User talk:NoxiousSludge

I'm sorry, what did I say or do wrong? Are you in a bad mood right now? I honestly didn't mean any offense with anything I said. :(

I took the "don't understand this trope" thing too personally, I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to say flat out "you don't understand this trope" - that's what some snobs on TV Tropes would say. I said "trouble grasping the trope", which doesn't mean that at the most you're not trying, because you are and have been doing an overall good job. If I came off as condescending, I'm very sorry. :(

What I was meaning to say is, regardless of the scale of one's actions and how hateful they do or don't come off, a villain is an undisputed example of this wiki's version of this trope if they line up with the given criteria. Tucker is definitely an example in the manga and Brotherhood though not in the 2003 anime, while Envy is definitely an example in the 2003 anime but not in the manga and Brotherhood. We view them as Monsters in both versions, but they only match the criteria to the letter in one version or the other.

I'm sorry about the other day. :(

I'm even more sorry. I've been going through... issues, but that's no reason to act like a dickparade. As someone who has anxiety issues myself, I feel terrible for causing yours to act up.

I understand how that's like when personal issues effect your mood when dealing with stuff online, even if the attitude it ultimately uncalled for. I just hate that we had to clash like that since we've been working together well up until then. What the heck happened?

And please don't think I don't "get" why people might not find Ghetsis to be heinous enough to qualify as a CM - I get it. In terms of the baseline of objective heinousness, Ghetsis as presented in canon is more squarely in the middle with merely the potential to rise higher were he given a larger plot and thus a wider scale and bigger means to achieve his ends. There've been Pokemon villains with more horrific actions and intents, namely in Teams Galactic and Flare (I still REALLY wish they hadn't made Matt and Courtney of all people so heinous, especially if we're still expected to buy them as redeemable). But on this wiki, meeting the Complete Monster trope's qualifications come down to three criteria - actions and intents that are, even if not THE most heinous, at least objectively heinous by the standards of the setting/narrative/other characters, a lack of a valid excuse for this, AND no redeeming features, which naturally means no redemption. Extra points for if they're played seriously and are not liked by just about everyone in-universe. I've run Ghetsis through the criteria test many times over just to be extra sure, and he passes.

Also, just what candidate did you have in mind that you weren't up to mentioning?

I'll just say that my doubts have been cleared up now that I've cooled down, but I got a bit concerned that we were riding off of Fridge Horror a bit too much for Ghetsis while characters like Cyrus and Lysandre made no bones about what they had in mind and the consequences that would arise if they ultimately won being perfectly clear. (And you're not alone with the whole Matt and Courtney thing, I was surprised that these guys were meant to be redeemable: I could buy Archie and Maxie being redeemable since they were in over their heads, but these two knew full and well that they would bring about the end of the world. I was particularly bothered by Matt since unlike Courtney who already seemed messed up in the head, Matt was a passionate, boisterous guy who loved his comrades. Hell, I kind of view Zinnia as being in the same boat as them, but that's for another day...)

Look, for the example I had in mind, you WILL be annoyed, but I flat out can't view Cyrus as anything but a monster. He may have had a shitty childhood, and I can see that he genuinely thinks that a world without spirit is the perfect one. Yet, he's willing to destroy the world and recreate it just so he can play god and impose his incredibly selfish wishes on the new world's inhabitants. And to that end, he tortures three innocent Pokémon in order to create the red chain needed to control Dialga and Palkia, allows his henchmen to engage in dangerous terrorist activities with the Galactic Bombs, manipulates said henchmen while keeping them in the dark in regards to his true intentions... Sure, Looker and a lot of Galactic members like him, but it's because they're impressed by the charisma displayed by Cyrus and aren't aware of what he really wants. People like the scientists Cyrus employed to oversee the experiments conducted on the lake trio are horrified and disgusted with what they had to do, and Saturn himself admits to being appalled by Cyrus' ultimate goal after Team Galactic's defeat. The only person who seems to pity Cyrus after he's been defeated and his true intentions are made clear is Cynthia.

As for what Cyrus tells the player when he's confronted after his speech, he flat out says that the world he had in mind wasn't for Team Galactic, but solely for himself and says that they're useless and incomplete with not much room for interpretation. I'll let it go as I know this will go nowhere, but I can't view him as anything other than a sociopathic, selfish madman with a sob story. I do however have another qualifier, with some new evidence that I'd like to discuss, but only if you're up to it.

