Bhunivelze - Worst. Father. Ever.

[Arianna]

I say "Yes!"

 

[jazzflower92]

I am wondering how bad is he because he needs to contend with Hojo for worst father of the year award.

 

[Arianna]

I am wondering how bad is he because he needs to contend with Hojo for worst father of the year award.

Yeah, I know. Still, I think Hojo comes in second.

 

[jazzflower92]

Yeah, I know. Still, I think Hojo comes in second.

I can imagine Hojo writing a book called "An Evil Mad Scientist's Guide To Raising Children".

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Bhunivelze being a god, I don't think our standards of good, evil, and 'what is a good parental figure' apply to him.

 

[Super Mario]

If you want a worse father award, look no further to Jecht.

 

[Mwynn]

Bhunivelze being a god, I don't think our standards of good, evil, and 'what is a good parental figure' apply to him.

This exactly.

 

[Ghost X]

*Votes for "Eh - I need more before I can vote... "*
*Creates time paradox.*

Also, I ain't buying the appeal to moral relativism because he is a god. Real world religion tries that excuse all the time. No, if they do some stuff that is bad to his creations n' what not, he is - at least to some degree - not the best "father" in the world. I haven't played these games though, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Kermitu Kleric Katie]

I'm not sure who this person is. And I'm going to disagree with the notion that Hojo is the worst father ever. He could be worse. I think the worst father ever would be one that knowingly and willingly tries to kill you. Are there any fathers like that in FF?

 

[Arianna]

I'm not sure who this person is. And I'm going to disagree with the notion that Hojo is the worst father ever. He could be worse. I think the worst father ever would be one that knowingly and willingly tries to kill you. Are there any fathers like that in FF?

Bhunivelze is the god who created the first three fal'Cie in the FNC myth. He killed his mother for power (though we don't know the whole story on those events), dismissed his second fal'Cie child (out of three) because he unknowingly created her in the image of his disposed mother (who, in turn, ended up destroying herself in front of him, in which he of course ignored), and then instead of guiding and helping his children, he goes to sleep!

Also, I ain't buying the appeal to moral relativism because he is a god. Real world religion tries that excuse all the time. No, if they do some stuff that is bad to his creations n' what not, he is - at least to some degree - not the best "father" in the world. I haven't played these games though, so I wouldn't know.

I was debating having the question just 'yes' and/or 'no', but... I was bothered by not having a third, middle-line answer. I know I hate that in tests. Not all questions, but - say in those psychological analysis questionnaires that companies like to do with their online applications... Most of those questions are definitely trick questions, if not outright unanswerable because so much information makes them middle-ground. (I abhor those tests. I wish they were outlawed.)

Bhunivelze being a god, I don't think our standards of good, evil, and 'what is a good parental figure' apply to him.

Hissssssss! But you have a point, though I do not agree.

*Votes for "Eh - I need more before I can vote... "*

Oh, now I get it. Yay, I'm swift!

But seriously... I can't fix the poll, so... ?!?!?!?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I think giving god-like characters a pass because their perspective supposedly transcends ours is bullcrap too. If terms like "good," "evil" and "good father" are created by our limited understanding in the first place, we can certainly let god-like figures fall into those categories where they themselves decide to.

Besides, god-like beings -- by nature of being god-like beings -- have great power. That brings with it responsibility.

Being a dick with great power doesn't mean you "work in mysterious ways"; it just means you're a dick.

 

[jazzflower92]

I still think Hojo should be rewarded at least worst father in Final Fantasy 7.

 

[Splintered]

Bhunivelze being a god, I don't think our standards of good, evil, and 'what is a good parental figure' apply to him.

I feel like the gods in XIII, Bhunivelze included, were characterized as beings who couldn't understand human beings on a fundamental level, and vice versa. They're disconnected from human emotion which is ironic because they do have something resembling it but they don't understand themselves. It's why Etros ripped her body into pieces trying to get her father's attention, but never comprehended it why she did it. And it's why she keeps "blessing" people, even when it ends up driving them insane- because she doesn't understand how it makes people suffer. She genuinely thinks she is doing the benevolent thing.

