Topic on User talk:DocColress

I'm not going to suggest an example, but I just want your thoughts on an already existing one: Arkhamverse Penguin. As you'd know if you read up on these games, this version of old Oswald Cobblepot is probably the most monstrous incarnation of the character, debatably even more repulsive than Danny DeVito's portrayal in Batman Returns (Who I remember doesn't qualify due to possessing an arguably valid Freudian excuse, and a rather touching death scene that's meant to invoke pity from the viewer). However, one of the things that got him disqualified at TV Tropes along with having to compete with that universe's Joker is a supposedly Even Evil Has Standards moment in Arkham City.

Basically, it's not really a moment per se as all his on-screen time focuses on him being as much of a revolting little asshole as he can be. Instead, as I noted in his description, he has a bunch of display cases meant that hold people he's killed (or has left to die) while bragging about their deaths and the like. He has a container meant to hold Victor Zsasz, who is also a very vile sort of man. Thanks to the way his description for Zsasz sounds, the people at TV Tropes say that it's a case of him having standards and being disgusted by the fact that Zsasz hurts women and children. I personally don't feel it's that way because there's nothing that really shows Penguin having standards one way or another: he not only has two display cases meant to hold women (One being a member of Ra's al Ghul's league of assassins who he mistook for dead, and the other being one meant to house Harley Quinn, who judging by the description's vague line of "She'll be good for minutes of entertainment before I cut off her head!" hints that along with torture, he very well may have plans to rape her before killing her.), but during the canonical film Assault on Arkham, he's willing to kill Amanda Waller's Suicide Squad after throwing a tantrum upon the sight of Harley (There's another woman in the group, Killer Frost, who he's willing to slaughter despite the fact that her only crime against him is being in Harley's presence). There's also Arkham Origins where he has two female assistants that he doesn't outright antagonize (to my memory) since they don't really screw anything up, but his attitude makes it clear that he pretty much objectifies them as sex objects given his lecherous attitude. Really, there's nothing saying he's opposed to hurting women.

It's never really made clear if he has any standards towards children as none are ever seen with the exception of young Bruce Wayne in flashbacks or Scarecrow hallucinations, so I can't really say anything regarding that. This could be a case of me misinterpreting tone as I sometimes have difficult understanding tone in people's voice at times, but his description of Zsasz "Take a good look into the eyes of a monster! A deeply disturbed serial killer, a man responsible for the murder and subsequent mutilation of over a hundred men, women, and children! You are looking at Zsasz" seems like he could simply be going for dramatic effect. If he is condemning Zsasz, it would be enormously hypocritical of him as he is shown to be no better at all given his unhealthy obsession with torture and mutilation. So what's your verdict?

The other most monstrous incarnation was an AU version where he was mayor of Gotham, IIRC. As for Arkhamverse Penguin, I've always seen him as the type of character who would be reigning Complete Monster of the work's setting and standards were he not in the shadow of bigger monsters like Joker and Zsasz. The reason he still qualifies for me is that he seems very well aware of this - it's not Even Evil Has Standards, it's acknowledgement of the truth of the matter that some evil is even greater than what he could ever manage. That still doesn't stop him from being as terrible as he possibly can be given with what he has to work with. Basically, being Genre-Savvy in regards to one's own evil and the evilness of others is not a disqualifier. Also, yes, his description of Zsasz was meant to strike fear into who he's speaking too rather than speaking out of fear himself, and on his part, it might even be flat out boastful of him talking about how he can contain a monster greater than himself.

Ferris Boyle is also a small scale Complete Monster who nonetheless manages to to cause as much damage as he can while being thoroughly despicable. The only example I personally see as being more "99% Monster" is Hugo Strange, but even then that's only because he started off with Well-Intentioned Extremist qualities. He still stepped so far into Knight Templar territory and over the Moral Event Horizon that he borders on Complete Monster, as his writeup here pretty much explains.

So on the topic of Batman, I've completely finished Batman: Arkham City and have finally beaten the Riddler's long sidequest, and I'm starting to think I've made a premature judgment on putting Riddler on the Non-Examples list. I hadn't finished his sidequest and wrote him off as "Darker and edgier, but not as heinous and not treated as seriously), but now I feel that I'm pretty much wrong there. So I think I'll make a write-up and let you decide.

