This article presents the full, detailed rules and Frequently Asked Questions that have been built up by the Magnificent Bastard cleanup topic
and the Magnificent Bastard proposal 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.
What is a Magnificent Bastard?
A Magnificent Bastard is a character who is simultaneously villainous, yet intelligent and charming to the audience. This character must possess the following traits. Read further on for additional detail.
- They must be intelligent: they have to be smart and use their brains to pursue their goals.
- They must be a bastard: they have to be unscrupulous in some way, whether they're an Anti-Hero, the Big Bad, or anything in-between.
- They must not be too detestable: while they have to be villainous, they can't go so far in their villainy that they lose their charm.
- They must be able to think on their feet: if something goes wrong, they can't give up; they have to continue their plan in some intelligent manner.
- They must have charm: they have to have some kind of amicable relationship with the audience, even if they're not outright likable.
- 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.
Can you explain each of these in more detail?
Sure. Expand each folder to learn more.
open/close all folders
Intelligent
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 probably 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.
Of course, even the most prepared characters can face unexpected hurdles, and given that these characters are usually villains, they may even outright lose in 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.
Bastard
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 Big Bad, the Villain Protagonist, 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 Anti-Hero can also qualify for the Bastard criteria as long as they are unscrupulous enough in some way.
Not Too Detestable
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 Serial Rapist or a 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.
Think On Their Feet
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 Xanatos Speed Chess 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.
Charming
The big thing that makes an MB stand out from other villains isn't just their intelligence or their ruthlessness, it's that we can't help but find these bastards charming. Whether it's a slick charismatic conman or a freedom fighter so dedicated to a cause you can't help but agree with them, something about the character sticks out at you and makes you want more of them. This can range from a Big Bad whose arc you can't wait to explore or a mysterious background player you want to see more of; we're not particularly picky as long as there's something that makes them stand out from a meta standpoint as well as an In-Universe standpoint.
Dignified
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 Breakdowns, being the Butt-Monkey, or otherwise has 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.
Procedures for Nominating a Magnificent Bastard
Okay, so now I understand what makes a candidate qualify, so how do I propose one? Step up, troper, and listen.
Expand
- How does the process work?: Someone brings up a possible candidate and the work in which they appear, describing any relevant details needed to judge whether they fit the trope. This often (but not necessarily) takes the form of an "effort post", 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.
The character is then discussed in terms of their merits and flaws and how they relate to the trope. After a minimum of 24 hours for discussion, participants may give their vote. If, after discussion settles, a candidate has reaches a majority of five more "yays" than "nays," they are approved. - So, how do I suggest an example, either to be removed or to be added?: Just post the candidate and where they are from, along with your arguments for or against their inclusion. If few people have responded, bring it up again politely after a couple of days. We're busy folks; we sometimes miss things.
- How do I know when the character's arc is done so they can be proposed?: When their tenure as a villain or antagonist finishes. This could happen in a single Story Arc in an entire work, a single work of a franchise, or the whole series in general. We'll show lenience to Long-Runners with constantly recurring candidates or a series with outstanding continuities (like comic books), and it's entirely possible to count in a work or two but not in general for a reason like Depending on the Writer.
- What about this film/book/game/show that was just released? Can I add its villain pretty please?: Hold your horses. Not everyone will have had the chance to see it yet. Further, people who do plan to see it will be very annoyed with you for posting spoilers. Allow two weeks past a work's official release date for people to catch up before proposing an example.
- Is there a calendar listing what days I can talk about an upcoming film/show/game/book's villain(s), in case I forget?: Yes, there is. The calendar in question is also where users can volunteer to open a discussion on said villain two weeks after said film or movie, etc., airs. The calendar can be found here, listed as Magnificent Bastard Discussion Dates.
- There's this film/book/game/show coming up and I think its villain will qualify.: That's nice, but we don't speculate about who might be a Magnificent Bastard before the work is even out. No, not even if you have Super Sekrit advance information. Also, see above about spoiling works that are just released.
- My example/edit has been approved, but the example subpage is locked! How do I get it added?: The moderators do not add examples to locked example subpages in the MagnificentBastard/ 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.Magnificent Bastard Disney) and ask in the locked pages edit requests thread for the content to be swapped in on a Saturday.
Additional Frequently Asked Questions
Expand
- Why is this trope No Real Life Examples, Please!?: As a morality trope, there cannot be any real life examples.
- But what if Word of God declares the character a Magnificent Bastard?: That is insufficient. While the author may have intended the character to qualify, this does not mean that they presented the character as a Magnificent Bastard successfully.
- Then what good are statements in-canon or by the creator about their Magnificent Bastard status?: Statements such as these are suggestions that we may have a Magnificent Bastard candidate on our hands, but they cannot be offered as proof. We essentially take them as nominations, but we let their deeds speak for themselves.
- 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. However, an example which gets normally incompatible audience responses will require extra scrutiny, and if a character is near-universally disliked, they've failed to display the necessary charm.
- What should I do if a character is listed on a page but has not been approved?: They need to be removed; all candidates need to come through the cleanup thread first. The character could well count but they need to be analyzed properly and voted on first.
- Can there be more than one Magnificent Bastard per work?: Yes. However, each candidate must stand out in terms of kind or degree of scheming and cunning. An MB is always remarkable in some way, and second place doesn't count if both characters are in the same race.
