Why do we love the Chrono series so much?

[Kyronea]

I will concede that human potential is often equal amongst everyone. But if I cannot be qualitatively better than others through pursuit of my own illumination, then there is little reason to live.

Fair enough. My problem is mainly with people who think they are superior for ridiculous reasons rather than true merits, and it is that form of "superiority" that I do not recognize. It's the way I usually interpret such comments.

[Kanadyets]

Now we're talking.

I suppose things become muddy when one introduces certain contexts.  I think it's important to establsih the nature of the superiority.  Also, I don't think it's inherently the case that when someone identifies an aspect in themself or others that they believe to be superior, it doesn't necessarily presume any judgement of the comparative value of human beings.

That is to say that just because person A does X better than person B, if isn't necessarily the case that person A is better than person B.

As a further caveat, though, I will say that some are better than others.  The fact is that there's a lot of unproductive, destructive, or otherwise useless individuals out there.  As such, you can find examples of quality amongst other people that cause them to stand out and be identified as "better" or "superior".

I suppose it really just comes down to individual value judgements.  It takes a truly horrible person to be universally regarded as genuinely "bad".

[Kyronea]

And even there I would go so far as giving every single one of those a second chance or so. Call me charitable, but I don't like to write off anyone, no matter who they are or what they've done, because they can always change for the better. Our way--by that I mean society in general--of writing people off without a chance of redemption sickens me.

[Kanadyets]

I find that very interesting.  Now I feel compelled to ask, is there any action at all that you believe is irredemable?

[Kyronea]

I find that very interesting.  Now I feel compelled to ask, is there any action at all that you believe is irredemable?

Nope. Not a thing. No one is beyond redemption. No one.

[Kanadyets]

Alright, but I didn't ask if anyone was beyond redemption, but rather if any particular action is irredemable.  Further to that, if you had intended to say that all actions may be redeemed, is it something you grant freely or must there be some sort of condition met, such as deeds or attitude before you consider someone redeemed?

[Mr. Molecule]

While I like to beleive that everyone can be redeemed, and the thought of hell--infinite punishment for finite crimes and all--sickens me, I find that some people--multiple murderes or rapists, people who commit genocide, y'know, the really bad type--are functionally irredeemable; that is, there's a point that the time and effort put into redeeming them, and the risk of allowing them in positions to redeem themselves with actions, just outweigh any benefit or moral impetus for their redemption.

I guess people like that can redeem themselves, at least in their own mind--have a change of heart. But at that point there's no way you can trust them enough to actually go free and preform the actions needed to redeem them in the minds of others. Some people have just lost all right to be trusted with anything.

Also, ZeaLitY--if proving that you're better than other people is the only reason you see to live, you must have a cold, empty life. Seriously, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you really base your self-worth on the idea that there are people who are worse than you?

And for my finale, I'll tie this back to the topic at hand! Maybe we love CT for the touching tales of Frog and Magus's very different quests for redemption from past failures. Seriously, those are cool bits, and Magus & Frog tend to win popularity contests. Redemption is a very potent theme!

[Kanadyets]

I don't think the point of the statement was that the exact purpose of his (or anyone's) life is to be specifically better than anyone else, but rather a broad statement with regards to the fact that if we were all identical (which is to say all as equal skilled, talented, or what have you) there would be little point to the lives that most of us live.

Of course, that's just what I took from it.  Feel free to correct me, ZeaLitY.

I tend to lean to Mr. Molecule's position insofar as the redemption of people who have done heinous things is concerned.  Mind you, I don't think the issue is so much whether one CAN be redeemed.  I would agree with Kyronea that the potential to do so is within everybody.  The more important question is WILL they be redeemed.  Is the individual in question actually willing to follow a better path?  If so, how can anyone else know?  It's entirely likely that someone who has done terrible things, when offered a chance at redemption, will tell anyone who will listen just about anything they want to hear.

It comes down to a matter of trust, and since we can only truly gauge the attitude of a person based on their actions, is it possible to trust someone who has committed very serious crimes?

Further, it's very easy to discuss such matters in the comfy confines of an online forum (mmm, mmm...iced tea and a cushy chair), but it becomes a different issue altogether when one is dealing with actual matters.  I suppose depending on where we all come from, we have different justice systems to deal with the matter, but in any case I've always been of the mind that there should be more consultation with the wronged parties or, in the case of their murder, their families.  The perspective of the people who have been harmed is always paramount in such matters.  Now, having said that, I do know that people can be bitter and angry, and I'm NOT saying we should go around slaughtering petty criminals at the behest of the victims.

I suppose it boils down to a simple question.  Is it possible to respect the rights of someone who has willfully violated the rights of another?  I can honestly admit, I have a hard time doing so.

Also, in the spirit of directing things back (somewhat) to the topic at hand, I have noticed in another thread (I forget which), people discussed the nature of Lavos and the discussion did turn to the issue of redemption for Lavos regarding the activites which make up the game.  I think that the game creates so much insight into such matters is a fine reason as for why we enjoy this game.  It's an enjoyable experience to have genuine issues raised by so fun a means as a video game.

[Kanadyets]

Oh, and one more thing, with regards to your perspective on hell, Mr. Molecule.

I think it becomes a very difficult thing to discuss as it's an issue so completely dominated by dogma.  That being said, I don't think the beliefs and philosophy behind it is specifically the infinite punishment of finite crimes, or at least not originally.  I think it was conceived of more as a means of conveying the principle that individuals should generally try to remain upright and moral (now I know C. S. Lewis would take me to task over that, but whatever).  Over a very long span of time, and a span of time in which churches became very powerful, the idea of eternal damnation becomes a very powerful and easily abused method of societal control.

