(From here.)
Whose rules are these? When did they change here? Who changed them?
Please clarify.
-- Looney Toons, Admin
CC: @Labster, @GethN7, @Robkelk, @QuestionableSanity, @LulzKiller, @SelfCloak
Topic on User talk:Mark D. Gordon
This brings up a question, which I have asked here. If there are any current frequent contributors to the wiki who I did not mention, please bring that question to their attention.
For once, that's a pretty valid point, see my answer on Rob's topic for more details.
Here's an excellent example of how that can happen: Maleficent
Originally, she was on the list, as she met every criteria - crimes considered evil enough to cross the Moral Event Horizon, never presented positively or sympathetically, never showing concern for others, never showing regret or remorse for their own deeds, and no justification. As presented in Sleeping Beauty, all were true of Maleficent.
However, when the live action movie Maleficent was released, the character's backgrounds, motivations, and past were explored more thoroughly; the story shows that the character did express concern, regret, and remorse, did indeed have a partially legit justification, and was portrayed sympathetically. These revelations (which were made in a Disney movie, and thus could feasibly be considered canon) eliminated several of the criteria, and Maleficent could no longer be considered a Complete Monster.
If the criteria for qualifying as an example of the trope, the criteria given on the page, doesn't support the inclusion of a character, than the character can't be included. That's how we determine things regarding the trope, not any "rules" set in place. As far as I can tell, the character Mark deleted still qualifies based on the criteria.
And !HeneryVII: the character's name is Maleficent, and the live action movie is NOT something that would disqualify the animated version of the character, as they are not the same and the Maleficent movie is NOT canon to the animated Sleeping Beauty (character depictions are completely different - the good fairies and King Stefen especially - and story events in one are incompatible with the other). Angelina Jolie's Maleficent is different from the animated Maleficent who is different from Kingdom Hearts Maleficent who is different from Once Upon A Time Maleficent who is different from Descendants Maleficent, etc. One version being different from another changes nothing for the chances of a CM qualification.
What disqualified Maleficent is that her acts of evil, aside from placing a curse on an infant and one particularly cruel moment with Prince Philip, were totally standard for a villain of a family friendly animated movie based on a fairy tale (taunting the good guys, abusing her minions, hypnotizing Aurora, capturing Philip, and trying to kill the heroes when they start working to undo her evilness)), and she arguably has a mitigating quality in that she cares for her raven sidekick, Diaval. That's why animated Maleficent cannot be considered a Complete Monster.
Sorry.
Looney Tunes: "The rules no longer support his inclusion"
Whose rules are these? When did they change here? Who changed them?
Please clarify.
There is no need for an answer, I already quickly decided to put him back right after.
I'd like to close this discussion right now.
Oh, so generous of you to let an admin know that you don't need to answer his questions.
While Looney Toons could have been less sardonic, I do have to agree with the point raised. Admins don't have time to ask questions simply to hear ourselves talk - we expect answers.
"he was literally executing an incredibly heinous norm of his boss, and they're all slavers and torturers"
"System Standards
These standards only applies if the villain is part of a corrupt system. Generally, given they are part of a specific system with certain morals, they don't commit actions that are beyond the basic heinous standard and meet "the norm", regardless of how heinous this norm might be. That's why minions or simple servants of greater villains usually never qualify.
However, a villain may qualify if:
They started said system, and thus meet every criteria (e.g. Poppy Adams).
They commit atrocious actions that go far beyond the norm of the system they exist within, which can also prove that they would commit such atrocities even if they weren't a part of said system. Jerome Valeska of Gotham is an example of this because, even as a member of the Maniax, he committed the worst atrocities, to the point that their leader unexpectedly betrayed him."
So first: We don't know who started this entire norm, as awful as it may be. Also, his description "Fat/Obese/Green Leader" is a speculation with no in-series evidence.
Two: If they all enslave even children and subject anyone to torture, how are they supposed to stand out from other villains from their own cult?
Three: The old entry literally described all of them as an example of this. All you see there is a group of guards:
Four: They aren't Played for Laughs at all. Even my summary lists "the group rule" of that page:
https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Complete_Monster/Criteria#System_Standards
Last: There is a tweaked entry to describe the case closer (of the other ATT):
While all the Zeref cultists are nasty, no one made so much damage as the fat leader. He took part of the slaughter of every adult in the village Erza were in and kidnapped children, so he could enslave them. Along with his partner, he forced thousands of captives to build the Tower Of Heaven. They employed even children (among which, Jellal and Erza) to do this work, starving them almost to death, punishing and killing them over the most insignificant slight; and they weren't above Cold-Blooded Torture as well - it was because of a particularly brutal beating from them that Erza lost one of her eyes (the eye was later replaced with an artificial one). Killing them both was obviously Jellal's making as evil, but they had it coming.
Okay, but seeing it not a big thing, I left it.