Ultimecia and Squall's parents musings

[Noj_R]

omg...:rolleyes2

The thing is...The whole theory faq you referred me to was completely based on assumptions and a host of variables having to be satisfied before the theory can be true.

I glanced over it, and found it to be quite lacking. The point is I shouldn't have to. Character should be inherently obvious just by playing the game, not require much theorising and leaps of assumption to infer.

HowlingMonkey nailed it. No character's actions or motives should have to be theorized and crap to be explained.

The faq was full of assumptions and I DID read it all, but that doesnt mean I have to believe it all either. The whole basis of this " sorceresses were persecuted " theory depends on one line that Edea ( Ulti ) gives at the parade. If there is more evidence I would like to see it as it is a valid argument. But you also have to remember that this is used to prove the R=U theory, which has been proven false. That makes it hard for me to agree.

But no character should have to be theorized, assumed, etc. to be explained.

[The Devourer Of Worlds]

What more evidence do you need than a quote that directly states that Sorceresses were persecuted? I mean come on: 'Hailing the very one whom you have condemned for generations.'? It's pretty damn clear.

[Noj_R]

What more evidence do you need than a quote that directly states that Sorceresses were persecuted? I mean come on: 'Hailing the very one whom you have condemned for generations.'? It's pretty damn clear.

SEED has condemned her, because they are destined to fight her. And if thats the case, then why isnt Edea persecuted? The president of Galbadia wasnt persecuting Edea, he was making deals with her. It makes no sense.

[TheAbominatrix]

They speak of Sorceresses being persecuted throughout a long period of time. Notice it says 'generations'. SeeD hasnt been around for generations, as it was started by Cid and Edea. It's a relatively new thing. The game also speaks of Sorceresses living far removed from the population because of people fearing their powers.

As for Galbadia, they wanted power. I cant remember if anything particularily shady was going on, but Edea's rise to power was quite similar to Sorceress Adel's rise to power in Esthar.

[The Devourer Of Worlds]

To put it simply, it was worth his while to put aside the prejudice of the past. Ultemecia even comments on how discussing she felt it was for him to do so. And let’s face it; most people are idiots who believe anything politicians tell them. So it’s not really that outrageous to think that they would align with Edea, despite the fact that in general, her kind are feared.

[HowlingMonkey]

It's nice of you to point out that it's quite lacking without actually giving a single example, after only having 'glanced over it'. Do you always give such thorough reasoning behind your sweeping statements? Anyway, so you think Ultimecia should have spilled her heart out to us in some heart-wrenching scene instead, then? Ultimecia is at least a realistic enough villain to not stereotypically spill out her master plan and tormented life before attacking the hero :rolleyes2

Further, unless you actually care to back up your previous statement of flaws in the theory, there ISN'T a lot of theorising and 'leaps of assumption' necessary to substantiate the theory. The only assumption is that Ultimecias actions will be recorded in history. The rest is pure logic, based on the history of humanity.

Of course, if you think that any character who is explained only indirectly is instantly void of character, and that Ultimecia would literally have to spell it out to us for her to have any value, then I think you're missing out on a whole lot. It's true as has been said, Square didn't want to focus on Ultimecia, but that does NOT mean they decided to just forget about her and slap the insanity mark on her forehead and call her a villain. They simply decided to give us her story indirectly, so that we would actually have to look at what she's saying (her speach at Galbadia being a key point, other key point calling Squall "the legendary SeeD destined to face her").

By the way, if you intend to actually come with any arguments next post, please do more than 'glance over it', or I won't even bother responding.

It's a simple question of good storytelling. In good storytelling, the characters are clearly purveyed to the reader/viewer/player. In FF8, this is how works for each of the main people's character (or lack of character). It even works for Fujin and Raijin. They are all people who are easy to understand just by watching them in the game. Ultimecia is not. She doesn't need to do a Bond villain, but through some medium her motivations, desires and flaws should be displayed. That's what seperates good, real characters from others, what many other FF villains are and that's what Ultimecia is not.

[Sir Bahamut]

The thing is...The whole theory faq you referred me to was completely based on assumptions and a host of variables having to be satisfied before the theory can be true.

