owlmoose | Sort-of serious Final Fantasy poll

I admit that I almost wanted to say Yunalesca for FFX; for reasons, check out the Patricide essay I have on my Jecht shrine.

For me FF7 is really kinda a gray mashy of bad guys and Sephiroth only wins because -- well, he's just THE MAN of FFVII. Cloud pales in comparison.

I barely remember FFIX other than the plot kinda lost me in the 2nd life, LOL. And I haven't finished FFXII, so I didn't vote.

And if this makes any sense I'll be amazed because I'm tired as hell. :)

I've read that essay and I think it raises a lot of fascinating points. But I still think it all comes back to Yu Yevon, because Yunalesca was perpetuating the cycle he created. She's important, but he's the primary antagonist in the end, I think.

Depends on your definition of "real".

I think that's part of what you're asking; for each person to define that in their answer, but you can't get an answer without the terms in the question being defined.

Also, who is to say there isn't more than one "real" villain in each game? Yevon, Seymour and Sin were all real villains in the sense that they all were the party's antagonists and presented conflicts in the story. Same with VII.

Except I think that's getting a little more in-depth than intended. ;)

I mean, perhaps the word choice/emphasis wasn't the best, but overall I don't think that's quite what

owlmoose was trying to ask, for people to make a complicated decision based on the definition of "real." Mainly because I don't believe when she used the word she was saying that the other villains weren't "real" in the way you're suggesting, just not the true source of antagonism to the characters. Here, real means which of the characters are the true source of the forces that cause the heroes and the villain to clash.

Given her explanation of the poll, I'm not sure assuming that she's asking a philosophical question based on the definition of the word "real" is the point, especially give them options. XD

I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand the question better. I blame my philosophy courses.

You're just saying what I already said though. I think. I don't know what you think I meant by "real" but basically what you said, the true antagonist was what I was talking about.

I was saying that there can be different sources of antagonism at different points. No one's going to argue that Ultimecia is not the major driving force behind the story of FFVIII, like she said. But, for example, in X, arguments can be made that different people are the cause of the antagonism. For example, some people could argue that Seymour is the real villain since he's who your party battles against the most in-game, but others could say that's impossible because Sin is what caused his actions so Sin is the true villain, and even further people could say that without Yu Yevon, Sin wouldn't exist, so he's the real villain.

And at different points of the game, the true antagonist can change for that specific point. Like in VII, at first the true antagonist is Shinra as a whole. There can be multiple antagonists, because it could be argued that Jenova and/or Sephiroth is the villain, but a lot of time in the game, Shinra is the party's main roadblock.

I think what I'm saying is that different people are going to define the real villain in each game differently without criteria for what we're talking about. That's all.

Yeah, I'm just gonna go back into my dark little corner now because it seems everyone else isn't having my problems with overthinking...

No, I think you raise a fair point. Actually, part of what I'm trying to get at with this poll *is* a definition for what criteria people use to determain who the main/primary/real villain is in a game. If I'd given a strict definition for what I meant by "real villain", I don't think there'd be much to discuss. ;)

I also agree that there definitely can be more than on villain, but even the more complex FF games are simplistic enough in the end that I think you can probably narrow it down to one.

I think the real villain of any game is the one who makes the first move in the story. Take FFX for example, Sin wouldn't exist and Seymour would not have been so screwed up in the head if it wasn't for Yu Yevon who created Sin and Seymour's mother (the cause of his insanity) would not have sacrificed herself to become an aeon.

In the case of FFVII i was not sure who to choose, Jenova or Hojo, i guess Jenova since if Jenvoa had not come to the planet none of the shit would have hit the fan in the game.

I said Garland because, he created Kuja, kuja cannot be the real villain because if it wasn't for Garland he would never have even existed.

FFXII was a difficult one to decide, i felt it was Venat. Vayne wouldn't have been in the possition to launch an attack on Dalmasca and Rozzaria and become the powerful entity he did if it wasn't for the nethicite research that Dr. Cid performed, however Dr. Cid wouldn't have started if it wasn't for his meeting Venat who started him up and pointed him in the right direction.

This is a good definition and I generally agree. But one question this raises is one of intent. I voted for Jenova in FFVII, but do we know that she came to the planet with the intent to destroy it? If Hojo's creations began wreaking destruction far beyond what he had intended, is he responsible for that?

