87,630
pages
ALL POSTSAntagonist Scale idea
<p>I'm unsure now as to how the antagonist scale works I always assumed it went like this personally and I think this is a good way to have it. I'd like to know what some of you think.
</p><p>Sole: Only antagonist in the story/story arc they belong in. (characters such as Feathers McGraw or Skip)
</p><p>Main: The antagonist with the most influcence over the plot. (don't really think I need examples for this one).
</p><p>Central: Not the main antagonist (mostly their henchmen) but has the most/majority influence over the plot. (characters such as Ghirahim fall under here and I believe that Randall Boggs should as well).
</p><p>Secondary: The antagonist with the second most influence over the plot (usually a henchman, again don't think I need an example)
</p><p>Major: Sort of like what tetriary used to be, i.e someone who isn't the main or secondary antagonist but still has more influence than supporting or minor antagonists. (characters such as Maccus or Gil)
</p><p>Supporting: Usually just supporting characters causing conflicts in the story, mostly organizations. (again don't think I need an example).
</p><p>Minor: An antagonist who doesn't have much effect over the plot itself but is still an antagonist in the story. (again don't thinkI I need examples).
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>Yeah, you pretty much nailed what the antagonistic scale <i>should</i> be, since this is what the majority of other people on this site have used (and really, people need to let go of it already):
</p><p>- Main/Primary
</p><p>- Secondary
</p><p>- Tertiary (this and anything below it is where it starts to get ridiculous)
</p><p>- Quaternary
</p><p>- Quinary etc. etc.
</p><p>And here is what I personally use, and what the antagonistic scale should be:
</p><p>- Main/Primary
</p><p>- Secondary
</p><p>- Major
</p><p>- Supporting/Recurring
</p><p>- Minor
</p><p>And then there's of course things like sole antagonist, which I'm completely fine with.
</p><p>As of recently in fact, I believe I've gotten rid of every use of quaternary or quinary on the Wiki and once I spot people using it again, I will get rid of it on sight, no questions asked. I hope to do the same with tertiary eventually, but there are so many pages that use tertiary that it would take ages to clean up. As for what you said about "Major antagonists", I think tertiary should be changed either to major or supporting depending on how big of an influence they had on their own individual plots.
</p><p>Another thing I'm really sick of seeing people use is:
</p><p>1. True/Hidden antagonist. Not only should it just be kept at a simple "main antagonist", but the use of it starts encouraging people to fill up pages with unnecessary "misinformation campaign" (see LucidPigeon's blog on antagonist fussing via the rules for more info) garbage and I'm just going to remove it every time I see it.
</p><p>2. Main, later secondary antagonist or vice versa. Seriously people, it's one or the other. Make your minds up and pick one. Again, I will change it to which ever or "one of the two main antagonists" every time I see it.
</p><p>But yeah, I really think the whole "let's specify antagonists with tertiary or quaternary etc." thing has gone on long enough on this Wiki and needs to stop and be replaced with the alternatives you suggested.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>I haven't seen an article with "Central Antagonist" so far, Boggs is currently classified as Major Antagonist and Ghirahim is Secondary Antagonist.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
5
<div class="quote">Loolveus wrote:
I'm unsure now as to how the antagonist scale works I always assumed it went like this personally and I think this is a good way to have it. I'd like to know what some of you think. <p>Sole: Only antagonist in the story/story arc they belong in. (characters such as Feathers McGraw or Skip) </p><p>Main: The antagonist with the most influcence over the plot. (don't really think I need examples for this one). </p><p>Central: Not the main antagonist (mostly their henchmen) but has the most/majority influence over the plot. (characters such as Ghirahim fall under here and I believe that Randall Boggs should as well). </p><p>Secondary: The antagonist with the second most influence over the plot (usually a henchman, again don't think I need an example) </p><p>Major: Sort of like what tetriary used to be, i.e someone who isn't the main or secondary antagonist but still has more influence than supporting or minor antagonists. (characters such as Maccus or Gil) </p><p>Supporting: Usually just supporting characters causing conflicts in the story, mostly organizations. (again don't think I need an example). </p><p>Minor: An antagonist who doesn't have much effect over the plot itself but is still an antagonist in the story. (again don't thinkI I need examples). </p> </div> <p>I agree with most of it. Personally, I use: Main -> Secondary -> Major/Supporting (whatever fits best)-> Minor </p><p>However, I think that things like "sole antagonist" could be mentioned in triviabut I'd prefer it to still be "Main" in the introduction. I'm having trouble with "Central" as well, mostly because it overcomplicates things and thus far has led to much chaos because users have different views on what makes a villain "Main" or "Central". In my opinion, we could just leave it as main and save us the trouble. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Valkerone wrote:
