Discussion Main / MagnificentBastard

Any new subpages have to be discussed on the Magnificent Bastard Cleanup Thread first.

As for Kirby, there's no need to make a page for that series yet. The general rule of thumb is that a franchise needs at least eight entries to get its own Magnificent Bastard page, and Kirby still falls short.

Okay. Understood.

I don't know but it had outright contradictory statements throughout it so that's why it's gone.

Can you come up with some examples?

For starters it said it precluded Guile Hero and later on that it could include Guile Hero on the same page. The whole thing was full of statements in disagreement with each other and far too general to focus on what a trope should be.

But this page is shit. It’s pure unadulterated shit. With this new definition, anyone could be a magnificent bastard as long as their smart and charming. Light and lelouch could EASILY pass for magnificent bastard but they were cut so many characters could, Walter white, Cinder Falls, Heath ledger’s Joker, the list is endless, but these are characters that are smug snakes and complete monsters. They can’t be magnificent bastards, but under these new rules, they could also be considered magnificent bastards. It’s retarded and you know it. The new page just should come back with some mild revamping. :)

Don't use the word "retarded", please.

I'm... not bothering to engage this one anymore...

Edit: Taking it to the thread, I'll let them decide as a whole if we think this needs an ATT or anything.

That requires TRS along with proof that it needs a rename.

This thread if you'd like to discuss his potential qualifications, pal.

It's a trope with multiple facets worth analyzing and talking about before just putting an example up. I disagree about it being the "positive" version of Complete Monster and I don't see the issue with lifting the CM cleanup thread's effort post system for another trope it is useful for.

I'm referring to the proposed characters being required to be taken up with a dedicated cleanup thread to even have an entry considered, very heavy restrictions on when a trope can be mentioned in reference to a character anywhere outside of the actual entry, unapproved examples being terminated with extreme prejudice, Playing with a Trope not being allowed, and the length of the resulting writeups due to the cleanup thread (some of the more elaborate entries are S-grade literature in their own right IMO). Normally I wouldn't draw a parallel between the two tropes, but seeing what seems to me to be similar levels of strictness in the maintenance of both tropes, it made me think about the contrast in what the two tropes stand for (CM being the ultimate damnation of a character (negative) while this trope inspires admiration in a character's cunning ("positive")) in respect the similar levels of restrictions on both tropes. Of course some characters can be both but there's still a heinousness ceiling for a Magnificient Bastard so that's why I put "positive" in quotes. And I don't seriously mean this trope being a "positive" version of CM, it was just how I feel due to factors surrounding them.

tl;dr i draw parallels between two tropes that normally wouldn't evoke such comparisons, because of similarities in how they're maintained.

Is there any character trope that's more strictly maintained, curated, and restricted than the Complete Monster and Magnificient Bastard? Do tell.

Fair enough, anyways Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard are the only tropes being handled in this format. Don't think anything else has anywhere near as strict a procedure as they do.

Why don't you use a search engine?

I don't think we ever discussed Riddick, he was likely just cut because a case was never made. If you'd like to see him up, come here and follow the instructions on how to propose a candidate posted in the folder heading each page.

The criteria we use to judge the trope have shifted a bit in the past few years. Riddick would qualify now in the same way as Todd.

The link seems to be broken

Yeah, broken links in the discussion pages that's been a problem ever since the big site update. I think that's still being worked on, as it's a big problem if you're trying to link to a thread discussion like this.

Not quite. Magnificent Bastard can be proud of his magnificence, it's just when it's Smug Snake it's seen as Pride Before a Fall While if it's Magnificent Bastard it comes of as Awesome Ego.

I think that main difference is that the Manipulative Bastard just manipulates people personally. The Magnificent Bastard also manipulates people, but can also improvises on the fly, has traits of The Chessmaster (who is better at manipualting events), and does it all with style.

Manipulative Bastard is basically any character that manipulates others to achieve his/her goal. While Magnificent Bastard can and usually is Manipulative Bastard he's also a Chess Master, he controls events as well as people, at least half of the plot he's connected with is part of his plan, and above all he's got style. Some Magnificent Bastard has probably planned ahead that you would be reading this. The thing is Magnificent Bastard may be unlikable in "love to hate" way, so just because some people don't like them doesn't nessecarily eliminate them as Magnificent Bastard.

It says on the page that "one person's Magnificent Bastard can be another person's Smug Snake, Complete Monster or Villain Sue". So somebody can potentially see the Bastard as someone who fails at doing what they claim to be able to do, someone who crosses the Moral Event Horizon or someone who succeeds so many times that it breaks the Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

Take Naoya from Devil Survivor for example. (I know, it's not the best example, since Shin Megami Tensei is relatively obscure, but I digress.) He has the requirements to be a Magnificent Bastard (although he's not quite as manipulative in terms of emotions), and a lot of people like him, but other people think he's just a Jerkass.

