History Administrivia / MagnificentBastard

* ''WesternAnimation/AvatarTheLastAirbender'': Princess Azula (Her VillainousBreakdown is undone in the sequel comic ''[[ComicBook/AvatarTheLastAirbenderSmokeAndShadow Smoke and Shadow]]'' where she regains her composure and mental stability)

This article presents the full, detailed rules and Frequently Asked Questions that have been built up by the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16706345050A65984200 Magnificent Bastard cleanup topic]] in the forums. We present this as a distinct article in the Administrivia namespace to keep the main article free of messy details that would distract readers.

On the other hand, while they have to be a Bastard, they can't be ''too much'' of a Bastard. As part of the Magnificent criteria and as explained below, the character needs to be charming to the audience in some way, and there are some things that no audience would reasonably accept as "charming". A SerialRapist or a [[SlaveryIsASPecialKindOfEvil mass slaver]] may be intelligent enough to qualify in theory, but their crimes are so disgusting that there's simply no way to call them "magnificent". Whatever crimes they're committing, they can't be too unnecessarily cruel and sadistic, and truly reprehensible crimes like rape and slavery are instant disqualifiers.

This article presents the full, detailed rules and Frequently Asked Questions that have been built up by the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15255322860A44444400&page=1 Magnificent Bastard cleanup topic]] in the forums. We present this as a distinct article in the Administrivia namespace to keep the main article free of messy details that would distract readers.

!!Definitely an MB

* '''Would you follow this link to see what I'm talking about?:''' Only under very specific, limited circumstances. You may use a weblink to bolster your case, or to illustrate a particular scene under discussion. You may '''not''' use one instead of arguing your case yourself. You may '''not''' use one instead of a full proposal, or instead of a full write-up of an approved character. For one, Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples, which is [[RuleOfThree for the third time]] against wiki policy. For another, the point of this thread is to craft the best entries possible for the trope pages. This means writing a concise and insightful entry that fully describes the character in question. Relying on links to others does not provide insight -- it just passes the buck.

* '''How does the process work?:''' Well, someone brings up a possible candidate and the work in which they appear. After initial appraisal, someone will make what we call an "effort post". This takes the form of a lengthy post describing the four important aspects of the nomination: the '''setting''', to establish the genre and plot; the '''character''', to list what they do in the story; their '''actions''', so we can see why they do what they do and how they go about it; and a '''conclusion''' that summarizes the case for or against their inclusion.\\

* '''Would you follow this link to see what I'm talking about?:''' Only under very specific, limited circumstances. You may use a weblink to bolster your case, or to illustrate a particular scene under discussion. You may '''not''' use one instead of arguing your case yourself. You may '''not''' use one instead of a full effortpost, or instead of a full write-up of an approved character. For one, Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples, which is [[RuleOfThree for the third time]] against wiki policy. For another, the point of this thread is to craft the best entries possible for the trope pages. This means writing a concise and insightful entry that fully describes the character in question. Relying on links to others does not provide insight -- it just passes the buck.

* '''What about characters whose stories can take different routes?:''' When proposing a character in a form of media that has them in multiple story routes, said character must be consistent with their characteristics in all routes (i.e. we can't have an example who shows promise on one route yet fails in another). The only exception is if a later installment of the series confirms the character's actions which made them worth proposing are the canon route.

* '''What about groups?:''' This is a point of divergence between this trope and CompleteMonster. While CM does not allow for a single entry encompassing more than three characters lest their heinousness for crimes becomes too watered down, with MB as long as they are treated as one "unit" it is acceptable to lump all characters provided they share acts of charm and intelligence.

* '''In-canon? So what about a version of the character in an AlternateContinuity?:''' If the character qualifies in one particular continuity, then they will be included, but the write-up will specify which continuity or continuities that they qualify in. Similarly, they only get listed for Magnificent Bastard on the YMMV page for the continuity in which they act as one.

* The person bringing up the discussion again proves that there was evidence that was not brought up in the discussion before. If people don't use the Search Function to see if it was brought up they get a warning to start with, repeated offenses result in suspension.

