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
About the Bible. Still gonna vote ![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
on Haman. Because he I think isn't treated in a balanced way. Yes, they're all guilty of Genocide, but he's more specifically seen as a villain with no redeeming qualities and perhaps stands out more as a person than the later kings of Israel. So while others may match his quality in heinousness, he still proves to be the worst of the worst.
As for the King Lear examples, ![[tdown]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_down_emoticon_3571.png "[thumb down]"){kind=small}
to all, but I can see a case for Cornwall.
edited 14th Sep '13 10:49:22 AM by xie323
All of this said, I'm still on Haman and I'll tell you why. He's a very petty and decidedly human sort of villain one rarely finds in mythology; Divine-wrath (on the godly end) and conqueror types (on the mortal end) are a dime a dozen in mythology, on both the good side and the bad, but genocide just to sate one's own Babylon-sized ego? As far as I know, that's unique to Haman.
HT has articulated exactly why I feel Haman is a keep. While David and the whole Bathsheba debacle ended...poorly for him, it should be noted God was pretty annoyed at that and David was explicitly in wrong.
In most instances, a war to the end for matters such as conquest strike me as less nasty than "genocide because one of your people didn't stroke my ego"
@ Ramidel:
Likely, that wouldn't disqualify anyone. There are settings where redemption exists as a metaphysical concept, like Star Wars or Lord Of The Rings but we have complete monsters from those 'verses.
As we're now getting into classic lit, I think I should make mention of one character I feel is one of the biggest keepers, albeit not from strictly 'classic.'
Who Is He?
Fantomas is a rogue, schemer, murderer and plotter. Quite possibly, he's one of the first examples of the supervillain in literature. He is totally ruthless, with mercy and loyalty to none, save a lust for wealth and power. even his lover and children. He's a master of disguise and enjoys tormenting those he comes across. Most of his actions are seen through the eyes of the Hero Antagonist inspector Juve, who tries to defeat and catch Fantomas. Problem is, Fantomas is a genius who's usually one step ahead, and due to his mastery of disguise, he could be ''anyone'' you meet
What has he done?
What hasn't he done might be the better question. Fantomas has committed countless acts of murder, ranging from the mundane stabbings or strangling, to rather less ordinary methods as giant snakes, massive death traps like chambers that fill with sand, or unleashing a swarm of plague rats on an ocean liner.
Redeeming qualities or altruistic nature?
Nada. Fantomas has no care towards even his own children and murdered his own son's lover. He's passionate towards his lover Lady Beltham, but he doesn't love her. Fantomas consistently displays that he's nothing but a sociopath who enjoys hurting others. The thrill of pulling his schemes off seems to be more important to him than any wealth actually obtained as well.
edited 14th Sep '13 11:37:57 AM by Lightysnake
I've changed my mind regarding Haman. Given the arguments for his inclusion, I think he is a keep. The fact that he was operating on his own with no accomplices or divine guidance is what seals it for me. The Israelites had much more resources and help than Haman did. Most of the other biblical villains don't get characterized as much or get a motive other than Pride.
On Fantomas.
edited 14th Sep '13 11:44:56 AM by TommyFresh
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Exactly. Haman is antiquity's answer to Tarkin or Umbridge. He's not a king, an evil god or even a harsh good god - he's a perfectly normal person who just happens to have a lot of power and a willingness to use it to hurt people.
edited 14th Sep '13 11:43:59 AM by HamburgerTime
Oh, also writeup time.
- William Shakespeare has produced timeless works with quite the incredible and diverse output. From some of his plays have come villains who are impressive in their depravity centuries later.
- Honest Iago from Othello is one of the most famous examples of this trope in English Literature. A bitter Venetian officer who resents the promotion of another man over him by his commander, the Moor Othello, Iago schemes for revenge by ingratiating himself with Othello and driving him to madness with insinuations his beloved wife Desdemona is having an affair with the officer Cassio. Iago undermines Othello while acting as his friend. Iago murders his accomplice and even his own wife to cover for himself, and at the end, convinces Othello to murder Desdemona. At the end, Iago displays no remorse and refuses to speak one word more in his whole life. Through the play, Iago goes through various motives for his evil: racism, envy suspicion Othello is sleeping with his own wife...but at the end he simply concludes there is no motive. He simply enjoys this.