And from what I understand, a master manipulator would be along the lines of a Manipulative Bastard or Chessmaster. Note that these aren't YMMV tropes. The Magnificent Bastard is both of them as well, but he's able to improvise.

</ramble>

But isn't every character trope subjective?

Yeah, but I think other character types are more...definite?

In any case, the Magnificent Bastard is probably a YMMV trope because he shares similarities with the Smug Snake and Villain Sue (or Complete Monster, up to you), so whether a character's a Magnificent Bastard or not depends on how the viewer sees his actions and role and stuff.

The reason why this is subjective is because of the fact that mostly, it is an audience reaction cencerning whether or not that character is Magnificent from the your point of view. Basically a Magnificent Bastard is a manipulator that you personally think is magnificent.

Still confusing why not removed ymmv.

I have no idea. There is now a thread in Special Efforts dedicated to maintaining Real Life sections, but it's less about "this section has some natter/a controversial example/a stealth troper tale and we should clean it up" and more about "this is technically a villain trope, cut the real life section".

If you think that everyone ("one earth" at that) sees Napoleon Bonaparte and Alexander The Great in an affectionate light, you may be victim of Opinion Myopia.

There is an assumption this can only be villains, and so giving the label to a real person would be insulting. But Lelouch and Batman are both examples of heroic Magnificent Bastards.

So to me it's not an Insult, I'm a pretty big fan of Alexander The Great, and will proudly call him the most Magnificent Bastard of all.

Because Political correctness gone mad strikes another good article from this site.

Obviously political correctness didn't "strike the article from this site", as the article is still here. And adding Real Life examples to YMMV tropes is totally pointless. It's a wiki, not a forum.

Because it isn't the magnificent part that's the problem, it's the bastard part. To the Germans, Bismarck is a Guile Hero. To the French, he's an absolute SOB. And to those of us who don't have a personal stake in it, he's this trope.

This page, it aint a trope. Now if we were going to rewrite it into one, fine, then I could see it having no real life section.

But as is, there were people who convinced Barak Obama was the Antichrist. I hardly see how anyone listed as a magnificent bastard on an audience reaction page is so insulting compared to what people say in national press.

This character does seem like a magnificent bastard but remember to have the bastard not underestimate his hero. He should see the hero as a possible unexpected force in his plans and even use the hero if possible (which based on the hero you described should be relatively easy for the bastard). And as for establishing the character moment it would be better if he didn't act surprised or angry at his mooks failure. Instead you could have him with a slight smirk asking "Really?" Showing that something unexpected happened but true to his name he will adapt and take advantage of his soon to be new piece.

True. but I also want ot foreshadow his vicious feral inner nature (a la Professor Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective) in the ECM. It's a big part of his personality and motives. In fact when his plans fail, he isn't losing his temper out of arrogance like a Smug Snake. Rather, he's aware that plans that fail will upset the planner, but when he gets upset it causes his inner monster to want to come out and he tries to restrain his inner monster using his facade of elegance and sarcasm.

I also forgot to mention that he is very Dangerously Genre-Savvy and uses his Genre Savvy to create gambits that take advantage of The Power of Love. For example, one Xanatos Gambit has him ordering his minions to kidnap the princess and then he convinces the king to send the hero to rescue her. If he fails, the hero will be destroyed and won't be able to interfere with his plans plus he can eliminate the princess which will cause a Succession Crisis in The Kingdom that he can exploit. If the hero suceeds then the princess and the hero will fall in love (this causes his right-hand-man to do a Flat "What" when he tells him/her this).

• Speaking of which, he also has a right-hand-man codenamed "Queen" (still deciding on the gender of The Dragon) who is the field commander of his forces and acts as The Watson.
  • In another demonstration of his genre savviness, during his Near-Villain Victory (when the source of great magical power is just within his reach) he pulls the We Can Rule Together card on the hero, pointing out that their goals aren't so different and that keeping all that power to himself will surely drive him insane. When the hero refuses, the Big Bad smugly points out that if he refused the offer, he was just distracting the hero while The Dragon gets into position to attack the princess. This causes the hero to perform a Taking the Bullet to save the princess and the princess uses The Power of Love to bring him back to life, but it also unlocks the final seal on the magical power source.

You Know sometimes a queen is a prime minster instead so that would be easier for you.

There is a level of magnificence that is required for the Magnificent Bastard. Something great and Napoleon-esque about their evil that cannot be denied, even as you fight against them. A Complete Monster is inherently despicable. There is no art or grandeur to what they do - you just want them to die, preferably horribly. (Most versions of ) the Joker and Hannibal Lecter are not Complete Monsters, as there is something to be appreciated in them, if just for their vast intellects and breath-taking ability to exicute complex plots.

