Ivalice, History, and Morality. The World of Matsuo

Ivalice, has truly proven to be a powerful and recurring world within the FF mythos. Started off as a world born from the the very mythology of the FF worlds created before it. Over time is has become it's own mythology and has begun to slowly cut itself way from being an amalgam of all things FF. The Zodiac, Age of Sky Pirates, the Occurians, the Gran Grimorie, and the battle of politics and religion. Ivalice has shown a wide range of diversity and tackled many serious topics and themes way before the main series it was spin-offed from.

The games of Matsuno's design are always subtly told and feature a more ambiguous moral character to them. From the scandal of the Glabados Church as well as the political tactics of Delita, to the journey of Marche to save his friend by destroying the world, to Lady Ashe's personal struggle to choose between saving her kingdom or getting revenge. The human element is never black and white in these games, and though people may not agree with the choices made, I feel most would say at least agree that they can understand them.

So much has gone into making the player feel that Ivalice is alive, this game has had a much greater extent of history to it than other game in the FF series. Golden ages, diverse races, fallen civilization, the fall of the gods, and rise of the Lucavi. Ivalice is more than a world your character live in, it feels so much more like a real place than other RPG worlds.

Now I'll admit this is a rather long winded opening but I truly love Ivalice and the stories of Matsuo, this is a thread to discuss this world of Ivalice, a retrospect of where it has come from and the more intriguing question of where it is going. We'll we be seeing Ivalice 10 years down the road or will it end here with the Ivalice Alliance?

Well, in truth there are two things to affect the outcome
1) Corporate Enthusiasm
2) Developer Enthusiasm

As we see, #1 is an absolute requisite for getting the game done. #2 is a requisite for getting the game done well, for if #1 is large enough a game will be made regardless. #1 simply comes down to one thing, money. The question is weather the Ivalice brand becomes popular enough to boost sales of its own accord, independent of the Final Fantasy or S-E label on the box. This will likely depend on how well the Ivalice Alliance is received. However, it is important to note that this is not necessarily tied to the success or popularity of the individual games, from a corporate standpoint if people do not identify strongly with the Ivalice 'brand' there is no incentive to develop Ivalice titles over any other lore created world. This brings us to #2.

If the developers wish to continue working of the Ivalice brand. Since I know extremely little of the people who design and produce these games I can't say if they a) work on whatever game ideas they like, b) work on whatever ideas they think people would like, or c) work on whatever the marketing people think would make the most money. (Naturally everyone was 'very excited to work on the project' when they do an interview after, so that isn't really a good indication). Anyone who actually knows the corporate/creative structure of SE please educate me.

Of the three reasons for developers to develop the games, c) is essentially what I mentioned in the beginning about corporate enthusiasm. That means we just have to consider if developers develop games to please fans, or develop games to please themselves. In my short but cynical life, I've personally experienced that most creative people fall into a), working on whatever interests them. (Sorry if I defame anyone’s heroes working over there, I don't know them all that well, just generalities here.)

With this said using my reasoning it basically comes down to how much the developers like Ivalice. And since it seems they do very much, as indicated with the Ivalice Alliance, I would say we will most likely be seeing Ivalice for quite some time to come.

Sorry if this post wasn't as abstract or lore focused as you intended, I just kind of spilled out my though process on the keyboard in all its unorganized glory.

With FFXII we got to see another part of Ivalice at a different point in history. I hope they continue this like the Suikoden series: the gradual exploration of a single world in different places and at different times. It has tremendous potential.

I think Square has been focusing too much of its creative energy in rehashing worlds that have been already established, like the Planet and Spira. Of course I don't entirely blame them: it's easier to work with worlds and characters that have already been established. But by shifting to different places within a single world leaves room to explore new horizons while still referencing previous installments and characters.

For example, we know next to nothing of Ordallia and Romanda, the neighboring countries in FFT. What's their history and stories? And what of Ajora and the original Zodiac Braves? There's a whole host of unanswered questions about them. And we only got to meet half the Lucavi in FFT.

Anyways, FFT is my favorite RPG and it cheers me to see them continue the stories in this world. As long as it is well done.

Good thread, I guess my main question is, what impact does this whole Matsuo conflict with Square bear onto Ivalice. In effect, he IS Ivalice, I would best describe that world as his personal interpretation of Final Fantasy, set into this one world rather than a number of different worlds.

We all know what happened with XII - Matsuo had to "step-down" from development due to "illness" and the scenario writer and FF veteran Hiroyuki Ito assumed directoral positions, and he continued as a supervisor. But what are the exact details behind this?