- Richard III of the titular play is one of the most famous examples of a Historical Villain Upgrade in English drama. Richard informs us early on that he is determined to prove a villain and ruin the day for everyone else. To that end, he seduces Anne Neville, whose noble husband he himself murdered, with every intent of discarding her later. He has his brother George, Duke of Clarence, sent to the Tower of London and murdered, drives his older brother King Edward IV into an early grave and has Edward's two young sons imprisoned in the Tower of London, before having them murdered. He poisons Anne herself,and even begins having his allies killed. On the night before his battle with Henry Tudor, he is visited by the spirits of his victims, who tell him to despair and die. Richard is left alone, deserted by all, and at the end, he admits that even he has nothing but hatred for himself.
edited 17th Sep '13 2:57:59 PM by Lightysnake
The Iago example misused the trope "Poisonous Friend". The trope means: someone who is willing to do things for a friend, that the friend is not willing to do.
The correct trope there would, I'm guessing, be Gaslighting.
In that case:
- In Nomine
- Kobal, Demon Prince of Dark Humor, goes above and beyond the usual Demon Prince malice with his sense of humor. He was responsible for the Children's Crusade, and his attitude towards Christopher (Archangel of Children) is best described with "Can't you take a joke?"
- Lucifer himself. Aside from sharing Kobal's sense of humor, and having a tendency to do just about everything because It Amused Me (both when he gives boons and dooms, and it's not certain which is better), his section in the Infernal Players' Guide (IIRC, since IDHMBWM) suggests that this guy is the one who enjoys the despair and degradation of humanity more than anyone else. The example I remember is that, when divorce papers are signed and the marriage is irrevocably ruined, he's sitting in the back of the courtroom with a smile on his face.
(Note: This game is heavily subject to Alternate Character Interpretation. I'm trying to go with the books' middle-road interpretations as best I can.)
The above entries need to flesh out their deeds way more. Lucifer also doesn't seem nearly as heinous to qualify for this based on that alone
And I changed Poisonous Friend to False Friend
New write-ups look good Lightysnake.
On the subject of Haman—if the forum decides we want to keep him, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we had an actual debate on the subject, that takes into account the fact that the Israelites and their deity are near as bad, and that we are dealing with a time period when mass slaughter, genocide, enslavement, and rape are "in" and compassion is out. Personally, I don't think he qualifies (I think the heinous standard in The Bible is too high for anybody to qualify, quite frankly), but he's bad enough that I'm not going to be horrified if he ends up staying.
Lizzid people!
But, wait, if Richard III has hatred for himself, isn't that a redeeming factor?
Acknowledgment of being a bastard isn't that mitigating if you carry on being a villain and only get worse and worse
I don't think self-loathing is a redeeming factor.
edited 14th Sep '13 3:04:06 PM by TommyFresh
Consider what happens next, btw.
Richard doesn't realize he's a monster and that he wants to be a better person. He's not sorry about it and he's not remorseful. HE realizes how empty the pursuit of power is, but he's simply gone from a cheerfully evil person who's delighted in malevolence to a colder figure who feels no enjoyment but doesn't stop.
He even gives a speech to his men the next day where he says "Conscience is a word that cowards use," indicating how not sorry he is.
Foreign Troper
Let's talk about George Orwell's Animal Farm, shall we?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/AnimalFarm
My 2 cents on the 3 exampes:
Napoleon: Keep, keep, keep. Definitely. He misuses Old Majors Dream to seize power, manipulates all the dumbwitted animals into worshipping him, kidnaps puppies from their families to raise them as his private army, frames his loyal ally Snowball in order to gain complete control, holds kangaroo-courts in which he executes each and everyone who dares to speak against him and more. The most heinous thing he does is selling poor Boxer to the knacker, because he has almost worked himself to death for him and is of no more good use.