Excuse me, but your persistance to state that it's full of assumptions and variables without actually giving a single example is a bit silly, really. I'm perfectly open to the fact that it's full of holes, but so far, you haven't actually been able to come up with a single example, and until you do, I maintain that it is NOT based on a host of assumptions and variables.

Because it isn't. The ONLY basic assumption is made is that Ultimecia and her actions would be written down in history. or at the very least, that it would be recorded that "A sorceress nearly destroyed the world etc.". From there, we can use quotes and facts from the game to infer that it is highly probable that Ultimecia would have been persecuted as soon as she became a sorceress, even without having done anything.

So excuse me, but you're going to have to do better than simply state that "it's completely based on assumptions and variables" before dismissing it.

HowlingMonkey nailed it. No character's actions or motives should have to be theorized and crap to be explained.

This is a silly stance to take, in my humble opinion. Why is it really necessary that Ultimecias background should have to be spoonfed to us? Her motives are made quite clear (revenge herself on SeeD and compress time to become God), and if her background can be directly inferred from analysing what she says (your insistance that we shouldn't have to analyse anything to see her character is especially odd, as this theory is based quite fully on what Ultimecia says herself..). Isn't that enough? I really don't see why everything has to be spoonfed to be accepted...

I'm not saying is the best developed character ever or anything, but clearly there is more to her than "pure insanity" as you would have it.

The faq was full of assumptions and I DID read it all, but that doesnt mean I have to believe it all either. The whole basis of this " sorceresses were persecuted " theory depends on one line that Edea ( Ulti ) gives at the parade. If there is more evidence I would like to see it as it is a valid argument. But you also have to remember that this is used to prove the R=U theory, which has been proven false. That makes it hard for me to agree.

That "whole basis" as you put it, clearly states that sorceress have been condemned for generations (AFTER Squall's time mind you, as SeeD was less than one generation old at that time, clearly showing that Ultimecia is talking about the time between the game and her own era), so as someone else put it, what more do you need? Is not a direct quote from the game saying that "sorceresses have been condemned from the games end to Ultimecias era" enough? What more do you need? Tutorial information with excerpts from history books from the future?:rolleyes2

Now, again you ask why Edea was hailed, demonstrating how you clearly missed the point of my last post (maybe my fault), but as I explained above, there is irrefutable evidence that Ultimecia is speaking of the time after the game and until her own time, which renders your Edea argument quite invalid. I also refuted it further in my previous post, so see there for other reason why this argument falls short.

Also, that quote having been used in some way to back up the R=U theory has NOTHING to do with this theory, so I really can't understand why that should stand as a point against this theory.

It's a simple question of good storytelling. In good storytelling, the characters are clearly purveyed to the reader/viewer/player. In FF8, this is how works for each of the main people's character (or lack of character). It even works for Fujin and Raijin. They are all people who are easy to understand just by watching them in the game. Ultimecia is not. She doesn't need to do a Bond villain, but through some medium her motivations, desires and flaws should be displayed. That's what seperates good, real characters from others, what many other FF villains are and that's what Ultimecia is not.

Quite contrary, I think Ultimecia is one of the more realistic FF villains so far. The game doesn't focus on her though, as stated, so we aren't given the opportunity to see Ultimecia in a regular situation, except through Edea possessed, which as the theory states, can be used to add considerable background to her life. The rest of the time we see her is when we're going to fight her, since she's smart enough (contrary to what an 'insane' villain might do) to use others instead of putting herself in the frontlines.

Granted, as I said before, I don't claim that she is the most developed character ever; she simply isn't exposed enough for that to be the case. However, this theory adds a whole lot of background to her, making her a far better villain. And really, since nothing really indicates that she's merely acting out of pure insanity, and this theory can quite clearly explain all her somewhat odd statements, it is clearly more preferable. It seems to me that you people don't WANT Ultimecia to be more than simply insane!