Who is the Riddler? What has he done?: As we'd know, Edward Nashton a.k.a Edward Nigma a.k.a the Riddler is a smug, insufferable genius who commits crimes and leaves clues and riddles at the crime scene for the police and Batman to solve, both as a compulsion and a way to test his brain against Batman's. He doesn't do anything noteworthy enough to qualify in Arkham Origins, Assault on Arkham, or Arkham Asylum, but in Arkham City he ups the ante and becomes a whole lot worse.

Basically, as revenge for Batman humiliating him on Arkham Island in the previous game (He set up tons of trophies to find and riddles to solve, Batman found them all and revealed his location to the Gotham City police), the Riddler kidnaps all of Arkham City's medical staff and their security guards (Who unlike Strange and his TYGER guards are good, ethical people) and puts them in horrifying Saw-esque death traps that he's sure Batman can't get them out of.

The first hostage isn't in a death trap, but was taken to Two-Face's territory by an agent of Riddler's to be executed. The second is put on an elevated ceiling that would be lowered onto an electric floor, shocking the guy to death. The third is strapped down in a chair and put under a container that is shuffled along with two others in a parody of the common "Find the ball" street game. However, the Riddler cheats and moves the guy under the containers to get Batman to lose. If Batman guesses wrong, the guy is burned alive, and you have to watch as it fades to the game over screen. The fourth is simply tied to a chair, with her intended fate kinda unclear (Given the huge amount of water in room, her fate may have been drowning to death, but I couldn't tell). The fifth is in a situation similar to the second, but with a huge grinder along with the electric floor. And the sixth is on an elevated floor like the second and fifth, but is tortured with electric shocks while you're trying to save her, forcing you to listen to her screams of agony until you save her.

After all these hostages have been saved, you enter the Riddler's hideout where he's currently brainstorming new death trap ideas. His other hostages (Which I don't know the exact number of, but I counted around nine for sure when I played) are forced to walk in circles with bombs strapped to their heads. If they stop moving, the bomb goes off, and according to a list of the names of Riddler's hostages, around two have died to this already. Thankfully, when you nail Riddler, he gets his and gets forced into a karmic punishment where he has to do what the hostages were doing (His bombs are defused, but he doesn't know that).

And this may not really add to his evil since it is targeted towards the hero, but unlike in Arkham Asylum he does have a few trophies for Batman to find in areas that are secret death traps (There's two that I've found so far: one that is meant to suffocate him with steam, and one that kills him with an electrified floor).

Is he heinous by the standards of the story?: This is the hard part. Among the side villains, he's up there with Hush and Zsasz as the nastiest by far, and outdoes Hush with his body count (Same with Zsasz, but only by victims you see. Zsasz is implied to have killed plenty of other people before Batman initiates his side-quest, and that's not going into what he gets up to in Arkham Asylum). As for the other side-villains, he beats out Bane (No body count, his only intended victim is Batman), Deadshot (Three victims with two intended ones, just a hired gun for Strange), and sort of beats Mad Hatter (His interview tapes with Strange imply that he's had his fair share of victims, but he's delusional and insane to Obliviously Evil levels. In his mission proper, he's brainwashed around eight random thugs as well as an attempt on Batman). When it comes to the bigger storyline villains however, while he beats out Two-Face, Clayface, Harley Quinn, and especially Mr. Freeze, but also has to compete with Joker, Strange, and the Penguin when it comes to the established Complete Monsters. Even without them, there are other non-Complete Monsters he'd potentially have to compete with like Ra's al Ghul (I'm a bit torn here. Ra's was Strange's superior, but Arkham City was Strange's idea and it's made clear that Strange is in charge of the city while Ra's watches from the shadows) and Quincy Sharp (Who was in cahoots with Strange, but insane, a bit regretful at the end, and ultimately Strange's puppet).

Verdict?: To me, I think so. In the canonical order of the games, he seemed to have some positive traits in Origins and Assault on Arkham, but they're long gone by the time of Asylum and City, especially in City where he puts a lot of people in terrifying situations (And outright cheats with one) just so he can prove that he's smarter than Batman and stroke his ego. His arc isn't over as he's set to appear in Arkham Knight, but I doubt he'll do anything to better himself there (Though as they say, never say never). However, I know that heinousness will play an issue in this so that's why I want to know your thoughts.

