Category talk:Complete Monster/Archive

to clarify even further a Complete Monster is what happens when a character crosses the "Moral Horizon" and becomes completely loathsome, even to other villains (though some insane villains may admire them for being so twisted) - in general though a Complete Monster is designed specifically to invoke little but hatred from both those inside the story and those reading/viewing/playing it.. if you are able to sympathise with the character it is no longer a Complete Monster.. if you think "hey, this guy is pretty cool" he's not *usually* a Complete Monster.. if you look at a character and feel nothing but disgust and actually feel like cheering when they die (or at leas smiling) they are a Complete Monster.. Inferno Pendragon 20:16, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

I just love the definition on the Tv Tropes site. Welcome to your doom! 20:43, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

TV Tropes is very good for that sort of stuff - which I guess should be expected considering its all about media cliches and archetypes Inferno Pendragon 20:50, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to offend anyone but I see no real differences with the "Most Evil" deleted category, save from a more complicated title. Balthus Dire 16:12, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

The wording is different and that, to be frank, is the whole point making a "Most" anything puts a category into personal opinion almost instantly as a "Most Evil" character is only evil to certain people and it is vague - "Complete Monster" is not nearly as vague or biased: people may not agree on that but that's how it is (and the title isn't more complicated - just more accurate) Little-Red 19:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually "Complete Monster" can be seen as a personal opinion as well, though why argue over this? what will it achieve other than a potential flamewar? what's done is done The Voice 19:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the categorie has been clarified, it is no longer a matter of personal opinion, it can be decided on how the other characters in the franchise see the villain. Amnestyyy 20:31, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I never liked to voice an opinion that might offend someone, and I by no mean seek to cause any flamewar, I merely stated what was bugging me. I never had any intention of cancelling what was done, I see no point and I don't have any right to. Also I got the explanations I needed.

My apologies if I had offended someone. Balthus Dire 14:11, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

no need to apologise, voicing an opinion is not the same as inciting a flamewar - we're a community and everyone is entitled to an opinion and has a right to voice it: I'm not really going to voice my own as this is obviously a touchy subject for some but I don't want people to feel bad for expressing themselves either Stare Too Long Into The Abyss.. 16:11, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Should we even add Real Life examples? That is forbidden on the REAL Complete Monster Trope(Due to rule of cautious editing judgement). Also one of the villains seemed to have gotten a Death Equals Redemption which might omit him from this category.

this is a good point you know, Real Life examples of "Complete Monsters" are a minefield of controversy as nobody is fully good or fully evil.. we should probably state not to add Real Life examples, as RL opinion is, as TV Tropes would say, a case of "Your Mileage May Vary".Inferno Pendragon 23:41, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

I hope I didn't overstep my boundaries but I took the liberty of removing real-life villains and adding a "no real-life villains" rule to this category as I believe it's important to do that to avoid controversies - the world of fiction is "good" and "evil", sadly the world of reality is many shades of grey and thus it's best not to put labels such as "Pure Evil" on historical figures, no matter how repugnant they may of been Spirit Of Destruction 18:39, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

People are really abusing this category. Just because a villain does a few really despicable things doesn't mean that they fit into this category. Scar, Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear, Judge Claude Frollo, and a few others are not complete monsters according to the descriptions.--Snakewhip 03:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and it isn't likely to change as there will always be people adding their "favorite villains" to this category, no matter how clearly you describe it. Amnestyyy 10:59, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Frollo and Scar are now semi-protected as they are frequently targetted - that's the best thing for us to do as of now: IPs are the main problem at the moment so semi-protecting problem pages seems the way to go Inferno Pendragon 15:27, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, good. There are a few others on there that are questionable as well, but if I remove them, they'll most likely get put right back on by an IP.--Snakewhip 15:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

most IPs mean well but there also a lot of trolls and bored kids it seems, nothing we can do - I still think semi-protecting high-profile villains like Scar and Frollo will help out somewhat as people target villains that are well-known Inferno Pendragon 15:50, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Frollo, Lotso and Scar are all "Complete Monsters" by TV Tropes definition (well Frollo and Lotso are - dunno about Scar, though I'd imagine so) - so no, you're not right.. Queen Misery 00:49, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read the whole article today. So maybe we could add them back.... except that the definition also describes it as not likable at all. Some of those villains can be considered "cool" or something similar... the way I took it was as a villain who everyone except messed up people hate them. But I guess I'm wrong.....--Snakewhip 01:52, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

problem is NO character will be universally hated, as an audience we root for the villain as much as the hero and admire even the most disgusting of beings (to an extent): best way to judge is thus: can a story ever have a happy ending if this character exists? if the answer is "no" then they are most likely a complete monster - the audience may still like them but in the context of the story they still have to be destroyed in order for security/peace to exist in their setting.. a good example I'll give is The Joker, we love him as a character but make no mistake he is a Complete Monster for the fact that as long as The Joker exists there will never be a happy ending for Batman or his allies as he will never repent and will continually seek ways to make the inhabitants of his setting suffer, as "outsiders" we can sit back and admire his sadistic "charm" but if we were looking at him through the eyes of Batman himself we would consider him a pure monster - Queen Misery 01:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay I get it now. Very true. In that case, maybe I could add a few others. Should we go off the TV tropes list? Although that is one or a few person's opinion...--Snakewhip 07:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

well I'm mixed - on one hand if we take the name and concept from TV Tropes its only fair to go off their list, at the same time we are not TV Tropes and need to base our content on our own style rather than taking it from others.. most wikis say not to be biased but villains, by default, are biased as the nature of good and evil are based on personal opinion (unless your a universalist - but I don't think univeralist morality stands up to reality very often) Queen Misery 13:43, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way to make a version of this catagory for real complete monsters (i.e: Adolf Hitler)?ZombieKiller123 03:29, May 1, 2011 (UTC)ZombieKiller123

Difference
Excuse me, but can someone tell me the difference between Dark Forms and Complete Monsters? Thanks.

Dark Forms are "Devil" figures (most of the time). Complete monsters are evil characters that are feared by their entire "world", but they don't have to be "Devils". I know the categories overlap. Amnestyyy 10:31, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Real Life Examples
I believe we should allow real life examples for this wiki, since we will already potentially offend people by adding them to a "Villains" wiki - I don't see how adding this category would offend them more.. it is controversial, yes, but so is adding any real-world figure to this wiki.. that's just my opinion on the matter Bisque 15:29, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bisque, if they've already been added to the wiki (which means they villainous), it's only a little step to add them to the complete monster category. But ofcourse, I might be wrong... Amnesty 16:02, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

^^ Agreed big time. I understand how risky it is to call a real person a Complete Monster, but as a rule it's just plain silly: I mean, is there ANYONE who would disagree with Josef Mengele, Albert Fish, Fred Phelps belong in this category if they were fictional characters, completely unchanged from their real historical personalities? Didn't think so. That being said, if we are to allow real people in this category, the standards have to be very strict; we should have a discussion for any real–life villain being added to this category and only keep it if it's a unanimous group decision.Moleman 9000  03:21, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for this proposition, but maybe we could bring back the Most Evil category?robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 13:45, May 15, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

Actually, that's not a bad idea, can we try it?ZombieKiller123 21:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)ZombieKiller123

Bringing back the most evil category isn't a good idea. It had pretty much the same description as our current complete monster category, but this one has been defined better. Most evil is to vague and will be heavily abused by IP's and new contributors. Amnesty 09:37, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Good point.Forget that I brought it up.However, I strongly suggest that we just get rid of the Complete Monster category, so that it won't be abused.robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 23:04, May 16, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

@Robinsonbecky: Nooooo! Noooooo! Noooooooooooooo!!!! Let's not say anything stupid, now. This is one of the most epic and important categories here, and certainly is superior in every way to "Most Evil".Moleman 9000  01:22, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Calm down ResonX. Personally, I'm not planning to delete this category simply because of IP's abusing it, we just need to monitor it a bit more than other categories. I'm still not sure whether or not to add real-life examples, and I would like the opinion of another admin, just to be sure. Amnesty 09:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the answer to this problem would be to divide all the villains on this wiki.We have one half fictional, and the other half real.I'm not intending on doing anything to the Complete Monster category, so just relax Moleman 9000.If we could probably have something like a folder to seperate the villains, or just create a new wiki for real life people.Do you agree to this consideration? Again, I apologize to Moleman 9000.robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 21:54, May 17, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

I don't think there's any need to make drastic changes to the wiki, after all, it's been working very well the way we're doing things now, and one category-dilemma isn't a good reason to go and change the entire wiki. I'll just have to think about the real-life example question a bit more. Amnesty 12:06, May 18, 2011

I need your honest opinion.Does Rat from Pearls Before Swine or the Nome King count as complete monsters?And pardon me for asking, by won't TV Tropes be mad about us using their material?robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 22:48, May 23, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

@Robinsonbecky: Absolutely not a Complete Monster! He's most definitely an "Outright Villain" just like the witch, plus is capable of being polite and making a fair contest for Dorothy. He's not called a Complete Monster anywhere that I can find on TvTropes. And about TVTropes, of course they won't get "mad". Firstly, they're not copyrighted, secondly, the site's goal is to spread their terms into proliferation, and thirdly, the site sucks now and is becoming just like Wikipedia, so I'd prefer we not address it for examples any longer on this site – and that includes the "rule" of having no real life Complete Monsters, which was taken from TVTropes.Moleman 9000  00:14, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

You're a dick.You don't need to be a jerk about it.robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 03:46, May 24, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

@Robinsonbecky: Well I think you're a dick! God, I wasn't meaning to sound angry at you. Please, I don't want us to be fighting here.Moleman 9000  04:01, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

both of you stop flaming, Reson - you have a week to think on it, Robinson can follow if this continues: if you can't debate things politely then don't debate at all Queen Misery 15:08, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

I personally disagree about adding this category on real-life villains, mainly because this category is intended for fiction. BUT if it is agrred to add real-life villains there, there should be a discussion on each candidate. Welcome to your doom! 16:18, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

In Umineko, does Beatrice count as a monster?Because, she crosses the line several times (including Rosa's banquet) but I don't label her a monster.What is you're opinion?robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 21:13, May 28, 2011 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

commenting on qualifications of "Complete Monster"
I can appricate that we want to keep the category reserved for the worst of the worst and if anything I have seen more than afew examples where the term "complete monster" is a bit of an overstatement, mostly due to how fans get about certain characters. But there ARE real life versions of this, Adolf Hitler is by no one's standards a misunderstood soul who just went down the wrong path. Torquemada is one of history's biggest hate-mongers to the point where even the Catholic Church can't justify his policies on their behalf. And any terrorist that gets to the point when they are not only willing to bomb civilains but do so in mass and with no higher purpose than they are of a country, religion or race they don't like and celebrate aftwards I think we have enter the territory of "Complete Monster" What is more there are religious people who will argue that Satan is real and thus Real Life examples do exist, but perhaps I am over-analyzing that sort of example.

That being said I totally agree this category is by far overused. Remeber people this is not just for the worst person in a story or a person who is not only evil but a jerk, or the subject of fan hate, this for the sort of people that set a whole new standard in the story for what in means to be evil, people lower than the bottom of the bucket. Think carfully before adding anyone to this, even sociopaths may not automaticly qualify. If you need to think is the villain qualifies or not consider this; if the villain spent the rest of their life from the known point on doing good deeds to make up for the evil they have done and still couldn't make things right, THAT is when we get into the realm of pure evil.

Example: Eric Cartman is an evil monster and only 9, if he spent the remainder of his natural life applying for sainthood he might only get sent to the 8th level of hell when he dies.

http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/User:Mesektet

As Mesektet says, too many villains are being put into the Complete Monster category unnecessarily. Also, with regards to TVTropes itself, it says Livia Soprano and JR Ewing qualify as Complete Monsters - but, I honestly don't see how (but, that's probably just me). Oddly enough, they don't mention Reverend Henry Kane or Peter Stegman - who are definitely Complete Monsters, according to the TVTropes definition.

How many villains who are categorised as Complete Monsters should actually be removed from the category in question? Can anyone give any examples, please? User:TheMalevolentIncubus

COMEDY VILLAINS
few comedy villains are Complete Monsters - if a villain is "played for laughs" and entertains rather than disgusts the viewer they are more likely an Outright Villain (an example is someone like Robbie Rotten, who in-universe is an evil character but is not distressing for the viewer to watch, in fact we enjoy watching their often silly antics).

this in stark contrast to true Complete Monsters such as Alan Yates, Peter Stegman, Eric Cartman (in some incarnations) or Freddy - who are disturbing and distressing to watch (well Cartman may technically be "played for laughs" but it is the extremes he goes to which makes him a special exception to the rule).

In short just because a character is "evil" does NOT make them a Complete Monster Queen Misery 04:05, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Just because their played for laughs doesn't make them any less of a monster. And Eric cartman has contributed to good from time to time.

A Disney example of a comedic villain is Commander Lyle T. Rourke who is a tomb-robbing mercenary, or as he insists "adventure capitalist", who's Only in It for the Money, but what cements him is his ATTITUDE toward his current ASSIGNMENT. He takes the Heart of Atlantis, which is precisely what keeps the Atlanteans alive. Without it, they'll all die. Many other villains wouldn't be aware of this, and most would leave it once they learned that. Rourke, however, takes it knowing that the civilization will die, but his greed is so great that he doesn't even care. Later on, in order to ensure his escape, he throws his loyal Dragon off his ascending zeppelin, joking about it and capping it off with a "Nothing personal!" What's rather frightening is that it really WASN'T personal; he hadn't had any problems with Helga beforehand, and betrayed her simply because it slightly benefited him.