Yes, i wasn't sure who to choose from FFVII, it was between Jenova and Hojo. Ultimatly we don't know why jenova came to the planet. If Jevoa did come to the planet with the intention of destroying it then i think we can both agree she/it is the real villain, however if she/it came merely by accident/coincidence then perhaps Hojo is the real villain.
I think Hojo is equally culpable regardless of whether his creations became more destructive than he planned or not, he was a scientist and every scientist knows that the very nature of their jobs comes with risks. He knowingly experimented with human beings to create super soldiers or whatever it was he was doing, i have not actually played FFVII but i have done my research. Still, he knew what he was doing and that it might not go according to plan, but he still did it anyway.
Let's not forget that he also had something of a g-d complex so when Sephiroth went nuts and was more powerful than he had originally intended, would someone with that sort of mind really honestly care? If i was Hojo and something i had created had more power than i had projected, i'd be patting myself on the back.

But in XII, you can go one step back to the Occuria. If there was no Occuria, or if they didn't do what they did, there would be no Venat.

I seriously considered putting down the Occuria as an option, but I decided against it because I wanted to limit it to single individuals, not entire groups of people. Same reason I didn't include ShinRa or the Yevonite clergy.

So part of me agrees with you, but then again, you can always take a step back and find another instigator. Yu Yevon would never have created Sin if Bevelle hadn't attacked Zanarkand, for example, so are the leaders of Bevelle the "real" villains of FFX? Or, again, do you need some level of intent? (I know it's not a direct comparison, since the Occuria were more involved in the events of FFXII, but it was Venat who chose to act directly through Vayne and Dr. Cid, which I think makes him more culpable than the others.)

Good point.

I based my answers off of a purely simplistic definition: if I felt the characters were motivated for the lust for personal power solely to benefit themselves, as opposed to following an ideal or seeking answers.

Under that reasoning, I felt that Hojo was in it more for his own glory of discovery than purely for the advancements of 'science overall,' that Garland's conscious manipulations were slightly more calculating than Kuja's understandable desire for life (it's been a while since I played the game, so my impressions are blurry), that Yu Yevon and Seymour both followed their own opinions of salvation for their people/the world (and Sin was only a tool) so none of them were really the villain to me, and I totally misread the options of FFXII so I somehow neglected Vayne, or else I would have picked him.

So oddly, my opinions of the villains in Final Fantasy really revolve around 'placing one's self above one's chosen group,' where group can either mean actual physical people, or a general ideal that's bigger than just a single individual. I'm so stereotypical!

I'm so stereotypical!

But still valid :-)

To another degree, it's like this: I approach the games expecting to see different factions, different ideals, different perspectives, so standard definitions become very much discarded for me. Instead, the characters end up becoming judged by my personal standards of 'evil.' And for me, 'evil' is simply focusing more on personal selfish advancement than keeping in mind the larger whole you may be connected to.

But even that definition is generated by a rather practical survival instinct that's demonstrated each day, rather than higher esoteric ideals.

Ultimately, ambition that neglects to think outside its own goals is what I consider destructive to the larger entity, and thereby 'bad'. I just skip straight over any larger questions of cause-and-effect. There are so many factors going on, so many issues and motivations and debateable influences for who might be considered at fault, that I just cut right to the question of, 'who's forgetting the world doesn't exist solely for them?'

Simplistic but reasonable. But would you say that "I had to destroy the village in order to save it" is a valid defense for one's actions? (I'm mainly thinking of Seymour and Yu Yevon here, although the Occuria might also fit in this bucket.) I tend to say no, but it's an interesting question.

But would you say that "I had to destroy the village in order to save it" is a valid defense for one's actions?
See, I don't even get into those questions. ;) If you make the choice based on your ideals, and in following your ideals, then what else can you do sometimes? Even if it might not be 'the right' thing to do, there are so many standards existing in the world about what's right that you can't ever find one single thing that isn't considered wrong by somebody out there.

I consider Seymour and Yu Yevon's choice to destroy things in order to save them to be less villainous, because they wholeheartedly believed in their cause and felt that it was truly saving or protecting their people somehow. I guess, for me, it's somewhat basic. You could interpret my line to say that anyone is 'forgiven' as long as they believed in what they do, but that's not really what I'm trying to imply either; it's all about survival, I guess.

Let's take the more radical religious groups out there. Many of them most sincerely believe in what they're doing. They believe they're 'saving' the world, 'saving' other people, etc. And, I definately don't agree with them, and dislike having to fight against the ones I come into contact with on a regular basis. That's because what they do poses a threat towards the rights of my chosen 'tribe' -- the pack, my friends, my acquaintences.

Do I hate them, feel threatened by them, would beat the crap out of many in a dark alleyway if I had the option? Sure. Are they villains? No.