Gonna have to say no because first, it's not advised to add examples whose run as Characters are still ongoing, second because he doesn't reach the top of the bar in terms of the heinous standard (his body count doesn't seem comparatively high, just his attempted body count), and third because, like most versions of this character, the worst of his actions and behavior come from insanity rather than amorality, though he is amoral. I have never seen a Riddler who was a CM that wasn't the result of bad writing. Also, are we sure he lacks the redeeming features he had at first, or is he simply not showing them?

Well, his redeeming features in Origins were being genuinely polite, if still a tad smug and condescending towards Batman, and even though his plan there was evil (Gathering information on Gotham's corrupt police force and making it public, deliberately causing chaos in the streets from the fallout), exposing a corrupt force by itself isn't a bad thing either. There's also Assault on Arkham where he was able to escape being conscripted into Amanda Waller's suicide squad and was able to help the current squad members ditch the bombs strapped to them that would go off if they abandoned their duties. However, it's made clear that Batman showing up Riddler in Arkham Origins has screwed up his mental state, as in each passing game he frantically tries to outsmart Batman once and for all, so I suppose Arkham City shows that he's getting desperate. I'm not sure if he would still possess positive traits (As none are really shown in Asylum or City), but I suppose you could be right about them simply not being on display in those games. And he still is insane, and keeps his backstory from what I think was from the comics (Abusive father who would regularly beat him and insult him, giving him a compulsive need for attention and to test his wits against others) so his Freudian excuse does seem like it holds up.

And I apologize about suggesting him even though his arc isn't over, as I thought his plan put him over the Moral Event Horizon and thus wouldn't give him room for redemption in Arkham Knight. Should I remove the Penguin as well since he's been confirmed to be in the same game, or has he done enough in City to justify him staying on the page unless good traits surface in Knight?

And I just have one last thing to ask: doesn't the intended body count of a villain matter as much as the final result? I accept your stance on Riddler either way, I'm just not clear on this particular detail.

If he already had a mental state that would enable being shown up by Batman to hinder his sanity and rationality, then I'd say his Freudian Excuse is enough to justify his behavior (though not excuse his actions) and make him a valid criminally insane villain who could theoretically be rehabilitated one day. So as of now, he's not an example.

Riddler's actions can be added as a Moral Event Horizon example. And Penguin's not to be removed yet because unless we see any redeeming traits from him, he's currently characterized as the guy who would be Gotham's biggest monster if not for the likes of Joker and Zsaz. Likewise Boyle stays because he's a smaller scale version of the trope who uses the best of his abilities and resources to be heinous, and Strange stays because he stepped into the trope's territory by choice as part of his Knight Templar agenda.

Success generally does not matter when judging a CM. However, when someone with a high attempted body count is put against people with higher attempted body counts or high actual body counts, the former will fail to measure up in heinousness, which is how Riddler fares against the monsters currently on that series' page.

Gotcha, thanks for clarifying that for me! I apologize with the influx of Batman over the past week or so by the way, I just found it relevant to discuss what with me replaying the games and all.

Yeah, even with the darkness and edginess toned up, a big point in Batman is that his rogues' gallery will have a ton of nasty people, but only a select few reach REALLY nasty beyond all redemption or forgiveness territory. In these games Joker is at the top, Penguin's the runner-up, and Zsasz, Strange, and Boyle are all different but equal degrees of heinous. None have matched them...yet.

Alright, I've got one last candidate I want to suggest for now, and it's one I actually remember sticking out in my mind as a particularly loathsome example even as a kid. I went back and read the book he was in, and I feel confident about my hunch, but as per usual I want to see what you feel about him. His name is Cal Roberts, a rather nasty outlaw from the third book in the otherwise relatively light-hearted The Great Brain series, a pretty fun series I enjoyed in my childhood.

Who is Cal Roberts? What has he done?: Cal Roberts is a cattle rustler (This series takes place in 1890's Utah) who is feared far and wide as a rather evil man. He and his posse are known for murdering anyone who could act as a potential witness to their crimes, and thus had a rather high body count until he screwed up and accidentally left a night watchman that he shot alive, and was captured along with his posse and sent to court. After hearing his sentence, he vows that he'll escape and murder the judge, DA, and foreman of the jury who just so happened to be our nine year old protagonist John's father. As you'd guess, Roberts eventually escaped prison with a small number of his men after murdering two guards and made good on his threat: throwing the town of Adenville into a panic as he and his outlaws descended on it. He attempted to murder the judge by hanging him from a tree, but botched the job when the town's marshal (John's uncle) came to save the judge and killed Cal's assistant, causing Cal to get sloppy and accidentally leave the judge alive when he shot him and fled. Wounded and cornered, Cal knew he wouldn't be able to murder his targets and leave the town alive, so he settled for taking John's adopted four year old brother Frankie hostage, forcing John's family to cater to his every whim or else Frankie would die. While Cal promised John's father and uncle he would allow Frankie to live and would dump him in some town he'd pass by after making his escape, he had no such intention and confessed after being captured (By John, no less, thanks to some quick thinking, rope, and his family's horse) that he was going to murder Frankie after making sure he didn't have a posse on his tail.

Is he heinous by the standards of the story?: Indeed he is! He's treated about as seriously as any other famous criminal like him would be, he has the entire town of Adenville put under heavy watch when he goes to murder his targets, and is willing to murder the innocent son of the Jury's foreman purely because he knew it would heavily devastate him as well as his other targets as they would want to die in his place. The only other villains in any of the books are usually local bullies, strict adults who turn out to have softer sides, one con man who I think tried to trick some local Native Americans into giving up their sacred land, and the titular Great Brain himself (John's older brother), and they are all outclassed in heinousness by Cal. By this series' standards, he's a hell of a Knight Of Cerberus.

Any Freudian Excuse or redeeming qualities?: Nope, he's simply a repulsive skunk of a man who not only has no qualms with casually murdering innocent people, but also has a hell of an ego about him, as he was planning on parading around town in broad daylight holding Frankie at gunpoint so he could show the town that he pulled a fast one on the local marshall. He's also not shown to be a Bad boss per se, but he doesn't care about his posse either, reacting to the news of them all being killed in gunfights with a shrug and what's more or less "Ah well, I can just round up more guys for a new gang".

Verdict?: I really feel like he'd meet the qualifications. He's sufficiently heinous, treated seriously enough, and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I think the biggest problem he'd have is that since the story is narrated by the protagonist, we don't see him until Cal has Frankie hostage. However, John's father and uncle describe the events about what Cal does with a lot of detail, basically showing us his actions through their perspective. So what do you think? Is he a keeper, or not?

If in his limited page time, he matches up with the reputation that was built, is at fault for truly terrible actions, and hits the criteria, then he qualifies.

Gonna post his write-up, and that will be all for now! I appreciate your input, and I'm sorry if I'm being annoying or anything.

It's REALLY okay. ^^;

Deep down I do know, I'm just paranoid I suppose.

So after re-watching Man of Steel (Which I feel is sort of flawed, but still a good movie that gets WAY too much hate, but that's off-topic, ha ha), I've been thinking back to the past Superman films I've watched and I believe I've found an example: Lex Luthor, but only in Superman Returns as I remember him being hammy, but still incredibly evil and played up as overall darker and creepier by Kevin Spacey while his Gene Hackman portrayal was much more comedic and campy. Haven't seen the movie in years, but after looking up the movie and refreshing my memory I feel I can make a solid case for him.

Who is Lex Luthor and what does he do?: Lex Luthor is pretty much THE guy we all think about when Superman comes to mind (Especially in the films, since he's usually the villain or at least involved in them more often than not!), and is usually portrayed as a smooth, calculating, and ruthless Magnificent Bastard with some redeeming qualities to his name. In Superman Returns and to my knowledge in Richard Donner's movies, he isn't redeemable in the slightest. He's a cruel, money-hungry egomaniac who puts billions of lives in danger for the sake of profiting off real-estate. After kidnapping Lois Lane and her child, Lex reveals to them that he is going to create an enormous Kryptonite landmass in the ocean that would displace other continental landmasses which would kill billions of innocent people while he would force survivors to pay large sums of money to live on "Lexland", knowing full and well of the consequences which means that he's not a Mike Nelson, Destroyer of World type villain. Whenever Superman tries to stop him, he is weakened by the kryptonite and ruthlessly tortured by Lex who takes the moment to humiliate him and beat him to a bloody pulp for putting him in prison, even letting his henchmen in on the fun before burying a shard of Krytponite in his back and leaving him to drown. This combined with his deeds in the campier Donner films (Causing enormous earthquakes by launching missles into the San Andreas Fault if memory serves, as well as allying with the genocidal General Zod) makes him one evil son of a bitch.

Is he heinous by the standards of the story?: You don't get much more heinous than trying to kill billions for profit and humiliating your nemesis in an excruciatingly painful way. While Kevin Spacey still plays up Luthor's hamminess with even a few comedic moments, he's still over-all treated as a very serious threat and is looked at as a monstrous madman by others. Hell, his own assistant Kitty ends up dumping the rest of the Kryptonite crystals Lex had stowed away for what I think were Lexland backups and lying about how they disappeared, meaning that she seems to be disgusted by him.

Any Freudian excuse or sympathetic qualities?: While his hate for Superman comes from having his plans foiled in past endeavours, the fact that even in his campier Gene Hackman portrayal where he was still willing to kill millions show that Superman's presence didn't drive him over the edge and he was evil from the start. As for his relationship with his henchmen, I don't remember if he was a flat-out "Bad" Boss (Save for a moment where he put Kitty's life in danger to distract Superman in one scene) but he wasn't a good one either, and while he did marry an elderly widow it's made clear that he just wanted her fortune when she died.

Verdict?: I feel he's an easy qualifier, though I do wonder if his sillier portrayal would hurt his chances due to earlier movies. If they don't, I feel he's easily the most monstrous portrayal of Luthor to my knowledge (Haven't watched any of the animated films, and while comics Luthor is still bad, he seems to be an inconsistent case there as discussed in his entry in the DC section).

(I disagree that Man of Steel is a good movie, let alone a good Superman movie, let alone a good comic book movie, but that's just my opinion.)

We have to consider that, despite being played by a different actor, this is the same version as the Hackman one. And really, even with the campier tone of Hackman's rendition, he was easily more heinous than Zod and his cohorts. Think about that for a sec: a crazed and intelligent but otherwise regular human being was more heinous than three superpowered Kryptonian criminals. Zod wasn't necessarily "genocidal" since he seemed more content with enslaving humanity than destroying it: he just had no qualms about killing a few earthlings when he felt he had to. Otherwise, he had no specific body count in mind, and the one he most wanted to kill was Superman himself. Luthor, on the other hand, deliberately threatened to kill a lot of people so that he could benefit from the aftermath of all the death and destruction twice - with the plan in Superman Returns having a higher body count that Luthor flat out acknowledged without caring. So basically, not only would his sillier portrayal of the earlier films not hurt his chances, they'd do the opposite. When Zod, the seemingly more "serious" villain and threat, fails to be as heinous as the more comedic Luthor, that means that the heinous standard was set in Luthor's favor even before he got Darker and Edgier in Superman Returns.

As for not being a Bad Boss - not as much as some others might be, but still...aside from putting Kitty's life in danger without her knowing he'd actually do that, this guy was going to kill Miss Tesmacher's mother without giving a damn, left Otis (whom he insulted regularly) behind in prison, abandoned Tesmacher again at some point off-screen, didn't seem to give a damn that his henchman got crushed to death by a mass of Kryptonite, and flat out told Kitty he'd trade "every ounce of her blood" for a quart of gasoline! And the "punchline" in his last scene was that he was contemplating eating Kitty's pet dog, too! So he has absolutely zero good relationships with anyone in the films. (We'e not counting his nephew in Superman IV because that film got Retconned out of canon.)

Overall, you're correct: outside of some comic depictions, the Hackman/Spacey Lex Luthor is the most monstrous media depiction of the character. He's an easy keeper.

Eesh, I forgot how much of a dick he was to his henchmen. So uh... how did he not make the cut on TV Tropes again? I tried reading up on discussions involving him, but I think they cut him for being a "Mike Nelson Destroyer of Worlds".

But hey, feels good to have an example go over well after I totally (Pardon the language) fucked up with Augustine at TV Tropes. I'll try to get a good writeup posted for him in a bit, I just need a proper refresher on his deeds in all the movies that count since I haven't seen them in forever.

And I hope you didn't think I was slamming the Donner movies by calling them campier, I actually quite liked them back when I first watched them, and still look back fondly on them to this day. :)

Wouldn't a Mike Nelson be UNAWARE of how much damage they'd cause? Luthor was perfectly aware both times - even going as far as to correct Lois saying his plan would take millions of lives with "BILLIONS!" in Superman Returns.

So does Augustine stay on this wiki, or is she getting cut here too?

The original Superman is still the best Superman movie, I think. Better than both cuts of Superman II, which is better than Superman Returns, which is better than Man of Steel, which is better than Superman IV, which is better than Superman III. That last one barely even counts as a Superman movie. It's a Richard Prier movie that happens to feature Superman in it.

Oh trust me, there's no way in hell she's making it there. I however am keeping her here because... well, despite her claims as a Well-Intentioned Extremist, everything she does not go in line with what she says. I've already said it enough and edited her entry here to reflect on it, but I do not buy her as a Well-Intentioned Extremist at all: She actively and knowingly contributes to the negative perception people have of Conduits through fear-mongering and propaganda, I'd put more stock in her locking away Conduits if she didn't actively have them experimented on and tortured, any Conduit she interacts with is either her abusing them or manipulating them, while she talks about how she'd never hurt a Conduit, her men have been shown in the DLCs to actively try to kill Conduits with no remorse (And of course, she has no problem murdering Delsin if he doesn't fall in line with her beliefs in the end, in fact, she KNOWINGLY put him in a situation where he'd easily be killed for defying her by locking him into a powerset he knows almost nothing about). Her thoughts on the girl she betrayed MAY be her one good quality, but given that she later groomed her and pretty much twisted her mind into a perfect weapon... And holy crap I am so sorry for the wall of text. I guess Augustine is to me as Ghetsis is to you! :D

You know, I hate to go on a rant here, but looking back at TV Tropes... I really feel that it's genuinely hard to get an example approved who ISN'T a card-carrying rapist/mass murderer/torturer/etc. Ones like Light Yagami or Walter White who start off as decent people but make the full descent into Complete Monsterdom didn't make it, villains from works aimed towards younger people have it hard to begin with like Ghetsis and FiM Tirek (I am still shocked that the princess from Rainbow Brite was approved, I was convinced that with the mindset so many of the people there share, that she wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell), and even other villains have come dangerously close to being cut for small reasons like Ronan and Hades (Though he looks like a complete cut now. D:). I know it's nothing new, but still... really grinds the old gears!

And like I said on Luthor, I'm not sure as I'd have to look for him again, but I think that's why he didn't make the cut. Don't know why since he BLATANTLY states that he knows so many people will die, but hey: That's TV Tropes for ya, the site that almost cut people like Vidal, Bob Ewell, and even Amon Fucking Goeth.

EDIT: Alright, did more digging and Lex's issue is that they believed he wasn't taken as seriously by the narrative as it should have, citing his fate at the end of the movie as being proof (Though I hear that a sequel was planned with Luthor in it again, it just never came to fruition) and I'm very sure his infamous "WROOOOOOOOOONG!" scene didn't help at all.

I guess so. XD Though it's not *quite* as ridiculous as the case with Ghetsis, since the reasoning for cutting him wasn't even that he showed anything resembling a redeeming feature. It was "Not heinous enough! Pokemon fans know nothing of true pure evil!" As far as Augustine goes, I made the comparison to Koba that I stick by. Granted, Koba was even worse than Augustine since he does everything out of blind hatred and rage rather than a genuine psychological delusion, but all the same, they both claim to be fighting in the name of protecting their own species when their actions towards them show otherwise. They're really only fighting for their own self interest and either don't care about those they hurt or flat out delight in hurting them.

That seems to be about it. More complex villains or monstrous villains of a less typical scale get a REAL hard time qualifying anymore. Light and Walt I can understand not passing since it might raise some issues with contributers and tropers, but others? Ghetsis was in line with all criteria needed for passing before the cleanup effort threw in all the bogus criteria about the exact nature of works' heinous standards and the "baseline" of heinousness. And FiM Tirek is easily the most heinous and irredeemable villain in the series to date, being the closest thing the series has to a sexual violator (the whole "sucking out magic" deal) as well as Satan. (Well, G1 Tirek was approved, so Dark Princess had something of a chance. But yeah, I was actually surprised, and satisfied, too.) I could see the points made about Hades (which is why I clarify that the character probably *isn't* a CM, but his role is of a CM - given the whole game plays out like the characters putting on a performance, it makes sense), but Ronan? The whole business of him having possibly loved his grandfather and father or cared about them on a personal level was beyond ridiculous. It was even worse than the deal with Hopper and his mother.

They confuse "tone" with "narrative" here. The narrative took Luthor seriously even in the Donner films, and the narrative of Superman Returns took him seriously enough to alter the tone of scenes where he had to get serious. Even at the end of the movie, while the tone was funny, his last scene was reinforcing that he had zero redeeming qualities. The "WROOOOOOOOONG!" part doesn't invalidate anything either, since it literally came after the "BILLIONS!" part.

I may have put her on the "Not a Monster" list, but I feel like reevaluating Princess Shroob thanks to the fact that I recently got to play Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time. In fact, I'm starting to wonder why I put her there at all come to think of it.

Who is Princess Shroob and what all does she do?: Princess Shroob is the nasty, sadistic leader of the alien Shroob race (or at least the substitute leader, her older sister led them before getting sealed away in a star), who is invading Mario and Luigi's planet in the past because the Shroob's home planet has no energy resources left. To this end she has the Mushroom Kingdom's Toad citizens abducted and taken to a factory where a substance called Vim which is heavily implied to be their blood is drained from their bodies and used as fuel for the Shroobs' flying saucers (And as a casual drink for her and her sister), a process which kills the Toads by leaving them as lifeless mushrooms (Though given that the mushrooms can be turned back into living Toads at the end of the game, they may be in a I have no mouth and I must scream situation... which is even worse!). To that end she has three locations (Peach's Castle, the surrounding Toad Town, and Hollijolli Village) sacked and left with next to survivors. Other evil deeds of hers include having a monstrous Yoshi/Shroob hybrid called Yoob eat all of Yoshi's Island's inhabitants and transform them into monsters inside of a factory in it's belly, and doing what amounts to a public execution by having Peach fed to a monstrous Piranha Plant (Though she does survive since it barfs her back up later, I'm not sure if that was part of the plan or not). And after this happens, Princess Shroob disguises herself as Peach so she can be taken back to the Mushroom Kingdom of the present so she can take over the other kingdom too.

Is she heinous by the standards of the story?: Yep! She's easily worse than Bowser, and is also probably THE most heinous of the handheld RPG's villains (I haven't played much of Dream Team, but I hear the game's villain Antasma isn't that much more heinous than Cackletta or Fawful.) as she's an alien conqueror played dead-straight contrasted with her at-times goofy minions in an otherwise light-hearted setting. I do wonder how you feel about her when you compare her to the already approved monsters in the franchise, though.

Any Freudian Excuse or redeeming factors?: Well, you could make the argument that she's trying to provide her people with a new home, but she gets a lot more enjoyment out of conquering the planet's rightful inhabitants than she should, making it clear in her few speaking parts that she's pretty focused on dominating the planet and laying waste to it's inhabitants. She's also shown to be a blatant sadist, laughing as she tries to kill others. As for her sister, she doesn't seem to care about her at all, making no effort to actually save her from her prison, only calling on her to defeat Mario, Luigi, and their baby selves when she's dying (Though funnily enough, her sister does care about her to the point of fighting the Mario Bros and their baby counterparts mostly to avenge her death).

However, she may or may not care for her Shroob minions. She's never shown flat-out abusing them unlike her sister who will casually swat their flying saucers out of the sky during her boss battles, and even seems angry whenever Mario and Luigi defeat her minions when she's present. However, she doesn't speak in a decipherable language during those scenes which makes it unclear if she's enraged by their deaths out of personal care, or if she's angry that they failed to defeat the Mario Bros and Babies. That, and she's never really shown flat-out petting the dog with them either. I suppose this part may go either way in her favor.

Verdict?: I've always been on the fence with Princess Shroob: On one hand, her species needs a new planet and she may care about them. On the other hand, she goes way beyond being a Well-Intentioned Extremist with her blatant sadism and lust for power over the Mushroom Kingdom's citizens and also may not care about them. I guess it all comes down to what you think about her.

Easily the most heinous villain in those RPGS by far, but I still wouldn't call her a Complete Monster. She sounds almost exactly like MLP villain Queen Chrysallis, another non-example. Both are outright evil and sadistic despots who take clear enjoyment out of doing evil things to innocent lives and don't seem to care about their people beyond the fact that they're their subjects, but the fact that they are at least partially motivated by trying to provide for these subjects is an altruistic quality. To argue "Sure she's doing this one thing that will truly help her people, but she's so evil, power-hungry, and sadistic, clearly doing all this shit out of love for being bad, so that puts her beyond WIE territory and into CM territory!" isn't really a valid argument because that sole altruistic quality, no matter how slim and how overshadowed by the evil qualities, keeps the villain from being a Complete Monster. Also, if her sister cared about her, then that shows a character who at least saw her with affection even if she had little of it in return. For all we know, she could be slightly less evil were we not seeing her and her actions from the Mushroom Kingdom's point of view.

A heinous bitch to be sure, but not quite a Complete Monster. Thanks for bringing forth the issue, though.

Thanks for your input! She just always stood out to me because I found the Vim extraction stuff to be incredibly screwed up, such a dark thing in a lighthearted series like that left a hell of an impression on me.

I just have one little thing to ask though: you site her sister loving her as being a disqualifying factor, but some monsters like Aizen (Who I remember Ichigo inexplicably pitying him despite being an absolutely irredeemable bastard) and the Joker (Who has the ever lovable Harley Quinn fawning over him) are still listed as such. I'm not trying to pull a "Joker Fallacy" as I call it (Such as trying to justify a comedic non-example qualifying just because the Joker was funny), but I'm a bit confused: what qualifies a CM candidate when going off of affection shown towards them by someone, even if they don't return it? Is it blatant mistreatment towards the person treating them nice such as how the Joker abuses Harley, or the case of the one showing pity towards them being someone with a bit of a Messiah Complex?

It IS messed up, but Nightmare Fuel or Nausea Fuel aren't always indicators of this trope.

In Aizen's case, pity isn't the same as sympathy or even liking. Some CM examples have been pitied in-universe (the film adaptation of the fifth Harry Potter book has Harry flat out telling Voldemort he feels sorry for him because he'll never know love) but that doesn't absolve them of their status as hateful, irredeemable monsters. In Joker's, it's a completely one-sided crush from a mentally ill woman over a man she can't seem to grasp is truly without any virtues, love included. Neither of these can be comparable to sisters, who by definition would have to know each other closely and possibly shared a childhood together or something along those lines.

Ah, I see now! I didn't mean for that to be a stupid question since the answer was obvious in hindsight, I just wanted to set things straight.

And as for the sister thing, I think it's safe to assume that there was love shared between the two given that Elder Princess Shroob's exact line was "And my sister... my dear, sweet, beautiful sister... I WILL AVENGE HER!" Kinda sweet that even barbaric alien warlords have people they care about. :D Yeah, looking back I think I let Princess Shroob's incredibly heinous actions overshadow her few good qualities.

Looking back though, I'm starting to wonder about Grubba's status based on one line of his: he's pretty much an irredeemable scumbag once his true colors show, but when he's been beaten, he tells Mario "Great fight, son". Is this enough to disqualify him from Complete Monster status? It is pretty much the only remotely positive thing he really does (or in this case, the only nice thing he says) once he's outed as a narcissistic maniac. Hell, right after that he goes on to mock the sister of his first victim to put things in perspective.

Yeah, the Shroobs are terrible, but not totally pure ultimate evil. And if the Elder Princess indeed viewed her sister as "dear, sweet, and beautiful", then that gives us reason to believe there was a softer side of her she showed her sister and nothing to disprove it or prove it was all an act.

Eh, saying one complimentary thing about the fight itself and not any person doesn't really disqualify him at all. There have been Complete Monsters who've seen their enemies as worthy opponents or given some compliments - Freeza in DBZ enjoyed fighting Goku and exchanged complimentary words with him before he started to get serious and subsequently come to really, genuinely hate him. This really only showed Grubba as someone who loves a good challenge but still doesn't care for any person who isn't himself. So he definitely stays.