Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

...and yet in other threads, Cilia, you've argued that certain characters have had no choice but to do a specific thing even when plausible alternatives have been proposed and the one to suffer at their hands and lose their lives had sympathetic motives. So can we safely assume that your stance on Fordola is indicative of a different point of view or is it yet another case of the goal posts being moved to paint anyone associated with Garlemald in the worst possible light? At any rate, I'm in full agreement with Anonymoose's views on the matter. It's far more nuanced a situation than some here will credit and the thread will inevitably revolve around beating the usual dead horse that is morality in a fictional setting with vastly different issues and complexities to the modern day real world.

Since radiata was mentioned this is as good a place as any to ask but is radiata another province that was conquered and the workers there are brought over from said region or are they ala mhigans who are just used for slave labor and nothing else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarCV

This is really an interesting discussion so far! Personally, I see Fordola as something of a tragic figure.

---

And personally, a discussion like this illustrates why I've enjoyed Stormblood much more than Heavensward. I was struck by the insight that the writers Banri Oda and Natsuku Ishikawa have drawn from similar situations in real life to create a fictional setting like this. And I enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on a number of issues, and imagine how I might behave in such cases, had they happened in reality.

So, on that note, let me first address this concern:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

..the thread will inevitably revolve around beating the usual dead horse that is morality in a fictional setting with vastly different issues and complexities to the modern day real world.

---

I happen to have an usual perspective on gaming, particularly those rooted in stories: I believe such games can have educational value, especially when players are able to transpose their virtual interactions to actual behaviour in real life.

Therefore, I fundamentally disagree that real-life lessons can't be learnt from "morality in a fictional setting".

I think the problem in the other threads is that the original point of debate was often poorly defined, and this allowed everyone to get carried away.

I would also suggest that the point of a debate isn't to win, but to learn different points of view.

If we begin with the mindset that it's okay to have different perspectives and different positions, then it's less likely that we would end up arguing in circles over irreconcilable differences. It'll be easier to agree to disagree, and still end up feeling like a winner. :)

==========

Let's sum up two perspectives that have emerged from the thread so far:
(Consequentionalism)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

It's important to remember that we're seeing Fordola in a position she didn't expect or desire. She seems to have bought into Baelsar's framing that Ala Mhigo was weak and corrupt and rightfully conquered... Is it better to thrive in chains or let your hollow, corrupt city collapse with its unearned pride and unmet potential? That's the worldview drilled into her by Baelsar.

---

(Categoricalism)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

[Fordola] is still a monster, a monster is determined by their direct actions and the direct results of those actions. She knowingly fired on her own troops... Most dictators generally accepted as monsters thought they were doing what they thought was best for their people. It doesn't matter what their logic or reasoning behind it is.

---

It's really interesting to me that everyone has more or less divided into the two most fundamental positions in ethics and morality: Consequentialism (ie, the ends justifies the means) and categoricalism (ie, an action is categorically right or wrong, regardless of circumstances).

I want to point out right away that both are entirely valid philosophical positions to take. Each side begins from a worldview that is fundamentally opposed to each other. So, once you know which side of the divide you belong, there's no point badgering the other side about it.

It would be more helpful, instead, to find out how far you can clarify and explain your point and, in the process, maybe you'll learn something about yourself too. ;)

==========

I'll add that virtually everyone here seems to agree that most of things that Fordola has done are unjustifiable. If this thread were her trial, she would almost certainly be found guilty.

The question, then, is what should her sentence be? To what extent should her punishment be mitigated — not excused, not pardoned — by her upbringing and circumstances?

And it is at this point that we need to weigh the significance of moral agency ("Fordola is fully responsible because she chose freely") against the impact of group psychology ("Was Fordola ever actually given a real choice?").

(Moral agency)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Fordola had a choice. The cost of disobeying would have been steep — extremely steep — but she had a choice.

---

(Hobson's choice, or the illusion of choice)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

The difference between pulling the trigger and refusing to is what, then?
Refuse the Order

• All of the Skulls die.
• Ala Mhigans look more unreliable and untrustworthy than ever; every sacrifice and misdeed the Skulls endured was for nothing.
• Fordola dies.

---

On this part of the debate, I lean towards the view that Fordola is indeed a tragic figure because — monster though she may be — she was never really given an actual choice to become what she is today.

I am of the further view that those who argue that Fordola is fully responsible for her decisions underestimate the impact of group psychology on people.

"We proved, in a very dramatic way, that situations and systems have a much greater impact on human behaviour than we want to believe."

==========

Given what we know of how the Garleans in Ala Mhigo brutalised the population, to what extent can we really say that Fordola — and the Skulls, and all the Ala Mhigans who worked with the Empire — are completely and personally to blame for her actions?

Make no mistake: Fordola is culpable for her crimes.

The question at stake is the degree to which she's culpable.

To me, it would be an injustice if her circumstances are not taken into consideration, when the time finally comes to mull over her inevitable sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

It's really interesting to me that everyone has more or less divided into the two most fundamental positions in ethics and morality: Consequentialism (ie, the ends justifies the means) and categoricalism (ie, an action is categorically right or wrong, regardless of circumstances).

---

I think the fact that Fordola was obviously an antagonist at the beginning of the debate makes it's easier for us to fall into the pit of debating the degree to which motivations matter (coupled of course with the fact that the OP's specific question was "Is she a monster?" which leans on the scale), thus bringing out consequential and categorical ways of thinking - especially at first, as debate has yet to whittle down the obvious rough edges on each point of view.

Though as I was brushing up on the subject, this caught my eye.

Quote:

---

Conrad
If the only way to forge the future we want is to cut down our own, then...

M'naago
Then what was it all for!? What will you say to the families of the fallen─to the mothers and the widows and the orphans? Will you tell them it was all for nothing!?

Raubhan
Listen to the girl. We dare not suffer our comrades' sacrifices to have been in vain. Now is the time to steel our resolve and press on, painful though it may be.

---

Is it so hard to believe this discussion was only happening on one side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The question, then, is what should her sentence be? To what extent should her punishment be mitigated — not excused, not pardoned — by her upbringing and circumstances?

---

Ironically, I don't care much what hand she's dealt from the punishment deck (so long as it suits the greater narrative). I care that important points not be ignored (that the Skulls are the scions of Ala Mhigans of high status, indoctrinated as children, given Garlean education with promise of citizenship; that she signed on to Baelsar's "meritocracy" only to end up yoked to Zenos's "hunt"; ethical considerations of "who is the traitor" when the city's army is commanded by foreign conquerors; that her judges will represent the nascent soul of the liberated Ala Mhigo; et cetera). She also has a purpose if the writers kept her alive at all (if nothing else to speak for one interpretation of "loyalty").

On this topic, to fail to contemplate the character completely is to render pointless contemplating her at all.

Well, that and I just like throwing un-discussed facets of a topic at the wall and seeing what sticks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For all I care she could bust out to rejoin Gaius when he TOTALLY COMES BACK YOU GUYS <weeps into his drink>

Quote:

---

M'naago
Then what was it all for!? What will you say to the families of the fallen─to the mothers and the widows and the orphans? Will you tell them it was all for nothing!?

---

Isn't this kind of similar to Lowdy's reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyvhokan

Isn't this kind of similar to Lowdy's reasons?

---

She used similar rhetoric, yeah. Though she was pretty honest about her motivations: to convince the citizens of Ishgard that their pain and loss was so great that peace born of anything short of Dravanian annihilation was false peace. It was purely a call for vengeance because the loss of her husband filled her with hatred. In German, she says that revenging herself upon the dragons has become her entire reason for living.

Quote:

---

Lowdy
Remember your husbands and wives, never returned from war! Your children, torn apart by fang and claw! All your loved ones, shown no mercy! Does not your heart cry out for vengeance!? Your blood boil at the injustice!? Remember the face of your enemy, brothers and sisters! Remember it and strike back!

Lowdy
Der Krieg gegen die Drachen ist alles, was mir geblieben ist, der Sinn meines Lebens!
The war against the dragon is all that remains for me, the meaning of my life!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

Ironically, I don't care much what hand she's dealt from the punishment deck (so long as it suits the greater narrative). I care that important points not be ignored (that the Skulls are the scions of Ala Mhigans of high status, indoctrinated as children, given Garlean education with promise of citizenship; that she signed on to Baelsar's "meritocracy" only to end up yoked to Zenos's "hunt"; ethical considerations of "who is the traitor" when the city's army is commanded by foreign conquerors; that her judges will represent the nascent soul of the liberated Ala Mhigo; et cetera). She also has a purpose if the writers kept her alive at all (if nothing else to speak for one interpretation of "loyalty").

---

Their age and their citizenship are an interesting factor for me because to quote your earlier quote;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crania Lupi Soldier

I've worked and toiled harder than any man! I'm a citizen, godsdammit!

---

Citizenship normally takes 20 years of service, right? Gaius must have backdated their "service" to the moment when their education began or declared they did some sort of outstanding act but either way they seem to have benefited from a marked degree of favoritism. Then they hit the usual dilemma of a collaborator in a colonialist system, the huge power imbalance means that everything you've "earned" can be taken away immediately and suddenly you're in the same position as the people your overlords had been using you to oppress, and under Zenos they lost almost everything.

The thing I'm wondering about is to what degree this was because they were Ala Mhigan and what degree it was because they were Gaius' pet project.

Gaius deciding to ignore orders and continue to invade Eorzea, essentially going it alone for five years, seems like something that should have had some pretty significant fallout. We've already seen some of it with Nero, who seems to have chosen self-exile over whatever the consequences of returning will be. So how much of the Wolves' getting busted down was a political show, "this is what'll happen to your legacy if you step out of line", and how much of the Wolves' devotion to duty stems from trying to prove the man that oversaw their childhoods was "right" to grant them special treatment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FJerome

Citizenship normally takes 20 years of service, right?

---

Yyyes... Ostensibly.

Would there be anything preventing Gaius from brokering deals with influential Ala Mhigans that their children be elevated from aan to oen immediately upon enlisting as a groomed and educated legionarius? I know it's to the Empire's benefit to dangle citizenship over the heads of those who would claim it until they've been of service, but I'm not sure there's anything stopping them from just handing it out if they think it's a good deal. Careful education of (and even marriage into) the upper echelons of a target society is a proven way to cement transference of power.

Quote:

---

Lyse
So you walked in Fordola's memories. What did you see?

Arenvald
A woman promised the world─education, training, citizenship─all that and more if she but sold her soul. A traitor to her people, a pretender to her masters...

---

Side note: Cool that they grabbed Fordola's biography right off the website, yet warped it with Arvenvald's biases.

Quote:

---

A young soldier born and raised during the imperial occupation of Ala Mhigo, Fordola was promised the world─education, training, citizenship─in exchange for service. Scorned as traitors by their people and savages by their Garlean masters, she and others like her struggle to forge their own path in an unforgiving world.

---

Anyroad, say Gaius tried the carrot with the upper crust of Ala Mhigo ("dignitaries" Conrad called them). Say he offered that they "lead their people into the new age"; retain their status, be free from tributum, have their children become full citizens. How many would take the offer? With the amount of suffering Garlemald was clearly capable of inflicting on the defiant...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FJerome

Gaius deciding to ignore orders and continue to invade Eorzea, essentially going it alone for five years, seems like something that should have had some pretty significant fallout. <...> how much of the Wolves' getting busted down was a political show, "this is what'll happen to your legacy if you step out of line", and how much of the Wolves' devotion to duty stems from trying to prove the man that oversaw their childhoods was "right" to grant them special treatment?

---

I'm curious about how far down the chain of command Garlemald would hold the soldiers of the XIVth accountable, especially the ones whose orders were not contradictory to those High Legatus and the Emperor in the first place. What happens to the guy who obeys the spirit of the High Legatus's wishes by being insubordinate to the direct order of everyone from the Legatus to his commanding officer? And what of the cohorts that were to stay in Ala Mhigo? It doesn't look like the Skulls did anything rogue-y.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galgarion

Yes, she killed Meffrid and Conrad, but Fordola is an imperial: how does killing them make her a "kin-slaying traitor" instead of a tremendously effective soldier?

---

Like others already wrote she is from Ala Mhigo herself but grew up when it was under the rule of Garlemald, so she slays her own kin because even if its under their rule she is still an Ala Mhigan. In war you will always have to kill your enemy if you are at the front but in this war she killed those that are from the same place thus her kin. This makes Lyse quite angry because she cant understand how someone can do it. But at least this point was still understandable for me, because Fordola was raised under Garlean rule so its kinda not surprising that she chose to help them.

I did feel for Fordola for some time but there is no excuse for her treating the common people really bad..she said nothing when that poor man was nearly beaten to death, they also dont do their task and protect the Ala Mhigan that are under Garleans rule. On top of that she even goes so far and kills her own underlings too, which is kinda a bad way and which was the final point, where I lost a lot of respect for her. She might not be that much of a traitor since she never was on the "good" side anyway but she definitely slew her own kin and even her own men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kohdo

And a friendly reminder that Ala Mhigo is historically a warmongering state, and has previously tried to do to other city-states what Garlemald has done to them. But muh evil Garleans, or something.

---

Yes they went against other city states very very long time ago..such a long time ago that even the city states themselves are over that situation. Using that as a argument really is not that good since that would mean that no state in the world would ever be free of their burden of their past..if they would have gone against the states just years ago then maybe this would be a better point but not something that was so far in the past.

In the end I am kinda interested in how they will threat Fordola in further patches. Will she show remorse and get her punishment or will she turn into a bigger enemy and thus show us that some cant just be saved? Anyway I still find it horrible that she shot her own men, which is something the alliance at least never did. (And no taking a rebellion down is not the same)

---

I do love a good discussing and even if we have different opinion its fine as long as there are no mean personal attacks. Yet nobody is forced to discuss things endlessly so if this discussion will turn into a circle for some and they are annoyed by it, then nobody is forced to still participate in it.

Can I just say that the fact that there are two distinct sides (as identified by TinyRedLeaf) is a credit to the writers. To instil enough grey areas to allow for the debate is something that makes the conflict between Lyse and Fordola interesting in the first place.

I find all this persecution of Fordola very interesting. History is written by the victors and I can only imagine how it would paint a butcher like Lyse. A violent, self righteous barbarian who butchered her own countrymen in the name of her radical ideaology.

The answer to the OPs question is no, she's no monster, she simply lost. If she had won then Frodola would have been celebrated as a hero who defended Ala Mhigo against violent extremists and Lyse would have been the butcher carted off to face charges for killing her own fellow Ala Mhigans.

Citizenship does seem to be something that can be inherited based on the dialogue of the indolent imperial in mor dhona, he mentions how he only become a soldier because his mother told him to "make something of himself like his father". This implies that his father earned the family citizenship and the mother probably thinks the son is spoiled by that and made him enlist. Too bad for him the 14th is essentially in exile. Speaking of the 14th are they still hanging around those castras? what is to be done with them?

They're still occupying strategically significant fortified positions within Eorzea, so I find it difficult to believe that Garlemald abandoned them wholesale, particularly with the XIVth's leadership gone.

I remember Thancred and Krile infiltrating Castrum Meridianum in one of the 3.0 patches and it was still manned by Imperial soldiers. Given that this took place after Gaius' defeat it suggests that even with the inner area blowing up the remaining structures were not fully cleared out. If it wasn't for that particular scene I would have assumed that each Castrum had been cleared out entirely as a consequence of Operation Archon and that seeing enemies there in the game world was just a case of the 2.0 areas simply not being updated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

They're still occupying strategically significant fortified positions within Eorzea, so I find it difficult to believe that Garlemald abandoned them wholesale, particularly with the XIVth's leadership gone.

