Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-366087-20160126100400/@comment-1672596-20160131013547

Regarding your view on the categories for psychopaths and sociopaths, I actually agree somewhat with your ideas. We've got a few characters who are currently in either category or even both who really don't qualify as such (Gaston Legume is a notable example). Personally, I would advise the creation of a parent category along the lines of "Villains with mental illnesses" and also create categories dealing with mental illnesses besides psychopath and sociopath that villains fall more in-line with (in Gaston's case, narcissism). The fact of the matter is, psychopaths and sociopaths are known manipulators, and Gaston isn't really a good manipulator in any way (good manipulators don't for example openly sing whatever dastardly plan they come up with in public without hiding some details especially if they are trying to rally support). In fact, they are consummate liars generally. I might as well add that while I would prefer they actually MATCH UP with the guidelines given on here or somewhere else, the only exception to that rule is if the writer of a work explicitly refers to a character as either a psychopath or a sociopath (case in point, how Jennifer Lee referred to Hans as a sociopath, even though I personally disagree with her on that front).

And since you mentioned your views on the Complete Monster category, I also agree that it really needs to be removed. First of all, it's subjective, meaning it really cannot be included on a Wiki, even this one, since by its very nature it's NOT objective at all (under the definition of subjectivity, I could theoretically say everyone, even people who are at best anti-villains are complete monsters simply because it's all relative and has no real absolute meaning). Second of all, since Villains Wiki is trying to distance itself from TVTropes, it's a very bad idea to retain a category that was a TVTropes invention in the first place. Third of all, and probably the most important: Even among applications of a single work, it's extremely broken. Take Metal Gear Solid 3, for example: We have two villains, both of whom proceeded to use a nuclear device, the Davy Crockett, at a population of people, one of these times it is made VERY clear that this was a war atrocity. Only one of the two villains, Colonel Volgin, is even considered a complete monster, and his actions was justifiably considered despicable. The Boss does something very similar late into the game against Groznyj Grad, she essentially has a similar reaction to Volgin regarding the deaths ("Life's end... isn't it beautiful?"), and yet they completely glossed over the fact that she committed a war crime (I may hate the Soviets and Communists myself, but even still, they should at least be consistent of what she did as a war crime and not gloss it over). I might as well add that some of The Boss's views strongly implied that she was a nihilist, and of the villainous variety (her "What is a soldier" speech is a good example of this, plus her speech in the ending). At worst, she's just treated as an anti-villain, if even a villain at all. This is actually one of the best examples as to how that category was absolutely broken. If it actually WORKED, The Boss would have been labeled a Complete Monster alongside Volgin just for that action she did late in the game alone. Another good example of how it is broken is Albert Wesker, especially right now with some reveals about his motives in the Japanese version of Resident Evil Revelations 2. He's currently considered a complete monster, even though he really doesn't do anything that different from or more vile than any other villains in the franchise (even his trademark double-crossing nature had been done by the likes of Oswell E. Spencer towards both James Marcus and William Birkin, and to some extent by Osmund Saddler, and don't get me started, not to mention Saddler, Spencer, and Carla Radames had similar aims in genocidal actions against humanity than Wesker, and in the case of Radames, arguably was even WORSE in her plans because unlike Wesker, who at least intended to spare those proven worthy by Uroboros, she actually intended to wipe out ALL life and just watch things burn [and SHE'S portrayed rather sympathetically considering she was essentially forcibly changed into an Ada Wong doppelganger against her will and then ignored by Derek]. And don't forget Derek Simmons who also did similar actions. I think James Marcus even implied he wanted to turn the Earth into Hell in the Japanese version of Resident Evil Zero), which by the definition of Complete Monster basically requires a whole league of its own compared to all other villains. Not to mention, Albert Wesker was implied to be an actual friend to William Birkin, and generally CMs do NOT value friendships of any sort since that's a redeemable trait, and the entire point of a CM is that they are irredeemable. In Resident Evil Revelations 2, or it's Japanese version, anyway, it's revealed he actually cared for Alex Wesker (and she was actually abused by Oswell E. Spencer), and in fact, it's even implied that most if not all of his plans in the Resident Evil series were an attempt to find a cure for Alex. How exactly would he qualify as a CM for that? That's like listing Mr. Freeze as a Complete Monster just because he killed people and was cold to people, even betraying them if it gets in the way of saving Nora. And for the record, I'm no moral relativist, and in fact, I'm more of a moral absolutist. My moral absolutism is actually one of the reasons why a Complete Monster category really shouldn't be on here, especially when it basically implies moral relativism just by being subjective instead of objective. And quite frankly, I'm actually a bit surprised that Brian Irons, of all people, is NOT considered a Complete Monster considering all of his actions in the game (he actually makes Judge Claude Frollo seem like a saint by comparison, and that's saying a lot).