Bhunivelze is described as a father to Pulse, Etros, and Lindzei, and in turn those gods are parents to their other fal'cie. That's where the whole repeated orphan theme comes from. Their entire relationship is characterized as "abandonment." Honestly Bhunivelze is responsible for pretty much all the stupid shit that happened.

He refused to pay attention to Etros which led her to kill herself the first time. He created his children as basically slaves to a focus. And with that blueprint, they created their own slave children, manipulated them into having a desire to find them, and then hid so that the fal'cie would be motivated to do their work (I think Hito translated that from the ulti).

Bhunivelze imo, comes off as a jackass who creates beings to do his dirty work without giving them free will- all his children, and those under them are tools. But he always has "greater" intentions, which is his belief that he is saving the world.

Hojo however, is genuinely malicious, and his intentions of greaterhood often involve the mind fuckery of his own kid. Worst father ever award. Then again, Dyne might have loved his daughter, but when he was at the deep end he was going to kill her to reunite her with his wife. That's pretty batshit too.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

God/spirits/supernatural beings don't do very well with the human definition of good and evil. I'm thinking this is more a case of Blue and Orange Morality rather then good and evil.

 

[jazzflower92]

Didn't Dyne kill himself because of the fact he had cross the line and had too much blood on his hands.At least Dyne realized what a sick person he had become.

Hojo on the other hand would call his own insanity genious curiousity and justify everything he has done in the name of science.In fact his son is just a science experiment to him and has never shown at all to really care about Sephiroth as a person.Also I find it kinda of stage momish for Hojo to set up Sephiroth a fan club when he was five.It creepily reminds me of some parents who exploit their children for some sense of twisted pride.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

God/spirits/supernatural beings don't do very well with the human definition of good and evil. I'm thinking this is more a case of Blue and Orange Morality rather then good and evil.

You know, I don't understood that notion fundamentally. Humans had to come up with it in the first place.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

I think giving god-like characters a pass because their perspective supposedly transcends ours is bullcrap too. If terms like "good," "evil" and "good father" are created by our limited understanding in the first place, we can certainly let god-like figures fall into those categories where they themselves decide to.

Besides, god-like beings -- by nature of being god-like beings -- have great power. That brings with it responsibility.

Being a dick with great power doesn't mean you "work in mysterious ways"; it just means you're a dick.

Might makes right. The burden is on you to prove otherwise and make the rules. Trying to project our limited, linear understandings of morality, or impose said morality, onto a god is incredibly ridiculous and hilariously presumptuous. Like I said before, unless you have the power to defy said god and rewrite the rules yourself, what makes your view of morality worth listening to over his own? Why should he listen to you any more than we consider an ant?

What if that god operates on a totally separate understanding of morality that we couldn't comprehend? What if he just doesn't give a shit? What are you doing to do about it?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Well, I disagree that might makes right. It may mean you can retort "Whaddaya gonna do 'bout it?" but it doesn't make you not a jackhole. Anyway, last I did check, mortals define morality. We came up with the word. We put it in a dictionary followed by a colon with other words explaining it.

And in any situation where one is powerless to another, they actually still have the power to defy. Defiance is never beyond the weaker being's power, even in religion. Consequence may follow, but you are always free to say "fuck this."

That's what I told people I worked with at Walmart when I lived in the shitty little town of Lenoir and they complained endlessly about the job. We were all subject to the capitalist gods, but we still had the choice of what we did with it. I asked why they didn't quit. They said they had no choice. I said, "bullshit." I got a better job and left. At least one other person I know took my words to heart and quit without even having another job lined up (which is stupid), but was better off a month later.

All of which really underscores that no one, even a hypothetical god, has that much power. Nothing beyond what they're given anyway. If Zeus were to broadcast from Olympus tomorrow that he was going to blitz us with lightning bolts up the ass if we didn't pay tribute, we could give him the finger and tell him to enjoy having "power" over a vacant world of cinder and ash. Which is the last thing any "god" actually wants.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Well, I disagree that might makes right.