In short what makes Rourke a comedic CM, is that he jokes about his evil. (Ngh93 (talk) 18:56, April 2, 2015 (UTC))

Reply to deletion
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah! Back up Jack! Surely we could work something out! Don't need to rush into the deletion of the category! robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net 01:51, April 3, 2012 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

Go to Hell, Barney!!!!
I really wish the picture of Barney the dinosaure would stop appearing on the cathegory page.

Granted, he fits this cathegory. But the Complete Monster is a very important type of villain, and needs better examples. Barney makes this cathegory lose all its seriousness.

Come on... doesn't he bother us enough already?!?!?

STOP with the nonsense already..
seriously, if you are serious about editting and not being a deliberate troll you have NO reason to be adding this category to characters in some futile effort to show "this villain is the worst possible ever": many shows don't have complete monsters, what you personally view as completely horrible may not be the case.. take a step back and realize this should be used for characters who MANY PEOPLE believe are valid.. otherwise its just a personal opinion - this category will never be taken seriously until people stop making out certain characters to be worse than they actually are.. grow up a little and use this category responsibly or don't add this category at all. Little-Red 15:48, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Major Cleanup
This category, I feel, is actually pretty good. However, people are starting to consider their favorite villain a Complete Monster and I'm getting sick of seeing it. This category requires major maintenance. I hope I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Tremorfan94

Agreed. People seems to be misusing the term, just like what people do in the TVTropes website. Bannon246 (talk) 15:42, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Good category
This is quite a controversial definition but I'm glad to see this website is more liberal with the term than those arrogant, fascist nerds over at TV tropes. They think they run the internet and their definition of the term is far too strict and often wrong. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 22:18, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing. Real life examples NEED to added. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 17:02, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * NO they don't - we have Absolute Evil for real-life "complete monsters": use that instead Inferno Pendragon (talk) 19:10, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Some Villains Do Qualify
I can't help but notice some of the villains who aren't categorised as Complete Monsters (like Cameron Hodge, Conal Cochran and Taylor Milos) actually do qualify, whilst there are some villains categorised as being such who don't qualify at all. I myself think John Clayton, King Candy and Kayako Saeki don't qualify. TheMalevolentIncubus (talk) 09:18, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

If you think they don't qualify you can just remove the category. Just make sure you leave a comment on the talk page on why you think so, so we don't get into pointless editwars. Welcome to your doom! 16:08, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

I tried I really did.
I went down the pages A-R two days ago and removed the obvious villains who weren't Complete Monsters, I stated the reasons why each was lacking in status on the talk pages as I removed the category. It did no good, today I see nearly all the entries back on. I didn't just toss people on the fence either, Pitch from Rise of the Guardians is NOT a Complete Monster, he is a kiddie villain, Fire Lord Ozai is not a Complete Monster just your standard power hungry conqueror, Lady Yunalesca is not a Complete Mosnter because she can turn into a monsterous form, ect. If people are fans of a villain they seem to think that person is deserving of "Complete Monster" and commited to keep them that way. I wish we could make other contributors see it isn't enough to be evil but utterly irredeemable monsters. I honestly don't know how to clean up the category if fans of the villains will just put them back up but I really did try to help it does no good. Mesektet (talk) 04:28, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Fire Lord Ozai - the man who burned his own son's face, set up his own wife for a treasonous act he'd planned out and banishing her, tried to murder his son years later, and attempted to commit genocide against the Earth Kingdom by burning it all to the ground - is NOT a Complete Monster? .....You don't have as much understanding of this trope as you seem to think you do.

DocColress (talk) 04:29, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

Lock This Category?
Is it possible to lock this category, so only the users who created this Wiki (and who make the rules for it) can add villains to it - if it is consensus that a villain does or doesn't qualify. Only, even some registered users add villains to this category, who don't even qualify at all. If a user adds a villain to this Wiki, then they should ask the editors who make the rules whether or not said villain qualifies - before actually adding it to the category. TheMalevolentIncubus (talk) 07:31, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry, but that will not work out well in my opinion, since there are MANY film characters that have been Complete Monsters and are not on here. Also, I think that if a user asks someone to stop putting Complete Monster to a category that wouldnt exactly be in the guidelines, the user may be blocked for itThat Dawg 17:51, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, TV tropes are taking over this website. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 19:54, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * One guy asking something != TV tropes is invading you. We don't actually care at all about who people here think qualifies as a complete monster. But I do find it quite funny to see you calling us "arrogant, fascist nerds" because of something so trivial. Butthurt much? Veher18 (talk) 16:23, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody please add this quote on the category's page: "The ones who aren't human..the ones who aren't people...are you!" by Lucy? The quote sounds great for the category as a good example. (Swoobatman (talk) 05:19, January 20, 2014 (UTC))

Eh, considering Lucy said that before slaughtering all those kids, I don't think it's too suitable. Though Tomoo (the lead bully) was a definite example of this trope. DocColress (talk) 04:31, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

Other Nintendo Villains
I have several potential qualifiers here. These include General Scales from Star Fox Adventures, Grubba from Paper Mario the Thousand Year Door, Ghirahim from The Legend Of Zelda Skyward Sword, and possibly Ganondorf from Ocarina of Time as that is the only game where we see him at his worst. Any thoughts or opinions please post them hereXmike920 (talk) 15:30, May 6, 2015 (UTC)Xmike920Xmike920 (talk) 15:30, May 6, 2015 (UTC) 11:30, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Villains who should be removed.
Here are some baddies that I feel should probably be taken off of this catagory: Clu 2 (Despite many of his evil actions, he didn't seem to fit this catagory, that's just my opinon though), Morgana Pendragon (She was more tragic and misguided, rather than truly evil), Mojo Jojo (Way too comedic and incompetent. I mean come on, he's smart enough to make weapons of destruction, but too stupid to know up from down.) Those may not be the best reasons, but that's about as good as I can do for now.BowserBros65 (talk) 04:01, July 12, 2013 (UTC)BowserBros65

Someone put the label on MOJO JOJO? Seriously? DocColress (talk) 04:32, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

Claude Frollo
I think Claude Frollo should be removed from the Complete Monster's category. Yes, he did do a lot of horrific acts, and he was indeed one of the darkest Disney villains. However, unlike most villains, Frollo actually seems to hate himself and have a lot of guilt for his actions deep down, making him more similar to Darth Vader (and the latter is definitely not a Complete Monster by any stretch of the imagination). And besides, wasn't one of the categories for a Complete Monster, at least on TVTropes, that a Complete Monster is supposed to have absolutely no remorse whatsoever for committing horrific crimes, not even deep down? Hojo, Volgin, Lotso, Kefka, Albert Wesker (post-RE1, certainly), Wilhuff Tarkin, Palpatine, the Queen from Snow White, heck, even Broly clearly outrank Frollo in that regard, and the last one actually ended up redeemed in an official work. That's like labelling Vader a Complete Monster. Honestly, we really should remove Frollo. I'd do it on TVTropes as well if I weren't banned from the site for some reason. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:25, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, most of those villains are from completely unrelated works. It's one thing to compare Frollo to other Disney villains, but villains like Palpatine or Albert Wesker are from separate works and one of the criteria for a Complete Monster is that they are heinous by the standards of the story.

Second, since when does Frollo feel guilt? Sure the Frollo from the original novel is very regretful, but in the Disney movie, he's a remorseless psycho. There are times when he fears going to hell, but that's not the same thing as actually feeling guilt for a crime. Bentonfill (talk) 03:39, November 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Frollo took Quasimodo in largely because he (rightfully) feared for the state of his soul when called out on his attempted murder of Quasimodo and his killing his mom by the Archdeacon. That would imply that he does have at least some remorse for his actions (especially when it deals with one of God's laws rather than secular laws, the former being much higher than the latter). Furthermore, part of the Hellfire sequence had "mea culpa" being chanted by various priests, which strongly implied that Frollo actually has a lot of self-loathing for his actions ("Mea culpa" means "my fault" in Latin). None of these would have happened at all if he was truly remorseless (a key requirement of being a complete monster). If anything, he wouldn't have even heeded the Archdeacon's claims at all, not even to the letter.


 * One last thing, we need more clarification on "heinous by the standards of the story." More than a few times, Darth Vader's actions were considered heinous by the story's standpoint, and he's not even a complete monster. Also, Palpatine and Wilhuff Tarkin are at least comparable now since they are technically Disney Villains (since Disney bought out Star Wars). And I also mentioned the Queen from Snow White, who IS a Disney Villain. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:20, November 16, 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, way to completely misinterpret Frollo. Frollo has NO hate for himself: the song lyrics during his introduction flat out say "he saw evil everywhere except within." And whenever he feels he is doing something that he believes in his heart to be wrong, he CONSTANTLY shifts blame onto something or someone else. ("It's not my fault! I'm not to blame!" then proceeding to blame Esmeralda, the Devil, and even God Himself!) And also, Frollo had ZERO remorse for the actual terrible things he did. He spared Quasimodo out of fear of being damned for killing an infant in front of Notre Dame, and then determined that he could use Quasimodo for selfish gain. And even if this were his sole Pet The Dog moment, he flat out takes it back by the end of the film. ("And now I'm going to do what I should have done TWENTY YEARS AGO!")  As for the "Mea Culpa" part, Frollo was feeling bad for lusting after Esmeralda. THAT is what he thought was his big sin: being a man of the church lusting after a woman, a gypsy one at that.  Murder, torture, arson, emotional abuse, manipulation, rape, all forms of hypocrisy and abuse of his power and privilege because it's in God's name - all a-okay by Frollo, but LUST - now that's where he draws the line! You see how messed up that is? Frollo's "remorse" does not redeem him at all - it makes him EVEN WORSE.  Frollo is a complex villain, but he has not a single redeeming feature. He's a clear-cut example of a Complete Monster, peroid.

DocColress (talk) 04:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress


 * Not that it even matters in the end, since my points are meaningless before you all, but the part about the Mea Culpa bit does imply remorse, actually, and hating oneself. You want a villain who doesn't hate himself at all, not even the mea culpa bit, look at how Kefka behaved, even backstabbing his liege at the perfect opportunity, and making absolutely no secret that he truly enjoys hurting people simply because he can, or the various incarnations of the Joker as well, heck, Red Skull as well, who was scarily realistic despite being intended to be a two-dimensional villain. Heck, even Gaston, in the musical at least, makes it blatantly clear he lacks any remorse at all, and he's not a CM at all. Besides, if they wanted to show him as a CM, they would have had him in the very beginning actually try to murder the archdeacon saying he has no authority over him as well as his actions against Quasimodo, or at the very least only hesitate when the King of France comes into the picture (in order to imply that he only will stop when secular authority gets involved, not caring at all if it's merely religious authority), not the state of his immortal soul. Fear for your immortal soul is the ultimate sign of remorse, especially when there is a being far greater than you who will more than enjoy sentencing your soul to hell if you don't obey Him absolutely, heck, even just for the heck of it in the end anyways. Truly remorseless villains wouldn't even care about the fate of their immortal souls at all in the afterlife. Just take a look at the Joker, for example, who with at least two incarnations made clear with a lot of stride that he was going to hell for his actions. Or hey, Frieza, who even bragged about being a being worse than Hell in the Japanese version just before transforming into his second form. Heck, Pious Augustus as Phillipe Augustine accomplished the CM bit far better than Frollo ever did. And BTW, God himself relishes in harming and manipulating people. Just ask the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and He even lied to Abraham about whether there was a chance that He'll spare them, because He knew full well thanks to his omniscience that they were destined to die, regardless of what number Abraham would barter God with. Had God been truly honest with him, He would have mind-raped him and taken joy at his trauma before blowing them up, like how the Patriots treated Raiden in MGS2. So yes, God Himself is indeed very similar to Frollo in the end, and we are all destined to be absolute slaves to God, and I fully intend for all of humanity to serve God out of terror, not love. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:20, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that since Frollo actually is labeled under Sympathy for the Devil on TVTropes, which is a trope specifically for sympathizing with villains, that means that he was exempt from being a CM, especially since, as someone pointed out below, CMs are supposed to deserve zero sympathy whatsoever. And it's not even an Alternate Character Interpretation bit, but listed separately from that, so that's a pretty big case against him being listed. But, again, it won't matter what I say since I'm outgunned. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:29, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * You still do not seem to understand the trope in regards to this. No single one CM is the same. The Joker expressed some self-awareness and self loathing in "The Killing Joke", yet remains a CM. Richard III makes a big point of how he doesn't love himself, yet he's considered a CM. A CM doesn't have to love what they are and what they do completely - they just need to have zero regret for it, and ultimately zero qualities that could be redeeming. Also, no, fear for one's immortal soul can sometimes, as in Frollo's case, show selfishness. It indicates that if this person does good, or what they believe to be good, they ONLY do it because they're seaking some reward in the afterlife. They don't truly believe that God loves unconditionally, so they have to appease him in some misguided way. If Frollo had remorse, he'd feel terrible for trying to murder an infant for that infant's sake, not for HIS own soul or what God would think of him. AND he'd stop committing atrocities rather than continuing to do so while justifying them to himself. Also, thanks for showing us you're a despicable nihilist with zero grasp on morality. No, God is NOT a sadistic tormentor of mortal souls, nor does He enjoy punishing immortal souls, NOR does He damn them for eternity. Ever. I don't know what your sources are, but you've got everything all wrong. God IS perfect love - He IS absolute goodness. And if you "intend" for humanity to serve Him out of fear rather than love, and WANT us to be slaves to your deity, than I can see why you're defending Frollo here - you're a lot like him.


 * Also, Sympathy For The Devil is misused in Frollo's Case. Cry For The Devil is the audience reaction trope - Sympathy For The Devil is the in-universe narrative trope. DocColress (talk) 02:17, November 28, 2014 (UTC) DocColress

Can it be considered to mention in the catagory that not all Complete Monsters deserve zero sympathy? Holly Jones, Lots O and Sweeny Todd for example? Number 1 Tonks Fan (talk) 07:02, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Lotso lost all sympathy a long time ago.Sweeny Todd only qualifies as a Complete Monster in the original "String of Pearls" story, in later retellings he's too sympathetic to qualify. That's why it says "Type dependent on the version". Holly Jones shouldn't even be listed as a Complete Monster. Bentonfill (talk)

(spoiler) It seems like Lotso is an interesting case. He could have been spared the Complete Monster status and even redeemed himself if only he had saved the toys from being incinerated. All he had to do was push the freaking button, and they could have parted on friendly terms. But no...he had to hesitate. Then he walks off, taunting the toys, therefore utterly and completely ruining his ever-so-slim chance of having a heel face turnBowserBros65 (talk) 22:36, February 1, 2014 (UTC)BowserBros65

Exactly. Lotso was, in the end, completely far gone into his own bitterness and nihilism to do anything redeemable. That solidified his Complete Monster status. DocColress (talk) 04:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

Who added Ganondorf to Complete Monster? because I had to remove it. I already stated in the Ganondorf talk page that he has traits to his character that prevents him from being this! If he were truly a CM he would have killed Link and Zelda on the spot, without a second thought! but he's stated numerous times (i.e. Wind Waker) that he has no desire to do so, and often fight fairly and with honor; he's even teamed up with the heroes in Brawl!

I'd say Ganondorf qualified in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, but nowhere else. DocColress (talk) 04:43, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress


 * Actually, even in Ocarina of Time, he fought with some honor, as in the final battle, he doesn't even attack until Link gets back up if hit by one of the attacks. Not to mention Zelda actually briefly pitied him after he basically incinerated himself and the castle, so I'm doubtful he qualified as a CM there. Maybe Twilight Princess, though even the ending implied that Zelda and Link pitied him. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:33, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * "Pity" does not equate to sympathy. Lord Voldemort is pitied, yet he's a CM. And I don't think a boss fight in which he pauses to laugh maniacally at his enemy getting hit counts as an honorable quality. DocColress (talk) 02:17, November 28, 2014 (UTC) DocColress

Rules on CM
an admin needs to add the following rules: Doctor Mad (talk) 23:02, May 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * NO comedy villains like Eric Cartman or Robot Chicken / Family Guy characters, no matter how vile.
 * NO characters who are deliberately made over-the-top evil, such as internet villains (Cupcakes etc)
 * ABSOLUTELY NO USERS - remove this from any user page and forbid it being used by users to describe themselves.

I still think Jeffrey Fecalman from Screams of Silence is a monster, because at least Family Guy attempted to have his vileness played straight. robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net (talk) 23:08, May 13, 2014 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

Jeffery is an exception - I mean when people add CM to things like Cupcakes, Smile HD and Internet Trolling - which are all comedy (even dark).. in skits like Robot Chicken characters do over-the-top things that would normally be CM status but due to it being so over-the-top it's comedy.. that's the stuff I believe needs to be stopped.. also need to stop Users adding it to their own pages, because it's just silly Doctor Mad (talk) 23:11, May 13, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no, not even Jeff is a Complete Monster. Other characters on the show have done the same damn things he did but not played seriously, so therefore there's no heinous standard. Jeff was only played seriously because it was a pretentious "Very Special Episode". DocColress (talk) 04:55, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

I notice that a bunch of these villains also have a page on heroes wiki and also I think if a villain is really tragic they can't be added here because they can't control there emotions and if this person was possessed or brainwashed than I don't think they count either but that's just my opinion.

There are Completely Monstrous villains on the heroes wiki, Kevin? Can you give me a few examples? Because one of the rules on the CM page is that if the villain is EVER portrayed in a positive/heroic way, they can't be CMs. And yes, brainwashed villains should not count. Fireworks888 (talk) 23:43, May 30, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know some of the characters that have pure of heart inside heroes wiki are in the villains wiki

And neither should on and off villains be considered complete monsters.

Yeah, the on and off villains category pages say no CMs can be on and off. And I'm asking what are some of the CMs you see at the heroes wiki? Fireworks888 (talk) 00:08, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add Arawn from The Black Cauldron to this category! As stated by Eilonwy he was a man who was so wicked and evil that even the gods feared him!

Cenationfan1 (talk) 01:25, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's what we think that they should be called complete monster, I think that if theyre basically heartless and completely sadistic than they should called complete monsters. I know you guys disagree but I really don't think commander Shepard deserves to be called a complete monster

It shouldn't be our opinion that makes them a complete monster, it should be what the other characters think that make them a complete monster like Jeffery fecalman from family guy from family guy, he was hated by everyone around him.

If it is more the opinions of the other characters for the CM. category than we should add villains like Ursula, Gaston and Loki because at one point of their films they are all recognized as "monsters." Gaston by Belle, Ursula by Ariel and Sebastian and Loki by Black Widow in the first Avengers movie!

Cenationfan1 (talk) 12:42, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how the CM category works. Their actions have to be heinous in-universe to qualify. A single murder doesn't make someone a monster, it's a compilation of actions that decides on whether or not a villain's a CM. In this case, the majority rules. However, with this whole category is it just opinion-orientated or is it a majority ruling? robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net (talk) 13:23, June 21, 2014 (UTC)Robinsonbecky

What characters think of the villain is only one part of the criteria: it doesn't determine everything. And NONE of those villains called "monster" were CM examples! Ursula cared about Flotsam and Jetsam when they died, Gaston did only one truly heinous action before he died, and Loki has shown a whole bunch of redeeming features in the Thor movies, including loving his mother and being devastated when she was killed! DocColress (talk) 04:55, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress


 * Just so we're clear, when you said Gaston did only one truly heinous action before he died, are you referring to his literally backstabbing the Beast or his trying to have Maurice locked up in an insane asylum under false pretenses specifically to force Belle to marry him? Also, Gaston was loved by the rest of the village, not to mention openly bragged about the aforementioned thing to applause (the only ones who might not genuinely know or support the plan Gaston had were those triplets, the rest of the villagers clearly knew since they saw the whole thing), and the only way we can add him to the CM turf is if we add in the villagers as well, thanks to that stupid, unnecessary reprise, and since groups can't be labeled as such, that means we can't add Gaston in. Besides, technically, it was indeed Belle's fault that Gaston became a villain later on due to her shoving him into a mud pool as a pretty cruel manner of refusing him. Had she politely refused him, not launched him into a mud pool, not taken amusement at the humiliation, and he turned out that way anyways, only then would she actually be innocent of Gaston's descent to villainy, but her actions there made her very much responsible for Gaston's descent, so he actually has an understandable reason for his slide into villainy, and thus would not qualify as a CM, either, like Skull Face doesn't qualify as a CM, at least on TVTropes, despite the horrendous acts he commits because he had a genuinely horrific backstory, making him somewhat sympathetic. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:38, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Actually, that reminds me, since Ursula is exempt from the CM status because she did genuinely care for F&J (which seems to be the only reason especially considering she otherwise fits the criteria), should we consider removing Colonel Volgin from the CM category? Only asking because he was implied to have genuinely cared for Ivan Raidenovitch Raikov, to the extent that he actually hesitates against attacking you if you disguise yourself as Raikov during the battle, and gets really enraged twice with your disguising yourself as Raikov (the first time when you were busted and the second time after landing a free hit) due to the implication that Big Boss harmed Raikov in order to disguise himself as him. Plus, he was honorable enough to allow Snake to fight evenly against him (even giving permission for Ocelot to throw down his gun and knife specifically to fight him evenly), something that Che Guevara, for instance, never did. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:46, September 22, 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring to stabbing Beast, since that was the only heinous thing he did without anyone else (no Lafou, Monsieur Darque, or townspeople). But you're showing your terrible views on life again, Weedle. No, it was NOT "Belle's fault" that Gaston was a villain. Gaston CHOSE to descend into villainy because he got REJECTED. Even if she DID turn him down politely, he'd have reacted the exact same way because he was a self-absorbed, misogynistic, entitled sociopath. He's not a CM, but he didn't really have a good excuse for being the evil prick that he was either.


 * And Volgin was discussed to death on TV Tropes, and I agree that he didn't really care for Raikov as a person - he completely objectified the guy and viewed him as his property. His whole "Raikov? You came back to me?" thing was more sick and twisted than sympathetic. And the "even fight" thing wasn't honor so much as it was "I want to fight and defeat this man without any help or interferance.". DocColress (talk) 02:58, November 28, 2014 (UTC) DocColress


 * Not what the law says, actually. Suppose a man who committed suicide ends up stepping in front of your car, and then you don't help him out of fear of being considered a murderer for running him over in the first place even when it was an accident. Even if it's clear after the investigation the man committed suicide, you're still treated as a murderer under the law. CSI made this very clear in one of the episodes with that exact scenario. It's exactly the same deal with Belle and her role in Gaston's villainy. Yes, Gaston still descended into villainy by himself anyways, but on the other hand, Belle is also to blame for that for throwing him into the mud. Now, if Belle did refuse him politely and WITHOUT humiliating him earlier, THEN she'd be completely blameless. In fact, that's the reason why I actually prefer the musical rendition, as it actually WAS done in such a way where it was very clear that Belle had absolutely no role in Gaston's descent to villainy. Jesus even made that clear in one of the Gospels: The man who doesn't try to dissuade the guy from sin beyond saying "you're going to hell for it" is held as being just as accountable as the man committing the sin, yet the man who not only tells the sinner he's going to hell for his actions, but also makes every effort to stop him. What she did in the film is closer to the former scenario than to the latter scenario. Not to mention, in The Dark Knight, Two Face ended up descending into villainy by himself like Gaston, yet it was pretty clear Joker was fully responsible for it, so if anyone has the poor views on life, it's actually you. One last thing, Gaston doesn't fit the criteria of a sociopath. For starters, sociopaths actually have to be very unsuccessful in life (Psychopaths are the ones who are more successful in life), and besides that, he doesn't meet the qualifications of being gifted in the silver tongue, one of the necessary symptoms of both disorders (just going by the Gaston reprise, Gaston was, if anything, far too honest to being extremely stupid as a result). This is even stated in the Category page for Sociopath and Psychopath. He is, however, a narcissist. And BTW, Gaston isn't a misogynist. A male-chauvinist, maybe, but not a misogynist. A true misogynist would either stay away from women regardless of how beautiful they may be due to an inherent amount of disgust (think how General Blue reacted to Bulma), or otherwise go around killing women and doing physical harm to them simply and specifically because they exist (like Chi-Fu and his treatment of Mulan, for example). If you honestly think Gaston's views of Belle are "misogynistic", then I guess Jesus's statements about how humans must basically submit to God's rule must make him a misanthrope despite his actions pointing against that idea, since after all, if you view a group as inferior to yourself, you automatically hate it, regardless of sacrificing yourself for it. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:04, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

I have explained on Gaston's talk page on how he is misogynistic as well as my view of God...I respect your faith but Jesus is considered a separate person the son of God by most people I know and I explained how God counts in some beliefs and yes I consider him one while I don't consider Jesus since he didn't look down on others and known to help them.Jester of chaos (talk) 12:37, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

So Weedle finally got to responding on April Fool's day - how fitting, given the foolishness. That analogy makes no damn sense whatsoever seeing as they are COMPLETELY different situations. Gaston didn't die from falling in mud, therefore Belle cannot be held accountable for showing him the door and landing him in that spot. The way Gaston reacted to that humiliation was his own choice and everything he did afterwards was his choice and his fault. Weedle, you DO show poor views on life since you come off as one who has read the Gospels and yet completely misinterpret it's meaning in order to make it comform to your own personal feelings, just like the apostle Paul. Gaston IS a sociopath - his sense of entitlement and feeling that the world should somehow revolve around him is the textbook sign of a sociopath. He's not intelligent, but he is social savvy enough to know how to manipulate others, as shown in the climax when he rallies an entire mob into following him to kill the Beast. Think Eric Cartman from South Park - he's an idiot, yet he's also a manipulative sociopath. You also doesn't seem to grasp what misogyny fully entails, since the objectification of women, ESPECIALLY beautiful ones, and the belief that they exist to pleasure men, IS misogyny, and that's what Gaston displayed repeatedly. And again, trying to bullshit with the Gospels to prove your point even when the subjects are laughably unrelated. All humans must submit to God's rule because God is literally EVERYTHING. Without God there would be nothing, including us as a species, so for that we must embrace His divine power over all. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Two-Face didn't exactly die from having his face scarred up or Joker talk to him into becoming a villain, either, yet guess what, both Two-Face and Joker were responsible for what happened (and Joker took credit for it as well). It's the exact same scenario with Belle, especially when she pretty much mocked Gaston shortly afterwards. Yes, he was at fault for his actions, just as Two-Face was at fault for his actions, but that does NOT mean Belle is completely innocent in this either. And BTW, Paul was one of God's greatest defenders, so he didn't misinterpret the Bible to match his personal feelings.


 * And even most manipulative people do NOT state their plans in public and in full grotesque detail of how heinous it actually was without any beneficiary to anyone else but the manipulative person, as that's going to end very badly for them (I can name plenty of villains who gloat out their plans stupidly thinking that no one would be bothered to go against him or her, only to discover just how wrong they were. Heck, this actually happened with Lena Dunham after that biography she wrote revealed some details that implied that she sexually abused Grace as a toddler, and this caused even her most loyal supporters to distance themselves from her and even call her out on Twitter). Gaston did exactly that in the Gaston reprise (or do I have to remind you that the lyrics explicitly mentioned in front of everyone that he was planning to persecute a man they knew full well was harmless, even if a crackpot, to blackmail Belle in terms of marriage?). Ursula, Jafar, Hans, most Disney villains never, EVER did stuff like that when they did their plotting and manipulations, and those guys actually ARE sociopaths and manipulative. So no, Gaston is NOT a sociopath. I know the criteria, as it's listed on TVTropes and on the category page for both Psychopath and Sociopath (and even if he did meet the list fully, he's qualify as a psychopath, NOT a sociopath, as sociopaths are unsuccessful at life while psychopaths are successful.).


 * And last, but not least, I actually DO know what misogyny fully entails, and it literally means "hatred of women" ("mis" means "against", "anti", dislike", and "ogyny" means "woman.") And hatred, as evidenced by what the Nazis, the KKK, the Soviets, and the like, means nothing less than wanting to completely eradicate a complete group of people because they have disgust for them. And BTW, God only views us as pawns before Him and clearly resorts to threats to keep us in line (remember the fire and brimstone references in both the Old and even the New Testaments/Gospels?). If He were truly all about "love," he wouldn't blow up Sodom and Gomorrah, not to mention lie to Abraham about whether there was a chance that there were any innocents in the city [He's all knowing, which means He would have known full well without even needing to investigate that there were no innocents of even the lowest number Abraham gave. Had He been honest, He'd reject the barter game with Abraham, gloat about His omniscience as how He knows, and even go as far as to break Abraham by mind-raping him just to prove how He knows there are no innocents], threaten to send people to Hell if they don't obey him absolutely, ruin a lot of peoples lives just to send a message, or any of that (and keep in mind, the New Testament has even more threats of eternal damnation for disobedience than even the Old Testament). Actually, He'd behave more like Ariel from The Little Mermaid, who doesn't resort to threats at all to get what she wants. I serve God out of fear, and nothing will ever change that, you can thank Raiders of the Lost Ark for how I am certain of God's nature, not to mention the Patriots, the Architect from the Matrix, and even readings from the Old and New Testaments. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:25, May 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * Belle responded in a not entirely appropriate way to completely inappropriate advances by Gaston. One character comes out looking like the bad guy here, and it's not Belle. And Paul was a complete and utter zealot. He meant well, but he twisted the truth about God and Jesus, and the beliefs we should be following, around because he wanted to make them mean what he wanted them to mean. This is why so many things he said clashes with basic Christian morality and ethics.


 * Gaston isn't very intelligent - this had been established. As luck would have it, neither were the people at the bar with him (either that or they were beyond plastered at the moment.) But Gaston does show textbook signs of a sociopath or psychopath. Namely the belief that everything seemingly exists for his pleasure and the world should revolve around him.


 * Misogynists can and have been fine with women existing alongside them - they just hate it when women act like people, which is something they don't view them as. Misogyny is the demeaning of a woman's worth in every possible way, not always the typical blind hatred that you speak of. And BTW, if God views us as pawns, then rebelling against him and refusing to be his pawns is the right thing to do, thus all sin must be justified because it's in defiance of an even greater evil. The fire and brimstone stuff is entirely made up or metaphorical - no such Hell actually exists. Sodom and Gomorrah blew up without Him having to lift a proverbial finger. Abraham is pure folklore based on an actual person. God does not damn people to Hell for not obeying Him absolutely and never thretened our souls with that. The book of Job was highly parable-ized (How the heck would anyone know how and why the ruination of Job's life came about and write about it? No living human being would be there to see it!)  And most threats of damnation in the New Testament came from, surprise surprise, Paul. Not Jesus. If you serve God out of fear, you're both a spineless coward with nothing to truly live for AND a deluded fool who completely misses the point of existence. And if dumb, man-made media is what led you to your path and you truly believe it accurately depicts God, you're one of the single stupidest human beings to ever set foot in this world. Start looking at other sources and try thinking for yourself, please? You'll become a much happier, better adjusted person if you do so. DocColress (talk) 23:25, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Commander Shepard
I wouldn't consider him/her a complete monster, an outright villain yes but I wouldn't consider him/her a monster( but it's probably just me). But there's only one problem I have with that he/she was shown to truly care for anderson, and he/she was obviously horrified by the expirament with the human, that doesn't apply for much but it's gotta apply for something. And he/she did show remorse for some of their actions, so I would consider them mostly evil but not complete monsters.

Somebody tried to add the duke of weselton on this category even though his actions weren't even vile.

I think it's kind of difficult to call a tragic villain a complete monster for the following reasons: 1. If the tragedy never happened they wouldn't have been so bad, how about those extremely tragic villains maybe they at least need a friend or someone to care for them, maybe if their lives weren't so horrible they wouldn't have been like that.

Evil Queen
I think we should add Queen Grimhilde from Snow White And The Seven Dwarves to this category! She poisoned her own stepdaughter just she was prettier than her! She even before that tried to have her murdered by her huntsman!

Cenationfan1 (talk) 12:05, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

And by having her heart carved out, too! She's also played VERY seriously by Disney villain standards, so I'd say she qualifies. DocColress (talk) 04:44, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

'''I am leaning towards yes on Queen Grimhilde, I am a little hesistant she fits much of the criteria and her actions are played upon quite seriously, but is she heinous enough to qualify by the standards of the story. This is one worth discussing. Xmike920 18:15, January 30 2015'''

To qualify by Disney's standards, you've got to do quite a bit to actually stand out. Maleficent, Ratigan, and even Tremaine have done some really horrible things, yet they still fall short of the heinous standard needed.

I don't believe Queen Grimhilde counts in any way. She attempts to murder her step-daughter out of vanity. Yes, this means she's beyond the MEH, but as I've stated several times, a crossing of the Moral Event Horizon does not make a Monster the instant it's crossed. Other wise, The Queen's far too one-note in her evil to qualify.  No fear,  no fun.   02:25, January 31, 2015 (UTC)

And there's nothing saying one-note evil villains CAN'T qualify. In fact, that's usually the most basic form of Complete Monster there is. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

I still cant decide on the Queen but I am leaning towards a no. She only made one crossing even though it was fairly deplorable. Eceptions in western animation have occured (like Steele from Balto) however among animated canon Disney villains Frollo, Shan - Yu, Rourke, Mcleach, The Horned King, The Coachman, etc have all done much worse and mostly multiple crossings of the MEH. In my eyes to qualify as a CM a character has to usually make Multiple MEH worthy deeds (usually 3, 4 or more) in addition to having no freudian excuse or mitigilating factors. It really depends on how you look at it but nasty as the Queens crossing was (trying to murder her daughter out of vanity) was, I personally dont find it heinous enough to qualify.Xmike920 (talk) 01:20, April 28, 2015 (UTC)Xmike920Xmike920 (talk) 01:20, April 28, 2015 (UTC) 21:20 April 27, 2015 (UTC)

Category addition
Most complete monsters are Category:Sociopaths (antisocial; no empathy towards anyone else), Category:Emotionless Villains (cannot show remorse), and/or a Category:Knight of Cerebus (extremely dark villain). However, not all Sociopaths, Emotionless Villains (Brian Griffin), and/or Knights of Cerebus are Complete Monsters. NotReadyIma (talk) 02:35, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Hold on there. Not every CM is emotionless. Many of them are extremely sadistic. And Category:Knight of Cerebus doesn't just mean 'dark villain', it has to be a dark villain in a normally lightehearted setting. Bentonfill (talk) 15:46, September 22, 2014 (UTC)

GHETSIS
Ghetsis has been recognized as a Complete Monster on All The Tropes wiki (on both Wikia and Orain) and various Pokemon fansites. And going by the definition of the trope given on ATT, he hits all the criteria necessary for passing. I'm sorry, but TV Tropes is gonna have to suck it. Ghetsis belongs in the category of Complete Monster. DocColress (talk) 04:49, September 7, 2014 (UTC)DocColress

All the Tropes is essentially just TV Tropes before it was good. So, TV Tropes from 2012 and before.

True, I realize that website's essentially their wiki clone while not adhering to their "draconian policy" to make it more user-friendly, but there are still certain things that need to be regulated. Complete Monster is finicky business, and while I can see your points, bringing up All The Tropes and the "various Pokemon fansites" doesn't really help your case at all. THE DREADED   ONE AWAKENS     01:20, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure TVTropes is all it's cracked up to be anyways. They banned me two to three years ago for edit-warring, allegedly because I'm not supposed to talk badly about Obama even when the stuff I added in actually WAS confirmed fact, even though they had absolutely no qualms making potshots at Bush, who frankly was small fry compared to the stuff Obama was doing. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:36, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Then what's better; a site with little rules and little regard to quality or policies, or a site so strict on the matters it'll ban you for attempting to justify a statement?

Then again, as I've already said, I'm not going to remove Ghetsis since you've put up a good argument and I can see where you're coming from. VW isn't TV Tropes, after all. THE DREADED   ONE AWAKENS     03:43, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

robinsonbecky@bellsouth.net (talk) 03:15, September 23, 2014 (UTC)robinsonbecky

Except that Ghetsis now HAS been removed due to a supposed Pet The Dog moment of saving the Shadow Triad's lives, explaining why they serve him out of a life debt. Nevermind that we don't actually SEE that moment, thus don't see what it was that was endangering the Triad, how Ghetsis saved them, or what his motives were, and we thus have no way of considering the Triad reliable here. Did Ghetsis put them in danger in the first place just so he could play hero to them and they'd feel indebted to him? Was the life debt even his idea or their's? We don't know anything about this event, and I don't think this off-screen, vague occurance is enough to disqualify someone who spends his entire screentime being repugnant. Basically, if we don't actually SEE the villain actually BEING or even ACTING nice, it's not a Pet The Dog moment. At all. DocColress (talk) 02:47, November 28, 2014 (UTC) DocColress

Having played the Unova games, I would say that Ghetsis qualifies. This is a rare exception where supposed offscreen villainy transcends into crossing the MEH far enough for CM Material. We are talking about a guy who manipulated his own adopted son in order to make himself the only one with pokemon in the world so he could rule it. In the sequels Ghetsis tortures a Pokemon into insanity and on screen Freezes over Opelucid City plotting to turn the whole reigon into an icy wasteland in a show of power not caring who or which pokemon he kills or maims in the process, (all to get people to submit to him) Then after being defeated by the player he tries to outright murder the player by freezing him/her alive. Plus he has no loyalty to anyone but himself. Id say he is on the same level of evilness as Hunter J, Iron Masked Marauder and Grings Kodai just in the games instead of the Anime. He seemingly fits all of the criteria and I believe we should make two seperate pages for Ghetsis one for the games and one for the anime. Because in the games unlike the anime counterpart, he qualifies as a CM. Xmike920 07:45, February, 4, 2015 (UTC)

I have blabbed on and on about Ghetsis, and I am in no mood to rant about this again, so I'll keep this short. The games and the anime have two completely different heinous standards. Ghetsis is roughly as heinous as J and Kodai, but is still nowhere near as heinous as Cyrus, Lysandre, Purple Eyes, a good majority of Team Cipher, Darkrai, and even AZ. The games have the villains who experiment in global-scale omnicide as a common end goal. Ghetsis abuses his son, tries to kill the heroes, experiments in basic torture (which is dwarfed by the experiments conducted on Shadow Pokemon) and tries to take over the world. Really, it's my opinion that everyone demonizes Ghetsis into being the ultimate force of evil in the Pokemon franchise where the fact is that, while he's without redeeming qualities (if one discounts his implicitly good relationship with the Shadow Triad) he's not really even that heinous. Especially given how his abuse is limited to what's acceptable by E-rating standards. Pokemon is dark, but it's not that dark, and I believe Ghetsis to be only slightly above a standard level villain in a series where the villains try for the murder of billions. That's not getting into the horrific mind rape Darkrai presents, terrorist-level attacks, and the aforementioned Shadow Pokemon. Everyone in the series replicates Ghetsis' actions to a far worse degree.

Don't try and convince me otherwise. I'm simply offering an opinion, and any attempt to counter it or try and sway me otherwise will be ignored. I've debated Ghetsis long enough and the page is locked because of it.  No fear,  no fun.   03:33, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, anyone else have a thought on Ghetsis please leave your message here, thenks. Xmike920 14:40, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Ghetsis' MEH crossing actions are actually worse than described. He didn't merely "manipulate" his son - he WARPED him, brainwashed him, used him, and abused him emotionally and mentally in order for him to become a pawn in a plan that would get HIM what he wanted, which was the selfish and petty goal of power and world domination, all while lying to N and like-minded Plasma troops that it would be accomplishing a more selfless goal, the liberation of Pokemon from human captivity and oppression. In reality, Ghetsis and his followers were to become the oppressors, since in this world, the only ones able to use Pokemon would naturally be the only ones with power! In the sequels he was planning on freezing over the entire continent as a straight up extortion of power from the leaders of the region, who would relinquish control to him once the suffering became too great. And the order of events was wrong - Ghetsis tried to outright murder the player BEFORE being defeated. Part of what makes that so heinous is that it's completely against the trainers' code of conduct - a battle hadn't even taken place, and yet Ghetsis was ordering Kyurem to attack a living target, who's both a human being and a child at that! The heinous standard of Pokemon works in a way that makes Ghetsis an ultimate force of evil BECAUSE he lacks redeeming features and lacks extreme motives to go along with extreme actions - he simply wants power for himself and will sink to any low that's within his reach and resources to get it. Ghetsis might not have done any Mind Rape on Darkrai's level but his abuse of N very well borders on Mind Rape when one really thinks about it, he DID initiate terrorist level attacks in both the first games (at the League) and the second (Opelucid City), and if he had the power to create Shadow Pokemon, I've no doubt he would. And the trope shouldn't have to be all about actions. It's heinous actions + an irredeemable character. In my view, that's Ghetsis. And seriously, even his talk page is locked now? What I really want to know is why Ghetsis seems to be the one we're going out of our way to prevent the CM label being added to him, seeing as other examples not approved by TV Tropes still keep their labels here. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Marcus
Alexander Marcus should be added to this category. In Star Trek Universe standards, he's pure evil and has no actual motive for being so hence making him a complete monster. Bobbobbobthebob (talk) 04:10, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

I know I constantly obsess over this. (Apologies for that) but I think there's alot of Disney Villains who should qualify as CMS I know some people may disagree but some of these bad guys have committed some pretty heinous crimes. Just to prove my point check out this link. http://disneyvillains.wikia.com/wiki/Disney_Villains'_Crimes

Cenationfan1 (talk) 21:44, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

I know we can't have any more categories on this wiki. But I have a suggestion. Everyone has their own opinion on who is and isn't a CM for example I think Mozenrath from Aladdin is a CM. Though I understand why most people wouldn't consider him one. Trying to obtain power is just generic villainy. IT'S the lengths hes willing to get power is why I consider him one. He was even willing to sacrifice his own hand just to receive more power. Sorry this is so long but how about we have a "Fan Monsters" category so people can put whoever they want and leave this one just for straight up examples?

Cenationfan1 (talk) 19:42, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on Terence Fletcher
I've been thinking about Terence Fletcher from the movie Whiplash and I was wondering if you think he qualifies as this. He has absolutely no redeeming qualities to speak of, physically and verbally abuses his students and even drove one of his students to suicide. He also explicitly states that he doesn't care about conducting his students. While Fletcher argues that he conducts at Shaffer in order to find a great musician, his actions end up destroying musicians and his excuse doesn't not add up when he attempts to sabotage Andrew's musical career near the end out of petty desire for revenge from being fired from the school. There is also Word of God from director Damien Chazelle that Terence will always believe he won against Andrew after the ending and that his actions end up destroying Andrew's life. Thoughts?

Jakq85 (talk) 20:22, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

Jakq85, While I haven't seen Whiplash. From your description I'd say he sure fits this category. What are people's thoughts on adding Sofia The Worst to the CM category? She is a bully. But not only that SHE ENJOYS the horrible things she's doing. Even when she's defeated she still has ABSOLUTELY NO REMORSE FOR HER ACTIONS!!!!!!!!

Cenationfan1 (talk) 15:53, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

You've got to do a bit more than be a bully to qualify for being a Complete Monster, even if you're over the MEH. Even if he's responsible for driving one of his students to suicide, that's little more than an indirect result. The end scene (tearfully approving of Andrew's performance, from what I read) makes me question the character even more.

As for the last bit (Sofia the Worst) no, no, and no. If you sincerely believe that an even milder bully qualifies, I suggest searching up what it truly takes to become a Complete Monster. One can at least make an argument for Terence, but suggesting a character like that is a plain and simple misuse of the trope.  No fear,  no fun.   18:53, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

No Fear, First off you could be a little less rude with your response. I'm not trying to abuse or misuse this trope. I've been watching movies and TV shows ever since I was a kid. Second I was referring to the fact that Sofia The Worst had a sick thrill for her bullying. Even when Cedric sent her back with the amulet she was still like...."Oh well it was fun while it lasted. (Evil laugh) Have you ever had a character that while you were watching them you said things like, "that backstabbing creep" "What a spoiled brat!"I think that if a character has you yelling insults at the tv or if you wish you could go inside the tv and punch that character in the face. Then they should qualify as a CM.

Cenationfan1 (talk) 21:13, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

No, that qualifies as a dislikable character. There's a firm difference between being a douche and a monster. She's a Scrappy for you, but in terms of actual vile actions they need to qualify for the trope, she comes pitifully short of the Moral Event Horizon.

For reference, to be a Complete Monster one has to commit several acts that would be by definition a crossing of the MEH. Sofia's evil counterpart is a bully. Not even a very bad one, especially considering the show's targeted age group. Unless said bully is driving people to suicide and raping people, I'm hard pressed to find any bully archetype outside a Stephen King novel (and even those are debatable) that qualifies for Complete Monster.  No fear,  no fun.   22:40, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Complete Monsters that cannot redeem themselves are cowards and can die in disgrace?

Here's the thing. Most villains are Complete Monsters. There are exceptions like most interpretations of Captain Hook, and redeemed villains such as Zarina, Yui Hongo and Darth Vader. But no matter how vile or heinous their actions are fans still like them. See when we're young our parents always teach us that wwe're not supposed to like the bad guy and to root for the good guys. But as we get older we start liking the bad guys because it's cool to like. them regardless of how horrible they are.

Cenationfan1 (talk) 16:32, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

No most villains are not Complete Monsters. This category is reserved for the worst of the worst. Bentonfill (talk) 03:39, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

First off I didn't say ALL VILLAINS are Complete Monsters, I said most of them are. And yes I'm aware that I seem to have a counter for everything with this category but I have very strong opinions on Complete Monsters. And yes most villains are Complete Monsters. We like the villains because while horrible they still are funny and sometimes very interesting characters. But we're not supposed to like them. Why do you think villains are referred to as characters we "love to hate?" Because while we like them because they're cool funny, and even sometimes tragic we ask like to hate them because of how despicable they are.

Cenationfan1 (talk) 16:52, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Once again, not to sound rude, but if you honestly consider most villains to be Complete Monsters, I'm not exactly sure you know the qualifications for a Complete Monster. It's not an easy-to-qualify-for trope; I'd say it's rather exclusive.

Cenation, there is a firm difference between a Complete Monster and a villain which you dislike, and an especially firm one between the actions of a CM and one that simply breaches standard villainy. I suggest you limit yourself before you try proposing any more candidates of the ilk of "Sofia the Worst."  No fear,  no fun.   23:48, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

NO Fear, Yeah I realize now that Sofia The Worst is just a bully and isn't heinous enough qualify for this trope but I still believe that Gaston should qualify though He may have been considered the "town hero" but he still bribed Monsieur D'Arque to lock up Maurice, incited a riot and even stabbed the Beast in the back which is assault with a deadly weapon as well as murder (though he comes back when Belle broke the curse).

Cenationfan1 (talk) 02:01, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

He still doesn't exactly breach the heinous standard, though. At worst, he just crosses the moral event horizon. Robinsonbecky (talk) 08:28, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

in Gaston's defence he had gone completely batshit insane by that point in the movie (when he stabbed Beast) so was no longer thinking rationally, he lost control.. like a manchild taking a violent tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted Captain Cereal (talk) 03:24, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

OK, that proposal for Sofia The Worst was possibly the most laughable thing I have seen on a wiki in a VERY long time! The use of ALL CAPS AND !!!!!!!!!, the indication that being "a bully" is enough to warrant being a CM (which means every kid who's ever bullied others on the playground is automatically irredeeamble), the indication that enjoying doing bad things (which damn near EVERY jerk, bully, and villain does) is enough to push her over the edge, and the shouting about having no remorse making her a monster even though it's not exactly monstrous to feel no remorse for pranks and misdemeanors, and she was very much a Graceful Loser in the end, leaving the world behind on almost friendly terms! CEDRIC is more heinous than she was!

And with the comment about how "most villains are Complete Monsters", I start feeling like Cenationfan1 and Brony99 are the same person. DocColress (talk) 17:59, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

President Alma Coin
Any thoughts on this, I have read and seen Mockingjay, and based on actions throughout there is a possibility she may qualifyXmike920 (talk) 17:39, February 3, 2015 (UTC)Xmike920Xmike920 (talk) 17:39, February 3, 2015 (UTC)12:38 3, February, 2014 (UTC)

No. Vile as her crossing of the MEH is, it's still only one crossing, and she's ultimately not as heinous as President Snow. Hell, even some of the Peacekeepers and Tributes are incredibly heinous in their own right, all being willing to commit mass murder to sate some desire of theirs. The heinous standard for the Hunger Games is far too high for her to qualify.  No fear,  no fun.   23:18, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the entire point of her character that she was exactly like Snow, just on the opposing side? I think the only reason she's not as heinous as Snow is because she was killed off before she got the chance to be so. We did, after all, hear her plans for the Capital Games, which is literally no different from what Snow did with the Hunger Games. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

With Coin it is an exceptionally vile crossing for a one note. usually these characters do not qualify but if it is truely heinous or at least has the liklihood of being so they may count. this one is worth discussing and she made more than just one crossing as I recallXmike920 (talk) 01:10, April 28, 2015 (UTC)Xmike920Xmike920 (talk) 01:10, April 28, 2015 (UTC) 21:09 April 27, 2015 UTC

Thanks for your opinion, Once we get a consensus agreement either way that will be the outcome. As for now it is a no.Xmike920 (talk) 23:22, February 3, 2015 (UTC)Xmike920Xmike920 (talk) 23:22, February 3, 2015 (UTC) 18:21, February 3 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think we should change the name of this category. With the exception of some villains no fan will ever label a villain as a" monster" for example Maleficent is a vile character but I'd never call her a monster. The Heroes Wiki category is Pure Of Heart so why don't we call thisoone Pure Evil villains. Just a suggestion. Cenationfan1 (talk) 19:41, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

It's been "Complete Monster" for years now. That's the name of the trope, and that's the name of the category. Unless you can make a really good case, nothing's changing. 23:47, February 13, 2015 (UTC)  No fear,  no fun. 

I understand that Complete Monster is the the name of the trope and the category and I totally respect that. But the case I'm arguing is that I feel that calling a villain a monster seems like a bit of a stretch. Villains are vile characters and there are villains that are deserving of the title monster such as Scar, Joker, The Coachman and Shan Yu. But there's also villains like Tirek, Princess Ivy, Pitch, and even King Sombra who are extremely vile especially considering the target audiences of their respective movies and series. But none of them I wouldn't consider monsters. That's why I think labeling a villain as a" monster" is a bit of a stretch. Cenationfan1 (talk) 02:29, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Cenation, that's the thing, and I have a feeling this is why you misunderstand the trope so much; Complete Monsters are supposed to get that reaction from you. They're supposed to be heinous to the degree where you call them despicable, iredeemable monsters. Given the types of villains you've been proposing, I don't think you really understand what a "monster" is when referring to a villain.

Now, please, ''research the trope.   No fear,''  no fun.   00:20, February 15, 2015 (UTC)

Not to be mean but Robinsonbecky and most of the other users are at least being respectful of my opinions while you seem to be the only one who's actually challenging my opinion. Ok maybe I don't have the best knowledge of what it takes to be a monster and maybe the villains I've requested have been childish but you could be respectful and be a little nicer when you reply to my suggestions. I will also add that I like the Disney Villains wikis criteria for Complete Monsters. Complete Monsters are the worst kind of villains imaginable, villains that are pure evil. For this type of character, doing evil is as natural as breathing. They commit especially atrocious acts that ultimately cause them to cross the Moral Event Horizon.Other characters in the story are either terrified or despise said character, including other villains. It doesn't matter to Complete Monsters, since they care about no one but themselves.There is not any justification for their misdeeds, and they feel absolutely no remorse for their actions. Even when given the chance, they never redeem themselves.Unless the protagonist acts, the Complete Monsters will never stop at making the world around them miserable. As long as they aren't stopped, there won't be any happy ending to the story. Cenationfan1 (talk) 00:04, February 16, 2015 (UTC)

Chris McLean
Can I ask people's opinions on adding Chris McLean from Total Drama to the CM category? While I know he's supposed to be more of a comical villain he crosses the MEH more than once throughout the series. Including having Courtney dive off a high dive into a pool of green jelly without any regard for her physical health, eliminating Ezekiel from World Tour when he didn't even loose any challenges yet. Though he lets him back in after Duncan quit in tthe second episode. There's also wrongfully placing Gwen on the Villainous Vultures despite the fact that she states that she's not a villain.

Cenationfan1 (talk) 20:58, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

He's played for laughs. Robinsonbecky (talk) 03:06, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. If he was a true CM, horrified reactions, lawsuits, and attempts on his life would be more common on the show. As it is, everyone shrugs off his terrible deeds. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on Kancha Cheena?
I was wrapping up on the cleanup for Kancha Cheena's page when I figured he might be a good fit for this category. The only excuse he has is that kids picked on him for being bald in school, which is possibly the weakest I’ve ever seen in a film, Hollywood or Bollywood. Kancha truly has no redeeming qualities to speak of and is directly responsible for almost everything horrible to happen to the protagonists in the movie. He shrugs off the deaths of his minions, executes civilians within his village, and running Mandwa like a Nazi concentration camp. His desire to establish a drug empire in Mumbai even drives him to remorselessly manipulate and ultimately kill his own father. Above all, he states that he has no desires or attachments and he proves this by embracing his own atrocities, going as far as comparing himself to Ravanna ruling his Lanka in the film.

Here is the TV Tropes discussion on Kancha beginning at post 32292. While they haven't finished an entry for Kancha yet, the tropers on the cleanup thread have nearly-unanimously agreed to add him up on the film subpage. Thoughts?

Jakq85 (talk) 00:38, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Accepting fate and destiny for certain Complete Monsters to die with honor?
In a situation like this, sometmes Complete Monsters accept their fate and dignity to die with honor (by not redeeming or without redemption)...


 * To be honest, having zero chance of redemption or redeeming themselves or even a desire to do so is the thing missing from several of the CM categories. Frollo fearing for his soul does qualify as having some chance for redemption, which would conflict with being a CM, for example. I can name several CMs who definitely died without any intention of redeeming themselves or fear of the awaiting punishment in the afterlife, heck, even goading people into trying to kill them in some instances (like Joker or Kefka, heck, Owlman in Crisis of Two Earths as well. Technically Volgin as well, since it's implied that he committed suicide in his final moments.). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:19, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Fearing for your soul in his case could of been had he accepted responsibility and tried to make amends or even showed genuine regret but instead he blamed everyone else even God with "God made the devil so much stronger then a man!" During Hellfire.Jester of chaos (talk) 12:45, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really. God relies on fear to get people to submit to his own will. Or have you forgotten that in both the Old and New Testaments, God relied on using threats of people going to hell to get people to submit to his authority and keep them in line? In fact, the New Testament, the one reputed to have love and mercy as the focal points, had even MORE threats than the Old Testament, many of them even coming from Jesus himself. And in fact, God has no qualms with violating the 10 commandments himself if his destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and ordering Saul to commit genocide (and in fact punishing him for failing to wipe out everyone) is anything to go by, and he doesn't take any responsibility for his explicitly violating that commandment. And BTW, he'd need to act more like Phillipe Augustine, The Joker, Kefka Palazzo, or Volgin in regards to lacking any remorse or even fear for their own soul. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:49, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

My views of God is complicated but Frollo was in the film a remorseless and vile man who held no redeeming factors and on him that's all I'm gonna say for awhile hopefully since it obvious our definition of remorse is very different.Jester of chaos (talk) 13:02, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * So why even bother taking Quasimodo in? Why even bother with Hellfire? Joker didn't, neither did Kefka, Volgin certainly didn't, and don't get me started in regards to Phillipe Augustine. And if Aunt Petunia taking in Harry Potter can be considered a redeemable trait and an "act of love" even when it was made pretty clear in the fifth book that the only reason she brought him in was because Albus Dumbledore effectively blackmailed her into doing so rather than any actual love for nephew and desiring for his well being (heck, if anything, she and Uncle Vernon treated Harry far worse than Frollo treated Quasimodo. At least Frollo did try to teach him some elements of Christianity), it most certainly can qualify for Frollo. You can't have it both ways. Either they both apply or they don't apply at all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And this is in fact one of the reasons why the CM category really needs to be removed. It's an opinion trope anyways, and last I checked, opinions aren't even allowed on the Wiki. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:20, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Seriously Kefka and Joker are simply nihilistic and no it doesn't make any charter a villain simply because the DONT find value in life as a whole only their actions. Frollo is complex and again fear of damnation isn't redeeming at best it's cowardice and selfish. It's been years since I read the books but she might not have been vile enough or actually came with remorse or care for others. It's not really opinion only it's more observation opinion would be "Hot" or "Attractive" Characters not "they are the most or one of vile character with absolutely no positive traits". As far as I am concerned it staying.Jester of chaos (talk) 16:09, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * Book 5 made it pretty clear that the only reason why Aunt Petunia took him in was because Dumbledore flat-out blackmailed her. When Dumbledore explained his role in Petunia taking Harry in late into the book, he also mentioned something about conversing her and basically forcing her to take him in, and he even reveals that he was the one who sent that threatening howler earlier in that book when she came very close to heeding Vernon Dursley's intention of kicking Harry out, the one that basically said "Remember my last, Petunia!" due to her not opening up in time, acting as the only reason she told Vernon that Harry has to stay.
 * And nihilistic characters generally don't even believe in morality or anything like that. In fact, nihilists actually do very heinous things precisely BECAUSE they think there's no such thing as morality. That's why they are generally villains, and one of the more dangerous ones out there (something even stated on the "nihilists" category on this site). And lacking a fear of damnation isn't a sign that a character ISN'T a coward or selfish. Again, look at the Joker and Kefka. They were obviously nihilists and even embrace the punishment and pains of hell if they die, yet they clearly were cowardly and selfish people. Even Volgin, the closest we've got to a non-cowardly character (if only because he actually DOES have enough decency to allow Snake a fighting chance, something most CMs and cowards don't have), had some degree of cowardice regarding The Boss. Heck, Phillipe Augustine, being a disguise for Pious Augustus, obviously lacked even fear in his actions (in fact, he lacks a sanity meter), and he's an extremely sick monster as you know.
 * One last thing: Complete Monster is indeed an opinion trope. That's even why it's considered a YMMV trope on TVTropes (which, I must remind you, stands for "Your Mileage May Vary", meaning it's chock full of opinion. That's even the definition given on the site for YMMV tropes). At least one other person actually agreed that including what was explicitly a YMMV trope on this wiki actually violates the no opinions rule of wikis. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:28, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Like I said I haven't read the books in years so I don't remeber much. Fearing for the soul isn't what made him a coward it was the fact he refused to take responsibility for his actions. Nihilism is also a trait in some Heros like Raven NOT just villains like you seem to believe.

The user I know of simply wanted it renamed not completely gone and again to call some one the most vile character of the story with no redeeming features aka a CM isn't really opinion from my point of view but either way I know this argument could go on for eternity but since I'm not immortal nor do I really desire to be I say we agree to disagree.Jester of chaos (talk) 16:48, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * And would taking responsibility really matter as to whether they are CMs or not anyways? Kefka, Volgin, and Joker clearly took responsibility for the crimes they committed (heck, they frequently GLOATED about their crimes and flaunted it), to such an extent that, at least in the case of the Joker, one sure-fire way to determine that they are in fact innocent of a crime is if they deny any responsibility committing it. In fact, they are still CMs DESPITE clearly taking responsibility for their actions. And for the record, so is Dr. Weil, as well. As far as Raven, never heard of the person, so I can't respond one way or another (though it may be that you're mistaking nihilism with cynicism. However, nihilism is indeed an exclusively villainous trait. Cynicism isn't necessarily a villainous trait).


 * And as far as whether it needs to be renamed or eliminated, I explained why it needs to be removed. And BTW, it doesn't matter whether it's an opinion from your point of view or not (and quite frankly, I wish it were absolute fact instead of a YMMV trope since I believe in absolutes, NOT relativity), what matters is that TVTropes explicitly considers it a YMMV trope. And for the record, when you say "from my point of view," you DO realize you're effectively admitting that it is only an opinion, right? Opinions equal your point of view. Granted, opinions also equal lies, but still... We can put aside the Frollo bit, but NOT whether CM is YMMV or not or should be kept in any way or not, since this is what the rules of the Wiki state. I also explained why we can't just rename the category to something more lacking of ambiguity. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:07, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Yes taking responsibility matters in Frollo's case since otherwise it isn't true remorse. Not all versions of Joker are CM in comics it depends on the writer. Raven is considered nihilist because she finds everything meaningless but still does what she finds right. True nihilism simply means one simply doesn't believe anything matters so nihilism by itself isn't villainous. I am on some levels one.

Absolutes are great but nothing is truly absolute. I pointed out how it is stating facts not opinion that these individuals need to be the worst type of individual with nothing good about them shown and don't see a reason to remove it. I saw your reason and agree renaming it is pointless. Others will ultimately others and the majority will decide if it stays or not. This has no real reason to continue as it is transparent we won't change each other's mind. Jester of chaos (talk) 17:27, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * I realize that not all of the Joker are CMs, but on the other hand, most ARE, and even the ones who clearly are CMs do take responsibility for their actions, at least in the sense that they clearly gloat about their crimes and even strongly imply that Batman or someone else should kill them. Same with Volgin and Kefka (and unlike the Joker, those guys actually ARE firmly CMs, although I will admit that I'm still not sure why The Boss is not considered a CM DESPITE blowing up her own allies and all of that just like Volgin did), and it's pretty obvious that despite taking responsibility for the crimes by gloating about it they had zero remorse for what they did. And by Raven, are you referring to the half-demon daughter of Trigon from Team Titans? If that's who you're referring to, that largely depends on which personality trait she has at the moment. If she's got the personality trait inherited by her father Trigon at that moment, yes, she's definitely a villain, or at the very least a nominal hero. And actually, true nihilists don't even believe in the concept of morality, which effectively means that they are actually MORE inclined to engage in completely amoral, villainous behavior. Raven would NOT be a true nihilist because she actually DOES recognize morality and the concept of right or wrong as actually meaning something (again, why bother trying to do what's right if she doesn't even believe in right or wrong, which is what nihilists generally believe, that everything's relative and meaningless, and morality doesn't even exist. That's even what Frederich Nietzsche stated.). Kefka, the Joker, The Boss, Monsoon, and Psycho Mantis would all qualify as true nihilists (in fact, The Boss even specifically stated that right and wrong mean absolutely nothing in the end very early in the game). In fact, by tacitly admitting that you think there is right or wrong, you do in effect admit that there IS a point to right or wrong, meaning even you aren't a true nihilist.


 * And if you have a problem with it, take it to TVTropes (I would, but they kind of banned me, and no chance of my actually reaccessing the site again after I was forced to utilize another account to correct some things), as they're the guys who made it opinion-based and YMMV trope in the first place, or how about taking it to the Wikia Community, which also made it very clear that opinions are NOT allowed on the Wiki at all (if you put opinions on there, they get deleted per it being against WP:NEUTRAL, or WP:OR, or anything like that). I'm just stating what it is. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:46, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Nihilism in of it self not villainous some nihilist still do good and normal things and it is mostly shown in villains so it's more interesting. Joker and Kefka enjoy being evil and don't delude themselves. Frollo refused to take responsibility due to the fact he saw no sin in himself thus didn't have remorse for wrong doing. I don't want nor have I been a member of TvTropes just not my thing.

This has gone on too long already it's often used wrong as it is for those who are absolutely the worse no question and no redeeming quality. It has already been placed on another admins wall Dreadnine and I doubt it's going anywhere but if it does I won't care much. I'm just trying to end this discussion so I can do work without feeling rude for not answering back. Let's simply say we're done with this conversation since neither of us will change the others mind.Jester of chaos (talk) 18:17, April 1, 2015 (UTC)


 * I do agree there needs to be a category to actually show the worst of the worst. However, Complete Monster is not it, and we can't exactly use "pure evil villains" either unless you want to expand it to people who are simply called pure evil either by other characters/the creators of the work or by the villains themselves. Complete Monster's already a YMMV trope on TVTropes, which in effect means it's merely opinion. I don't like it any more than you do, but that's just the way it is.


 * And as far as nihilism, actually, no, when nihilists don't recognize the concept of right or wrong or believe it means anything at all, that means they DON'T do anything moral. Even if they do manage to do something that is technically right or moral, it's not because they actually believe in morality or right or wrong. Vegeta, for example, did things that were technically the right thing, yet it's clear morality had absolutely nothing to do with his decision for doing so, only being motivated by purely selfish reasons. That's why Raven doesn't qualify as a nihilist, because what you stated about her motives for doing the right thing means she actually DOES find some meaning in right and wrong as well as morality. A real nihilist is someone like Owlman, and he doesn't even believe in good or evil at all, or even seem to identify himself as evil. Now, I would say she's a cynic, since she really doesn't really have much positive outlooks, but not a nihilist, since she really doesn't fit one due to her clearly believing in right or wrong as even you pointed out.


 * But yeah, let's stop here. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:46, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Nihilism is simply not believeing things like love, happiness and life having real meaning. Amoralality is different they don't believe in morals or hold real morality though often if you suffer from one then you do the other but not always said cases. Nihilism in of itself isnt villainous as some Heros suffer from it like Kratos (he is both good and evil), Raven is both cynical and nihilistic though a hero, Rorschach alignment debateable, V same as Rorschach. I am not trying to say it's good I'm saying nihilism isn't villainous on its own as some retain morality though it's very rare. Owlman, Joker, Kefka, Sir Isaac Westcott are prime Villainous examples with it at the absolute worst not what nihilism itself is. And yes I'm not the only one to think so the Heros Wiki has a category called "Nihilistic Heros".Jester of chaos (talk) 19:40, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

You're talking to the person who has a bad case of Draco In Leather Pants for Frollo due to sharing his zealous religious beliefs. It's not worth it. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have DILP for Frollo. I hate villains constantly, and if it were up to me, I'd rename this wiki to Complete Monster Wiki specifically because Villain and Complete Monster are no different. I'm just one who refuses to acknowledge Frollo as a Complete Monster simply because there ARE redeemable aspects to his character, assuming Villain and Complete Monster are truly different. Just because I doubt Frollo is a complete monster doesn't mean I automatically have a Draco in Leather Pants crush on him. If I did, I'd be saying that he's a saint, which I am not saying or inferring at all. I'm not asking we remove him from the wiki at all, just that we remove him from the Complete Monster category. And for the record, nihilism IS inherently amoral, as nihilism holds that NOTHING matters, especially not morality (after all, if nothing truly matters, then that includes morality. It's called deductive reasoning. It's even in the word. "Nihil" means "Nothing" in Latin.). Just look at the Russian Nihilist movement, or Kefka, or The Boss (and she's technically one of the good guys, yet made clear that right or wrong mean absolutely nothing). And BTW, Jean-Paul Sartre was a nihilist as well (well, technically an existentialist, but there's little distinction besides crafting your own morality which renders it meaningless), as was Nietzsche (who made very clear that morality was utterly meaningless outside of being a slave code in his description of what Nihilism was). And if you truly think God's all about love and friendship, you clearly haven't read about his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or his destroying the world with a flood, or his slaughtering the Egyptians to force them to freeing the Israelites, or his telling them to wipe out the Malenkites, or the like, which BTW is the epitome of hate and definitely not love or valuing them as friends. Even with Jesus's sacrifice, he didn't do the most important thing which was utterly eradicate sin completely and ensure they can't leave Him again. Think of sin as an illness, and God as the cure, and if he's the cure, that means the disease of sin is completely eradicated, and with it, our free will. Had I been God, I actually WOULD have made sure Sin was utterly eradicated, that all of free will was eliminated with Jesus's death. You want to know where free will got us to? It was to sin, to communism, to socialism, to Nazism, to the depraved age of the sixties, including May 1968, to the mess that's occurring today (and it's obvious free will is the cause since the entire point of free will is to constantly rebel against any authority, like what those guys did). And BTW, I view God as being similar to the Patriots and to the Architect, not as a loving father, but as a ruler who wishes to have dominance over everyone, even with Jesus's sacrifice (and need I really remind you that God was responsible for Jesus's crucifixion at the hands of Man? Jesus even made that clear.). His actions in the Old Testament and even in the Gospels made that very clear. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:11, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

As said some hero's though rare are nihilist ex: some versions of Batman, Raven, Punisher (debateable on hero). Amorality means they don't know the difference, nihilist doesn't believe it matters in the long run big difference. The category is staying and most villains aren't CM as most either aren't evil enough or have redeeming features. Following your claims I am in God's eyes as evil for a simple lie as a rapist, pedophile, and murderer. I think I'm done with you.Jester of chaos (talk) 17:32, May 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's NOT possible to be a hero and a nihilist. A hero and a cynic, sure, a protagonist and a nihilist, sure (and let me remind you that being a protagonist doesn't mean you're actually good/a hero) but not a hero and a nihilist. The definition of nihilism specifically states that morality DOESN'T matter, and if it doesn't matter, they DON'T follow it. Sartre was a nihilist and immoral/amoral, for example (I'd argue immoral, considering his mentioning he was a "chronicler of hell" at one point implies he does fully realize he's doing wrong), constantly cheating on women and casually admitting it (and his letters make clear he doesn't have any care about whether they get hurt), as well as advocating mass murder and overall lacking any remorse. As was the Russian Nihilist movement, Nietzsche, and the rest (and they aren't even on Villains Wiki). If you're a nihilist, you're obligated to not view morality as truly mattering at all, and thus are obliged to not follow it at all. That's even where moral relativism kicks in. That's one of the key aspects to nihilism. I even cited real life examples of nihilists in there such as Sartre, Nietzsche, and the like. And yes, in God's eyes, you ARE in effect that with the fact that you sin, just as he does me because I'm a sinner (one who tries to avoid it, but a sinner nonetheless). And BTW, just because you claim you are good doesn't mean you actually are. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the other French Philosophes claimed they were good, as did the Jacobins, yet they clearly weren't. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:45, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Actually yes they can and even the Hero Wiki has a category but you obviously disagree which is fine. I know the difference of protagonist and hero. I never said a good person but I help people pay my taxes and show love and compassion but I'm a nihilist to a degree in the fact I don't value my own life, and agnostic but praise the stories of Jesus as well as Buddha. I'm by no means perfect, But your comments about everyone being a CM who don't just bow to Gods will is very offensive and inappropriate.Jester of chaos (talk) 18:02, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think "nihilism" just means you don't value your life. Even Jesus didn't exactly value his life (if he did value it, he wouldn't have gone through with God's demand that he let himself be crucified to free us from our sins), and that guy was far from being a nihilist. And for the record, it doesn't matter if it's offensive and inappropriate, because it's true. Even Jesus made very clear we have to bow down to his father and to him, making clear he is the way and anyone who doesn't submit to his father and his ways completely should take a hike and go to hell (and yes, he DID make that very clear in the Gospels). And being a hero means you actually believe in morality and that there IS meaning to morality beyond what you make of it. And BTW, no matter how hard I try to live God's life, I fall, and thus I feel I am a complete monster precisely because of it, no matter how many times I go to confession, meaning I'm not even like the Pharisees, as the Pharisees had self-love thinking they were perfect while denouncing others, while I'm equal-opportunity in my views on sinners (meaning, not only do I think everyone's monstrous because of sin, I even think I'm monstrous and I'm not happy in even the slightest), so don't claim me to be a pharisee. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:18, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Today's world considers those who dont believe life holds meaning as nihilist even my doctor has told me so, the nihilism you count is only it at the absolute and most extreme so that's where we differ on the version. Jesus valued life but valued all souls fate more so he gave his to save all them instead and even then he said I something along the lines "why have you forsaken me" to God. Even the all sins equal philosophy majority of humans fail due to them having a little remorse in what they do.Jester of chaos (talk) 18:39, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Weedle either DILPs all villains or hates on them too much - it's hard to tell. But in any case, all his/her words are bullshit. It's funny that Nihilism should be the topic here, since Weedle's all about Nihilism. You cannot say that morality matters to you when you worship a God who, according to you, has no true sense of morality and just wants us to submit to Him so that He can enslave us all. That's as far from moral as it gets. If sin is a disease that humanity has, God cannot be the cure if He himself sins. And all the terrible things that the Bible claims God did were actually things that happened in life, not things God had any direct hand in or willed to happen. He was only responsible for Jesus' death because Jesus was literally born into the world for that exact purpose - a purpose that Jesus, as a part of God, agreed to. (It wasn't a "demand" - Jesus' soul worked this out to God long before he was even born into the physical world. You must also remember that God GAVE US free will. He us free will for a reason - if people choose to misuse it, it's on THEM, not on God. When Jesus was born as a human, he had all the free will in the world to NOT go through with God's plan and was tempted to do so, but ultimately he chose to die for our sins, to save us from DEATH, not sin itself. Several modern day religious fundamentalists are like pharisees, but it takes something truly special and repulsive to be EVEN WORSE. Weedle McHairybug, for expressing such abysmal views on life, is most certainly that. DocColress (talk) 23:06, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Eliminating the Complete Monster territory.
Hi. I think we really should eliminate the Complete Monster territory. It's really broken anyways considering it is extremely inconsistent in regards to what qualifies as CM-related material, sometimes even within the same material (a rather notorious example is how Volgin is a CM and yet The Boss isn't DESPITE their doing very similar actions in the exact same game) as well as frankly being redundant. Probably the biggest reason why it needs to be removed, though, is that it's all opinion, and thus OR and even breaking neutrality on the Wikia. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't it wiki policy that we DON'T include opinions or speculations on Wiki articles (the only exception being if speculations were made in-universe of a specific work on a fictional wiki or if the opinion actually came from the people who actually MADE the work in the first place, like how anything George Lucas said about Star Wars, at least prior to the Disney takeover, qualifies as absolute fact, even when he meant it as a joke, like Obi-Wan's home planet or Motti's full name being Conan Antonio Motti)? The presence of such a category, which as is stated above, is fully grounded on opinion, actually violates such a rule. In fact, I'm not even sure why a wikia, which is supposed to be about formality, is relying on tropes from a site that openly states in its opening paragraph that it is informal in a fairly crass manner. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:27, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: That's not to say I don't appreciate the idea of a CM category. If it is absolute, not relying on opinion but on actual cold hard facts, and is completely consistent, does it exactly 100%, it actually could work. But ONLY under those categories. Heck, being a person who believes in moral absolutism, I actually think we're all Complete Monsters just because we've all sinned, and I do mean all. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:33, April 1, 2015 (UTC)

Weedle you must have a pretty strong beliefs to claim that all people are Complete Monsters!Yes we've all sinned at some point of our life but I highly doubt that we've committed the horrible acts that these characters had done like, murdering a family member creating mass genocide and hurting or torturing people without mercy or remorse. Cenationfan1 (talk) 18:12, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yes humans fail due to most have lines they won't cross, not generally heinous enough and that an Entire race/organized group cannot count no matter what. But if he wants to believe so it is within his rights to think so as long as he doesn't start harassing and condemning others. Jester of chaos (talk) 19:51, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know he has the right to believe what he wants I was just pointing out how offensive his statement was. But I'm not going to start a flamewar over it. He wants to believe this belief than that's perfectly fine by me.

Cenationfan1 (talk) 20:17, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

I was actually agreeing with you and what you just said.Jester of chaos (talk) 20:33, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay! Thanks Jester Of Chaos! Cenationfan1 (talk) 20:40, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Weedle is seriously effed up in the head and in the soul. Never, and I mean NEVER has the definition of Complete Monster been about simply "people who've sinned." Sinners can be redeemed - Christianity is literally built upon that belief seeing as Jesus died to redeem us and save us from our own sins. So if you're a sinner, you're a sinner. If you're a frequent sinner whose character and lifestyle revolves around sinful nature, then you're a villain. If you're a villain who commits the worst kinds of sins imaginable, you're not likely to be redeemed but it is still possible, even if slim. If you're a villain who commits the worst kinds of sins imaginable AND has no decent or redeeming qualities in your character, THEN you're a Complete Monster. DocColress (talk) 03:25, April 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Christianity may have preached those things, and I'd know because I AM a Christian, but the fact of the matter is, God ordered genocides and partook in them himself, did a lot of things that violated the Commandments HE HIMSELF MADE, meaning he's not a loving, forgiving person at all. And BTW, considering sin still exists despite the entire POINT of Jesus's sacrifice being to end sin (it's even made very clear in the Agnus Dei that Jesus's sacrifice eliminated sin, which is a clear lie considering sin still exists.), it means we haven't truly been "redeemed." My idea of "redemption" means eliminating free will completely so we are all slaves to God, ending sin completely. And yes, God considers ALL of us complete monsters for sinning and only truly changes his tune if we submit entirely to him. That's the point behind his rules, to control us. And in case you've forgotten, if God was truly all about letting bygones be bygones, most of the stuff in the Old and New Testament would never have happened. He'd say "eh, whatever" when the moneychangers were in his temple, he'd let Sodom and Gomorrah happen and survive simply because he let bygones be bygones, NOT murder them (and yes, justice or not, what he did there WAS murder, mass murder not to mention and even being genocidal, even if they deserved it.). Forgiveness literally means let them get off scot-free. And considering God doesn't answer to anyone, and thus has no fear of being punished by anyone, not to mention we can't do a thing to him even if we rebelled, that means he does enjoy blowing up Sodom and Gomorrah and other actions like that. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:54, May 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * You're a lousy Christian, then - a pseudo Christian if you will. You're putting more stock into what the Old Testament, written by a bunch of human beings who could and likely did alter God's intentions, said over the New Testament, the one that actually centers around Jesus Christ and His teachings that often contradict the old views. God did NOT order any genocides and certainly did not take part in any because He is NOT a physical existence - He literally cannot outright kill anyone. He did not violate any Commandments, man just wants to think He did. It's His very nature to love and forgive unconditionally. He IS perfect love. He is the very embodiment OF love. Without Him, there IS no love. And you completely miss the entire effing point of Jesus' sacrifice. It has NEVER been said that he died to "end sin" - He died to absolve humanity of the sins they committed AND WOULD CONTINUE TO COMMIT, because if He hadn't taken all those sins upon Himself and died as penance for them, we would never be able to move beyond our sins to the next life and join God in Heaven. THAT is why he's the Messiah - he ended death, not sin. If you seriously define redemption as the removal of free will so that we may all become slaves to a selfish, genocidal, unloving, unfogiving, hypocritical being, then you are truly evil. There will always be sin in this world but NOT in the next world. There is no urge to do evil in the afterlife, no compulsion to sin and do harm to others and be anything BUT loving like our lord God. Evil, by definition, is the farthest thing from God in existence. But there is no evil in Heaven, for it's God's domain. God considers us all His children, His creations, parts of Him that have gone astray but will one day return to Him and He will embrace us unconditionally, forgiving us for our faults and loving us forever. He's not about control - He is all about love and harmony. Every thing you cite that happened in the Bible truly happened because of man, not God. God may rule there be consequences for our actions, but we bring it on ourselves - He doesn't have to do anything. Forgiveness means to not hold a grudge, not harbor any resentment, move beyond what has happened and NOT HATE. That is what God does. To not forgive unless WE were to apologize is not being the bigger person. Are you meaning to suggest that God is, in fact, not the biggest person of all?


