And another one: this trope is all about how the author wants the audience to view a character. Real Life hath no author, ergo No Real Life Examples.
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!
That's incorrect; the author's intent is irrelevant to determining if a character is a Complete Monster.
In other words, we must be cautious on instances where the author intended the character to be sympathetic but whatever we see says otherwise. Same goes for the inverse. I suppose more focus is going to be placed on how the audience thinks of the character regardless of author intent. There's a reason this trope is YMMV in the first place.
Edited by Slimbship4
Although it's soon (relatively) going to be a main page trope since the amount of criteria and precedent on who can qualify has removed any hint of subjectivity, since Monsters are only added by concensses based on their deeds.
Still nobody to argue about the plans to make CM a main page trope, and thus to be taken to heart?
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
We're down to the last two or three main pages to clean up and then we'll start the discussion.
@mostly above: Hmmm, makes me wonder if incidental complete monsters (the author wasn't counting on a character being a CM, just trying to show us he/she's a really bad person, but nails the three crites anyway) happen...
Also, is author's intent still irrelevant even if this is a mainpage trope?
@Shaoken, directly above: What few main pages left before moving on to this?
Edited by 99.226.231.38 I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
You can ask here
. That forum discussion deals with all issues related to Complete Monster.
The link for Animaed Film examples is wrong. It is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/AnimatedFilms
But it should be:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/CompleteMonster/AnimatedFilms
Article locked; someone w/access please fix the typo in "the complete rules cay be found here". Should replace "cay" with "can".
Scroop (Treasure Planet) is still on the villainous benchmark wiki and Cruells Devil is now on the Pure Evil wiki. Should we add Cruella?
Evan Kalani Opedal
Urge Boat
Where do I post a Complete Monster proposal? Because I do have a candidate in mind.
Caesar from The Twilight Zone episode "Caesar And Me". A Manipulative Bastard of the highest order he spares no qualms in talking people into evil acts. It starts off small enough talking a desperate man into stealing to survive. By the end he has no problem talking an 11 year old girl into killing her aunt with a poison dart. He does all this while keeping a facade of caring about them but his intent to betray them becomes clear.
Question: Why is this (Someone who is pure evil) and Moral Event Horizon (An act that is endlessly vile) a Ymmv trope while Incorruptible Pure Pureness (The opposite of the former because it is someone who is pure good) and Heroes' Frontier Step (The opposite of the latter because it is an act that is endlessly good) are not?
Edited by Retrobudz Hide / Show Replies
It's because what's a Complete Monster and a Moral Event Horizon are based on audience opinion towards a character, while Incorruptible Pure Pureness is a more of a character trait. An Incorruptible Pure Pureness character is like they sound like, someone who is good and won't change in spite of corrupting influence, normal, magical or otherwise.
When was this trope actually created? The info box says 2013, but that obviously isn't true since the old cleanup thread for it was started all the way back in 2010.
From [1] Starscream tricks a group of human astronauts into attacking the Autobots so they will be killed in the firefight and their information on Megatron's whereabouts silenced. When the moral Autobots avoid claiming the humans' lives, Starscream just murders the entire crew himself“ This should be removed as the prequel comics are no longer canon as of The Last Knight.
For some time, I've felt that Emperor Belos from The Owl House qualified for this trope, seeing as how many fans would agree that he has committed actions so unspeakably horrific and how he is someone whom they see as irredeemable and that they hope dies by the end of the series. Should he qualify for this trope?
Hide / Show Replies
Most definitely. Even the Titan himself said that he cares for nothing but his own delusions of being a hero. While we’re at it, Odalia might qualify, too.
Edited by SmartHeart3
Complete Monster fan
I move that we include Emperor Belos and Odalia Blight from The Owl House and Kight Reidlich of Dekaranger 10 Years After as complete monsters.
Tell Me A Lie...
I see that the Big Bossman has been added under Professional Wrestling, but whatever happened to Jake "The Snake" Roberts entry?
Tell Me A Lie... And Say That You Won't Go... Hide / Show Replies
No idea, but I remember it too, just not well enough to rewrite it. I think it fit the trope pretty well by Professional Wrestling standards. It definitely should be put back in IMO.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Removed some of the examples under Professional Wrestling. The Randy Orton, CM Punk, and Bossman entries don't affect the tone of the work, and in the case of Orton and Punk either men can be faces again without a major change in character despite their actions (in fact, Orton already has done so).
Edited by Marikina
"Larfleeze: Sorry but BBM basically torturted Big Show for shits and giggles and Punk managed to turn a mixed reaction to his Straight Edge gimmick to total hatred with one promo. It stays."
The trope write-up pretty much says it takes more that a laundry list of For the Lulz and being Obviously Evil to be a Complete Monster. It doesn't matter how many vile acts the Bossman did; as your write-up itself stated, the whole thing is played for laughs, and to be a Complete Monster means to have your actions affect the story in a serious manner.
Same goes for Orton. The thing with Eddie and Rey is Cheap Heat at best, and nobody cared about what he did to the Mc Mahons. And one year later he's a popular babyface, despite being the same character.
And one promo alone doesn't make Punk an entry.
Edited by Marikina
Orton & Punk may not belong, but the Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played for Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism.
Tell Me A Lie... And Say That You Won't Go...
"The Big Bossman certainly does. His feud with Big Show wasn't Played For Laughs. Show wasn't even the World champion when the feud began. Bossman was just doing it to satisfy his own sadism."
It takes more than a character doing things For the Evulz to be a Complete Monster. As the trope definition itself states, "the character should affect the tone of the work". The Bossman's entry itself admits that his angles come off as humorous and Crosses the Line Twice; there;s a reason why it's inducted into Wrestle Crap. Which is why IMO it doesn't belong.
fair enough, though if it was Played Straight, he would've been right up there with Johan.
Tell Me A Lie... And Say That You Won't Go...
This is likely will raise a few eyebrows, but I am curious if it is possible for a Complete Monster to pretty much step out of the role and begin the process of atoning for the past. I'm not referring to the character in question becoming an immediate protagonist or antagonist (too much too fast on that one). I am referring more to the character being successfully able to extricate themselves from a rather fixed position, and then pretty much begin the process of going along an alternate path.
There are a few constants I can think of in this kind of scenario that may prove to be unavoidable. First, upon giving this thought, I don't see any way a character can ultimately do this without some form of help (though the initial decision to begin the process would need to be up to them). Second, I'm thinking that the character in question would need to avoid the original circumstances that were the main acting stage for the malice (probably best if the people hurt by the character don't see too much of him/her as well).
That's about all I can think of for right now actually. I guess I'm kind of getting tired of this type of position being seen as something that ultimately possesses the highest degree of endurance (in terms of character traits, never ever getting out of it no matter what, how long and severely it affects other characters and the world setting, etc) then any other character development out there. Then again, I also may be lacking in some understanding in terms of the attributes and motivations involved in the Complete Monster. I'd like to know what others think about this one.
Actually, this does take some of the edge off and gives some space with which to work in this regard. Can't say that I can understand how a Complete Monster forms in the first place (this is only my opinion, and will be happy to see arguments in this regard).
Should there be an unmarked spoiler warning, since candidates must undergo a complete character analysis in order to qualify?
The answer to life and everything is in this place As are the numbers most favored by Two-Face
ignore this or delete it, I haven't written anything on TV Tropes for years and forgot some of what I was doing.
Edited by Kion2525
I don’t think Flenser from “Zones of Thought” should really count as an example of this trope. His entry ends with, and I quote, “The book gives many glimpses into Flenser’s mind and about the only non-horrible thing there is his ability to enjoy the beauty of nature.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order for a character to qualify as a ‘Complete Monster,’ shouldn’t they be completely devoid of redeeming qualities?
Edited by GamerBoy18
Sorry, that was supposed to be a separate discussion. I’m just unable to delete it for some reason.
Decided to rewrite the entery for Lupin IIIS 2 E 68 for possible improvement. Since I felt there could be more detail explaining Lupin's relevance.
- Complete Monster: Robert is the chief of staff to the corrupt casino mogul Domino, and a key participant in Domino's insurance scam to destroy the artificial island his own casino is on, then frame Lupin both so they can collect the insurance money and use the incident for publicity in Domino's presidential campaign. Neither one of them cares that a few thousand people are going to die in said casino's destruction. However, Robert goes beyond the original plan when he reveals that he set it up for Domino's daughter Nina to die in the trap. Then, he proceeds to plan on killing Domino himself and Fujiko Mine so that, with Nina and all other potential witnesses dead, he will be the sole beneficiary of the insurance money.
Since we included Exhaus and Gill in their respective Sentai appearances as complete monsters, may I suggest including Volga and Kight Reidlich from Dekaranger as well?
Good afternoon. This article doesn't look young. Why is there no "Playing with" section? Can't the complete monster really be exaggerated, subverted (Even Evulz is the completely cruel, disgusting and heartless villain, but it turned out that he had some limitations), inverted (Incorruptible Pure Pureness, Ideal Hero, All-Loving Hero, Thr Hero or just Nice Guy),averted (for example: Evulz although a villain, but not completely frostbitten), deconstructed, etc?
Should characters who qualify as a Complete Monster in say... Work 1, but show redeeming aspects in the Sequel stay listed as Complete Monsters in Work 1?
For the example that prompted this: In Fairy Fencer F Avert Dark Force, Ax-Crazy antagonist Zenke is a Complete Monster due to atrocity after atrocity and shows no redeeming aspects whatsoever to keep the spoilers to a minimum. However, in the sequel/interquel? (the chronology is kinda weird) Fairy Fencer F: Refrain Chord he shows more restraint in his evil, fights to save someone, and even gets attached to a few characters whereas in the previous game he would kill anyone without hesitation as sadistically as he could.
Edited by immortalfrieza
Should we add Complete Monster to Darth Wiki for fun since these kinds of characters are scary? (Same reason as Nightmare Fuel)
Edited by iansimsjam
Has anyone here watched the 2016 series Midnight Sun?
More on this link... https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/MidnightSun2016
Mr.
I don’t think Flenser from “Zones of Thought” should really count as an example of this trope. His entry ends with, and I quote, “The book gives many glimpses into Flenser’s mind and about the only non-horrible thing there is his ability to enjoy the beauty of nature.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order for a character to qualify as a ‘Complete Monster,’ shouldn’t they be completely devoid of redeeming qualities?
Proposing an entry for Fecto Elfilis from Kirby and the Forgotten Land, going by the guidelines provided in the Aministriva page:
It is an individual creature who brainwashes, possesses and assimilates its victims, as seen clearly with how it controls Dedede and Leongar. The latter is especially a victim given what happened in the Forgo Dreams campaign, where it tried to use Leon's body as a new host for its mind. It even removed and scattered his soul just to make the possession easier.
As for its actions, we see it all unfold onscreen. Using the Beast Pack to capture Waddle Dees for slave labor, brainwashing Dedede to act as an enforcer/puppet king, making Leongar act violent and bloodthirsty, mentally regressing both of them to savage animals who run on all fours, deciding to assimilate Leon and some Beasts to become a blob chimera, forcibly reuniting with Elfilin — a separate creature with his own mind and agency, trying to drop Popstar onto the world when the two are separated again (and keep in mind he can survive without his body, so this method of revenge is completely petty), does the aforementioned possession of Leon, and absorbs the power of Morpho Knight for its final revenge attempt. We see this all on-screen, with some bonus clarification from the collectible figurines, so we know how evil Elfilis is.
It stands out from other villains in the series because it's fully aware of what its doing and still chooses to do it anyway. It has no tragic backstory like President Haltmann, was not corrupted by a greater evil power like Magolor or Sectonia, was not completely insane and unaware of its surroundings and actions like Hyness, wasn't trying to follow its programmed purpose like Star Dream, was not a soul tainted by darkness like Void Termina, or eldritch monsters simply acting on instinct like Dark Matter or Zero. Compared to other villains like Dark Mind, Nightmare or Marx, its motivations for are much more complex and the actions we see onscreen of them are more heinous. At no point is its evil played for laughs like Yin-Yarn or Dark Crafter, and it has no sympathetic backstory.
It was established that it came to the forgotten land just to conquer it, until it got imprisoned, experimented on, and eventually left behind by the previous citizens. The decades it spent imprisoned have even corrupted its dreams so that it can't escape the announcer's voice. Under any other circumstance, its imprisoning would lead to some sympathy from the audience, but it's a fate it earned itself. It was willing to conquer the world just because it could, and is still determined to get revenge just because it can. And none of these actions are caused by his good half Elfilin being separated, leaving only the evil half; Fecto was still willing to do all of this even when they were whole. In fact, the fact that Elfilin exists is proof that Fecto can understand love and compassion... and yet it still chooses to be evil of its own agency. Its motives are not unstated, leading it to be a Generic Doomsday Villain like some other creatures Kirby fights. It is an intelligent, planning, sapient creature with no morals, no desire to hold back, and no mercy. It is truly evil to the end, and it's not until its reincarnated that it finally joins again with Elfilin, but with the good half as the dominant one.
With that all said, this is why I think Fecto Elfilis should be listed under the Complete Monster page.
Edited by QuizzicalPieridine Hide / Show Replies
My bad, accidentally posted here instead of the cleanup thread. Please feel free to ignore this and go there. Thank you
The Duke of Dank
Robert: Lupin III Part II episode 68
Shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKuTl1SbgBw
What is The Work?
Lupin III is an anime series about the misadventures of Gentleman Thief Arsene Lupin III and his associates. This episode involves Lupin and his gang infiltrating a casino owned by the business mogul Domino. Unaware that they're in a trap for them to be blamed in a set up disaster for an insurance scam.
Who Is The Candidate?
Roberts is the second banana to Donimo, the corrupt casino owner in Part II's episode 68 Casino Island - Inversions and More Inversions.
What Did They Do?
Robert helps Domino orchestrate a plan to destroy a casino that Domino owns which is built on a floating island, taking down Lupin with it. The plan is they'll get the insurance money from said destruction. However, as soon as their plan is in action and the casino is destroyed, Robert prepares to shoot their accomplice Fujiko. It is then revealed that Robert also set things up so Domino's daughter Nina would die in the casino desctruction as well. So that once Domino was dead he'd be the sole beneficiary of the insurance money.
Heinous Standard. Even though Domino was also involved in the insurance scam that wrote the death warrant for at least 1,000 people in the casino, he is subject to Even Evil Has Loved Ones thanks to him being grief strucken when he thinks Nina died in the casino's destruction. However, Robert does not show any loyalty or care towards anyone other than himself. As shown when he prepares to shoot Fujiko, and of course reveals that he intended to engineer Nina's death.
Final Verdict Robert does not show any concern for those who are killed in his scheme. And unlike Domino does not show any love or care for anyone but himself. All this on top of a smug personality.
I'd say he qualifies.
The Duke of Dank
Why would some Complete Monster examples have some Even Evil Has Standards moments listed?
Edited by mrluntishysterical
Should RWBY get it own Monster Page? I think it has enough of candidates to warrant a page?
These kinds of villains will have the most number of tropes that can make them a perfect fit for this trope: 1. Omnicidal Maniac: Of course, the villains' intention is Kill All Humans no matter what. Most of them called humans bad nicknames such as bunch of insects or the worst, Humans Are Real Monsters. 2. Take Over the World: Like the Omnicidal Maniac, Their intention is to take over the world. 3. A God Am I: Like the previous two, most of the villains' mission is to become a god where all of the humans whom called them insects wanted to bow before them.
Hide / Show Replies
1.The omnicidal maniac may have a freudian excuse, be made of evil, not have the freedom of action in another way (such as being an AI) or have some other excuse (wobble, destroyer of worlds) 2.These characters may not even be villians, antiheroes may be trying to do this with utopia justifies the means or being a well intended extremists. At the end it mighr even turn out that the extremist was right. 3.This guy is simply egomaniacal, he doesn't even have to be malicious
In short the first two are character goals and the third concerns the psihology of the character that doesn not necessarily imply maliciousness. All these characters may have a chance at redemption, while the complete monster by definition does not. These tropes may overlap in characters, but they are not the same.
The tropes that somehow will make them justify these tropes are: Kick the Dog - Sometimes a villain enjoys seeing one of its victims getting beaten up to death or killing a specific person such as children. Overlaps for being a Bad Boss, where they view their pawns as tools and when they fail they'll kill them. Freudian Excuse Is No Excuse- Their tragic backstories or Start of Darkness don't affect them after all as their able to Jumping Off the Slippery Slope where it also made them go for a Roaring Rampage of Revenge towards the world. It's All About Me - Sometimes a Bad Boss Big Bad only cares for himself and views all of his/her Mooks and The Dragon as Pawns. They also don't care about humans and view them as nothing but a bunch of monsters.