Squealer: Leaning towards keep as well. He plotted with Napoleon from the beginning, changes the rules when it fits him and is the main instrument in terms of manipulation. One could say he isn't as heinous as Napoleon, but I say he pretty much gives it his best shot.
Film!Pincher: Leaning towards cut. The guy was manipulated by Squealer and Napoleon from the very beginning and might have really thought giving his puppies to them is whats best for them.
edited 14th Sep '13 3:21:06 PM by Forenperser
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian
Napoleon's an obvious keep. Squealer I'm iffy on as he just acts as Napoleon's will and propaganda man generally.
Third example cut
I don't even remember Pincher's role in the film. I remember the dogs being more prominent due to the viewpoint character being changed from Clover the horse to Jessie the dog, but Pincher I can't recall.
Squealer I'm iffy on as well. He's Beadle Bamford to Napoleon's Judge Turpin, and I get the feeling that, as someone earlier in the thread described Bamford, "He never had a thought his boss didn't have first." On the other hand he seems more heinous than Bamford to me. He's an expy of the Soviet Propaganda Minister whose name escapes me at the moment but who I recall reading was nearly as big a piece of work as Stalin himself.
edited 14th Sep '13 3:32:35 PM by HamburgerTime
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you... the post that never ends.
Re Cal Leandros: Okay, my final opinion is keep Darkling, Hobgoblin, and Sawney Beane, cut Abbagor and Cherish. Abbagor sounds awful but given his limited screentime, there are other villains who sound worse than him, and the fact that we don't know if all trolls behave the same way he does, I'd be uneasy listing him. As for Cherish, no matter how cruel or petty she is in her actions, and no matter how thoroughly she traumatizes one of the characters, the fact remains that it is within her power to do a lot more and all she does is try to kill the heroes and one other character.
@16244: No to Tron for the reasons HT gave @15245. Likewise, I support a wait and see on Vector, who sounds far worse and far more likely to qualify provided he doesn't get any redeeming qualities in the meantime.
@16246: Film examples:
- Tommy Udo: Having read the wiki entry for The Kiss of Death, I'm gonna have to vote against him. He kills the elderly mother of someone he believes betrayed him and attempts to kill the hero, but that sounds like all he does. The hero sounds worried that Udo may go after his loved ones but the wiki entry never makes it clear if that's Udo's plan. I don't really think he sounds sufficiently heinous enough.
- Cut Alex and cut the people who tortured him.
- Cliffhanger: Cut all those examples unless someone can come in here and present good arguments for their inclusion.
@16249: Sounds like Dr. Hatch counts provided that's all onscreen.
@16258: Good entry for Constantius and Salome.
@16259: Cut Mitchell from The Cook The Thief His Wife And Her Lover since he sounds overshadowed by his boss.
@16269: Much better entries for Tavington and Middle-Eye.
@16273: Also, excellent entries for Akron, Zola and Langiva.
@16278: Great Fouchet entry.
@16299: Excellent Atropos entry.
@16304: Agree with Camberf on DuBois. She doesn't count, like, at all. Being a threat is different than not being Played for Laughs.
@16307: I'll vote no to YHVH (since, as you say, he does seem to have some standards) and yes to Captain Jack and Jack's write-up @16324. I'll also vote yes on Serph Sheffield based on what verymelon found out about him @16314. Provided all of this is onscreen though, which it sounds like it would be. Good work finding that melon.
@16308: Good entry for Bathsheba and the Darker Than Black examples, however, I'm not sure about the Spartacus series examples. Tullius sounds like he does a lot of petty, douchebag moves, but killing Gaia seems like the only sufficiently heinous action he does—unless he kills Gannicus in the swordfight or ruining Titus's sons plans leads to a lot of deaths. Cossutius sounds vile but from the picture I'm painting of this society, I have to ask how horrible most Romans are. After all, Cossutius is merely the first person to torture the Gladiator at the Roman party for entertainment, there's no mention made that all other Romans refuse to partake in this activity, or find anything unusual about it at all. So I have to ask, are all Romans like this and we're just not shown their depravity, or are the other Romans disgusted by these actions, because as it stands it sounds like rape, torture and murder are kind of common for the Romans.
@16314: I'll vote no to Makihasa Tohno, since his moral agency is hindered by his schizophrenia and demonic blood, and also because he seems to care about his son. It certainly sounds like Nero Chaos would count in any other work, but if it's true that his behavior is rather common for his kind, then he's probably a cut also.
@16327: Yeah, sounds like Simon Phoenix counts. It's not moral standards so much as it is the stifling of his potential that he opposes.
@16334: Yes, cut the Kingpin.
@16337: That's a very good write-up for Commodus. I'd be happy with that being on the film page. Agree that the Goebbels should be cut.
@16340: It sounds like Gyp Rosetti is the only villain from Boardwalk Empire who counts. And I approve of your write-up for him @16413. Definitely agree that Mickey Cohen and Gaear Grimsrud counts. In addition to burning three of his goons alive in one of his hotels, it should be noted that the hotel he burned was the base where Cohen had girls kidnapped, got them addicted to drugs, then used them as forced prostitution. Cohen also has a peaceful gangster emissary from Chicago killed, by having his top and bottom halves chained to two cars then pulled apart in the very beginning of the movie. This is in addition to all of the generic gangster actions he pulls such as having two of the heroes killed, ordering hits on other gangsters which result in mass civilian casualties, and setting off a car bomb in an occupied Chinatown in an attempt to kill the aforementioned squad.
@16396: Both Ra Sidh and Thoth sound like they qualify.
@16398: Think we had a consensus to cut Wah Sing Ku for exactly that reason, and for also not being heinous enough. Miss Minchin we've discussed repeatedly and also ruled to cut her. If she's still on there I'll make a request on the edit a locked page forum to have her cut.
@16413: Wow. Impressive work, lighty. All those entries look great man. My only suggestion is to expand Cohen's deeds: the sexual slavery, the evisceration of a peaceful emissary, the drive-bys, and the Chinatown bombing.
@16418: While I wouldn't hold pragmatic reasons for doing good things against a possible candidate, I will agree with what Hodor and Ambar said about how a villain not engaging in cruelty merely because it never occurred to them, aren't as horrible as villains actively trying to keep their evil inclinations in check in order to not ruin their own plans. So I'll have to vote against Lord Dyran since whatever methods he uses stops him from being much worse than others in the series.
@16420: Literature Examples:
- Howard DeVore: Should be kept with lightysnake's rewrite @16440.
- Gregory Grue: Cut until someone can elaborate on his crimes.
- Garren: Same as Grue, cut until elaboration is provided.
- Clay Shaw: Ew. I got nothing since I can't tell if his contempt is "I'm so much better than you freaks"-hypocrisy or genuine moral standards.
- Ray: Keep with lighty's rewrite @16440.
@16432: More Film examples:
- Dr. Merrick from TheIsland: He's not a Well-Intentioned Extremist. Everything he does, he does because of a god complex. Also, there's the fact that the clones he cuts up for their organs aren't even supposed to be sentient, the rest of the world believes them to be braindead which is why they permit them being used as organ donors. I'd say keep.
- Kyung-Chul Jang: Keep with lighty's rewrite @16440.
- TheIncident: It really sounds like the two don't do anything than psychologically torment their victims. If that's all then I'll have to vote to cut.
- LincolnLawyer, LawAbidingCitizen, and Irréversible examples all sound like fine keepers.
@16437: Agree with cutting Ygor from those Frankenstein movies. His killing of the jurors is understandable since they all sentenced him to die and it's unclear if he has a loved one in the Monster.