[Skyblade]

As much as hate to stick my neck in here against Sir Bahamut, I would like to point out something:
As awesome and well thought out as your theory may be, it is still a theory, it is not game-supported fact. Her motives are not made clear. There are plenty of reasons why someone in her position would act the way she does. Certainly, the evidence you present is valid, but the conclusions you draw from it cannot be proven. They would explain why she is acting the way she is, but that does not mean that they are correct. True, no one here has pointed out holes in your theory (and they are incorrect for saying that your theory doesn't hold together without giving any evidence to support such a claim), but you haven't explained why their theory doesn't work either. Ulti very easily could be just an insane villain, and no evidence you have given disproves that theory. Either of the theories can be correct. If you want to settle the argument, you will have to do more than support your own theory, you will have to prove why theirs is flawed.

[Sir Bahamut]

Just want to make one thing clear, which obviously most people missed in the beginning: this is not MY theory! I didn't come up with it. It was a Gamefaqs user called "TheOnionKnight" who did. I merely helped mold the understanding of it through debate, that's all.

Anyway, it's true, as you say, that it's only a theory. But why should one favour this theory over "Ultimecia is insane"? Firstly, the advocates of "pure insanity" offer no reason whatsoever as to why Ultimecia should be insane, as if she were simply born that way, or what she one day broke down for no apparent reason and decided she wanted to compress all of time and space. The theory I'm advocating however, gives a quite probable and reasonable backdrop to her turning evil/somewhat insane. Why did Ultimecia go evil/insane? Because she was unjustly persecuted. The people who say "she was simply insane. Period" can offer no such answer. If you ask them why she is insane, they'd just say "Because".

Secondly, Ultimecia is clearly not "purely insane end of discussion". There is definitely a level of insanity (the kind present in anyone hell bent on becoming God and carrying out vengeance on all enemies) in here, but despite this, she is sane enough and clever enough to come up with such complex plans as Adels release and a number of over things. She is 'evil', hungry for revenge against SeeD and those who persecuted her, and yes, a touch insane, but you cannot by any means explain away all her actions with "pure insanity"!

Thirdly, although you might find this a bit redundant, there is the fact that OnionKnight's theory is far more elegant than the "pure insanity" theory. It perfectly accounts for all Ultimecias statements about being condemned for generations, her recognition of Squall as the one to kill her, and her ruthless desire to want to compress time, all in a theory elegant enough to explain all this AND add a compelling background to Ultimecia as a victim of her own fate. The "pure insanity" theory is far weaker, in that it is stuck with simply stating that all her actions are explained away by her insanity. :rolleyes2 I guess it depends on how clever you really think Square are. What is more likely, this theory, or pure insanity?

But really, Skyblade, I don't see how I am supposed to be able to specifically argue against the finer points of their theory, when all their theory contains is "Everything has the explanation that Ultimecia is insane (reason for insanity is unknown)"! :rolleyes2

[Keziah Angel]

Hay! I have a theory too!!! There was this thing I read somewhere (I can't remember) but what if the reason behind her "insanity" was because she had lost someone dear to her? Like, her knight? (Edea's knight was Seifer, and Rinoa's was Squall... keep this all in mind)

What if she was a "good", "sane" sorceress, trying to free herself and perhaps other fellow sorceresses from prosercution by SeeDs, and was aided by a knight, who fought valiently and died trying to save her?

This might've broken her heart so horifficly that she figured "This world is too evil to be left free. Too chaotic. The events of the past must be re-written. It all needs to be controlled..." and decided upon herself that she was going to do just that.

Maybe controlling time would bring back her knight, as that is a BIG part of her plan for domination. And stop herself from dying in the future?

Anyway I reckon she and her knight were fighting for freedom, he died, she cried, she got filled with anger, hatred and emptyness, she changed her plans from 'freedom' to 'control' including time and space, figuring it would bring back her knight, and making the world a better place for them, tried that and died.

Really, all she was doing was trying to make things right.

It's crap, I know. I'm not good at explaning things, let alone my thoughts.

[Skyblade]

But really, Skyblade, I don't see how I am supposed to be able to specifically argue against the finer points of their theory, when all their theory contains is "Everything has the explanation that Ultimecia is insane (reason for insanity is unknown)"! :rolleyes2

If you can't find any evidence that nullifies their theory, then it would seem that their theory is perfectly plausible. So don't be quite so vicious when you berate those who disagree with you. You can't complain that they are dismissing your theory without evidence if you do the same to them.