 * If you want the truth, then technically God AND Satan are not real. They're metaphorical personifications of ultimate good and ultimate evil made up by humans in their mythologies and religions. God is, in truth, the source of all that is and is so omnipresent and so GOOD that He is beyond human comprehension. We refer to him as a deity, a father, a spirit, God, and even "He" because we literally cannot fathom what He truly is. Only when our souls return to His kingdom will we know. Satan, meanwhile, is complete fiction made to give a face to ultimate evil, which exists as an inactive force that people choose whether to gravitate towards or not. What you are worshipping sounds A LOT closer to Satan than God. If you want to continue to live as a despicable human being through your belief system and worship a being you believe to be the greatest Complete Monster of all, go ahead. But stop preaching it to us sane people, please? DocColress (talk) 22:42, May 9, 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Old Testament WAS indeed written by God. Or do I have to remind you that the Ten Commandments, the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, actually came directly from God and were stuff that came from the Old Testament? If those really never came from God, Jesus would have ordered everyone to throw the Old Testament into a pyre, destroyed them precisely because they weren't what God wanted. If anything, Jesus did the exact opposite, stated they should STILL be followed, exempting the pork ban. And yes, God did seek to end sin. The Agnus Dei prayer, "Lamb of God," in other words, even said that Jesus took away the sins of the world. I know one of the hymns even indicated that God actually eliminated sin as well. That basically means he eliminated them. And no, only Jesus Christ himself is God's true child. We're NOT God's children, we're just tools, nothing more. We may be called to serve God, but we're still not God's children. He is our creator, NOT our father. And actually, God HAS the compulsion to do ill will to others (do you really think his blowing up Sodom and Gomorrah, murdering lots of people, for their sins was not ill will, even if they deserved it, or his unleashing several plagues on the Egyptians to force them to release the Jewish people? He hated their sin, and acted on said hatred by wiping them out in the blink of an eye, and also utilized force to get the Jewish people out, even when he could easily just subtly influence them into releasing them by mind control. What God did to Sodom and Gomorrah is no different than what Frieza did to the Saiyans in Dragon Ball Z, and the Saiyans deserved their genocide just as much as the Sodom and Gomorrah citizens deserved their genocide at the hands of God.). And actually, by virtue of God being all powerful and all knowing, he IS the biggest person of all even if he didn't embrace forgiveness. And I'd consider a God who gives free will to be very evil precisely because free will equates to Chaos, and being all knowing, he deliberately let humanity be consumed in the chaos, not out of love, but out of a sick amusement in seeing people kill each other. Do I really need to remind you of the mess that happened because of free will, like the French Revolution, the Communist revolutions, the events of the 1960s, including the violent riots of May 1968, or Roe v. Wade? Those are all examples of free will being practiced, considering they were revolting against any and ALL authority, church, state, parents, you name it, total anarchy. And BTW, it may come as a shock to you, but the New Testament actually featured a lot more threats of being sent to hell if people don't do what Jesus and God wanted than even the Old Testament. You know those references to "I am the light, I am the truth, I am the way" statements Jesus stated, as well as his parables about God locking people who don't follow his will? Yeah, he basically threatened them. And I'm no lousy Christian, considering I try my hardest to follow those laws. "Lousy Christians" would be those who flagrantly disobey God's laws and promote stuff like Gay Marriage, Abortion, Bestiality, and all of that despite God himself making very clear they should NEVER be practiced (which reminds me, Hunchback of Notre Dame having Hugo flirt openly with a male goat was far more blasphemous than even what Frollo did, and Hugo doesn't have any shame in what he did in ANY way.). And forgiving also means letting people get away with their crimes. Think how Bill Clinton basically let Osama Bin Ladin escape instead of taking him out, and how THAT led to 9/11. And BTW, for a God who tells us not to love conditionally, he certainly does love conditionally, considering the fact he didn't blow up Hell and ensure we only go to him. Had I been in God and I let Hell exist, it would be further proof that I'm actually far from being a forgiving, unconditionally loving God (in fact, he demands worship before him. If he was unconditionally loving, he wouldn't even care about people worshipping him at all, and even tell the Christians not to promote his views at all specifically to prove he doesn't care what we do and that he just loves us for what we are. The fact that he forces these rules on us proves even His love is conditional, not unconditional.). The only lousy Christian seems to be you. You think God is all about love, even when his actions speak far louder that he's not. Even Jesus basically threatened in the Gospels that people will go to hell if they don't follow him. And for the record, my own aunt is a supporter of Gay Marriage, even when being Christian she would know it was very sinful, all because she loves her lesbian sister and wants her to experience the joys of marriage. And do I really need to remind you of "Sinners at the Hands of an Angry God" and how God was portrayed there? He actually enjoyed sending people to Hell in that sermon. And BTW, Sodom and Gomorrah DID happen because of God (need I really remind you of WHO destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?), not to mention God ordering for genocide against the Malenkites (heck, King Saul actually DISOBEYED God by not slaughtering everyone and everything).


 * And for the record, God IS indeed real, as is Satan, and I refuse to worship the latter due to his crimes and sick nature as well as his going against God. Had I been supportive of Satan, I'd support Gay Marriage, Abortion, Human Sacrifice, Bestiality, and the like, since those are clearly things God does NOT support. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:23, May 10, 2015 (UTC)

Heinous Standard?
That's the one thing the Category: Complete Monster is lacking in its definition. There is a standard of Heinousness that a villain has to make in comparison to other villains. For example, a low tier villain can't be considered a Complete Monster unless his actions performed showed he can easily go bigger, or have a larger bodycount or more atrocities. For example, lets look at villains like standard demons or youkai in Inuyasha compared to Naraku: while all the demons that have attacked humans, including the protagonist Koga. What sets Naraku apart is the lengths he went to screw people over, manipulating people to kill their own family's (like Kohaku) and other various sins without remorse.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 04:16, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that different works have different heinous standards. Also, I believe the "baseline standard of heinousness" that TV Tropes adopted was a bad idea, as it often leads to reaching for reasons to exclude a villain from qualifying even when by all counts they hit the criteria needed for passing. DocColress (talk) 04:12, April 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * What's even WORSE of an idea was even including the category on this wiki in the first place precisely BECAUSE of what you stated, DocColress. And besides, it's a YMMV trope, which in effect means there's no objective meaning to it anyways (by definition of "YMMV", that means literally anyone can be such a category, meaning it's inherently meaningless when each person has an opinion, it's counted as fact even when its not, and you multiply that by 6 billion, leaving 6 billion views that would render literally everyone a Complete Monster for some reason or another.). If it's objective, it's absolute, happens 100%, cannot be ruled by opinion AT ALL, whether by the individual or by the majority. Think gravity. And I'm a guy who believes in moral absolutism. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:56, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

The Complete Monster trope is a valid character trope. It is only subjective because many people view it differently. They need to meet the work's heinous standard and also the general heinous standard. A serial killer or a demon aren't CMs inherently. They need to be able to stand out by the standards of the works. For example, if you have a work in which all the villains are baby eaters, then there isn't anyone that can stand out. The same thing goes for a show that is filled with serial killers or rapists. If they all commit the same crimes, then there isn't anyone that stands out. And, really, DocColoress is only really saying this because he's still obsessing over Ghetsis being disqualified as a CM. Does TV Tropes make mistakes with what they judge on? Sure, but Ghetsis was disqualified because of his relationship with the Shadow Triad. So, all in all, the trope is meant to be a character trope, it does not apply to every villain in existence, just for the ones that are above an average villain. Robinsonbecky (talk) 12:40, May 9, 2015, (UTC)


 * When something's subjective, it automatically means it's meaningless, actually. As I said, when something's subjective, it's like snowflakes, not one is alike, meaning we've got literally 6 billion views on what a complete monster is, one for each member of the human population. That's why we CANNOT allow YMMV tropes in here at all. And BTW, when it's YMMV, that means it's pure opinion, meaning there can't be any rules in there at all. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:49, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

That's it, I'm done talking with you. You are very hard to talk to. The basis is that we are not getting rid of this category just because you are not okay with it. That, and you also spout several things that don't help your argument at all. It just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. A villain has to meet certain criteria in order to be a CM, that's it. Many people put villains on the category without really looking into what it entails. They need to not have anything that resembles a redeemable factor among other things. Again, it is a valid trope. You will have a work in which a villain is monstrously evil, but you need to analyze how the villain is portrayed in the work. Dreadnine has already explained that to me once, and I trust his judgment. It is only a YMMV trope, because people view a villain in different ways. It doesn't mean that they're certainly not monsters, that's just how some people think. For example, Judge Claude Frollo is widely viewed as a monster, though there are a few people who did sympathize with him, and thought he was redeemable. That doesn't ultimately make him not a monster, it's just how they view him.

Overall, this is what I personally believe. Again, this category isn't going anywhere. Robinsonbecky (talk), 12:58, May 9, 2015, (UTC)

Disregarding what Weedle says, since he/she is a fool, I do not believe we need to fold over to TV Tropes' need for a "baseline of general heinousness" criteria. So long as the villain is at the top of the bar when it comes to heinousness in their respective works AND hits off the other criteria of being taken seriously, having no redeeming features and no valid excuse, they qualify. It's not just Ghetsis who's an issue here - TV Tropes cut other examples for flimsy reason. (And Ghetsis wasn't disqualified due to his nonexistent relationship with the Shadow Triad on TV Tropes - that's this Wiki you're thinking of). Other than that, I agree with your assessment of the trope in that it's for the villains who are a cut above the rest in terms of pure evil. DocColress (talk) 22:42, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

CM and conflicting categories
It would be useful to have a list of other categories that can't be listed with a CM. I know some obvious ones:

Redeemed Villains

Remorseful Villains

Insecure Villains

Anti-Villain

Can anyone add some more?

Affably Evil

On &amp; Off Villains

Grey Zone

Comedy Villains / Comedic Villains / Comic Relief Villains (with a very few exceptions)

True Neutral

Honorable Villains

Tragic Villain

Protective Villains

Possessed/Brainwashed

Villains by Proxy

Wait can't Honorable Villains be Complete Monsters? Some pages on this wiki have both categories.

As for True Neutral, i thought they could be with very few exceptions. XMarrocco (talk) 14:34, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

A complete monster has no code of honor. Robinsonbecky (talk) 09:39, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

There are some laughable villains (like the Joker, Dimentio or Archibald Snatcher) who qualify as complete monsters, but comic relief villains NEVER qualify, because the later category is meant for villains who aren't taken seriously. 783667 (talk) 15:03, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

I think that Honorable Villains aren't generally Complete Monsters, with VERY few exceptions. Sanchez and Lord Beckett have both categories, and i think that they meet the criteria for both, so i think both categories can be added to each other, but only in very few cases. XMarrocco (talk) 11:07, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Comedy Villains and Comedic Villains CAN be Complete Monsters - just not Comic Relief Villains. So can some On & Off Villains, Affably Evil villains, and especially Tragic Villains. There's a difference between a villain being a tragic figure and one being a sympathetic character. Even if a villain is pure evil, if they have a rough backstory in which they take a dark path in life and ultimately their own faults lead to their downfall, they're tragic. Richard III is a definitive example of a Tragic Villain who's both a Magnificent Bastard and a Complete Monster. DocColress (talk) 04:15, April 27, 2015 (UTC)


 * TVTropes, at least at one point, indicated that you can't have them be tragic characters, as that would destroy the point of being a CM, so no, they can't be played tragically. And as the two users below me pointed out, a Complete Monster CANNOT be Affably Evil at all. Faux-Affably Evil, sure, but not Affably Evil. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:36, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

Affably Evil and Complete Monster are utterly incompatible. A complete monster is 0% nice. Whenever he acts in a nice way, it's just to make something truly horrible to the victim or to conceal his or her true colors. A good example of this is Johan Liebert of Monster.

An affably evil villain will only cause trouble or kill people who interferes on their goals, and are genuinely nice to another people. 783667 (talk) 02:38, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

FAUX Affably Evil villains can still qualify. And yes, so can Tragic Villains. TV Tropes might have indicated otherwise once, but that seems to have changed seeing as they've accepted tragic villains onto the trope. If the tragedy doesn't serve to make the villain actually sympathetic or redeeming in any way, they still count as CMs. DocColress (talk) 22:42, May 9, 2015 (UTC)