@16440: Once again, very good entries.
Re William Shakespeare examples:
- King Lear:
- Goneril and Regan: Cut for being insufficiently heinous.
- Edmond: Cut for having an Alas, Poor Villain and regretting his actions.
- Cornwall: Sounds disgusting, but since blinding a man is the only heinous thing he does onscreen... also cut. No matter how enthusiastic he is about it, it's still not heinous enough on its own.
- Iago from Othello: Keep
- Richard III: Keep.
- Angelo from Measure for Measure: Leaning towards cut since it sounds like the attitude the play adopts to him is that he might be redeemed.
@16476: Yeah, none of that really matters regarding Katz. The point is the show itself never suggests his moral agency is in question due to animal instincts. Besides the show isn't exactly grounded in reality and with the real-life behavior of animals (what with the talking animals and monsters running around).
@16505: Oooooooohhhhh... Why is it anything remotely religious being discussed automatically makes me feel like Yosemite Sam realizing he's not standing on ground, but rather on the air over a vast chasm? Anyway, put like that I can see your point about how the heinous standard is pretty high there and that Values Dissonance can influence why a person behaves a certain way... yeah, I can see cutting Haman based on that. No matter what way you slice it, or for what reason he tried to have it done, he's not the only one who tried to commit genocide, just the only one to attempt it without any redeeming features.
@16516: I can see Fantomas counting.
@16519: Good write-ups there.
@16529: Cut everyone but Napolean.
Ok, since I got five votes for my Joker rewrite, I'll submit that to the edit locked pages forum by tomorrow at midnight, so long as nobody objects.
edited 14th Sep '13 3:38:29 PM by OccasionalExister
Actually, you might have a point about Tulliuss, it was just that he was the most vile Roman seen to that point. for Cossutius...while admittedly the torture bit is common, Cossutius does it with more zeal and enjoyment than most. The thing with Diona is what I feel qualifies him most, though. Even Lucretia, her Domina, is pretty disturbed by it and it's made enormously heinous in story. The focus on Diona doesn't help. Cossutius selects her specifically to hurt her as bad as he can hurt someone and goes over and above in that.
For Kiss Of Death I also disagree that Tommy Udo is insufficiently heinous. Killing someone who betrayed you is one thing. Going and murdering his elderly wheelchair bound mother is quite another. And he makes it quite clear he will go after the hero's kids as well.
Also another point on Abbagor...we do see other people he has trapped within his body, that he's keeping alive. While trolls are predatory, I should reiterate Abbagor's doing this strictly for amusement, not food.
edited 14th Sep '13 4:22:36 PM by Lightysnake
Unofficial Wiki Curator for Complete Monster
Animal Farm: Pincher and the other dogs were more mindless muscle, and Squealer was no Napoleon, so . But DEFINITE on Napoleon. I mean, I know No Real Life monsters, but Napoleon Was Joseph Stalin for crying out loud.
for Napoleon on Squealer and Pincher.
edited 14th Sep '13 4:43:58 PM by TommyFresh
Avatar by Leafsnake
Regarding Animal Farm: Napoleon is the only keeper.
Well Transformers: Prime has ended and I'd like to go over Silas. He meets the heinous standard, but goes out on an Alas, Poor Villain moment. He's been extensively experimented on by the Decepticons against his will, and then turned into a raging zombie. When he's finally put down, he smiles and gives a genuine thank you to his killer (who ignores it), as he dies. The finale has also shed more light on Unicron and Megatron, but I'll wait for it to become more well known.
Lizzid people!
I have a question on Judge Doom. For those who may not know, there was a graphic novel that was published after Who Framed Roger Rabbit called The Resurrection of Doom. It stated that Judge Doom was once a Toon named Baron Von Rotten who played a villain in countless films. There was an accident on stage that caused Von Rotten to have a concussion and believe that he really was a villain. Does this novel disqualify him or is it noncanonical?
Complete Monster Debates Tracker seems to have been forgotten.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman