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
"keeping a child locked up in a shed and forced to experience constant abuse of his mother seems bad enough. Exposure to domestic violence is considered abuse in more than one jurisdiction."
In real life it would land him in jail, as well it should. But in fiction? And when talking about this list? We're talking about a guy who has one victim, two if you stretch it. We've repeatedly cut or shot down candidates who have a victim pool that small, and I see no reason not to do it in this case. This is a list for bonda fide monsters, and this guy just doesn't seem big enough to me.
As for not caring if the child dies at all, as the OP noted, he feeds the kid, and provides a television for entertainment. Now if he really is a Complete Monster, why do that? He doesn't want to rape or abuse the kid the way he does the mother. He doesn't beat the mother in front of the kid. He doesn't seem to regard the kid as property. If anything it seems like he all but ignores the kid. Yet he still keeps him warm and fed (and withdrawing those for trying to escape is bog-standard villainy). If he has no reason to want the kid around (not even for control of the mother) than what is that but an altruistic act?
"I can think of no possible reason not to keep him."
You've said this a few times recently, and it worries me. Our goal here isn't to put up everyone that there are no immediately objections to. It's to put up the worst of the worst, and this guy just doesn't cut it. We need reasons why the character should qualify and I'm not seeing them here. He's got one victim. We've never put up a character with only one victim and we shouldn't start now. I get that this example outrages you for whatever reason, but let's not throw out years of work.
edited 12th Dec '13 5:58:07 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
This is different from one murder or rape in a series with nasty people already. This character holds a woman hostage for years with nightly rapes. That's not just one crime there.
Glancing at Wiki, he also decides to let the kid die when he's supposedly sick. For providing them food and the most basic stimulation with a TV, why not? I don't see how that's a bar to this. It keeps them complacent and judging by the mother's love of her son (giving his feelings range to "utter apathy" from everything I'm finding).
And we've 'never put up a character with only one victim?' We judge things by quality and quantity both. In this case, we're putting up the worst of the worst, so someone who is guilty of torture and rape going on for years, then they sure can qualify for me. If we need a reason why the character should qualify, my instant response is "Keeping a woman enslaved and raping her nightly." Putting up someone with a small victim pool isn't unprecedented here, either as long as they do enough with what they have Joshua Wright comes instantly to mind. Little Lou Manzi as well.
edited 12th Dec '13 6:11:27 PM by Lightysnake
![]()
While I understand your desire to limit examples to the worst of the worst, I have to agree with lighty on this one. If it was just one murder, then it'd completely understandable for a character to not meet the heinous standard. A single rape on it's own probably wouldn't meet the heinous standard either. But when it's done continuously, night after night for over five years, I think the crime becomes elevated to a whole new level, even if there only is one victim. I think the level of abuse matters more than if only one woman is the victim of it. Personally, I believe it's enough to meet the universal heinous standard, and since the heinous standard of the work itself is limited to only his crimes, I believe he counts.
I also find it hard to picture giving food and a television as redeeming qualities. It makes sense that he would want to keep his captives complacent someway, to deter escape attempts if nothing else. Deciding to let the kid die seems to confirm he just doesn't care at all about the kid.
edited 12th Dec '13 7:15:15 PM by OccasionalExister
@ Slender Man's Daughter - Nothing you said changes anything. The Observer lacks the moral agency to count, he only operates under the Administrator's command which also disqualifies him (since everything you listed against him was on the Administrator's orders, such as Mr. Scars killing Cursor), and being a Troll is not a qualifier for a Complete Monster.
The only thing you could hold against him to qualify is making Noah kill someone, and that's ambiguous as hell, not to mention that a single assisted murder falls far short of the baseline heinousness required for this trope.
@Exister and Lightysnake
It's not that I don't understand your viewpoints (and I'll note that the OP at no point mentioned that the candidate was willing to let the child die; if you're going to propose an example tell us things like that), but it still just doesn't work for me. Even with this new information, the candidate is only utterly vile to one person and apathetic towards another. I need more than that in order to put someone on the list.
And before someone tries to claim it, recall that I have no issue with putting Domestic Abuser types on the list. I'm the one who got us to keep Rich Marshall from Whale Talk, after all. In that case, however, the candidate had a pattern of abuse—he was awful to his wife, to his daughter, and to anyone else who he got in his power, and we saw enough of him to confirm this. It doesn't seem like that's the case here.
As for the other one victim character that Lightysnake mentions, I barely remember the discussion of either of them, so I won't comment on that.
edited 12th Dec '13 7:20:41 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I have a question about Purple Man, in this wiki entry for his daughter, Kara Killgrave AKA Persuasion, it is mentioned that Purple Man used his mind control powers to force a woman named Melanie into marrying him, eventually fell in love with her and released her from his thrall to see if she loved him back. Of course she did not and left him, taking their child with her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion_(comics)
Can anyone confirm whether this is the case, that Purple Man loved someone besides himself? Or does the fact that Purple Man mind controlled and raped this woman call into question whether Purple Man actually loved her at all?
I can't really confirm that one, but I should note that's about 20 years before Kilgrave was revamped by Brian Michael Bendis into the CM we know him as today so I'm inclined to let it pass.