[Sir Bahamut]

You missed my point. I can't give any evidence against their theory because they don't actually HAVE anything that I can work with!

All they say is "Ultimecias motives and actions are due to insanity". That's it. They don't give ANY arguments to back this up, any direct quotes, or anything else that might be called substance to give some weight to this theory, other than perhaps stating that there seems to be no real explanation other than that.

So what does that leave me with? I can't show how they use flawed reasoning, because they don't HAVE any reasoning. I can't come with counter-evidence, because everyone knows there simply ISN'T any evidence as to what happened to Ultimecia, there's only speculation. I can't discuss the plausibility of the theory because they don't give me anything to work with!

If you think that qualifies as a 'valid theory' which must be acceptable, I disagree utterly. One cannot simply come up with a theory without giving any firm reasoning behind it. I could just as well claim that Irvine and Zell(yes, Zell) get married after the game, and how would you be able to say anything against it? You can't 'disprove' it, as it were. You cannot refute the reasoning, because I'm not giving any reasoning. you could tentatively discuss the plausibility, but since the theory is set to after the game ends, that too isn't all that fruitful. Should we then accept this as a valid theory?

A theory can only be acceptable if it is presented after a string of reasoning backed up by quotes/facts from the game. The statement that "Ultimecias actions are explained by her insanity" does neither. Onion's theory uses all Ultimecias quotes, and other ingame facts to predict a plausible scenario which would lead us to a deranged/evil/insane Ultimecia hellbent on revenge and becoming God. It not only says "What", it says "Why". Simply stating that Ultimecia is insane says only "What", not "Why". How can the two theories then even be comparable?

[Jessweeee♪]

NO!!! I refuse to do this to my brain!!!

[Sir Bahamut]

Upon reviewing my previous post, I think I might have made things a bit more complicated than necessary.

The point I'm trying to make is that the statement that "Ultimecias actions are explained through insanity" is not an acceptable theory because it doesn't prove any reasoning. Onions theory arrives at more or less the same conclusion, but provides reasoning. Hence, Onions theory is superior.

[Noj_R]

If you can't find any evidence that nullifies their theory, then it would seem that their theory is perfectly plausible. So don't be quite so vicious when you berate those who disagree with you. You can't complain that they are dismissing your theory without evidence if you do the same to them.

Actually, the burden of proof is on me because I am promoting the theory. But my theory doesnt really have proof, I only believe it because the evidence for the SP ( sorceress persecution ) theory doesnt seem plausible.

I will admit that it does have some evidence vs my theory having none, but I believe when Edea ( Ulti ) says this:

...Lowlifes. ...Shameless filthy wretches. How you celebrate my
ascension with such joy. Hailing the very one whom you have condemned
for generations..

SEED has condemned Ulti. After all, they have been training for the final confrontation with Ulti. Cant become more condemning on a person than training hundreds of warriors to fight her. I believe Ulti is referring to the "prophecy" ( I use that word loosely ) that SEED has taught their students. The coming of an evil sorceress that SEED is destined to fight.

...Have you no shame? What happened to the evil, ruthless
sorceress from your fantasies?..

She refers to sorceress: single NOT plural. I dont believe all sorceresses were feared. There are feared ones ( Adel ) and respected ones ( Edea ). What makes you think all sorceresses were feared and hated? She refers to only one sorceress ( herself ) as evil.

... The cold-blooded tyrant that slaughtered
countless men and destroyed many nations? Where is she now? She stands
before your very eyes to become your new ruler. HAHAHAHAHA.

SEED knows that the coming sorceress is going to kill, that is common knowledge. She wonders know why they hold her in high esteem. The thing is that no one in Glabadia knew she was "The" sorceress destined to fight SEED.

This statment by Edea can actually be used on both sides of the arguement. But she only refers to one sorceress, so I am led to believe mt theory is right. No one has to believe me...

I am interested in any more evidence you have Sir Bahamut, as you do have a valid arguement and you do present plausible evidence for your case. Unlike a certain theory maker we both know...