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
Arms Dealer work for Peetman?
EDIT: Cool. And I'll wrap "Ass" in Ambassador around...well, "ambassador"
I'll slot those two after Wingfield, but same tree.
Edited by ACW on Aug 22nd 2020 at 6:16:19 AM
![]()
By that logic we need to remove Junko Enoshima because according to her killing thousands of people and mind-breaking the survivors into despair is good because losing all hope makes you free. I don't see any evidence that he cared for Michael himself as a person; he just wants to make Michael as fucked up and sociopathic as he is which is not a redeeming quality even if he's crazy enough to think being a serial rapist is a good thing. The "he was lonely" thing is also common predator behavior; lonely and unhappy people are much easier marks.
Edited by WaryHoglet on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:23:54 AM
Depends I guess. For example, I read a book with a vampire named Christopher who really was a friendly neighborhood vampire but his much more murder inclined brother found a girl for them to kill as he wanted him to become a real vampire but he did that as he really thought that would make his brother happier.
. Context is important as even really evil dudes can think their helping due to having odd mindsets.....
Not saying it applies here. Just bringing up that point.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."Real life abusers can truly care about and want to "be nice" to their targets, as well, can they not? So by that very logic of "real life predators behave this way", it's just as easy to say, in his fucked up mind, Leo truly thought he was doing something "nice" by "sharing" his sadistic love of rape with someone.
Look, I said I was abstaining, and I'm sticking to that. There's no point in arguing about it when I'm not even trying to keep him off the trope, just saying that there's enough reasonable doubt for me to not vote either way.
@ACW: All sounds good!
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!
This thread is for discussing CM canidates. I disagreed with your point so I gave my counterargument. Not trying to force you to vote for a character from a show I've never seen.
And yes abusers often do care for their targets and there are plenty of villains that have been disqualified from this trope because they clearly do care about their loved ones, just in a really twisted abusive way (Cersei Lannister is the big one there), but to me this just seems like a sociopath finding an easy mark to prey on without any real genuine feelings.
Edited by WaryHoglet on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:40:08 AM
I'm getting pretty tired of the "If you say this, we have to cut Junko" lines. That and ones about Ego have gone on for years. They are exceptional cases. If this guy seems to genuinely think he did right by Michael, then he's fucked in the head but in his own manner he genuinely cares for him, even if everything he does is objectively bad for the guy. Ravok doesn't need to be criticized for taking a stance.
Yes to Deprave and Don Enrique. Abstain on Leo. As I have never seen the show. No to Dee.
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup threadI'm cool with him going up, this is definitely going to be one though, since it's a highlighted concern, if we have to cut him later because of this quality, I'm going to be frustrated.
mir makes a good point that it might not be a disqualifier but we've also had very similar cases where people with a screwed up morality system haven't counted.
Edited by 43110 on Aug 22nd 2020 at 6:44:20 AM
Disagreement /=/ critcizing him personally but otherwise I get your point. It's just that everything that's been said so far feels very much like, again, a sociopath finding an easy mark. If he outright said "Michael had a really hard life and this is what's going to make him better" or something than I'd agree he shouldn't go up, but it seems like that argument is built entirely on Alternate Character Interptation (although I haven't seen the show so I can't say for sure obviously.)
I hear you but the "What about Junko" is always going to cause concern for me, given comparisons to her literally have more examples of that phrase being misused rather than accurately attributed. I'm sure you didn't mean anything offensive or aggressive or whatnot Wary but it's a precedent that's worth scrutinizing when it's brought up.
Considering I only started being active on this site about 6 months ago I don't think it's entirely fair to assign me the history of this thread; I had never seen "what about Junko: used before I made it myself a few minutes ago. But I will try to be more careful about "Then we have to cut X" wording in the future.
Edited by WaryHoglet on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:55:31 AM
BIG thanks to Lighty for letting me do this.
From 1966's Rasputin the Mad Monk, we have a gleefully hammy Christopher Lee as, well, Rasputin the Mad Monk.
Who is he and what has he done?
Rasputin barges into a tavern, wanting alcohol, but the keeper's wife is sick. He cures her, and gets drunk. He makes out with a woman, but is attacked buy her boyfriend. He cuts the latter's hand off; while this is self-defense, he then tries to rape the woman, before getting chased off,
He later meets Sonia, and after she laughs at him, she apologizes the next day...at which point Rasputin tells her to kneel, then slaps her. He discovers she is lady-in-waiting to the Tsarina. Rasputin seduces/hypnotizes her.
He has hypnotized her to have the Tsarina's young son have a (non-fatal) accident, then call him to heal said son.
He manipulates the Tsarina, and for fun has her appoint Rasputin's friend Boris Zargo as her personal physician.
When he tires of Sonia, he cruelly dismisses her, and hypnotizes her to "destroy yourself".
Sonia's brother Peter challenges Rasputin; he has a sword, but is hopelessly outmatched, and gets acid thrown in his face.
Rasputin's finally killed, but takes Boris with him.
Heinousness?
Chops a man's hand off (albeit in self-defense); attempted rape; injuring a child; Psychic-Assisted Suicide; painful death by acid...it's close, but I think he JUST clears it
Redeeming Qualities?
Not really. He healed the innkeepers wife, but there's no indication this was done out of the goodness of his heart. Any other good deed is to show his power and is for his benefit. Other than that, nothing.
Conclusion?
It's close, but I think he JUST clears the standard.
I THINK I got everything.
Edited by ACW on Aug 22nd 2020 at 7:03:21 AM
Yes to Rasputin. How many CMs has Lee played now?
Edited by Bullman on Aug 22nd 2020 at 6:14:31 AM
Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread
ra ra Rasputin.Lover of the Russian queen. There was a cat that really was gone.
If your curious my father owns this CD and plays it a lot that I can say the song even off the top of my head.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."My own Rasputin, from the film Rasputin and the Empress, from 1932 starring Lionel Barrymore as the Mad Monk:
Who is Rasputin?
When Prince Alexis 'Alyosha' Romanov is sick and the royal physician powerless to save him, who should stop by but the Mad Monk Grigori Rasputin? Alexei is sick with hemophilia...but Rasputin hypnotizes, makes him forget his agony without actually healing him and makes the kid a slave to his will.
Rasputin proceeds to gain influence over the royal family, eliminating others and replacing them with his own loyal followers, with his intent to gain dominion over all Russia. A lecherous drunk, Rasputin is strongly implied to hypnotize women into becoming his lovers, using blackmail and secret police to eliminate more of his rivals. Princess Natasha tries to have the captain of the guard Paul kill Rasputin (who's wearing a metal breastplate but still has a follower become a shield for him), but Rasputin survives and eventually uses his influence to steer Russia into World War 1 so he can tighten his grip, killing countless civlians. Natasha later catches Rasputin scheming against the Grand Duchess, prompting Rasputin to attempt to hypnotize and rape her.
Realizing Rasputin has grown too powerful, the Czar sends for Paul who poisons Rasputin. With Rasputin poisoned, Paul savagely beats him, furious for all those Rasputin has used and murdered. The two battle out into the snow, with Rasputin vowing if he dies, the Czar will soon follow. Paul throws the broken Rasputin into the frozenwaters, Rasputin sinking to a watery grave..but his last curse/prophecy soon comes to pass with the Bolshevik uprising.
Any mitigating qualities?
No. Rasputin is a murdering fraud who starts World War 1 in this movie. He's an attempted rapist (fun fact? This scene was so controversial it prompted a lawsuit from relatives of some of the Russian family portrayed, prompting the 'all resemblances to persons living or dead fictitious disclaimer)...he has no care for anyone. Unlike Lee's Rasputin, Lionel's is more pathetic, a loathsome, animalistic drunk who thrives on lust and a hunger for power.
Conclusion?
Easy keeper to Russia' greatest love machine.

He outright says he was "trying to help" because he thought Michael was "lonely" and he thought Michael would find it "beautiful."
It's fucked up and hey, maybe if I ever watch the show I'll change my mind, but I'm seeing zero actual proof that it was selfish and non-redeeming at all except interpretations.
Edited by Ravok on Aug 22nd 2020 at 3:15:01 AM
No! That is NOT Solid Snake! Stop impersonating him!