FFX's Antagonist

[SOLDIERis1337]

*Sigh* This i starting to get on my nerves.

1: one that contends with or opposes another

1. a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.

a person who opposes or competes with another; adversary; opponent

I could go on and on. An antagonist does not need to be a willing opponent, they merely need to oppose the heroes. Every dictionary definition I've looked up says nothing whatsoever of an antagonist needing to be evil or needing to want to hurt the heroes. You keep confusing villain and antagonist, the terms are not synonymous.

Jecht, as Sin, opposes the heroes, and as Tidus father he competes with the main hero. Stop arguing with the definition of the word.

As for Rufus and Seymour, they are both opponents of the heroes that are not the main antagonists of the story. Rufus and Seymour's motivations are not a factor, they are both simply major but not main antagonists and they both were left out of Dissidia for the same reasons.

 

[Vladislak]

I'm not confusing villains with antagonists. I've explained many many times in terms of whether Jecht opposes Tidus

But you're confusing Sin with Jecht.

Seeing as Jecht has very little control over Sin, and the control he DOES have he uses to aid Tidus, Jecht is not opposing them.

It's no different than if I took a man and threw him on top of a bicyclist. The man does not oppose the bicyclist, the bicyclist is simply opposed by the circumstance and by me for throwing the man.

The definition of oppose is "to act against or provide resistance to". He isn't acting against them, he's helping them at every turn, which would be the opposite of opposition. If it weren't for Jecht the whole "singing the hymm of the Fayth to calm Sin" thing never would have worked.

I never once mentioned Jecht as good or evil, with the exception of arguing whether Jecht fit in with the side of Chaos plot-wise. And seeing as that is a different argument that has nothing to do with opposition (and that I wasn't even mentioning Harmony's side) I never confused antagonists with villains.
The only arguments I made was whether Jecht truly opposed Tidus or not.

I'm fully aware of the irrelevance of good and evil in protagonists and antagonists. I'm fully aware that Cloud would be something of an Antagonist to Sephiroth, despite the fact that Sephiroth is evil and Cloud is good.

You can deny my arguments all you want, but don't accuse me of confusing two things pertaining to what I brought up in the first place, namely the definition I provided.

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

You haven't provided a definition though, and I've provided many. Jecht does oppose the party, he is Braska's Final Aeon, the final boss of the game for goodness sakes. The final boss of the game opposes the party, the fact that he is a big part of Sin means he opposes the party, he also is very competitive with his son, another definition of an antagonists is one who competes with the protagonist.

Jecht is an antagonist, period. If you're going to ignore the fact that he fits the definition to a T then there is no point in me continuing to speak with you, as you're ignoring all the evidence.

 

[Vladislak]

You haven't provided a definition though, and I've provided many.

*facepalm*
I was the one who brought up the definition of antagonist in the first place!
Post number 8 in this thread, perhaps you should read it over more carefully before you make the assumption that I haven't provided one.

Jecht does oppose the party, he is Braska's Final Aeon, the final boss of the game for goodness sakes.

But Jecht himself said he couldn't control the final Aeon right before the final battle. At which point Tidus cut him off.

The final boss of the game opposes the party, the fact that he is a big part of Sin means he opposes the party, he also is very competitive with his son, another definition of an antagonists is one who competes with the protagonist.

He's not exactly a big part of Sin, he's a tool of Yu Yevon. No different than a policeman's gun. The gun does not act to oppose criminals, it's not the antagonist of the criminals, the policeman is.

As for being competetive with his son, there's a difference bettween being competetive and opposing someone. You can oppose someone in competition, usually by cheating, but they're two different things.
Competition is two or more people participating in something just to see who's the best.
Opposing in relation to competition is a person or group of people going out of their way to stop others from suceeding.

If I get a hole in one at golf and then my competition get's exactly par, I never opposed him. He got that on his own, of his own power. It's not like I jumped in front of the ball or used psychic powers to stop the ball from going where he wanted.

