What you should do is take a single tooth and twist 15 Degrees in the jaw. 45 Degrees if you want to make a lasting impression.Originally Posted by VeloZer0
What you should do is take a single tooth and twist 15 Degrees in the jaw. 45 Degrees if you want to make a lasting impression.
Thanks, I'll give it a try! They were like "I can't believe you are cheating on Final Fantasy XIII!"What you should do is take a single tooth and twist 15 Degrees in the jaw. 45 Degrees if you want to make a lasting impression.
Tell them FFT is better than FFX, XII and XIII put together.
2nd-ed
I agree with you that it would be uncharacteristic for him to kill Delita, but Delita completely lost his marbles the day Teta died. He became what he fought against - a cycle of power where the most cunning lie, cheat, and backstab their way to the top.I don't see how Delita is really a psychopath. He spared Cid and his son despite both of them being a liability for his own plans. In the end, Delita mostly took out people who really deserved to be taken out and as VeloZer0 said, he's remembered as a hero and wonderful king, so he probably ran Ivalice better than anyone else. Besides, Ramza had bigger problems than Delita.
Ramza is trapped in a scenario based in reality. Killing Delita would have only led to more suffering and the possibility of a greater tyrant coming in control. I love the fact the FFT portrays its story in a more realistic context with the total absence of the usual RPG "black and white" morality scheme. It creates a richer more philosophical take on the story telling.
Also, Olan/Orran (actually had to look up his name - Cid's stepson!) was burned at the stake!!! Maybe Delita was a good king (as the prologue suggests) maybe he wasn't, history is full of lies!
I remember that....
I agree that Delita became absolutely ruthless...and completely untrustworthy.
I think he would have killed Ramza if Ramza had stuck around.
He was trying to appease that silly Glabados church.....that's why Oran was burned and he would have handed Ramza over to them as well.Just to mollify/appease them and keep them on his side.
Stll the presumption is that Delita put an end to the wars and rebuilt the country. An era of peace came into existance.He deserves credit for that although we hate his methods in achieving it.
Except Delita didn't have Orran killed, he was executed by the church as a heretic so you can't blame Delita there. Delita also happen to kill a lot of people who were not exactly innocent. Yes he fell from grace but he pursued his own idea of saving Ivalice to the end.
I wouldn't say Delita was evil or crazy, rather he was just very human. His actions were necessary to complete his goal and technically fewer people died from Delita's scheme than the amount who fell to Dycedarg (sp?) and the churches scheming. Its not like Delita's schemes plunged Ivalice into war, rather it actually ended the war, so its pretty difficult to say the man didn't accomplish anything for the greater good. He just gets flack cause he ended up king for his carefully planned trouble but sadly its better for Delita to gain the crown than any of the other nobles or the Glabados Church to regain power. Though he did many terrible things (and lets not forget Ramza is not exactly innocent either in this regard) his actions actually did lead to a greater good for the people who really were suffering in the war.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
I you look at Delita's methods, sparing Olan's life was completely out of character. When considering someone like Delita the fact that Olan is alive doesn't mean that Delita didn't kill him, but that Delita actively chose to keep him alive.
The fact that Delita couldn't keep Olan safe from the church is no huge surprise.
Or he could have been fighting against the cycle where the peasants get swept up in sacrifice for the power games of the nobles. In that sense he succeeded completely.He became what he fought against - a cycle of power where the most cunning lie, cheat, and backstab their way to the top.
Though we can never be sure given the lack of material we have to work with, but Alazlam Durai is certainly not a source that would be swayed by the popular interpretation of historical events. He probably has a very clear picture of the full implications of Delita's rule.Maybe Delita was a good king (as the prologue suggests) maybe he wasn't, history is full of lies!
So? You could say the same thing about every dictator in history. That doesn't make them any more sane, or any less evil.Except Delita didn't have Orran killed, he was executed by the church as a heretic so you can't blame Delita there. Delita also happen to kill a lot of people who were not exactly innocent. Yes he fell from grace but he pursued his own idea of saving Ivalice to the end.
I wouldn't say Delita was evil or crazy, rather he was just very human. His actions were necessary to complete his goal and technically fewer people died from Delita's scheme than the amount who fell to Dycedarg (sp?) and the churches scheming. Its not like Delita's schemes plunged Ivalice into war, rather it actually ended the war, so its pretty difficult to say the man didn't accomplish anything for the greater good. He just gets flack cause he ended up king for his carefully planned trouble but sadly its better for Delita to gain the crown than any of the other nobles or the Glabados Church to regain power. Though he did many terrible things (and lets not forget Ramza is not exactly innocent either in this regard) his actions actually did lead to a greater good for the people who really were suffering in the war.
My friend Delzethin is currently running a GoFundMe account to pay for some extended medical troubles he's had. He's had chronic issues and lifetime troubles that have really crippled his career opportunities, and he's trying to get enough funding to get back to a stable medical situation. If you like his content, please support his GoFundMe, or even just contribute to his Patreon.
He can really use a hand with this, and any support you can offer is appreciated.
Just because someone values the ends over the means doesn't make them evil or insane. If Ivalice is falling apart at the seams and you see a way to save it and you don't do so you would be evil. If Delita saw a way to keep the country from descending even deeper into depravity the only morally upstanding path would be to stop said decent. Even if it meant doing so yourself.So? You could say the same thing about every dictator in history. That doesn't make them any more sane, or any less evil.
I saw Delita as an even more tragic hero than Ramza. Ramza lost a lot, but in the end remained the hero he was in the beginning. Delita lost everything, including himself, in his quest to help save Ivalice.
I personally can't stand the whole concept that someone can't be manipulative and underhanded (or as I call it intelligent and practical) while still acting in an altruistic manner. I think it is a very simplistic concept in storytelling and an overused moralistic cliche. Not every character who has a brain on their heads about the best way to actually help people in a meaningful way has to be evil.
There have also been many great rulers who had to kill many people to achieve a level of peace and prosperity for there people. I don't see how morality has to be so black and white especially since the world really isn't so simple. Sometimes the best action and the morale high road in a conflict is the one that makes you do some terrible things, there are just certain situations where the best thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils cause life rarely gives you problems that have simple answers, otherwise they wouldn't be problems. I think Tactics is an amazing game for presenting this concept to the player. The world really is not that simple I'm afraid.
As I said, its not like Delita killed many innocent people. Olivia yes, but the rest were cuthroats and murderers themselves that make Delita's record look like child's play. This resulted in the end of a pointless conflict and rule that may have been far more just for the non-nobility. I don't see how such great benefits are not worth the lives of a few people who were slowly destroying the land and harming countless innocents who are dying and starving to death cause their "leaders" feel its more important to wage war against each other so they can have control of a ruined kingdom.
Except Olivia and the Cid impostor, Delita pretty much took out people who deserved it. Would he have killed Ramza if he tried to make a stand against him? Certainly, but its not like Ramza is exactly innocent either and Ramza trying to stop Delita would have served no purpose for either of them.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
Actually I don't think that's the message in Tactics at all, it's actually quite the opposite.
The story in Tactics progresses with interchanging villains who each escalate the conflict and make the situation worse, even though they honestly feel that they're doing it for the better. It's this culture of rationalizing your own cruel tactics that made Ivalice such a crappy place to begin with.
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. 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 Church thinks the nobles have created this whole mess to begin with, but they're actually unknowingly leading the world towards an apocalypse!!!
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 inustice 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.
I thought it also sent a clear message that someone like Ramza could never change anything for the better. Sure he stopped the Lucavi, but that was preventing a change for the worst. What I got of it was that they needed a hero like Delita to be willing to get his hands dirty and change things for the better.
Death Corps and Delita are completely different examples. Death Corps, like Ramza, tried to change things from outside the system. They were overwhelmed and killed, much like Ramza would have been should he have taken a stand and actually tried to seize any sort of power. Delita has the intelligence to realize that fighting the system from the outside serves nothing but making you feel self righteous. He was more concerned with the future of Ivalice than feeling like a hero.
Also, I don't really think a whole lot of people were even pretending to be acting with the people's best interests in mind. For a noble that isn't even considered an un-ethical act. Their actions were considered completely justified by the morals of the time.
That's actually a very interesting take on it that makes me think twice about what the game was actually about.
But I really feel like with him killing Ovelia at the end and asking what did Ramza "get/gain", the game basically painted him as having fully become that which he fought against. Sure, he may have brought about a "peace", but I do not believe the game wanted him to come off as any kind of hero or well-intentioned character. Mostly because, like I said, every major villain except the Lucavi and Temple Knights also had this same goal in mind.
Speaking of which, I can't quote to any direct part in the game, but I can say that the plot is generally advanced by a battle with a new enemy who tries to convince Ramza that what they're fighting for will genuinely bring about a positive change. Not allowing any inustice to happen for that sake, Ramza then kills them. The only specific example I can think of is Gafgarion, which is a bad example because he didn't care about anything and only tried to convince Ramza his brothers were acting for the right thing because money was involved. But I do remember High Priest Funeral being painted as a well-intentioned old man who simply got manipulated by the Lucavi.
Overall, I would say the game strongly cautions us against delusional hopes to bring about real change. The best we can do is stop any injustice, no matter what it's in the name of, which is what Ramza and the name "Beoulve" is all about.
edit: in any case i'm glad we're pulling these things out of the game and talking about them, especially in light of recent events (re: ebert again). This definitely shows video games are art, at least by the standard of delivering interesting and thought-provoking themes that can spark serious discussion.
Maybe I totally misunderstood the ending of the game but I thought the only reason Delita kills Ovelia is because she stabs him. Delita comes to actually love Ovelia in the end but she jumps to conclusions and thinks that he's continuing to manipulate her. Who really got the smurfed up ending? I definitely say Delita. Someone tell me if that's not accurate; it's been a while since I played the game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