---

Wasn't there some sidequest or 2.X main scenario quest (maybe even the 3.X MSQ Theodric mentions) where they say something to the effect that the XIVth Legion has pretty much been reduced to banditry to survive? I was also more or less under the impression Garlemald stopped supporting the XIVth before or during the beginning of ARR as Gaius was 'rogue.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocl

Wasn't there some sidequest or 2.X main scenario quest (maybe even the 3.X MSQ Theodric mentions) where they say something to the effect that the XIVth Legion has pretty much been reduced to banditry to survive? I was also more or less under the impression Garlemald stopped supporting the XIVth before or during the beginning of ARR as Gaius was 'rogue.'

---

It might have been around the same time that Eline Roaille sought to break free of captivity and flee in the direction of Castrum Meridianum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Given what we know of how the Garleans in Ala Mhigo brutalised the population, to what extent can we really say that Fordola — and the Skulls, and all the Ala Mhigans who worked with the Empire — are completely and personally to blame for her actions?

Make no mistake: Fordola is culpable for her crimes.

The question at stake is the degree to which she's culpable.

To me, it would be an injustice if her circumstances are not taken into consideration, when the time finally comes to mull over her inevitable sentence.

---

I fully understand that Fordola was in crappy circumstances. I understand that groupthink influences decision making.

I don't think Fordola is completely to blame for her actions (she's a soldier in the military), but I do feel she is personally responsible for it. At the end of the day, she was the one who gave the order to fire - she says so herself.

Correcting myself, I wouldn't quite say that Fordola is a monster. She is, however, a tragically misguided soldier who willingly relinquished her free will to a psychopathic tyrant in service to her own warped ideal due to believing that ideal alone was the only future for her country despite the vast majority of said country's populace wanting nothing to do with that ideal. (Nuanced enough? /sarcasm?) Hope in Ala Mhigan freedom as Imperial province isn't the only hope there is; it's just the only hope Fordola allows herself, for whatever reason.

(And might I just say that as an ex-soldier I'm pretty terrified to think about the possibility of comrades turning artillery fire on one another?)

I don't think Fordola should be killed for what she did. She should live; that's the true punishment. Whatever she chooses to do with that life is her decision, but if she intends to continue attacking anyone who disagrees with her vision of an Imperial Ala Mhigo (as opposed to Ala Mhigan independence) prison is the only place she should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocl

Wasn't there some sidequest or 2.X main scenario quest (maybe even the 3.X MSQ Theodric mentions) where they say something to the effect that the XIVth Legion has pretty much been reduced to banditry to survive? I was also more or less under the impression Garlemald stopped supporting the XIVth before or during the beginning of ARR as Gaius was 'rogue.'

---

When first appearing during the Crystal Tower storyline, Nero explains that he can't go back to Garlemald because the XIVth went rogue and have all been marked for death as a consequence. That makes it... pretty clear the Empire (as a sovereign nation) isn't particularly concerned with what happens to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VargasVermillion

Speaking of the 14th are they still hanging around those castras? what is to be done with them?

---

The game still has elements of some Imperial Legion hanging around the various castras, identified only by their cohort number. In the case of ARR castras, there is no indication that these are anything other than XIVth Legion. (Castrum Abania is obviously XIIth, and Castrum Solus is VIth.)

Considering these areas include Larkscall in East Shroud, where the nearest castrum is Castrum Oriens, I can only assume this is a case of the game world not being updated to match story progression.

However, there's a mission in the 50-60 RDM questline where you're supposed to create a distraction so your allies can infiltrate Castrum Meridianum to steal records. The RDM questline has dialogue changes depending on how far into the Stormblood storyline you've progressed, which can be anywhere from "not started at all" to "finished and liberated Ala Mhigo". And RDM's unlock only requires a level 50 character, with no quest requirements (that I know of).

So it's entirely possible that this RDM raid on Castrum Meridianum could have taken place after Gaius's and Zenos's demise, or after Gaius's demise but the WoL is revisiting Eorzea just to unlock RDM, or directly after Gaius's demise and how Ultima Weapon blew up the entire Praetorium inside Castrum Meridianum, or even before the whole Ultima Weapon mess. Theoretically it might be possible to have levelled a character and gotten to that RDM quest before even killing our first Primal?

