Follow TV Tropes
All proposals or requests for removals should go to the Complete Monster Cleanup thread set up for that very purpose. Requests to add characters on the discussion page will get ignored.
I was thinking that the picture for the trope be changed, though the guy from Hatred is a good example I think it would be better to have a more iconic character of the trope: like Kefka from Final Fantasy 6, The Enchantress from Shovel Knight, or Dark Samus from Metroid (though there are probably even better examples).
How about shao Kahn from mortal kombat
No, doesn't do enough onscreen to count.
Why were Eggman Nega and Memphiles cut for Sonic the Hedgehog?
Because they were judged not to count. Take it to the cleanup thread if you have any objections.
There is no way Queen Myrrah is a Compleat Monster, She is a Well Intenchoned Extreamist, she only wants what's best for her people.
Take it to the cleanup thread, but it was ruled she takes actions that push her out of WIE territory.
Far Cry 3: Have I ever given you the definition of insanity? Vass will. Buck and Hoyt are pretty bad to.
Good for Vaas. Take it to the cleanup thread or else they stay off.
Why were all the Shin Megami Tensei examples removed?
Go to the cleanup thread, there's still an ongoing debate over who counts.
Hey I have a suggestion. Could it be possible to have a Star Wars page that includes characters from the movies as well as games and books. There would be links to it in the literature, film, and video game pages.
That's been talked about in the cleanup thread, but at the moment it's still low on the cleanup threads priorities.
EDIT: It's been done now, Star Wars now has it's own catagory.
I'm for removing Amane's Father from Devil Survivor. Yes, he summoned a demon lord and doomed everyone in Tokyo, but that was never his original intention. He heard that God's Ordeal was coming, and thus commissioned the Demon Summoning Program from Naoya in order to counter it. The guy makes it quite clear that he summoned Belberith in order to stop God's Ordeal and thus save humanity. The lockdown was never his plan, as suggested in his entry. At the very most, I'd say he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist, which makes him, to my understanding, unqualified to be a Complete Monster.
Head to the clean up thread here to request a character's removal.
I move we remove Queen Myrrah, as the only reason she restarted the conflict is because Adam tried to wipe out the Locusts.
Take it to the clean up thread here or else it won't get down.
For the convience of those thinking about requesting a new character to be added to this subpage, here is a list of characters that the Complete Monster Subpage cleanup thread looked at and determined that they weren't Complete Monsters. Unless a new game comes out featuring these characters or you have an unbelievably good argument as to why the cleanup thread got it wrong, please don't make any arguments about adding these guys as we've already been through it.
X-Men Legends has a misused Beyond the Impossible wick. Its potholed to 'amazing'. That will encourage misuse. It needs to be removed.
Why's page locked. Not sure I like the massacring going on at this webpage :(
See this thread for what's going on here.
How about Pat Napier (The fat bloke in a towel at the start of the game) From the new Silent H Ill? He did rape and murder the protagonist's ten-year-old son, after all.
Take it to the forums here and give a good argument for his inclusion.
For your consideration (once the page gets unlocked), Pieters Burke from The Missing Link DLC for Deus Ex Human Revolution. Not only is he responsible for kidnapping women from streets for the horrible experiments, he takes Lack of Empathy to a whole new level when Burke forces Adam into a Sadistic Choice between gassing the prisoners or Dr. Kavanagh. Never mind that he doesn't show any remorse for what he does and how he trolls Adam Jensen for choosing one over the other.
First; the page is never getting unlocked. Second, he's already been discussed in the clean up thread specifically for that purpose and eliminated.
Wait! So, are you the administrator Shaoken? If yes, than why not? Why should the page be always locked? Once all the conflicts are resolved, why won't we unlock the page (especially when there are so many examples that perfectly fit bill)
Already explained in the thread, but I'll explain it here for those who don't go to the forums. Because this trope has suffered so much misuse it has been put on the cutting block several times, it was decided that the safest way to go was to just lock all the pages once clean, so that new entries have to be added through the forums so they are vetted first.
Why was Brock Mason from Dead Rising removed? He's a psychopathic General Ripper who slaughtered two highly populated towns to cover up the governments mistakes, despite the fact that he didn't have to, and was ordered not to in the second case. Plus, his cold blooded massacre of Carlito's home village basically kick started the entire Dead Rising series.
Can someone add Vitiate from Star Wars the Old Republic, Jadus and Sadic?
I removed Brock Mason, and if you bothered to read this page you would have known why. He was acting under orders for both games (I have no idea why you think he wasn't ordered to in the second, I don't recall that ever coming up since the military was quaranting the entire town and ). The majority of his actions are offscreen, which violates the rules for the trope, with his worst on-screen action being to try and kill Frank, which again he was ordered to do.
He's a Punch Clock Villian at the end of the day, he's simply following orders to make sure there is no possiblity of infected escaping. It's a common zombie trope that if an infected down is not completely demolished the infection will inevitably spread from it to other towns, thus your assertion that he didn't have to slaughter the towns is baseless by both the story and the genre that it takes place in. You can argue he didn't have to kill the survivors, but he was ordered to which still disqualifies him from the list. Also him wiping out Carlito's village didn't kick start the entire series, it was the Professor's expirements that created the zombies to begin with that did it, the cover up was just the icing.
DARTHYAN, take it to the clean up thread here. If you can convince everyone in that thread that those characters meet all the criteria they'll get it added in.
Regarding this example:
While Castlevania has many evil characters and monsters, the series has very little Complete Monsters. The witch, Actrise, of Castlevania 64 and Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness may be the most evil villain in the series. Not only does she and Gilles De Rais torment Henry's family, but is the main tormentor of Carrie and the Fernandez clan as well, and is a major antagonist in Carrie's game (Death is Reinhardt's). Actrise turns Carrie's fallen cousin against her, forcing her to mercifully kill her for good. In the final battle between the two, Actrise mentions how she sacrificed the life of her own child in order to obtain eternal life. Carrie calls her pathetic and tells how her mother sacrificed her life for her and that she truly loved her (also stating how pathetic it was that Actrise never showed that kind of love to her own child). Once defeated, Actrise's true face is shown, with Carrie giving a Badass Boast to cement how pathetic the witch really was.
The page is locked and can't be edited, but ... the lack of subject/verb agreement here is driving me nuts. Can someone with the ability correct it?
I'd like to add this example:
Take it to the topic in the special efforts section here.
This page is locked but I want someone to look over this entry:
This is a odd entry. First of all he was only introduced in SC 2 and we do not know much of him, some people say that he could be revealed as more sympathic or a being that does not comprhend morality once Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void comes out and SC 2's YMMV page has him as a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, so it is still too early to say if he's a CM due to the lack of information.
He commited omnicide. If the latter two games make him symapthetic then we change it, but as is he's a CM. I'm also removing that entry from the SC 2 page, as there's nothing in game to paint him as such.
EDIT: Requesting he gets removed now that I think back on it and read my prior arguements; I had cut him early because it counted as negative continuity, I didn't release he was back on the list.