This rule '''especially''' applies to the characters on following list, which will be edited as needed and may include characters judged to be a MB or not to be a MB:

* '''My example/edit has been approved, but the example subpage is locked! How do I get it added?:''' The [[Administrivia/KnowTheStaff moderators]] do not add examples to locked example subpages in the [=MagnificenBastard=]/ namespace directly. Rather, you need to do the edit to a sandbox page that follows the format Sandbox[=.=][=MagnificentBastard=]<Name of the example subpage> (e.g for MagnificentBastard.{{Disney}} it's Sandbox.MagnificentBastardDisney) and ask in the [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=gsjp7dldjh2dwdelcha2hu17 locked pages edit requests thread]] for the content to be swapped in at a Friday.

In a similar yet distinct note to charm, a character who otherwise fits the bill may still fall short if the audience leaves with an unflattering impression of the character. A character who is prone to {{Villainous Breakdown}}s, being the ButtMonkey, or otherwise have their magnificence undercut enough times simply fails to leave the lasting impression needed to qualify for this trope. While the occasional slip-up can be forgiven, win or lose, a character should maintain their dignity throughout the work, especially at the end.

This is the "Magnificent" half of the trope name; the character in question has to be intelligent, both on an individual basis and within the work they appear in. They use their intelligence to achieve their ends, whether it's a large-scale remaking of society or a small-scale manipulation of a single person. They have to account for all potential obstacles and have a way of defeating any opposition in their path; if something happens that they didn't expect, they have a way to get out of it. Their opposition is on the back foot from the moment they arrive and the heroes can only win by thinking just as creatively and intelligently as them.

Naturally, this is the ''other'' half of the trope: Bastard. The character has to be unscrupulous and willing to cross moral lines for the sake of their goal, whether they're the BigBad, the VillainProtagonist, or something in-between the two. Maybe they're a thief who has never been caught; a professional assassin who kills without a trace; the leader of an army who engages in dirty tactics - the options for intelligent villainy are limitless. Notably, they don't even have to necessarily be a villain; an AntiHero can also qualify for the Bastard criteria as long as they are unscrupulous enough in some way.

Like we said before, an MB isn't necessarily perfect, but should an unexpected obstacle crop up in their path, they have to be able to adapt to it. They can't just be a long-term {{Chessmaster}}; they need to be able to play a game of XanatosSpeedChess if they need to. Notably, some candidates won't necessarily have to do that - either enough of their plans will succeed that it simply won't be necessary, or the character isn't around long enough for this particular credit to be shown - but if an obstacle arises and the candidate proceeds to completely drop the ball, that's a pretty big strike against them that takes time to recover from.

* '''Okay, so the thread voted to keep a particular example off of the Magnificent Bastard pages. Can it still go on the work pages?:''' No. This is against wiki policy for any trope - it either belongs on all appropriate pages, or it belongs on none of them.

* '''In that case, how do you handle DependingOnTheWriter?:''' We cite under which writers the character is a Magnificent Bastard, similar to the above - and we make sure to note when RetCon rears its ugly head in such cases.

* '''I don't want to be redundant - how can I tell if my example was already discussed?:''' Search for your example's name with "magnificent bastard" in the "Google Site Search" field. If the example was already discussed, it'll be in the first page or two.

* '''I see that a character has been approved, but I don't think they count. What should I do?''': We respect that you may have an issue with any approved character - after all, this is a YMMV trope. However, just as there is a process for approving a character, there is a process for removing one as well.

** However, if you either can't find any discussion or the particular issue was not discussed, all you need to do is bring up your issue to the thread - you don't even have to necessarily advocate for a cut, just raise the issue and see what people think. At this point, a discussion will ensue, and if it gets far enough, the character will be put to a "keep" or "cut" vote. Again, we want to respect the initial discussion, so when tallying these votes, any and all discussions on the character must be tallied as much as possible; for example, if Troper X voted "yes" in the original discussion but doesn't contribute to the second, they are considered a "keep" vote, but if Troper Y originally voted "yes" but later votes "cut", they are considered a "cut" vote.

* '''Would you follow this link to see what I'm talking about?:''' Only under very specific, limited circumstances. You may use a weblink to bolster your case, or to illustrate a particular scene under discussion. You may '''not''' use one instead of arguing your case yourself. You may '''not''' use one instead of a full effortpost, or instead of a full write-up of an approved character. For one, Administrivia/WeblinksAreNotExamples, which is [[RuleOfThree for the third time]] against wiki policy. For another, the point of this thread is to craft the best entries possible for the trope pages. This means writing a concise and insightful entry that fully describes the character in question. Relying on links to others does not provide insight - it just passes the buck.

