Quote Originally Posted by Bolivar View Post

The Death Corp. use terrorism in the name of the poor - the only real result is an excuse for the nobles to use them to further a war.
I don't see the Death Corps as bad, certainly some members of the group try to go for the easy way out and make them out to be a group of thugs but each time I play through Tactics, I feel its apparent that Ramza is actually being the villain in the first chapter, as he kills on orders a group of people that he himself can relate to.

I don't feel Wiegraf was evil, a hopeless idealist yes, but hardly evil. I feel the Death Corps were actually quite noble in their endeavors except for the guys who kept taking hostages, and this was rather striking as it just goes to show how a few bad eggs can make something people would have supported turn into something people hate. Of anything, this almost throws us into the debate on the concept of terrorism and whether its a good tool for political change in an oppressive regime. The Death Corps was wiped out and became terrorist but had they succeeded they would have been the heroic rebellion. History often paints the name of people long after the ambiguity of their actions have passed.

Each of the noble factions believe they are less corrupt/obtuse than the other faction and believe that they can bring better peace to Ivalice.
The beauty of all this is how accurate this really does fall into real life with the conflicts among the nobles and their total disregard for the peasants. I feel Larg was definetly out for power, and Goltana initially went to war cause he did believe he was protecting Ivalice from the power hungry Larg but it seems easy to realize he wanted the throne as well and just used his reasoning to justify his war.

The only characters who will not take underhanded tactics in order to further peace are Ramza's faction. In many cases, some of the schemes they foil would in fact lead to a better world, but because someone will get hurt along the way, Ramza stops it. At certain times I think he specifically says he will not allow any injustice even if it does lead to a utilitarian net gain.

I think I've said this before, but that's what the Ivalice games are all about - heroes who rise above the moral ambiguity which is suffocating their culture/setting, in order to put down a supernatural threat.
See in terms of Ramza and Delita, I feel what we really have here is a conflict between the two moral thoughts of virtue (Ramza) and Utilitarianism (Delita).

I think where I disagree with the game is the end results of both characters. Ramza has peace of mind and is able to save his sister and Ivalice but his efforts are partly thankless and in the end his actions only helped further Delita's goals. He saved Ivalice from a cataclysmic event but I don't think we could go so far to say he truly saved Ivalice.

Delita on the other hand does save Ivalice from its more major issue of political turmoil and completely upsets the old order. His actions are at best deplorable and in the end, he ends up becoming the very thing he fought to remove from Ivalice (which in itself is more of a social commentary on politics). Delita saves Ivalice and though he get some materialistic gain, his hands are stained and he lost the only people he ever cared about.

I feel you downplay Delita's success, he may have lost the battle for his soul but it can't really be argued that his actions led to some good results for Ivalice. Ramza saved Ivalice from a demon invasion but his actions didn't stop the Lion War nor resolved the starting issue of his journey. A lot of major players got axed but it was Delita who filled in the political vacuum and saved Ivalice from further civil war or possible even an invasion from a foreign power.

They are both heroes in some way and both made terrible sacrifices at their own expense for the better good of Ivalice.

As for Delita not caring about Ovelia, I feel the PSP version pretty much shows that Delita really did care about her. Of anything, its pretty tragic that his own actions made one of the people he cared about turn on him in fear. I feel the story makes a bit of a commentary showing the hardships of following a personal virtuous life like Ramza or the repercussions of actually trying to save the people for the better good and the problems when one employs "the end justifies the means".