I think Cyrus, Ghetsis, AND Lysandre all had heinous end goals but they were despicable for different reasons. Cyrus wanted a world where no one had any spirit, thus they wouldn't be able to feel anything or think any thoughts that they could act upon with free will - a horrific future, but one in which no one would ever realize it was so because they'd feel no pain or sorrow. Ghetsis' world would be nothing BUT pain and sorrow for all the people without Pokemon, the people he'd get to enslave and oppress through his special privileges. And Lysandre flat out wanted to kill a lot of people, which is of course a terrible thing, but the games' standards are against him being seen as irredeemable since AZ, an actual successful mass murderer, is portrayed in a sympathetic and redeemed light in the same game.

Cyrus is actually the best example I can use when talking about the franchise's heinous standard. In my mind, he IS the most objectively heinous human villain in the franchise, especially due to my own spiritual beliefs that he stands against. And yet he's NOT pure evil since there are a few redeeming factors to be found in him, and he got redeemed in TWO different manga series, meaning two different writers saw the character as not being beyond hope of redemption. So within this franchise and by it's standards, even a guy who does the things Cyrus did can be redeemed so long as his extremism came from a place of good intentions and he's not so far gone that he can't be made to see how wrong he is. Meanwhile you have Charon, a lowly scientist who does nothing close to what Cyrus does, but he does everything he does out of greed, pride, and self interest, and thus he's never been redeemed anywhere in the franchise, and in DPA he's even made a Complete Monster in a series that also features Cyrus and his extremely heinous goals and actions AND is one of the two manga that redeems him in spite of that. While the anime didn't redeem Cyrus, the saga Cyrus was featured in also had Hunter J, and Grings Kodai in it's last movie - both of who are Complete Monsters motivated by purely selfish goals, and they're even less redeemable than anime!Cyrus. And of course the games have Ghetsis, who's shown to be more evil and less redeemable than Cyrus from the previous generation was.

And I've said before that Cyrus was planning to screw Team Galactic over in the end since he wanted to be solo God of the new universe and his team was tools to achieve his ends and that is deplorable of him, but he still had a delusion of altruism for the rest of the world and was even quite civil and complimentary of your character during that same scene. Simply put, Cyrus fails at least five points of this wiki's criteria for the trope (not portrayed in any positive way, other characters fear and hate him, arguably his Freudian Excuse, devoid of altruistic qualities, and never redeemed or doesn't have the possibility of redemption) and thus cannot qualify regardless of how you and others might view him. Game Cyrus and Anime Cyrus, who weren't redeemed, being the trope might be good for YMMV, but the character overall can't make the cut.

And who is the other qualifier?

It's Lovrina, but before I discuss anything, I need to ask one thing: Should XD's postgame as far as the Orre Coliseum is concerned be viewed as canon? If so, then completely disregard what I'm saying and I'll drop it. If not though, I feel that I can raise a genuine case for her. Or not, actually just forget about it and pretend that I never bought it up in the first place.

Yeah, we ought to do the latter here. Lovrina is a HUGE example of a villain that one could only considered a Complete Monster if the focus is on what she does, even though the actual character is a comedic sociopathic Spoiled Brat whose rehabilitation is entirely conceivable and she seems to have some redeeming features (she likes cute Pokemon, her brother stands by her, her letter to you in the postgame is friendly, etc.). To include her would be to violate the "Please note that a character crossing the Moral Event Horizon does not alone make them a Complete Monster" part in the trope definition.

Yeah, I was dumb (Though if memory serves, Naps doesn't like Lovrina, he's just loyal to Cipher in general. And just because she uses cute Pokémon doesn't mean that Lovrina likes them, but I'm just digging myself deeper).

By any chance, are you familiar with Xenoblade Chronicles? I'm picking up the game for the 3DS soon and plan on adding the three examples approved on TV Tropes with different entries and may bring up a fourth potential candidate depending on what all she does.

In this case, yes. Lovrina might be in a division of Cipher responsible for certain atrocities, but she's less evil than villains like Giovanni. Sorry. (Lovrina pushes Naps around but he still chooses to help her out of loyalty to both Cipher and their family. And I recall she seemed to have a sort of mindset where she'd care for her own Pokemon well enough but see other Pokemon as just test subjects that she could hurt without giving a damn. Makes her insane, but not pure evil.)

No I'm not familiar with it. But why are you considering the candidates from the new game?

Ouch. I'd ask to be let down a bit gentler next time, though that would make me a hypocrite.

But anyway, I was watching an LP of Xenoblade up until near the middle of the game (Meaning that one of the approved candidates was a heavy, heavy spoiler for me that I didn't see coming. D:)where I decided to stop and play the game for myself later, and one character who I could already tell was a nasty piece of work was Lorithia, a queen to a race of humanoids called High Entia who hates her daughter for being half-homs (Basically, they're humans under a different name) and attempts to have her assassinated for sullying her bloodline. Of course that alone isn't anywhere near enough to qualify her in this game, though someone bought her up on the thread (And was shut down because of the belief that the three already approved examples were enough) because she does much worse later. I didn't look at her rapsheet because I didn't want that spoiled as well, though I'll bring her up if I deem her worthy of consideration.

I most likely will, but in this case I couldn't since Lovrina is SO far from what I'd consider an example of the trope. Cyrus is a more valid contender than she is, at least in terms of YMMV. (Speaking of, you ever read the two manga in which he was redeemed? I found it strangely not out of his established character in how he did it both times - he didn't get absolved of everything just 'cause he had a tough life or get basically brainwashed into turning good. He re-evaluated his belief system and chose to change for the better, which is how it should be done with redemption of villains.)

That's worth consideration, yes. As for me, I feel like all the works I'm familiar with that have Complete Monsters have those examples cited on this wiki, so I'm fine with the trope as it currently is. So please know that I don't want to hear of possible removals of examples again - only of possible additions. OK? :)

I have read Pokémon Special... though I stopped halfway through the G/S/C storyline. :p The only villains I'm familiar with first-hand are Giovanni (Who totally doesn't count), the Kanto Elite Four (I'm certainly not proposing Lance since he's basically proto-N, though I do remember Agatha being quite nasty among the group. Still, I assume that she misses the mark when compared to Sird and Ghetsis), and Pryce (Who is one of the darkest anti-villains I've seen in any form of media). I haven't read the Diamond and Pearl manga either, all I'm aware of is that Charon from that series is a disgusting little prick.

You ought to finish that arc and then moving on to the Sinnoh and Unova arcs. The others are optional, but I feel the Hoenn arcs were the weakest. As for those villains...Giovanni's unrepentantly evil as he is in the anime but he has noble qualities and genuinely loves his son even when they're on opposite sides. Lance was a genocidal psycho who, like Cyrus, wasn't necessarily sympathetic but his agenda started from a well-meaning place and he gets redeemed later on. (I actually like to theorize that Sird actually IS Agatha in some way since Agatha hasn't been seen since the Yellow arc and it'd make Sird's fixation with the Pokedex make so much sense, but it hasn't been proven in canon yet.) And Pryce is noted as being a subversion of Complete Monster on this wiki - seems to fit the bill at first but is revealed to not only be a tragic anti-villain, but a man driven so insane by pent-up emotions and loneliness that he literally cannot tell right from wrong anymore, being an "ends justify the means" type of villain.

Oh yeah, DPA Charon can best be described as a one-man Cipher. Attempts at suicide bombings, extortion, psychological torture, and harmful experiments are things he does, as well as mind control and even physical abuse of his underlings or hostages. And like Ghetsis, he wants world domination in this version.

BTW, some time after our Ghetsis dispute, I started looking back on the character, doing some research and gathering my thoughts, and I managed to compose an effort post (one that's not to be used on TV Tropes, unfortunately) on Ghetsis in the games and why I believe he counts and why the argument that he meets the general requirements needed to belong in the Complete Monster trope (and on this wiki passes the criteria test for it) is a valid one. You can now find the Ghetsis effort post on the Discussion page of Pokemon: Black and White. :)

I saw it. It's huge... though it's a pity that it will never actually be used seeing as how Ghetsis can't be bought up again (If only there was evidence that wasn't bought up! That saved Scar from being kept on there after all). It's very well-written and pretty in-depth, and the thing about Ghetsis having Narcissistic personality disorder is surprisingly spot-on. To be honest, I don't think having loyal minions like Zinzolin and the Triad should really count against him since most dictator-type villains will have at least a few followers who genuinely like them. But there is one thing I'm puzzled by... his last name is Gropius? That is quite the unfortunate last name.

I know, right? I'm thinking if maybe I should do the same thing with other controversial candidates - what do you think?

I'll have to look back on the debates on TV Tropes, but was every bit of evidence brought up? I only recall 32 Footsteps and his cronies deeming him not heinous enough to qualify, others arguing that he does meet the qualifications, but the naysayers being stubborn asses until eventually more people were persuaded to vote against him staying on the trope. I still remember Footsteps' condescending remark about how the Pokemon fandom clearly doesn't know truly heinous evil when they see it. While lots of fanon interpretations of Ghetsis go way overboard (feeding people to his Hydregion, skinning/killing Pokemon, physically or sexually abusing N, and having a body count of 13 A through M infants is completely ridiculous and not supported by how canon Ghetsis is presented at all) but if they saw him as pure evil, it's probably because the things he does, regardless of how small scale, show him as being the sort of person who IS pure evil.

N's full name was confirmed to be Natural Harmonia Gropius a long time ago, but Ghetsis' full name was never used until Pokemon Special, where he announces himself in that name during the climax.

I don't play the Pokemon games or know much about him but I heard him come up a lot in Complete Monster discussions so I decided to look him up, and I must say I agree that he's a CM.

This guy is sick. I don't know what his competition is but I can't imagine for the heinous standard being anything short of genocide for him not to qualify, and even then his overall character is still utterly sadistic it's own right.

I've been viewing him as more of just a particularly big asshole these days. Having replayed the games yesterday, I think people exaggerate when they talk about how evil he is: he was mean to his kid, wanted to take over the world, tried to kill the hero... standard villainy, I think he's a terrible person but I don't feel right listing him among examples like Darkrai (Tried to orchestrate an apocalypse) or the Cipher heads of Colosseum (Tortured Pokémon to the point to where they're now mindless, insanely violent fighting machines). When it comes to someone who I feel truly counts, I have a guy in mind, but I know he'll be shut down so I won't even bother.

Oh then never mind what I said, but how mean was he to his kid? Was he just insulting him or did he try to ruin his entire moral outlook on the world? Yes taking over the world in of itself isn't heinous, but what methods did he use to obtain this goal? Would his plan have put anyone's life in danger? Is it true he wanted to give the protagonist a slow painful death?

Who will be shut down?

Ghetsis did groom N into being a perfect servant by making him think that humans only abused Pokémon and made them suffer, and revealed to N that he was indeed using him, which is pretty bad. But other than that, he just insults him and at worst, calls him an inhuman freak.

Basically, he first sought to simply persuade people into giving up their Pokémon by tricking them into thinking that it was the right thing to do, though he secretly wants to make it to where only people like himself can own them and rule the world unopposed. In the sequels, he merely settled for raining down ice all over the Unova region by using a weapon that draws upon power from a powerful Pokémon called Kyurem (That is said to be in pain due to Ghetsis' machinations) which would put people in danger. As for what he did to the hero, he wasn't going to kill them despite what others may say, but he was going to freeze them alive (Which can be viewed as worse than killing seeing as how he's going to keep them alive with the purpose of having them watch as he conquers the world).

He's bad (I'll admit it, my summation of him earlier was due to me feeling rather snippy)... but I have a hard time agreeing with keeping him the more I look at his competition. At least two other villains (Cyrus from Diamond/Pearl/Platinum and Lysandre from X and Y) have omnicide as their goal, and surpass Ghetsis when it comes to nastiness in various ways. Torturing a Pokémon in order for it to serve his will? Cyrus did it to three Pokémon instead of one. Tried to take over the world? Unlike Ghetsis, Lysandre (Who doesn't qualify due to regretting having to kill Pokémon along with humans) and Cyrus want to annihilate all life on the planet, and remake it in their own selfish visions. When I look at these two, I have a harder time justifying keeping Ghetsis around seeing as how he comes off as more of a selfish, generic villain when compared to omnicidal terrorists.

And I'm not saying who because it's a waste of time arguing their case.

Oh I see. I wouldn't have thought a game targeted at children would have so many incredibly vile antagonists. Yeah I vote no to Ghetsis too. Ghetsis sounds nasty but it sounds like he barely makes a slice in this franchise's heinous standard.