In all cases, Castrum Meridianum is organized enough to send out a quick response force, including Magitek armour, to our heavy knocking on the door, and for us to use that organization against them by acting as a decoy. This makes the most sense before Ultima Weapon. This makes a bit of sense long after Ultima Weapon, where we suspend disbelief and assume they've had time to regroup. This makes the least sense directly after Ultima Weapon, because they should be dealing with a major part of their base having been wiped out by Ultima.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

[Fordola] is no monster, she simply lost. If she had won then Frodola would have been celebrated as a hero who defended Ala Mhigo against violent extremists and Lyse would have been the butcher carted off to face charges for killing her own fellow Ala Mhigans.

---

This is a fallacious argument that needs to be robustly addressed.

Basically, it's an appeal to victor's justice.

(1)
If we were to take this argument to its logical conclusion, virtually any atrocity — in-game or in real-life — can be justified and waved away, as long as one emerges the "winner".

First of all, let's be clear: A narrative of events is not the same as the actual events.

If, even by a twist of fate, the Garleans defeated the Alliance, and Fordola survived to be declared a hero, it doesn't change the fact that she personally and knowingly ordered artillery fire upon her own troops. Troops who had no choice in the matter, regardless of what Fordola may choose to tell herself.

So, let's not confuse the record of the fact, with the fact itself.

Indeed, if it were indeed the case that the historical record is deliberately written to hide or obsure Fordola's actions, then we actually have two crimes to deal with: Fordola's order at Castrum Abania, and the lie used to cover up her deed.

(2)
Secondly, I would argue that it's nonsensical or — at the very least — premature to level the charge of victor's justice on the Resistance.

In the first place: What comparable atrocities have the Alliance committed? None. Or, if one is less inclined to be generous, not yet.

Show me an instance in the game where Alliance soldiers killed their own comrades, or massacred defenceless civilians, or summarily executed enemy troops who have surrendered.

Simply put, there has been no such incident. So, one simply cannot equate the Garleans with the Alliance when it comes to war conduct. There is absolutely no equivalence.

That being the case, the Alliance has nothing to hide. And there's certainly no factual justification for describing Lyse as a "butcher", "self-righteous barbarian".

Don't confuse propaganda and or "alternative facts" with the truth. Admittedly, this can be very hard for some people to grasp, but a lie is a lie, unless proven otherwise.

Of course, we haven't even begun the 4.x patch cycle, so who knows how the story will develop?

Perhaps Lyse would turn out to be a monumental failure of a leader, and restive elements within the Ala Mhigans would exploit her weaknesses to fan discontent. Perhaps Ala Mhigans still loyal to the Empire would provoke Resistance soldiers into brutalising the population just as the Garleans had done.

And then perhaps, some misguided fool may devise propaganda to hide the crimes and paint the Resistance in better light.

And perhaps none of this will happen. We don't know, and we won't know until we see it happen.

Until then, there is absolutely no basis to claim that the Alliance will impose "victor's justice" on war criminals like Fordola.

The one defining thing is her firing on her own.

Fordola firing on her own troops is what will haunt her for the rest of her life. Even if Lyse, the Ala Mhigan resistance, the Ala Mhigans who the skulls persecutes all forgive her, I don't think she will forgive herself for that.

She still lists their names off and remembers them. That guilt will weigh heavily on her (unlike with someone like Yotsuyu who seems to be a complete psychopath and doesn't seem to have remorse for anything).

That is the betrayal and kinslayer, as the skulls were her kin. Meffrid and the resistance were enemy combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Until then, there is absolutely no basis to claim that the Alliance will impose "victor's justice" on war criminals like Fordola.

---

Important note: the Alliance is not the Resistance. And we have no idea how much influence either, or both, or neither, will have on the new government (and judiciary) of Ala Mhigo.

A member state of the Alliance can certainly have committed atrocities. The end of 2.55 certainly leaps to mind, for something directly affecting us. The Au Ra massacre by Ishgard is another. The Lominsan breaking of treaties with the Kobolds is arguably another.