And really, they never competed with each other. Tidus was a small boy when Jecht left Zanarkand, long before Tidus could have had the chance to compete in any way with Jecht. Jecht bragged around Tidus (like the Jecht shot sequence), but that's completely different. And ultimately it fueled Tidus' determination anyway.
And it takes two to compete, Jecht was never competing with Tidus. He makes it very clear that he wants Tidus to become a star Blitzball player, and that he believes in him.

Jecht is an antagonist, period. If you're going to ignore the fact that he fits the definition to a T then there is no point in me continuing to speak with you, as you're ignoring all the evidence.

He doesn't fit the "definition to a T", I've provided quite a bit of evidence that argues my point, so I can't possibly be ignoring a fact, because a fact is true without a doubt in all situations.

And I'm not ignoring the "evidence" you're providing either, if I were my posts would be empty, I couldn't possibly be arguing about something if I ignored what my opponent put forward.

I've provided plenty of arguments and examples to refute your evidence, and for the most part you've tried to refute me by saying I'm ignoring your evidence or by ignoring my evidence and telling me I'm just ignoring the truth, a truth that you've failed to explain with reguards to my evidence.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but you've just basically been saying "I'm right, you're ignoring that I'm right".
Because as I said, I've been addressing the issues you being up, but you've ignored the larger parts of my argument. When I took an philosophical aproach you just said "you're just getting needlessly philosophical", which completely ignores what I'd put forward in my argument.

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

You haven't put forward anything. Your entire argument boils down to, "nuh uh the definition is wrong." The definition you posted back's up my argument for goodness sakes. Jecht opposes and competes with the protagonist, this makes him an antagonist in every sense of the word. You then went off an an unrelated tangent, baselessly claiming that Jecht's actions weren't his own because his soul and body want different things, which has nothing to do with it because no definition of antagonist says anything about them needing to be willing. Once again, no definition of antagonists says anything about a willingness to oppose the heroes, and besides which, Jecht chooses to be so competitive with his son and he became the Final Aeon of his own free will, so the whole point is moot.

Now, because you're not accepting the universal definition of antagonist, there's no reason for me to continue with you. If you want to discuss with me you have to be able to accept the evidence you're shown, not say that you know more than multiple dictionaries.

 

[DLFlux]

It's Seymour.

Jecht may be the ultimate goal, but Seymour takes the role of the antagonist throughout the game.

It's fine the way it is, can't vote on the poll because I don't think Seymour being the antagonist is stupid in any way, it works perfectly.

 

[Vladislak]

Actually my argument had more to do with the soul if you'd read it more carefully. The soul makes an action (willing or unwilling), then the body either reacts to it or doesn't.

In Jechts case, regardless of what kind of action he (his soul) makes, Sin will do whatever it pleases. You've failed to separate the actions of the soul from the actions of the body.

And just because something isn't said doesn't mean there's no way it could be true. The definition doesn't mention willingness, but that doesn't mean that willingness isn't involved in act of opposing someone.

Opposing is "to act against or provide resistance to". Jecht does not act against Tidus, because taking an action is a matter of the brain making a decision and sending the signals to the body that tells it that a person desires to do something. Jecht never desired Sin to do what he did, therefore we can assume that the signals were directed by someone else and that actions of Sin are not the actions of Jecht.
I figured this would be rather obvious, but apparently not.


And if you still refuse to believe this, consider this: How would you define someone who helps the protagonist sometimes and hinders him other times? You certainly wouldn't consider him an antagonist to the protagonist, because his primary purpose is not to oppose the protagonist, if it were he would never help the protagonist.

Instead he falls somewhere in between ally and enemy. But even here this man acts to hinder the protagonist occasionally, whereas Jecht does not act to hinder protagonist.

Or perhaps you could consider this issue: How would you define a man who tries to aid the protagonist, but occasionally this backfires and does more harm than help? He wouldn't be considered an antagonist by literary standards either. And Jecht doesn't even have his intentions backfire, he's simply forced into it.

By literary standards these people would not be antagonists. In the case of the second one, the character would likely be considered a friend.

If you'd like we could go into a long debate as to what a friend is as well, and how they couldn't be antagonists. I'm fully equipped for that. I just recently finished reading Aristotle's Nicodemian Ethics, a work that goes into book upon book as to the the definition and function of a friend.

I'd honestly rather not, since Aristotle's work can be boring as heck, but I'm willing to if you'd like.

 

[Lunatic Pandora]

I have already cast my vote, but I have another thing to add to my opinion thanks to Vladislak's posts (they were really good). You know what I think? I think if the antagonist in Dissidia were to be Seymour instead of Jecht, Jecht's fans (and he has many) would bitch about that, like "WTF WHERE'S JECHT HE'S A MACHO MAN AND DOESNT WHINE LIKE HES DOUCHEBAG SON OLOLOL" and that would be so annoying. I have nothing against Jecht but every character has his/her annoying fandom, and those annoying fans would certainly complain about Jecht's absence in Dissidia. It was marketing strategy. Pure and simple.

There, I said it =P

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

Hold up there cowboy, you think friends can't be antagonists? Now I know you're confusing villain and antagonist. Friends are very, very capable of being antagonists in fiction. If a main characters friend has a rivalry with the protagonists, he's an antagonist, as he is opposing the protagonist. If I were to write a story about a guy(protagonist) who was a professional boxer, and who's best friend was also a professional boxer, and in said story they had a bout, the best friend would be the antagonist. Antagonists don't have to do anything but compete with or oppose the protagonist.

Once again, willingness, hatred of the protagonist, desire to harm the protagonist, etc are not factors here, they are not in the definition. All that matters is opposition or competition, and Jecht falls into both categories. You can recite Aristotle all you want, but it has no more to do with this discussion than the preamble of the US constitution. Friends can be antagonists and Jecht is an antagonist, I've proven these both with a simple definition. Now please, stop trying to get around the facts.

 

[Vladislak]

Once again you accuse me of confusing antagonists with villains.

I think you're confusing things here. The term "friend" has no relation to villains, good guys, bad guys, any moral alignment at all. A villain can have a friend, a good guy can have a friend.

And my reasoning for bringing up Aristotle was because he goes to length in defining the attributes of a friend.
When I say friend I meant Aristotle's definition of the purest form of a friend, he does list other kind of friends that do not fit in his definition; pleasure friends, friends for utility, etc. You assumed that you knew what I meant by "friend" before you gave me the chance to explain Aristotle's definition of friend.
So before you go and say that Aristotle can have no relevance, perhaps you should read it. Otherwise you simply appear ignorant.

Now, on to the second part of your post. Definitions are there to give you a basic understanding of a word or phrase, they give you the general idea. They aren't there to define it's every use and say what does and does not apply to it in every situation. Often times they provide examples of the word used in everyday life, but by no means do they provide every possible situation.
They're often time purposely vague as well, as certain aspects can be debatable and taking one side of the argument would mean the other must be false.
Have you looked up the definition of "evil"? The definition gives you the basic idea, but leaves out all the arguments people make on specific moral issues, it also leaves out when and when the word "evil" should not be applicable to particular things. People have pondered over the topic of evil and how it should be applied for ages, but for the sake of not inciting an argument the actual definition is left vague.

Likewise to assume that the definition provided for antagonist will not be affected by factors outside the definition itself is just ridiculous. It's a topic that is highly debatable, which is why we've come this far in this thread.


I'm not avoiding anything, I'd leave if I were. Every time I bring up an issue with the topic to debate about, you seem to think I'm confusing terms or ignoring evidence or so on. Why not just drop that tune and actually join me in trying to reason this out with logic. Surely you're not afraid of debating these things?

 

[SOLDIERis1337]

No, no, you're the one confusing things here. You said:

If you'd like we could go into a long debate as to what a friend is as well, and how they couldn't be antagonists.

Which is entirely untrue. Friends are antagonists all the time in fiction. Friends are often rivals to the main character because they both compete in the same sport or have similar goals in the story. Sephiroth and Genesis are friends in Crisis Core before Genesis' desertion, but they have a rivalry going on die to Genesis' jealously, meaning Sephiroth is an antagonist to him, even though they're friends. In Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire your rival is helpful and friendly to you, but they are still an antagonist because they oppose you in battles and compete with you along the way.

All you're doing here is putting in unrelated philosophy to make your posts longer, saying that you know more about a word than all definitions of it, and making false statements like the one above. This isn't a debate, its me giving evidence and facts and you rambling about unrelated matters. I'm done here, good day.

 

[Vladislak]

Once again you assume you know what I meant by friend. Perhaps you should gather your information before you make assumptions.

I'm not just throwing in "unrelated philosophy", and if I were, you wouldn't know if it was unrelated because I haven't even thrown in anything beyond basic logic thus far.

Look, this argument is going in circles. I'm getting bored of restating arguments that you refuse to even consider. So if you're just going to ignore everything I say, then there's really no reason for us to be arguing now is there?

So I say the same to you, good day.

 

[Serah]

Settle down guys; let's not have this discussion get too heated or out of hand.

 

[Ganon's Apprentice]

X's anagonist.. hmmm... well it isn't Syn because yunaleska( i think that's how it's spelt) made Jehct syn so that teh calm can come about. so I vote Seymore

 

[Sabre_Vivi]

While Jecht DID have a close connection to Tidus, he just wasn't a villain. I guess they already had too many mages, but I could have seriously seen Seymour summoning Anima's hand from another dimention to punch the opponent, of course use the staff, and even rely on his Mortibody. But then again, he would have resembled X Death a lot if he was like this, so I guess Jecht is a better choice.

Still, I'd rather have Seymour.

 

[Sylvanius]

I think Jecht makes the most sense even if it's a grey area. It is weird since in this game they might not be able to pull the whole "against his will" thing..but let's admit it...the other options were Seymour and Yu Yeven..or Sin itself. It wouldn't make any sense to have shuyin since that's X-2. Seymour is pretty much a joke...I would have thrown something if he was in this game ( "why won't you DIE?!?!?")...I guess he could be a REASONABLE candidate..but he's just not...intimidating enough. You couldn't really use Sin itself since if you think about it it wasn't really so much the antagonist as the antagonists vessel. It was basically a giant shell for Yu Yevon. And Yu Yevon? Seriously? It's a giant floating ameoba and the easiest final boss in history. You can make him kill himself. There's no way that would work. For anyone who has seen the opening for the game...could you imagine the part where the villians line up? Sephiroth...Ultemecia...Kuja...ameoba. Yu Yevon looks Kuja look manly...don't get me started.

So if you think of all that..Jecht makes the best choice...he's an actual person...there's a story between the two characters that's more direct....and he's way scarier to fight than any of the others were. Plus...despite being possesed he is WAY more sane than Seymour.

 

[Caladbolg]

If we coun't FFX-2 i say Shuyin, cause he want to destroy Spira, because of that what happened to him... And he look like Tidus's Twinbrother!

 

[Davey Gaga]

Without playing Dissidia, I can't see how they make Jecht fit in to the story. As it stands, Jecht sounds ridiculous as a villain: unless he can jump and turn in to Sin, it just screams to me that Seymour would have been the better option.

 

[noah fon ronsenburg]

i think that Jecht made the most sense as it was not about who was the main bad guy, it was about the protagonists adversary, and jecht has the most connection with cloud so i think that they made the right choice

 

[Serah]

I'm sorry but I'm confused...Jecht has the most connection with Cloud? I don't remember him and Cloud ever having a connection. Are you sure you don't mean Tidus? Because Cloud was never a part of FFX.