I have similar issues and I am a moderator. It has nothing to do with security on the pages, it is just an I-Phone problem, I believe. The pages that can’t load or take a very long time to load on my phone, I can get to just fine once I sign in from my computer.
On conditions that they are either schizophrenic, or only afraid of it from a practical stance like “Oh no, if I die who will activate my doomsday device?”
If they say things like ‘life is meaningless’ or how the lives of others are worthless, then they are just hypocritical/delusionally justifying it to themselves if when they face the same fate they all of a sudden scared.
On the page? I see no reason we can not have both, in the info-box? One tends to be more concise. I will leave it to you which suits the page better though.
Yay to the quotes. Nay for the scroll. Both are useful but I know there are a-few people with more limited computers and making that part requisite would limit some of our users.
I never thought of her that way, more as a bogeywoman but... I meant she -does- kill a specific type of person, repeatedly, mostly out of compulsion. We discounted demons and such unless they are killers regardless of their species, as in they do not kill out of instinct or need but rather intent and no one said Other Mother needed to kill kids, she just needs their love so I think that one sounds clear. The biggest hic-up is the species restriction, and if she has to kill them or she would do so under her own agency.
Are they? Chaotic Evil is an overall size-up of the villain. Someone can destroy lives, kill many people and still have a standard. Scar is a Serial Killer - he kills alchemists, he does this specifically to atone to his God for being an instrument of alchemy, he also has a deep sense of honor that permeates through his murders.
Wile E. Coyote is Incompetent but he is no Dimwit. He fails repeatedly in spite of his intellect. Nappa is a Dimwit, but he is terrifyingly efficient at what he does. Think of Incompetent less as a measure of smarts and more as a harmless - semi-harmless villain. Though as ZiilLosDiiDu says there is obviously overlap often.
Does Mass Murderer matter for category purposes though? I do understand the difference obviously between a Murderer and a Mass-Murderer, but how does that warrant a separate category? Some Possessors steal a body, some body-hop repeatedly - there is a difference sure, but we don't need a category for villains who just do it a-lot more. It certainly makes them eviler, but the same act is still in effect. And we have Cataclysm when it is a situation where a villain destroys/endangers entire regions/planets/galaxies. Murderer was never meant for just one-time killers either was it? So what would be the significance of Mass-Murderer that is not covered with Murderer or in the really massive cases Cataclysm?
Isn't Mass-Murder more of an act, where as Serial Killer is more an assignment of role? Joseph Goebbels was a Mass-Murderer but not a Serial Killer, Ted Bundy on the other-hand is a Serial Killer but not a Mass Murderer. A Mass Murderer just has a large body count, a Serial killer has engaged in a repeated pattern of behavior, usually towards a specific target.
Freeza wipes out planets, he is a Mass Murderer, but he does not engage in repeated similar crimes, he wipes out a planet with impunity, not because he has any interest in the specific peoples on it, nor watching them die or any thing like that.
NerdWithAKeyboards's description seems quite concise and clears up any ambiguity for me on where serial-killer ends and monster begins.
How would we qualify super-villains/monsters who are a specific send-up of serial killers, such as Carnage, Captain Mako, Freddy Kruger, Mr. Pickles etc? Would they not count or does the description mean they can't only have high body-counts due to being monsters/demons/super-villains?
So I would say Neutral Evil, but just as just cause TV Tropes has a term does not make them the be-all-end-all on it, DnD inventing a term does not me their standards need to be ours, so take my reasoning there for whatever it is worth.
The alignment system is based on Dungeon's and Dragons. When Gods such as Odin have strict standards but express them in chaotic ways the two alignments counter-act each other as long as both are frequent parts of their character and so gods like Odin are Neutral, on the law-chaos scale. In addition to that, Cthulhu is described by Lovecraft as like unto a force of nature, so neutrality might be the way to go to illustrate dispassion in his temperament.
Several others as well, Lawful Evil might follow a code of honor in their evil doings, or be following orders from an evil higher up the food-chain they are committed to carrying out as well, but - want to take over the world, as well as most control freaks fit the Lawful Evil model.
Likewise there is more to Chaotic Evil than destroy the world, said evil could be an embodiment of the Id, or totally indulging in it, with their evil being a non-stop hedonistic indulgence, it could also be something running on animal instincts or a sociopath/psychopath who adheres to no conventional form of logic and ends up leaving chaos in their wake.
I think we should keep in mind the Evil by Proxy mode too for occasions when we are dealing with non-evil antagonists. It will come up much less but keep in mind it does come up and in such cases Evil by proxy might be all the "alignment" we need. But let us never ever forget the importance of accepting Neutral Evil
I have been trimming these down whenever I see them (Unless schizophrenia/possession is involved) so glad we are making official policy on curtailing that sort of thing.
Not really, of-course tragic can exist without insecurity, but in cases of paranoia or low-self esteem the villain might not be tragic, like Chronos for example - very insecure, afraid of how is rule will end, or Zeus from God of War, neither are tragic but both fear for lose of their power.
Tragic is overused isn't it? I'd steer away from it unless 100% sure it applies, but we all have our own standards. Insecure might fit though.
I would say sophisticated but not affable. He is not naturally and genuinely friendly, he just holds himself to a certain set of personal standards. Not honor but willing to play well with others - which I would say makes him Sophisticated but neither affable, faux-affable or honorable.
Let me get off of my narrative complaints soap-box to ask for a more solid distinction for a moment. What about intentionally uncharacteristically reoccurring villainous behaviors. Characters that are usually heroes but once a year on Halloween/April Fools/Annual event, the show/comic/series has said character assume a villainous role, whether it is an alternate persona, a non-cannon creativity season or just a hand-wave. Where the intent of the creator is to be villainous, but only doing short, but annual, periods? How would the rule (as currently written/in-place) handle these "villains" They qualify, or they are annual joke episodes/issues and don't count as true villains?