Aw, look. Now the WHOLE PAGE becomes locked...
It's been that way for awhile. If it makes you feel any better, locking it was always the plan from the TRS discussion, it forces people to take new edits to the forums first to get them vetted before they can be added.
Alright, there's talk on cutting the whole CM trope, so I think it's time we spring into action and cut everything from this list that does not match all five criteria. Too many people think that "Complete Monster" is anyone that's a significant dick and not the completely and utterly evil with no redeaming qualities, motiations or actions.
So, I'll start. So far it's just been the Hugo Strange entry. The only justification for this being here to begin with was that he left a message for Batman in Crime Alley. That makes his a prick, not a complete monster. And since he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist he's automatically disqualified as per the mainpage. Peroid.
Cutting the following;
Susie from Killer7. She's just a murderer, the other example from the game was much, much worse.
Shepard from Modern Warefare 2, as per Well Intentioned Extremist. Yes, he's an evil bastard, but not CM material, especially since he's doing it for a purpose; Makarov kills a lot more people personally just because he likes the bloodshed.
The Nazi Zombies characters. If they don't count for this trope; do not list them here just for laughs. No subversions or aversions on this list.
Someone needs to expand the Cave Story example to show some actual actions, or I'll delete it eventually.
Removing the second and third dot-notes for Clive Barker's Jericho, since there is contention on one of the people mentioned in the second dot. It should go on the discussion page, not here:
Redship Rory, because liking to destroy hospitals, while horrible, is again not in the same league as torturing people to death yourself or genocide or anything like that. In case anyone wants to dispute that though, I'll bring the example here:
Hermes Haight from The Suffering. He's a sadist, but again I don't think his crimes stack up compared to The Creeper and the Slavehunter. Plus his victims were all criminals who he was legally hired to execute. So he's depraved, but not Complete Monster worthy.
Cutting the bit saying that Gul'Dan is not a complete monster because of how cool he is. Preserving here:
Removing Saman due to heavy natter. Take it to the discussion page:
Removing Kerrigan due to...well a hell of a lot of reasons. Let's start with the Blue-and-Orange Morality and that everything she does is for a reason (namely, the survival of the swarm) and that there is no evidence she's beyond redemption.
Removing the second Hitman entry for not adding anything that the first did.
Removing the Oragami Killer due to his Anti Villian status. Screw it, I argued once and got told that he could fit both, but now I'm just taking a stand and saying that he's either one or the other. Also removing Mad Jack because again, common thug. And removing the Oragami Killer's father because well, again, not that evil in comparison.
Cutting Saints Row. That's Black-and-Black Morality and waaaaaay to YMMV.
Cutting Archimonde for being a duplicate Warcraft entry and because being a mass-murderer without any form of context doesn't make him a CM.
Not relevant to cutting, but we have two Runescape entries. More evidence that some Tropers aren't going through the effort of keeping this page tidy. And both entries have the same character listed. Cutting the first example just for redundancy's sake.
If nobody expands on why the Magican is a Complete Monster, I'm cutting that too.
Some of the Strange Journey examples need to be beefed up or cut.
Removing Ganondorf, who was discussed and cut in the first entry of this page, so clearly somebody tried t get around that.
Cutting the Dark Presence due to it's Blue-and-Orange Morality.
Removing Purge. Blowing things up is not Complete Monster territory.
Removing Brock Mason. He's evil, but is killing people to cover up the zombie outbreak. So again, he's just another murderer. The other two examples stay.
Cutting Malak, since A) He's only evil because he followed Revan, the latter of whom turned to the light side, B) At the end he acknolwedge's his own guilt, showing regreat which is another cross against him, and C) is corrupted by the Dark Side. Saul stays becausee he never shows any regret and his last words were just to fuck with Carth's head.
Cutting the Need for Speed example because again, not comparing to other exampes on the list, which is responsible for hte massive Trope decay we've been suffering here.
Roy Earle and June get cut because they're not truly henious by the standards of the story.
If anyone disputes any of these examples, take it to the discussion page before trying to put them back in. If anybody tries to start an edit war rather than talk it out I'll request the page be locked.
I cut Dante's Inferno because it stated that nearly everyone in the game was a CM, which is in violation of the rule about the CM being truly henious 'by the standards of the story. Not to mention that we are given no reasons as to why any of these nameless characters are complete monsters, but by the standards of the story some will be more villianous, some will be less.
What about Sarevok?? It is clearly mentioned that he tries to kill the main character which is typical for the main villain. I am removing him.
Lighty Snake, very, very bad form adding in examples without discussing it as per the rules of this trope, made even worse by the fact that you didn't take any care in putting them back in where they were removed, making the page look even worst than it is. I've requested a page lock to cut down on bad examples and edit wars.
A Lso MONEYMONEY, don't add examples without justifying them. Penguin doesn't count because again, he's just a murderer, and he doesn't compare to Joker. Zsasz doesn't count because we don't see him kill anyone, and the only victims we see in the games are three guards and an inmate. He's already on the Comic Book CM page, where we see a lot more of his crimes.
Actually I'd argue that Hugo Strange and the Penguin both count.
Penguin: It's a vast understatement to say the Penguin is JUST a murderer. First of all, he's a Bad Boss, in one instance he cheerfully abandons mooks who have Outlivedtheir Usefulness to be killed by the Joker's forces, forces new recruits to murder each other in order to join, and, after you've defeated his minions in certain areas, you'll hear him talking about how he plans on torturing them for failing him. Which brings me to my next point, the Penguin is overly fond of his Cold-Blooded Torture, just listening to Enemy Chatter or unlocking Arkham City Stories will reveal some of the horrifying tortures he's inflicted on others. In fact, in game he tortures a cop he's captured by freezing the cop's hand and then shattering it. We hear him laughing about it and the guard's screams over the intercom during the museum level, and he only performs this torture to make Batman angry! In the very same level you'll come across Anti-Villain Mr. Freeze who he's locked up in an oven in order to ensure Freeze dies painfully! Which, brings me to my third point. The Penguin is fond of putting Dead Guyon Display. Literally. He has display cases filled with posed corpses, with buttons that activate a narration of the Penguin bragging about how he tortured and killed the people inside. Saying someone is just a murderer implies they only killed a few people. The Penguin, on the other hand, has killed massive amounts of people and loved every minute of it. I mean, at least the Joker's funny!
Hugo Strange: Again, I'd argue that Hugo Strange fits the bill of a Knight Templar (which CAN be a Complete Monster) more than he does a Well-Intentioned Extremist. You know he "sees evil everywhere except within." He seems less focused on helping good people than he does on punishing the guilty, aka criminals who he constantly refers to as "animals." Most of Strange's monsterous actions come from the audio tapes you get through Riddler Challenges. In the Mad Hatter's interview sessions Strange reveals that he used the Hatter to mind control Quincy Sharpe into being an Unwitting Pawn for him (incidentally, Strange controlling Sharpe and filling the warden with his Knight Templar dogma is the reason for Sharpe's Spirit of Arkham Persona, making Strange responsible for all the murders and tortures Sharpe conducted as a result). And how did Hugo Strange inlist the Mad Hatter's help in this matter? By giving him girls to murder (and possibly rape) of course! He selected them specially from Arkham Asylum as people who wouldn't be missed. There's also the matter of how he convinces Catwoman to help him, by ordering his guards to shoot a thirteen-year-old girl (Holly Robinson) if she didn't comply (again in the Interview Tapes).
The first glimpse we get of Strange (in his trailer) is torturing one of his guard captain's to death just to get the maximum amount of information from him on how Batman beat the guard captain and his men. It's not a You Have Failed Me either because Strange admits he knew the captain and his guards would be beaten! PLUS, we find out this trailer IS CANON, by Batman potentially discovering the guard's body in Strange's hideout and unlocking the Arkham City Story from it.
Finally, he doesn't just capture criminals but innocent people Who Know Too Much, who have Outlived Their Usefulness (Mad Hatter and Quincy Sharpe), or who are political rivals, leaving them at the mercy of the homicidal inmates! His final plan has him ordering his guards to murder EVERYONE inside the city, including the innocent people! And when Batman forces him to watch Arkham City burn Strange says "It's Glorious." So yeah, I'd argue he counts.
Okay, let me counter with a few things:
To be a Complete Monster you have to be truly henious by the standards of the story. Penguin is evil, no doubt abot it. Now, let's compare him to Joker:
Joker has a body count in the thousands or tens of thousads
Joker has a much, much larger victim base
Joker infected hundreds of people with his own blood to cause them to die a horrible death if Batman didn't help him
Beat Jason Todd to death with a crowbar (confirmed by his dialogue in Joker's funhouse against Robin).
Tortured and murdered doctors who he had kidnapped to help cure him of a illness he himself brought on.
Now let's compare the Penguin to him:
Killed and tortured other criminals and posed their bodies
Tortured one cop
Killed four cops in total.
So in comparison, he is nowhere near as evil, which is the entire point of the trope. It's the 1%, so evil they make the other villians look better in comparison villians. Again, this trope is in danger of being cut because tropers are acting like it's a badge of honour for characters to get here and trying to shoehorn every villian they can, causing a massive trope decay problem. At a time where we're trying to argue to keep these pages and these examples, it's examples like the Penguin that are pointed out as being reasons to burn the whole article.
Now, as for Hugo Strange, again, he's a well intentioned extremist. His end game is to make the world safer for good people to live in, through a Utopia Justifies the Means mentality. And by definition, Well-Intentioned Extremist villians can not be Complete Monsters, by virture of having Autristic motivations which violates one of the rules. Also, Off Screen Villany. The audio tapes imply, but don't detail what he does. Saying that he was the reason that Sharpe became the spirit of Arkham is pure conjecture; we have no evidence as to when this happene, and Sharpe was always mentally ill wit a hatred of other mentally ill people. Strange didn't make Sharpe into a Knight Templar, he merely eroded his will so Sharpe would be a pushover for him to manipulate. And the full extent we see of his manipulations is him being able to easily convince Sharpe to do what he wants him to do. So no, Strange is not responsible for all of Sharpe's evils.
As for Mad Hatter, political prisoners, Bad Boss and threating Holly, again irrelevant, Utopia Justifies the Means, Well Intentioned Extremists can't make it onto the page, full stop. Those are the rules of the trope, and as long as that's the case he is barred from this page.
And finally, my biggest issue with these entries is how poorly written they are. Strange's entry was one sentance, and all it said was that he taunted Batman on the site where his parents died. Penguin was put on with one line, saying he could give the Joker a run for his money. That was it, no explanations or justifications, just one line. Same with Zsasz, with the qualifier that he murdered women and children (the latter of which was never even implied).
It's not hard; if a character is a complete monster, you need to explain why they are a complete monster for people who haven't played the game. Otherwise, they'll be confused as to why they are supposed to be a complete monster and chalk it up to people wanting their favourite villians to be considered cooler.
I HAVE NOT played the game. I just saw that they are on the page of the game itself. I want to play it though.
It's a good game, but if you haven't played the game you shouldn't add them to the page. We're trying to keep it clean and start purging bad examples.
Shaoken: Actually that was my mistake, a sit was hurried. I thought I did respond in the discussion page, but that didn't go through.
Now, problems with the Penguin not fitting: By the 'standards of the story' the Penguin's way more vile than more or less most villains save the Joker.He tortures and murders cops, forces people to fight in twisted little gladiator tournaments, freezes people and leaves them to suffer. He also leaves his own men to die after they blew up the bridge. I'd say he more than fits. And a lot of what you listed from the Joker was 'offscreen' as well (Jason Todd especially.
For starts, now: General Shepherd. He murders Roach and ghost, sets up a massive war between Russia and America that could kill millions, and knows all about Makarov's massacre. And why? Because he wants his name in the history books and for America to dominate the world. That's not 'well intentioned extremism' in the least. That's an egomaniac narcissist who's in love with warfare. He doesn't even care about his own men, given he has them blown up at points.
And Kerrigan...as an infected, she's definitely a CM. She still functions by a human set of morals and understands dominance and betrayal. She's also far beyond redemption until she gets basicall forcibly altered. There's nothing she does that isn't heinous. She manipulates people, mind rapes them, murders them and uses them. And for someone concerned with her survival, she's sure willing to butcher Zerg en masse and not ally with the Cerebrates
Penguin - Again, all of his targets bar the cops are other criminals. Joker targets civillians primarly, and in the same game posions hundreds or thousands of people. Complete difference in catagory there; nobody beats the Joker in the evil department which, since this trope is for the 1% of villians, means Penguin is out by the "henious by the standards of the story" rule. He may be more vile the other villians, but he's less vile than Joker by a long shot, so he's automatically out of the running.
As for Shepherd, where are you getting the idea that he wants to be famous or for America to dominate the world? Price is the only one who says anything like the former, and it's more that history would remember Shepherd as a war hero, not that his goal was to be one. Sheperd's own motivation was to shake America out of the apathy it was in, and it was all motivated by him losing 50,000 of his own men, which contradicts your notion he doesn't care abou them. He never targeted his own men, just called down an airstrike right next to him to try and kill Price and Soap, which was a very genre saavy move on his part considering, well, it's Price and Soap.
And again, top 1%. He at least as a half-way decent goal, trying to make America stronger. Compare to Makarov, who murdered a lot more people personally for the love of murder, whose end goal was to have Russia steamroll over the rest of Europe, killing even more people. Then we have Al-Asad, who blew up his own capital with a nuke rather than let someone else but him have it. And finally, Zakahav, who helped Asad with the nuke, had his Ultranationlist target loyalist civilians, killing them en mase, and his last major act was to try and nuke two civillian centres.
So again, he's out by process of elimination.
