Suikoden Utopian and Irrational Kibbutz Omniscient Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Editorial: Luca Blight the Hero
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Site Content Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Urn

Azure Flames


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It is misguided to focus on his reasons for beginning the war. One person's motives don't make them qualified to be a hero. Whether Luca was "good" or "bad" is irrelevant, as well. Becuase that is all based on perception. The issue is whether or not Luca Blight is a hero. The fact is that no one can give a concrete argument as to Luca not being a hero. You may try to argue morality and the fact that he caused a tragedy. Personally, it can be seen as a justified means to an end.

This is of tragedy and death is a mute point because in war there will always be death and tragedy. Some would say Riou's cause was unjust. That is based on individual perception.

Whether you view Luca as good or evil is not a real justification as to whether he was a hero or not. It is easy to perceive his motives as villainous, but you still can't undermine the things that he would have accomplished and did accomplish for Highland. If he would have survived the country would be under one firm, strong and capable ruler..albeit, one part of the country would have been decimated, but that is not the issue.

I think we just have a biased view of what a hero is and should portray in his values, butnot what a hero does and what a hero is capable of doing. It's just turning a blind eye to the situation by saying if he or she takes a thousands lives for the right reason then he is just. Death is death. Thse people who died for a "justifiable" means, surely wouldn't perceive their destroyer as a hero. The title of a hero should not be based on morality or ethics because then it would subject to personal bias.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nameless Wanderer

Chuukekkonkoken


Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Post Count: 26
Location: USA
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
Is this in response to anything I have said??


Umm... no. I was responding to Tokuro AND Camus The Noble's replies. I found nothing wrong with your arguments, so we must be on some kind of misunderstanding here.

For Tokuro, of the Hwoarang-do principles that I could scrounge up in a small amount of time, I can only see a kind of mentality that are considered heroic for only one side of a battle. Not for both sides of the conflict.

As Urn said, the destroyed won't think of their destroyers as heroes. I believe that the Hwoarang-do aristocrats that gave victory to Silla during the Korean Three Kingdoms Period weren't thought of as heroic in the vanquished kingdoms of Goguryeo and Baek-jae.

And again, we see that being a true hero cannot be judged simply by morals, ethics, and even our personal justices. Which is what Urn is probably talking about. AND I AGREE with what he is implying.

Heroes can be defined with what they are able to accomplish with their own hands through unyielding dedication in what they believe in and in the stability of their convictions.

Well, that's what I think after stripping all bias away from it, while looking from a bystander's point of view.
_________________

//Mahou Furyou Nagima! - Magister Nagi Magi//
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zeik Tuvai

Aura of the Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 902
Location: Schiavik
12319 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed May 10, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well, sorry UberYuber. I forgot to drop by his office on Tuesday, but I did find some stuff on wikipedia about heroes, and I thought you'd like this one: The Tragic Hero.

Quote:
He must suffer more than he deserves.
He must be doomed from the start, but bear no responsibility for possessing his flaw.
He must be noble in nature, but imperfect so that the audience can see themselves in him.
He must have discovered his fate by his own actions, not by things happening to him.
He must see and understand his doom, as well as the fact that his fate was discovered by his own actions.
His story should arouse fear and empathy.
Physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences, often resulting in his death.
Ideally, he should be a king or leader of men, so that his people experience his fall with him.

So, what in this does Luca Blight fit? Did he suffer more then he deserved? I dunno.

Was he doomed from the start? Oh, hell yes. Did he bear responsibility for his flaws? Nope.

Was he noble in nature? Uhhh, depends on your viewpoint. From Riou viewpoint, he was nuts. From Highlands viewpoint, he was noble.

Was he imperfect to the point where we could see ourselves in him? To a point, yes, I think everyone feels a little Luca from time to time.

Did he understand what was going to happen to him by his own means, but by the fact there were thousands of archers and soldiers beating on him until he died? ... No, it took the events happening to him to make him realize his fate. He might have when he was looking at the wooden amulet, but I just don't think so.

Did he understand his doom? Sadly, yes. It's hard not to understand that a 16 year old boy just kicked your butt, but I don't think he discovered it by his own actions.

Did his story arouse fear and empathy? Fear, ooooh yeah. Empathy... I'm not so sure. I guess you could feel bad for the guy for what happened to him as a child...

Did he die fom physical or spiritual wounds? Yeah.

Was he a King or a leader? Yep.

So, yes, Luca was a hero. He doesn't fit the typical describtion of a hero, but he is a hero. He fits almost every single common trait of the tragic hero, if not all of them, depending on your viewpoint.
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Eden

Private Godwin Army


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Post Count: 6220
Location: Doraat
558571 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mitchell, your description is for the tragic hero, whereas tragic is a special expression. One of the most prominent tragic heroes is Rex Oedipus. Most people on this board are rather talking about the "common everyday-hero" if you excuse this phrase. There are many differences between the tragic hero in mythology and art and the persons people today are calling a hero.
_________________


The Fool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zeik Tuvai

Aura of the Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 902
Location: Schiavik
12319 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Mitchell wrote:
Well, sorry UberYuber. I forgot to drop by his office on Tuesday, but I did find some stuff on wikipedia about heroes, and I thought you'd like this one: The Tragic Hero.

Hmmm... Yep, that's a tragic hero, alright.

My point is that a hero can come in many forms, dependant on your view point. A "cmmon every-day hero" is really just what each person views as a hero. Just because tragic heroes don't fit your description of a hero doesn't mean it doesn't fit someone elses, so don't go ruling it out like I'm making stuff off the top of my head.

Tragic heroes are also used in literature and even some other video games (specific examples would be Shakespeare's Hamlet from hamlet: Prince of Denmark and Square-Enix's Tidus from Final Fantasy X). So again, it just depends on your viewpoint to what a hero really is. They can be tragic, super, or... Something, I dunno.
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Eden

Private Godwin Army


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Post Count: 6220
Location: Doraat
558571 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

No, I never suggested you made stuff off the top of your head. Mainly because that's very ungracious and secondly I know about the tragic hero, hence I named Oedipus as example. You're right about Tidus. I have never thought about him as a classic tragic hero, but he actually is one.
I am sorry, because my post really sounds like I wanted to contradict your opinion or something similiar. Excuse my mindless and useless post.
_________________


The Fool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainrir

Landsknecht


Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Regarding Standards of Defining what is a Hero

This discussion is getting to the extreme fundermentals of what is a Hero....and while doing this we must not fall into the gaps of complete relativism..because complete relativism is useless for practical discussion. Saying that everything is not black and white and everything is grey is a kind of relativism.

Sure we can remove many of the moral/ethical/whatever standards we judge people with..just to be "unbiased"...and what are we left with? NOTHING! Absolutely NOTHING! This kind of conclusion is useless in determining if a person/event/anything has any kind of property we can ascribe to (in this case the term "hero").

You understand?

If there are next to NO standards in a debate to measure ANY QUALITY then there is no POINT debating at all.

Well...hmmm...we have to ascribe certain qualities to this term "hero" if we are to get anywhere in this debate if Luca Blight is a "hero" in the truest sense.

Oriental Defination of Hero

Being Asian who grew up in Asia and having the unique chance to see what a Occidental and Oriental "Hero" is like too the two cultures, I think I am qualified to clear some of this up.

So called Oriental Hero is a term....that East Asians(I am Chinese,I am pretty sure the Japanese and Koreans have the same tendencies too. But have no idea with regards to the Indians, Arabs etc.) use rather liberally...because the term "Hero" can refer to a man that:

1) Achieved or is trying to achieve great things. That is why men like Cao Cao who technically commited treason and is ruthless is called a "Hero" by his peers. Why Sih Huang Di who murdered millions in wars to unite China is called a "Hero". In this case a HERO is someone who does INFLUENTIAL THINGS.

2) is humane, compassionate or displayed certain important moral behavior that is worthy of respect. Yue Fei for his Loyalty to his nation even at the expense of disobeying his monarch, Guan Yu for his compassion to Cao Cao when he had Cao Cao cornered(Cao Cao was extremely kind to Guan Yu when he served under him) despite defiling military orders.

As an Asian myself I find it extremely offensive that someone will say that the defination of HERO=GOOD is purely an Occidental concept.

Are you trying to say that Asians have no sense of moralty? I think not. Asian concepts of HERO is extremely wide and sometimes relative but it definately attributes moral behavior in at least ONE of its defination of "HERO".

With Defination One, we can easily say that everyone thjat affected history a great deal and affected many people are "Heroes". Everyone from Gandhi to Hitler is a Hero.

However if we take Defination Two to account, then only Gandhi fills both description and not Hitler.

Of course, if we take both Definations into account then a person who only slays a tiger to rid a village of a menace is not a hero. Given that the fact that his undertaking is small and only affects one village(both Hitler and Gandhi affected nations). This person in question only fufilled
Defination 2 and not Defination 1.

HOWEVER, the Asians STILL call him a hero...he is none other then Wu Song from the Water Margin Fame(Suikoden Original) . He was called a Hero even BEFORE he got up to Mount Liang and started doing some really influential stufff.

These examples is to show how often the Asians use the term Hero and that the defination of Hero is extremely wide and the term "Hero" can be representative of a WIDE array of behavior and the term "HERO" can be used in context of a person's moral integrity or in context of a person's achievement.

It is true that the Orient historically take a more relative approach to defining what makes a Hero then the Occident but it is pure BS to say that the Orient's defination of Hero is completely relative. The two definations of "Hero" from the Oriental point of view desrcibe DIFFERENT THINGS. The ancients are not as foolish to fall into the intellectual pitfall of complete relativity when it comes to defining things.

Both culture's defination of Hero includes a certain amount of moral judgement on a person's action.

You can say that we cannot judge a person by our ethics, morals or even our personal justices...but I believe that there are certain irreducable principles that cannot be simply attributed to a certain society's quirk or even a certain person's misguided belief. If you are saying that we cannot judge by this, then what are we supposed to judge a person by? Every culture at least grant SOME moral judgement on the character of a person BEFORE giving him the title "Hero". The term "Hero" basically denotes a moral judgement in my opinion..unless you are talking about the OTHER defination of hero...which is pretty worthless in my opinion. So a person is a hero by..

His achievement's? How much he disturbed the world? His Body Count? You seriously think the OTHER Defination of Hero by the Orient works?

You are basically arguing against arguement, there is no why we can define a person as a "Hero" without involving some moral judgement on our part (more or less is up to the individual..but no way on earth it can be completely uninvolved)

Regarding the Idea that a Person is a Hero if he is a great man of divine skill and great ambition, that will do anything in his power to achieve it. They fully dedicate their lives to their own kind of justice.

Hmmm...if I am not wrong you are granting someone the moniker "Hero" for some of these qualities: Ambition, Willpower and Dedication. Is it a kind of moral judgement? Only you yourself knows.

I will not say you are wrong. Think of it this way, we have a person who is suffering from split personality disorder and this voice in his head tells him to kill everyone he see for they are all evil. As it turns out this man is extremely adapt at killing people..and even manipulating others to kill for him. His ambition is to kill everyone alive and he kept killing people and manipulating people to kill for him all his life until he is killed by "other people" himself.

Hmmm..he certainly fulfills all your criteria Nameless Swordsman.

1) He is a great man of Divine skill(whatever this means) as he can kill many people easily and can manipulate others to kill for him.

2) He really is ambious..not even Hitler wants to kill everyone.

3) He certainly will do everything in his power to achieve his ambition.

4) He certianly dedicate his life to his "justice", killing people all his life.

Is he a HERO? Answer this and we know if this defination works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tokuro

White Storms


Joined: 05 May 2006
Post Count: 1292
Location: Malinsulo
22016 Potch
0 Soldiers
7777 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well I think that a hero means also a influential man, but having principles is for me another requisite to be a hero. If you guys say that a hero is only someone that haves excepcional will power that is fine by me (and now I actually understand your point of making Luca a hero) but for me without a strong base of moral he is just a strong guy ( and that is the reason I used the examples of Yuber/Neclord)
By the way I am actually glad that the nameless wanderer researched about Hwoarang Do. The kingdom of Schilla was first assaulted by the others and that makes the retaliation. The way of TKD is to kill for life and harmony, never with personal desires (it is complicated to explain here and I would change the subject).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Urn

Azure Flames


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I am simply saying that the word "Hero" is a completely arbitrary and relative term. To properly assess whether or not Luca Blight is a hero you would have to remove the quaint issue of morality. I think anyone that basis their definition of a hero based solely on moral judgements is simply misguided and disillusioned as to reality. We all know that a hero can be anything or anyone based on individual perception. You are wrong to believe that we would be left with nothing if we remove morals and ethics.

If you look at Luca unbiased based on the man himself then you can make a real decision without letting your emotions get involved. Hence, why we have trials of impartial jurors. A biased opinion is flawed from the beginning so you have to work towards becoming more unbiased if you want to make the appropriate choice.

And what other hero is there? There is only one hero in my book and it doesn't take morals and ethics in total to define it. How else would you judge someone's merits? Of course, they would have to be based on Luca's achievements.

We must not be biased and make a decision about whether Luca was a hero based on the fact that they individually perceive his actions to be wrong. Sure, everyone is free to do so and hold onto the Saturday morning, color-coated, politically correct and socially molded image of a hero..or you can make an unbiased and real decision based on facts. "Hero" is just a word, a relative term of endearment and a title given to an individual respected and more than likely feared by peers and followers.

It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Hell, what is right or wrong? Relative terms right?? Of course, there will be nothing but relativity in this discussion. I would just hope that individuals can be mature enough to look past personal bias and make a partial judgement based on facts and not there "opinions" about those facts. Also, saying everything is not black and white is a fact, there is nothing relative about it.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zeik Tuvai

Aura of the Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 902
Location: Schiavik
12319 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Is it just me, or is this thread starting to run in circles? So far, all we've been able to determine is that some people choose to be unbiased in their definition of the word "hero" while others stick to the classic "knight in shinning armor" definition.

Well, I posted what I wanted to already. My reasons for considering Luca Blight a hero are in black, white, and that quote-grey color. So now, I bid this particular thread adieu, and go back to... Whatever it is I do in my spare time. Bug people, I guess.
_________________
Those who stray from the path of justice,
Are those who have no courage...
But under the wing of a strong leader,
Cowardice cannot survive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
John Layfield

Last Literature D-Line


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Post Count: 6231
Location: Saint Dragon
509933 Potch
9300 Soldiers
3525 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I think you've all just about lost track of the thread. Ignore the title of the article for a second.

The claim presented in the article is that Luca Blight was a morally righteous king whose primary motivation was the strengthening of Highland and whose methods of torture, pillaging and mass civilian massacres as well as planning to unleash the incarnation of the Beast Rune across Jowston could be considered morally correct.

UberYuber has barely needed to raise a finger since the start of this thread because all the debate has run down to the definition of a word that 'only' appears 21 times in the article itself.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Urn

Azure Flames


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Post Count: 2590
Location: Mido Shallows
7756 Potch
0 Soldiers
970973 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Good point John Layfield, we have went on a tangent based on a term that doesn't even underline the basic premise of the editorial. lol. Well, I for one believe that what Luca did was justifiable, but to argue that it is "morally" correct is fundamentally askewed.

It would be hard to argue that Luca needed to go to that extent to strengthen Highland based on a moral constitution. The idea of murdering thousands for any goal is fundamentally morally wrong to begin with. You cannot tie murdering thousands and morality into the same sentence without striking a firm contrast from the outset. It would be easier to argue if he was justified. I doubt UberYuber could argue it was morally acceptable methods.
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rainrir

Landsknecht


Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2006 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Hmmm yeah we have more or less gone seriously off topic with our recent discusssion. Then again.....the editorial IS named "Luca Blight the HERO"...heh heh...

But I will restate this point...everytime a term "hero" is used it usually has a moral and ethical dimension included in it. I can't think of any defination of the word "Hero" that doesn't include moral judgement...no matter what the culture...Read my post....even if it a little long heh heh...

When we say someone is a Hero we usually DO ascribe moral judgement to a person's actions..unless you are talking about the "other" defination of hero.

Not that I think all "Heroes" are "Knights in Shining Armour" or "Costumed-Superheroes-of -the-Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Variety", but "Heroes" usually have at least a "morally acceptable" goal before they are called a "Hero" by anyone. My defination od hero isn't just black and white but it has definate areas of Black, definate areas of White and definately a Grey area inbetween....like a Venn diagram..i guesss.

To call someone a "Hero" rather then "Warrior", "General", "King" is in itself already a biased moral statement of your own choice and NEVER a completely empirical statement. You think what he did was "Heroic" and "Right"(read into what you will...but I think thinking his actions are "Right" signifies a kind of Moral Judgement.). Thinking something is "Justified" also denotes certain kinds of judgement on the morality of a person's actions (justified...from the word justice..heh).

I am not gonna drag this...but my opinion on whether Luca's actions are justified....is that his actions are NOT justified utilitarilly or morally. I will not go on to argue every point that had been raised by others how it is justied (The post is long enough altready) but I am happy to share my opinions if anyone rises a point after my post on how his actions ARE justified...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Linnaeus

Meow Mages


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Post Count: 380
Location: Qella Sarpara
167580 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2006 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Nice editorial, UberYuber. I see you put a lot of time, effort and thought into this, but I noticed a few things I would like to point out.

1.) The reference of Muslims beings heroes to their people was a nice way to connect, but not entirely. Yes, the Jihad is a type of Muslim war against those who do not believe in their religion. Yes, Luca acted out and caused a war, but the one thing separating these two majorly is that Luca did not do this for his religion. He did it out of rage and selfishness.

2.) As mentioned above, he was selfish in the events in Suikoden II, and he did not do those things for his country. He wanted people to praise him. He wanted people to recognize that his family is nothing to mess around with, and he wanted to make all this happen by making the enemy nation fear him. In a slightly twisted way, this is a sweet jesture on his family's part, but overall, he did it because he wanted all the glory.

3.) The mention of firefighters and policemen brought up something. In the eyes of you, those people are not heroes. But, to many people, they are heroes. So, overall, I'm saying that while you see Luca as a great man with an impeccable mind and military prowess, and you believe that the game was biased because of the nation the player is set in, others of us believe he was just a psycho, rageful tyrant.

But, overall, UberYuber, this is a good representation of what you believe. Though, you should note that this example could be used with any villain in any Suikoden game, or any game, for that matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rune hunter




Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Personally I believe luca blight was a madman who wanted only to kill all Jowstonian. However I cannot but think his tactics were briliant. He was able to drum up support for war even though ever one was tired of it and they just made a peace deal. However I cannot say 100% that he is "evil". What he did seems justifiable in a sick and twisted way. But he was no "hero" at least for me either.

I have a slightly OT question though. If Luca blight really did want the complete destruction of all Jowstonian why were the people of Coronet more or less ok? Luca didn't even seem to try to murder them.

Aslo we should really stop calling Luca insane. If Luca really was insane then he would have a defence for what he did. There is a reason for an insanity plea in the criminal justice system.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Site Content Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me