I wouldn't go as far to say that Ghetsis barely registers as a blip on the radar, as he is easily worse than Giovanni (Basically a mob boss with a noble side to him who specializes in street-level crime) as well as Archie and Maxie (Well meaning extremists who wanted to expand the sea or landmass but accidentally almost started the apocalypse). I just feel that looking back, I feel that Ghetsis isn't quite truly deplorable.

Hmmm, so he's about in the middle of the heinous standard?

That's how I feel nowadays.

In terms of objective baseline heinousness, he's in the middle. In terms of the franchise's heinous standard, he's up there with the Cipher leaders and only slightly below Purple Eyes and Darkrai. Also consider that his plan and motivations actually struck at the heart of the very way in which the Pokemon world works. Very few Pokemon villains were as exploitative of the titular monsters themselves as much as Ghetsis was.

He IS high up in this franchise's heinous standard. Pokemon isn't a franchise with a heinous standard that bases itself on who DOES the most objectively worst things, but rather who has the worst motivations for committing wide-scale atrocities. Cyrus and Lysandre committed extreme horrific acts in the name of their goals, but said goals were extreme in and of themselves so it comes as no surprise that they'd sink to such lengths. Ghetsis's goals was petty world domination, motivated by power lust and a sense of entitlement - there's nothing suggesting he'd have to sink to the lengths he did in order to achieve that, yet he did anyway because he's an irredeemable scumbag who gets off on being extra cruel and bringing others down. This disconnect between motives and methods is what qualify Ghetsis.

Also, for as grandiose as Cyrus, Lysandre, and even the members of Cipher's plans were, they never resorted to ordering their Pokemon to directly attack an adolescent human being without any proper battle preceding it. Ghetsis did, showing that in his mind, there are no lines to not cross. That's why he's so dangerous.

I thought it's been covered that this trope is about more than a villain's ACTIONS on this wiki. Ghetsis might not have done the things Darkrai did, but at the very most he's portrayed as someone with the capacity to do the sort of things the Cipher Leaders or Purple Eyes did were he only to have their resources at his disposal. There's no way a man whose entire motivation is based on self gain and entitlement and who is also a serial torturer and exploiter would not jump at the chance to use that sort of power so long as he benefits. And he's one of the more shamelessly sadistic characters in the franchise too, meaning that the suffering of others would be more than just collateral damage to him, but an added benefit.

Cyrus attempted omnicide, but it was as means to the end of eventually recreating everything he'd destroyed, but devoid of spirit, which he believed would make them better. Lysandre attempted mass homicide, but it was for a cause he believed was justified and his weapon didn't seem like it reached too far beyond the Kalos region. Ghetsis was going to take over the entire world all because he was power hungry and entitled, and since only he and his followers would use Pokemon, they'd control the entire system of said world and use that as means of oppressing and enslaving everyone alive, who'd be legally prohibited from having Pokemon to defend themselves with. Basically, it would be a Dystopia where every day of living would be one of torture if you're not Ghetsis or one of his cronies. That end goal sounds like a Fate Worse Than Death to me.

And Cyrus didn't torture the Lake Pokemon in order to make them comply with acts of terrorism on others - he just wanted to extract their power and make the Red Chain, after which he allowed you to free them. The crimes are the same, but the motives and results differ, with Ghetsis coming out looking worse since he made Kyurem suffer specifically so it's power could then make others suffer.

Seriously, this sudden opposition to Ghetsis on the trope due to lack of "baseline heinous" actions came out of left field. I thought you were better than this. Would you also think Hunter J and Charon in DPA shouldn't count since they didn't do the more heinous things that Cyrus did? Unlike Ghetsis, they're actually featured in the same stories that feature Cyrus!

And who IS the other candidate you have in mind? Ardos? Cyrus? Lysandre?

...delete Ghetsis as a CM anywhere on this Wiki, especially without having consulted with me first. He got cut on TV Tropes, he got cut on Villain's Wiki, but I am NOT going to allow him to be cut from ATT - not when he hits off every criteria given by THIS WIKI'S definition of the trope. Please do remember that THIS. IS. NOT. TV TROPES. We do NOT need to define the trope by their standards, by a baseline heinousness of ACTIONS - that just makes it Moral Event Horizon in character form rather than an actual character trope. The page states clearly "This trope isn't just about what the character does, but about what the character is. Their monstrous characters are reflected in their heinous deeds, which is what puts them a cut above the regular villains. And whatever their position, a Complete Monster has to go the full mile and meet all criteria: they are the worst they can possibly be in their role, in the space and scale they occupy." That's why Ghetsis still counts.