Finally Kerrigan. She no longer funcions by a human set of morals on account of the infestation making her no longer human. She gets redeemed which automatically disqualifies her (there is no "but this happened, so it doesn't count!" clause, if you're a Complete Monster redemption of any kind is impossible, end of story). As for nothing she does that isn't heinous, she forced the UED out of the sector. You know, the military force of a faccist goverment whose backstory involved eliminating all non-English languages, religions and cultures and committed a genocide of 400 Million people in the name of genitic purity. At the end of Brood War she had the chance to take her swarm and wipe out the entire sector, but refuses to because she's sick of the killing (another thing a CM can't do) and spends the next 5 years not bothering anyone. And when she does come back, it's only to look for the artifacts.
As for not allying with the Cerebrates, they were openly trying to kill her. Not caring about butchering Zerg? There were billions more who weren't being commanded to destroy her.
And finally, the other CM's. Mengsk, who betrays the people who fought to make him Emperor, including his most trusted operative Kerrigan. He allowed a whole world to be conumed by the Zerg to ensure no one would be left to oppose him, and made a point of tracking down the last children of the Old Families and having them all killed, despite none of them knowing what had happened or being a threat to his power. Add to that continuing the Confederacy mind-rape policies, and allying with the Dark Voice to make more Hybrids. Hell the only reason why the Dark Voice isn't on this list is because it's crowning moment of omnicide happened in a vision.
So, those examples fail on several levels each, and would only contribute to trope decay for this article. Since the article is locked and is about to be cleaned up, you're going to have to take it to the forums and convince people that they should be added.
"... nobody beats the Joker in the evil department which, since this trope is for the 1% of villians, means Penguin is out by the "henious by the standards of the story" rule. He may be more vile the other villians, but he's less vile than Joker by a long shot, so he's automatically out of the running."
I can see how there's so much contention surrounding this trope, because apparently you and I have two different interpretations of the first criteria. By "standards of the story" I interpret that as, if the plot, tone and characters of the work treat what you do as pure evil, then that criteria is met. Since Penguin's tortures and murders are portrayed as pure evil, I think he counts.
Shaoken, your interpretation seems to be: if a person's villainous actions aren't equal to another's then they don't fit. But that seems flawed to me because there are plenty of works where there are multiple CM's. By that logic we'd have to remove Fenrir Greyback, a cannibal and implied rapist/pedophile (at any rate he specifically targets children to become werewolves and eat, and he gives some really creepy rape overtures to Hermione) just because Voldemort is worse (he did essentially start a Wizard Holocaust in the second wizarding war).
EDIT: Or, a better example, the Joker from the DC Animated Universe would have to be removed because, in the context of that universe, Darkseid is far worse. Sure the Joker's tortured and Mind Raped a kid into being a mini-clone of himself for fun, and has probably murdered hundreds, but Darkseid turned his planet onto a hell on earth (so to speak) and has probably massacred tens of millions of people, so by the standards of the story Darkseid would be far worse.
No no, what you're missing is the "truly henious" part. By the standard of evil in the story, Penguin doesn't fit because his acts aren't in the same league as Joker in any regard. Simply put, as bad as he is in AC, he could be a hell of a lot worse and do a lot worse. And again, 99% of his 'victims' are other villians, which a lot of people wouldn't cry over.
And no, we wouldn't have to remove Greyback, because they're Complete Mosnters in different ways. They both represent the extremes of their specific type of evil. Voldermort is evil on a large scale, while Greyback is evil on a much more personal level. Neither of them could get any more evil in that specific area: Any more people Voldermort kills or tortures from that point is just icing on the cake, and we already get the idea that Greyback is a rapist, so there's not a lot more he can do to kids that would make him more evil.
So, complete monsters in different ways, but they still are Complete Monsters. Again, Penguin's actions could all be more extreme (for example, he could torture Civillians for giggles), so he doesn't count as truly henious because as bad as he is, he could always be much worse.
As for DCAU Joker, actually he probably doesn't count as a CM, being one of the tamest Joker's due to not being allowed to kill anyone, since that "probably" is never directly referenced. On the flip side, Joker is from BTAS, Darkseid is from STAS, so both are from different stories, thus are held to different standards and not compared to each other.
"On the flip side, Joker is from BTAS, Darkseid is from STAS, so both are from different stories, thus are held to different standards and not compared to each other."
That's where each of them debuted, but they both appeared in the Justice League TV series together as the same characters (same episode history, appearance, voice actors) they were in their past series. Besides it's a shared universe.
"Again, Penguin's actions could all be more extreme (for example, he could torture Civillians for giggles), so he doesn't count as truly henious because as bad as he is, he could always be much worse."
You could really think of a way for every CM to be worse. "Sure Greyback threatened/hinted at planning on raping and eating Hermione, but he'd be worse if he actually did it."
And, ultimately, EVERYTHING we find out about Penguin, from interview tapes to Arkham City Stories, all elaborate on what a horrible, disgusting, vile piece of filth he is, detailing how he tortures and murders most of the people he comes into contact with. I mean he opens fire on the cops when they came to evict him from the Iceburg Lounge; scooped out the eyes of the man who wounded him in a bar brawl, left him in traffic at rush hour, and laughed at the memory of it; abducted, and presumably tortured and murdered the Ratcatcher, a Harmless Villain, just for being a (barely noticeable) business rival. How is he not meant to see him as a CM?
"As for DCAU Joker, actually he probably doesn't count as a CM, being one of the tamest Joker's due to not being allowed to kill anyone, since that "probably" is never directly referenced."
I believe there were some episodes that had newspapers referring to him going on a killing spree (Mad Love was one of them I think), and even if the Joker gas didn't kill people, does Mind Rape them into insanity sound much better? At the very least, he does have two personal kills under his belt in the Mask of the Phantasm movie, one of which was a flashback to when he was a regular mobster before his "accident."
Yeah, there was some crossover between the two, but for the most part they were independent of each other, so I count them as seperate stories.
You missed my point with the being worse, because in the case of Greyback he's already raped and eaten kids, so him doing it to Hermione would just be adding one more to a statistic, not making him more evil by a quantable amount.
Yes, Penguin is vile, but not truly henious by the standards of the story. That's what I'm arguing. Being Evil and vile does not make you a CM. You have to be head and shoulders above the rest to qualify. So while he has no redeeming qualities in this continuity, he's still not a CM by virtue of not being truly henious by the standard of that particular story. Again, 99% of people he killed were villians who did horrible things in life, so it's Evil vs Evil.
As for Joker, that's an interesting case. I'm fairly certain that no episodes refer to the Joker killing people on account of the Moral Guardians not allowing it, with Mask of the Phantasm being the exception because of it's higher rating allowing them to tackle such issues. You could count him as a CM by the standards of that story perhaps, but that's a conversation for the WA page.
Incidently, linking the cleanup forum discussion here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=13
As, I recall, I haven't play the game, but I see two people supporting Penguin being on the list while one opposing. Majority has to agree. From the description, I believe he counts.