Alas, for the pitfalls of dogma.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[ZeaLitY]

Not that there will be people worse than me, but that I can become better than others through hard work, humanity, love, courage, and nobleness.

[Mr. Molecule]

I know where you're coming from, ZeaLitY. I don't agree.

Judging people, and judging which people are better than others, is necessary. You need to know who does what job well. Who can be trusted in a position of power. Who should be put in jail because they're a menace to others.

However--judging should always be a tool. Determine superiority should never stray to judging the person, but rather their actions. John is better than George at management. He's not necessarily a better person. It's presumptuos to assume we can know another person. That's a job for an omniscient God, or if you're not religious, it's a job for no-one. It after all has nothing to do with the real world. We only know how to treat others based on their actions, after all. Just like Kanadyets said, it's hard to respect the rights of someone who's violated someone else's. It's also hard not to praise and reward someone who's done unambigous good. (Okay, it sometimes *is,* but it shouldn't be)

So using your possible superiority as a motive is basically pointless. Do you want to be a better manager than George because you want a promotion, or because you simply want to be better than George? The latter seems rather petty. And isit even possible to acheive, say, nobility if you're thinking, "Heh heh, my spirit is some much nobler than other people's"?

Wait. I just reread your post. It seems a bit contradictory. If you become better than people how is there no one worse than you? Is this all a hilarious misunderstanding?

And... back on topic!

Also, in the spirit of directing things back (somewhat) to the topic at hand, I have noticed in another thread (I forget which), people discussed the nature of Lavos and the discussion did turn to the issue of redemption for Lavos regarding the activites which make up the game.  I think that the game creates so much insight into such matters is a fine reason as for why we enjoy this game.  It's an enjoyable experience to have genuine issues raised by so fun a means as a video game.

I think that part of the reason we love Chrono is because sites like this exist, where we can totally geek out over chrono and know we're among friends. Seriously, I know so much more about Chrono by analysing it and reading articles that point out things I never noticed than I would have if I never found the Compendium. It's similar to the Harry Potter phenomenon. I read & enjoy the Potter books & show up at midnight release parties (yes I'm old for that, shut up I have little sisters) not because they're my favorite books ever, but because I can talk to basically anybody about. They can help wile away hours that would otherwise be tedious, coming up with crazy theories and analyzing things. The same with the Chrono Community, even though for me it's primarily online. So take a bow ZeaLitY!

[Kanadyets]

So using your possible superiority as a motive is basically pointless. Do you want to be a better manager than George because you want a promotion, or because you simply want to be better than George? The latter seems rather petty. And isit even possible to acheive, say, nobility if you're thinking, "Heh heh, my spirit is some much nobler than other people's"?

I don't know if it's entirely pointless.  Why do athletes do what they do?  Presumably to be the best, which necessarily involves being better than everyone else.  Further, it need not be a matter of being the best for that sake alone, even though if that's your thing, go hard.  People strive for heights to maximize their potential, and if setting one's self apart from the rest is what it takes, so be it.  That being said, humans are such marvelous, multi-faceted creatures that I don't think you'll ever see someone who is empirically better at everything than everyone else on Earth.  Anyhow, long story short, I don't think attempting to be the best for the sake of being the best is necessarily pointless.  It's just a motivational tool allowing one to set their sights high and accomplish some amazing things.  Besides, I'm sure we can all agree that ZeaLitY has the superior Chrono-related site on the web.

Oh, and Mr. Molecule, I agree with your further assessment of why we love this game.  It's a fantastic thing that we can delve the depths, details, and intricacies of this game with others.  Mind you, I don't think it's necessarily a starting point for the enjoyment.  The game is, in and of itself, an amazing piece of work, but being able to take it to new levels of enjoyment in a forum such as this really helps compound the enjoyment.  Not to mention that with all the minds at work here, the new facts I have to consider allow me to relieve the experience over again and see things in a new light.  Let's hear it for replayability value!

[Mystic Frog King]

All this talk of redemption made me think about the motives of the CT characters and why they decide to save the world - it's amusing to consider that Lavos was only defeated because Marle is a bossy, impulsive brat and decided on a whim to save the world from Lavos and dragged Crono and Lucca along too.

[Kanadyets]

While there is truth in that, I don't know if we could say it's all because of Marle's brattiness.  She is pretty demanding at the moment when the party makes the decision to go after Lavos, it's true.  Nonetheless, if you had a look at the future and saw what was wrong, wouldn't you make the decision to save the world?

Besides, he was also trying to hit that.  Can you think of a better pick-up than "Hey, baby.  I saved the world"?

[Mr. Molecule]

I always considered Marle to be naive and sweet-natured, not bossy and bratty. Impulsive I'll give ya. But why all the hate? I've always like Marle, she's nice and always appreciative of people helping her out--which is kinda the opposite of bratty. Also her desire save the future is highly unselfish and "good," which is ALSO kinda the opposite of bratty.

What I'm saying is, I like Marle. Go Marle!

(Kanadyets, I think we basically agree? I'm not saying competition is wrong, I'm just saying that if you're say, a soccer player and the entire reason you're playing is to be the best soccer player, and not because youlove soccer, then maybe something is wrong. I mean, competition is good (sometimes) because it maximized potential, not because it establishes a pecking order! And of course people will do things with the desire to be better than others, just I think that it's not the most constructive atitude to have. Except, apparently, in ZeaLitY's case.)