Who's the Main Antagonist of FFX?

Who is it? Sin, Yu Yevon or Seymour? FF Wikia claims that Seymour is the main antagonist/villain of the game, but I couldn't find any info on how such conclusion was made. Perhaps there's an official statement on the matter somewhere?

• The game revolves around the cast going on a pilgrimage in order to defeat Sin.
• Sin happens to be possessed by Yu Yevon.
• Seymour is an evil guy who gets in the way.

Personally I go with Sin:

• Mainly because Sin is the one with power to wipe out the humanity and he's the one that needs to be destroyed. That's what the game is about until the very end, after all.
• Even though it's true that Yu Yevon is in control, the cast defeats him only in order to destroy Sin.
• Now, Seymour is a character who is truly evil and plans to become Sin in order to destroy the humanity, and needs to be defeated multiple times throughout the game, but that's all about him, really. I cannot think of a good reason for why would he be labeled the main antagonist. Had he not existed, the cast would still go after Sin and probably defeat him the very same way, meaning that he's not that important in the bigger picture.

Seymour is the character the party spends more of the game fighting than any other, which is closest to the most common usage of "main antagonist" I'm familiar with. Yu Yevon, by contrast, would be the main villain, while Sin is the closest thing to a final boss the game has (the Yu Yevon fight really doesn't even count as a fight).

But it's open to interpretation, I guess.

To clarify, by main antagonist I mean the main opposing force in the game. Villain, bad guy, evil force would all count as antagonist in this case. They're just synonyms with very subtle differences, after all.

Yu Yevon. Sin was the primary antagonist until the party defeated Yunalesca. In doing so, they (willingly) eliminated the previously accepted way of getting rid of Sin, and decided instead to seek an alternative way that would let them destroy it permanently. By doing so, Yu Yevon became their enemy, whether they realised it or not.

Seymour's role is somewhat incidental, despite him carrying many of the hallmarks of a Final Fantasy antagonist, as Aaron mentioned. Yuna would still have gone on her pilgrimage had he not been in the game.

Whenever this discussion comes up on the wiki the first thing i do is change the statement to a "an antagonist". I don't think it matters and it's definitely not worth the arguments had.

HLEV said:

To clarify, by main antagonist I mean the main opposing force in the game. Villain, bad guy, evil force would all count as antagonist in this case. They're just synonyms with very subtle differences, after all.

Click to expand...

To be accurate, though, "antagonist" is not synonomous with those other terms. Yuna is the primary protagonist while both Tidus and Seymour could contend for the role of primary antagonist. Both of them are trying to hinder her goals (follow the teachings, believe in the teachings, rid Spira of Sin with the Final Summoning, etc.), though to different extents and in different ways.

Seymour openly discards the teachings in front of her and says such things as "Then pretend I didn't say it" when it's pointed out to him "I don't think a maester should say something like that." He also has no problem with completely eradicating her belief in the teachings by revealing to her that the temples are built on lies and hypocrisy. He also wants her to accept that the dream she has of ridding Spira of Sin will never be, and that the best she can do is help him become Sin so that he can just kill everyone outright. Finally, he tries to kill her on top of it all.

Tidus, meanwhile, gets her to question the teachings on such things as whether using machina is even bad in the first place, and also actively tries talking her out of finishing the pilgrimage. Even when she chooses to continue, he spends the whole time trying to come up with a way to prevent her intended goal of dying while taking Sin out with her.

Both provoke her to change what she has believed in and impede her goals (and likewise for Lulu and Wakka), so it's hard to say who is really the primary antagonist, though I'm inclined to say Tidus just because he's there more.

If we're just talking about who the main villain is, though, it's dogma and the indoctrination thereof.

Funfact: Seymour truly loved Yuna.

Martha Jones said:

To be accurate, though, "antagonist" is not synonomous with those other terms. Yuna is the primary protagonist while both Tidus and Seymour could contend for the role of primary antagonist. Both of them are trying to hinder her goals (follow the teachings, believe in the teachings, rid Spira of Sin with the Final Summoning, etc.), though to different extents and in different ways.

Click to expand...

We can delve into the exact meanings of "antagonist" and there's nothing wrong in doing that, but do you always consider that when some source says that X is the main antagonist? Does the source even want you to consider that? I, for instance, treat it as the main "enemy", "opponent", "villain", "bad guy".

And I'm positive that Tidus is the main protagonist of FFX, leaving Yuna in 2nd place. Not because he's the most important to the story (Yuna is, I guess), but because the game is pretty much about him.