This is the "Magnificent" half of the trope name; the character in question has to be intelligent, both on an individual basis and within the work they appear in. They use their intelligence to achieve their ends, whether it's a large-scale remaking of society or a small-scale manipulation of a single person. They have to account for all potential obstacles and have a way of defeating any opposition in their path; if something happens they didn't expect, they have a way to get out of it. Their opposition is on the back foot from the moment they arrive and the heroes can only win by thinking just as creatively and intelligently as them.

This is the "Magnificent" half of the trope name; the character in question has to be intelligent, both on an individual basis and within the work they appear in. They use their intelligence to achieve their ends, whether it's a large-scale remaking of society or a small-scale manipulation of a single person. They have to account for all potential obstacles and have a way of defeating any opposition in their path; if something happens they didn't expect, they have a way to get out of it. Their opposition is on the back foot from the moment they arrive and the heroes can only win by thinking just as creatively and intelligently as them.\\
All that said, intelligence can come in a lot of different forms. For some, it's small-scale manipulations of single people to get what they want. Others are in charge of entire institutions and use their intelligence to manipulate entire countries. Meanwhile, others stay behind the scenes and use proxies to carry out their orders with no one knowing their motives. Intelligence is not simply "Machiavellian schemer"; it can come in a lot of different forms, making this the half of the trope that welcomes a lot of creative thinking.\\

* They must have '''dignity''': A character may be charming when things go their way, but if they crumble under pressure or the narrative makes them a laughing stock, they simply fail to be magnificent.

* They must have '''dignity'''. A character may be charming when things go their way, but if they crumble under pressure or the narrative makes them a laughing stock, they simply fail to be magnificent.

In a similar yet distinct note to charm, a character who otherwise fits the bill may still fall short if the audience leaves with an unflattering impression of the character. A character who is prone to {{Villainous Breakdown}}s, being the ButtMonkey, or otherwise have their magnificence undercut enough times simply fails to leave the lasting impression needed to qualify for this trope. While the occasional slip-up can be forgiven, win or lose, a character should maintain their dignity throughout the work, and especially at the end.

* They must be a '''Bastard''': they have to be unscrupulous in some way, whether they're an AntiHero, the BigBad, or anything in-between.

Of course, even the most prepared characters can face unexpected hurdles, and given that these characters are usually villains, they will even often outright lose at the end. The main point of this half is that the character accomplished everything they could within the timeframe they had and that, if they lose, it is not the result of their own incompetence; the heroes pull out something they couldn't have expected, or some small mistakes eventually add up just a bit too much. As long as they are as competent and prepared as they can be given the circumstances, they can be considered.

The character is then discussed in terms of their merits and flaws and how they relate to the trope. After review, the various participants give their vote. A clear majority will cause a particular action to take place. Roughly tied votes will generally result in no action taken until a majority develops.

* '''What do audience reactions mean for this trope?:''' They don't mean much. The trope concerns itself only with in-story portrayal, and audience responses at variance with portrayal do happen rather frequently. An example which gets normally incompatible audience responses will require extra scrutiny, though.

* '''What about candidates who are evil because of external sources?:''' Those MadeOfEvil can qualify if they show enough individuality and tactical acumen — in other words, they have the personality to fulfill the magnificence requirement. Conversely, those who have been brainwashed, especially if they're a better person without it, may fail the individuality aspect and cannot count.

* '''In-canon? So what about a version of the character in an AlternateContinuity?:''' If the character qualifies in one particular continuity, then they will be included, but the write-up will specify which continuity or continuities that they qualify in. Similarly, they only get listed for Complete Monster on the trope page for the continuity in which they act as one.

!!Definitely not an MB
* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'': The show's frequent use of vulgar comedy and mean-spirited humor leaves any potential candidates devoid of the dignity or charm to qualify.

On the other hand, while they have to be a Bastard, they can't be ''too much'' of a Bastard. As part of the Magnificent criteria and as explained below, the character needs to be charming to the audience in some way, and there are some things that no audience would reasonably accept as "charming". A SerialRapist or a [[SlaveryIsASPecialKindOfEvil mass slaver]] may be intelligent enough to qualify in theory, but their crimes are so disgusting that there's simply no way to call them "charming". Whatever crimes they're committing, they can't be too unnecessarily cruel and sadistic, and truly reprehensible crimes like rape and slavery are instant disqualifiers.