- Complete Monster: Oooh boy, Uday, where do we begin? He picks schoolgirls off the street to have sex with them, then kills them and dumps their bodies in the desert, and abducts a bride from her wedding just to have his way with her. He even cuts a man's stomach clean open just for calling him a faggot (though he already didn't like him anyway for causing his mother anguish by providing his father with concubines of his own).
The entry clearly states he loves his mother.
Also, on the Dirty Harry YMMV page, was it decided to cut the pimp and Bobby Maxwell?
Reading tropes such as You Know What You Did
On the first page it's discussed on whether the author intended a character to be a Complete Monster. With that in mind would it be fair to say Walt Williams intended this for Walker and the player themselves for Spec Ops The Line?
- Edit: Just after posting this looks to be well covered under Intended Audience Reaction.
edited 12th Dec '13 8:36:48 PM by tsstevens
Currently reading up My Rule Fu Is Stronger than YoursJust so we're clear, player characters can't be Complete Monsters while under the players control. I would also get a damn good source on what the author intended first.
Although to be truthful, I wouldn't put Complete Monster under any other tropes if the character isn't already listed, which a quick fact check shows to be the case here.
edited 12th Dec '13 10:23:15 PM by Shaoken
Since the Joker entry has its own page, shouldn't the YMMV page for The Joker have a short entry linking to it instead? Right now it's just the same thing as on the subpage.
Literally JUST took care of that.
EDIT: Another (mostly) single-target monster: Zander Rice. And speaking of Xmen, someone added this to Wolverine's YMMV: The anime has Hideki Kurohagi, a Smug Snake who is perfectly willing to execute people with nerve toxins for minor failures, hide behind his own fiancée to save his skin, slap said fiancée around for still wanting her boyfriend before she was kidnapped by her father for this Arranged Marriage, and who murdered his own father to seize control of his criminal empire.
Sounds like a jerk, but Complete Monster? I'm not sure.
edited 13th Dec '13 2:20:33 AM by ACW
Yes. Pimp had insufficient characterization while Maxwell fell short on the heinousness scale compared to the Scorpio Killer, IIRC.
All your safe space are belong to TrumpMy posts are so few and far between.
Anyway... I have a proposal.
Can we re-evaluate General Tarkin (The Order of the Stick)? In light of his more recent actions, I'd say he actually does qualify for this trope.
Considering that he killed one of his sons, and is willing to mutilate and emotionally torment his other one.
No way, Voyd. His motivations are explored and the more we see of him, the less convinced I am that he's a monster as opposed to a sadly deluded man whose worldview is being shattered around his feet. He's nowhere near comparable to Xykon, who is the bar for The Order Of The Stick.
Also, I'd like to throw in a general comment about the Domestic Abuser. There seems to be a viewpoint out there shared by a number of people that such folks are automatically irredeemable scumbags who deserve classification up there with serial killers and genocidal maniacs. This is a highly reactionary stance and it is not in any way aligned with our concept of the Complete Monster trope.
edited 13th Dec '13 7:00:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Tarquin DOES seem to love his son, and apparently he WAS friends with Malack. Tatquin is one of those 99% monsters though. As for Xykon, it's funny, he seems like a typical fantasy villain to me.
EDIT: I'll work on Archie Comics' Sonic the Hedgehog this weekend (a few minor changes). Could someone please set up a Sandbox? What about the Marvel ones? X-Men own page, Punisher and Spidey just keep the folders?
edited 13th Dec '13 7:26:22 AM by ACW
![]()
Now, I'm wondering if we should remove Mephiles and add him to Video Games And Visual Novels (was he voted on?) and just make that Sandbox for the comics.
edited 13th Dec '13 12:19:21 PM by ACW
And I'm not sure if he does. seems somewhat Generic Doomsday Villain-y.
EDIT: Think I'll keep Punisher and Spidey in folders, but give X-Men its own subpage.
edited 13th Dec '13 1:08:38 PM by ACW
As for General Tarquin. It's too early to say there. That said, he may be going down that path. Tarquin has been responsible for a ton of war, torture, tyranny, attempted (And possibly successful) rape, manipulation, and other things, like Nale's death. I think he breaches the heinous standard handily, all things considered.
That said, his feelings towards other people are ambiguous. Tarquin seems to view human beings as 'tropes' in his grand story. Everyone's function is as a plotline for him. He's a Control Freak extraordinaire, but the niggling details...his feelings for Elan, Malack and Nale. Nale firmly brought that shit on himself after Tarquin made every effort to get him to see reason.
So right now:
on General Tarquin

So he doesn't abuse the child? (keeping a child locked up in a shed and forced to experience constant abuse of his mother seems bad enough. Exposure to domestic violence is considered abuse in more than one jurisdiction.)
We are left with a character who kidnaps a woman, rapes her until she has a child, keeps her captive to abuse and rape her further on a nightly basis, and doesn't seem to care if the child dies at all. We seem to learn plenty about his character from the wikipedia page and they escape from the room later on, so he features more outside of it.
I can think of no possible reason not to keep him.