Is Ghetsis heinous by both the standards of his installment's story and the franchise as a whole? I'd say yes. Is he ever truly presented in any positive way? No he's not. Is his terribleness played seriously in spite of the usual light tone? Yes. Do other characters show fear, hate, and revulsion of him? Yes they do. Does he have a good Freudian Excuse? He has none whatsoever. Is he devoid of positive features and altruistic qualities? Yes. Does he have no regret for his crimes? Yes. Is he redeemed or has the possibility of redemption? Both games suggest he's irredeemable. And are the results of his offscreen villainy clear? I'd say very much so. That's it: that's every single detail of THIS WIKI's criteria for passing the trope, and Ghetsis hits them all. He qualifies as a Complete Monster, period.

If we're to cut Ghetsis, then I'm going to cut The Joker and other criminal villains like him from the DC comics section because they share a universe with the likes of Darkseid, Brainiac, the Anti Monitor, Superboy Prime, Lord Aratsu, Trigon, Promethues, and several others who've committed more widespread heinous atrocities.

If you'll really take it that badly, then your husbando can stay up.

"Your husbando?" You even get what that even means? What's with the sudden rude and insulting attitude you've been displaying on this issue? I didn't treat you this badly when you argued about Zant, did I?

If I came off as hostile then I apologize, but the application of TV Tropes standards to ATT in an attempt to discredit a rather big example of a candidate who passed the criteria test for the trope as defined by ATT really kind of appalls me. I've been working to ensure that this trope avoids the problems it ran into at TV Tropes that led to it's decay into anal restrictiveness, and I thought you were too, which is why I guess I'm taken aback at your sudden change of attitude towards this issue.

Alright people, let's not get pissy over this.

Basically, the issue seems to be "is this guy an unreedamble asshole and is there no suggestion that could ever change or not?". If so, he stays in CM land. If not, we can place him in YMMV territory.

Also Noxious, no need to be snide, this isn't worth being rude to each other over, and Doc, I admire your passion on this, but relax, this isn't something to crusade over.

In fact, based on my reading of his actions, I'm strongly of the belief he should remain in CM land, so Noxious, I advise either gathering a consensus to challenge that or let the matter rest.

I don't mean to be pissy or overly passionate here: things like this just give me some anxiety issues and severe irritation, especially since it's one of the things I'd hoped to avoid here on ATT, which is the reason we have different criteria for who and what does pass for this trope.

The issue we're having is actually "does this guy belong on a trope along with villains who've done more heinous deeds, especially when some other villains who've done more heinous deeds did NOT pass the trope yet he did?" Why I think this issue is irrelevant is that the trope as defined by ATT is not merely about villains who've committed acts of large-scale widespread heinousness, or who meet a baseline of heinousness by objective standards. It's about villains who hit off the criteria given in the very definition. Ghetsis hits them off, therefore he's a keeper.

I could theoretically write up an entire effort post about why Ghetsis qualifies but don't think I should do that now. But Ghetsis' status wasn't in dispute until Noxious decided he wasn't so heinous all of a sudden. However, the majority of the fanbase still views him as a CM and he fills this wiki's requirement for being a CM on the main trope page. As for you, Geth, why do you hold the belief that he should remain? Definitely not disputing it since I feel the same way, but what about him do you find so heinous? (For me, it's because he's an entitled and power-hungry sociopath, an exploiter, a torturer, a terrorist, an aspiring dictator, an attempted murderer, and an abuser of children, creatures, and people in general, on top of that having no redeeming features.)

Well, you outlined most of the reasons I had, but for me, the clincher is: does he ever feel regret, did he ever have a chance to step back from the Moral Event Horizon, or does he attempt to show any ounce of decency?

The answer seems to be a resounding no, so I'd say this guy is as much a monster as you can be.

Also, I understand, I have a stress condition I take regular medication for, but trust me, don't get yourself worked up if you have an anxiety condition, the aftereffects suck.