Why? They're doing what they believe in, enrolling themselves in a cause greater than their own personal power gains, or an ideal they feel is something they want to protect. I'm only doing the same, from my standpoint. Sure, we don't agree -- but I acknowledge that they may have their reasons to support their side, just as I have mine. I want to protect 'my tribe', to ensure their survival against what might be opposing them. They want to protect theirs.

Of course, that's just my very basic survival-oriented mindset. Malik likes to say to these kinds of questions, 'Ask the village what it wants,' and I consider that to be no help in such situations. ;)

This is sounding a lot like moral relativism. Which I am not opposed to, especially not in theory -- I think you're right that a lot depends on context, and you can't always truly understand another person's context. But I personally start drawing lines of right vs. wrong and good vs. evil when you get into contexts where lots of people die. So I feel comfortable saying that someone like Seymour or Yu Yevon is a villain, even if they did truly believe in the rightness of their respective causes. Humanism trumping relativism, if you want to get all philosophy-class about it. ;)

Yeah, I have no problems with taking other stances on them; my viewpoints are strictly based around practical survival, which is also why I tend to be very grey-scale on the subject. If I had strong absolute perspectives about 'good' and 'evil,' I would be engaged in so many arguments with other members of the pack, I'd never get anything done.

I'm probably also jaded on the subject of death. That might tend to happen when your existance isn't recognized as a valid entity, though. ;)

I will say this: they are all villains, in some sense. That is, all the characters listed here are antagonists, and cause great grief/harm to the rest of the world. However, being the marshmallow that I am, I have the annoying habit of supporting everyone's point of view at the same time. I can see that every villain here has a motive, and although these motives are not necessarily "noble" by any means, a lot of them were influenced by circumstances beyond their control.

Sephiroth, for instance, seemed to be an Ok guy at some point. It wasn't until after the Nibleheim incident that he went bonkers and tried to kill everything. True, Garland was manipulative and cruel, but in the end, wasn't Kuja as well? As for Vayne...well, I haven't quite figured him out yet. But most people see that Venat was the one manipulate both Vayne and Cid. On the other hand, Venat was rebelling against the other Occuria, who IMO weren't very nice to begin with. Were they not just as manipluative and power-hungry? I mean, trying to control all of human history is pretty unfair for everyone else, dont you think?

So, in the end, I find it hard to partake in this poll, as every person here is a villain, for one reason or another. And where the manipulation ends and the true villain-ism starts is sometimes difficult to distinguish.

I decided that Hojo was the true villain of FFVII, because although Jenova started this whole mess, Hojo and Sephiroth merely used her/its cells to cause destruction. Yu Yevon, I think, was the driving force in FFX, even though he created Sin to "save his beloved Zanarkand," he still kept the destruction gong for 1000 years.
As for FFXII...I'm still stuck on this one. XD

But none of this really even makes sense to me, and I'll probably change my mind by morning. IMO, everyone here has a very good point, so WE'RE ALL RIGHT......Right? Maybe?

Everyone I listed in this poll is certainly an antagonist. I actually don't think any of these are easy choices, which is what makes this an interesting exercise. :) That's why I put that "once and for all" in quotes -- most of these, you aren't going to find any one "correct" or "true" answer. It depends on perspective, a lot.

FFVII: Hojo all the way. JENOVA was basically neutralized by the Cetra before Gast and Hojo’s digging it up and mucking around. Sephiroth can be seen as a consequence of Hojo and JENOVA, and JENOVA itself seems amoral in this equation, kind of like a parasite.

FFIX: never played!

FFX: I’m going with Yu Yevon for kickstarting the whole shebang and anybody in general who helped perpetuate the Sin cycle. I suppose that encompasses Maesters Kinoc, Seymour, Mica—anybody who knew the true consequence of the Final Summon and thought Sin’s continued existence was best for Spira.

FFXII: Occuria for meddling in human affairs and treating humanity with pretty obvious contempt.

I am coming around to the Hojo answer for FFVII. Mostly because I think intent matters, as does caring about the consequences of one's actions. I'd bet that neither Hojo or Yu Yevon intended for things to get as out of control as they did, but neither did they worry too much about the possible side effects of reckless experimentation/conjuring a powerful weapon.

I'm also starting to wonder how differently these results might have come out if I'd included groups of people along with individuals -- ShinRa, Yevon, the Occuria.

Sort-of serious Final Fantasy poll

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

A rant and a half

Re: A rant and a half

no subject

no subject