In case you miss this on the blog post I wanted to ask what rule are you talking about that isn't on the Villains Wiki? because we have rules against antagonist fussing and there are minimum standards for Pure Evil proposal, I am just a bit confused about what you mean.
I was talking about all of the rules that have been announced here in the Heroes Wiki, and I really want them posted in the Villains Wiki now. Examples of those rules include how the PG proposals should be structured, as well as removing terms that have to do with "protagonist" or "antagonist". RRabbit42 made a really good argument concerning protagonist fussing.
I agree with the rule, and as far as I know, this isn't restricted to characters with tons of fussing. It happened with Queen Elsa's article, and I think that was justifiable considering it can happen with any article in this wiki. After I do get permission from a Villains Wiki admin, I'll be proposing it there.
Is still really hate this rule I don't think it's fair to get rid of the antagonist label completely just because a few articles have issues with it. It still servers a very important role and the words a character appeared in X doesn't tell us how important the role of the character is as it can mean anything from appeared for 40 minutes and is the biggest focus to only appeared for 5 seconds in a cameo with no lines.
I made a removal proposal for Vic Hoskins on the Great Villains Wiki. I noticed you have contributed there on a few occasions. If you don’t want of other editors that is perfectly okay but if it isn’t okay with you could you vote to remove him please? If not that is fine and you can enjoy the rest of your day.
I wanted to ask you a friendyl question. What is your thought on Dr. Facilier being pure evil? I loved your removal proposal for King Runeard. What's your thoughts on Facilier? If you ask me he doesn't count because he respected Tiana for dreaming big and offered her the resturant she wanted, he was not going to betray Lawrence and didn't force him into villainy and only offered the "wayward" souls of New Orleans and he only did so to survive. He also is tragic and a scapegoat he spent years of his life as a poor person and is death seemed to be sympathiec as even Tiana felt sorry for him and he suffered far worse than anyone else as he never killed anyone. Even with Ray he united him with Evangeline.
Just to be fair, your removal proposal for Dr. Facilier was deleted because of false information making him appear as being far less evil than he truly was; hence, why you were removed from the Pure Evil Permissions. Now, I fully believe that Facilier is Pure Evil. Even if he did offer Tiana the restaurant, that was only out of manipulation, and there was no indication that he was going to keep his end of the bargain with Lawrence. Offering all the souls of New Orleans to the Friends on the Other Side would also include people like him who were poor and degraded, but he still didn't care. If he wasn't practicing voodoo in the first place, he wouldn't have had to offer souls to them to survive. Tiana felt sorry for his death, but it ultimately comes off as karma because he did attempt to feed all of New Orleans's souls to his Friends. Oh, and Facilier actually did kill someone: the firefly named Ray. Even if he united him with Evangeline, he still killed him afterwards without any remorse, knowing fully that Ray was a sapient being. That takes away any sympathy the audience is supposed to have for him.
Actually he was going to keep his end of the bargin just take the slightl larger amount but he was not going to betray Lawrence. Also the directors made it clear he was not lying and ws going to give Tiana the resturant in the audio commentary. Also he stated the "wayward" souls not al the souls. Nothing suggested he knew Ray was sapient.
"Wayward" is a word meaning "difficult to control or predict because of unusual or perverse behavior". It was difficult for Facilier to predict how many souls would be devoured, but he clearly didn't care how many there were or what type or nationality they were. To that extent, he was willing to feed all of them to his Friends on the Other Side. And nothing indicates that Facilier didn't know Ray was sapient, either. If he didn't know that Ray was sapient, he wouldn't have been able to understand Tiana after he turned her into a frog. She did destroy the tailsman. Facilier gasped before she smashed it, and when seeing the remains, complained about how he was "going to pay his debt".
Also, I'm going to repeat myself about what I said earlier in case you didn't understand me: "Even if he did offer Tiana the restaurant, that was only out of manipulation, and there was no indication that he was going to keep his end of the bargain with Lawrence." Though he was willing to give Tiana the restaurant, that isn't redeeming and was only to manipulate her. Take a look at Scar from the 2019 remake of The Lion King, who kept his promise to give the hyenas unlimited food, but it was only to manipulate them, and even revealed to Simba that he was going to kill them all. Being a Pure Evil villain isn't just about what a character does, but what a character is.
Thanks for your response but one thing though. Facilier understood Tiana because she was human before turning into a frog. Tiana and Naveen were the only animals humans were explicitly shown to understand. Also wouldn't that action of taking the souls be held upon his friends? Yeah it's a moral event horizon but Facilier was not going to play any part in it as he stated, "YOU'LL have all the wayward souls.". That brings individual capability problems.
Facilier was going to give all the wayward souls to the Friends on the Other Side, which, in itself, is heinous enough for the type of movie he's from. He would still be responsible for all those deaths simply because of giving the souls to them, which, if he did, would go under the crime of "accessory to mass murder". Even when suggesting that he didn't know Ray was sapient, the fact that he was going to give those wayward souls to his Friends so they could feed on them still easily makes him heinous enough.
Oh. But how he would he give the souls? That is what has me skeptical. He can't physically overpower or kidnap anybody and definetly not that many people. He also is clearly not trusted shown by Tiana's annoyence that Naveen trutsed him. I always assumed he was going to simply let his "Friends" take whoever they wanted but he would sit back and relax.
DO you think the Indominus-rex is pure evil? I do as she was killing for sport and had a sibling but she ate it so she isn't tragic or amoral. She has the highest body count of any villain in the franchise and is worse than the Indoraptor.
No; murdering her sibling was entirely Offstage Villainy. The carcass in her paddock was what the crane gave to her. Technically, it would've been the worst crime she ever committed, but we never see it and it doesn't leave any impact in the story.
It's true she crossed the Moral Event Horizon and it's likely she has moral agency, but like I said, killing her sibling would've been her worst crime. That would've been even worse than her killing those herbivores, because killing her sibling would've been her most personal crime. However, there's no true indication that she did that at all. Ratigan was disqualified because him "drowning the orphans" would've been his worst crime, but it was still Offstage Villainy because we never see it happening and it doesn't leave an impact on the story.
Yes; the Indoraptor can be sympathied with because he truly was a tragic figure, being tortured and abused by Eli Mills and his goons just so he could be auctioned and Mills would get rich out of it. Also, the Indoraptor didn't deserve the gruesome death he got, as Blue could've at least showed him what he was doing was wrong via raptor communications and lived a happy life with him together instead of being alone.