I read somewhere that this had something to do with Sakaguchi leaving Square. As to exactly what this is referring to, or how that would impact Matsuo's position at the company is beyond me.

What I do know is that I recently read a brief article that concisely stated that Matsuo is very interested in the Nintendo DS and is considering developing a game for it, and that he's looking for publishers. Looking for publishers? It now looks that he's really gone from Square. If that's the case, since Ivalice is a Final Fantasy thing, it really looks like this wonderful concept may die, unless the others who have contributed to it wish to carry it on.

Basically you got Hiroshi Minagawa as the 'successor', who led art direction on FFT and directed, at least the scenario portion, FFXII. Ito, who's played a major rule in almost every FF since IV, contributed to game design for both. Sakimoto on the beats. Yoshida with character design. Although I believe all of them are talented individuals, I think they need their leader to truly recapture the greatness of this world. The Yiazmat hunt was supposed to be a reference to Matsuno, Montblanc talking about how they once had a leader who they did many wonderful things with, but he got killed.

We'll have to see, I'd love to see it continue, but I think Square needs to start rebuilding its bridges. Badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG-57

With FFXII we got to see another part of Ivalice at a different point in history. I hope they continue this like the Suikoden series: the gradual exploration of a single world in different places and at different times. It has tremendous potential.

I think Square has been focusing too much of its creative energy in rehashing worlds that have been already established, like the Planet and Spira. Of course I don't entirely blame them: it's easier to work with worlds and characters that have already been established. But by shifting to different places within a single world leaves room to explore new horizons while still referencing previous installments and characters.

For example, we know next to nothing of Ordallia and Romanda, the neighboring countries in FFT. What's their history and stories? And what of Ajora and the original Zodiac Braves? There's a whole host of unanswered questions about them. And we only got to meet half the Lucavi in FFT.

Anyways, FFT is my favorite RPG and it cheers me to see them continue the stories in this world. As long as it is well done.

---

I completely agree that this may be the best choice for the Ivalice universe to take. The world has already shown a wonderful wealth of potential and unlike most FF worlds, it seemed liked it was desinged around the concept of expansion rather than self containment. I would truly love to learn more about the Occurians, the fall of the moogles, and the general political spectrum of the nations in relation to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

Well, in truth there are two things to affect the outcome
1) Corporate Enthusiasm
2) Developer Enthusiasm

As we see, #1 is an absolute requisite for getting the game done. #2 is a requisite for getting the game done well, for if #1 is large enough a game will be made regardless. #1 simply comes down to one thing, money. The question is weather the Ivalice brand becomes popular enough to boost sales of its own accord, independent of the Final Fantasy or S-E label on the box. This will likely depend on how well the Ivalice Alliance is received. However, it is important to note that this is not necessarily tied to the success or popularity of the individual games, from a corporate standpoint if people do not identify strongly with the Ivalice 'brand' there is no incentive to develop Ivalice titles over any other lore created world. This brings us to #2.

If the developers wish to continue working of the Ivalice brand. Since I know extremely little of the people who design and produce these games I can't say if they a) work on whatever game ideas they like, b) work on whatever ideas they think people would like, or c) work on whatever the marketing people think would make the most money. (Naturally everyone was 'very excited to work on the project' when they do an interview after, so that isn't really a good indication). Anyone who actually knows the corporate/creative structure of SE please educate me.

Of the three reasons for developers to develop the games, c) is essentially what I mentioned in the beginning about corporate enthusiasm. That means we just have to consider if developers develop games to please fans, or develop games to please themselves. In my short but cynical life, I've personally experienced that most creative people fall into a), working on whatever interests them. (Sorry if I defame anyone’s heroes working over there, I don't know them all that well, just generalities here.)

With this said using my reasoning it basically comes down to how much the developers like Ivalice. And since it seems they do very much, as indicated with the Ivalice Alliance, I would say we will most likely be seeing Ivalice for quite some time to come.

Sorry if this post wasn't as abstract or lore focused as you intended, I just kind of spilled out my though process on the keyboard in all its unorganized glory.

---

I've always been given the impression that the team Matsuo built truly loved what they did. The quality of their games show this. The question is whether they will leave Squenix to follow him or stay to continue what he started. It's for these reasons that RW interests me so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Good thread, I guess my main question is, what impact does this whole Matsuo conflict with Square bear onto Ivalice. In effect, he IS Ivalice, I would best describe that world as his personal interpretation of Final Fantasy, set into this one world rather than a number of different worlds.

We all know what happened with XII - Matsuo had to "step-down" from development due to "illness" and the scenario writer and FF veteran Hiroyuki Ito assumed directoral positions, and he continued as a supervisor. But what are the exact details behind this?

I read somewhere that this had something to do with Sakaguchi leaving Square. As to exactly what this is referring to, or how that would impact Matsuo's position at the company is beyond me.

What I do know is that I recently read a brief article that concisely stated that Matsuo is very interested in the Nintendo DS and is considering developing a game for it, and that he's looking for publishers. Looking for publishers? It now looks that he's really gone from Square. If that's the case, since Ivalice is a Final Fantasy thing, it really looks like this wonderful concept may die, unless the others who have contributed to it wish to carry it on.

Basically you got Hiroshi Minagawa as the 'successor', who led art direction on FFT and directed, at least the scenario portion, FFXII. Ito, who's played a major rule in almost every FF since IV, contributed to game design for both. Sakimoto on the beats. Yoshida with character design. Although I believe all of them are talented individuals, I think they need their leader to truly recapture the greatness of this world. The Yiazmat hunt was supposed to be a reference to Matsuno, Montblanc talking about how they once had a leader who they did many wonderful things with, but he got killed.

We'll have to see, I'd love to see it continue, but I think Square needs to start rebuilding its bridges. Badly.

---

I completely agree with you. Matsuo is Ivalice and it's a shame that he seems to have left Square. He was one of the few designers that I loved at SE. Perhaps he'll join up with Mistwalker Studios?

It's a shame that SE seems to be losing so many talents within it's company, now Amano was always freelance and Uematsu left to work on his own career which I can respect. I've even heard that Uematsu said he would actually compose another soundtrack for Square but only if the project intereseted him. Though I can't remember when he said this so I may actually be mistaken.

Sakeguichi seems to have no real ill will towards his former publisher but the likeihood of him returning is pretty much nil. Not unless somemajor shifting in the upper chain happened even then I doubt he would return.

While I'm on it... I would love for Tetsuya Takahashi and his wife to return to Square as well, as they were both very talented writers and designers. That and I want Xenogears to actually be completed :shifty:

Back on topic... I think the real question is whether SE feels Ivalice should continue. Certainly the quality may diminish but as long as demand is there they would likely continue to produce it whether or not anyone who established the franchise was still there. Still, I would prefer if Matsuo was helming the project.

I do wish for Ivalice to live on but I'm conflicted with Matsuo's departure.

True, but yet, I believe that Ivalice is going to continue.

Aside of the FF games, we also have Vagrant Story, that also focuses itself in the political and religional power, and how sometimes they play with you and your memories to achieve something. It also focuses in the Gran Grimoire and the power of the Dark.

The legacy of Ramza, Ashe, Marche, Ashley and Luso will prevail.

Seeing this, we can see that Matsuno has made an important creation in the story of Square in general, and an important one. Square will not leave it alone.

Ivalice will go on, as the FF series, because it is an important part of it.

To stop this great thread from falling into oblivion, I wanna suggest a new issue, about Matsuno's "code of ethics" on Ivalice's code of ethics.

Spoilers!

In the Ivalice gams so far, it has been the intention that none of the characters are entirely good nor wholly evil. In FFT, characters who do horrible things (Funeral, Wiegraf in Ch. 1, Delita) believe that they are really doing what's best for society. In FFXII, you see this, and the protagonists aren't necessarily good, as most of them are motivated by revenge.

But I gotta say, in both games, there are indeed characters who are purely evil. Vormav for example. He just wants to resurrect demons and unleash all hell upon the world (to put it bluntly). Vayne has killed his 2 older brothers, his father, and has screwed over kingdoms for the sole purpose of his power-hungry egoism. In lierature/stories (and in real life, to me atleast) doing harm to one's brothers (or sisters) is an indicator that the person cannot be trusted/is in fact evil. Bergan is also a prime example in that he (for no reason, not even ordered to) starts massacring (sp?) the Kiltias of Mt. Bur-Omisace, even slaying the Gran Kiltias. I mean wtf. The dude does it for the sole fact of allowing Vayne to have his ascendancy so they can have "power".

And I would have to say in FFT (although i've not seen the creators explicitly state that FFXII's morality aim was the same goal for this) Ramza is completely good. He only believes in doing good to people, and goes as far as to stop those who have those same intentions but to do so with less than noble means. There couldn't be a holier character.

So I guess that's my rant, that although the world of Ivalice's morality is intended to be ambiguous, it doesn't live up to that 100%. But it does a damn good job of it for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

To stop this great thread from falling into oblivion, I wanna suggest a new issue, about Matsuno's "code of ethics" on Ivalice's code of ethics.

Spoilers!

In the Ivalice gams so far, it has been the intention that none of the characters are entirely good nor wholly evil. In FFT, characters who do horrible things (Funeral, Wiegraf in Ch. 1, Delita) believe that they are really doing what's best for society. In FFXII, you see this, and the protagonists aren't necessarily good, as most of them are motivated by revenge.

But I gotta say, in both games, there are indeed characters who are purely evil. Vormav for example. He just wants to resurrect demons and unleash all hell upon the world (to put it bluntly). Vayne has killed his 2 older brothers, his father, and has screwed over kingdoms for the sole purpose of his power-hungry egoism. In lierature/stories (and in real life, to me atleast) doing harm to one's brothers (or sisters) is an indicator that the person cannot be trusted/is in fact evil. Bergan is also a prime example in that he (for no reason, not even ordered to) starts massacring (sp?) the Kiltias of Mt. Bur-Omisace, even slaying the Gran Kiltias. I mean wtf. The dude does it for the sole fact of allowing Vayne to have his ascendancy so they can have "power".

And I would have to say in FFT (although i've not seen the creators explicitly state that FFXII's morality aim was the same goal for this) Ramza is completely good. He only believes in doing good to people, and goes as far as to stop those who have those same intentions but to do so with less than noble means. There couldn't be a holier character.

So I guess that's my rant, that although the world of Ivalice's morality is intended to be ambiguous, it doesn't live up to that 100%. But it does a damn good job of it for the most part.

---

You have to remember that Ramza at the beginning was a little cocky and not completely good. Actually, some elections at some battles made Ramza Good and others made him "good". Actually, only after some experiences Ramza achieved the "Good" title, and a true Noble, not the family noble as he believed at the beginning. Ramza and FFT is a proof of Matsuno mastery in mixing history and feelings in a videogame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

To stop this great thread from falling into oblivion, I wanna suggest a new issue, about Matsuno's "code of ethics" on Ivalice's code of ethics.

Spoilers!

In the Ivalice gams so far, it has been the intention that none of the characters are entirely good nor wholly evil. In FFT, characters who do horrible things (Funeral, Wiegraf in Ch. 1, Delita) believe that they are really doing what's best for society. In FFXII, you see this, and the protagonists aren't necessarily good, as most of them are motivated by revenge.

But I gotta say, in both games, there are indeed characters who are purely evil. Vormav for example. He just wants to resurrect demons and unleash all hell upon the world (to put it bluntly). Vayne has killed his 2 older brothers, his father, and has screwed over kingdoms for the sole purpose of his power-hungry egoism. In lierature/stories (and in real life, to me atleast) doing harm to one's brothers (or sisters) is an indicator that the person cannot be trusted/is in fact evil. Bergan is also a prime example in that he (for no reason, not even ordered to) starts massacring (sp?) the Kiltias of Mt. Bur-Omisace, even slaying the Gran Kiltias. I mean wtf. The dude does it for the sole fact of allowing Vayne to have his ascendancy so they can have "power".

And I would have to say in FFT (although i've not seen the creators explicitly state that FFXII's morality aim was the same goal for this) Ramza is completely good. He only believes in doing good to people, and goes as far as to stop those who have those same intentions but to do so with less than noble means. There couldn't be a holier character.

So I guess that's my rant, that although the world of Ivalice's morality is intended to be ambiguous, it doesn't live up to that 100%. But it does a damn good job of it for the most part.

---

Thanks for saving my thread!:D

For your points, I agree that many characters are actually evil while others are actually good. Vormav always gave me the impression that he was Hashmal in disguise. I could be wrong though, I'm mostly basing this on the fact that most of the Lucavi you meet have been in possesion of people killed.

I don't feel there is enough evidence about Vayne's murder of his brothers though. We never did get to see what they were like. Though your other points are quite valid. The game does give the impression that Vayne's murder of his brothers was both completely unexpected and brutal. Bergan as well as Ba'Gammon are both characters who seem to have really no sense of good within them. While Penelo, and even Alma and Teta from Tactics can be thought as purely good.

As for Ramza, I think he's more complex than that though. His sense of justice was so strong, strong enough to make him have little thought in killing his eldest brother. If he was written to be truly good, he would have had more misgivings. I never got the impression Ramza wanted to kill him but I did feel Ramza knew his brother deserved it. That's why he didn't really hesitate.

I wonder, if Ramza had actually become aware of what Delita was doing to achieve his goal, if he would have tried to stop him, even if it meant killing him?

Another thing to think about. Is Marche a hero or a villain? Since we are discussing the morality of the series, we can't forget the character ho really sparks debates;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Thanks for saving my thread!:D

For your points, I agree that many characters are actually evil while others are actually good. Vormav always gave me the impression that he was Hashmal in disguise. I could be wrong though, I'm mostly basing this on the fact that most of the Lucavi you meet have been in possesion of people killed.

I don't feel there is enough evidence about Vayne's murder of his brothers though. We never did get to see what they were like. Though your other points are quite valid. The game does give the impression that Vayne's murder of his brothers was both completely unexpected and brutal. Bergan as well as Ba'Gammon are both characters who seem to have really no sense of good within them. While Penelo, and even Alma and Teta from Tactics can be thought as purely good.

As for Ramza, I think he's more complex than that though. His sense of justice was so strong, strong enough to make him have little thought in killing his eldest brother. If he was written to be truly good, he would have had more misgivings. I never got the impression Ramza wanted to kill him but I did feel Ramza knew his brother deserved it. That's why he didn't really hesitate.

I wonder, if Ramza had actually become aware of what Delita was doing to achieve his goal, if he would have tried to stop him, even if it meant killing him?

Another thing to think about. Is Marche a hero or a villain? Since we are discussing the morality of the series, we can't forget the character ho really sparks debates;)

---

Ramza would have tried to stop him, and maybe could have killed him, as he did with his brother, but just time will tell...

About Marche, I actually thought he is a villain with a reality complex and with moral. Everyone was happy with the new world, and with their new lives, but Marche wanted the real world back, even if destroying the other's lives was needed.

In reality, everyone was in a dream world, a lie, created by a child's desire, but seeing that Final Fantasy works around saving the world and sometimes the crystals, and seeing that Marche destroyed them and destroyed the world, he was a villain that attained his desire, but actually saving the world of a wonderful lie, even if the real world is hard and cruel.

But how can we learn to survive in live if we don't live the real world? Maybe the real world is more cruel, but that's what makes it more enjoyable ;).

Marche knew that a dream world made of lies and secret desires wasn't correct, and he wanted to go back to home, who can blame him? :)

FFT rewards you often for being selfish. In the Zaland Fort City, choosing "I don't want to get involved" instead of "We have to help him!" actually raises your Bravery levels. To say nothing of of stealing and poaching as the only means of getting some rare items, and (most perversely) poaching your allied monsters! But there's a sort of moral relativism going on here, which is: the heroes are saving the world, so they are morally justified even when committing small evils.

In way Algus was right about Ramza and Delita: Ramza is a better person. But they have to reverse roles first. Ramza doesn't achieve his inner potential for good until he shucks off the trappings of nobility and defies his brothers and their machinations. Meanwhile Delita climbs up the social ladder he loses his moral bearings as he begins his own machinations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramza Beoulve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Thanks for saving my thread!:D

For your points, I agree that many characters are actually evil while others are actually good. Vormav always gave me the impression that he was Hashmal in disguise. I could be wrong though, I'm mostly basing this on the fact that most of the Lucavi you meet have been in possesion of people killed.

I don't feel there is enough evidence about Vayne's murder of his brothers though. We never did get to see what they were like. Though your other points are quite valid. The game does give the impression that Vayne's murder of his brothers was both completely unexpected and brutal. Bergan as well as Ba'Gammon are both characters who seem to have really no sense of good within them. While Penelo, and even Alma and Teta from Tactics can be thought as purely good.

As for Ramza, I think he's more complex than that though. His sense of justice was so strong, strong enough to make him have little thought in killing his eldest brother. If he was written to be truly good, he would have had more misgivings. I never got the impression Ramza wanted to kill him but I did feel Ramza knew his brother deserved it. That's why he didn't really hesitate.

I wonder, if Ramza had actually become aware of what Delita was doing to achieve his goal, if he would have tried to stop him, even if it meant killing him?

Another thing to think about. Is Marche a hero or a villain? Since we are discussing the morality of the series, we can't forget the character ho really sparks debates;)

---

Ramza would have tried to stop him, and maybe could have killed him, as he did with his brother, but just time will tell...

About Marche, I actually thought he is a villain with a reality complex and with moral. Everyone was happy with the new world, and with their new lives, but Marche wanted the real world back, even if destroying the other's lives was needed.

In reality, everyone was in a dream world, a lie, created by a child's desire, but seeing that Final Fantasy works around saving the world and sometimes the crystals, and seeing that Marche destroyed them and destroyed the world, he was a villain that attained his desire, but actually saving the world of a wonderful lie, even if the real world is hard and cruel.

But how can we learn to survive in live if we don't live the real world? Maybe the real world is more cruel, but that's what makes it more enjoyable ;).

Marche knew that a dream world made of lies and secret desires wasn't correct, and he wanted to go back to home, who can blame him? :)

---

I do feel Marche would have stopped Delita but then again, Ramza might have not, cause he still blames himself for Teta's death (even if it wasn't directly his fault). I wonder if he would have stopped him or let him continue on cause Ramza would probably have blamed himslef for what Delita had become.

As for Marche, I agree with you mostly, but I feel it's about perspective. To the people of Ivalice and Marche's friends, he is a villain. To Marche himself (and the player) you are the good guys. I'm still surprised his own clan didn't try to mutiny him though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG-57

FFT rewards you often for being selfish. In the Zaland Fort City, choosing "I don't want to get involved" instead of "We have to help him!" actually raises your Bravery levels. To say nothing of of stealing and poaching as the only means of getting some rare items, and (most perversely) poaching your allied monsters! But there's a sort of moral relativism going on here, which is: the heroes are saving the world, so they are morally justified even when committing small evils.

In way Algus was right about Ramza and Delita: Ramza is a better person. But they have to reverse roles first. Ramza doesn't achieve his inner potential for good until he shucks off the trappings of nobility and defies his brothers and their machinations. Meanwhile Delita climbs up the social ladder he loses his moral bearings as he begins his own machinations.

---

That is an interesting point. Both did envy the other. Ramza seemed to always hate the burden of his lineage and family name which restricted him due to social and political issues. Delita on the other hand, desired status and power to gain the freedom to affect change. It's sort of odd how one wished to cast away his power to gain personal freedom while the other desperately gained power to attain his own sense of freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BG-57

FFT rewards you often for being selfish. In the Zaland Fort City, choosing "I don't want to get involved" instead of "We have to help him!" actually raises your Bravery levels. To say nothing of of stealing and poaching as the only means of getting some rare items, and (most perversely) poaching your allied monsters! But there's a sort of moral relativism going on here, which is: the heroes are saving the world, so they are morally justified even when committing small evils.

In way Algus was right about Ramza and Delita: Ramza is a better person. But they have to reverse roles first. Ramza doesn't achieve his inner potential for good until he shucks off the trappings of nobility and defies his brothers and their machinations. Meanwhile Delita climbs up the social ladder he loses his moral bearings as he begins his own machinations.

---

That is an interesting point. Both did envy the other. Ramza seemed to always hate the burden of his lineage and family name which restricted him due to social and political issues. Delita on the other hand, desired status and power to gain the freedom to affect change. It's sort of odd how one wished to cast away his power to gain personal freedom while the other desperately gained power to attain his own sense of freedom.

---

that is real crazy. i'm trying to look for the word, would it be anti-foils? Because they're both kind of in the same situation, except their status is complete opposites, and then basically the same things happen to them, except opposite things... I don't know!

But I would still stick with my statement that Ramza is an entirely good character, even from the beginning despite decisions that may affect battles and some game mechanics. When dying, Simon tells him "you're just like Balbanes...when he was younger...", who I would also say was entirely good - he fought for the people rather than the nobility and Ramza is the only one of his brothers who is pure and has inherited this. Because of his status and inherited duty, he really is the only person in Ivalice who can set things right.

I phrased that a little wrong, I just don't feel Ramza is a traditional good character. Unlike many good guy characters, I feel like I understand why Ramza continues to do it. Not because he's a "nice guy" and "It's the right thing to do" but because he's seen so much corruption, greed and bloodshed. He honestly wants to make the world a better place.