I don't know why some tropes can become a Complete Monster although some of them can be a Tragic Villain or Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds.
Edited by SkaarjWarrior99
General
So how evil are we talking about here? Being irredeemably evil is one thing, but does the character have to be so evil everyone in-universe and in the audience wants them dead?
I realize I have been a pain on the forum in the past and apologize for that but since the only relevant thread I could find is locked and I know something I didn't then, I have a new example to contest the idea that there are no Complete Monsters in real life.
H.H. Homes, the United State's first recorded serial killer, even his non murderous ventures were to make money for his "Murder Castle", murdering was his sole reason for being and he even described himself in a way that is pretty much this wiki's exact definition of Complete Monster.
Hide / Show Replies
It is very hard to prove that real people have no redeeming qualities.
Rawr.
Starlight Glimmer from the Friendship Test.
she kidnaps the Mane 6 and forces them to take a series of “tests” that involve mutilation, poisoning, and other psychical torture, which lead to them dying one by one, until Rarity is the only survivor.
She constantly mocks them and shows no remorse at all.
Edited by DerpyHooves122 Hide / Show Replies
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Second criterion is a mess., started by neoYTPism on Apr 27th 2011 at 12:59:55 AM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Can this even be saved?, started by SoWeAteThem on Jun 21st 2011 at 10:34:18 AM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Qualifications, started by MrDeath on Jun 21st 2011 at 7:16:57 PM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: New Crowner Nov-10 (Example Cut), started by HiddenFacedMatt on Nov 7th 2011 at 5:19:12 AM
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Rename?, started by HiddenFacedMatt on Jan 4th 2012 at 5:38:12 PM
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Needs Help, started by Erivale on Nov 24th 2013 at 8:37:32 PM
So, i know there has been a lot of discussion on this trope already. But I think this page really falls into the "tropes are tools" problem , and is more weeding out bad complete monsters then non-examples of the tropes.
Like, that abuser guy from family guy is pretty undeniably a complete monster. He's an utterly evil character with no redeeming traits who is designed to perform heinous atrocities so as to make the audience fear and hate him. He fights the trope to a T.
He is admittedly in a show that has negative continuity and similar acts played for laughs. This makes him a badly conceived complete monster. Family guy shouldn't have put a complete monster into their show. But they did, and I don't think the fact they did it badly makes it not an example of the trope. If I put an unrepentant sadistic serial killer into MLP, that's an incredibly stupid idea, but that's still objectively a complete monster.
Basically, this seems oriented to only putting in good complete monsters. But you can fuck up this trope like any other, and ruling out complete monsters who fall flat or clash with their setting seems as absurd as ruling out kiss scenes that fall flat or clash with their setting.
In short: There are a lot of proposals denied because they're badly-written examples, not because they're not examples. This is not the case in other tropes, and shouldn't be the case here.
Edited by Urbenmyth Hide / Show Replies
The issue, I believe, is that other characters do actions just as bad as his Played for Laughs.
Just seeing this now but Guma's right. If other acts are played for laughs but just as bad, they're failing the heinous standard thanks to the Black Comedy crimes.
That Blue Inkling
I finally choose to make my first CM Proposal on this site. If I needed +500 edits and half year of activity, well, sorry, I didn't know. Okay, let's back to proposal. He's for two villains - Francis and Ernie from SMG4's Mario Bloopers.
Spoilers Off. You Have Been Warned.
What The Work?
SMG4's Mario Bloopers is Australian web-series about Mario, Luigi, SMG4 himself and many other characters, who get into different... strange situations. Mostly, comedic. Yeah, Mostly.
Who Is The Candidates?
Francis is a part of Big Bad Ensemble of Anime Arc. He's brutal Don of Anime Cartel, who so obsessed by anime that ready to commit Final Solution.
Ernie is the Big Bad of What If Mario Was In... Fall Guys. He's tyrannical king of Fall Guys, who getting the crown in very dirty ways.
What Did They Done?
Francis:
- Being Bad Boss, who abusing his henchmen.
- Smuggle anime.
- Participated in gangster showdowns.
- Kidnapped and tortured Axol.
- Kidnapped many inklings and throw them in Ink Zuccers to suck from them ink. He isn't care that this is torturing and killing them.
- Some war crimes.
- Murder Desti.
Ernie:
- Paralyzing his brother.
- Usurping his kingdom.
- Cheating on competition to became king again.
- Flaying Alive losers and turning them into the Fall Guys.
Mitigating Factors.
Both had some comedic moments, but they deeds isn't Played For Laugh. Also, Francis began as Nominal Hero, but later became villain and lost anything heroic.
Hideous Standard.
I know, SMG4's Mario Bloopers has high HS, but I think, they clearing it
Francis:
He attempted Final Solution and caused first permanent Character Death. More hideous only Ztar and Waluigi. But Ztar Made of Evil and, looks like he caring about Teletubbies, while Waluigi had Freudian Excuse and became The Atoner. Now, let's compare him with other Arc Villains:
- Waluigi: see above.
- Bob: he were more Jerkass than a villain, plus pulled a Heel–Face Turn.
- Peach: she were example of Extremist Was Right and pulled a Heel–Face Turn.
- Desti: same with Bob.
- SMG3: If not including YouTube Arc, he's crimes mostly Played For Laugh and they standard for SMG4 villain (even if include YouTube Arc). Plus, he tried to redeem himself sometimes.
Ernie:
Flaying Alive and turning into the Fall Guys losers. No one in SMG4's Mario Bloopers before didn't done this crap. And I reminding, that Ernie is a One-Shot Character with 7-8 minute screentime.
Final Verdict
Certainly Yes to Francis. What about Ernie, if he would appear later and get mitigating factors, then he wouldn't count. But for now I saying Yes to him too.
Edited by MikeySpletzer MeeM Hide / Show Replies
That Blue Inkling
I finally choose to make my first CM Proposal on this site. If I needed +500 edits and half year of activity, well, sorry, I didn't know. Okay, let's back to proposal. He's for two villains - Francis and Ernie from Supermarioglitchy4s Super Mario 64 Bloopers.
Spoilers Off. You Have Been Warned.
What The Work?
SMG4's Mario Bloopers is Australian web-series about Mario, Luigi, SMG4 himself and many other characters, who get into different... strange situations. Mostly, comedic. Yeah, Mostly.
Who Is The Candidates?
Francis is a part of Big Bad Ensemble of Anime Arc. He's brutal Don of Anime Cartel, who so obsessed by anime that ready to commit Final Solution.
Ernie is the Big Bad of What If Mario Was In... Fall Guys. He's tyrannical king of Fall Guys, who getting the crown in very dirty ways.
What Did They Done?
Francis:
- Being Bad Boss, who abusing his henchmen.
- Smuggle anime.
- Participated in gangster showdowns.
- Kidnapped and tortured Axol.
- Kidnapped many inklings and throw them in Ink Zuccers to suck from them ink. He isn't care that this is torturing and killing them.
- Some war crimes.
- Murder Desti.
Ernie:
- Paralyzing his brother.
- Usurping his kingdom.
- Cheating on competition to became king again.
- Flaying Alive losers and turning them into the Fall Guys.
Mitigating Factors.
Both had some comedic moments, but they deeds isn't Played For Laugh. Also, Francis began as Nominal Hero, but later became villain and lost anything heroic.
Hideous Standard.
I know, SMG4's Mario Bloopers has high HS, but I think, they clearing it
Francis:
He attempted Final Solution and caused first permanent Character Death. More hideous only Ztar and Waluigi. But Ztar Made of Evil and, looks like he caring about Teletubbies, while Waluigi had Freudian Excuse and became The Atoner. Now, let's compare him with other Arc Villains:
- Waluigi: see above.
- Bob: he were more Jerkass than a villain, plus pulled a Heel–Face Turn.
- Peach: she were example of Extremist Was Right and pulled a Heel–Face Turn.
- Desti: same with Bob.
- SMG3: If not including YouTube Arc, he's crimes mostly Played For Laugh and they standard for SMG4 villain (even if include YouTube Arc). Plus, he tried to redeem himself sometimes.
Ernie:
Flaying Alive and turning into the Fall Guys losers. No one in SMG4's Mario Bloopers before didn't done this crap. And I reminding, that Ernie is a One-Shot Character with 7-8 minute screentime.
Final Verdict
Certainly Yes to Francis. What about Ernie, if he would appear later and get mitigating factors, then he wouldn't count. But for now I saying Yes to him too.
Edited by MikeySpletzer MeeM
That Blue Inkling
Question: Can I propose villain as Complete Monster? Or here same think that has Villains Wiki?
MeeM
God of Life
May i ask what the Trope Namer is for Complete Monster?
Complete Monster, it's how I play Wide Open Sandboxes.
I have a suggestion for a Fanwork complete monster.
Prince Blueblood/ King Carapace
What is the Work
Jade Rings Changlings have a king part of the Dear Sweetie Belle Continuity.
Who is the Candidate and What have they Done?
Prince Blueblood is the spoiled nephew of Celestia who gets turned into a changling. His horrible actions include manipulating Queen Chrysalis so he is her sole source of love, Breeding a new flesh hungry breed of changlings that he feeds random ponies to, and finally killing Spike just to spite Rarity. And thats just the worst of it.
Do they have any Mitigating Factors or Freudian Excuse?
No he does it all cause Rarity humilated him at the Gala and he wants to rule Equestria. Anytime he showed care to anyone was a lie with him having no care for the changlings or his own family.
Do they meet the Heinousness Standard?
Compared to villans in the story like Chrysalis or Feather Duster his actions are espically petty with him being fine murdering everyone all because Rarity got some cake on him.
Final Verdict?
I think his desire for vengance and lack of care for anyone make him a pretty good candidate. Hell he full on says his only regret is not killing everyone sooner.
Edited by slenderman123 Hide / Show Replies
In the Fan Works page, where the My Little Pony page is, I would like to change Apple Lox description into this:
Before: Ask Jappleack: Appelox, the former Titan of Honesty, one of the ancient Titans who created Equestria, later betrayed his siblings and ate all of them, and became a reality-eating monster. In the present, Appelox had been devouring entire planes of existence, all of which were populated, to build up enough power to break a barrier his sister Twilus had placed around Equestria Prime—the version of Equestria seen in the show—and complete his consumption of the Multiverse. While talking to Jappleack, Appelox reveals that he was also the one who had sent his two sons, Discord and Wolflor, to destroy everything and everyone in her version of Equestria, and is the reason that her sister is dead. After: Applelox, formerly known as the Titan of Honesty, is a traitorous, sadistic monster who betrayed and killed his own siblings before pursuing a new existence as a reality-devouring monster. He has been doing this for centuries, developing enough power so that he would destroy the barrier that his sister Twilus has placed on Equestria Prime, the same one seen in the show, and then devour that reality. He also was responsible for sending his sons Discord and Wolflor to attack Jappleack's reality, which led to the death of her sister, a fact that Applelox taunted her about when she confronted him later on in the story. Arrogant, greedy, and barbaric, Applelox's ultimate goal is to keep gathering power so that he could devour the entire Multiverse, and then repeat the process to other worlds.
In the Fan Works page, where the My Little Pony page is, I would like to change Apple Lox description into this:
Before: Ask Jappleack: Appelox, the former Titan of Honesty, one of the ancient Titans who created Equestria, later betrayed his siblings and ate all of them, and became a reality-eating monster. In the present, Appelox had been devouring entire planes of existence, all of which were populated, to build up enough power to break a barrier his sister Twilus had placed around Equestria Prime—the version of Equestria seen in the show—and complete his consumption of the Multiverse. While talking to Jappleack, Appelox reveals that he was also the one who had sent his two sons, Discord and Wolflor, to destroy everything and everyone in her version of Equestria, and is the reason that her sister is dead. After: Applelox, formerly known as the Titan of Honesty, is a traitorous, sadistic monster who betrayed and killed his own siblings before pursuing a new existence as a reality-devouring monster. He has been doing this for centuries, developing enough power so that he would destroy the barrier that his sister Twilus has placed on Equestria Prime, the same one seen in the show, and then devour that reality. He also was responsible for sending his sons Discord and Wolflor to attack Jappleack's reality, which led to the death of her sister, a fact that Applelox taunted her about when she confronted him later on in the story. Arrogant, greedy, and barbaric, Applelox's ultimate goal is to keep gathering power so that he could devour the entire Multiverse, and then repeat the process to other worlds.
Since you guys always distinguish which is live and which is animated, can you do the same with the CM main article? At least write down includes animated films for Western animation, and outright change the film part to live action films, you know, like with Live Action TV? Please fix this soon.
Knows-Many-Things
Whoever came up with that Monster joke for the page image, great job.
Find the Light in the Dark
Ace Combat Legend
Yo can we have Radoslav Barkov from COD Modern Warfare in the Call Of Duty Monster List?
How much Complete Monsters can there be in a single work? Like in a single book, film, fan work or video game? Can there be 5 Complete Monsters, each depraved in their own way, pursuing different goals? Is that possible?
Hide / Show Replies
Within a single installment, it can be a bit of a challenge for it to have multiple Complete Monsters. We do have a few single installments have two or three listed, but any more is very rare.
I think Octopath Traveler currently holds the record for most Complete Monsters in a single installment, as there are six listed from a single video game.
Can a parody villain be labeled a Complete Monster? For example, can a Abridged Series have a villain heinous enough to fit this trope?
Hide / Show Replies
Only if their actions are taken seriously enough...
IPP Wick Check created.
Has an Alpha Bitch ever been labeled a Complete Monster? Like she starts off as the typical snooty teenage girl, but is later revealed to be a sociopath?
Edited by superboy313
How come Transformers can have a Complete Monster, yet My Little Pony can't? (Ignoring Tirek from G1)
Hide / Show Replies
We just upvoted another one, King Lavan from My Little Pony 'n Friends. But to sum it up, My Little Pony usually doesn't villains who are truly heinous because the franchise is usually slice-of-life or light fantasy. Transformers at it's core is a franchise about war, which allows it to have villains who can do some truly horrible things (especially as there are plenty of Transformers works that aren't aimed at children). It's just not about villains with no redeeming traits, they have to go above and beyond what is typical villainy.
The threads discussed Pony villains more time then they would like, and most of the major villains have been discussed. If you think there's someone who's been overlooked, first search for "complete monster" plus whatever villain you think count. Check it again to be sure. Then if you really, really believe they count (because again, the thread's seriously tired of discussing MLP villains), make a proper effort post in the clean-up thread. The Administriva subpage should help you out. But only if you really think they qualify.
Regarding Friendship is Magic I've heard that it's impossible for any villain in that series to be a CM due to the inherent nature of this trope going against the show's themes and being insanely inappropriate for its age demographic.
Does having a Freudian Excuse disqualify someone from being a complete monster? I would say yes as by definition a Freudian Excuse is an at least someone sympathetic backstory.
Hide / Show Replies
Does anyone else here think this trope's title might be a bit misleading. My first exposure to this trope was Samuel Blunt from Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. I was confused, because he was a human, and I didn't get that this trope was about villains, not necessarily (literal) monsters. It can also get a bit jarring to see a literal monster make it for this trope, as a monster can be a good guy just as easily as a villain. Should we rename this trope Pure Evil?
another double post, sorry, I assumed my post would appear at the bottom of the page, my memory of how this forum works is still fuzy.
Edited by Kion2525
When writing them, take care to develop their personalities or they risk becoming a Evil Sue.
Evil Sue bans any example whereas Complete Monster bans real life example.
Hide / Show Replies
I mean Villain Sue, sorry!
When writing them, take care to develop their personalities or they risk becoming a Villain Sue full stop.
Villain Sue bans any example whereas Complete Monster bans real life examples.
Dr. Zeppo
What does it mean for a villain to be "not heinous enough" to be a Complete Monster? The term seems too vague to be used as a way of settling a dispute over whether someone is a Complete Monster.
The answer to life and everything is in this place As are the numbers most favored by Two-Face Hide / Show Replies
It means they're not that bad comparer to other character in the story. For example, if Alice killed ten people then she's not as heinous as Bob who killed twenty, so she can't count.
I have a doubt about a character from Sendokai Champions, In the season 2, is called Lon, I personally think that he is a Complete Monster, For example, he try to murder he's friend (the same one who try to save him later from a chasm just to throw himself in it), Later he begin destroying and conquering innocents worlds just because he belives he's doing the right thing, and later he conquer the entire planet earth and kidnap one of his friends just to spite of them, and this last part how the season ended, with him conquering the entire multiverse, He have a excuse that his mother abandone him and his father later to manage his own industry, but that is pretty petty excuse for what he do, So he is a complete monster or a tragic villlain?, What do you think?
Hide / Show Replies
The Sneaky Idiot
Okay so I was lazy and didnt look all the way through (this place is pretty f-ing big), but I'm gonna ask anyway.
First, has there ever been a time where a Complete Monster has tried to take themselves OUT of that? For instance, pulled a Heel–Face Turn, turning him at least a little less evil?
Second, has there been a time where someone tried to invoke this In-Universe?
Edited by alixplaystation5 May the Father of Understanding Guide You to Safety and Peace. Hide / Show Replies
A CM can't successfully pull a Heel–Face Turn or become less evil (if they act less evil, it is only an act) since that would be a redeeming trait. If they try to go more legit, they have to laps back to unrepentant evilness.
As for invoking or in-universe trope, since it is possible to try and fail to make a CM (lack of writing skill, censorship, differing opinions over what qualifies), they have to be subject to the same scrutiny. Invoking or in-universe is only relevant to this trope as a nomination for a CM.
That Loser Who Comes To This Site Every Day
I'd like to bring up something that has been confusing me. So apparently, complete monsters are villains with, quote and quote, "no redeeming qualities"
Yet a few villains listed have something akin to standards. Matt Engarde DID show concern for his cat and asked Phoenix to go feed Shoe, Akainu called out the Gorosei and hates how the Marines are used as attack dogs for the Celestial Dragons, and The Joker freaked out the MINUTE he learned Red Skull was an actual Nazi.
Granted, it's not exactly much as these characters are pretty awful people (Well OK, Akainu is debatable considering the gray morality of One Piece), but it is something. Don't mean to start a flame war, I'm just a little confused and maybe it could be re-worded a bit better.
Edited by PsychicSlayerNatrium Hide / Show Replies
In regards to the Joker freaking out over Red Skull being a Nazi, that was from a non-canonical crossover. So that particular incarnation of the Joker wouldn't count, since it's a separate continuity.
I'm not familiar with the other examples you brought up, but you can see if those instances have been brought up before on the cleanup thread. Just type up "complete monster", the villain's name, and a related factor in the search bar (e.g, "complete monster, Engarde, cat) and see if it's been brought up before. If you can't find anything, just ask politely on the thread about any potential redeeming factor. If it's been discussed before, they'll let you know.
Can a character be a Complete Monster and still have a degree of affection or friendship with someone else as long as their own selfishness eventually trumps those feelings? For example, Light Yagami in Death Note seemed to have some degree of affection for his family even while active as Kira.
Or can that only happen if they have those feelings before their Start of Darkness? Like Lotso's love for his former owner in Toy Story 3
Edited by WolframAndHart Hide / Show Replies
Way I see it, they can have affection and friends in the sense of "this person brings me joy" but generally it has to be not "I care for this person" so much as "this person has value to me."
But you may want to just ask in the thread, they'll be able to give you a better answer.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Does a Pet the Dog moment or two invalidate a character's Complete Monster status?
Edited by immortalfrieza Hide / Show Replies
Thanks. I just realized it would probably be more productive to ask on that Complete Monster cleanup thread instead of here.
Pretty unlikely unless it's a facade. Benevolence goes against the spirit of Complete Monster.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
They can be if the benevolence is just Pragmatic Villainy (no one wants to work for a guy who treats his henchmen like shit) or as Septimus said if it's the façade of a Villain with Good Publicity. If it's genuine benevolence, then no.
So underneath the façade, a Complete Monster is guaranteed to be a Bad Boss?
I have always wondered the following: Do Western Animation/Futurama and Dan Vs.. have any good Complete Monster candidates?
Hide / Show Replies
Is labeling a villain a Complete Monster when they're really not and the fact that they have a few redeeming qualities in them considered Ron the Death Eater applied to a villain?
Hide / Show Replies
If these redemming qualities are real, no, it's not Complete Monster. If they are just fan stuff, it's Ron the Death Eater.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Knows-Many-Things
If Complete Monster is a YMMV trope, then why is it so exclusive and treated so seriously?
Edited by 50.13.110.34 Find the Light in the Dark Hide / Show Replies
Because "YMMV" doesn't mean "anything goes". I believe there are also plans to make it non-YMMV in the future.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Isn't that exactly what it means though? "Your Mileage May Vary" aka "You may not agree with this, but here goes anyway".
Edited by 50.13.110.34 Find the Light in the Dark
No.
Cliché Storm is another YMMV trope, but if a work has only one cliché then that work is simply not an example. If someone listed it as an example, it would be removed. If dozens of people began listing every work they found boring as a Cliché Storm, we might have to define it more strictly and vet all examples.
In the same way, Complete Monster requires certain criteria. They used to be less strictly enforced, but that led to massive misuse and people added characters who contradicted the trope description. This meant it had to become more exclusive and more discussion was needed.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Doesn't really prove me wrong. But they should accelerate those plans to make this trope a Non-YMMV.
Find the Light in the Dark
There is a lot of work still to be done before we can go ahead.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Was this trope more misused than others? Every trope gets examples that should not have been added. As long as there are No Real Life Examples (and I agree that there should be no real life examples), it doesn't need extraordinary care IMO. I think there is sometimes too much concern here about defaming fictional characters.
Actually, "defaming fictional characters" is not the issue in the slightest. The issue is people trying to shove bad examples into Complete Monster. That exists even without a Real Life section.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
It's obviously always a bad thing when a trope is misused. Looking at the discussion, it seemed to me (even though I don't think I ever tried to add an example; I think I've tweaked an example or two to add context or a link or something, but that's all; so it is not about anything I want to add) as if there was much more concern about the misuse of this trope than of misuse of others.
Maybe there's a good reason for that, in that it was being misused a lot more or something. I was just concerned that it could be blown out of proportion with this trope just because it's extreme, as that consideration shouldn't make it more serious as long as there's no Real Life section.
Well, this trope attracts a lot of interest. That's why we are so strict with it. Other tropes tend to run into manpower problems if you try to handle them the way this trope is handled.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Implying any subjectively is left,seriously,I'm not naming them,but several characters were "disqualified" for disingenuous at best "reasons"(*COUGH* Syndrome *SUPER-COUGH*).
Edited by Thad I AM YOUR KING!!!!
Example of this reaction still has to process through [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok thread], right?
If so, shouldn't it get mentioned in description?
Hide / Show Replies
So can the Complete Monster be considered the Shadow Archetype of the All-Loving Hero?
Hide / Show Replies
Following the description of Shadow Archetype, "it's the part of the personality that embodies everything a character, called the 'Self', doesn't like about themselves, the things they deny and project on to others. To show these things to the audience we need an embodiment of some sort." I guess that nothing in the description of All-Loving Hero implies that the character have a really negative side.
Edited by MagBas
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Proposed entry for Gabriel Miller from Sword Art Online
•Gabriel Miller is the Big Bad of the second half of the Alicization Arc, a cold sociopath even as a child, Gabriel manages to assault the Ocean Turtle and enter into the Underworld in the super-account of Vector, god of darkness, with the intention of capture the only fully developed Artificial Fluctlight and brainwash her into be his submissive wife and "start a new life in a new world". With his new godlike powers, Gabriel turns the turbulent Seven Lords Assamblea of the Dark Territory in his personal dictatorship taking advantage of the flaws in the data of the habitats (who are forced to follow the "rule of the strongest"), when the wall of the Human Empire colapses, Gabriel leads the invation, using PoH and DIL as his Co-Dragons, when the invation don't go so well as he expect, Gabriel decide use more risking strategies causing unnecesary deaths in his own side, believing who the sheer number and experience of his side are the only things who he needs to win going so far to use members of his own army as Demihuman sacrifices to empower DIL and send his melee fighter to cross a abbysm in a rope all of this without care for the lifes of "the uncomplete fluctlights". In top of that, Gabriel go so far to think in the possibilty of destroying the Underworld and killing every IA in it after his victory. Gabriel Miller is epitome the of sociopathy and selfishness in the entire SAO series, becoming the series' biggest Knight of Cerebus, the Administrator Quinella might be caused the biggest damage to the society of the Human Empire, but no one had caused much death, misery and destruction than Gabriel Miller in the entire Underworld.
Watch me destroying my country
Proposed entry for F.A.N.G from Street Fighter V:
- Complete Monster: Once you get past F.A.N.G's wacky mannerisms and explore his story, the Shadaloo dictator's Sycophantic Servant proves to be this easily. The man endured Training from Hell to turn his hands into poison in order to become an elite assassin by way of corroding and dissolving people to death, has absolutely no regard for the clan that trained him once they're killed all around him for attempting a coup and in fact worships their killer once he comes to believe said killer is the ultimate bringer of death, is demonstrably more than perfectly willing to use the abilities he got from his training on helpless children, teenagers, and non-combatant women without even a hint of a second thought and then later gloat to his victims' loved ones, is absolutely dictatorial in his leadership style as Bison's #2 and can barely contain his absolutely psychotic temper until it peters out whenever he or his master are denied their wishes, and ultimately is the brains behind a plot to drive the world into a cesspool of chaos and death using a set of artificial moon spheres in any number of ways in order to feed his master's power to the point of Nigh-Invulnerability.
So the reason why Complete Monster is labelled under Cynicism Tropes is because it goes against the All-Loving Hero's belief that everyone, no matter how evil has some good in them?
When was the Complete Monster trope actually created? The info box states it was in 2013, but the thread dedicated to managing it was all the way back in 2010. Not to mention it was mentioned quite frequently before then.
Hide / Show Replies
At least 2009, and even that, I believe, was a second draft...so probably 2008. Complete Monster, when I first came here, was supposed to be villain with no redeeming qualities but Trope Decay became villain the audience hates and then someone put Pure Hate in You Know That Thing Where(now Trope Launch Pad) to cover that but it was merged into complete monster(creating the mess that's accumulated for the past seven years)
Edited by IndirectActiveTransport That's why he wants you to have the money. Not so you can buy 14 Cadillacs but so you can help build up the wastes
How can a God of Evil or Eldritch Abomination qualify as a Complete Monster?
Hide / Show Replies
Not a question for here, I'd say. Trope Talk seems more like a place for this.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Wasn't there a debate on whether Complete Monster should be made into a non-YMMV trope or not?
Hello guys. As you can tell, I'm new here. But I've been reading TV Tropes far longer ago than that, so it compensate quite a bit my lack of experience here.
Not that I want to create a fused by talking about him again, but even after actually reading each pages which talked about him before he got cut, I still don't understand why Eobard Thawne wouldn't qualify as a CM.
The arguments In favor of his guts that I got to see were :
- The Season 2's trailer
- His Pet the Dog moment towards Barry.
For the trailer, it wasn't actually Eobard Thawne, but another character which had pretty much the same voice as him, who wanted to kill Barry in exchange for him going home. Besides, if that was the case, wouldn't it create a big fuss In the first season ? I mean, he wanted to use Barry's speed to go home in the first place, which is why he kept himself from killing him.
Now, the Pet the Dog moment. Taken out-of-context, it's great out-of-character moment : why Eobard Thawne is suddenly being nice to the one he hated (the Season one's final revealed that he had the superhuman will to keep himself from killing him because he need him) for at least over ten years ? It's all explained : not long before he made this decision, he taunted Barry about the fact that he think that he'll never be truly happy, even if he had everything he wanted. That's exactly why he was nice to him : he wanted to prove Barry that even with the favor he did to him, he'll not be happy, which arguably turns the Pet the Dog moment into a Kick the Dog moment.
I've heard that you were going to cut him until his arc is over, but it's not like he was going to come back : how do you bring back to life someone who doesn't exist in the first place ? So, unless there was another argument in favor of Thawne being cut, I suggest to take him back in the list of C Ms.
Hide / Show Replies
You should bring this up here, although for what it's worth, the reason why Thawne is disqualified is not either of the things you mention (not sure where you are getting those).
It's because he genuinely cared for Cisco (he also maybe cared for Caitlin and maybe Barry to the extent he separated him from the Flash but that's more arguable) and because he left behind a video clearing Barry's father for altruistic reasons.
How does being Made of Evil prevent a villain from being a Complete Monster?
Edited by superboy313 Hide / Show Replies
Being Made of Evil usually does mean they do not have the possibility of making a choice to become good. The ability of making such moral choices is a prerequisite of becoming a Complete Monster.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I guess that's why villains like Aku don't qualify as a Complete Monster (aside from many of his actions being Played for Laughs) and Darkseid does.
Edited by superboy313
The Dark Lord of Hawaiian Shirts
I honestly don't get why Off Screen Villainy doesn't count. Why shouldn't they qualify if their actions off-screen or before the story takes place is truly heinous and well-proven and -established?
Edited by Hawaii_Knut Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!! Hide / Show Replies
Because they don't have the requisite impact. Plus, a number of sources of Offscreen Villainy are not reliable.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
What a minute, A Complete Monster cant be a Draco in Leather Pants? This Trope has seen more than one characters be a rare example of both.
Hide / Show Replies
I have only one word to support your theory: Sephiroth.
Edited by MegahunterX
Where does it say that a Complete Monster can't be a Draco in Leather Pants? Of course they can.
I'm a Troper!!!
It's a disturbing trend, but even Complete Monsters, even RAPISTS can be DINLP. See Franklin from True Blood.
Jon Irenicus called.
Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!!
Can a Card-Carrying Villain exploit the Complete Monster trope to its absolute worst?
Hide / Show Replies
Trope Talk question IMO.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
If a Complete Monster has some comedic traits, can they be used to enhance his/her evilness?
Hide / Show Replies
Sometimes yes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Is it logically possible for a Villain Protagonist to be a Complete Monster?
Hide / Show Replies
Yes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
American Psycho comes to mind.
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
...Speaking of which, is it possible for a CM to not be happy about the predicament their nature has brought on them, in some way (the monster can't feel bad about being a monster in the first place), or even have the story show being a Complete Monster is not all it's cracked up to be?
Edited by manhandled I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
Would John Gieger from Speed 2 apply since Howard Payne from Speed does? Or does Gieger not enjoy the carnage to the same level that Payne does and thus, he's seen as having a Freudian Excuse? Plus, what about Fluke from General Hospital or Amy Dunne from Gone Girl?
Hide / Show Replies
Use this thread.
Would John Gieger from Speed 2 apply since Howard Payne from Speed does? Or does Gieger not enjoy the carnage to the same level that Payne does and thus, he's seen as having a Freudian Excuse?
&)$;@9?@4$/8&;’
Are complete monsters really protected from being scrappies or Generic Doomsday Villains (If you look on the character page for Ragyo, Generic Doomsday Villain is there, but she's a qualified Complete Monster)?
Edited by manhandled I got my political views from reddit and that's bad Hide / Show Replies
A Complete Monster can be a scrappy, but not a Generic Doomsday Villain. If one listed as both, bring it up in the cleanup thread.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I still don't get why C Ms can't be GDVs...
Also, what example of a CM who is hated to point of Scrappy can you think of?
P.S. The reason I'm afraid of posting at the cleanup thread is because I'm not necessarily contributing to any new examples (how many strangers contribute there anyway?), and I don't know if they accept discussions on parts of the trope itself.
Edited by manhandled I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
It does accept such questions.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Sorry if this is the wrong page to be discussing this, but I think Reynard from Reynard the Fox should go here. Here is how I suggest it should go: Reynard before the story even starts has shown himself to be a rapist and child abuser. Throughout the story he commits multiple brutal murders, including Chanticleer's wife and eleven of their children. He murders a hare and frames a ram for it. Reynard seems to have no morals and and even accuses his father and nephew, who was trying to help him, of treason to protect himself. And he gets away with it!
Hide / Show Replies
Aye, this is the wrong place. Here's the right one.
Last page, addpost button.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I have always wondered the following: Do Western Animation/Futurama and Dan Vs.. have any good Complete Monster candidates?
The Dark Lord of Hawaiian Shirts
Can Affably Evil characters qualify as Complete Monsters?
Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!! Hide / Show Replies
No, but they can pretend to be.
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
Evil Is Cool or at least one for the Awesome section? I mean, Lockdown is currently a CM, but he does have his awesome moments Not anymore he's not, but my points still stand. And moments for the Funny page can still be taken seriously in-universe.
Also, you hardly get answers in the discussions unless the accompanying page is a hot topic now.
Edited by 99.226.231.38 I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
I know this one is relatively old, but one example is Jon Irenicus from Baldur's Gate II is qualified as a Complete Monster, but many like him because of his badassery and numerous Magnificent Bastard moments.
Another is Emperor Palpatine from... you know. He's one of the most evil characters in the franchise, has none redeeming qualities, but still an Magnificent Bastard.
Basically, Complete Monsters can be likeable to the audience if they have one or more cool tropes (like Badass, Evil Is Cool, Magnificent Bastard and Evil Virtues (those that don't affect your morality, like determination).
Edited by 109.169.104.168 Srg. Dornan: Troper, what are you doing here?! Get back to your post!!!
Why isn't Arcade seen as a Complete Monster after his actions in this. Sure he has comedic moments, but so do others who have qualified for this trope. Plus it is played straight with the impact he's had on these children. He's shown no loyalty to anyone. He even tried to kill the one woman who helped him. He has not empathy what so ever and is reviled by everyone. And after this his only regret is that he is worried he reached his peak, and can't top it.
Hide / Show Replies
Please use the discussion forum linked in every other post here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The Infinitely Curious
Are you guys sure this and Woobie tropes are only tropes meant to be described by the way the audience feels about them and not what they actually are?
I mean, Ensemble Darkhorses and Scrappies seem to definitely be a matter of how famous or infamous people feel about them, or things like Growing the Beard and Jumping the Shark are a matter of when the audience thinks things got better or worse for the story in question, but these type of tropes... They kind of seem to be a pretty accurate enough description for them to be an actual trope.
"Hell exists not to punish sinners, but to ensure that nobody sins in the first place." - Eikishiki Yamaxanadu (Touhou) Hide / Show Replies
It will eventually be a proper trope, but as it stands there is still a lot of bad examples to clean up to get it all to a presentable level.
If it's a proper trope, then will that mean that we have to take it seriously (i.e. forget your previous interpretations, this guy's a true monster)?
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
You can take the trope seriously already now - in fact, the cleanup thread linked everywhere here already does. (As a sidenote, Complete Monster cannot rely on Alternative Character Interpretation).
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
We need a link to Moral Event Horizon somewhere in the description.
Hide / Show Replies
Ask here.
I can somewhat understand that this article is closed, but what if you want to add a new example? Because I have a good one...
Hide / Show Replies
All discussion of this trope goes here, for the record.
Intergalactic Destroyer
You know, a character doesn't have to be sympathetic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic. After all, there are plenty of people in Real Life who are complete assholes.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know) Hide / Show Replies
Read No Real Life Examples Please and Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.
EDIT: Forget it, misread your post. However, I'd suggest you to do that kind of objections in the forums.
Edited by AMNK
"A character doesn't have to be sympathic or have redeeming moral qualities to be realistic."
Real Life doesn't have the luxury of giving people multiple points-of-view to understand the nature of, say, asshole-ish classmates or nerve-grinding co-workers in the same way a work of fiction can. In a TV show, you can learn why an antagonist acts the way they do or see some redeeming qualities in them from A Day In The Lime Light episode. In real life, you have no way of getting into the minds of everyone who has ever been slightly unpleasant to you.
Edited by WhiteBear
Yeah, maybe, but there are people who are genuinely vicious and irredeemable too. That's a given. I think having at least one enhances a work. The sentence saying it's unrealistic or for some reason simplistic for a work to have this? Let's see, Hitler, Stalin, etc, and most probably know from our lives some people that failed empathy 101.
Edited by doomsday524 He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Do you know why they did what they did? If not, then you can't really say whether they could be redeemed.
I'm a Troper!!!
The entry on Angra Mainyu makes him rather similar to Melkor. Wonder if Tolkein was doing that intentionally
Hide / Show Replies
"The Complete Warrior Of Justice
Should the comic book version of the Joker be considered a Complete Monster? I'm pretty sure you have to be consistent to be this trope, and that's the one thing he never does.
Hide / Show Replies
The only thing required to be consistent is your lack of redeeming qualities, which is the one thing that has been consistant with the Joker. No matter what the main DC universe Joker is a CM because he's done so many horrific things with no redeeming qualities. Just because in some stories he acts a bit less henious doesn't change the fact that underneath it all he's still just as bad.
I've noticed that this entry keeps getting deleted from most articles, is this a universally agreed decision or vandalism? If it's the former, what's the explanation for that?
Hide / Show Replies
It goes through the cleanup thread; before an example can be added to the page it has to get approval first (by consensus on whether or not it meets every criteria identified, not just the big three). Any Zero Context Examples and examples added without going through the approval process get automatically cut, any that go through the process and get passed go on the YMMV page.
We also cut down on potholes because nine times out of ten its all misuse.
Is there any way to add Karen from "the smokers" on here, she's a psychopathic cereal rapest, who claims to do it "not just for use, but all women everywhere", nearly rapes Jeremy (the nicest guy and one of the vary few likable characters in this film), she even has the gull to blame it on "men" and claims she's like Gandhi, it gets to the point were she makes Griffin from red zone Cuba look like a saint
Hide / Show Replies
My god. Tony the Tiger and Cap'n Crunch better watch their backs. She already hit Snap, Crackle, and Pop.
Serious answer: Take it to this thread.
Trueblade74
Is a single TRS discussion REALLY grounds for a team of moderators systematically going over every single topic on the entire website and getting rid of any connection between Ghetsis and the Complete Monster trope?
I hate you all. Hide / Show Replies
A number of tropers, after discussion, have concluded Ghetsis doesn't fit and therefore applying Complete Monster to him is misuse. I expect you are free to challenge the conclusion they came to.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Actually he is not; Ghetsis is on the never list, that is the "we've already gone over everything to do with the character multiple times and there is no further avenue of discussion left uncovered so that any future discussion of the character will only go over old ground and serve to clutter the thread."
Simply put, he was brought up, debated, and cut, then remained cut when several different tropers brought him up again. Unless a new game with Ghetsis is released the discussion is well and truly closed, any attempts to re-add him in spite of that will cause mods to get hollered to.
If, however, he can find something that was not brought up in any of the discussions, he may be able to.
I'm a Troper!!!
Honestly, I think just about everything was brought up in the discussion. The users who were against Ghetsis' inclusion grasped at straws to disqualify him, citing that he "fails at baseline heinousness." Even though every other criteria was hit, and Ghetsis stands out as more evil and despicable than the other Big Bads of Pokemon, even when compared to Cyrus.
I've got several arguments as to why Ghetsis is a valid example of a Complete Monster, but unfortunately I cannot bring it to the discussion because he's been permanately disqualified via the "Never Again" list. -_-
^ If he fails at baseline heinousness, he doesn't qualify. That's not "grasping at straws", it's the single strongest argument that can be levelled against an example of this trope.
Edited by 216.99.32.44 I'm a Troper!!!
^^ Just because nobody agreed with your decision doesn't mean they were grasping at straws. Don't be a sore loser.
How evil a character has to be in order to be considered for Complete Monster.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
It's basically used to keep villians from kid's shows from being brought up. In such a hypothetical work an unlikeable bully who enjoys being a dick to the other kids is truly henious if every other character is nice and sympathetic, but when you put them on the same page as torturers, rapists, murderers and other colourful characters there is just no justification for them being anywhere near this trope. Before the cleanup thread really kicked into gear you even saw such characters added to the pages with the justification being "x was making fun of y."
As a guideline if a villian isn't really going above and beyond standard villian fare then they're not really hitting that baseline standard we've set up. That includes trying to kill the hero since that is more or less what the majority of all villians try to do.
[[{{Monster}} Monstrum]]
The writeup is waaay too long. No wonder people aren't reading the article and we end up with examples that in no way apply. I'm thinking of pruning the corollaries to the basics - no attempt at atonement, no adequate Freudian Excuse, no well intentioned extremism. Most of the rest seem to be frequently subverted and really do nothing to prove the rule.
Also, there is absolutely no reason for the corollaries to be so elaborate. If you need a paragraph to explain the clause, it means that the initial statement needs to be reworded into something more accessible and concise.
Edited by insofar My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Hide / Show Replies
I disagree that a Freudian Excuse is enough to get out of this trope. After all, Hitler had a Freudian Excuse since his stepfather used to beat him. It didn't excuse committing genocide on millions of people.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Lots of people in Real Life committed genocide. There are so many people in Real Life who have done heinous actions that the standards for a real person to be an example are so high they're impossible to meet, or at least would have to make Hitler look like Gandhi.
I'm a Troper!!!
Southern Style Scribe
I don't see why Brian's family from The Breakfast Club doesn't qualify. They abuse, guilt-trip and humiliate him to get perfect grades to boost their already Jupiter-sized superiority complexes and apparently don't give a fuck that he could've, you know, KILLED HIMSELF. Hell, most of the parents, with the possible exception of Claire's, could qualify. Andy's dad pretty implies he's done worse stuff than taping buttocks together a long, long time ago and that he's grooming Andy to be as evil as him.
Hide / Show Replies
Re cut request: This trope has been in much better shape thanks to the cleanup, and it has more than 2000 wicks and inbounds. Please do not cut it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman Hide / Show Replies
There's no way a motion to cut is ever going to be granted for something THIS massive.
Sinc ethe request went through and broke the page history - Webarchive
What the hell happened here?
I saw this listed yesterday, but there was no button to press to say "no, don't delete this"....
Visit forums.darksidemoon.net, a new Type-Moon forum.
voosh
Subjective? What's so subjective about this trope? Complete Monsters are horrifically cruel villains with absolutely no regret with what they did. This is about as subjective as the Magnificent Bastard trope.
Hide / Show Replies
It seems like they've just given up on cleaning up this article. There are some villains who are portrayed as being irredeemably evil and are acknowledged as such. Suikoden II's Luca Blight is a good example. This reeks of laziness.
Edited by lrrose
Well, seeing as how morality is TECHNICALLY subjective, as is the notion of whether or not they have a sufficient excuse for their evil deeds, I guess that puts this trope into arguably subjective territory.
lets keep fixing this trope. i dont want to see Mr. Krabs or Alejandro here again.
I also guess that we must keep fixing this trope, this trope yet have one strong non-subjective factor. Let's examine the requisites one by one:
- The character must personally 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 Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.
- "Truly horrendous acts"- subjective. "the story makes no attempt to gloss these over or present them in a positive light"-non subjective. "Acts concealed behind a Villainy Discretion Shot or by the distant Mook don't count"-non-subjective.
- The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (in particularly disturbing stories, with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.
- Totally non subjective.
- There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.
- Totally subjective
- The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
- Totally non-subjective.
- Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.
- Well, outside by the "no Redemption Equals Death for this character" and the "A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question", totally subjective.
And this without look to the villain types that never are Complete Monsters:Anti-Villain, Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, Well-Intentioned Extremist, Harmless Villain, Worthy Opponent, Sympathetic Murderer and Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain are all non-subjective.
Edited by MagBas
Thanks for this, Mag Bas. I'll be using it as semi-guidelines to keep in mind for my cleanup attempt.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Point Three can get an automatic pass, though, if the story doesn't even mention something that could be vaguely considered as a justification or Freudian Excuse. Some Complete Monsters just don't get that much backstory.
What's precedent ever done for us?
The idea that morality is subjective reeks of many things: chiefly laziness. Yes, there are many instances right and wrong are unclear. But we'd all agree that torturing people For the Evulz is wrong (and even if none of us thought so, it would still be so). We could at least try to decide on a threshold for "truly horrendous acts".
^ evil acts=/=evil people. And even then, there's still the issue of "do they have an adequate Freudian Excuse". The problem with deciding on a threshold is that even if we did, it would still be impossible to agree on what passes that threshold and what doesn't.
I'm a Troper!!!
Would a character qualify from another character's point of view? In The Fairly Odd Parents, Timmy thinks that Vicky and Mr. Crocker might be Complete Monsters.
Magic people, voodoo people! Hide / Show Replies
Good point. In Crocker's back story, he actually cared about his fairies.
Magic people, voodoo people!
Besides, Crocker's a Harmless Villain who can't accomplish anything without someone else's help. However, although Vicky doesn't qualify, she is often treated like one. In one episode, she was even explicitly stated to be the most evil person in the universe.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
If the other character voices this view, then it's You Monster!.
A fistful of me.
^ No, You Monster! is a Stock Phrase. This is about the way other characters act towards her, not what they say.
I'm a Troper!!!
Why can't a group of villains in general counts as complete monsters, despite doing a lot of bad things?
Hide / Show Replies
Because groups lack Moral Agency, which is one of the qualifiers in being truly henious as per the cleanup threads long, long refinement of the trope. Not only that, but being a Complete Monster means being head and shoulders above the crop in terms of evilness, whereas if a group was counted as a Complete Monster then everyone in the group is roughly as evil as each other, which contradicts the truly henious part. Finally, groups are typically large, and there's no concievable way that every single member of it is Truly Henious for the above reasons, so that's misuse of the trope. If you could prove that each member counted individual as a Complete Monster, then there's no point in labeling the group as one instead of just the members.
Vaas and Hoyt from Far Cry 3 definitely should be on the list.
Hide / Show Replies
Then go to the cleanup thread in Special Efforts and state your case.
about the first rule for this trope, does a character have to succeed in horrible actions? Steele from Balto deserves to be called a Complete Monster yet he only ever tried to kill anyone.
Hide / Show Replies
Yes. If this is the case then delete Steele. Only problem is the Western Animation page is locked.
I'm a Troper!!!
I haven't seen that movie, however what the page says is that he refused to let the dogs deliver things to the village and left the kids doomed, so does that indicate anything?
If ultimately the others managed to deliver the goods in time and nobody was hurt too badly, then he wouldn't fit, since one of the criterias is your actions actually causing enough damage to be considered irredeemable. There would have to be at least one dead or crippled for life kid in this situation for him to count on this criteria.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
This doesn't make sense to me, since regardless of whether a character succeeds or not, the malice in their actions is the same.
A fistful of me.
I'm kinda confused here.
Pete Docter said that a true villain is an unrealistic character, and that's why most of the Pixar villains have redeemable qualities.
But isn't the point of a villain to be intimidating and terrifying? The way most of these examples are treated as really, really scary makes me think a Complete Monster is the best kind of villain. For exampe, why do you think people prefer Lord Shen over Tai Lung? Shen didn't have that deep of a personality; I just saw him as an Generic Doomsday Villain Evil Overlord trying to kill everyone. But everyone LOVES him because he's a vile, sadistic, cruel, Nightmare Fuel-inducing, city-destroying, murdering, asshole, more so than Tai Lung.
In fact, I think ALL of the villains I've ever created are Complete Monsters, because I want them to be cool like Lord Shen. (Example: Iron Rose from Cold Blood.)
Hide / Show Replies
Except Lord Shen did have a (faint) Freudian Excuse. Which is probably why he was so cool.
I can think of plenty of sympathetic villains that are cool. Darth Vader, Davy Jones, the Operative from Serenity, etc.
A fistful of me.
So, what's the difference between a Jerkass and a Complete Monster? I ask this, because both types are unpleasant and there seems to be a degree of overlap between the two.
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee! Hide / Show Replies
Jerkasses are more unpleasant than anything. They're annoying but not entirely life threateningly dangerous, at worst a Jerkass can probably be someone who doesn't care about anyone, and on occasion might cross the Moral Event Horizon.
A Complete Monster on the other hand is someone who is more than unpleasant, they're downright evil. They have already gone far past the Moral Event Horizon, and have no regrets about it. The value of one's life means nothing to them other than a means to reach a end. What they do can mean anything from murder, to rape, to mass genocide.
A Complete Monster is far more than just "unpleasant". They are pure evil with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. A Jerkass is unpleasant but are at the very least on the good guys' side, giving them at least one redeeming quality.
I'm a Troper!!!
To summarize, A Jerkass can be either a good guy or a bad guy while a Complete Monster is exclusively a villain.
Are they evil or just heinously selfish? I mean do they do horrible things for some gain or just for the pleasure of seeing others suffer?
Hide / Show Replies
A sociopath who ruins anyone if he has to in order to make them get out of his way to his goals, or a sociopath who simply ruins harmless people as a hobby?
Depends on the standard of the work and the full details. Both could count or not count depending on all the details.
In other words, this is a pointless question because it apparently assumes all Complete Monsters are the same.
Why was "death metal" removed from the music section again, considering when most of the people in those songs did completely FUCKED UP SHIT BEYOND TELLING?
Hide / Show Replies
If you're talking about the "Death Metal songs with gore in it in general" example, that's because we don't list "in general" or "everybody in X genre" examples. If you think one particular example or several might count, you can go to this thread to discuss them individually.
what about
1: emperor taychon(or is he a woobie destroyer of worlds??) 2: erwin(from pac man world 3) 3: metal sonic 4: nitros oxide from crash team racing 5: the elementals from crash wrath of cortex 6: the evil twins from crash twinsanity
Hide / Show Replies
If you want to discuss some candidates, please go on this thread. Don't forget to read the FAQ on the opening post first.
Lola "Princess" Stone and her father, the torturers from "The Loved Ones" qualify. They show no remorse and lack any semblance of humanity. And they kill that poor dog.
Hide / Show Replies
Also, "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" is scary specifically because it shows a Complete Monster from his perspective.