I know. Cyrus got redeemed in two manga, and while Lysandre rejected the chance to step back from his evil path in the end, he showed he felt regret that he had to take measures that would eliminate innocent Pokemon. By contrast the closest expression of "regret" Ghetsis showed was a "look at what you've made me do!" to N, the victim of his child abuse, while blaming him for the current devastation in Unova that he himself was directly causing because, according to Ghetsis, it would have been prevented had N simply stayed his obedient pawn. He has no true remorse for how terrible he is and showcased this twice over.

Don't worry, I try not to, especially over matters relating to fiction.

The entry on The Scrappy about Cheren doesn't fit because 1: He's a Base Breaker like Bianca - he has as much fans as he does detractors who revile him. And 2: It sinkholes to Flat Character while mentioning his one-track minded desire, which implies he has nothing else going for his character and never grows past his issue, which is flat out misrepresenting the arc he actually goes through in the game. Please don't bring it back.

Hello, again. As the title says, do you watch Gravity Falls?

Nope. I suppose that you're proposing an example from there?

The story arc isn't over yet but I think we could have some potential candidates on our hands in the near-future. Since you haven't watched the show I'll run through the list of characters that could become Complete Monsters once we see the full extent of their villainy.

Bill Cipher - He's Laughably Evil, but unlike most examples this is only a facade he uses to enhance his villainy. So far he hasn't done anything that heinous but the end of the last episode implied that he's planning to rule over a apocalypse world, so i'm keeping my eyes on him.

Gideon Gleeful - He was the main antagonist of the series before he got arrested and sent to jail at the end of the first season. So far his villainy has been pretty standard [ie attempting to kill a protagonist], but he'll most likely bust out of prison after all there's still more to learn about him too.

Pacifica's Parents [in particular her father Preston Northwest since he stands out more due to having much more personality and speaking lines than the mother] - He has very little influence over the story but despite his limited screen-time he has been considered to be one of the darkest antagonists on the show. He is a wealthy man who has been abusing his daughter to the point of having her back down from him at the sound of a bell, and was willing to let a ghost rampage through his mansion just so common people wouldn't get in it. Again there's still more ground to be covered with him.

Your thoughts so far?

Bill: Definitely keep an eye on him. He sounds like he could certainly count depending on what happens next.

Gideon: I could be wrong, but as of now he seems more like an arrogant asshole rather than a truly vile person. I don't think he should really be observed even if he does make a reappearance.

Preston: I'm leaning towards a yes with him. He sounds as bad as he can be given his position as a normal rich civilian, and was willing to throw away a bunch of innocent people's lives out of pride and spitefulness, and his treatment towards his daughter doesn't win him any points either. I do have a question, though. Is he shown to love his wife at all? What exactly is their relationship like?

Preston: Not sure if he loves his wife. That's why I said there is still more ground to be covered, but so far he seems to "care" about her to persevere his family's name rather than legitimate love.

Bill is the only one who I'd say has the potential to qualify, but that depends on if he ultimately proves to have moral agency and what his apocalypse is like/how it's played by the narrative.

Gideon is a no thus far since he's as of now both a standard jerkass and just a kid, plus his inmates in prison seem to like him AND there's a possibility he might ultimately make a Heel Face Turn since he's one of the ten symbols in Bill's wheel.

Preston, I actually learn towards no at the moment since he's one of those characters where his despicable nature is played seriously at one moment, but COMPLETELY Played For Laughs the next (Like suggesting they'd eat the butler, for example - pure black comedy.)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Doc. I assume your familiar with the Gravity Falls series, no?

I am and I've been loving it. I'm surprised I lean against qualifying Preston since I really loathe him, but I can't be unbiased here.

My favourite episode is the one with the supermarket where the teenagers hang out, whatever that was called. Also, Gravity Falls, Oregon exists in real life: it's called Boring.

Apologies for deleting his entry before taking it up with you, but...the more I compare and contrast the examples on that page, the more Redd seems to fall short of the heinous standard. In a series where thoroughly irredeemable villains who commit particularly gruesome deeds top the heinous bar, Redd is about as small potatoes as it gets. He only really murdered one person, right? Not saying a CM needs a body count all the time, but with his crimes, I think ruining people without empathy or care as to how it effects them isn't even on the level of ruining people and designing how it all will go with the effects it has on people (like suicide) being an intended result. Redd sort of strikes me as being like Book 2 Varrick if Varrick were more loathsome and actually killed someone. Morally repugnant, but not truly heinous by the standards that the work has set.