Take it to the forum.
EDIT: For those of you who are too lazy to follow the link, two different tropers in the cleanup topic disagree with him bing a CM, making it 3-to-2 against. More input is welcome.
I don't think that I count. I am just assuming by reading opinions. so it is 2-to-2. Actually, by reading yours and someone else's arguments, I believe that he doesn't count. But Joker may count, when I read the decription. Add Joker.
I added the Greater Korean Republic from Homefront, I added the qualifications from the game's trope.
To explain why this no longer exists; Groups cannot count period. Only Individuals can be listed as Complete Monsters.
Removing the following example;
The man in question has redeeming qualities (spoiler: He's trying to cure his wife), and deciding to nuke the zombie-infested island can be seen as more pragmatic than evil. While there are survivors there, they are vastly outnumbered by the zombies, and of course there is always teh chance one of them could be infected and spread the outbreak further.
So yeah, he's a prick, but he's not pure evil incarnate.
A Greed, if anything is more deserving of Complete Monster title, is the Looters who possibly raped Jin.
I'd second that. We also see that they locked people in rooms with the infected or locked them in cells and left them to starve.
Ok, I admit that Ryder may have good intentions, but that doesn't change the fact he murdered Jin in cold blood For the Evulz after she had already been mentally and physically broken in every possible way due to his lies.
Doesn't matter; as I keep arguing with you about, a complete monster is a COMPLETE monster. As in you can not say one single positive thing about them.
Also, he didn't do that act you included for the evils; Jin untied his wife who then bit him, forcing him to kill his own wife in self-defence, when everything he did was for her. So Jin was directly responsible for him killing his own wife and getting infected. Shooting someone who did that to you is a pretty logical action for anyone, hero or villian included.
Ultimately you need to realise that one act does not make a Complete Monster, and that they can't have any;
So really, he fails on every criteria to be a CM. Not to be disrespectful, but did you even bother reading the five criteria for being a Complete Monster? So far you just seem to be adding characters you don't like without doing your homework to see if they qualify or not.
Ok ok, sorry.
Any objection to the looters? Or are they not henious enough for the trope?
Nah, the Looters probably deserve a spot. Rape Is a Special Kind of Evil after all.
Could I get some opinions over in the Mass Effect discussion? So far it's me against some examples (since I feel they don't meet all five criteria, disqualifying them from the "Complete" part) against Some New Guy who just said "you're wrong" and threw the examples back in. I'd like an actual discussion on the merits of my arguement with someone taking the time to show that I'm either wrong in that they don't meet all five criteria, or that we can make an exception in this case, but with just the two of us I'm worried it's going o disolve to the point where we'e going to go back and forth with the examples.
I actually just gave my opinion on Morinth (and apologized for my earlier outburst).
Okay. Still, I'd like a third opinion since it's just us too. Democracy and all that jazz.
Somebody added Kratos, but he doesn't count since he is disqualified by 3rd and 5th criteria. However, some of you may disagree so lets discuss if he counts or not.
Kratos doesn't belong here, by won't that A) in the first game he's a somewhat good person who's been poisoned by personal tragedy. Yes, he showed a blatant disregard for others (like when he allowed the ship captain to be digested by the Hydra) but you CAN sympathise with him and B)[[Spoiler: he kills himself to give hope to the people of greece]]. So no, he is not a Complete Monster. He ends up becoming consumed so much by his lust for vengeance and his rage at all who have wronged him and his despair over all he lost, but he is not a monster, just a terribly misguided person who loses his way.
In light of the recent Dragon Age debate:
I'm not touching the Vengeance issue with a ten foot pole due to the Internet Backdraft, and I suppose Branka may count as a Well-Intentioned Extremist (though I honestly fail to see how)...
But Alrik? Helter, your main argument against him is that he never actually tries his Tranquil Solution, but...he does. Its explicitly stated that, even though even Meredith turned down his request, he went ahead with it anyway, conducting mass kidnappings of innocent mages, tranquilizing them against their will (which, as was noted, goes against everything a Templar stands for), and if his actions and certain rumors are to be believed, rapes the female mages because they can no longer deny him. Honestly, he's only slightly less repulsive then Quentin.
Branka's intention is to save Orzammar. She did some truly heinous things, but she did them in the name of the greater good. And, if she's allowed to live with the Anvil (and presuming Bhelen is king), the golems help push back the darkspawn all the way to Bownammar. She's the very definition of a Well-Intentioned Extremist.
As for Alrik...huh...maybe I simply don't remember it, then. I don't remember him being involved in kidnappings or Tranquilizings—merely suggesting it in a letter. Possibly I just glossed over the situation of Anders' quest as I played. Fair enough then, I have no objections to his inclusion.
No, Branka LONG SINCE lost the Well-Intentioned Extremist moniker. She gleefully lead her entire house to death on a Snipe Hunt, WILLINGLY let some of her own members turn into Broodmothers, and the Golems? They are Artifacts of Doom, Even learning that, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE IT UP. She's the very picture of a Complete Monster Helter Skelter.
And she wanted to save Orzammar? No, she wanted glory. She never once responds to the plight of the Dwarves when you talk to her, all that matters to her is the Anvil.
I'm deleting Branka again. She is a Well-Intentioned Extremist, because her overall goal is good. Yes, she does really evil things in pursuit of her goal, but that's not a disqualification from being a Well-Intentioned Extremist, that's the definition of being a Well-Intentioned Extremist.
And Super Saiya Man: Branka does care about the plight of the Dwarven people. She just doesn't care who gets to sit on the throne. If you try and tell her that your candidate for king is important for the Dwarves, she just points out that the Dwarves have had kings for hundreds of years and they still lost their entire empire. She sees the Anvil as being of lasting importance, which is why she focuses on that.
No, Branka doesn't give a damn. She's so divorced from it, in the endings, she abandons it eventually. She's not well intentioned if her overall goal is tyranny and imprisoning souls to serve a mook army.
Look at this quote: "*
On the other side of the coin, it is possible for a Villain Protagonist or a Knight Templar to be a Complete Monster, contrary to popular belief. There is also nothing prohibiting Visionary Villains from being Complete Monsters - just because their goals may be understandable doesn't make them any less monstrous."
Branka's methods shove her over the line.
A Visionary Villain just refers to someone with a big goal that they want to accomplish. It even says on that page that a Visionary Villain can range from a Well-Intentioned Extremist to a Complete Monster. Branka would count as a Visionary Villain, but I don't really see how that's an argument for her being a Complete Monster.
Branka never abandons Orzammar. Whichever King you pick will work with her at first, and then eventually turn on her and try to prevent the Anvil from being used, which basically means she ends up doing the golem thing on her own. That's a little different than her abandoning the Dwarves.
Branka's overall goal is to benefit the Dwarven people. She makes this very clear if you listen to what she says. She wants to use the Anvil and the golems to defeat the Darkspawn and rebuild the Dwarven Empire. I'm not going to argue that she isn't obsessed with the Anvil, because she clearly is. If you want to say that she's crossed the Moral Event Horizon, that's fine, she clearly has. But a Complete Monster has to have no redeeming features at all, while Branka is trying to help her people, which disqualifies her.
The thing is, Branka doesn't just supplant said king. Either way, she runs off, leaves Orzammar to whatever and makes it plain clear she simply doesn't care. Moreover, 'rebuilding the dwarven empire' and 'save the dwarven people' are not the same thing. Plenty of villains who are pure evil can want a return to the days of old. When she's confronted over what she's done to Hespith and the others by Oghren for one, she makes it clear she doesn't give the slightest damn over what she's sacrificed and if she had to destroy half the dwarf populace to get what she wants, she'd do it without question or hesitation. You can't say she genuinely wishes to benefit the Dwarven people when she's shown to let multiple dwarves be killed, lets the empire fall into near civil war, and even lets some be turned into broodmothers.
She's not trying to help her people, not really. Her desires overall seem quite selfish and power hungry as opposed to altruism for the dwarf race. Bhelen is someone who genuinely wants the best overall, as his later actions reveal. Branka? Not at all.
Jacques de Aldersbourg of the Witcher thinks the world'll be better off with everything not human genocided into extinction. Ashnard of Fire Emblem thinks a world of survival of the fittest will be better for the survivors. Saren from Mass Effect thought his actions were necessary for the galaxy...
It doesn't make them any less monstrous or vile.
Not to mention that the Anvil is an unholy Artifact of Doom that any sane person would destroy on sight. I don't care how Branka phrases it, there is no justification for subjecting thousands of unwilling dwarves to a Fate Worse than Death, which is exactly what she would've done if she was allowed to have the Anvil.
^^ There is quite simply no mention of Branka running off and not caring in any of the epilogues. All any of them say is that the King ends up turning on her and she makes golems on her own. Can you show your source for that, please?
And please read the definition of a Well-Intentioned Extremist before saying that because Branka does horrible things in pursuit of her goal she cannot possibly have good intentions, because that is pretty much the definition of the trope.
^ I think it's important to point out that the dwarves are slowly losing their war against the darkspawn, and one day they will all die. The codex and Ohgren make it pretty clear that unless something happens, the dwarven civilization will be destroyed, and all that will be left of their race is the scattered dwarves on the surface. Branka didn't just randomly go after the Anvil for shits and giggles. The Anvil and the golems were the only thing in history that gave the dwarves a real chance of defeating the darkspawn permanently. Everything else has just been a long, drawn-out period of sacrifice and defeat. An actual chance of winning is what makes Branka consider the Anvil worth it.
She rushes off and barricades herself away. Again, I hardly think that this shows great moral fiber if she abandons the people she supposedly wants to lead to glory
Moreover, Branka can help by supporting a new king and crowning a strong leader. She doesn't.
Why is there a suspicion that a monster only needs to do things for giggles Having reasons, as provided in the very description, doesn't make the actions any less horrific. Branka doesn't have good intentions anymore. Her quest is all about what a destroyed shell she is. and wanting the dwarves to have an all conquering Empire isn't a good thing. She cares about glory, not lives.
there is not a single onscreen moment where Branka displays a thought or action that isn't cruel or selfish. She doesn't just cross the MEH, she leaves it behind completely. You can't argue that she's not a CM because her overall goal is to create or restore an empire, because she's not doing it for the good of the dwarves when she guiltlessly sacrifices so many and doesn't care about the empire collapsing into decay and infighting
I removed Zeus from the God of War games. Some of the qualifications require no adequate justification or altruistic qualities. GOW III has the plot hole of Zeus being made evil by Pandora's box. His actions against the Titans are justified due to the war. Considering Kronos was paranoid enough to eat his children nothing indicates he would let them live in peace. He would presume them to be a threat and attack them. As king of the Titans and his brothers the others would no doubt join him. So it was a fight for survival on the part of the Olympians as much as it was a war for conquest. Against Prometheus, Zeus was a king establishing his rule and Promethus defied him. In the booklet of GOW 1 it is made clear Zeus despises what Ares is doing which is one reason hie aids Kratos in his quest to kill him. Also, something that is overlooked in modern media, but Zeus was also arranged the punishment of evil-doers and enforced justice. As bad as some of the gods may be to humanity he kept them from it being far worse. Some of his actions are just different values from different cultures. Never once is there any indication from Kratos that any of Zeus's actions are out of line with that day and age.
In conclusion, Zeus is a massive jerk and probable a major a-hole, but not a complete monster.
Ares on the other hand has fewer if any redeeming qualities. Even in myth he was despised. About the only favor he granted was strength in battle. In the game this is never mentioned and he has none of the justifications Zeus has.
Maybe so, but considering the fact that he himself rarely, if ever, follows his own rules when enforcing them pretty much makes him very much irredeemable. For me, if I were him, then not only would I punish people who do badly, but I'd even go as far as to prevent myself from committing the very same crimes they committed just to show how justice should be done, and even encourage mortals to punish me if I broke one of the rules. That way, justice could truly be "perfect" and... well, actually justice and not simply Screw the Rules, I Make Them!. Probably the closest explaination in regards to it is that he is simply using those rules to punish mortals to get his kicks, which makes him no different than a Complete Monster. Besides, Volgin mentioned he did what he did because spies are everywhere, did that stop him from being a complete monster? No, same deal with Zeus.
I agree a lot with what you said. It would be better if Zeus at least made an attempt to follow his own rules. I think that is what ultimately damnes him in the eyes of many. One point I was trying to make was complete monsters tend to have almost no redeeming qualities and do all they can do to make others miserable. The way he is presented in Greek thought is this is not Zeus. He does not spend all of his time figuring out how to make mortals miserable. He does despise certain forms of behavior in others and enforces the rules for the betterment of all. It is just a case of power corrupting so the rules apply to everyone but him.
I have to disagree with your thought of mortals punishing a god if they broke their own rules without clarification. Most ancient societies did not believe in totally perfect, infallible gods. So they would understand if a god may have had to break their own rules from time to time for the greater good. The difference between gods and mortals would be considered so great that gods do not have to answer to mortals. A god has to look at the big picture and sometimes that requires harsh actions. At the same time many of Zeus's actions are more along the lines of "because no one can stop me" than "for the greater good." His irresponsible behavior is what caused the other gods to rebel against him at one point. He is just too powerful for the other gods to truly stand up to.
Actually, requisite number 4 means that one Complete Monster must have absolutely no reedeeming qualities. The Zeus of the classic mythology definitively is not one Complete Monster.
Actually, that brings about something that might need to be asked: Should we continue to count Volgin as a Complete Monster? He did have one Pet the Dog moment, where it is made clear that he does legitimately care for Raikov (for one thing, he makes it quite clear that the reason he wanted to beat Snake up was because he was enraged at the latter for "hurting" Ivan [Raikov]). Granted, I'm not in support of homosexual unions, but still, that seems like something to note. I don't know if it changes things much, but I figured I might add it in just in case.
