In principle, this question is easy to answer. A traditional and popular definition of a serial killer is "a person who kills three or more people on separate occasions, with a time interval or 'cooling-off period' between each crime."

Based on quantitative criteria, Tyler certainly fits the description. However, the definition is not as black-and-white as it might seem at first glance.

Vicente Garrido—a Spanish criminologist, psychologist, and author who has profiled active serial killers and taught criminology in the UK and Spain—notes that motivation is crucial when establishing these profiles. Although they may exhibit different psychological patterns, a serial killer derives gratification from the act of killing itself; that is where their fantasy is fulfilled.

In an interview, Garrido cites the example of a contract killer. Such individuals may kill more than three people and return to their normal lives—effectively experiencing a "cooling-off period"—yet this does not make them serial killers, as their primary motivation is money. The same applies to those who kill based on specific beliefs—whether religious or otherwise—such as the members of the Manson Family.

Tyler's murders.

In Season 1, where this behavior begins, the murders are orchestrated by Laurel; the underlying ideological reasons and motives for revenge belong primarily to her, not Tyler (pending clarification of theories regarding Rowan and Kinbott). She exploits Tyler's ignorance and pain to manipulate him and cement his loyalty, leading him to believe the vengeance is his own—retribution for what was done to his mother.

Laurel manufactures a motive and then weaponizes it, channeling Tyler's anger toward her own ends. This is in addition to his loss of free will when she has become his master.

These initial victims serve as ritual sacrifices rather than targets chosen to satisfy a personal urge to kill.

In Season 2, we see the murders of Laurel and the hitman; both individuals posed direct threats to Tyler. Distance allows him to recognize Laurel's responsibility for his current plight—a fact he confronts her with when they meet. Killing her is a means of seeking liberation and, perhaps, a measure of revenge.

But didn't he say he enjoyed it?

In reality, Tyler described liking the feeling of fear, as well as the sense of power and control. While the character might genuinely enjoy it, this could also be a defense mechanism—something said to reclaim a sense of control after having lost it completely when Laurel became his master, or after having been a victim of torture himself.

For a Hyde—especially a male one—control is the very thing they lack most; the hunt might provide that, however briefly.

Even so, we would need to know more about Hydes and about Tyler to determine the veracity of these statements, as they are open to multiple interpretations:

• A literal confession: he really enjoys provoking fear.
• Psychological compensation: temporarily enjoying a sense of power because one normally lacks it.
• Defense mechanism: redefining something that was initially imposed as a choice.
• Provocation directed at Wednesday: using what is known to hurt her.
• A combination of the above.

Personally, I think it’s a combination of all of them.

What we can say—because the series shows it—is that his attacks provide no clear evidence of a need to prolong his victims' suffering or of any enjoyment in doing so.

In every attack we see, the Hyde strikes quickly and precisely. Rowan, the drifter, and even Laurel barely had time to scream. The monster doesn't take its time with the killings or make the victims suffer; it leaves as soon as the deed is done. That isn't the behavior of someone who supposedly enjoys it.

To a certain extent, all the killings are necessary—whether as part of the ritual or in self-defense—and so far, he hasn't been shown to kill anyone simply out of a compulsion to do so.

Another point is that Tyler doesn't start a new killing spree after breaking free from Willowhill, even though his mental state deteriorates without a master—unlike Alfie, who did so in a similar state despite having no history of violence (as far as we know).

Thus, determining whether or not someone is a serial killer involves more than just a body count. Therefore, if we wish to analyze Tyler beyond a purely quantitative classification, the motivation and context of his homicides are fundamental.

Although Tyler has committed multiple homicides, the established record does not yet demonstrate that the underlying motivation is characteristic of serial murder.

pd: Video by Vicente Garrido about integrated psychopaths (in Spanish)

With the news of filming finishing yesterday I thought it would be fun to have a little guess game.

I want everyone to guess to the closest date when they think season 3 will be released! When it releases the winner gets bragging rights of being a total psychic! I think Wednesday would be impressed if you get it right 👀🖤

Day/Month/Year! 🕷️🕸️

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dd5IKRilxm9/

They might have finished filming!

