I agree with this also in that it shouldn't be a 1-to-1 good/evil <--> light/dark But at the same time I do skew towards the traditionals and I look at it like the bias that people as a whole might carry in terms of predjudice - someone commits a crime - that makes him a criminal - but it doesn't define them - unless time after time opportunities to be anything otherwise are removed - then they go to crime full time. Sadly, that statement comes from a much less theoretical part of my brain and one that instead relies more on experience: I grew up in Springfield MA: 12th worst city in America (2011) - It is something that can be debated back and forth, and even I'm not set in stone, but there's definitely something to being curved by public perception and expectation.
I get what you mean, but someone who commits a crime is a criminal because that's the definition of the word 'criminal'. There's nothing in the definition of 'Dark Knight' or 'Paladin' that specifies anything about the character's behaviour. I mean, I know they don't have strict definitions or anything, but they're primarily game mechanic constructs more so than anything else; it's more a specification of what your skills and abilities are than what you do with them.
That said, I would certainly agree that certain skill sets are more appropriate/useful to certain kinds of tasks than others. If you're looking to protect people (especially specific people) you probably would want a Paladin. If you're looking to wipe out large armies of small mooks, then, unless they're undead, you probably would prefer a Dark Knight. So it's easy to see how someone might equate "protecting = good" and "killing = bad". But if the person/people you're protecting is/are villains, or the people you're wiping out are an evil invading army, then it's not so clear cut as that.
Just consider the trip to Ordeals vs. the trip back. On the way to the mountain, the DK just destroys everything. For me the twins often don't even get turns. You either fight big fat ravens/zuus which die instantly to Deathbringer, or you fight a bunch of little imps and porcupines which all die in one shot to dark wave. Once you get to the mountan though, then the DK is probably your least useful contributor. He can attack certain monsters, but for reduced damage, and in those zombie battles he's basically using bomb fragments or potions/ethers or parrying. Contrast that with the way back to town. Paladin just wrecks everything on the mountain, but when you get to the overworld, he can take out the little guys but very slowly one-by-one, so he's probably relying on the mages to take them out with their group attacks, and against the giant birds he just has to hack away at them for very modest amounts of damage, again probably relying on the mages for support.
I guess it could just be that the rise of the barnonian Empire and the subsequent unpleasantness with Golbez is what instilled the notion that Dark=Evil. Seems like that kind of defeats what could be a good plot point in a potential Before-Years, though...
Also very true - and a bit of a nagging question I had: if Theodor became Golbez under Zemus' influence: where has he been the whole time of Cecil's maturity? Even taking Theodor as young (10-11?) That still leaves him ~15 years of 16+ adulthood that's a total ???? It also seems like Baron didn't turn that slowly just the guys showed up - killed the king, took over, and as quickly as possible started going for the Crystals - it seems a bit off to me
Agreed... it seems like the king being replaced is something that happened very close to the beginning of FF4; it does seem like it might be too short a timeframe to instill a predjudice in people. Definitely he's been training Dark Knights long before that. It could simply be an extrapolation of the kinds of things Dark Knights are good at and what goals those things are useful for accomplishing, e.g. killing things (particularly people, as in some FF games they have many human opponents as being weak to Dark/Poison), whereas Paladins are good at protecting people and destroying evil spirits and other such undead abominations.
I preface this by saying my own immediate follow-up thought was "I probably wouldn't do it - but hmm..." What if instead of White/Black it's a little more like FF6 (which is funny to type - I actually don't like that aspect of the game at all) - But how I mean it is any Mage class can learn any spell - but obviously Palom's Black magic would work far more effectively than White. To have enough room we'd probably have to split magic into Basic/Advanced in place of White/Black.
Just a weird thought that came by - sort of an extension on a complaint I always had with weapons. Gandalf can use a sword - and so can anyone; they just might suck at it. Just like the above idea, not something I'd probably work towards here, but still want it out there.
Speaking only for myself, such a system wouldn't be my cup of tea. In fact it's one of the things that bothers me about a lot of the later Final Fantasy games (basically 6+, with a couple of exceptions). The characters are very "whitewashed"... that is to say, mostly the same with a few differences rather than mostly different with a few similarities. FF6 isn't quite so bad with it as some of the others, and it only really surfaces in the mid to late part of the game, but it always left a sort of bad taste in my mouth. Especially the ones where, literally, every character has access to every ability with, few exceptions like maybe limit breaks or something. I always preferred games where a character has a specific set of specialized skills which he or she does really well, and sucks at everything else. But that's why you have a party; each character's specialties make up for the shortcomings of the others (in a balanced party that is, though a specialized one can be fun as well, forcing you to find more creative ways around their weaknesses).
We have EVEN MORE themes now, but some old ones are gone...