I'm thinking on it, and I' remember that page quote that said "just because you show a touching scene with Hitler and his dog does not make Hitler any deeper." Volgin probably does care for Raikov, but compared to the rest of what he did it loses it's significance. He probably cared for Eva in her disguise, and we saw the scars he left on her.
^ But a Complete Monster must have no altruistic qualities.
I'm touching up my original argument; Volgin cares for Raikov in the sense that he cares for one of his toys. His deal is less "you hurt Ivan" and more "you dare hurt one of my things?" Even if you kill Ivan he just completely forgets about it, hesitating for a second of confusion if you put on the Raikov mask before getting over it.
I deleted Shepard from Modern Warfare 2 because this is more of a case of Well-Intentioned Extremist.
Good intentions don't undo the nature of his crimes. Lotso has a tragic past and he's still a monster cause his excuse is weak. Sheppard starts world war III for glory, sets a man on fire personally, blows up his own base to kill TWO men, knowingly sent a man to his death...I'm sorry but no amount of good intent undoes THAT kind of cruelty
Well-Intentioned Extremist is one of the tropes that NEVER can be Complete Monsters. If he really is one Well-Intentioned Extremist he is not one Complete Monster, period.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bullshit. There is no excuse for what Shepard did. He can preach about his ideals and dreams and how "the world fuckin watched" as his men died, NONE of that even begins to excuse his atrocities.
Same goes for Gavin Archer from Mass Effect, coincidentally.
...exists one phrase shortly after the requisites: "Some villains will for completely obvious reasons never be a Complete Monster." Said phrase have lots of hidden links- including Well-Intentioned Extremist and is obvious that this refers to them. And, seriously, using the own requisites as examples, the fourth requisite is be completely devoid of altruistic qualities(actually, together with the first is the more obvious requisite to one "complete" monster)and one altruistic MOTIVE definitively qualifies as one altruistic quality.
I'm sorry but Sheppard's actions show that whatever rationalization is a self serving lie; any underlying motives are selfish (did he really need to DOUSE A MAN WITH GAS AND SET HIM ON FIRE?) I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that Sheppard isn't a monster is a dishonest fool. A large part of his motive was glory and power, regardless of what he claimed. Whatever "honor" there is is really just a byword for "power" and "Glory".
Actually, I never played Modern Warfare, only decided start this discussion because you started calling their intents of good. I already noted that this was reput there; i only was tryng be sure that he REALLY is one Well-Intentioned Extremist before decide if i reremove he or not.
No, seriously, just stop it.
Yes, he's a monster. A completely heinous villain. A thug who deserves nothing more than death, whose delusional rhetoric killed millions. That's what he was written to be.
But a Complete Monster that does not make. A complete monster is a COMPLETE monster. Did he have ANY internal justification for his crimes? Then he realized or cared on some level that they were crimes. That needed justification.
It doesn't matter if it fails to justify his actions for you, or any other player, and hell, it SHOULD fail. But it still knocks him clear out of this trope, no matter how much you or I or anyone else hates his butchering, burning, bombing ass.
A Well-Intentioned Extremist self-admittedly does bad things for good reasons. To quote the Operative from Serenity, 'What I do is evil. But it is necessary.' A Knight Templar, meanwhile, considers whatever they're doing to be absolutely right and just even when it's really, really not. The former cannot be a Complete Monster by definition - regretting your actions disqualifies you from the trope. The latter, on the other hand, can - they lack the self-awareness regarding their evil.
Which would you say Shep qualifies as? I don't remember him specifically regretting the necessity of his actions, but I'll admit I may have missed something.
Having reasonable-ish intentions does not exclude you from being a Complete Monster (unless they're altruistic - altruists are automatically disqualified). Recognising and regretting that you've gone too far in pursuit of those intentions, on the other hand, does.
I'm the guy who added Shepherd, so I feel I can add my two cents:
What do you mean by "internal justification?" On this very page, we note that the character can have some justification for their actions, but they can't be equated to the level of their crimes. Shepherd may have possessed some altruistic qualities in the past, but now? We see how easily he wastes the lives of those who work under him (Allen, Roach [whom he burns alive with his own cigar, no less], Ghost, all of the Shadow Company soldiers in the base he self-destructs, countless casualties in the war he orchestrated) and for what? He says it's for the soldiers he lost, but by the time we meet him in the story, it's fairly clear that he's gone beyond wanting them to be remembered, and now wants to secure a global hegemony for the United States, where he can have a blank check to do as he pleases. After all, "there'll be no shortage of volunteers." He's a hypocrite, using the lives of the soldiers lost to justify his starting of World War III, yet seeming to forget that this invasion has already cost many, many more American lives. And he never once shows regret for his actions, and even tells Soap before he attempts to kill him, "You never could take that extra step. To do what was absolutely necessary." What could he do for redemption at this point? Say, "Hey, you know, sorry about that whole starting World War III thing, but could we just let it blow over and get along?"
Then he's totally delusional. That much is obvious.
But go easy on your rebuttals. We're not selling fights here.
I'm putting him back despite, rather than because of, your argument.
This article was beginning to reach server-breaking size. See this thread for more information on the issue.
In order to fix this, all entries for series that had their own folder were moved to their respective articles in the Monster namespace. This cut the page size in half, which should give it some breathing room.
Future series that accumulate multiple examples should be given the same treatment, to prevent the page size from becoming an issue again.
I removed this because Complete Monster needs one series of atrocities; Algus commited only one.
Does Yami from Okami really belong here? The list basically says "The bestiary says it's evil!" And that's it. It did kill the moon tribe, but that was in the distant past and is only alluded to. In the game itself all it does is show up, get credited with the creation of the various demons, fight Ammy and lose. And like the page itself mentions Yami is treated in-universe as a sort of force of nature, it may not even be sentient!
I've removed the Enclave from the Fallout section because the entry was rather biased and from what I saw of them in Fallout 3 and New Vegas seemed closer to "Well Intentioned Extremist" then "American Nazis." For starters not every single member is a genocidal maniac (Autum was rebelling against Edens because the latter was planning on killing off most of the Capital Wasteland, and Arcade from New Vegas is rependent for his crimes, which breaks the no redemption clause.
Edens despite wanting to put the virus in the water purifier to kill off anyone with genetic mutations was doing it because he thought the human race needed to be strong, and in essence was just doing what he was programed to do, and Autum was oppossed to that and even walks away if you talk to him and tell him what he's doing is wrong.
So basically while the Enclave are evil, they can't compare to Caesar's Legion in terms of CM-ness. But if anyone wants to disagree with me, then you're more than welcome to re-write the article to better reflect things.
Play Fallout 2 and then try to tell me there's anything redeemable about the Enclave.
They justify their actions, and frequently. They have their own internal creed and morality. Everything they do, they do with some sort of extenuating circumstance motivating them, and heavily.