Might totally makes right. It's not cool, its not fair, but its how it is. Literally nothing can happen without the power to make it so. This applies even to the basic forces of the universe, and even the purest altruism is limited by the actual ability to produce the work to achieve its ends.

Anyway, last I did check, mortals define morality. We came up with the word. We put it in a dictionary followed by a colon with other words explaining it.

Yes, and thus, we're limited by our own definition of it. Why is it logical to upwardly project our own creation of a concept to a god?

And in any situation where one is powerless to another, they actually still have the power to defy. Defiance is never beyond the weaker being's power, even in religion. Consequence may follow, but you are always free to say "fuck this."

That's what I told people I worked with at Walmart when I lived in the shitty little town of Lenoir and they complained endlessly about the job. We were all subject to the capitalist gods, but we still had the choice of what we did with it. I asked why they didn't quit. They said they had no choice. I said, "bullshit." I got a better job and left. At least one other person I know took my words to heart and quit without even having another job lined up (which is stupid), but was better off a month later.

Which pretty much falls into exactly what I'm saying.

All of which really underscores that no one, even a hypothetical god, has that much power. Nothing beyond what they're given anyway. If Zeus were to broadcast from Olympus tomorrow that he was going to blitz us with lightning bolts up the ass if we didn't pay tribute, we could give him the finger and tell him to enjoy having "power" over a vacant world of cinder and ash. Which is the last thing any "god" actually wants.

That totally depends on whatever powers said hypothetical god has. A god with true omnipotential abilities literally has no reason to pay heed to anything considering he could just remake everything as he so chooses. A god with more limited power is of course limited in his scope of abilities. There is a 'cutoff point' in the power of a being, (usually cognitive) where our concepts and definitions of how someone should act don't really apply unless we're willing and able to do something about it.

 

[jazzflower92]

If I remember anything about Zeus wasn't he a notorious rapist.In fact most of the Greek Pantheon were jerks who very petty and vain.

Ironically the niciest god out of the Greek Pantheon would probably be Hades,the god of the Dead.It could be probably because he never really interacted with living mortals.From his appearances in myths he is portrayed as quiet and kinda of a true neutral guy.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Might totally makes right. It's not cool, its not fair ...

... Then it doesn't make right.

Literally nothing can happen without the power to make it so. This applies even to the basic forces of the universe, and even the purest altruism is limited by the actual ability to produce the work to achieve its ends.

That isn't what we're talking about, though, bro.

Yes, and thus, we're limited by our own definition of it. Why is it logical to upwardly project our own creation of a concept to a god?

Because we define morality based on intentions and behavior. Gods have those. They would fall under the definitions one way or another, at their own choosing.

Besides, if we can make up the words, the definitions, and the gods, then we can certainly apply them all to each other.

Which pretty much falls into exactly what I'm saying.

Not really. We didn't change the rules, just defied our "god."

That totally depends on whatever powers said hypothetical god has. A god with true omnipotential abilities literally has no reason to pay heed to anything considering he could just remake everything as he so chooses.

Yet they so conveniently never do this. They always want to be obeyed by willing pawns. This is always true, whether it be gods of religion in the real world, or the fal'Cie of the Fabula Nova Crystallis. Real-world religions' gods want to be loved out of free will; fal'Cie may force a focus upon humans, but they either can't make them do shit or choose not to.

And the "gods" of communities (mafia and the like) want someone to rule over. They are defined and limited by this need, as -- without subjects who obey -- you have no power. By definition.

A god with more limited power is of course limited in his scope of abilities. There is a 'cutoff point' in the power of a being, (usually cognitive) where our concepts and definitions of how someone should act don't really apply unless we're willing and able to do something about it.

Eh, not really. A child might not have the power to undo the rule of an authoritarian tyrant of a parent, but they can certainly recognize and say, "You're a shitty parent."

 

[Cat Rage Room]

... Then it doesn't make right.

By whose standards? Yours?

That isn't what we're talking about, though, bro.

It's exactly what I'm talking about. The notion of enforcing the concept of 'good' depends on the power to do so. Anything less than that is merely a sentiment. Feels nice. Generally useless.

Because we define morality based on intentions and behavior. Gods have those. They would fall under the definitions one way or another, at their own choosing.

Besides, if we can make up the words, the definitions, and the gods, then we can certainly apply them all to each other.

The limitation to that argument is that morality is only really useful when we're applying them to each other. Mortals. Not gods. You are basically trying to apply right and wrong on a force of nature. Right and wrong doesn't even stay exactly the same from one civilization to the next.

And the "gods" of communities (mafia and the like) want someone to rule over. They are defined and limited by this need, as -- without subjects who obey -- you have no power. By definition.

Not always true. See; Lovecraftian gods, or the Reapers of Mass Effect. More on this below.


Put it to you this way. Right now I'm paying Mass Effect 3. There are more or less two antagonists at this point in the arc; the human, mortal organization Cerberus and the godlike, all consuming entities, the Reapers.

Cerberus can be opposed on a moral ground because they're also sentient mortals like ourselves. When I talk to the Illusive Man I have the moral grounds to say 'hey man you're fuckin up' and whether he listens or not, he and his group are bound by the universal morality that compels all sentients a certain level of respect for basic rights. If they continue fucking up, I engage in a struggle of conflict based on interests and our differing moral grounds.

The Reapers are not bound by this social contract. All throughout the series, and especially the 3rd game, they are explicitly stated to be almost completely beyond comprehension in terms of their thought process and rationale. Even the geth, the closest thing in the galaxy who could understand them, describes a single Reaper thought as 'unknowable'. We only have a glimpse of their world through their ends; fucking destroying everything.

There is NO moral grounds on opposing the Reapers. There is no convincing them that they are 'wrong', that does not apply to them and thus they do not recognize it. They don't even really understand it. The only thing that Shepard (and the rest of the galaxy) can do to 'prove' their point is to oppose them on the basis of self preservation and fight back. Either you succeed and you live, or you don't and you fucking die. That's it. Period.

Eh, not really. A child might not have the power to undo the rule of an authoritarian tyrant of a parent, but they can certainly recognize and say, "You're a shitty parent."

Then what?

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

By whose standards? Yours?

Apparently yours as well, though. You said " it's not cool, it's not fair." If it were right, that would not be true.

It's exactly what I'm talking about. The notion of enforcing the concept of 'good' depends on the power to do so. Anything less than that is merely a sentiment. Feels nice. Generally useless.

I never said anything about enforcing or policing.

The limitation to that argument is that morality is only really useful when we're applying them to each other. Mortals. Not gods. You are basically trying to apply right and wrong on a force of nature. Right and wrong doesn't even stay exactly the same from one civilization to the next.

I think that actually backs up what I'm saying rather than refuting it. If morality isn't so limited as to even remain constant across civilizations (though I take issue with that notion as well), then god-like beings certainly can't escape it.

Not always true. See; Lovecraftian gods, or the Reapers of Mass Effect. More on this below.

Put it to you this way. Right now I'm paying Mass Effect 3. There are more or less two antagonists at this point in the arc; the human, mortal organization Cerberus and the godlike, all consuming entities, the Reapers.

Cerberus can be opposed on a moral ground because they're also sentient mortals like ourselves. When I talk to the Illusive Man I have the moral grounds to say 'hey man you're fuckin up' and whether he listens or not, he and his group are bound by the universal morality that compels all sentients a certain level of respect for basic rights. If they continue fucking up, I engage in a struggle of conflict based on interests and our differing moral grounds.

The Reapers are not bound by this social contract. All throughout the series, and especially the 3rd game, they are explicitly stated to be almost completely beyond comprehension in terms of their thought process and rationale. Even the geth, the closest thing in the galaxy who could understand them, describes a single Reaper thought as 'unknowable'. We only have a glimpse of their world through their ends; fucking destroying anything.

There is NO moral grounds on opposing the Reapers. There is no convincing them that they are 'wrong', that does not apply to them and thus they do not recognize it. They don't even really understand it. The only thing that Shepard (and the rest of the galaxy) can do to 'prove' their point is to oppose them on the basis of self preservation and fight back. Either you succeed and you live, or you don't and you fucking die. That's it. Period.

I really don't think I understand the way you speak of morality. It almost sounds like a weapon the way you're talking about it. I don't see it as a means of making someone do or not do something (which would be power); it's a means of describing how someone does or doesn't do something.

Then what?

Then the parent remains an asshole and their behavior remains not right.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Apparently yours as well, though. You said " it's not cool, it's not fair." If it were right, that would not be true.

Even I recognize that my standards of morality are subjective and shaped by an innumerable variety of factors. I feel comfortable applying that to someone from a similar background in terms of culture and time. I wouldn't apply my standard of morality to a citizen in the Roman Empire. I wouldn't dream of applying it to a god.

I never said anything about enforcing or policing.

The act of passing judgement on an individual as 'right or wrong' for their actions or behavior.

I think that actually backs up what I'm saying rather than refuting it. If morality isn't so limited as to even remain constant across civilizations (though I take issue with that notion as well), then god-like beings certainly can't escape it.

The idea I'm having issue with is the standard White Man idea of morality being something that you can carry with you and project it on everyone else. Morality is the thin strand preventing us from turning into savages, true, and I am quite satisfied with it. My ideas of morality conform with the standard. However, I would be pretty silly to apply it to everyone I meet. Applying the concept of morality to someone, or something that's fundamentally different than I am is arrogant.

I really don't think I understand the way you speak of morality. It almost sounds like a weapon the way you're talking about it. I don't see it as a means of making someone do or not do something (which would be power); it's a means of describing how someone does or doesn't do something.

No, morality is how we judge one another by their actions and behavior. What I'm saying is that it's a fluid idea that ultimately changes based on who or what we apply it to.

Then the parent remains an asshole and their behavior remains not right

I agree. However nothing changes, and so the whole thing is rendered moot. Unfortunately this happens a lot in real life and it sucks.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Even I recognize that my standards of morality are subjective and shaped by an innumerable variety of factors. I feel comfortable applying that to someone from a similar background in terms of culture and time. I wouldn't apply my standard of morality to a citizen in the Roman Empire. I wouldn't dream of applying it to a god.

See, I don't have any qualms with it. Anything that can think can feel. Anything with emotion is capable of understanding. Compassion should go along with that.

There may be situations where morality doesn't solve an issue because an entity lacks the appropriate emotional processes, but if we don't make those excuses for human beings with mental issues, I certainly wouldn't give a pass to higher-than-man "worship meeee!" whiners. And situations that are just a matter of survival against what is essentially a force of nature aren't about morality anyway.

If something is repugnant to my moral standards, I don't feel inclined to adjust my standard. The other entity just needs to fix itself. And, yeah, I know that sounds arrogant. But, shit, I can't have convictions if I don't stand by them.

The act of passing judgement on an individual as 'right or wrong' for their actions or behavior.

But passing judgment doesn't enforce anything.

The idea I'm having issue with is the standard White Man idea of morality being something that you can carry with you and project it on everyone else. Morality is the thin strand preventing us from turning into savages, true, and I am quite satisfied with it. My ideas of morality conform with the standard. However, I would be pretty silly to apply it to everyone I meet. Applying the concept of morality to someone, or something that's fundamentally different than I am is arrogant.

Even if if is, why bother having morals that don't get strictly upheld?

I agree. However nothing changes, and so the whole thing is rendered moot. Unfortunately this happens a lot in real life and it sucks.

I don't think it renders anything moot. Recognizing immorality in something and being unable to change it doesn't make something moral by default.