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

#31random_singerPosted 9/26/2013 4:15:24 PM
manmouse posted...
well Tantalus does engage in thievery when breaking into Tot's house, before Dagger runs out and explains their situation to him.


It still fits in with the idea of the thieves which don't do anything, as there is no actual theft in this case. Plus, even if they had succeeded in stealing the Supersoft, the thievery part is kinda balanced out by the fact that it wasn't done for profit, but to rescue their friend, and nothing more seemed to be being taken than was necessary.

Thats a good way of viewing the confrontation with Amarant manmouse. I always thought it strange how Amarant seems to accept being framed. I might have to load up an old save and watch that part again now.
---
Yes, the twelve legendary weapons. They are weapons. They are legendary. There are even twelve of them.
#32Vir27Posted 9/26/2013 4:38:41 PM(edited)
I think that we'll have to agree to differ opinions on whether Cid's involvement is a mitigating circumstance. In my mind, were I or a 16 year old daughter of mine to be kidnapped, the the kidnapper's affiliation with someone "trustworthy" and that person's opinion of my conduct would not best please me.

manmouse posted...
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.


Run that by me again, please? Where did this hierarchy of trumping desires come from and why doesn't Garnet's desire to be free when Zidane is chasing her trump Zidane's desire to be a Tantalus thief and get paid by Cid?

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.


If he changes his view of what's contemptible because he does not share a criminal job description with the criminal he is now dealing with, then I don't see how he's better defended against my complaint that he's seriously inconsistent. If someone says it's okay to rob banks BECAUSE he's presently making a living as a bankrobber, but it's not okay to rob banks as soon as he takes up other employment, then I feel quite safely justified in being irritated toward and distrustful with this logic.


I agree with all of peedeejay's points (though, as above, I don't share every one of his reasonings). I didn't mean for anyone to get so focused on the supposed "groping." In the original context, it was just one item in a list of things Zidane does without--as far as I can tell--being able to justify. I'm sorry if I somehow contributed to its becoming an unnecessarily major item of contention. I don't know that Baku didn't tell them all that Cid was behind it during the jump cut, but it's sort of irrelevant to me whether you'll be okay with kidnapping people only when the kidnapper's dad suggested it, so ~shrug~. And I quite agree that while Zidane remains irritating and very difficult to respect by my personal standards, his being a teenager is a mitigating circumstance: not all 16 year olds need to have developed a robust personal integrity and I don't believe it's in any way common for them to have done so. In fact, I think I offered Zidane the same defense in my second post.

random_singer posted...
manmouse posted...It still fits in with the idea of the thieves which don't do anything, as there is no actual theft in this case. Plus, even if they had succeeded in stealing the Supersoft, the thievery part is kinda balanced out by the fact that it wasn't done for profit, but to rescue their friend, and nothing more seemed to be being taken than was necessary.


You gentlemen strike me as extraordinarily accepting of the "wrong-doer's" point of view. You must do well for being so selfless and empathetic. Let me ask seriously, please, do you think that most times "bad things" are done in the world the people doing them don't imagine they are in some way justified? How much is it okay for me to take from your family if I'll give it all to my friend who is only disabled because he was hurt while working as a kidnapper? May I make it look like you robbed your own family if I think you're mean-spirited when you try to stop me? Will you help me drug and drag your daughters or girlfriends if I'm just doing what my dad and the President probably reckon is the best thing to do? Please don't take me as criticizing: if you tell me them's the rules you live by, it's in a way impressive.
#33unwashed_massesPosted 9/26/2013 5:09:40 PM(edited)
The butt grab just seemed sleazy because Dagger really didn't seem to react to it, and Zidane's reaction was just gross. I wouldn't want someone touching me and saying 'ooo, soft', that's just unattractive, and in no way is that acceptable social behavior. I don't care if you're a stupid 16 year old. This scene was written by old pervy men. If someone did that, they deserve to be kicked in the face. In this case it's just another instance of someone getting a pass even when they're a sleazy d-bag. I'm in no way a prude. Put all the sex, butt and boob grabs in you want, but let's not pretend that is socially acceptable behavior. You're a gross person if that's the sort of thing you do to people that don't consent to it. Whether or not Dagger is a boy or girl is irrelevant - the scene would not exist if Dagger was a man, and it's still a sleazy joke regardless. I've done a butt grab not too long ago, but it was with my boyfriend and we do that - it's consensual.

What redeems Zidane is the fact that he says it was an accident, but it's not certain if he's really being genuine or not. I still say he got off too easy. I have no problem with Zidane being a bit of a sleaze-ball, but it doesn't make me like him more. It might make him more interesting to give him some flaws. The point at which it gets annoying is when men get off scot-free for disgusting behavior again and again and then are praised as role models.
#34random_singerPosted 9/26/2013 7:21:21 PM
Vir27 posted...
I think that we'll have to agree to differ opinions on whether Cid's involvement is a mitigating circumstance. In my mind, were I or a 16 year old daughter of mine to be kidnapped, the the kidnapper's affiliation with someone "trustworthy" and that person's opinion of my conduct would not best please me.


