (meaning I might not get to it for a week or two, at best; I'll also take care of the de-potholing.

Edited by ACW on Sep 20th 2018 at 9:09:41 AM

Yes to Neb, Hidesman, and Belhifet. It seems that there are now nine D and D game characters who count.

Yeah, with 6.5 from Baldur's Gate alone.

Baldur's Gate duo and Bel

Belhifet

Yea to Bellyfat.

Anyways, pitching in my part to the horror movie candidates, and thanks to Duck for this?

What's the setting?

Night of 1000 Cats (or Blood Feast, no relation to the one with Fuad Ramses) is a 1972 horror flick with Hugo Stiglitz playing... Hugo, playboy millionaire and also disturbed serial killer. A very strange, low-budget movie that does indeed deliver on its promise 1000 cats (Hugo has a giant pen full of them and they're quite noisy — and apparently mistreated behind-the-scenes) we follow Hugo's daily affairs as he prowls around stalking people in his Hugocopter, picking out ladies to add to his "collection" as he calls it...

Who is Hugo? What has he done?

Socialite, owner of a medieval castle up in Acapulco, a thin-bearded peacock who poses in 70s-style speedos, and also a serial killer, Hugo is our Villain Protagonist for the night. Flatteringly described by IMDB as an expressionless "Thundercat marionette" (which isn't too far off; Hugo has the acting chops of Steven Seagal's understudy) Hugo stalks women through the Acapulco using all the resources and wealth left to him by his descendants. Now, Hugo's ancestors were all collectors... stamps, weapons, taxidermy statues, you know it. Hugo? Wants the most original collection out of all of them. So, does he collect the laces of NBA players? Or are all those speedos he wears adding up to something?

No, the natural decision to come to is to butcher women and collect their heads in jars, of course. So, Hugo spends his time charming and buttering up women he fancies before luring them into his private castle estate, where they're greeted by Hugo's mute henchman Dorgo ("eugheugh" he grunts happily in his first few seconds of screenime, already a better actor than everyone else in this movie) and treated to dinner and sex. Hugo eventually kills them, horribly... opening the movie drowning them and strangling another after terrifying her with his collection of heads ("they're made of wax," he claims, and she buys it for a second — probably more a testament to how bad the props are rather than any manipulative prowess on Hugo's part).

Oh, and for how the cats fit in? Hugo, once he's done setting up his victim's head up (he's got about four by the time the movie starts and keeps adding) Hugo just mulches up the body and tosses it to the screaming felines. Well, except for the pieces he decides to eat himself, of course.

So, with a lot of this movie's screentime composed of random forays into Hugo's life (Hugo has chess with Dorgo and he wins. Dorgo grunts. End scene. Hugo stalks women in his helicopter for five minutes, watches cabaret with random close-ups of eyes. End scene. With the occasional, meaningless cut back his cats for a second or so) Hugo eventually lets one of his victims slip after a doctor interrupts their private time, asking for help as he's crashed. Hugo, in a fury? Murders the doctor, keeping his head and mulching his body. Intended victims keep eluding him, pissing him him off further and further, drowning one of his cats in anger and later pushing Dorgo to be eaten by the cats after the heinous transgression of losing to him in chess. Hugo eventually lures one of his victims into his clutches after having attempted to kidnap her child, and chases her through his castle, trying to murder her. But the cats get free... and the last thing Hugo ever sees is a cloud of claws and teeth enveloping him.

Hope you enjoy a life of one-thousand pieces of cat chocolate, Hugo!

Any mitigating factors?

So, there's this... one weird flashback in the movie. It's shown that Hugo actually seemed to have fallen in love with the women he was seducing, even asking Dorgo not to kill her and trying to propose to her. Except Dorgo murders her after all because apparently muteness is deafness, and he seems shocked.

...well, not that he seems to care much in the current day. Never mentions her. Never so much as regards or looks back on it except for looking into her head in his collection. He goes through the whole "keep her head as a severed trophy in a cabinet full of them while tossing her body to the cats" and it's not ever indicated he's particularly remorseful over the incident at all. Furthermore... Dorgo? He doesn't punish him for this. He doesn't even reprimand him for this, keeping him as his servant. No, but beating him in chess is worthy of death (that scene is a hilarious Smash Cut by the way, with the scene of a pouty Hugo pushing over Dorgo's King piece cuts immediately to a pouty Hugo pushing Dorgo into an ocean of ravenous cats).

So, he did care for her at one point. Maybe. Possibly. But in the present day... we don't get much information on it (the flashback's the definition of a BLAM) except that he doesn't remember her as anything beyond a victim and apparently consider his assistant beating him in chess is more heinous a transgression than murdering his fiancee. I can't say the love's there. I really can't.

It's a by-product of how lovably terrible this film is, really, and how poorly it's written. But regardless? I can't see much else that would compromise him.

Conclusion?

This movie's weird. Weird, weird, weird. But Hugo, assuming you give enough credit that scene with his would-be wife isn't anything to discredit? I'd keep.