I couldn't find DCAU here, but I checked later and realized it was indexed under a different subpage, and now I can't delete this post....
Edited by MasterMetallix
I'm having an issue with a redirect; whenever I click the Live Action TV subpage, I get redirected to Victim of the Week. Could somebody please fill me in? I'm not sure these tropes are equivalent.
I've always tought of that: is there some fictional malicious animal examples who could be qualfy as Complete Monster ? You know, like the lions from The Ghost And The Darkness or the Raptors from the original Jurassic Park ?
Hide / Show Replies
Or Jaws? No. Wild animals don't have the discernment or mental capacity to be this trope. Trying to eat other lifeforms is just their nature.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Not to mention the raptors tried to eat those annoying-ass kids. Show of hands, who else was cheering for the dinos in that scene...?
I wouldn't have been able to bring myself to. I saw too much of myself in the boy (I used to babble on and on about dinosaurs too).
Also, this trope would only apply if the animals in question were intelligent enough to be aware of right and wrong. Jaws, Jurassic Park and that other movie don't qualify.
the One Man Riot
I've started noticing an odd trend: That entries in Complete Monster match up rather closely with entries in Rooting for the Empire in a great many cases... for the same characters.
As such the latter page describes in detail why a character is rooted for because they're not actually all that bad, and everything they do is somewhat justified, etc etc... and at the same time, there are paragraphs over this side about how those same characters are irredeemably eeeeevil for all the awfully horrible things they do.
I'm not saying the tropes are 100% mutually exclusive, but the justifications given in Rooting for the Empire tend, where accurate, to disqualify said characters from Complete Monster status... for way too many characters.
"Do what thou wilst shalt be the whole of the law." ~ Aleister Crowley
Can a Complete Monster be redeemed? Like if they've kicked many Dogs, broken many cuties, and crossed the moral event horizon and then pull a Heel–Face Turn?
Hide / Show Replies
No, they can't. Redemption is enough to disqualify them from this trope, though it would then fit under another, IIRC.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
Johan is widely considered to be the poster-boy for Complete Monster, but does he really qualify? He never had a chance to be any thing else, and Another Monster shows us that Johan took that second chance Tenma gave him to be a better man. Plus, he had Dissociative Identity Disorder and one of those identities honestly wanted to stop, shown when he gives money to a prostitute so she can start over.
Hide / Show Replies
There's a thread in Special Efforts to discuss things like that.
BRING BACK JOHAN! That is all.
(Or at least provide some justification for taking the picture down.)
Hide / Show Replies
Images must be related to the medium the page describes. Since this is just an index, it goes without an image.
But then why do most trope pages have an image? Why, for instance, does Big Bad have an image when it's just an index for sub-pages?
Because none of those pages have had the amount of trouble that this one has.
Can't fix due to Edit Lock, but do you want to add Monster/The Godfather to an index?
Added "A Criminal Mind" (the Lawrence Gowan song, not the TV show) to Music, because the narrator practically PERSONIFIES this trope.
Now I know not many people like the movie Delgo, but I do and Sedesa, the big bad, certainly qualifies. First she doesn't fallow orders to strike peace and instead has her armies attack the other village. Her only "Excuse" was saying that there speeches was superior because they can fly. Then she poisons her sister in law the queen and attempts to do the same to the king, but she gets caught and has her wings removed and sent into exile. While there she only gets worse, She gains the trust of the tribes that live out there and then kills the treble leaders to gain control of there armies. Then using help of a fellow general she frames another general for treason and then frames Delgo for kidnapping the princess, when she was the real culprit. She try to cut off the Princess wings and almost dethrones her brother and I can't remember if she killed him. But during the final battle the floor of the castle starts to collapse and she falls through. Perhaps she should have followed orders.
Hide / Show Replies
What you've done there is list a bunch of bad things she's done.
Doing a bunch of bad things != Complete Monster.
Rhymes with "Protracted."
I forgot to mention she started a war between the two main tribes just so she could have a her army come in and kill both sides so she would win. I just want her listed. She did all this for power.
I forgot to mention she started a war between the two main tribes just so she could have a her army come in and kill both sides so she would win. I just want her listed. She did all this for power.
Kevin Khatchadourian, from "We Need to Talk About Kevin" is just about as unremittingly evil as any character I can think of. His mother was always the only one who he showed his true colors to until he was in his mid teens, when he (SPOILER ALERT) killed his father, little sister, and quite a few of his fellow students for no reason. It's never clear why he is the way he is, but he fits this trope to a T, never showing that he is capable of any feeling other than hate. By the end of the film he has successfully ruined the main character's life in the most horrific way imaginable. Kevin has no Freudian Excuse, and the closest he comes to any kind of remorse is, after spending 2 years in prison, admitting that even he doesn't know why he did what he did.
Hide / Show Replies
From the reviews of the movie I've read, he actually would be a good example- sounds like he's explicitly presented as devoid of any humanity/redeeming qualities.
Congratulations, Camberf, you are the first troper to post an actual example of a Complete Monster in the Discussion page.
Hodor
Why must a complete monster be completely devoid of altruistic qualities? Altruism can be horrific provided it is sufficiently twisted. Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed. Altruism doesn't say who the loyalty is to, or how it is acted upon.
Also why must it be played with revolution, hate, and or fear at all times? Some people might not realize the person they are dealing with is a complete monster at first.
Hide / Show Replies
Because if they have altruistic qualities (which your example fails to meet, that's Disportionate Retribution).
They must be played with revultion, hate and/or fear at all times when their nature is own. If the character doesn't realise it's a CM then they don't, but if the characters don't act in such a way when revealed that would indicate the character isn't a Complete Monster by the standards of the story.
- Lets say a Yandere torturing someone to death cause they accidentally bumped into there crush and didn't immediately apologize. This action of course is to preventing that person from preforming another offense and to make them pay for the one they committed.
...How does that in any way, shape, or form fit any definition of "altruism"? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
So... Doesn't Bad Girl count? I mean, No attempt to portray her actions positivly? Check. Evil character (In this case, Travis) Disgusted by her actions? Check. No regret? Well, here's a quote: "It's just a job, the daily grind." So, yeah, I think she counts.
Hide / Show Replies
If evil is 'just a job' for a character, they're a Punch-Clock Villain. The two tropes do not overlap.
I shot this one down earlier, and I'm not willing to budge here. Bad Girl's evil acts are almost completely implied (unless you count batting cloned gimps as a Moral Event Horizon sufficient enough for her to qualify, and that's too silly). Implication "can" potentially be used to put a character into this trope, but that's largely because the implication is tied to a something that really brings it all home, like actions, the results of those actions, etc. The thing about implication is that this trope is tied not only to its requirements, but to more esoteric values; this is the reason why the average Generic Doomsday Villain rarely, if ever, deserves its place on this page. Sure, they might want to destroy the world, but there needs to be more than that. There needs to be something that really relates this action to the viewer (or the player or the whatever) in a way that simultaneously shocks and appalls them and really convinces them that guy is absolutely horrible
Bad Girl, as a character, is completely detached from any of this. There's nothing about her that genuinely drives home the point that she's a Complete Monster. She's insane and evil and her dialogue exists to enforce this, but we don't see anything, be it actions or results, that really consolidates any of that in one, loathsome package. That just does not make a solid entry for this trope and serves as nothing but a poor example from which characters who hardly qualify get their entry pass.
Even if you rely on that implication to place her here, she's pretty much a parody of this trope: She's an exaggerated example who crosses every line twice up to and including, may I inculcate this, beating down cloned gimps for fun and sport. Travis's disgust towards her is more or less an intentionally half-hearted invocation of Even Evil Has Standards out of a sense of contextual obligation; to enforce this comedic exaggeration rather than to establish that she really is bad news. In the end, she might be creepy and/or disturbing, but Bad Girl isn't this; she doesn't have the weight to be a Complete Monster, and her portrayal really makes no attempt to give her said weight.
The Topic Slayer
Any work wherein the villain is one of these is obviously the work of a complete hack. I am not being sarcastic. This is genuinely what I believe.
Oh no! The DREADED AQUAE MORTIS! No, wait, it's just your imagination. Hide / Show Replies
Because they obviously have no knowledge whatsoever of characterization, so they can only write flat characters like this.
Oh no! The DREADED AQUAE MORTIS! No, wait, it's just your imagination.
So you think it's impossible for a Complete Monster to have any kind of depth?
.*cough* Voldemort *cough*
He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
No, it's just that my definition of a Complete Monster (notice my lack of a link to the same page) is a villain without depth.
Oh no! The DREADED AQUAE MORTIS! No, wait, it's just your imagination.
So you think any author who writes a villain without depth, even just once, is a complete hack?
Jordan: Yes. It is indeed a tautology. "Complete Monsters aren't deep villains because my definition of Complete Monsters says they aren't deep villains."
I disagree completely. Alan Moore writes many such characters and gives them depth (see: The Comedian, Adam Susan, Mr Hyde) and he's pretty much the exact opposite of a hack.
Actually I am not too sure the Comedian is a Complete Monster. He is probably a case of Even Evil Has Standards. But he is a horribly cruel person.
Still, your argument doesn't make any sense Kahran.
Edited by KSonik
So basically, you hate this trope because you have redefined it to what you want it to be, and then criticized the real trope because of your imaginary trope? (Well, not imaginary, but not Complete Monster. More like Generic Doomsday Villain.)
^^^^^^ Also, yeah. What about Voldemort?
I'm a Troper!!!
Ahem.... Johan Liebert. Complete Monster does not equal Flat Character, it just means that it's a bit more difficult to write correctly. Badly done Monsters just seem generic, while well-done Monsters are terrifying.
I'm too old to be cute dammit
This might be a bit much, but does anyone think Coach Keller from Zoey 101 should be added? He forced his students to run lots of laps even when he knew they were exhausted (requirement 4), and if they came back from disc golf, he threatened to make them run the same amount of laps they would have run had they not changed electives. He also made Chase and Michael do things like take a beating from a child (I think), and he forced Zoey to join the wrestling team for the sole purpose of putting her in the tournament, making boys forfeit against her and then take her out so another guy would get in the final match without being tired out. (She did get to play in that match, but still.) Not surprisingly, Zoey was appalled by this (requirement 2). He doesn't have any excuse for this that I know of (requirement 3). Am I missing a time when he was good? "But it's Dan Schneider world, everything is Played for Laughs!" Not everything. Some things that happen in his shows are utterly shocking (iSell Penny Tees, anyone?). While some of you might see him as Comedic Sociopathy, I don't. What do you guys think?
Edited by lightning37 Hide / Show Replies
Eh...sounds more like a Sadist Teacher or a Jerkass to me. See above posting: Jerkass /=/ Complete Monster.
I'd hate to have someone like that for a teacher, but he doesn't belong up there with mass murderers.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
This is just an Idea for an entry. Mesogog from Power Ranger Dino Thunder should be a qualifier. Despite having the sympathetic Anton Merser, Mesogog is the evil alter ego who is determined to separate from Anton. Now for his atrociousness: He lied to Trent (White Ranger) when he made the trade for the Dino Gems when he said he would give Anton (Who he had separated from) back then he tries to kill them. To power his machine he takes the power from his right hand man Elsa when she points out he needed a power source to give it a boost to start it. He Mind Rapes his henchman when they fall behind or fail. And the fact his master plan is to bring about a new Dino age. If you think about it that would mean many people would louse their lives. Through all of the power ranger series Mesogog is played seriously at times. So being destroyed by all the power in the Dino Gems was vary amusing.
Hide / Show Replies
My Namesakes
So if a writer successfully manages to pull off a character who is a Complete Monster and a Magnificent Bastard, would they essentially have created the ultimate villain?
"Think like a man of action, act like a man of thinking, and don't be a dumbass." Hide / Show Replies
I'm wondering why Syndrome from the Incredibles isn't listed on the CM page? He seems like a pretty good example of one. Let's see. "The character is truly heinous by the standards of the story, which makes no attempt to present the character in any positive way." Check. He has a Freudian Excuse, but that isn't enough to excuse his crimes.
"The character's terribleness is played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story." Check. Syndrome's actions are not Playedfor Laughs and even one of his henchmen is shocked by his villainy.
"They are completely devoid of altruistic qualities. They show no regret for their crimes." Check. The only reason Syndrome wants to be a superhero is satisfy his own ego and he never shows regret for his evil acts.
Hide / Show Replies
Take it to the forums, special efforts section. You can find a link in several CM source files.
I noticed Blue from Sucker Punch is listed, and I found a great picture of him. Can I put that in the image links thingy?
Hide / Show Replies
You may certainly go agead and do so.
(Sorry, I'm only here for reading articles and trying hard to do the research.)
Magic people, voodoo people!
I've noticed that you have removed this trope from works pages. If that is the case, you should do away with this trope altogether. If it can't be featured on a works page or character page attached to it, its existence is pointless.
Hide / Show Replies
Its a YMMV trope, so it's not pointless, its just supposed to go on the work's YMMV pages only.
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
Why?
It's extremely subjective in that different people have different ideas on what constitutes a "complete monster", and it tends to bring an excessive amount of natter to whatever page they're on.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
But if someone can contest an example here, its not an example. We need to clean it.
"Name one trope that is not subjective." Tonight, Someone Dies. Want me to name another? Scout-Out. Or another after that? Fake-Out Fade-Out. Or a couple dozen more?
You know, I get that some villains have a debatable Complete Monster status, namely the Well Intentioned Extremists and any villain who is significantly pretty, but when we're disputing whether, say... people who murder entire villages and attempt to genocide the planet in a bid to become gods for their own selfish reasons; or magistrates who abuse their positions of power to tax innocent people until they can no longer afford to even feed their families, taking away their children when they fail to do so, and feeding them to wild animals before using their political power to get off scot-free for all of their crimes ; or a demon who poses as a loving father and priest after getting his Dragon to wipe the memories of the town clean, using the prayers of the unwitting populace to power an even stronger demon all in preparation for a coming apocalypse; or people who mind rape innocent women over a period of several years into being their loving subordinates, backstab everybody who's ever trusted them, play Frankenstein with souls in order to transform them into villainous super-soldiers, hypnotise their enemies into stabbing the aforementioned innocent girl to near-death, and then start tearing up a whole city full of innocent people who never hurt anybody just because they wanted to demonstrate their powers ; or men who Mind Rape siblings into falling in love so that he can use their offspring to sire a dark god while at the same time reconstructing an empire that oppresses and enslaves the masses while also sacrificing them en masse to said dark god, with several murderers, chronic backstabbers and even a rapist all working to support said evil empire; or a woman who leads an organisation that persecutes people just for being born different and lobotomises them if they get too out of hand, eventually deciding that the best solution to their problem is to Kill Em All after one of them commits an act of terrorism by blowing up what is effectively a church that has been trying to keep the power struggle in balance ; or The Joker are evil, I honestly have to ask What in the hell is wrong with us as human beings?! Just because it's fictional doesn't mean the actions are any less evil.
We wouldn't be disputing this if it was about real-life rapists and serial killers with no Freudian Excuses.
Credit to tree56uk for my Avatar.
any villain who is significantly pretty. Wait, who actually debate that good looking people cannot be CM material? Also one of the requirements of being a Complete Monster is that they must be completely devoid of altruistic qualities, so it certainly makes sense that Well Intentioned Extremists can never be Complete Monster.
You see, I subscribe to the opinion that if a WEI goes too far in their pursuit of what they deem their "well-intentioned" goal that they qualify. Prince Weiss from Arc Rise Fantasia, for example. He manipulates his half-brother(s), orchestrates a grand scheme to deprive an enemy country of its power source so that his can use it, invades said country without a formal declaration of war so that he can kill its religious leader personally... The game tries to justify this by saying that he's a WEI and this is serving some higher goal, but it doesn't really change the fact that a lot of people are dead, and many more are left without the aforementioned power because of him. The fact that his WEI goal is insinuated to be "get rid of the gods... so (he) can take over instead" also factors in. Not very altruistic, is it? Yet, like I said, the game tries to put this in a positive light. I personally don't buy it. I believe that a WEI has to have some kind of moral compass or some personal rules that they won't break to avoid Complete Monsterdom. Weiss, on this particular hand, is very much a villainous unfettered.
As for the "significantly pretty" point, well, okay. I admit that part of that might just be me ranting and I apologise for it. Still, there are characters like Sephiroth whom some will legitimately, completely ignore the wicked acts of and focus entirely on how bishie he is. Then there's Hojo from the same game; an extremely abusive father (as in: never let the mother of his son hold the baby before sending him off to be raised as a Super-Soldier) with no redeeming features, who does everything For Science! / For the Evulz. Yet, when I tried adding CM to his sheet (in the days before it was YMMV)... I think it took twenty-two minutes for someone to come along and delete it with a reason like, "Hojo's not a monster". And against all logic, Evil Is Sexy has once-upon a time applied to him as well, despite being a Gonk. Bit of a pattern, methinks. And If he's not a monster, then why does he tick all five boxes of the trope?
For one that bugs me even more; the Big Bad of Berserk. Sacrifices everyone who risked their life to save him to attain ultimate power? Check. Restrains The Hero's girlfriend and rapes her into a state of insanity? Check. Said rape going on to corrupt their unborn child so that it enters the world warped and malformed? Check... We could be here all day. Yet some still try to rescue the guy from Complete Monsterdom. To quote his character page; "A handful of fans like to dismiss his Moral Event Horizon during the Eclipse. Some fans go further by claiming that Casca ENJOYED being raped."
I really don't agree that such evil characters can be spared from being called monsters.
Credit to tree56uk for my Avatar.
^^^ There are plenty of people who believe that NOONE in Real Life is this trope. That includes serial killers and rapists without Freudian Excuses.
Secondly, just because the "evil" element of the trope can be made objective, that does not mean every other element is.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
Not even Adolf Hitler (even with his Freudian Excuse) or Josef Fritzl?
Edited by ading He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
I think after you've crossed the Moral Event Horizon, the Freudian excuse is no longer adequate. You're going to kick me for saying this, but I don't think Hitler was a complete monster. He was under the delusion of doing something good for the world. Fritzl is a definite case as all he cared about was serving his despicable urges at the cost of those in his care.
Real Life examples is just Flame Bait.
^ A Complete Monster CAN think what they are doing is good. Hence, a Knight Templar can be a Complete Monster. A Well-Intentioned Extremist can't be this trope, because they have some regret about what they are doing, but feels it is necessary for a greater good.
Also, a trope is YMMV if people often disagree about it. People often disagree about CM.
I'm a Troper!!!
Very Manly Muppet
To keep but clean up the pages, then lock them once done so nobody could add examples without taking it to the forums first.
Here's a link to the clean-up page, please use it if you're planning on doing any editing: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=6vic3f9h1cy5qivsenw8llok&page=14#342
Most of the Complete Monster example here are fairly ugly or old. So I'd say mentioning unattractiveness is a common trait with fictional Complete Monsters.
Hide / Show Replies
No, most aren't. And even if they were, our examples here do not comprise a comprehensive list. The reason I keep removing it is because it is averted as often as it's deployed (if it's deployed intentionally at all), and it takes up space. The write-up is already too long, and people are obviously not reading it (hence the examples that are constantly contested and deleted), so we should be getting rid of anything that isn't directly related to the trope.
You may simply be looking at an inversion of Beauty Equals Goodness, which, again, is incidental to this trope.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
I wouldn't say averted as often as deployed. Bishōnen CompleteMonsters are rare and generally have a Freudian Excuse. Yes there are some attractive villains that are absolutely vile CompleteMonsters, but they are far outnumbered by old, plain, and ugly CompleteMonsters.
If you want to shorten it, go ahead but it still deserves a mention.
But what does the Freudian Excuse have to do with it?
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Attractive Villains are more likely to receive one. Not there aren't ugly villains with FreudianExcuses and attractive CompleteMonsters with none.
I can see what you're trying to say, but honestly, most of the characters that spring to mind when I think of this trope are not particularly ugly. A Complete Monster is are commonly given good looks to create a creepy disconnect with their personalities, or because the author has just decided that Evil Is Sexy, or because of some 'Fallen Angel' symbolism or what have you.
It certainly doesn't belong on the checklist, since I don't think anyone's arguing that there's no such thing as an attractive Complete Monster.
Edited by Gilphon "Canada Day is over, and now begins the endless dark of the Canada Night."
May I ask what characters you think of when you hear Complete Monster?
This is interesting discussion and I want to seee where it will go.
Edited by Monsund
Well, the first character to come mind is of course Johan from Monster. Szayel Aporro from Bleach, Envy from Full Metal Alchemist and the Major from Hellsing come behind him. The Major is admitted not particularly attractive, but he's not exactly monstrous either. On other hand, Johan is fairly attractive, and Szayel is downright homoerotic. Envy has a monstrous true form, but his regular one is fairly average.
Note that I was trying to be as objective as possible with my picks, choosing only the first ones that came to mind.
"Canada Day is over, and now begins the endless dark of the Canada Night."
I think the word "most" doesn't belong in any objective write-up. Again, it's not really that there aren't any old or ugly complete monsters, just that this type of thing is neither necessary nor common enough to point out in the introduction. If anything, we might be looking at a common clause of Beauty Equals Goodness which should become a subtrope in itself. But to jam it in here, where it's not really all that relevant, is a bit gratuitous.
Edited by insofar My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
I do have one question. What is it called when the actions of the complete monster (the ones that cross the moral event horizon) follow a clearly identifiable and consistent pattern? For example, said evil actions being directed the most severely towards family members (including the complete monster's own), groups with a clan identification (an "extended family" setting, if you will), romantic settings (all bets are off when it comes to a very serious love interest of one of the main characters about to reach fruition, preventing a family a progeny from taking place or making it, to put it lightly, miserable), and issues concerning national affiliations of other characters (another extension of the family metaphor).
What about Commodus from Gladiator? He's one Hell of a Complete Monster but he's pretty Bishonen-like. This, combined with his Freudian Excuse usually eanrs him the Draco in Leather Pants treatment online.
I wear no mask.
Okay, who deleted Sasuke from under the Naruto examples? I'd like a good explanation for this one, because it seems to me that he's a pretty good way over the horizon. Pwning Danzo would normally count as Kick The Son Of A Bitch, but doing it by stabbing THROUGH one of your new Nakama with the same dispassionnate nonchalance you show when slaughtering Mooks, you're not a very nice person anymore. Now we need to get him a new wardrobe, preferably without as many leather pants.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. Hide / Show Replies
I haven't really been a part of it, but there has been quite a bit of discussion about Sasuke being a Complete Monster on the character page and the forums. You should probably check one of those places.
Threatening your former friends? Telling loyal lackeys that You Have Outlived Your Usefulness? Having a Freudian Excuse that is pathetic compared to the crimes you have committed? If he's not there already, he's really, really close.
Edited by 74.197.103.196
The fact that he has a Freudian Excuse and needed 400 chapters worth of Start of Darkness to get where he is should tip you off regardless of how pathetic you view his storyline to be but even then, all the examples you mentioned happened within hours of each other and contradict previous behaviour, we have better tropes for this: Roaring Rampage of Revenge, Go Mad from the Revelation and Villainous Breakdown. Also keep in mind that Zabuza used to be this trope, until he was redeemed, Gaara was this trope, until he was redeemed, Nagato was this trope, until he was redeemed. Naruto characters have gone in and out of this trope way to easily in the past, something that really shouldn't be possible with Complete Monster as it is supposed to be the absolute worst of the worst a villain can be, Kishimoto doesn't seem to believe in people being beyond redemption, save the few that are in the trope right now.
Edited by 80.127.21.134
There are multiple characters, Orochimaru, Madara, Gato, Hidan, and probably Kabuto being the most obvious ones, who he seems to emphasize very clearly are beyond redemption, so although redemption is a theme, I disagree that he doesn't beleive some people are so bad they do not have any good in them and fit as CMs.
Edited by doomsday524 He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
How in God's name can this trope stay afloat when there are always fifty people ready to jump to any given character's defense as to why he's not a complete monster and argue any attempt to label him as such into the ground?
This is still a signature. Hide / Show Replies
From what I've seen, it's about ay given character in any given medium.
"Hannibal EATS PEOPLE. People who would HAVE NEVER HARMED HIM. Defenseless people!" "... Well, he's very charismatic!" "Yeah, lay off our cannibal! He's clearly an anti-hero!" "... *FacePalm*"
Hannibal is capable of empathy. He empathises with Clarice Starling, his mother, father and sister, Lady Murasaki, Mason Verger's sister and the children Mason has abused. He's not an antihero by any stretch of the imagination but he is a Well-Intentioned Extremist. He is protective of children, kind to those who are kind to him and (usually) chivalrous towards women. Complete Monsters have NO redeeming traits. They have empathy for no-one. Hannibal Lector, while undeniably an evil man is by no stretch of the imagination a CM.
Yeah. Hannibal can show empathy.
Edited by doomsday524 He who has a why to live can bear almost any how -Neitzsche (I know)
Brainiac0982
Edit request: Could someone please add links to the subpages Monster.Doctor Who and Monster.Super Sentai?
Could a character who is a completely irredemable villain whose actions are played seriously and commits atrocities truly horrific by the story's standards BUT is generally loved OOCly because Evil Is Cool be considered a Complete Monster?
Edited by Stealthy Hide / Show Replies
What does OO Cly mean? I'm guessing you mean "by the audience", in which case, I guess so. I mean like the Joker is a pretty popular character and tends to be considered one of the better examples of a complete monster.
I do think though that it's more usual for a complete monster to be a character loathed both in-series and by the audience.
Hodor
It's a Play By Post RP term meaning 'out of character', so...yeah. Alright, that's good~
Edited by Stealthy
I don't think anyone is going to read this far down, but this is about rule number one.
Over in the Mass Effect discussion we've had a big arguement and discussion about what constitute off-screen. The problem is that most of our examples happen off-camera. The compromise on the matter came down to how much of the after-effects were shown; if we were simply told this but not given any proof, it counted as off-screen. If we walk through the facility where horrible experiments were preformed, saw recordings of them talking about what they were doing, saw the effects it had on their victims etc. that counted enough for the trope.
Anyway, how much leeway is there on the definition of "off-screen" out of interest?
Hide / Show Replies
I never really thought about it but I agree too. Perhaps a more reasonable criterion would be "if it's not clear whether or not they actually committed the horrible act we have been told they commit, then they fail to qualify."
I'm a Troper!!!
I agree too. That criterion is likely referring to Offstage Villainy. Villainy that is directly off-camera is still clearly going on.
Hodor
^ Offstage Villainy is about the villain's actions not being seen by the hero. What is being proposed is that only if there is no proof that the villain's actions were actually committed does it disqualify them-innocent until proven guilty.
I'm a Troper!!!
Pretty much what ading is saying. If the only evidence we hear (no pun intended) is another character saying this happened, it fits the "no offscreen villiany" rule. If you're told about these crimes, and then later events happen which refect the same crimes, then it counts as tying the two events together.
For example you're told about all the experiments a scientist would do on his own staff, and then later you come across one of his labs with the staff there experimented on, and when you confront the guy the person who told you about what happens confirms his identity. That sort of thing, where there is a clear link between what oyu see and what you hear.
I guess a counter-example of what wouldn't count is if you're told a guy makes a sport out of torturing children, but at no point in the game do you see him torturing anyone or targetting children.
Probably got deleted due to Brony continuing to push on the Discord isse.
I know we've decided not to have real-life examples, but can we have real-life quotes on the quote section?
- Carl Panzram:
- "In my lifetime I have murdered 21 human beings, I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy [read: rape] on more than 1,000 male human beings. For all these things I am not in the least bit sorry."
- "I wish all mankind had one neck so I could choke it!"
- Last words: "Hurry up, you Hoosier bastard, I could kill ten men while you're fooling about!"
Having quotes from a Real Life person is calling that person a Complete Monster, which violates the purpose of No Real Life Examples Please.
I'm a Troper!!!
Some Guy
Deleted the page image. Just A Face And A Caption, makes no sense to anyone not familiar with the series in question.
See you in the discussion pages. Hide / Show Replies
Just A Face And A Caption is as Exactly What It Says on the Tin as it gets. How do you confuse it with someone pointing a gun at a young child?
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti-Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time. It takes more than pointing a gun at a kid to be a Complete Monster.
See you in the discussion pages.
I disagree, Someguy. With a trope name like that it's implied that he doesn't just point and gets the point across just fine to me.
"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."
I think it's rather safe to assume that most people will not construe the horrified looking kid who appears to be no older than ten as a hardened crime boss, nor find anything remotely heroic in a guy indifferently pointing a gun at anyone.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Gotta agree with insofar. That's making a broad, very intricate assumption. Who automatically thinks that some emotionless-looking guy, pointing a gun at a terrified little boy has such an elaborate reason like that? That's like saying a picture of some maniac burning down an orphanage and killing newborns wouldn't illustrate this because people would automatically assume that the orphanage was evil and the newborns were devil incarnates.
Are we reading the same page here? I'd wager roughly three-quarters of the examples involve villains engaging in acts roughly ten times as evil as "point a gun at a kid for reasons not clear", and I'm including the iffy examples in that prognosis. I think a good argument can be made that the relatively low threshold for villainy implied by that picture is part of the reason why examples keep cropping up that really don't pass muster.
See you in the discussion pages.
The reason why the image of Johann pointing the gun at a small, petrified child conveys the idea so successfully is because it's a realistic action. It's disturbing and chilling in its simplicity and plausibility in a way that a flanderized maniac cackling over thousands of corpses can never be.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
While what I've read about Johann definitely qualifies him for the spot, why can't we put up a universal picture for complete monster, such as a picture of You-Know-Who?
...This is like the fifth time I've made a link to that guy. I need to stop posting about Complete Monsters. Or at least use another example...
Edited by 74.197.103.196
Oh my CHRIST, Real Life examples aren't allowed for a good reason.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
True, in most cases Real Life Complete Monsters are not allowed, but that is only because most likely not everyone would agree that the Real Life example was a Complete Monster. In regards to Hitler, however, you would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed.
Edited by ading He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
Irrelevant. Real Life people cannot be examples of this trope. Violate this rule at your peril.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Well... How about an image of John Snyder from The Hitcher? Definitely more familiar.
Edited by ading
What the hell is The Hitcher and who is John Snyder?
I'm a Troper!!!
"For all we know that child is the kid of some evil mob leader and Johann's expression is because he's an Anti Hero who's tired of putting up with the crap of having to be a goody two-shoes all the time."
The guy with the gun is BEHIND the child, and the child is looking backward at him terrified. It's obviously not self-defense. It's also obvious from the positioning and the expression on the man's face that he's not some terrified fugitive desperately using the child as a hostage to save his own life.
I will agree that pointing a gun at a kid does not guarantee that a character fits this trope. The circumstances you described would be an example of why it doesn't.
Unless you have a picture of someone with a smoking AK-47 in hand raping a pile of bullet-filled nuns and orphans (that isn't High Octane Nightmare Fuel), the current picture works. Actually, even that wouldn't guarantee it, because what if the nuns were all carrying a deadly disease that almost necessitates killing them and the character has a Freudian Excuse for raping them? Maybe we need to show the shooter's nice-looking parents trying to stop him, and have Jesus in the background shaking his head in disapproval! That still wouldn't prove that the shooter doesn't have positive qualities, though, so we'll need the shooter to be wearing a nametag that says "Ted" and have a piece of paper in-view that says "Ted's positive qualities: none. -signed, someone with good judgement who's been watching him since he killed his twin sister in the womb." We should throw in a speech bubble in which Ted says "I'm doing this because I hate everything good!" as a safety measure in case it's not clear enough. Wait! I forgot irrefutable proof that the person with the smoking gun who's the only armed person visible is the shooter!
Edited by Tifforo
I still hate the fact that no-one in Real Life is considered a Complete Monster,despite exhibiting the qualifications.Doesn't Pol Pot count for the miserable existence he caused his people?Doesn't Stalin count for the murder of tens of millions simply because they were an interference,not to mention his Lack of Empathy in the later days.Doesn't Caligula count for being utterly depraved?I swear,there are some people in history that have done things that other monsters in fiction have done,and with similar lack of a viable Freudian Excuse
Hide / Show Replies
Based in discussions i read this is partially because is impossible determine that someone in Real Life have no good qualities and partially because the tropers Jumped Off The Slippery Slope.
Edited by MagBas
What Mag Bas said, plus the fact that it is impossible to keep people from going crazy on the Real Life section of this article once it's been started. We don't give a flying flip about Real Life examples.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Because some political wingnut will post Obama ("health care = socialism!"). Then in retaliation, some opposite-side wingnut will post Bush ("warmonger"). Then somebody will post Clinton ("adulterous perjurer"). Then someone else will post Reagan ("the devil"). Then FDR ("New Deal = socialism!"). Then Nixon ("was totally a crook"). Then JFK ("started Vietnam"). Then Jackson ("Trail of Tears")... Next thing you know, every US President except maybe Lincoln ("suspended habeas corpus") & Teddy ('cause we're all just too scared to call him one) is on the list.
We aren't saying that no one in real life is considered a Complete Monster (for example, we do all seem to agree on Hitler & Stalin), just that having a Real Life section on this article will turn into (& has in the past turned into) a never-ending mudslinging based on Minor Injury Overreaction.
Edited by CaptHayfever
I don't think we'll get every US president, but we will get (in reverse chronological order):
Obama
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
Johnson
Kennedy
Truman
Roosevelt
Wilson
Jackson
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
Plus, read the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement and No Real Life Examples Please.
^^^ And then someone will add something completely random that doesn't even have the qualifications of those examples, like Justin Bieber ("will be the death of all good music").
I'm a Troper!!!
And then we'll start getting people who are just trolling, like the Ted Turner example near the top of the discussion page.
Avatars may be subject to change without notice.
I added the following to the Disney discussion page, but I should probably add it here too: —- Do Jafar and Maleficent really belong on the list? Even if they are lacking in redeeming qualities, their villainy seems to be taken a little more lightly than that of other examples. I think applying the Complete Monster label to Jafar and Maleficent diminishes the value of applying it to Frollo and Lotso.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart Hide / Show Replies
*Facepalm* Again with Maleficent? I'll try to see what I can do there (though the Disney subpage is probably still locked). I argued long ago that she doesn't quite belong there.
EDIT: Well, someone else with higher access than me removed them already. So that's one problem solved.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Not sure if Ratigan would count. I mean, Padraic is sometimes played out for comedy.
Yeah, Jason Kreis ain't exactly a soccer star.
Ratigan is mostly played for laughs, and most of his acts don't seem to be CM-level (and before someone mentions it, we don't actually know that he drowned widows and orphans. The only evidence we have is his minions mentioning it. Innocent until proven guilty.)
I'm a Troper!!!
All right, Padraic. You're good to go.
Yeah, Jason Kreis ain't exactly a soccer star.
DARTHYAN
I can understand the YMMV stance, but sometimes there are clear cut examples (the dresden files is chock full of them, including the guys who caused the rwanda and cambodia genocides for shits and giggles)
Hide / Show Replies
Clear cut or not, there's always going to be someone who argues that a character who is obviously a Complete Monster isn't. Sad but true.
This is still a signature.
If this trope is going to be YMMV, then I think we need to find some kind of "watered down" version of this trope.
Like it or not, Manipulative Bastard has basically become that for Magnificent Bastard, and if we're going to be prancing around debating over whether characters stick hordes of demons on their former comrades as a sacrifice to attain power, and rape innocent women while forcing their lovers to watch while they're pinned down by said demons are evil, then we need some way of saying "These people are bad" without narking off the DILP'ers.
Credit to tree56uk for my Avatar.
MadArtist
Would Miles Axlerod from Cars 2 count? Let's have a look at the criteria:
- Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, however every action the other villains do are under his direct order, including murder and sabotage.
- Axlerod is rarely played for humor, his villainous side being humor-devoid completely.
- His motivation: money. That is all.
- Axlerod shows absolutely no empathy for any of his actions.
- The story makes no attempt to redeem Axlerod at all.
If not, them perhaps Professor Zundapp:
- Being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod's Non-Action Big Bad, he is shown cold-bloodedly committing, or at least attempting to commit murder multiple times on-screen.
- Zundapp is sometimes used for humor, but this doesn't undermine his evilness.
- Unlike Axlerod, Zundapp's motive is revenge for being considered a lemon.
- Zundapp shows zero remorse for his actions.
- No attempt is made to redeem Zundapp.
Attempting to commit murder doesn't count, they have to actually commit the crime.
Also, there may be no attempt to redeem Zundapp or Axlerod, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to visualize.
I'm a Troper!!!
This trope seems to stretch to accomodate pretty much any unsympathetic villain someone feels like adding. I kind of question whether it's a worthwhile category at all.
The best way I can sum up my subjective understanding of the original trope is: a villain whom the audience despise, and are happy and satisfied to see die. That excludes all "cool", amusing or sympathetic villains like Darth Vader or the Joker, characters the audience like to watch because they find their villainy entertaining (rather than sickening), and it also excludes most one-dimensional or poorly-written villains since the audience isn't invested enough in them to care.
As things are, I think the only thing to be done is either to scrap the trope, or else to redefine the requisites to be wholly objective, which might be limiting enough to finish it off anyway.
Actually that's the old, old definition of the trope. The new one is quite bit tighter, with its criteria list. And you'll note that several "entertaining" villains (The Joker for example) ARE still included despite their fandom because their entertainment value simply isn't enough to mask how much of a monster they are (most people think the Joker in The Dark Knight was the best thing in the movie, but nobody except the most stupidly rabid fans will deny that his actions were completely beyond the pale).
The subjective heading is mostly due to those Fan Dumb who disagree with their favorite Draco in Leather Pants being here, or conversely Fan Haters who want to add anyone they hate in a given work.
As for Cars 2 villains... well, I'm not familiar enough to judge; just keep in mind that some of the criteria are actually not that easy to weigh.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Alright then, here's a more in-depth look at the criteria for Axlerod:
- Now Miles Axlerod is a Non-Action Big Bad, but he’s also a Chess Master, having plotted the entire operation from the start. When Lightning McQueen announces that he will be using Allinol in the final race, Axlerod organises for Lightning to be killed, which would have succeeded only if Sarge hadn’t switched out the fuel. His backup plan involved strapping a bomb to Mater and detonating it when Lightning was close enough, killing him, Mater and any numerous others close enough to it.
- Axlerod holds a suave, charming façade in public to hide is cold, scheming ways. The difference is clear during his speech in Italy at the Lemon meeting. He boasts about how the racers are having their engines blown out by the Allinol to discredit alternative fuel and that he and his Lemon followers will become rich and powerful, but when speaking to the press after the race, he sorrowfully admits that Allinol will not be used for the final race.
- Axlerod’s motivation appears to be fuelled by greed, wanting to become the richest car in the world. This appears to eclipse the other motive of being considered a Lemon, as it is unclear if Axlerod has always been one, or if he was converted to one as part of his scheme.
- Axlerod shows no empathy for his actions, even going as far as to thank Lightning for choosing to use Allinol and how he hoped that Lightning could prove that others were wrong about it being dangerous, all the while knowing that he had secretly organised Lightning to be assassinated.
- Axlerod is incarcerated at the end of the film, and no form of redemption is attempted.
Now for Zundapp:
- Zundapp is the main physical threat present in the film, being the Dragon-in-Chief to Axlerod. Zundapp callously tortures and kills Rod Redline in Japan and is seemingly unfazed at this, so this is largely routine for him. Later in the London race, Zundapp is about to detonate the bomb attached to Mater, knowing full well about all the other characters that would be caught in the blast radius.
- Zundapp is considered a serious threat by Finn and Holley. As for the humor, Zundapp has small bouts of silliness, but these moments don’t undermine his evilness.
- Zundapp has a slightly stronger Freudian Excuse than Axlerod, wanting revenge for being considered a Lemon. This does not however make up for his actions.
- As mentioned above, Zundapp is unfazed by his actions throughout the film.
- Like Axlerod, Zundapp is incarcerated and is not given any chances at redemption.
I got a question: Does Lottie from Nick Cave's "Curse of Millhaven" and the protagonist of the Tiger Lillies' "Terrible" count as Complete Monsters?
P.S. Forgive me my mistake. I accidentally replied to this topic, instead of creating new one.
Edited by MrGriffin
No prob, we all make mistakes. As for your question, well, what did these characters do? I'm not familiar with these songs (same thing for other tropers I suspect), so recounting the actions which may qualify them would be helpful.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Lottie is a 15 year old serial killer who terrorised her town because "all God's children got to die". When she got captured, her only remorse was that she have no possibility to hurt anyone anymore.
And "Terrible", well, I'll just leave an entire song here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKwW_TREA6E
I wear no mask.
The Western Animation subpage's discussion link leads to the Western Animation general discussion page instead of the trope-specific discussion page it should lead to. Can anyone fix it, or at least tell us why?
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
I wear no mask.
Gonna remove mention of my cleanups on the subpages, since the TRS thread is gone anyway. Real Life this year's been a rollercoaster, hence my relatively sporadic troping and inability to do a full cleanup as I intended; sorry. Any mentions on locked subpages, should any be left, should be removed by those with the clearance to do so.
BTW, I still intend to do some cleanups when I can.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Glixinator
I think Jaffar from Fire Emblem Elibe counts. He was born an Empty Shell, who crossed the Moral Event Horizon becoming an Enfant Terrible, and that was before the Big Bad found him and turned him into a Tyke-Bomb, the story begins well after that. Pretty much every character either fears or hates him if not both, from their first interactions with him. While he does have a Heel–Face Turn, the circumstances around it involve Love Redeems where the object of his affections is A FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL which pushes him even further pasted the Moral Event Horizon given that his A support with her makes such an excellent case for why statutory rape is a crime. Hell even after his Heel–Face Turn, he still does not regret his past crimes and he get one character giving him death threats and another actually making attempts on his life, with only the need for his skill and the fear of He Who Fights Monsters holding them back.
Hide / Show Replies
But he does turn around. He joins the party, the girl genuinely loves him, and in-so much as he can, he loves her back. A CM has no redeeming traits, not even minor ones.
I agree with Ambar on this one. That he remains a deeply unpleasant character even after his Heel–Face Turn is pretty realistic IMO- switching camps in a war is relatively easy, actually changing who you are take a lot more time and effort, and even then you'll always have some traits of who you were originally (barring amnesia or any of a plethora of only-true-in-Hollywood stuff). It'll probably take years for sucha character to realize the full import of his previous villainy, and possibly even longer for him to feel remorse, if ever.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
How long before every single article on tvtropes is YMMV?
Hide / Show Replies
Read What Goes Where on the Wiki, under YMMV.
- In theory, Your Mileage May Vary on nearly all tropes. Who says that a Happy Ending is happy, for example? In practice, what we mean by a significant judgment call is exactly the duck test outlined above- an item falls under YMMV if people often disagree about it. Either we can figure this out from the definition, or a huge natter infestation wherever the item is mentioned clues us in. Either way, it gets stamped with the "subjective" stamp and relegated to YMMV subpages, where the varying of mileage and resulting natter will not get in the way of the objective tropes.
Okay, if Coach Keller wasn't this, he was definitely one of, if not the biggest recurring Jerkass on the show (he might be Played for Laughs, Dan just did a terrible job with him). That said, here are two characters from Drake And Josh that I feel should be brought up:
The criminals from The Movie. Replacing Josh's G.O., unfairly making money, and (kidnapping and) trying to drown Drake and Josh?! Plus they were two of the most wanted guys in the US (I haven't seen that movie in some time, though, but that's what I recall).
Dr. Favisham from "My Dinner with Bobo". He tried to cook and eat a monkey, locked Drake and Josh in a closet, and even escaped arrest (though that's typical in Schneider-verse).
Officer Gilbert from the Christmas movie fails, though, because he has a Freudian Excuse and also fails the last criteria. Would either of the two I mentioned fit, though?
Hide / Show Replies
I don't know about The Movie, but Dr. Favisham doesn't actually succeed in any onstage villainy, so no.
I'm a Troper!!!
Well, I haven't seen Go Hollywood in years, but since noone has objected to that, I added the criminals already. If anyone has reason for them to be removed, do mention.
LimitedPatients
Could this page be put as a subpage of Live Action TV Complete Monster somewhere?
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Monster/DoctorWho
Ideal and the Real
According to the Playing With page, a Subverted Complete Monster is a character purposely doing heinous and terrible acts to achieve a Zero Percent Approval Gambit...
From the page itself : "Emperor Evulz is pulling off a Zero Percent Approval Gambit: he makes it seem like he's an irredeemable monster, so heroes and villains alike will unite, leading to a better world."
I know an example that does this.
Could it still be added to this page?
I'd like to add it to Anime and Manga, the character is from the series Code Geass. It's Lelouch towards the end of the series.
Edited by xVanitas Hide / Show Replies
No. I know what you are talking about, but if a character subverts a troupe, you shouldn't put him on unless there is a section for it, which there isn't.
Edited by ading
I believe you're thinking of aversions though I could be wrong.
I'm a Troper!!!
Mysterious, is he not?
This is a question that's just bugging me - A complete monster shows no regret over heinous acts.
Regretting a heinous act in the sense that they regret that it wasn't more heinous (or rather that they could have easily made it more heinous - for example, accidentally destroying an entire city and almost all its people, and they regret that it wasn't on purpose) would still qualify for that, right?
Edited by DanGenesis Hide / Show Replies
No, the possibility you mentioned is not what that requirement is about at all.
It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
If a villain shows the typical Complete Monster traits yet they have an adequate Freudian Excuse, where do they fit in?For example,say Emperor Evulz is a monstrous psychopath who slaughters innocents For the Evulz because the group that raised him horrifically tortured him-to the point you'd expect someone to become as monstrous as Emperor Evulz.If all other specifications for this trope are fit,except for an inadequate Freudian Excuse,what trope do they belong to?
Hide / Show Replies
That example seems more like a Laser-Guided Tyke-Bomb Up To Eleven. The Complete Monsters would be the people who raised him like that.
I don't think a Freudian Excuse is enough to excuse anyone from being really, really evil though. If Emperor Evulz in this instance were to, say, pull a Kefka and destroy the world for the fun of it, that would be pushing towards the Moral Event Horizon.
Credit to tree56uk for my Avatar.
Someone with the power to edit locked pages needs to add all the anime and manga pages to the index (or remove the subpages from the other ones). Just to keep it consistent.
Why do some people think being a Jerkass automatically means you're a Complete Monster? Is it really fair to put Jerkasses who Kick the Dog on the same page as villains who Mind Rape children, attempt to enact genocide, or basically do anything that goes beyond what a schoolyard bully couldn't even be capable of thinking?
Also, some people need to learn the difference between sociopathy being played for drama, and sociopathy being played for laughs.
Hide / Show Replies
I don't think anyone thinks that. I do think some people think that being a Jerkass means you cross the Moral Event Horizon, however.
EDIT: Never mind.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
41314
It seems to me that some of the requirements apply to the vast majority of fictional villains, or at least ones I've read about or watched, so I'm not sure how it's not true that almost EVERY villain is a Complete Monster with villains who aren't this trope being rare.
'The character must personally 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 Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes them becoming one through Character Development.'
What qualifies as "truly horrendous"? If murder is truly horrendous regardless of weather or not it's an especially painful murder, then almost every villain fits this since almost every villain wants to murder the good guys and that's the primary thing that makes them a villain.
'The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times, evoking fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around who aren't this trope, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all (and in particularly disturbing stories with particularly evil villains, even lesser Complete Monsters may fear such a character). If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right. If the character is not taken seriously at all, they fail to qualify.
(emphasis mine) "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable, at best, but can still be one if done right" seems to contradict "The character's terribleness must be played seriously at all times", and the "If they're Played For Laughs, the character is just Evilly Affable" contradicts "but can still be one if done right". And it's not clear what "at best" means. Also, this seems like another one that just about any non-comedic villain could fit. If you're one of the good guys and the villain is trying to kill you, then of course you're going to be afraid of them. Anyone would be afraid of someone who wanted to kill them.
'There is no adequate justification or Freudian Excuse to balance out the misdeeds.'
There are stories about characters who tragically become evil like Doctor Horribles Sing A Long Blog and perhaps Othelo, but in most stories, we don't learn the villain's excuse other then wanting money or power.
'The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.'
Yet another one that's true of most villains.
'Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse Than Death is too extreme.'
The "no chance of redemption" part is also true of most villains, though not so much the "no fate worse than death is too extreme" part.
the world is so complicated Hide / Show Replies
Why is this getting crossposted in the Discussion thread? Just provide a link to the forums!
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
What Fighteer said. The Trope Repair thread is there for a reason, people.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
I think you're misunderstanding the criteria.
1. It's not about wanting to do horrendous acts, you have to actually do them. 2. It's not just the good guys that have to fear/hate/revile them, it's also the other villains (if there are any, that is.) 3. agreed. 4. agreed. 5. This is inherently subjective, but really? most villains have no chance of redemption? Also, you seem to be ignoring the "The only way the story could come to anything resemling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed." part.
Edited by ading I'm a Troper!!!
I was going to suggest Shan-Yu from Disney's "Mulan," but I was stumped over the "adequate justification" thing. He's a total beast, to be sure, and he was apparently up to his villains' antics before the events of the movie (note how everyone knows who he is and is appropriately concerned when his name is mentioned!) He said he was invading China because the building of the wall "challenged his strength."
Me, I don't think that's really justification, but rather just a flimsy excuse for him to invade and pillage what he finds inside the wall.
Other than that, he's irredeemably evil: look what he did to the village, even smiling when he said they should "return" a stolen doll to its owner; the classic "How many men does it take to deliver a message?" line (one!); and the rest of his shenanigans.
What say you, tropers?