The real defence is consent though. Garnet wants to be kidnapped. Vivi doesn't. Cid's involvement is tangental to this point.


You gentlemen strike me as extraordinarily accepting of the "wrong-doer's" point of view. You must do well for being so selfless and empathetic. Let me ask seriously, please, do you think that most times "bad things" are done in the world the people doing them don't imagine they are in some way justified? How much is it okay for me to take from your family if I'll give it all to my friend who is only disabled because he was hurt while working as a kidnapper? May I make it look like you robbed your own family if I think you're mean-spirited when you try to stop me? Will you help me drug and drag your daughters or girlfriends if I'm just doing what my dad and the President probably reckon is the best thing to do? Please don't take me as criticizing: if you tell me them's the rules you live by, it's in a way impressive.


Haha, I'm studying law, and this kinda issue comes up an awful lot actually. I apologise for any legal speak! (I really am sorry, I've been delving into my old criminal law notes!)

In New Zealand (and most other common law countries), these issues are covered by the defence of necessity. Its a very narrow defence though, as you need to prove that actions were needed to avoid an inevitable and irreparable evil, that the evil inflicted was not disproportionate to the evil avoided, and that no more was done by than was reasonably necessary. To answer whether these requirements were fulfilled, you would have to find out things like how common Supersoft were, how expensive they were to buy, the likelihood of another group freeing Blank by another method, etc etc.

The thing is, it has long been recognised by courts that there are times when you have to break the law in order to prevent wrongs from occurring. Leaving Blank to be turned into stone can be argued to be such a wrong. Because of the requirements though of the defence, it seems unlikely your examples could claim it- some of the evils you mention (eg 'I think you are mean spirited') are simply not great enough while in others the existance of things such as sickness benefits means your actions would not be deemed to be needed in the first place. There is a line, and while your examples fall on the wrong side of it, Tantalus's actions, might, possibly, be deemed to be justified.

Once again though, this is tangental to the real point I was trying to make, in that there was no actual theft made here. Hence Tantalus can still be deemed to be 'the thieves which don't do anything.'
---
Yes, the twelve legendary weapons. They are weapons. They are legendary. There are even twelve of them.
#35Vir27Posted 9/26/2013 8:19:22 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#36Vir27Posted 9/26/2013 9:27:59 PM
I think she ought to give consent before he tries to kidnap her. If asked if I'd had a woman's consent to drug her and carry her off, I wouldn't be defended by "Not yet."

Well, the mean-spirited bit refers to why framing Amarant was justified by Amarant's impure motives while stopping Zidane robbing a place, doesn't it? You seemed to understand that defense better than I did when you agreed with it. Nevertheless, you're now talking about the applicability of a legal defense. You'll notice I'm not prosecuting anyone under any law. It's not a question of if Zidane has to break a law to prevent evil: quite the contrary, he doesn't prevent what he'd call "evil" from himself.

But I see now that before I didn't think they hadn't done 'anything,' but you're simply defining 'anything' differently to me. By your definition, they are indeed "thieves who don't do anything." And since you don't appear to disagree with any of the points where I responded to you, perhaps we'll agree that we've both proved our points.
#37random_singerPosted 9/28/2013 2:04:24 AM
Vir27 posted...
I think she ought to give consent before he tries to kidnap her. If asked if I'd had a woman's consent to drug her and carry her off, I wouldn't be defended by "Not yet."


Yup. True. But still an awful lot less clear cut than the kidnapping of Vivi.

But I see now that before I didn't think they hadn't done 'anything,' but you're simply defining 'anything' differently to me. By your definition, they are indeed "thieves who don't do anything." And since you don't appear to disagree with any of the points where I responded to you, perhaps we'll agree that we've both proved our points.


I think so too. Good discussion though. So nice to be able to argue points with people who actually read your arguments, and put thought into responding to them.
---
Yes, the twelve legendary weapons. They are weapons. They are legendary. There are even twelve of them.
#38CirOnnPosted 9/28/2013 11:58:21 AM
Zidane lacks depth, for me. He is a cool/ nice character, but FFIX is overall a fun game with somewhat dark themes whereas the fun usually trumping over the dark themes.

This is just a personal opinion but I think that Garnet is more successful as a role model out of Final Fantasy IX, and I do consider her a protagonist.

Sure, she can be a bit depressive sometimes, but by the end of the game she came a very long way and paid majorly for all of her (and others) mistakes. I got a sense that Zidane never really learned anything rather than where he came from...