Most protaganist in movies and video games are saving the world but if you think about it. They are actually just restoring the status quo. Evil comes, terrorizes the world, heroes appear and stop him and everything goes back to normal. This doesn't really happen in Tactics. In Tactics the world starts off miserable, Ramza and Delita are thrust into the middle of conflict and both get to see the world as it really is. They suffer great loss and try to desperately right the wrongs and make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Most protaganist in movies and video games are saving the world but if you think about it. They are actually just restoring the status quo. Evil comes, terrorizes the world, heroes appear and stop him and everything goes back to normal. This doesn't really happen in Tactics. In Tactics the world starts off miserable, Ramza and Delita are thrust into the middle of conflict and both get to see the world as it really is. They suffer great loss and try to desperately right the wrongs and make the world a better place.

---

But wouldn't that make Ramza like "most protagonists"? I would say he isn't trying to make the world a better place - he's trying to stop Vormav. After he does that, he basically becomes a wanderer, and leaves Ivalice to what it normally does. People like Olan are still being burned at the stake and Kings like Delita are still despots.

Right now I'm taking a class on, coincidentally, morality (ethics actually), and this thread has made me wonder what classification (although I most of the theorists we study, unfortunately, are english and i absolutely despise the classifications of those...alright i'm not gonna get into it) Ramza would fall into. Most of the antagonists in the game follow a utilitarian form of thought - they justify getting their hands a little dirty, sacrificing a few innocent individuals, for the aggregate utility of society as a whole.

Ramza will not accept this. Even if just one innocent life is sacrificed, even if that's for the greatest good possible, he will not allow the weak to be used and thrown away. Much of it is him redeeming himself for what happened to Teta. But that's not the entire picture. He fights for justice, for the people, he is Balbanes reincarnated, and he can do no wrong, to the point where he will pass judgment on any who do the littlest evil, no matter how good they may be. That's why I consider Ramza "holier than holy" as a protagonist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Most protaganist in movies and video games are saving the world but if you think about it. They are actually just restoring the status quo. Evil comes, terrorizes the world, heroes appear and stop him and everything goes back to normal. This doesn't really happen in Tactics. In Tactics the world starts off miserable, Ramza and Delita are thrust into the middle of conflict and both get to see the world as it really is. They suffer great loss and try to desperately right the wrongs and make the world a better place.

---

But wouldn't that make Ramza like "most protagonists"? I would say he isn't trying to make the world a better place - he's trying to stop Vormav. After he does that, he basically becomes a wanderer, and leaves Ivalice to what it normally does. People like Olan are still being burned at the stake and Kings like Delita are still despots.

Right now I'm taking a class on, coincidentally, morality (ethics actually), and this thread has made me wonder what classification (although I most of the theorists we study, unfortunately, are english and i absolutely despise the classifications of those...alright i'm not gonna get into it) Ramza would fall into. Most of the antagonists in the game follow a utilitarian form of thought - they justify getting their hands a little dirty, sacrificing a few innocent individuals, for the aggregate utility of society as a whole.

Ramza will not accept this. Even if just one innocent life is sacrificed, even if that's for the greatest good possible, he will not allow the weak to be used and thrown away. Much of it is him redeeming himself for what happened to Teta. But that's not the entire picture. He fights for justice, for the people, he is Balbanes reincarnated, and he can do no wrong, to the point where he will pass judgment on any who do the littlest evil, no matter how good they may be. That's why I consider Ramza "holier than holy" as a protagonist.

---

I disagree on your first point but I completely agree with your second;)

First I never said Ramza and Delita succeeded. This is the other reason why Tactics holds my interest cause in the end, both were able to stop a "worse case scenario" but neither was able to make Ivalice a better place.
Ramza misses his chance to overthrow the Glabados Church and Delita may have ushered in an age of peace but he fails to help the common man. As far as we know, he was a good ruler and eventually he was succeeded by other good and bad rulers. It's not like Delita brought democracy to Ivalice, or changed the way everything is run to balance the power between the serfs and nobility. Then again we don't know really anything of what he did.
Ramza never speaks of lofty goals of saving Ivalice, he stands with his higher sense of justice and rights the few wrongs he has the power to stop. I think both Ramza and Delita wanted to make Ivalice a better palce but at least for Ramza I don't feel it was his goal. I believe he wanted to correct the mistakes his family made and in the process got wrapped up into the conspiracy with the Glabados Church and the Lucavi.
Ramza alludes to wanting to make the world better in the first chapter but after the incedent with Teta and the Death Corps. I feel Ramza realized what little he could really do to stop centuries of abuse. I think he lost the ambitious belief he can "change the whole world" instead realizing he can only change a few things and hope that it might make the world a better place eventually. He avenges his father's death, brings retribution down on the House of Belouve, and stops the Lucavi. His first two goals are more self serving and his final feat is something many would feel his sense of justice would not allow to overlook. The wolrd is not necessarily a better place when Ramza retires from the stage of history but I can see through his own perspective that he changed as much as he could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Most protaganist in movies and video games are saving the world but if you think about it. They are actually just restoring the status quo. Evil comes, terrorizes the world, heroes appear and stop him and everything goes back to normal. This doesn't really happen in Tactics. In Tactics the world starts off miserable, Ramza and Delita are thrust into the middle of conflict and both get to see the world as it really is. They suffer great loss and try to desperately right the wrongs and make the world a better place.

---

But wouldn't that make Ramza like "most protagonists"? I would say he isn't trying to make the world a better place - he's trying to stop Vormav. After he does that, he basically becomes a wanderer, and leaves Ivalice to what it normally does. People like Olan are still being burned at the stake and Kings like Delita are still despots.

Right now I'm taking a class on, coincidentally, morality (ethics actually), and this thread has made me wonder what classification (although I most of the theorists we study, unfortunately, are english and i absolutely despise the classifications of those...alright i'm not gonna get into it) Ramza would fall into. Most of the antagonists in the game follow a utilitarian form of thought - they justify getting their hands a little dirty, sacrificing a few innocent individuals, for the aggregate utility of society as a whole.

Ramza will not accept this. Even if just one innocent life is sacrificed, even if that's for the greatest good possible, he will not allow the weak to be used and thrown away. Much of it is him redeeming himself for what happened to Teta. But that's not the entire picture. He fights for justice, for the people, he is Balbanes reincarnated, and he can do no wrong, to the point where he will pass judgment on any who do the littlest evil, no matter how good they may be. That's why I consider Ramza "holier than holy" as a protagonist.

---

I disagree on your first point but I completely agree with your second;)

First I never said Ramza and Delita succeeded. This is the other reason why Tactics holds my interest cause in the end, both were able to stop a "worse case scenario" but neither was able to make Ivalice a better place.
Ramza misses his chance to overthrow the Glabados Church and Delita may have ushered in an age of peace but he fails to help the common man. As far as we know, he was a good ruler and eventually he was succeeded by other good and bad rulers. It's not like Delita brought democracy to Ivalice, or changed the way everything is run to balance the power between the serfs and nobility. Then again we don't know really anything of what he did.
Ramza never speaks of lofty goals of saving Ivalice, he stands with his higher sense of justice and rights the few wrongs he has the power to stop. I think both Ramza and Delita wanted to make Ivalice a better palce but at least for Ramza I don't feel it was his goal. I believe he wanted to correct the mistakes his family made and in the process got wrapped up into the conspiracy with the Glabados Church and the Lucavi.
Ramza alludes to wanting to make the world better in the first chapter but after the incedent with Teta and the Death Corps. I feel Ramza realized what little he could really do to stop centuries of abuse. I think he lost the ambitious belief he can "change the whole world" instead realizing he can only change a few things and hope that it might make the world a better place eventually. He avenges his father's death, brings retribution down on the House of Belouve, and stops the Lucavi. His first two goals are more self serving and his final feat is something many would feel his sense of justice would not allow to overlook. The wolrd is not necessarily a better place when Ramza retires from the stage of history but I can see through his own perspective that he changed as much as he could.

---

So... how do you disagree with my first point? Like I said, according to your definition, Ramza would be like "most protagonists." This is exemplified in that he's a mercenary and (of all people) Gafgarion's protege at the beginning of the game, he only deviates from that when he realizes that something big is going on.

Also I'd like to point out that Matsuno has expressed interest in developing for Nintendo, both the Wii and Nintendo DS. Could we see possibly a revival of Ogre Battle?

My point is that Ivalice is no better off by the end than it was at the beginning. But this all goes back to my first point that Ivalice is not presented as some ideal place that gets corrupted by some no-gooders. Rather it was already steeped in blackmail, betrayal, and bloodshed. Even the supposedly good people are vying for power or at least trying to keep the people they trust, in power.

The differences is the worlds set-up which ultimately changes what Ramza is to the player. He goes through the motions of a protaganist but the subject matter changes how we should percieve him. Of anything, Ramza's tale is a twisted inversion of the classic heroic mythos of Rpgs. This all goes back to my annoying habit of not being able to look at something at face value and trying to find the deeper meaning;) Just ignore me if you can... like everyone else:D

As for Matsuno making a DS game or a Wii title, I'm all stoke for it. He's one of my favorite game designers and I would love another Ogre Battle.