This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
Zidane is the best role model out of any Final Fantasy protagonist
lol people gettin so bent cause he grabbed her butt? i thought that was hilarious when i was 11.. how does anyone get all the way through school without grabbin a butt at some point anyways?
zidane does his tantalus work (robbing, stealing, kidnapping) under his boss, baku, who i for sure believe he knows is a genuinely good person at heart. example being when the ship crashes. or the two little kids tantalus takes care of
after he leaves the band he doesnt even give stealing (outside of the battle command) a second thought. he just wants to get his dick wet and chase his sweetheart but he will always put that on hold to save the freakin world and help his friends
There's nothing wrong with grabbing butts or getting it wet, dude. It's not like women (or men, since personal space isn't all about women) categorically hate being touched and are super reluctant to give permission. There certainly are people with whom it'd be counterproductive (for the stated goal) to start up in the wrong place and time. But that's not everybody and doesn't have to be. I even said in my original post there are some people--of both genders, if I've seen--who don't have such a high priority for their own permission. It is theirs to judge the value, not mine.
But that's all still beside the point, as far as I care about a point. I think I haven't made myself very clear, though, if I've got people focused on defending particular "offenses." Oh well, that's my concern, right? Still, that's why, if I don't misunderstand manmouse this go around, he and I are talking about how these things reflect Zidane's approach to his actions in general. But yea, carry on your own way. I'm still comfortable that I haven't been so hard on you all that you can go and say I'm trolling and suchlike.
I don't play videogames because I seek role models.
Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. -G. K. Chesterton
Seeing as how Tantalus is well known in Lindblum and has a place of operations within one of the kingdoms own districts, its not completely unbelievable that Cid would hire a group of their trade to "abduct" Garnet. If anything Zidane's character is a reflection of the group. It was Baku who discovered him not long after being abandoned by Kuja with little more than a "blue light" as his only memory(at this point he's no more than an infant being born into the world) and raised him along with the group. If Tantalus was anything other than they appear, I'm pretty sure Zidane would have turned out more like Amarant other than one who values friendships and trust.
I always took Zidane's and Baku's fight as a way to not only to prove his determination and force of will, but the splitting paths of a father and son that happens eventually down the road.
"Go to Heaven for the Climate, Hell for the company" - Mark Twain
I don't know if manmouse is interested in continuing the discussion, but I'm still interested in it, so if you're game 3star, let's see where we can take it. Manmouse raised interesting points. Now, I thought I understood his clarification that Zidane and Tantalus follow a principle of doing what they have a strong desire to do, but I don't think I understand it as a defense against my particular irritation with Zidane. My impression looking at him under manmouse's light, which I can easily see backed up by other incidents in the game, is that really it's not very different than my description of Zidane as consistently capricious.
It's the combination of doing whatever he wants to do and then calling whatever he doesn't want done wrong that irritates me. I may not be for kidnapping or uninvited groping, but you see that's beside the point! Fictional characters don't have to have excuses to kidnap (or whatever)--Zidane could do nothing but kidnap and not judge kidnappers and be weirdly alright. I don't personally excuse Tseng or Kefka or Bagamnan or certain Al Bhed or Zorn or Seifer or certain men of Dali, all of whom are kidnappers, but I don't feel strongly about them because of their kidnappings or whatever else they do. They're just there, more or less: making moves, gaining or losing respect maybe, but not being held to some requirement that they must gain or lose respect from me. No flashing light of irritation and notable disrespect goes off in my head just because I don't like or excuse the action some fictional character takes. I'd have to spend all my time being annoyed. However, I have a strong negative reaction to a character who will treat someone else with contempt for behaving the way he allows himself to behave.
That in bold is my complaint. Please don't let me mislead anyone else into thinking they need to excuse kidnapping or groping or anything of Zidane's or anyone's as excusable or whatever. Kidnap Garnet (just an example)? k. Kidnap Garnet then consider the man under Dali a bastard or a scumbag for kidnapping Vivi? Not so good. For my opinion, a fellow should keep his mouth shut about other people until he can at least keep himself above his own standard for scumbaggery. That's basically the standard on which I find Zidane irritating.
In case you want to take issue with it, I admit that a lot of the things he does he never overtly objects to, like framing people (he does suggest he at least wants to know when people are accusing him of something). I don't think that'd be a good defense because the most consistent idea so far for how he judges himself is not overtly stated by him, either. Some of these thing just don't seem consistent with his general altruistic schtick he proffers, and over all it paints an irritatingly not-apparently-governing-himself picture to me.
Corollary to the above about being able to respect yourself: when you are regularly out in the world, making moves, judging people, killing people, in my opinion you should have some kind of explicable perspective to attempt to guarantee to yourself that you are not worthy of your own killing. You just want to do these things or you do it on some vague "for Dagger"? It may well be brain-jilting to old Vir's brain. To conclude, especially with the coincidence of the name Tantalus, manmouse's and my arguments, and easily cited times when he's dealing with Quina, Steiner, or Amarant, you fellows have a reasonable suggestion that Zidane operates on standing orders that people may do what he wants. I think that makes for a worthwhile way of looking at him; I just don't yet understand how he should say anyone else is wrong very often, then. But I'm open to being informed.
On the other point, whatever else it may have been, Zidane's fight with Baku is reasonably interpreted as a leaving the nest sort of thing, suresure.
I get where you are coming from. I too have a negative reaction to a character who will treat someone else with contempt for behaving the way he allows himself to behave.
I am struggling to see how most of this applies to Zidane, though admittedly I have only played through the game a couple of times. I could very easily have missed stuff :D
1) The grope of Dagger on the Airship- I can't recall another instance of a character accidentally groping someone, so thats out.
2) The kidnap of Garnet with Tantalus- has the important difference that Garnet was kidnapped of her own free will. The kidnap of Vivi (and Garnet when she returns to Alexandria later in the game) was against their will. (Interestingly enough, consent is a legal defence in many countries to most crimes comitted against another, it has the same weighting as self-defence)
3) Framing Amarant. This is the big one for me. It does seem to jar with his light-hearted, carefree and generally nice persona. This I suspect though reveals a larger problem.
This is related to Zidane and Tantalus as a whole. I consider them prime examples of the trope 'The Pirates who don't do anything.' From TV tropes:
"In general, a member of The Pirates Who Don't Do Anything is any character who, despite having a certain canonical job, is rarely seen engaging in that job. They might indeed be a pirate who rarely goes out and steals treasure and raids ships — but they might just as easily be mobsters who don't steal or smuggle, students who don't go to class, office workers who never seem to do more than hang out in bars, or ninjas who just didn't get the memo about that whole "stealthy assassin" thing. "
The only time Tantalus, a ring of thieves, is seen doing anything remotely thief like is kidnapping Garnet. However, this is far from the usual nasty kidnappings in that Garnet consents, and they are being hired to do so by a friendly government, who wants only the best for Garnet. No ransoms are involved. Otherwise, what crimes do Tantalus (and Zidane) do? Nothing whatsoever.
The reason the framing of Amarant jars is because it clashes with this nice image of the 'thieves which don't do anything.' Framing people is not nice; but all the other images in the game show Zidane and Tantalus as nice people.
Maybe its because its an ATE shown from Amarant's perspective, and the game as a whole is largely shown from Zidane's perspective. Hey, we could start a theory with that! Maybe Zidanes actually a lecherous pervert thief that no one likes, and because the story is from mainly his perspective he comes off as a hero!
Yes, the twelve legendary weapons. They are weapons. They are legendary. There are even twelve of them.
Isn't the game in Vivi's point of view ?
well Tantalus does engage in thievery when breaking into Tot's house, before Dagger runs out and explains their situation to him.
the framing thing is interesting. it's definitely one of my least favorite aspects of Zidane, but it's not a random framing of an innocent man.
what happened was that even though Amarant was a security guard for the king's family, he admits that he was just looking for a fight. so when he sees Zidane running out he stops him on the basis that he'd make a good opponent, and rather than simply arresting him he WANTED a violent confrontation. and apparently he had a reputation for being that way, since Zidane mentioned that he must be the "infamous new security guard".
so now Amarant's locked him in a situation where one person must bring harm upon the other to walk away based on his own lust for conflict, and Zidane plays along. he uses the strongest weapon he has a a thief, his cunning, and simply pins the theft on Amarant. and before departing, the last thing Amarant remembers him saying was that, "a sly eagle hides its claws,"
so it's not that Zidane would have simply pinned the crime on any innocent person. it just so happened that Amarant, rather than doing his job and securing Zidane into custody, was only interested in starting fights and violently overpowering people, and when he engaged Zidane in a fight he took responsibility for any "damage" Zidane could cause to him since that's what he wanted. and Zidane, not being a brute but rather a fast-thinking cunning thief, "won" the fight that Amarant initiated by turning the tables and making him the guards' enemy.
does it make framing someone a "good" thing to do? no. but it was a conflict Amarant wanted and the small fast-thinker used the best weapon he had against the much larger foe, his brain. and Amarant clearly didn't take it personal, aside from being bested, because he knew after Zidane told him about an eagle hiding its claws, that he really simply lost the fight and really was bested by the opponent he picked out.
and as for getting mad about the guys kidnapping Vivi when he performed a kidnapping himself, it's different. Tantalus's kidnapping of Garnet was commissioned by a trustworthy man who only sought to keep her safe from her murderous mother, and they wouldn't have harmed her. Vivi's kidnapping involved him being put into a box and prepared for shipment to war as a killing machine.
and it doesn't contradict the "desire" principle as if their "desire" to kidnap Vivi would make it ok, because the desire of a child to be free and survive will always trump the desire of a man to finish his day's work and get paid.
not only that, but that principle mainly applies to Baku and Tantalus as a whole, whereas Zidane had already split off to follow his own path and wasn't bound by his old gang's ways anymore.
