Hero/Human

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

Beginning:
Once upon a time, 33 small countries fought together against an empire. One day, a rebel troop visited a man named Joseph, who lived with his daughter. Owing a debt to the troop, he gladly accepted their plea for help. They headed for a cavern in the snow field.


Cooperation:
With Joseph's help, the troop defeated the adamantoise in the snow field cavern and acquired the Goddess Bell they needed to enter the empire's castle.


Silence:
On their way home, they fell into a trap set by a traitor. Joseph gave his life to save the troop. The troop left without telling Joseph's daughter, Nelly, about the tragedy.

Human:

Historian's explanation: The fact that they didn't report Joseph's death to his daughter was indicative of their guilt for failing to protect him. In the end, heroes are also human.

Hero:

Historian's explanation: Although Joseph's death was not reported to his daughter, the manner of his death speaks for itself. This is the story of a true hero.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gamblet

I love the throwback to FF II. I pick Human every single time.

---

Honestly, the question never really made much sense to me.

Joseph is a hero. He helped out, and gave his life to protect his comrades whom he owed a debt to.

What his comrades did or didn't do, or whether his family knows he's a hero or not, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he was a hero. Both lines are technically true. Yeah, heroes are also human, and he died. But he was still a hero, even if people don't sing his story.

You're arguing that Joseph isn't a hero because of the actions of the rebels. That makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

You're arguing that Joseph isn't a hero because of the actions of the rebels. That makes no sense.

---

Riddle me this: Which of the endings imply that Joseph isn't a hero? The last lines of both implicitly state that he is a hero, regardless of the reader's interpretation of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synoptikal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

You're arguing that Joseph isn't a hero because of the actions of the rebels. That makes no sense.

---

Riddle me this: Which of the endings imply that Joseph isn't a hero? The last lines of both implicitly state that he is a hero, regardless of the reader's interpretation of the story.

---

Then why are they asking us to make a choice if they're both saying the same thing?



The story is about Joseph. He joins a group of rebels, helps them out, sacrifices himself. The rebels never tell his daughter what happened.

The story then asks you how you interpret this story.

The point of contention is that the daughter is not told because the rebels are guilty, indicating human flaws.

Thus the question is, are we dealing with a true hero, or flawed humans. The problem: The flaws aren't Joseph's. Whatever guilt the rebels are feeling is utterly irrelevant to the story.

It asks you to make a choice, whether Joseph is a hero, or a human. That's the entire point of the story, the reason for the choice, and the name of the thread. But the choice is utterly meaningless, because the deciding factor has nothing to do with the character about whom the question is asked.




Another story:

A rebel leader enlists Joseph's help. Joseph dies during the campaign, but the rebel leader presses on, and eventually overthrows the empire and saving the world.

However, because the rebel leader is feeling guilty over the death of his comrade, he never tells Joseph's daughter of her father's death.


Now, the question here has some relevance to the story. Is the rebel leader a heroic savior, or a flawed human? Which aspect of him, his fight against tyranny, or his inability to own up to his actions, is more important to the core of his character?



But the question we're given is about Joseph, who has no such quandary or moral dilemma to base the question on. It's completely pointless. There is no difference in how Joseph's actions are viewed in either interpretation, and, thus, no reason for there to be different interpretations.

And that's pretty much exactly what Zidane, Vivi, and Ramuh agree upon after Dagger runs ahead.

Quote:

---

Zidane: "...Hey, old man! You're gone already?"

Vivi: "What's wrong?"

Zidane: "I wanted to know why he made Dagger play such a silly game. Heroic? Human? Those are just things people say after the fact. Why try to give meaning to what the main character of the story chose?"

Vivi: "...I think the old man would've become her eidolon either way. That's the impression I got."

Dagger: "Zidane! Vivi! Let's go!"

[Dagger runs away again and Ramuh's voice rings out:]

Voice: "You're exactly right... It's not what the people say afterward... What's important is being true to oneself. She may not have realized it, but when she wished to learn how to use summon magic... The summon power returned to her. Summon magic can be used for good or evil. She is still young, but there is room for growth... So I chose her as my master. I'll be watching over her... I hope you two will also protect her."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pantz

And that's pretty much exactly what Zidane, Vivi, and Ramuh agree upon after Dagger runs ahead.

Quote:

---

Zidane: "...Hey, old man! You're gone already?"

Vivi: "What's wrong?"

Zidane: "I wanted to know why he made Dagger play such a silly game. Heroic? Human? Those are just things people say after the fact. Why try to give meaning to what the main character of the story chose?"

Vivi: "...I think the old man would've become her eidolon either way. That's the impression I got."

Dagger: "Zidane! Vivi! Let's go!"

[Dagger runs away again and Ramuh's voice rings out:]

Voice: "You're exactly right... It's not what the people say afterward... What's important is being true to oneself. She may not have realized it, but when she wished to learn how to use summon magic... The summon power returned to her. Summon magic can be used for good or evil. She is still young, but there is room for growth... So I chose her as my master. I'll be watching over her... I hope you two will also protect her."

---

---

Unfortunately, that's still missing the main point.

There is no difference between the two perspectives. Nothing changes, even in the interpretation.

"The fact that they didn't report Joseph's death to his daughter was indicative of their guilt for failing to protect him."
"Although Joseph's death was not reported to his daughter, the manner of his death speaks for itself."

These sentences aren't differing interpretations to be chosen from. They're simply presentations of two different parts of the story. One is looking at Joseph, and the other is looking at the rebels.

The problem is, that both conclusions refer to Joseph, even though only one of the statements does. Which makes the conclusion for the "human" ending utterly baffling.

Why are you given a choice between two things that aren't mutually exclusive? If you added both those sentences together, the story would still make perfect sense.

And why does the "human" ending make a declaration about Joseph that is apparently formed from an analysis of the rebels?

I think what he means is

The fact that they didn't report Joseph's death to his daughter was indicative of their guilt for failing to protect him. In the end, heroes are also human.

It says there that THEY didn't report his death due to guilt and it's implying that because of this, heroes are only human, even though THEY didn't report his death and that is no reflection on Joseph himself. So he means it doesn't make sense because the actions of THEY are made to reflect Joseph, even though Joseph isn't the one who didn't report a death due to guilt, making him human. I think that's what he means anyways.

The interpretations don't conflict with each other, but the parts you choose to focus on when telling a story definitely affects the mood and perceived purpose of the story. You can tell anyone's story and paint them out as being a saint or a devil and the two versions don't even have to conflict - they can paint different pictures just by omission and focus - but in the end they're only stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

I think what he means is

The fact that they didn't report Joseph's death to his daughter was indicative of their guilt for failing to protect him. In the end, heroes are also human.

It says there that THEY didn't report his death due to guilt and it's implying that because of this, heroes are only human, even though THEY didn't report his death and that is no reflection on Joseph himself. So he means it doesn't make sense because the actions of THEY are made to reflect Joseph, even though Joseph isn't the one who didn't report a death due to guilt, making him human. I think that's what he means anyways.

---

Joseph shows no qualities that make "heroes are only human" a valid statement. Joseph, if anything, is a superhuman figure in the story. The Hero conclusion does not refer to Joseph as the primary subject, instead stating that the rebels are the heroes, and that they are also human, because they felt guilty.

It could be a translation error, but focusing on the rebels is pointless. They didn't report Joseph's death, and that is a tragedy, not a sign of humanity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

It could be a translation error, but focusing on the rebels is pointless. They didn't report Joseph's death, and that is a tragedy, not a sign of humanity.

---

"To err is human, to forgive divine."

Think that says it best.

Joseph is dead, so he can't forgive them. He died, saving them, as a hero. I mean, it's as simple as that as far as I'm concerned.

I went with hero. It sounded like what the characters would choose.