Another thing I'm really sick of seeing people use is: <p>1. True/Hidden antagonist. Not only should it just be kept at a simple "main antagonist", but the use of it starts encouraging people to fill up pages with unnecessary "misinformation campaign" (see LucidPigeon's blog on antagonist fussing via the rules for more info) garbage and I'm just going to remove it every time I see it. </p><p>2. Main, later secondary antagonist or vice versa. Seriously people, it's one or the other. Make your minds up and pick one. Again, I will change it to which ever or "one of the two main antagonists" every time I see it. </p><p>But yeah, I really think the whole "let's specify antagonists with tertiary or quaternary etc." thing has gone on long enough on this Wiki and needs to stop and be replaced with the alternatives you suggested.. </p> </div> <p>Agree as well, but as these ones are officially no longer in use, there is not much we can do but removing it whenever we see it and to remind users who add stuff like that. </p>
I'm unsure now as to how the antagonist scale works I always assumed it went like this personally and I think this is a good way to have it. I'd like to know what some of you think. <p>Sole: Only antagonist in the story/story arc they belong in. (characters such as Feathers McGraw or Skip) </p><p>Main: The antagonist with the most influcence over the plot. (don't really think I need examples for this one). </p><p>Central: Not the main antagonist (mostly their henchmen) but has the most/majority influence over the plot. (characters such as Ghirahim fall under here and I believe that Randall Boggs should as well). </p><p>Secondary: The antagonist with the second most influence over the plot (usually a henchman, again don't think I need an example) </p><p>Major: Sort of like what tetriary used to be, i.e someone who isn't the main or secondary antagonist but still has more influence than supporting or minor antagonists. (characters such as Maccus or Gil) </p><p>Supporting: Usually just supporting characters causing conflicts in the story, mostly organizations. (again don't think I need an example). </p><p>Minor: An antagonist who doesn't have much effect over the plot itself but is still an antagonist in the story. (again don't thinkI I need examples). </p> </div> <p>I agree with most of it. Personally, I use: Main -> Secondary -> Major/Supporting (whatever fits best)-> Minor </p><p>However, I think that things like "sole antagonist" could be mentioned in triviabut I'd prefer it to still be "Main" in the introduction. I'm having trouble with "Central" as well, mostly because it overcomplicates things and thus far has led to much chaos because users have different views on what makes a villain "Main" or "Central". In my opinion, we could just leave it as main and save us the trouble. </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Valkerone wrote:
Another thing I'm really sick of seeing people use is: <p>1. True/Hidden antagonist. Not only should it just be kept at a simple "main antagonist", but the use of it starts encouraging people to fill up pages with unnecessary "misinformation campaign" (see LucidPigeon's blog on antagonist fussing via the rules for more info) garbage and I'm just going to remove it every time I see it. </p><p>2. Main, later secondary antagonist or vice versa. Seriously people, it's one or the other. Make your minds up and pick one. Again, I will change it to which ever or "one of the two main antagonists" every time I see it. </p><p>But yeah, I really think the whole "let's specify antagonists with tertiary or quaternary etc." thing has gone on long enough on this Wiki and needs to stop and be replaced with the alternatives you suggested.. </p> </div> <p>Agree as well, but as these ones are officially no longer in use, there is not much we can do but removing it whenever we see it and to remind users who add stuff like that. </p>
(Edited by administrators)
<div class="quote">Grizzhly wrote:
<p>Agree as well, but as these ones are officially no longer in use, there is not much we can do but removing it whenever we see it and to remind users who add stuff like that.
</p>
</div>
<p>Yeah and I do appreciate that several users officially don't use them anymore, but I felt the need to address it since there is of course like you said, the occasional user who will try and revert it back after it's been changed, which is irritating. Welcome to Wikia I guess.
</p><p>And with "central antagonists", I can see where Loolveus is coming from, since judging by the examples he suggested, it applies to villains who are much more of a direct threat to the protagonist than the actual villains "at the top of the chart (Demise and Waternoose)" per say from their respective media sources. But like "sole antagonists", it's kind of a more subjective thing to label villains as since it more specifically applies to their role, so it's more of an off-to-the-side kind of deal, hence why even though I'm fine with them, I excluded them off of what I use for the antagonistic scale in my previous post.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>It goes:
</p>
- Main - The Villain who appears in *nearly* every episode
- Major - A Villain who appear in *most* every episode
- Can be a Lieutenant/Right Hand/Enforcer for the Main
- Minor - Villains(s) who do not appear less than *most* episodes
- One-Shot - Self-explanatory
- does not apply to Background appearances which have no impact to the story: they could be missing completely and not affect anything
- does not apply to Flashbacks which do not add NEW CONTENT to the story or their backstory
- Meaning mostly "clip" or repeated scenes
(Edited by administrators)
<p>Wait... Isn't final antagonist allowed? I mean for villains like Dark Gaia and Monstro, considering they are not enough to be main antagonists, but play roles to big for secondary. And therefore canceling out major and central antagonists, considering they appear at the end of the story.
</p><p>And don't say minor and/or supporting, because that's the last thing they are.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<p>You're under the mistaken impression that there can be only one of any given scale in a story. You can have more than one Main, Major, Heavy, etc.
</p><p>The scale is not used *in comparison to other characters*, but are specific to *the role that character plays*.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