- What about characters with different levels of resources?: As long as they are as competent and successful as they can be with the resources they have, they still count. This is what allows the likes of Lex Luthor and Ra's al Ghul to qualify, while still allowing the likes of Bane and John Constantine to count as well.
- What about candidates who are evil because of external sources?: Those Made of Evil 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 cases where a character who wouldn't otherwise qualify gets bolstered through external circumstances, specify as such in the proposal and writeup.
- What if they are under orders from a higher-up?: It depends. If the boss created the plans down to the letter and the candidate is just following them, it sounds like we should discuss the boss instead. However, if the candidate takes creative liberties with the orders, adds their own charm and flair to them, fills in holes in the orders, and/or actively deals with obstacles their boss did not talk about, the candidate shows enough individual thinking to qualify.
- What about Character Development?: An MB is something a character can develop into; a nice person who plots well might become more morally gray as the work goes on and hit the "Bastard" criteria, thus making them viable. Likewise, a Smug Snake might shed their ego, become more understanding of the threat others pose, and gain the personality or "Magnificent" criteria, likewise making them viable. Conversely, a character who looks like this trope might suffer from a Sanity Slippage or just get outed as not being as smart as they thought they were and become incompatible with MB.
- Can an MB be a good guy?: Not in the conventional sense. It is required they have at least some dubious traits lest they fail the "Bastard" criteria; that being said, a character who pulls a Heel–Face Turn or eventually stops taking villainous actions is still fair game, as there was a point in time where they were both "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and they've merely adapted as time goes on. Now, if such a character begins showing other issues (i.e. becomes prone to freak outs or starts getting outwitted) then they're compromising their Magnificence and will probably be deemed a cut. What's important is stylishly operating while at least for some time being willing to take at best underhanded methods to see a job done. A Heel–Face Turn in itself isn't a disqualifier but they do have to have been "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and afterwards can't start slipping on the former front.
- 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 that 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 Complete Monster. 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 characters together, provided they share acts of charm and intelligence.
- 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.
- Sheesh, the policy is kind of draconian. What if the example is put up with an acknowledgement that it's only arguably an example?: No. Examples Are Not Arguable is also wiki policy on every page, not just this one.
- Alright, point made. What about an Alternate Character Interpretation that isn't explicitly refuted in the work itself?: No. The arguments for inclusion do not involve possibilities. We are only judging based on what's in-canon.
- In-canon? So what about a version of the character in an Alternate Continuity?: If the character qualifies in one particular continuity, then they will be included, but the write-up will specify which continuity or continuities they qualify in. Similarly, they only get listed for Magnificent Bastard on the YMMV page for the continuity in which they act as one.
- In that case, how do you handle Depending on the Writer?: 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.
- What about when the movie version is more intelligent than the book version of the same character?: We treat the movie-verse as a very-close-but-subtly-different Alternate Universe. As such, if a character only qualifies for one particular adaptation, they will be listed on the appropriate page only for said adaptation.
- Then what about Historical Domain Characters? Fictional portrayals of real people can qualify as long as they meet every other criterion, but it has to be made clear that we're troping the fictional portrayal, regardless of whether or not it's Truth in Television.
- So, just who decides which characters are put on the page?: Well, any troper that participates in the cleanup effort. Feel free to join, if it interests you.
- May I nominate characters from my own work?: In a word, no. You're biased. Get someone to read your work and let them propose the candidate if they feel it's appropriate.
- 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.
- First, you should use the search function and try to find the original discussion to see if the issue was raised already. We want to respect any initial discussions as much as possible, meaning that if an issue was properly raised, discussed, and deemed to not be mitigating, it should be considered "resolved" and thus not brought up to the thread; this is a quick way for a character to earn a spot on the "Resolved Items" list, which can eventually escalate to mod intervention.
- 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.
- When all of the votes across every discussion are tallied, if the yes/keep votes outnumber the no/cut votes by at least five, the character remains on the list. If the number of yes/keep votes is any lower, then the character is officially considered cut by the thread; they will thus be removed from both the Magnificent Bastard subpage as well as the work's YMMV page.
- 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, Weblinks Are Not Examples — using a link in place of explaining how a trope applies is 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 [other site] that insists this character is a MB?: We don't care what other sites think. We judge this trope by our own criteria. Repeatedly attempting to bring up other sites will earn a suspension.
- Why even bother with all of this? Why not just Cut List the trope?: We get this way more often than we like. Several reasons.
- This is a very popular trope and we do like the inbound links.
- It's a legitimate trope, and one of the oldest ones out there to boot.
- There are plenty of people who like working on projects like this.
- This is doing much better than it used to be. Seriously.
It might be taking time, but it is getting better. We appreciate all the help anyone can give on the effort.
Resolved Items
Please do not bring up characters that have already been discussed. It wastes our time. Any discussion that has been concluded is permanently shelved unless:
- A new work in the same continuity is released featuring said character (alternate continuities don't count as they are treated as separate characters. This also means that if the discussion on Character from Universe A is closed, it doesn't apply to the same character in universe B, C or D).
- 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.
- The character reappears.
This rule especially applies to the characters on the following list, which will be edited as needed and may include characters judged to be a MB or not to be a MB:
Expand
Definitely an MB
- Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers: Darkrai (Any sadism he displays is limited in effect thanks to the game's nature and any cowardice which can be inferred about him is Alternative Character Interpretation about his tactical retreats)