Whatever. It's not worth getting all autistic about something as trivial as this anyway.

"All autistic?" What do you mean to suggest or imply by that, exactly?

I get too focused on stupid shit that most people really don't care about, that's what I mean. Like this kind of stuff, for example.

Calling it "all autistic" isn't right, though. I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I find that phrasing to be almost offensive.

Then I'm genuinely sorry about using it like that.

It's OK. Autistic or not, we're all capable of thinking rationally and seeing things through, right? ^^

Yeah, we definitely are. And once again, I'm really, really sorry.

I forgive you. As long as we keep up with our lives and our good work, both together here and apart, we're fine. :)

The title says it all. Quite frankly I just can't be bothered with this site anymore.

That's regrettable, but I understand. You're always welcome back if you like, and you made a lot of good posts while you were here.

Good luck with your other endeavors. ;)

I hate to say it, but I pussied out and came back. I was just in a bad spot mentally, but I realized that leaving sites that gave me something to do was not the answer, so boom. I'm here to stay I guess. I'm sorry for bothering you and coming off as a typical creepy loser troper or whatever.

Dude, you're cool, really. :)

I've had days where I take one look at the wiki I founded and I barely want to get near the place because I'm feeling emo and all, so I just take a sabbatical until I feel better.

It's called needing to take a WikiBreak, happens to all of us, and I'd rather you do what you gotta do than suffer total burnout.

That in mind, just remember than if you have to say to yourself, "screw it, I'm out", no one, me especially, is going to give you any grief over it.

If anything, we just wish you the best, and if you come back, like you just have, all we want to do is give you a WikiHug and hope you have some more fun.

So, I repeat, you're fine, and I hope you feel better now. ^_^

I don't feel better in the slightest, but thanks for the kind words anyway. You're a damn good administrator, the anti-Fast Eddie if you will.

Welcome back, NS. You're in good company -- just like Geth there are times when I want to walk away from troping in its entirety, and I named this damned site. Your presence is welcome; your departure would be regretted. Either way we respect and understand your choice, as we've faced the same thing ourselves.

Please don't ever leave? :(

Alright if majority rules I will keep him up there. I personally disagree with him and the Evil Queen being up there but if it a consensus decision I respect that sorry for trolling the page.

It's alright.

Thanks any opinions on the Evil Queen (Snow White) she is played upon fairly seriously, and has no redeeming qualities to speak of although she crossed the MEH only once, the question is she heinous enough to qualify?

I'd say so. I mean, not only was she willing to have a 14 year old girl murdered and have her heart presented to her for the crime of being more beautiful than her, but when she slipped her the poison apple, this time she was wanting the Dwarves to bury her alive! Sure, her actions may be small when compared to other Disney villains, but the sheer brutality and selfishness of what the queen does definitely puts her in this trope.

Hey, can I talk to you?

Sure! What's on your mind?

Complete Monster. I don't know if you watch Total Drama but I made example for Scarlett on here, and i want to know your opinion.

Here's the write-up I made:

Scarlett from Total Drama. It was revealed that before the series had even started that she had been traumatizing her brother by making his own toys attack him for years on end simply for pulling her hair once. She then shows her complete disregard for human life when she takes control over the island and demands Chris to hand her the reward money. When he refuses to give into this extortion attempt, she attempts to blow the island up. And this is after her earlier attempt on all the contestants lives when she locked them in a room and sent killer robots after them. The kicker is that in her audition tape, she has a globe with knives embedded into it, implying what she's planning against the entire world.

She also has no redeeming qualities nor does she show remorse for her actions. So does she sound like a Complete Monster to you?

I have never watched an episode of Total Drama in general, so I decided to look her up, and she does strike me as incredibly evil, if cartoonishly so. I don't know who all she'd compete with when it comes to heinousness, but attempting mass-murder twice and going as far as traumatizing her brother over a petty reason sound pretty bad. Given that she comes off as incredibly selfish, petty, greedy, and especially homicidal, I don't see why she isn't a Complete Monster.

The traumatizing her brother part was off-screen but I thought the implications were there enough for it to still count. She doesn't have really much of any competition since the standards of the show are kind of low due to it being it being a reality show competition with the antagonists mostly being manipulative jerks.