Zidane's "groping" of Garnet is getting a little overblown by some of you. It's pretty clearly an accident. As Xethidas already pointed out, the Cargo Ship was taking off; Zidane was still climbing the ladder while the ship was in the air. So the criticism is really over his, "Ooo soft" comment. He could have said, "sorry," but his choice of words is hardly something to condemn him over.
Zidane, and probably most of Tantalus did not know that. As far as we know, only Baku knew that Cid was the one who hired them. It seems more likely that Tantalus looked at Baku as a father figure, trusted his judgement, and were following his lead.
Zidane's actions as a thief, including framing Amarant aren't morally acceptable, but he was also a teenager and a product of his circumstances. Zidane was kidnapped when he was four, deposited on Terra, and taken in by a band of thieves. He's 16 when the story starts, his actions up to that point are pretty forgivable given his circumstances and his actions following the kidnapping.
He has to grow up real quick immediately following Garnet's kidnapping and Alexandria firing on the Theater Ship. Up until that point Zidane is a kid following Baku's lead when it comes to morality. It seems Zidane has a conventional view on morality during the beginning and transitions to post-conventional early on in the story.
I'm glad I made myself clearer that time so we're disagreeing with me on the correct subject ^^ Again, please don't take my expressing my opinion as denying you yours. I repeat that I have been cautious and (in my opinion) good-natured in my responses because I doubt my idea is terribly popular and I don't mean to antagonize the board.
This is all for you, random :) You asked how, say, the grabbing bit applies to Zidane. That's the point I anticipated saying I assume he'd be against some of these things, though he never happens to voice it: I just imagined Zidane would be against someone's grabbing Garnet's butt without her permission. Perhaps you think he'd be okay with it. People who interpret it was an accident may dismiss this; it could be an accident, but he's facing it directly, his hand moves right to it, and within a second he makes a flip comment, "Ooo, soft" not "Oops, sorry" or anything. I don't know what they would have done had they been trying to make it look like it was on purpose, if I was supposed to know for sure that his looking, touching, and immediately flirting indicated an accident or something he wouldn't have otherwise done. Again, if you want to say that he'd be alright with anyone else doing it, then you're right that we can't call him inconsistent for it. He's pretty protective of Garnet, so I don't see why he'd be okay with Zorn or someone else grabbing at her, so it seems fairer to me to assume he wouldn't like it.
As to her consent to be kidnapped: in my mind, his agreement with the plan, the sleeping weed, and all that chasing her around BEFORE he knew that she wanted to be kidnapped counts as intending to kidnap her against her will. If you think he was about to back down once he found out that she wasn't into it, let me know.
I'm sorry, random, but I don't understand "just the one kidnapping" or "but a government was involved in the kidnapping" as compelling justifications. I don't think I'd be happier to be kidnapped by people who won't generally do anything else or because a foreign country was involved. Actually, in my opinion and experience, government involvement tends to do more to make governments look bad than it does to make kidnappers look good. I can't think of a time I heard about people disappearing or whatever and thought it was okay because a government was behind it. I also agree with manmouse that they made to rob Tot, Zidane claims to have been involved with other robberies (such as where Amarant caught him), and Tantalus is called "daring gang of thieves"; if I'm not supposed to believe they do crimes, I am again confused by what the game is showing me.
I wouldn't go so far as "lecherous pervert thief" but I think the game focusing on him is indeed what makes my criticism surprising to the board. It's not really a theory like "Maybe Vivi made his sons with leftover cave mist," it's an interpretation, I think.
manmouse, if you think that's what Zidane was thinking to justify framing Amarant and he would have been more responsible or something had he not presupposed Amarant's intentions and not wanted to get away with his loot, that's alright with me. I don't suppose you'd agree with me that it seems a little funny to blame Amarant for his poor intentions as an excuse for Zidane's poor intentions to rob the place and get away with it at Amarant's expense not just for the duration of the punishing Amarant's belligerence but indefinitely? Anyway, Zidane is a thief, so framing in itself isn't irritating and to my mind it's only a question of whether he'd be adverse to people treating him unjustly when they condemn his intentions. In your view, does he behave like it's the same fair play when Steiner treats him with prejudice, or is he again excused because someone else has a poor intention anyway?