Badguydiology

[Original Alear]

Making judgements as a reserved, third-place observer is entirely different from making judgements from the direct, first-place observer who engages war based on a set design of rules and regulations. To die with these rules enforced is to be expected--to have the rules broken, as Mikaya had done, and take lives therefore outside of rules, breaks the line between war and villainy.

Do you really believe that to break rules is to be a villain? If you define it as such, then I can't argue with you, we simply have different standards for what villainy is. I don't think that breaking established rules is villainy.

Mikaya as a character exists irregardless of us as observers--she does not depend on the observer to validate or negate what she does. The game includes opinions as well which exist regardless of a player and their observation.

Yes, but to label the character a villain involves taking in an understanding of what a villain is, which is something that is clearly subjective (thus I don't see why you are bothering to accuse me of being unobjective - it's obvious that I would be subjective when applying a subjective label) in my view. I can acknowledge that Micaiah is a villain to someone else, but I won't endorse that reality without further argument than I've seen here.

Now, I'm curious. To google, unless somebody would be so kind as to link the writing from offhand knowledge?

Um, this is from PoR, but:

..Thus do heroes give birth to new chapters in history... Ike, I

doubt if you've even noticed... Your story, the everyday mercenary

who becomes a hero will awake ugly appetite and ambition in many. It

will be the cause of strife and discord throughout the land. I'm

certain Ashnard saw the truth in this. In a way, Ashnard's dream may

have been fulfilled. The seeds of war have indeed been sewn across

the continent. It appears your trials are just beginning, my

gallant, young hero... May the goddess ride with you.

Soldier: General Ike, the army has arrived at the outskirts of Melior. We

await your deployment orders, sir.

Ike: Very well. Tell the men to stand down and await my command.

Soldier: ...At last, we face the king of Daein.

Ike: Yes... The war is coming to an end.

Soldier: It appears so.

Ike: Hm? Is there something bothering you?

Soldier: No, of course not. It's nothing like that. But...

Ike: But what?

Soldier: Some... Some of the soldiers are saying that when the war's over,

their chances for promotion will dry up.

Ike: They want to continue fighting? Even though Crimea-- and Daein, too--

have suffered so much?

Soldier: No, that's not what I mean... I apologize. I will go inform the men.

Edited November 8, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Aethereal]

Calling some one a 'villain' is dependent on your set of personal moral values, which most people have very loosely defined.

first-place observer who engages war based on a set design of rules and regulations. To die with these rules enforced is to be expected--to have the rules broken, as Mikaya had done, and take lives therefore outside of rules, breaks the line between war and villainy.

It sounds to me like you're an absolutist in terms of morals. Do you really believe there is only one answer to moral dilemmas-in this case to follow the rules and regulations of war? Absolutist beliefs like this really cut out any kind of context for the action. If one of the rules of war is to not cover your enemies with oil, then set them on fire, then let me ask you a question. Assume you were in 1940s Nazi Germany, and had the means to stop Hitler's entire regime, but could only do so by covering him and his men with oil, then setting them on fire. Is that morally indefensible? If so, why? If not, why is Micaiah's action morally indefensible?

[deranger]

My initial response is the crimes which Hitler committed and the good that could be done by stopping him is so immense. Though I guess the second point applies to both situations, and the forward way of thinking about justice is prevention and rehabilitation. And "evil" is relative.

Argument in point: I have no good points.

[Celice]

Do you really believe that to break rules is to be a villain? If you define it as such, then I can't argue with you, we simply have different standards for what villainy is. I don't think that breaking established rules is villainy.

I'm not speaking for me, and that is part of the mistake. I'm not concerned with whether Mikaya is a villain or not. It doesn't matter what I believe. What does matter is the characters Mikaya interacts with and affects. They constitute whether her actions are villainous.

It sounds to me like you're an absolutist in terms of morals. Do you really believe there is only one answer to moral dilemmas-in this case to follow the rules and regulations of war? Absolutist beliefs like this really cut out any kind of context for the action. If one of the rules of war is to not cover your enemies with oil, then set them on fire, then let me ask you a question. Assume you were in 1940s Nazi Germany, and had the means to stop Hitler's entire regime, but could only do so by covering him and his men with oil, then setting them on fire. Is that morally indefensible? If so, why? If not, why is Micaiah's action morally indefensible?

Again, you're taking out of context why the call for villainy by asking the opinions of us who are not the characters in the game. To entertain, though: I don't care whether they burn or not, the characters of the game, or the characters of history. Let either rub black as ash or continue walking, neither bothers me.

[Aethereal]

I'm not speaking for me, and that is part of the mistake. I'm not concerned with whether Mikaya is a villain or not. It doesn't matter what I believe. What does matter is the characters Mikaya interacts with and affects. They constitute whether her actions are villainous.

Again, you're taking out of context why the call for villainy by asking the opinions of us who are not the characters in the game. To entertain, though: I don't care whether they burn or not, the characters of the game, or the characters of history. Let either rub black as ash or continue walking, neither bothers me.

I wasn't particularly interested in wether you cared for the characters in the game, but in whatever moral beliefs you may or may not have that lead to you calling her villainous. The stance that she's villainous because she's viewed as such by the characters in the game is a weak one, because she's just as often seen as a saint, and the two are conflicting. Are you making the stance that the people that she "harmed" view her as villains? I don't think that needs to be said.

Additionally, the idea that Micaiah is a villain because she is thought to be one by others, and that that stance cannot be usurped or negated as you said, is another weak point. Take a random person, X, who was viewed as a hero by some, does that mean that he could never be considered a villain? But if he's viewed by a villain as others, does that mean he can not be considered a hero? How do you reconcile this fact? How do you reconcile the fact that people can be biased, for unrelated reasons? How do you reconcile the fact that people may not always have all of the information involving this person and the morality of their actions or views? What if X had killed a large amount of his people's children, then told his people that they were killed by some enemy of his. An enemy he has for entirely selfish reasons. His people may consider him a hero for going to war with that enemy. Does that make him a hero? How does it NOT make him a villain? Obviously you can usurp the stance of the people who do not have complete knowledge, or have incorrect logic. Obviously some people are biased, obviously some people are wrong. As a third party observer with considerably more knowledge on the context of an action than say, some random Begnion soldier who was caught up in this, and has absolutely no knowledge of what happened except that Micaiah dumped oil on his comrades, would you not say that you have more available to you that lends itself to making a knowledgeable and logical judgement on wether or not Micaiah's actions are just?

Edited November 9, 2011 by Aethereal

[Baldrick]

I think Micaiah was corrupted, not by powers beyond her control like Hardin or Lyon, but by the desire to protect Daein's people. The oil is pretty much universally regarded as a dick move, but is it villainous? It really depends on what moral code you follow. Since the senate's reaction to Daein's defeat could not reasonably be predicted, it would probably fall under antiheroic (an evil deed done for an ultimately good consequence). Ashera's tantrum throws a monkey wrench into the situation as well; if Daein had not impeded the apostle's army, they may have encountered the senate's army earlier, and Yune may not have made it to the medallion in time, which would have resulted in the destruction of the world. Basically, it's a whole lot of grey.

As for Micaiah herself, I would classify her as an antagonist in Part 3 (her playability is irrelevant; what matters is the plot, and who the audience is supposed to root for, and I'm fairly it's Sanaki's group), but she's not a villain any more than the Black Fang or Alvis was.

[deranger]

As for Micaiah herself, I would classify her as an antagonist in Part 3 (her playability is irrelevant; what matters is the plot, and who the audience is supposed to root for, and I'm fairly it's Sanaki's group), but she's not a villain any more than the Black Fang or Alvis was.

Not to distract you fine gentlemen (and/or gentleladies) from your chat, but the black fang's another thing I forgot to mention. They're basically a group whose goals were ultimately for the greater good, though they were corrupted because Nergal could use their methods (killing) to his own ends. Most black fang thought they were doing good, both before and after the take over, which I thought was an interesting addition to the game's plot.

[Celice]

I wasn't particularly interested in wether you cared for the characters in the game, but in whatever moral beliefs you may or may not have that lead to you calling her villainous. The stance that she's villainous because she's viewed as such by the characters in the game is a weak one, because she's just as often seen as a saint, and the two are conflicting. Are you making the stance that the people that she "harmed" view her as villains? I don't think that needs to be said.

Additionally, the idea that Micaiah is a villain because she is thought to be one by others, and that that stance cannot be usurped or negated as you said, is another weak point. Take a random person, X, who was viewed as a hero by some, does that mean that he could never be considered a villain? But if he's viewed by a villain as others, does that mean he can not be considered a hero? How do you reconcile this fact? How do you reconcile the fact that people can be biased, for unrelated reasons? How do you reconcile the fact that people may not always have all of the information involving this person and the morality of their actions or views? What if X had killed a large amount of his people's children, then told his people that they were killed by some enemy of his. An enemy he has for entirely selfish reasons. His people may consider him a hero for going to war with that enemy. Does that make him a hero? How does it NOT make him a villain? Obviously you can usurp the stance of the people who do not have complete knowledge, or have incorrect logic. Obviously some people are biased, obviously some people are wrong. As a third party observer with considerably more knowledge on the context of an action than say, some random Begnion soldier who was caught up in this, and has absolutely no knowledge of what happened except that Micaiah dumped oil on his comrades, would you not say that you have more available to you that lends itself to making a knowledgeable and logical judgement on wether or not Micaiah's actions are just?

I'm saying both and neither. All the points are basely true. Rather, it's weak to disregard those who see Mikaya as a villain, and thus call her not one, because you as an observer don't believe her to be one.

Throwing out the views of others because you believe yours is better, when it is not, but only different. That is the problem.

[Aethereal]

I'm saying both and neither. All the points are basely true. Rather, it's weak to disregard those who see Mikaya as a villain, and thus call her not one, because you as an observer don't believe her to be one.

Throwing out the views of others because you believe yours is better, when it is not, but only different. That is the problem.

Nevermind, I'd rather not have my counterpoints ignored any longer.

Not to distract you fine gentlemen (and/or gentleladies) from your chat, but the black fang's another thing I forgot to mention. They're basically a group whose goals were ultimately for the greater good, though they were corrupted because Nergal could use their methods (killing) to his own ends. Most black fang thought they were doing good, both before and after the take over, which I thought was an interesting addition to the game's plot.

I completely agree. FE7's plot may not have been the best thing in the world, but I loved how easy it was to sympathize with some of the villains. People from the Black Fang like Uhai, Brendan, Lloyd, and Linus in particular are great at this, adds another layer of awesome into the game.

[deranger]

I completely agree. FE7's plot may not have been the best thing in the world, but I loved how easy it was to sympathize with some of the villains. People from the Black Fang like Uhai, Brendan, Lloyd, and Linus in particular are great at this, adds another layer of awesome into the game.

I thought that FE7 has the best plot to date, but maybe that's just my nostalgia kicking in. FE7's plot was definitely different than most games, as it was smaller scale (neither you nor your foes represent a country's armies). I it's think this smaller scale that let the writers go more in depth in everyone's characters and situations.

Edited November 10, 2011 by deranger

[Aethereal]

I thought that FE7 has the best plot to date, but maybe that's just my nostalgia kicking in. FE7's plot was definitely different than most games, as it was smaller scale (neither you nor your foes represent a country's armies). I think this smaller scale that let the writers go more in depth in everyone's characters and situations.

I know what you mean. I liked FE4's plot more, but I think that was just because of how much I liked Alvis and Sigurd, and how much betrayal there was on such a grand scale. As far as character depth goes, yeah, FE7 did an incredible job, easily better than any other game in the series.

[deranger]

I know what you mean. I liked FE4's plot more, but I think that was just because of how much I liked Alvis and Sigurd, and how much betrayal there was on such a grand scale....

I haven't played FE4, so I can't say about that. I should probably get the necessary emus together to play it.

[Anouleth]

Maybe we should actually define the word "villain". Random House defines it as:

"a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot"

Which does not describe Micaiah. Is every character who ever breaks a rule or a moral code now a villain?

[Aethereal]

Which does not describe Micaiah. Is every character who ever breaks a rule or a moral code now a villain?

A couple people said that, and were then told "You're wrong because some characters in FE don't think so."

[Anouleth]

The reason I was outlining them as particularly poor people to die is that they have not volunteered their lives for the war.

How exactly do you judge if someone has "volunteered their life"? The implication is that you may only kill enemies when they give you permission to do so.

[deranger]

Maybe we should actually define the word "villain". Random House defines it as:

"a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot"

Which does not describe Micaiah. Is every character who ever breaks a rule or a moral code now a villain?

Micaiah constitutes an impediment in the Apostles army to take back the capital from corrupt senators who are clearly "villains". Whether that is enough to be a villain, as opposed to simply an antagonist to the "good" army is open to interpretation.

Edited November 10, 2011 by deranger

[Original Alear]

(her playability is irrelevant; what matters is the plot, and who the audience is supposed to root for, and I'm fairly it's Sanaki's group), but she's not a villain any more than the Black Fang or Alvis was.

I don't think that who the audience is "supposed" to root for matters. I think that people are able to come to their own conclusions about the game, and that there's no one right way of interpreting the game, even if nintendo published a manifesto saying that we were supposed to root against Daien because they were fighting on the side of Begnion.

Not to distract you fine gentlemen (and/or gentleladies) from your chat, but the black fang's another thing I forgot to mention. They're basically a group whose goals were ultimately for the greater good, though they were corrupted because Nergal could use their methods (killing) to his own ends. Most black fang thought they were doing good, both before and after the take over, which I thought was an interesting addition to the game's plot.

Actually, I find what you're saying to be a good observation, except insofar as you say "most black fang". We know that the black fang was partially infiltrated by Nergal's more corrupt, self-serving or Nergal-serving types, so it's not clear that MOST of the black fang thought they were doing good. Some definitely thought so, but not necessarily most.

I'm saying both and neither. All the points are basely true. Rather, it's weak to disregard those who see Mikaya as a villain, and thus call her not one, because you as an observer don't believe her to be one.

I really do think you're missing the point here, I'll try reiterating my stance one more time, see what you have to say, and drop it if we can't come to an understanding or a further argument. If I believe that someone is innocent of a crime and someone else says they are guilty of a crime, it might be correct for me to say she's been charged with the crime but it's not correct for me to say she's guilty of the crime. Similarly, in this situation it's correct for me to admit she's been charged with villainy but not to say that she is a villain. Being believed to be something does not make someone something.

Edited November 10, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Celice]

It won't come to an understanding so long as you continue to speak from "if I believe," "for me to say," "I really do," and so on.

Asking whether she is a villain, and dismissing the probability because you cannot see it so, is a very real, and very large problem.

Being believed to not be something does not make someone not something.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Celice

[Original Alear]

Quoting something doesn't make it true. To label someone a villain is a subjective label. It isn't true or not true in an objective sense, which is why talking about beliefs is not only valid, it's assumed in discussing whether we believe her to be a villain. Micaiah may be a villain to you. She is not a villain to me. Therefore, her villainy is up for contention, not determined.

[Aethereal]

It won't come to an understanding so long as you continue to speak from "if I believe," "for me to say," "I really do," and so on.

Asking whether she is a villain, and dismissing the probability because you cannot see it so, is a very real, and very large problem.

Dismissing the probability that she is not a villain because some one else believes she is is a much larger problem. I am perfectly capable of believing Micaiah's a reason. Why don't you try using logical reasons to support the claim that she's villainous, as opposed to trying to make the point that she's a villain because some one said so. There's this crazy concept about people, especially when they have beliefs about things that they do not have sufficient knowledge to claim: they can be wrong. If you're firmly of the belief that the matter is purely subjective, and that their opinion makes her actions right or wrong, you may want to look up ethical relativism to figure out what you're implying. It's a pretty extreme stance to take.

Edit: Elaborating, because I'm positive you'll either misunderstand me or ignore my point. When you imply that things can be right relative to the person, your stance literally makes the concept of morality useless. All of a sudden, how moral or immoral an action is is a completely worthless discussion, and there is absolutely zero way to critique any sort of action at all. Moral decisions are only ever based off of any one's moral beliefs, and no one ever could be considered a morally good, or morally bad person. There is absolutely no room for discussion, because logic is tossed the fuck out the window, and all you can say is "well, I believe X" and leave it at that, no matter how heinous a fucking act is because you are giving up the concept of morality as a logical end, and make it some crap about beliefs.

Not only that, you're sitting over contradicting yourself within two freaking sentences: your two statements are asking for a complete tolerance and inclusion of other's opinions, and earlier you were claiming that each opinion held just as much weight as the next. That's a stance that you can take, but you contradict yourself by saying other people have a "problem" of intolerance. You cannot tell some one else what they ought to do while taking the stance that morals are relative, because not every one may agree with tolerance and inclusions of others. Not only that, but other people's opinions don't matter at all if morals are completely subjective, as you've very clearly implied: After all, I can no more speak for them than I can turn into a fucking space ship, and every single thing any one says would be from the standpoint of "I believe".

You are making a huge contradiction, stopping the discussion, all the while looking down your nose at others.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Aethereal

[Anouleth]

This is not about subjective values at all. The word "villain" has an actual meaning. It is not the same as "bad person" or "evil".

[Aethereal]

This is not about subjective values at all. The word "villain" has an actual meaning. It is not the same as "bad person" or "evil".

Celice discussed "making judgements" on Micaiah's actions, which is to weigh their moral worth. Maybe we've been misusing the term, but I don't think the cruelty of the action was being discussed so much as wether it was "right".

[Original Alear]

This is not about subjective values at all. The word "villain" has an actual meaning. It is not the same as "bad person" or "evil".

The word villain has multiple meanings. Not everyone, living person, piece of paper or electronic database or what have you, would define it the same way. Moreover, if we are to take wikipedia's word for it, the villain is an "evil" character, and if you're going to tell me that evil isn't subjective, I don't even feel like responding.

If we were going to talk about whether Micaiah was an antagonist, I could see the room for a more objective definition, antagonist is a much less blurry word.

Edited November 10, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Celice]

You are making a huge contradiction, stopping the discussion, all the while looking down your nose at others.

None of these three accusations are true. In fact, I find it down-right unfortunate that you say it is happening. It's one thing to feel like it is, but then to outright say, actually, I am doing these things--I'm not even sure you're worth responding to.

This is what began the discussion:

Mikaya is the one who gives the OK to dump oil on numerous people and then set them aflame.

That doesn't exactly get covered by Pelleas's responsibility. Mikaya made the decision to take that many lives. Her decision, and method, are definable as villainous.

and its first retort

They were soldiers in a war. Is every fire mage a villain now? Why is burning someone to death reprehensible, but killing them on the field of battle acceptable? What makes death through strategy and ruthless trickery more horrible to contemplate doing to others than a straightforward death faced on the opponent's lance in open warfare? You're still dead either way. The worst you might be able to say is that camp followers might have been killed in the attack, but FE doesn't give us enough detail to really know that for certain.

All my points have been thus about this. If you cannot follow the thread, that's fine. If the thread has turned to a different direction, that's fine. But you need to follow the replies from where they originated--not where the thread has ended up. That's taking out of context, and also, screwing up "logical" thought altogether.

I have been saying that Mikaya can be seen as villainous because of that original point: she not only authorizes, but willingly endorses using the oil, despite ethics of the war (in the game's context as well as wordly context). Some of the game see this as a horrible, inexcusable, villaonous act. Sanaki I believe was the one to even say this. I haven't played the game for two years, though.

Quoting something doesn't make it true. To label someone a villain is a subjective label. It isn't true or not true in an objective sense, which is why talking about beliefs is not only valid, it's assumed in discussing whether we believe her to be a villain. Micaiah may be a villain to you. She is not a villain to me. Therefore, her villainy is up for contention, not determined.

I completely agree. Part of the confusion on some of you may be expecting me to try and argue some personal point. That is an issue on your part. You're thumbing in your expectations, skewing an actual conversation. If someone does that: fuck them.

That's all. I'm not saying she isn't. I'm saying that her actions can be considered villainous. They can also be considered acceptable under the context of war. They can be excused and accused depending on whose perspective we deal with. All of them are valid. But some views are also more honestly, authentically felt, and are by way, more powerfully reactive against the use of the oil.

Edit: Elaborating, because I'm positive you'll either misunderstand me or ignore my point.

Again, the inability to keep yourself out of a conversation is giving me very little desire to reply, but also take the discussion seriously.

When you imply that things can be right relative to the person, your stance literally makes the concept of morality useless.

No. It does not suddenly slip into that suggestion of "morality as uselessness."

That you continue to say "Celice this" rather than what the discussion was actually about--I'm not sure you're capable of looking at things without your own bias.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Celice

[Original Alear]

OK, the only vocal opposition in this debate just said fuck you because of a flaw, real or otherwise, in my debating, instead of simply critiquing it and leaving it at that. I'll briefly respond that Celice's debating is not flawless, I have asked him for clarification on what he was trying to say at one point in the debate and he continued onwards as though the clarity of his posts was unimportant to the debate, but I didn't stoop to insulting him when I asked him (fruitlessly) to clarify. I'm not sure if fuck you counts as a flame, but who really gives a damn, the point is this has become, if it wasn't already, for absolutely no reason that I can understand, a hostile debate, which is really stupid IMO because it's about a goddamn video game. There's probably not going to be any luck carrying towards a better mutual understanding with that kind of attitude, so I'm simply bowing out. Have fun Celice, Aethereal, Deranger, and anyone else.

Status: butthurt.

Edited November 11, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty