I think FFXIV should be more political actually

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedLolly

You aren't wrong about that (seriously why not add some more tension?) and I hate Gaius. The Werlyt story makes me extremely angry because I would've put a cap in the guy the instant I saw him carrying Alphinuad's unconscious body and then I have to sympathize with his nightmarish failures as a father. Fuck that guy.

But, he was consistently written to be an extremely righteous man that was a much softer leader than the other Legatus, even in ARR. Shoot, even in 1.0. I'm not shocked he was brought back to exemplify not all Garlean leaders are evil sadists like Zenos and Yotsuyu, but blegh. I can't love them all and the devs have ended that chapter so it is what it is.

---

My problem with Gaius' story is it seemingly wants to show how destructive his savior complex is, but ends up vindicating it instead by making him the savior who leads others. "The Ala Mhigans are glad to have him help because he was nicer than Zenos... if you ignore the labor camps."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormChase

My problem with Gaius' story is it seemingly wants to show how destructive his savior complex is, but ends up vindicating it instead by making him the savior who leads others. "The Ala Mhigans are glad to have him help because he was nicer than Zenos... if you ignore the labor camps."

---

Actually that made me think of something. Obviously they can't do this now but what if the character Gaius adopted was the new VIIth legatus, and Allie + friends were THEIR attempt at raising kids the Baelsar way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormChase

My problem with Gaius' story is it seemingly wants to show how destructive his savior complex is, but ends up vindicating it instead by making him the savior who leads others. "The Ala Mhigans are glad to have him help because he was nicer than Zenos... if you ignore the labor camps."

---

According to the Griffin, Zenos "wasn't an ilm kinder" than Gaius. And that was the guy rallying a rebellion. He never said Zenos was worse.

Unless there was a retcon to say that Zenos was worse. But before ever meeting Zenos the people starting the rebellion saw no difference in the way they governed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormChase

I might buy that if Doma, Ala Mhigo, and places that were under Garlemald even longer didn't have more insurgents from the colonized groups. Yeah, time can wear down people (we saw that in Stormblood), but it can also make them more desperate.

---

To be fair the major difference is that people in Doma, Ala Mhigo and Garlemald also had an actual way out in sight, unlike Turali who got trapped under the Dome, completely cut off from the outside world. There probably were some people who tried to find their way out, especially those living close to Yyasulani station, but evidently didn't succeed and likely died in the process. MSQ didn't really show what early years there looked like (which is a shame, but welp). Heck, we still don't know how Cahciua died.

There's also the fact that unlike with Garlemald, Sphene met people with open arms rather than direct violence and conquest, and those people never really found out her real motives. All their resentment was sent towards Zoraal Ja, not Alexandrians who, living in blissfull ignorance, technically had no reason to be in conflict with newcomers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediocreIndigo

One of the things that really baffles me is the fact that we seemingly never end up telling the Alexandrian populace that Endless Sphene was planning on committing mass murder and that Yyasulani being merged with Alexandria wasn't an accident. The Turalis under the dome are allowed to still be under the impression that this person who essentially kidnapped them was a benevolent ruler.

---

Mulling over it here and I'm surprisingly not sure what I'd have done in their place.
On one hand you essentially lie to people by not telling them, on another you're shattering their entire life into pieces for the sake of truth. Regardless of which you pick, there're pros and cons to that decision, and it ends up being a massive ethical challenge.

Those who were born under the Dome don't know any other life, and those who spent there 30 concious years have barely settled, and telling them the truth would just stirr up the trauma that just started healing. Imagine the level of hate and resentment they'd feel if they also find out that those years of their life with their loved ones were stolen conciously. They deserve that knowledge but at the same time I don't know if I'd want to cause them even more pain by delivering that information.

It's kind of how some Alexandrians wanted to re-acquire the memories that were locked away, while some others decided not to, or at least aren't ready yet. Except in case with Endless Sphene, you don't really give anyone choice regardless of what you do - if someone wants to know and you don't tell them, or if someone would've preferred to live the rest of their life not knowing but you decided to tell them - it's a weight on your shoulders regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halivel

To be fair the major difference is that people in Doma, Ala Mhigo and Garlemald also had an actual way out in sight, unlike Turali who got trapped under the Dome, completely cut off from the outside world. There probably were some people who tried to find their way out, especially those living close to Yyasulani station, but evidently didn't succeed and likely died in the process. MSQ didn't really show what early years there looked like (which is a shame, but welp). Heck, we still don't know how Cahciua died.

There's also the fact that unlike with Garlemald, Sphene met people with open arms rather than direct violence and conquest, and those people never really found out her real motives. All their resentment was sent towards Zoraal Ja, not Alexandrians who, living in blissfull ignorance, technically had no reason to be in conflict with newcomers.

---

I addressed this reasoning in a different reply but I think a lot of these details were added to justify not centering the Turali perspective.

I have to disagree cause up to a point it will turn people away from the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormChase

I addressed this reasoning in a different reply but I think a lot of these details were added to justify not centering the Turali perspective.

---

Both Endwalker's Garlemald and Dawntrail's Alexandria have this fake "mutual understanding" that's actually lopsided. The Garleans are hostile to the Alliance, and this on its own isn't an issue with the writing. It's expected. It's realistic. The problem's that they never really learn to understand us. Most of them still think the Empire was right, they're just willing to deal with "savages" now. I don't expect them to change overnight, but I also don't know when or even IF we'll come back to it.

Where it goes from being just half-baked to offensive is the way they write the foreign laborers. It's established early on that there are people forced to work for Garlemald who've been stranded as well. When we talk to them they still resent the Garleans, and then it just... goes nowhere? There's a sidequest with their Garlean boss who's just now learned they were mistreated, and unless I'm forgetting something they don't even show up. If you go talk to them again, they say some of them want to keep trading. That's it. How did they warm up to people they implied we should kill? We don't know because as far as the writers are concerned, their perspective doesn't matter.

I'm guessing the CS3 saw the criticisms players made about Garlemald and came to the wrong conclusion. They believe players were disappointed not because they ignored the laborers and changed the Garleans too little, but because they simply didn't make the Garleans already nice enough. So now the Alexandrians are nice and ignorant.