Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-26204029-20160504192650/@comment-1969141-20160505113150

"Magnificent Bastard" is way too vague. One's Magnificent Bastard is another's Smug Snake. But the real reason it must go is that it is WAY too much abused and far too many people simply slap the category to villains they like. Indeed "Complete Monster" is also arguable in some case, though it is far less vague. Few would deny, except for adepts of Draco In Leather Pants, that Frollo, Palpatine, or Voldemort are beyond irredimable and devoid of all qualities.

"Charismatic Villains" is meant for villains who are though by the audience to be good guys, or neutral at worst, whose villainy comes as a spoiler. This is one of the most misunderstood categories here.

"Evil Genius" was first meant to fit the archetype of the intelligent but somehow whacky villain. "Mastermind" was at first meant for highly intelligent villains, not particularly scheming or infaillible. Since the archetype is rather vague, both categorie came to mean the same, so "Mastermind being the step above" was added as a distinction. But still, they remain VERY close. And since no villain, no matter how smart, are infaillible or cannot be taken aback, the distinction is subjective. For instance Father, Light Yagami or Palpatine, despite being cetrified masterminds made critical mistakes, or failed to consider something important... So I would say "Evil Genius" can go... As for renaming "Mastermind" into "Chessmaster" we agreed to avoid TV Tropes terms as much as possible, so this is a big no-no.