But then perhaps I just have a very wrong idea of how to determine the main protagonists/antagonists.

I, for instance, treat it as the main "enemy", "opponent", "villain", "bad guy".

Click to expand...

But, as Tres already pointed out, that isn't what the term "antagonist" actually means. See also TV Tropes (warning: it's TV Tropes).

The terms "antagonist" and "villain" are not synonymous.

I'm not sure I buy Tres' suggestion about Tidus being the main antagonist either (not least of which because the game itself suggests it's his story) but it's an interesting interpretation.

I think the main antagonist in FFX is Jecht, the others are more of a plot mechanic. The threat is basically over after Tidus' breakdown and reconciliation with his father.

I'm gonna say the "Yevon Cult" was the true enemy, because they pretty much lasted even in to the sequel.

Sin and Seymour are merely bi-products of Yu Yevon, same as Yunalesca, the Yevon faith, the summoners and even arguably . Considering that the main source of conflict in the game is simply the difficult choices that the party have to make during their quest which were all, again, products of the world that Yu Yevon created when he forged Sin, I would argue that Yu Yevon is the main antagonist. Or to be somewhat abstract you could say that Yu Yevon was the architect of the world that exists because of his actions and the world itself is actually the main antagonist.

If you give it to Yu Yevon for being the architect of that world, though, you'd have to give it to President Shinra or Hojo for FFVII, and that's clearly not the case.

To be fair, while Jenova was comatose and Sephiroth had yet to make his heel turn, I'd argue that Shinra and Hojo would have been the main antagonist(s)

Gym Leader Devil said:

To be fair, while Jenova was comatose and Sephiroth had yet to make his heel turn, I'd argue that Shinra and Hojo would have been the main antagonist(s)

Click to expand...

Yeah, especially the latter in my opinion because if Sephiroth and Jenova were not in the picture eventually Hojo probably would have been the Big Bad.

Martha Jones said:

If you give it to Yu Yevon for being the architect of that world, though, you'd have to give it to President Shinra or Hojo for FFVII, and that's clearly not the case.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your critical thinking, but I respectfully disagree. When we are defining primary antagonist it is based upon what the primary source of conflict is: man vs man, man vs nature, man vs supernatural, man vs self or in the case of FFX man vs society.

Final Fantasy VII is more a man vs man story. Sephiroth is going to destroy the world unless he is stopped. There is a clear endgame.

Final Fantasy X's world has a set society which could go on forever. Think about where the conflict is. We know Seymour is bad, but the society of Yevon says that he is good and therefore creates conflict for our characters. If this was not the case, Seymour would have been sent post Macalania battle and his role would be over.

The primary conflict in X is around Tidus, Yuna and the others bravery in being the iconoclast, literally going against all of society to end the cycle and create a better life, not preserve the life they have.


[Edit: But upon reflection of your comment your argument does stand. Sephiroth is the product of his environment but not the architect, same as the society in FFX. While I believe that society is the primary conflict source in FFX perhaps Yu Yevon does not stale claim of main antagonist after all. That is assuming that 7 and X are following the same rules.

Good thinking. As with any good debate I am now thoroughly confused.]

I'm going to have to disagree. The antagonist is not who the most important events happen to or who is affected most by such events or even who causes such things to happen (though oftentimes they are since it makes the story more exciting). They are whoever's eyes we see the events through. Granted my knowledge of FFX is limited (I played it once almost ten years ago) but what I remember of the game had Seymour at the forefront all the activity that we see. Sin might be doing the most damage and Yu Yevon might be the one creating all the intrigue but it is Seymour who we consistently see, cosnistently have to deal with. It isn't the makers, the movers or the shakers--its the viewpoint and in the case of an antagonist's viewpoint it's whomever the protagonist encounters the most.

If we use TVTropes definition: "The Antagonist usually provides the conflict and thus the story" is it not obviously then Yu Yevon? The essential story formula being "Beginning, Conflict, Resolution", no? There'd be no story if Yu Yevon didn't exist in FFX, iirc. On the other hand, if Seymour didn't exist, there'd still be a story.

That's not a great definition either, though. Going back to President Shinra again, he provides the initial conflict and cause for the story, and there would still be a story without Seph -- just a very, very different one. Same with Gestahl and Kefka, Vinzer Deling and Ultimecia, etc.

I would say Sin. That is the main problem besetting the world. Without Sin, none of the other villains have much power, Yu Yevon and the church use Sin as the linchpin of their power, and none of the protagonists particularly care about Seymour, he's just an obstacle that they will deal with if they bump into him on the way to something more important. His bossfights aren't even hard, he's about as important that the Turks in ff7.

Kuja, for instance, is an antagonist despite Garland being his boss and Necron being fought after him, and being initially subject to Alexandria, because he's the major threat of the game, the one with the most presence and 'oh shit' factor.

This is all assuming there is only one antagonist.

@Tres: I'm no literature guru, but if we look at the initial conflict in Midgar as the prelude of FFVII's story, Sephiroth works fine as the main antagonist. He is the main adversary of the protagonist, Cloud. I don't think that can be denied, but feel free to do so . I'm suddenly enjoying this topic .

I don't remember FFVI's story too well, so I won't argue that one, but FFVIII's main antagonist was definitely Ultimecia. Squall was the protagonist. He may not have known about Ultimecia until later in the game, but she provides the main conflict of the story. Whether she is behind the scenes doesn't matter, she's pulling the strings.

In FFIX, I think there's no question that the main antagonist is not Necron, despite him being the final boss. He doesn't provide the main conflict of the story. Kuja gets that badge. Antagonists are allowed to have a change of heart in the end .

Ghost X said:

@Tres: I'm no literature guru, but if we look at the initial conflict in Midgar as the prelude of FFVII's story, Sephiroth works fine as the main antagonist.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, if we play a semantic game, we can argue anything. =P But we're not, and that wasn't a prelude.

Ghost X said:

I don't remember FFVI's story too well, so I won't argue that one, but FFVIII's main antagonist was definitely Ultimecia.

Click to expand...

Yes, she was, but Vinzer Deling provides most of the conflict on the first disc and cause for the story. Squall, Selphie and Zell become SeeDs because of their conduct during a mission to expel his invading troops, they meet Rinoa after she hires them to help her capture Deling, Timber became occupied under his command, he executed Watts's and Zone's fathers, etc.

My point is "provides conflict and cause for the story" is an insufficient definition.

Well, yeah, if we play a semantic game, we can argue anything. =P But we're not, and that wasn't a prelude.

Click to expand...

This is the definition of prelude I'm reading: "An action or event serving as an introduction to something more important." If the events in Midgar are not a prelude, in relation to the main conflict, what exactly are they then? .

Deling was a minor antagonist, who served an introductory purpose (like Midgar) to the main conflict in FFVIII. He is only the cause of the initial conflict. Ultimecia is the cause of the main conflict, as she's the main antagonist. Look at it this way: Deling certainly isn't the cause of the main conflict .

Again, if we want to play a semantic game, we could argue anything. "Everything before the final battle was a prelude," "Crisis Core was the prelude to FFVII," etc. A prelude in a story typically isn't something the size of Midgar or Disc 1 of FFVIII. =P

Even when Final Fantasy has specifically called something out as a prelude with the use of the Prelude theme, it wasn't on the order of that size.

Besides, Midgar has too much rising action, introduction of important characters and introduction of other major conflicts to be merely a prelude -- i.e., we learn of Shin-Ra killing the planet, we participate in multiple operations against them (not just a single introductory piece), we meet Aerith, we discover her heritage and its value to Shin-Ra, we lose several allies, we meet Rufus and learn of his different way of running things, we see that not everything is alright with Cloud, etc.

Semantic quibbles aside, President Shinra is still the cause for the story and the architect of the world which we explore, even long after he is dead. Rufus, Sephiroth, etc. are products of the world he created.

Nonetheless, he is still not the main villain, nor the primary antagonist.

Dawnbreaker said:

I'm going to have to disagree. The antagonist is not who the most important events happen to or who is affected most by such events or even who causes such things to happen (though oftentimes they are since it makes the story more exciting). They are whoever's eyes we see the events through. Granted my knowledge of FFX is limited (I played it once almost ten years ago) but what I remember of the game had Seymour at the forefront all the activity that we see. Sin might be doing the most damage and Yu Yevon might be the one creating all the intrigue but it is Seymour who we consistently see, cosnistently have to deal with. It isn't the makers, the movers or the shakers--its the viewpoint and in the case of an antagonist's viewpoint it's whomever the protagonist encounters the most.

Click to expand...

Seymour is a bigger conflict in Tidus' eyes than Jecht? I think the closest thing we have to an opinion on Seymour is that he just didn't like him. Whereas Jecht pervades almost every inner monologue. Which is very much like Cloud and Sephiroth.

There is the moment when Seymour kisses Yuna, but that is quickly forgotten about or was used to initialise the sex(?) scene between Tidus and Yuna in Macalania Woods.


And Ultimacia is the antagonist of FFVIII because she is really Rinoa.