We've lost our understanding of magnificence since the days of Aristole. It's a shame.

Because a Complete Monster is shown to have crossed the Moral Event Horizon, committing some act that loses all audience sympathy and negates his Magnificent Bastard status, if he had it in the first place. Rape, for example, or shooting a kid in the head in front of his family. At least one would hope audiences wouldn't still cheer for the guy.

Personally, I'd say a Complete Monster can be a Magnificent Bastard, but for the reason's listed above, it's rare. Basically, for a character to qualify for both they'd have to be extremely evil and extremely awesome at the same time, and that's a hard combo to write- but it can be done. Darkseid, Emperor Palpatine, and The Dark Knight's Joker all spring to mind- but that should give you an idea of the caliber of villain neccessary to fit both tropes.

Of course, it's entirely possible for a character to be consider a Magnificent Bastard by some and a Complete Monster by others, depending on your standards of "Cool" and where you put a character's Moral Event Horizon.

I agree with the above that the combination is possible, but rare. I would also postulate that another part of the reason is that, due to the 'magnificence' requirement of being a Magnificent Bastard, such characters are also frequently Karma Houdinis, which obviously tends to be very dissatisfying for the audience when applied to Complete Monsters in gross need of receiving their just desserts.

The Joker is the only true Complete Monster, well him and his glorified Expyies like Kefka

Not necessarily the ultimate villain, but definitely a formidable one. Basically, in order to be both a Magnificent Bastard and a Complete Monster, the character would need to be as devious/charismatic as they were monstrous, something which is extremely difficult to pull off. If the evil overshadows the magnificence, they will be a Complete Monster, but lose their Magnificent Bastard status. If the reverse happens, they will be a Magnificent Bastard, and the audience will not lose sympathy with the character as a result. This is assuming, of course, that the character meets the criteria for both, since not all Bastards do exceptionally heinous things, and not all Monsters commit villainy with flair and brilliance.

The Joker in The Dark Knight is exactly that.

That's not to say that a Magnificent Bastard can't have good qualities, but that's nto really the point of one.

Why do we take away real life that was cool to read

The point of that scene in Patton was that he'd actually read Rommel's book on tank battles prior to engaging him in one, presumably rendering Rommel's moves predictable.

So really the provenance of the term is quite confused in this article - and Rommel's the only example given! Rommel lost. Patton was the one fitting the descriptions given.

Lead the way.

This trope always requires weeding. By all means, get out your Weed-Wacker and hack away.

Another unfortunate mistake is confusing a Magnificent Bastard with a Manipulative Bastard. B is required for A, but is not inherently A.

All over, I have seen manipulative characters listed as Mag Bastards, but within that very entry, they either fail to mention why he's likable or flat out say he isn't.

Nothing stopping you from editing that into the page.

oh, and all this with something that's known as "a weakness for alcohol"

so he had something called a handicap while doing this, one bigger than any of the other examples I saw listed, keep in mind as well that while a general like that might seem rather... meh, he DISSECTED the persian empire, he didn't go forth boldly and bravely and stupidly, he knew where to push and where to pull, and even fooled the indians

the indians, at least back then... were about as knowledgeable about the kinds of things sun tzu talks about, as the chinese back then

so he might seem kind of young brave and stupid and only good at the battlefield, you've got to remember he thought of the entire thing, AND survived in the viper's pit of macedonian aristocracy, AND beat the cultures who had cunning as their primary method of combat, through greater cunning, but not everything was preplanned, just like it says, he moved on the fly and adapted fast and then made plans based on what he learned

maybe not the most spy-like magnificient bastard, but he puts the magnificient right into the title, and he was a complete and utter bastard, one of the most direct and successful ones there ever was, fictional or real, genghis khan didn't go it alone like alexander did, he had lots of very well trained and skilled generals too

also I'm shocked and horrified he's not even mentioned IRL, napoleon is? rommel is? caesar is?

he's the one they learned from and were inspired by, in an entirely direct way, it originates with him if one talks about great generals and conquerers, he's the ur and inspiration to the rest, with a record like genghis' but minus the already existing stuff to make it easymode in organization that genghis had

Meh, he was an old school German military man. The Nazi government kind of inherited him, and he just did his job. He didn't even do it happily, as shown with his protection of Jewish PO Ws. Plus, he eventually turned on Hitler and was in on an assassination plot. So yeah, I agree. And this is from a guy who hates it when people try to rehabilitate Nazis or try to glorify evil empires because of their "bravery" or valor or those other martial values armchair fascists love to glorify (see the real life section of Villainous Valor and try not to roll your eyes so hard they fall out of your head). Erwin Rommel was a fairly decent guy working on the evil side out of simple duty and patriotism.

Keep it in.