User blog:AustinDR/Heinous standard

'''NOTE: Another irrelevant blog post, but I felt like sharing it, since I tend to be on TV Tropes a lot.

OK, so a few people have called me the "Complete Monster" expert for quite some time. While I appreciate that title, I am by no means an expert on the trope/ not the end all be all. I have acquired most of my knowledge of the trope from working on the Subpages Cleanup forum for Complete Monster, as well as from LucidPigeons. He especially came in handy with my understanding of the trope. Now, before we get into this, I will say that while there are some arguments here and there about what qualifies a villain as a complete monster, here's two things I have to say: yes, the trope is subjective, but not because the criteria is skewered. It is a legitimate trope with objective criteria. What makes the trope subjective is simply some hold one thing as heinous than another. For example, some claim rape is worse than murder, while I personally find murder worse because it's permanent. So, no, there is nothing wrong with the category. Some just feel that one thing is more heinous, and that's fine. It doesn't mean that they automatically count as CMs, but it just goes to show that we are all different. If anything, we have to look at how the work itself treats the heinous acts. Speaking of which:

The Heinous Standard
Now, what is the heinous standard? It is a two part process. In other words, one must commit acts heinous by the standards of the work, as well as being heinous enough. Here's the thing: every villain contributes to it, whether they be a low rate thug, or a crime boss. The heroes are also not exempt from contributing from it either. This is often what makes it hard for things like Grand Theft Auto to have any contenders, because the player character is not good. So in short, every character contributes to the heinous standard, but in order for a villain to surpass it, they have to commit acts evil by the standards of the work, as well as being heinous enough. Now, let's go to the two factors of the heinous standard:

Baseline heinousness
Yes, this is the breaking point where we separate normal villains from the complete monsters. Going into a work, what do we expect for a villain to do? Villains kill people, try to kill heroes, try to take over the world. In a fantasy setting, we expect an evil overlord to kill people with magic, destroy villages, etc. This is what makes it especially difficult for a villain from a children's show or film to count, because we expect them to do standard villainous acts. Take Disney's Frollo. He qualifies because he was a genocidal maniac who was willing to burn Paris to the ground, just to make this one Gypsy girl his. Other Disney Villains like Gaston, Jafar, and Ursula don't count because their actions amount to standard villainy. In a crime series, we can expect a few murders and whatnot, but there are a few times wherein a villain runs a human slavery ring. Things like that are above the baseline. One example of this on my end was when I proposed three characters from Criminal Case. It is a detective-themed Flash game where you catch murderers, serial killers, beat crime organizations, etc. So far, the only three that I had personally suggested on the cleanup forum were Ayush Patil, Albert Tesla, and Omar Bahir. Each villains' deeds go beyond the baseline. Ayush released a lethal virus onto Bangalore, India, which ended up killing hundreds of people simply because he felt that overpopulation was a problem (I'm talking about global genocide here), Tesla tries to destroy an entire region and assimilate the survivors because he felt that the region failed to reach his design, and Bahir attempted to start a massive war in order to make the Sahara Region into a new cell for an international crime organization. So in summary, baseline simply means separating normal villains from the pure evil ones. When looking at a potential candidate, ask yourself: "does this villain stand out as particularly heinous than the other villains?"

Relative heinousness
Now....relative heinousness. This is the ultimate deciding factor. Simply put it's what's heinous by the standards of the work? Take Tales from the Crypt. Murder is commonplace within the series, that it makes it pretty hard for someone to pass the baseline if they killed 2 or 3 people. The only one that qualified was a serial killer of elderly widows with a body count of 7. That should help him pass the baseline. But there are some works that have especially high heinous standards. For instance, Dragon Ball. Destroying planets is bad, but it happens all the time in the series, so much so that it's not enough to place a villain on the Complete Monster list. Or there's Ben 10: Vilgax had destroyed five planets, and attempted to obliterate all dimensions. Maltraunt started the Time War to rewrite reality in his image, Aggregor nearly destroyed an entire planet in addition to his multiple killings and his attempt to murder a baby. That's not even getting into what the High Breed does. In short, this makes it hard for Ghostfreak to count. True, mutating an entire planet is bad, but several other villains had threatened to destroy a planet, already had, tried to either destroy or recreate reality, etc. In several of these works, the villain has to be pretty evil to stand out. Of course, this is also where the resources test comes in. Basically, if you find a candidate, ask yourself "is this villain as bad as they can be with their resources?" This doesn't automatically place them on the trope if their resources only amount to them committing atrocities that are commonplace. In a series that is a long-runner, it can become especially difficult for a villain to qualify if another villain blows the heinous standard out of the water.