Eden, for instance, actually was a roughly Asimov-type AI, designed to serve humanity utterly. However, because he was made by the Enclave, his definition of "human" was tragically stringent, automatically disqualifying anyone who had a trace of mutation.
And as for the rest of the Enclave? Are you seriously going to try and tell me that an entire organization, at least a thousand strong, is populated ENTIRELY by baby-eating serial-raping refuge-burning dog-kicking, completely, utterly unredeemable thugs, or at least all people who WOULD engage in the aforementioned activities if given half a chance?
Because that's what it'd take to fit this trope. Every single one of them. All of them.
To those who have played The Witcher, would the Reverend count as an example? I'm not far enough to figure it out.
wait how does any of the villains from Final Fantasy XIII count. I personally didn't think of Barthandelus as a complete monster
Barthandelus killed his Jihl Nabaat in cold blood after she said she would protect him, and then he killed everybody else except the main party in the room. His main plan is to sacrifice the entire population of Cocoon to summon the Maker back to the world and force Vanille to summon Ragnarok. His worst offense is when he goes off and destroys the crystallized Dajh and Serah (made worse by the fact that they're still sentient). Snow even outright calls him a monster. How does he not count as a Complete Monster?!
Okay on second thoughts he does fit but Jihl has way too small screentime to count though.
Ganondorf does not fit. He's never done anything really heinous on screen, people enjoy playing as him in Smash bros, and Windwaker hints at a Freudian Excuse.
1. NO freudian excuse is adequate
2. Stop bringing up that people like playing as him. People like playing as Cell and Freeza and the Joker, big effing deal
3. He's never really done anything heinous onscreen? You see the results of everything he does every game
1.Sephiroth isn't here because of a Freudian Excuse and he was seen inperson slaughtering the entire population of a town and responsible for one of the greatest Moral Event Horizon's in gaming. Why should Ganondorf be different.
2.Ganondorf has a fandom. Its notable that the characters of Smash bros do comical things like getting shrunk or flowers stuck on their head. Fans would not accept Ganondorf's presence if he was a Complete Monster.
3.We've never seen Ganondorf do those things in person and most of them are reversed.
Now we know you're completely and totally under the category of "Has no idea what he's talking about." If you think Sephiroth should be added, then add him, I don't care. Notice KEFKA is still here and he's psychotically popular? Or Luca Blight? Sephiroth, btw, is also a mind-screwed child who does have an actually VALID Freudian excuse. And so WHAT he has a fandom? every single damn one of the villains here has one. Johann Liebert, Luca Blight, Kefka, Ali al-Saachez...Fans adore playing as villains no matter what. Ganondorf was just another character to play as. Fandom feelings mean nothing. And we've seen him do enough of those things, seen him try to do worse and that the day ends up saved doesn't change what he did and tried to do.
Now quit editing it because the point of "But the fandom likes playing as him!" in a game series with precisely zero story or bearing on the actual Zeldaverse means nothing
The fandom doesn't just like playing as him, they enjoy him as a character, and he can be funny in Smash bros. He's done no great MoralEventHorizons in person and he even teams up with Link and Zelda in Subspace emissary.
And how does Sephiroth's Freudian Excuse explain his actions more then Ganondorf?
However Ganondorf will stay for now at least.
Smash Brothers does not count, its a party game.
The Ocarina of Time Ganon definitely belongs...there is no doubt about it.
Can you people stop saying that CM can't be DILP or likable???????? I've seen many examples of Complete Monsters with a fandom. So Yeah.
Also 188.8.131.52 don't forget Frieza, he has fans too.
Don't forget that the TROPE itself says that Complete Monsters can be popular sometimes.
So Complete Monster he is. And Orarcina of time just happened to be his best performance. He stays don't erase him. Sephiroth may also count for same reasons as Kefka.
The "He's never done anything really heinous on screen" yet stands."The character must PERSONALLY(emphasis mine) engage in a series of truly horrendous acts, and the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light. Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by a distant Mook don't count." (The only evil acts of the list he made on screen were try kill Midna or his The Wind Waker acts.) (Said this,guessing well,he really belongs here. Yes,you not sees he do said evil acts, but you can see the horrifiyng results and never is given any doubt-or reason to doubt- of his authory.)
"Fans would not accept Ganondorf's presence if he was a Complete Monster." - Monsund
... you ever heard of Misaimed Fandom?
Besides, the fan acceptance of their presence has nothing to do with their CM status; it depends on their actions, revulsion from other characters, (I cannot help but think you might have mistook that for revulsion from the audience; Ganondorf is hated even by his own tribe in Oo T) the lack of a strong Freudian Excuse, (the Wind Waker version of him MIGHT have one that puts him into a borderline Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds category, but the Ocarina Of Time version does not) the remorselessness in which those acts are committed. (check, at least for Ocarina Of Time) and the lack of redemption. (Again, no redemption on Ganondorf's part, at least in Ocarina Of Time, and I have not heard of redemption on his part in other installments either.)
I'm starting to think that only the Ocarina of Time incarnation of Ganondorf really counts. In Wind Waker, they at least touch upon his Freudian Excuse, and WW and the other non-Oo T versions of Ganon typically only have him do basic villain stuff. Oo T, however, had him attempting to feed the Gorons to Volvagia, which is a big enough Moral Event Horizon if you ask me.
Of course, MagBas's point about the never seen onscreen and proxy Mook actions do complicate things.
So far, we seem to have only one real case of Ganon committing a genuine dick move that is not covered by the standard Evil Overlord playbook (specifically, the business with the dragon). A Complete Monster needs to make a habit of that sort of thing.
Ganondorf simply has NO business being here.
I swear, it's like none of you ever read the trope description. This isn't a trope for villains who are, *gasp*, villainous. This is a trope for a rare type of villain who's a COMPLETE monster.
Is there some sort of dog-kicking you can't imagine Ganondorf doing? For no reason other than fun? If yes, then he doesn't fit this trope.
Further, he does make an attempt at justifying his actions in Wind Waker, another instant knock-out criterion for this trope. It doesn't matter how weak, it's obvious that he understands what he's doing requires some sort of defense.
As for accusations from a know-it-all that liking Ganondorf at all definitely equates to Misaimed Fandom, his original design had him as something of a Noble Demon type character, inspired by Raoh.
You know, that Raoh? Noble Demon villain par excellence Raoh?
Klendt, rhetorical questions are not a good form of argument.
Understanding that what you do requires some sort of defense doesn't prevent you from being a Complete Monster. The main page says that no Freudian Excuse is present that's adequate to explain their actions, but it doesn't say they must have no justification whatsoever.
Noone said that liking Ganondorf equates to Misaimed Fandom, if I'm reading correctly. That's just a rebuttal to the claim that the fandom wouldn't like him if he were a Complete Monster. Besides, SSB isn't part of Zelda canon. The claim also ignores the possibility of Draco in Leather Pants or Love to Hate.
And no, I don't know that Raoh.
Not saying he qualifies, just making a few points.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?