Hide / Show Replies
I think many don't want to give him a complete monster label because the conflict in the movie is based on the Xiongnu Conflict with China( from what I heard it was much greyer on each side).It is inexcusable that he burned down civilian villages but his reason for invading could be deeper than just challenging the emperor.There was good reasons why the Xiongnu would despise the Chinese but it doesn't justify Shan-yu's actions.I have a feeling the reason why he's merciless because he has a long hatred for the Chinese and therefore he sees know no need to show grace to even civilians.The thing is because they don't exist as a ethnic group anymore they are easier to demonize and give a historical villian upgrade.The other thing is during the conflicts with the Xiongnu, the Chinese committed war crimes against Xiognu villages as well and even stirred up trouble between tribes to get them from rising up against the Chinese.One last thing that could make a good reason why Shan-yu climbed the wall,from what I heard the wall cut through the land which historically northern Xiongnu tribes were said roam in.I not justifying his evil actions but I believe there were more behind those words when he said the wall challenged his strength.
Yeah, quite probably more than meets the eye; I was going by what they showed in the movie. Maybe the Great Wall was his own Berserk Button or something. I thought it just gave him a weak pretense to invade something else, as if he needed one anyway.
But whatever is, is. We can always add him later if someone changes their minds. Thankyouverymuch. (Yes, I speak Elvis.)
how about nicky santoro from martin corsese's casino?
Hide / Show Replies
I'm surprised no one has put Peter Griffin and Louis Griffin on the complete monster list.They have done too many atrocities to be excused as heroes or even anti-heroes.Man,even Homer isn't this bad and Marge is still a pillar of morals.
Hide / Show Replies
They still have moments where they're not complete tools. Therefore, they're not complete monsters.
Experience has taught me to investigate anything that glows.
That and they're played primarily for laughs, (contradicts part 2) Peter is given the excuse of being too stupid to know better, (contradicts part 3) and they are occasionally portrayed as having good in them. (Contradicts part 4.)
Granted, I don't watch much Family Guy, but I don't think such a show would have a genuine CM in it.
I wear no mask.
Removed Ulic Qel Droma from comics. The mere fact that he found genuine redemption instead of being a Karma Houdini disqualifies him for this trope.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. Hide / Show Replies
Removed Xykon from Order Of The Stick. When the example starts out "[he] will vary between this and Evilly Affable since his Moral Event Horizons are also Crowning Moments Of Awesome just out of how stylish they can be..." he's not a Complete Monster. Being Evilly Affable; varying between Complete Monster and something else; and having Crowning Moments of Awesome are all incompatible with really being a Complete Monster.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Subjective vs objective again. This trope was rewritten to be objective, so anything that involves "awesome" or "fandom" has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria of the trope anymore. If the villain is comic on purpose, that's another thing though.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Well, he is, among other things. I agree about his having no place here.
Xykon is also Crazy Awesome. A comedic work cannot have a Complete Monster almost by definition without veering into Black Comedy.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The comedy when Xykon decides to get serious is very, very black, when it doesn't disappear altogether. He's a rare case (like The Joker) where his Crazy Awesome CMOAs can cross the Moral Event Horizon and still count.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
No. Just... No. I, someone who actually read Order of the Stick, can actually vouch against Xykon's inclusion here. I mean, come on! True, some of his actions are not really portrayed as being funny, but those are a few exceptions. Xykon is the poster boy for Evilly Affable and most of his atrocities are not just portrayed as being funny, but they are funny. Seriously, for example, do you gasp when he sacrifices his minions?
. Do you really cry for the death of the celestial? And if you still don't believe that Xykon doesn't deserve to be here, well... would a Complete Monster have a substantial fanbase? Well, would they? A Complete Monster is not just someone that is "really, really evil" but someone who is irredeemable in ways that are not, I repeat not entertaining to the audience. The mere fact that Xykon would have his own section on the Order of the Stick Crowning Moment of Awesome page eliminates him from being a Complete Monster
The description of Complete Monster has been revised again after a long-ish Trope Repair Shop discussion and you might want to re-evaluate Xykon in light of it. It no longer excludes characters based on likability and allows more room for Magnificent Bastard and Affably Evil / Evily Affable characters, focusing on their deeds and motivation.
Agreeing with Elle. Ali Al-Saachez, Kefka and Johann have substantial fanbases, yet are also Complete Monsters. I've read the entire run of Order of the Stick as well, and while under the old, subjective trope definition he wouldn't have fitted, the new more objective one fits him like a glove.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
being Evilly Affable and having Awesome Moments are both compatible with being a Complete Monster.
I'm a Troper!!!
Does anyone know why Complete Monster now has a YMMV page, or what the examples in it are on about?
Hide / Show Replies
Looks like someone did it by accident. I put it on the Cut List.
Edited by Fighteer "It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
[Deleted. The infobox line about subpages was brought to my attention. Still, the little scale icon showing up in the middles of sentences, even on potholes, is incredibly annoying.]
Edited by CaptHayfever
CarlosMunez
Why exactly are "Real Life" examples of Complete Monsters not allowed? A) The possibility that someone who admires truly dangerous people will troll this site? B) The fact that most of them were political figures?
Edited by CarlosMunez88 "When in doubt, lubricate" - Jamie Hyneman, Mythbusters Hide / Show Replies
Probably because it would get out of hand really fast. The likes of Hitler and Stalin are obvious, but before you know it people will be adding, like, Hugo Chavez or George W. Bush or Sarkozy or whatever.
Or Woodrow Wilson or Richard Nixon or Tony Blair....you get the point.
Because we are not about Real Life on this wiki. Tropes do not apply to real people by definition. Real Life is tolerated as a category if it stays on topic and is always subject to being excised if it threatens to devolve into a Flame War or attract Natter.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Also, as an unnamed troper said in the archived discussion of the trope,
" As I see it, the problem is that in real life, unsympathetic villains are so overwhelmingly common as to render any listing pointless. In the past, people just added on to the list any murderer or dictator they happen to think of, whether they're particularly monstrous or just an ordinary example of human cruelty. Obviously, I'm not sole arbiter of this, so feel free to shout me down, but I predict it'll just turn into a really long list of nasty people and a bunch of discussions about whether such-and-such was really so bad and so on. "
Has anyone seen The Cove? If you have, you'll know that in Taiji, Japan, there exists a horde of Complete Monsters. It's implied that they kill dolphins just for fun or to prove how manly they are and some of them are known to be very young. They also wanted the meat, a primary source of mercury poisoning to be used in school dinners. You just have to look up the symptoms of mercury poisoning to know how much nightmare fuel is involved. And school dinners are compulsory there,
I wear no mask.
OK, someone needs to do it, so I may as well bite the bullet. I'm planning on a large-scale cleanup of the trope's subpages during this coming week. Natter and other extraneous text will be excised, examples with insufficient explanations will be expanded, and those not quite fitting will be pruned. I love this trope, but it's become utterly bloated like one of those 100-pound babies you see on Maury Povich and Jerry Springer.
Anyone willing to discuss this is welcome; I'll post this in the forums.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. Hide / Show Replies
Good luck with that. I'm serious; CM has one of the highest burnout rates of page minders of any trope on the wiki.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yeah, I know. Thanks. Just started a Trope Repair Shop topic if you want to give any input.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Also, it says in the Disney section that Shan Yu has the biggest body count of any Disney villain. Are they sure about this? I thought that title would belong to Frollo, who threatened to burn down all of Paris, and made considerable progress towards that goal before he was stopped. Sure, Shan Yu burned down whole communities, but they seemed to be rural ones without as high a population density as the city Frollo burned down a significant chunk of.
Hide / Show Replies
Well, Ancient China had a pretty high population, and if memory serves, the capital was much further south than Beijing, meaning that Shan Yu must have cut a very large swathe of the countryside to get anywhere near it. Meanwhile, late medieval Paris had about 100 000 inhabitants, tops, so Frollo having a lower body count makes sense to me.
I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
I was thinking of removing Cruella, Grimhilde, and maybe Maleficent from the Disney section... though I'm not very familiar with Maleficent... I actually added her beforehand even though I haven't watched the entirety of the movie she's from. Cruella's mostly cruel to nonhumans, Grimhilde to one or two humans, and Maleficent to her minions and a few humans. The list has since grown so much that I feel compelled to remove all but the most clear-cut cases of Complete Monster status.
I was also thinking of adding Zira (see the Complete Monster, Freudian Excuse, and Alternate Character Interpretation sections of the Lion King 2 trope list) but I'm not sure if she qualifies. Would she?
Hide / Show Replies
Never mind. Already added her. Where should I take any discussion about whether or not she belong though?
Mr. Burns? Seriously? Yes, he's evil and he blotted out the sun among other acts, but that's still a far cry from this trope. To say he doesn't elicit sympathy sounds...wrong to be honest. Also, crossing a Moral Event Horizon in and of itself does not mean they've become a Complete Monster.
Hide / Show Replies
Mr. Burns is intentionally a Complete Monster in the show. He's willing to do ANYTHING for a buck, or just For the Evulz. However, where this gets tricky is that he's played for laughs. Very few Simpsons villains are ever taken seriously. Barely anything in the show is taken seriously. Occasionally there may be a moral or a political Take That!, but that's it.
In other words, he's an example of how this trope can be played comedically. He completely lacks morals and if he has standards they aren't very high.
Edited by Inferno232
The whole Family Guy argument about whether or not Quagmire and Peter qualify as monsters or not gets on my nerves. I haven't watched the show all that much, really, and I can't determine whether or not they qualify, but let me ask, should they be in the section? The argument needs to end.
To argue about it more clearly, let's put up the qualifications.
- The character must personally 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 Complete Monster usually starts at the Moral Event Horizon and keeps on running, though nothing excludes him becoming one through Character Development.
- The character must evoke fear, revulsion and/or hatred from the other characters in the story. If there are other villains around, they are afraid of/dislike this person, too — Even Evil Has Standards, after all. If the other characters in the story treat the character as a joke or don't take them seriously, they fail to qualify.
- No justification or Freudian Excuse is present, or adequate to explain away the deeds if one exists.
- The character must show no regret or remorse for their actions, however terrible. It's better if they obviously enjoy it, but complete lack of emotion or caring will suffice.
- Most importantly, the character must have no chance of redemption without being considered a Karma Houdini. The only way the story could come to anything resembling a happy ending is if they die or are otherwise removed. A Heel–Face Turn is out of the question, and nobody would believe it if it happened. There can be no Redemption Equals Death for this character, and no Fate Worse than Death is too extreme.
I'm not sure about Quagmire, but I think Peter's "evil" is WAY too mild to deserve the Complete Monster label.
EDIT: Since you put the qualifications there, I'd say "if other characters don't take this character seriously they fail to qualify" is more than enough of an indication that Peter fails to qualify.
Edited by neoYTPism
This discussion was just to kind of end a conflict that's been going on about if they qualify or not, I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify.
"I don't care if they qualify or don't, the arguments have to stop. Right now, it looks like they don't qualify." - Etheru
Then I would point the blame at those who continue to call those characters Complete Monsters. Obviously, they do not meet the criteria, which should not be a surprise since their "evil" is very mild and dealt with way too lightly to come close to the category.
I'm sorry about that, I wasn't really pointing the blame at you, sorry for coming off as aggressive, but I'll direct them to this discussion the next time they do it...
Wait, somebody else already did.
Edited by Etheru
So is a "Complete Monster" defined by the extent of evil and/or the lack of moral justification for their actions, or does it also imply that they aren't supposed to be funny or cool while doing so? I recall a previous definition of "Complete Monster" on this site implying the latter, (though it seems to have been changed since) but what about the Joker from Dark Knight? I haven't watched the movie, but that villain is considered funny and cool while also being considered extremely evil, and from the Joker scenes I've seen I agree.
But if the "Complete Monster" category depends on said villain not being cool or funny, then wouldn't that suggest that "extremely evil" villains who are also cool and funny (like the Joker) should be put into a separate category of villain?
Hide / Show Replies
Well, we've got Evilly Affable for that.
What's precedent ever done for us?
So if the idea is that "Evilly Affable" is the category for those who are funny/cool while being extremely evil, whereas "Complete Monster" is for those who aren't, then why are some characters in both categories?
T Vtropes should just pick an approach and stick with it. Either: A) "Complete Monster" refers to how extremely evil they are and just that or B) If it doesn't include ones who manage to be cool/funny, then it never should.
It's an evolving wiki with multiple contributors, not a Hive Mind. You see folks who are in the wrong section according to the description, you shift 'em over yourself.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Yeah, but when the description itself changes, it's hard to tell what category they fall into, especially when sometimes they fall into both. (Dark Knight's Joker comes to mind)
"Funny" and "cool" are subjective. How the villains are perceived by individual viewers is of no issue because the page had long been rewritten to emphasize objectivity.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Ok then, so wouldn't that suggest that "Complete Monster" refers to how evil they are, and isn't affected by how funny or cool they are? So shouldn't things like "funny" and "cool" (which I agree are subjective) be treated as irrelevant when discussing whether or not a character fits the category of "Complete Monster"?
Yes, I completely agree with that. Anyway, these tropes are not mutually exclusive.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Some Guy
I've completed the process of spinning off all examples into their own pages. Not really sure why someone only did it halfway.
See you in the discussion pages. Hide / Show Replies
True, but it's not like they were that short. The spares looked fugly as all heck crowded onto this page. Better to have a uniformly aesthetically pleasing layout than one that looks vaguely ugly.
Edited by SomeGuy See you in the discussion pages.
Thank you, it really did look awfully ugly.
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Good idea, but I'd push it one bit further. Although standard policy is "add new articles at bottom", I think related entries should be put next to (before/after) each other for ease of browsing and consultation. I already did it for the "videogames" page (admitedly that one was already pretty tidy, I only had to move 3-4 entries, so separate entries for Nasuverse, Armored Core and Wild Arms could be seen simultaneously/successively). What do other tropers think?
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.
Raven Wilder
Created a single proposition crowner about possibly splitting Complete Monster into two seperate tropes here.
Please let me know what you think.
Edited by RavenWilder "It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
I wear no mask.
OK, I talked about this before (and so have others), but I really don't think the Maleficent and Gaston entries (under Western Animation) should be there. While both are very clearly Bad People(tm), I don't believe they fit the standard, as none really go above and beyond in their evil.
For starters, Maleficent is an early modern take on The Fair Folk, and while in the thirties and early forties she might have seemed monstrous, by current standards she's pretty much run-of-the-mill Classic Villain material. Sure, you cheer her death, but at the end, virtually all of her evil deeds are undone, nobody's left traumatized (or even dead, if I remember), and her idea of Mind Rape isn't particularly scary for anyone over 12. I haven't heard anyone ever mention how loathsome she was; most consider her pretty awesome. As for Gaston, I'll admit he's a walking talking Kick the Dog moment, but it makes him look more like a cartoonish Jerk Jock than this trope. He's even Evilly Affable enough to have undergone a minor Memetic Mutation once upon a time; most people think of him as an amusing (if villainous) buffoon for his acts. Complete Monsters aren't that entertaining (except The Joker, but he's a special case).
So, both are far too entertaining for this trope, and their bastardry doesn't translate into a desire to go through the screen and throttle them like other examples. If these two stay, we might as well add Cinderella's stepmother (who was a lot more personal about her villainy), Ursula (who sought to inflict A Fate Worse Than Death rather than just death to the heroine and her father), Clayton (who's much more sinister and duplicitous), and Jaffar (who probably pushes villainy as far as it can go without crossing the Moral Event Horizon). And all of those still aren't as repulsively, nightmarishly evil as Frollo or the evil queen from Snow white.
Maleficent is Nightmare Fuel because she goes One-Winged Angel. Frollo is Nightmare Fuel because he's a murderous, sexually obsessed bigot who plans a small-scale genocide while using his position and his faith as justifications for his atrocities. Methinks the difference is pretty big.
Edited by Paireon I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. Hide / Show Replies
While you make a good argument it would be a lot less disorienting if you expressed your concerns on Western Animation Complete Monster discussion page, where the examples are actually located.
See you in the discussion pages.
Will whoever keeps deleting the Whatley examples cut it out?! Or at least give a reason why they don't count?! They seem pretty heinous, given the descriptions.
Shamelessly plugging my comics, Oh yes.
Real Life examples are not and will never be allowed for this trope.
For one thing, no real human being is completely free of all redeeming qualities.
For another, real life example sections exist on probation only - the moment they cause problems like Natter, Edit Wars, or Flame Wars, they go. The Complete Monster real life examples cause all three.
Therefore, we will not have them. Don't ask or nominate anyone.
Waiting on a TRS slot? Finishing off one of these cleaning efforts will usually open one up. Hide / Show Replies