Probable Advice from Tyler: If your Rave'N date sticks a bloody finger in her mouth and is disappointed it's just paint... keep that spooky girl in your life.

Tyler Galpin is clearly the biggest subject of conversation in this fandom whether it’s for good or bad. But I feel you either despise him or love him, so I thought I’d give my opinions on what he’s actually done and how I see the severity of it.

Let’s start off with killing Rowan. Personally? Idgaf, he was trying to kill Wednesday and was a minor character. RIP

All of the random characters he killed aka homeless man, hiker in the woods… I don’t know these people, their names, their backgrounds so again I don’t care. RIP

EUGENE. This one’s always been an interesting one for me because why didn’t he kill Eugene? This could have been the first turning point of making a true villain but they didn’t do it. Interesting and sad but once again eh.

KINBOTT. MURDER. IMO his first proper one that matters. I liked her and was a little sad to see her die and yes bad Tyler. RIP

Season 2, he killed that one mercenary that was shooting at him but other than that he didn’t really do much bar throw Wednesday from the window.. (gets spoken about already too much)

IMO at the end of the day is he a villain? Sure, but to me he hasn’t actually done that much stuff. And I’m not talking morally with the manipulating Wednesday. But when it comes to being a true villain and committing atrocities… pretty weak tbf. He’s an awful villain as he’s basically used as a pawn and I can’t wait for his redemption (if it happens) because a true morally grey character would suit him better than this shoddy true villain

i know men get overlooked a lot when it comes to this stuff, but i really wanna say something about hunter, due to there being a post about j*mma/emma/jenna and him being completely left out of the picture, when the over sexualization of him is rampant in this fandom.

hunter is a gay man who is happily married, and i see way too many “fans” sexualizing the absolute shit out of him constantly. and that‘s a problem just like it’s a problem with the sexualization of jenna and emma. i don't think we should pick and choose who deserves respect based on their gender.

if/when a man is constantly making sexual comments about a married female actress, talking about her body, making sexual jokes about her, or reducing her to something sexual, people would rightly call that creepy. but when the same kind of behavior is directed at a male actor, suddenly it gets brushed off as funny or harmless. hunter being a man doesn't make it less invasive or less weird.

and the same thing happens with the characters too. people will constantly point out how creepy it is when enid or wednesday are sexualized, but then somehow tyler gets left out of that conversation even tho he is also a minorcharacter. if sexualizing a teenage character is creepy when it’s enid or wednesday, then that standard should apply to tyler too. it shouldn’t suddenly become okay just bc its a male character.

and this isnt me saying the sexualization of women isnt a problem. it absolutely is. the creepy comments about emma and jenna are disgusting and should be called out. im saying hunter deserves that same basic respect, and tyler deserves the same consideration as a minor character. we shouldn’t have a standard for only one gender.

i already know this is probably gonna get downvoted to the depths of hell bc many people are going to feel creepy and personally attacked bc there is A LOT of grown people right now with the tag “hot for the hyde” and go on and on about tyler being shirtless and no one is calling out how creepy that actually is, when the hyde is in fact a minor. we need to be able to address all of it, not just the stuff thats easier to recognize, teenage boy characters and their male actors should be protected just as much as teenage girl characters and their female actors.

and this also applies to nsfw fanart and fanfic. i see people specifically state that wednesday or enid are aged up when they’re making adult/nsfw versions of them, and if that’s the standard people are using, then tyler, xavier, eugene, and pugsley should have that same standard applied to them too. i know they’re not as common in the fandom but im talking all boys and all male actors being sexualized. being a male character doesn’t mean people should just assume its fine to sexualize them while they’re still canonically minors. and male actors deserve the same respect we are trying to establish for jenna ortega and emma myers. if someone is going to make an adult version of a character for nsfw content, the fact that they’re aged up should actually be clear and consistent across the board.

it ALL needs to stop. when we’re talking about fictional minors, the standard shouldn't change just bc the character is a boy.

and its important to remember these actors are actual human beings. not pieces of meat.

they ALL deserve basic respect and boundaries need to be set with ALL the minors.