Except that there is more than one hint laid out that said five masters were manipulated and driven into this "obsession" by a deliberate scheme in order to ensure that this cataclysm happens, not unlike a certain bald bastard is scheming at present day to make it happen again.
I'm not interpreting "Tyranny of Light" as a phenomenon but as a tangible, viable ideology and that ideology is not prevalent and in effect as Xehanort claims it to be. As said above already the Foretellers are most likely manipulated, not actively building up a tyranny (except maybe Aced, but that's a different can of worms) and Eraqus, as Kirabook already pointed out, doesn't count because he is not a tyrant.
If Eraqus would go and actively try to destroy anyone who displays Darkness openly then he could be interpreted as following a truly "tyrannic" ideology and would actually fit the bill of what Xehanort claims.
Even if we do interpret it as a dogma that is followed by Eraqus and the Foretellers...those are mere six individuals in an universe comprised of billions if not more living beings so the claim of Xehanort that a "Tyranny of Light" is ruling the universe still cannot be held up.
This is leaning more on the actual definition of Tyranny, I feel like.
But while they're not tyrants, while the Foretellers are definitely being manipulated, it's still proof of Light being able of being damaging, or rather of the fact that a bunch of Light-oriented people are trying to suppress Darkness.
True they don't do it with their own hands, but each Master has a literal army of disciples and Eraqus was training the only Wielders known at the moment. Thye're so not just mere six individuals, they were the most/only eminent authorities in the galaxy.
In an hypotetical scenario where their mindsets got passed down onto EACH disciple without opposition, truly Light would've been the only way, and that's what Xehanort feared.
I mean, even Mickey explicitly said that he believed Darkness was to be destroyed prior CoM. All the major roles were Light-oriented and definitely thought of the other power as a obstacle to destroy.
Not saying Xehanort was right or justified in doing what he did to prevent his fears, but I think of his as fears and not an evil will of making Darkness prevails.
If Eraqus doesn't matter on this subject then why bring him up in the first place?
I wasn't getting at Eraqus being the "only" bad guy but you putting him on the same level as Xehanort, which doesn't hold up in the slightest. Eraqus is neither a saint nor an objective paragon of justice, but he is leagues less dangerous and egoistic than Xehanort is.
Wasn't trying to. I needed Eraqus only as a paragon for one-way mentality.
I know, that's why I put "foe" into quotation marks as well.
Just because I tend to answer somewhat detailed and "longwinded" doesn't mean I feel insulted or "attacked" in any way.
I trust you. You're by far one of the most collected and reasonable people I've met here, and that's exaclty why I wanted to clarify I wasn't trying to come off as rude as I probably saounded.
To say it with your own words: Debatable.
The report in question (which by the way also describes a mere action) doesn't really prove anything in regards to Xehanort actually having empathy or a regard for others.
Again, if he had, Ventus, who was a child by that time, would not even be in the situation described there in the first place.
An even earlier report already stated that he only took Ventus in with the intent to use him as a tool, so "disproving" the selfish and zero empathy/regard for another living being traits might be very shakily to do.
Well, can't really argue there, you have a point.
Well duh, maybe because actions combined with overall behaviour and mannerisms allow to draw inferences to a person's mindset and nature?
People of certain natures won't even consider actions such as Xehanort takes constantly, not to mention that you yourself use an action done by Xehanort to argue against him being a selfish, uncaring bastard.
So if it is pro-Xehanort, it can be taken into consideration but if it isn't it should be detached? Cause if you sum up all actions and statements done by him the picture is pretty clear, no matter what his initial goals might have been and the degree of nobleness they might have had.
You are right on that one, being ambitious, self-centered and ruthless/remorseless as traits are not inherently evil, but how a person handles them is a decisive factor and how else does Xehanort handle them besides doing horrible things with it?
Xehanort is someone who knows what he does and he is aware of all the damage he causes and he just doesn't care, that goes way beyond "stubborn" in terms of villainy.
To round back to the Eraqus attacking Ven example as a contrast, he also knows what he's doing, is aware that it's wrong and causes damage, but he is also doing it reluctantly and remorseful for having to go to such extremes. He cares, Xehanort doesn't. Wrong/evil action, but totally different mindset about it, that's the difference.
Exactly, what is your point? I'm truly interested in that one.
If you would be in anyone of the heroes shoes, be it Terra, Sora, Ven, Aqua or anyone else, how would you handle Xehanort?
It is certainly not a waste of time as it is actually an interesting debate, although I do have to honestly say that I don't get behind the mindset present as as far as I know no one actually denied that Xehanort is not inherently evil (as arguably nothing is) and was probably even a remotely decent person in the past, but that doesn't change the fact that he's an quite evil scumbag right now.
I would definitely fight Xehanort as they're doing, no doubt there.
My point maybe isn't even such, merely my stance on the man's disposition. It's not even trying to prove anything: I just have a different conception on morality and their correlation to the actions. Maybe even different from anyone else, or the majority.
Funny thought I'm having right now, this whole argument does remind me of the Xehanort and Eraqus debate, with Eraqus dismissing Xehanort's point as "poetic excuses".
In the end it's exactly what we're doing, having an argument with two really different and irreconcilable views.
We've come far into trying to understand the other, but ultimately I would like to propose to just agree to disagree.