Thoughts?

Yes to Hugo.

Yea to Hugo.

Hugo

to Belhifet and Hugo.

So back to my other question, I was wonder if Sun Queen Himiko in the same game also counts?

She's practically the reason for everything bad that has happened in the island and has no redeeming qualities herself. There's a canon comic book series taking place right after the game, where Himiko has been given more crimes to commit, such as drivning Lara's best friend Sam, insane.

Edited by G-Editor on Sep 20th 2018 at 3:58:38 AM

Belhifet and Hugo. Kitties!

Belhifet and Hugo

Are we making a precedent now that demons and devils from Dungeons and Dragons no longer have agency issues? Devils, or Baatezu, are by D&D lore lawful evil souls who went to Baator upon death and transformed into Baatezu. They are Outer Planar creatures who are literally Made of Evil (lawful in this case) and have until now always been presumed to have agency issues. The only reason I was going to propose Orcus at all was because he was a god at the time and presumably free from his nature. Belhifet seems like a normal, if extremely powerful, devil and thus presumed to have absolutely no agency over his actions.

Yes, demon and devils in Dungeons and Dragons have been shown to be capable of having redeeming qualities and even performing acts of good, but those are shown to be explicitly going against their nature. The most famous of these is likely Falls-From-Grace, a Tanar'ri/succubus from Planescape Torment, who went against her nature by becoming Lawful Neutral. The caveat, though, is that Ravel Puzzlewell, a Neutral Evil fiend, outright states that she is suffering more torment than any other party member for going against her Chaotic Evil nature.

Basically, my argument is going by a fundemental aspect of D&D in that fiends like Belhifet are Made of Evil and lack any moral agency. from me.

I think my rebuttal there would be two-fold:

First, devils and demons are noticeably different. Demons are formed from primordial chaos and evil itself, whereas devils are evil dark souls or former fallen celestial beings (Such as Asmodeus himself). Belhifet's age and status implies he's probably more towards the latter camp.

Secondly, devils are capable of redeeming qualities without it goign against their nature in of itself. Asmodeus is not going against his devil nature (ever), but he genuinely loves his wife and daughter, while Glasya is intensely loyal to him and returns his affection. Other devils are firmly capable of showcasing other redeeming qualities such as care for others. It's like when we qualified one of the Beastmen from Warhammer, who are irrevocably tainted by Chaos Undivided but still capable of a set of moral standards and have taboos that Gorthor gleefully violated.

And as you point out, we do have a case of Tanar'ri being capable of defying their nature, even if it's difficult to do so. I'd say that might clinch it for Belhfiet himself. Also, I'm more lenient towards the devils or the Yugoloths having more leeway than the Tanar'ri, who are literally formed from dark chaos.

Edited by Lightysnake on Sep 20th 2018 at 7:11:14 AM

A big issue it seems here is different editions of Dungeons and Dragons have different origins for Demons and Devils. In 2nd edition, Planescape in particular that I just read, demons and devils are formed from the souls of Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil mortals. Their cycle of advancement literally places them at the bottom of the fiendish totem pole and they work their way up with committing act of evils. The evil souls becomes infused with the energies of Baator and the Abyss respectively thus Made of Evil. I emphasize they are presented as the Anthropomorphic Personification of Lawful Evil. It seems like later editions changed that dramatically. What further complicates matters is that the Icewind Dale series takes place during 2nd edition, so Belhifet would have used the original origins.

This is kind of a touchy issue with all the retcons and changes between editions, as the origin stories you seem to be going from (like primordial chaos and all that) are from 4th edition.

Edited by LoreDeluxe on Sep 20th 2018 at 7:21:20 AM

Hugo

Everyone I missed. Sorry, had a long and hard day I'd rather not talk about.

If no one minds I made a slight rewrite to Donald Love's entry. Felt it at it was at least worth mentioning who he was.

• 'Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories: Donald Love, is a recurring character in the III era, and among its most depraved. Love presents himself as a charasmatic, if eccentric powerful business man, arranging a gang war between the Yakuza and the Cartel just to lower property values. In this game it's revealed he is a self indulgent cannibal, and implied sexual deviant.Aligning himself with the Leone crime family, Love runs in the race for mayor, sends Toni Cipriani out to murder his rival's campaigners and collect more bodies to feed on. Losing his fortune and campaign, Love regains his fortune, starting with murder his mentor, real-estate tycoon Avery Carrington, in order to steal his city development plans; later cannibalizing the body; and killing of people through the bombing of the heavily-populated Fort Staunton city district, just so he can make money off of redeveloping the district.

Hugo (a go go) wonder if anyone will get that reference.

Yes to Scraggle's.

Hugo

Belhifet

Well against all odds, I got some free time and was able to beat Spider-Man PS 4 in a three-day marathon cram session (which I'm still reeling from: sleep deprivation is a hell of a thing) just in time for today's discussion date.

Now the short answer is that no one counts for now. I'll be reserving the discussion dates for the upcoming three DLC chapters and am keeping my eye out on anyone in the future if a sequel is announced. But despite this game having some awful people, they either all have redeeming qualities or aren't quite bad enough.

Now the long answer, which goes more into detail about this games villains so I can outline the heinous standard for future reference and give the important villains some in-depth discussion...

• Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus: The true villain of the game and the leader of the Sinister Six, Otto starts out as a kind-hearted, fatherly scientist who Peter Parker looks up to, and has a burning, seething hatred for this game's version of Norman Osborn. And his hatred for Osborn is so strong, that he unleashes a dangerous plague called Devil's Breath on Manhattan and tries to force Osborn to admit that he created it, and orchestrates two prison breaks that lead to Ryker's Island inmates turning the city into an anarchic warzone while the Sinister Six are tasked with causing mass destruction in ways meant to hurt Osborn. Despite developing into a horrible, spiteful, vindictive little asshole however, things only got as bad as they did because Otto's tentacles screwed up his mind and made him more likely to act on his deep-seated feelings of hatred, meaning that his moral agency is compromised. Plus, there's still a lingering sense of fatherly affection for Peter in that twisted, rage-fueled brain of his. He's a damn good and complex villain, but a CM he is not.

• Martin Li/Mr. Negative: Another major villain (and my personal favorite), Mr. Negative is impressively awful since his criminal organization known as the Demons are basically a terrorist cell: he has them commit suicide bombings at a commemoration for a heroic police officer that get plenty of people killed (and stopping more bombings is one of the many generic crimes you can handle as optional side missions). From there, Mr. Negative and his Demons kill plenty of people as well as attempt to take many more lives, culminating in Mr. Negative trying to poison the city with Devil's Breath as revenge for Norman Osborn accidentally causing the death of his parents. And when he escapes prison as one of the Sinister Six, he contributes greatly to the whole "Manhattan turns into a hellish anarchic dystopia" plan that Otto orchestrates. However, Mr. Negative is still a tragic and pitiable figure with a fucked up past that serves as a valid Freudian Excuse, loved ones such as his parents and Aunt May, and he genuinely thinks he's doing the right thing by hurting Norman even if innocents get caught in the crossfire.

• Norman Osborn: While he's responsible for pretty much everything going wrong, this Norman is a very different take on the character. He's every bit the sleazy and selfish asshole you'd expect and turns Manhattan into a fascist police state where private mercenaries are free to abuse and terrorize innocent civilians. He was also responsible for the creation of the Devil's Breath that was used as a bioweapon... but as opposed to the overtly malicious Mr. Negative and Doc Ock? Norman's villainy is mostly due to negligence and things spiraling out of his control: Devil's Breath was meant to be a cure for his late wife's illness that went horribly wrong, and he's disgusted that it was weaponized and intends to find a cure (without incriminating himself or apologizing, of course) while taking extreme measures to keep it from spreading further by turning Manhattan into a police state. Plus, unlike most continuities Norman is a loving family man who grieves his dead wife and is hellbent on saving his son Harry from the disease that took her, so while this game definitely foreshadows him becoming the Green Goblin in an inevitable sequel? There's no way he's going to count in the future unless the devs turn off their brains and do a complete 180 on his personality.

And that's the major villains. As far as minor villains go, there are a couple of really bad guys without redeeming qualities, but they don't quite make the cut. Scorpion for example, is easily the nastiest non Ock/Negative member of the Sinister Six since he seeks to poison Manhattan's water supply, tortures one of Silver Sable's mercenaries, and nearly kills Spider-Man with a painful, slow-acting venom with side effects that can be accurately described as Mind Rape. He's an awful guy who is overly enthusiastic about wanting to kill Spidey in gruesome ways... but doesn't quite do enough on screen, and it doesn't help that his biggest act of villainy is under Ock's orders.

Then there's Taskmaster, a side villain who forces Spider-Man to participate in "challenges" where he disposes of bombs that Taskmaster planted around the city that endanger civilian lives, all so Taskmaster can analyze and copy his abilities. However, Taskmaster is working under an unnamed, unseen boss's orders for the sake of potentially recruiting Spider-Man, and he doesn't try to antagonize or endanger people further when Spidey fights him off and makes it clear that he's not interested.

With that being said, I definitely have my eye on Scorpion since he could easily count in the future should he reappear and pad out his rapsheet, and Taskmaster's boss might count should they make an appearance proper. And with an upcoming few DLC chapters up ahead there's definitely potential for new villains to count (I'm hoping for Mysterio myself, but we'll see), and given the symbiote tease at the end? Carnage could easily become a thing in the future... granted, Ock and Negative are high bars to clear, but not to an unreasonable extent.

So with this out of the way, I'm going to pencil myself in for the DLC discussion dates, and will be reporting back on those once they release.

Sure on the candidates that I missed. And great job at the analysis for Spiderman villains @Fried Warthog... Cant wait for that dlc.

The Mathias rewrite.

Agreed with that no one counts in Spider-Man, though I will say Margan is pretty close.