As for the Resistance, the younger members welcome the Corpse Brigade back into the fold of "people on our side", to the consternation of the older members. The older members remember when the Corpse Brigade commit atrocities in the name of the King of Ruin. The younger members, for some reason, do not remember the atrocities the Corpse Brigade committed while they were bandits. But it's implied the Corpse Brigade are in the process of becoming members of the Resistance anyway. They may not have committed any atrocities while as Resistance members, but that does not erase the ones they did commit (and are apparently unapologetic about, as with Ishgard and the Au Ra) before then.

So after Fordola is punished (somehow or other) by the new government headed by Lyse, how should the Corpse Brigade be handled?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Important note: the Alliance is not the Resistance. A member state of the Alliance can certainly have committed atrocities. The end of 2.55 certainly leaps to mind, for something directly affecting us. The Au Ra massacre by Ishgard is another. The Lominsan breaking of treaties with the Kobolds is arguably another.

---

Fair points, but they're not directly relevant to the issue at hand: That of whether Fordola is a monster.

It's certainly true that injustices in various degrees exist in all the city-states of the Alliance. But the injustices there are not equivalent to the crimes committed by Fordola and her Skulls, and discussing them would take all of us off-track.

Fordola stands accused of turning against her own people. Even more specifically, she is accused of knowingly giving the orders to fire on her own soldiers, Garlean-educated and Garlean-trained Ala Mhigans whom she considers kin.

These are the specific charges on which she's accused of being a monster.

Now, the "victor's justice" argument contends that Fordola will not be seen as a monster, had her actions allowed the Garleans to win. The logic being that, the winner gets to write history, and the record would presumably put Fordola in favourable light.

That's an absolutely fallacious argument, because it confuses the record of fact with the fact itself.

It's absolutely irrelevant how the Garleans — had they won — would choose to portray Fordola. Regardless of the subsequent narrative, Fordola did in fact give the order to fire upon her own troops. She did not belay the order even when she was challenged by a subordinate. She did not deny any of this in front of Lyse and other witnesses.

Categorically, that makes her a "kinslayer".

Any fabricated history that tries to portray her otherwise would be a lie that only serves to further compound the crime.

========

Now, in order for the "victor's justice" argument to have any relevance to these specific charges, we need to consider:

1) Whether the Alliance and the Resistance committed comparable atrocities during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo. (Answer: No.)

2) Whether the Alliance or the Resistance will attempt to cover up any such atrocities, should they emerge. (Answer: We don't know, yet.)


So, it's entirely premature to imply that the Alliance would be unjust in their handling of Garlean sympathisers like Fordola. There's no evidence yet to make this call. If the story does indeed take a dark turn like this, then we would certainly have a lot to talk about. But until then, it's completely unfair, not to mention irrelevant, to suggest otherwise.

There's certainly no basis, in any case, to accuse Lyse of being a "butcher". That's a lie that Ala Mhigans who remain loyal to the Empire may want to spread. Whether or not this is in store for future, we'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

I find all this persecution of Fordola very interesting. History is written by the victors and I can only imagine how it would paint a butcher like Lyse. A violent, self righteous barbarian who butchered her own countrymen in the name of her radical ideaology.

---

Put simply, it doesn't because it won't. The Ala Mhigan Resistance won.

Perhaps I'm a bit different from others in that, at least as far as the Eorzea/Doma and Garlemald dichotomy is concerned, I don't see a lot of grey area. For me, it comes down to a few basic concepts when determining "rightness" of action.

Do sovereign people's deserve to self-determinate?
I believe they do. I think most people would agree.

Does this apply to Ala Mhigo? Or Doma? Or Eorzea? And does it apply equally to the Garleans?
Yes, to all of them.

Does this give any nation "rights" to invade, with intent to subdue and control, another nation and it's people?
I think no. To that end, both Ala Mhigo and Garlemald have fucked up. Of course, in their defense, Ala Mhigo was being run by a madman who was eventually overthrown. The people saw a tyrant, and took him down. This, unfortunately, left them vulnerable to the whims of another tyrant, and they were unable to defend themselves in this third consecutive war. Of course, this doesn't mean Garlemald was "justified" in what they did, at least not on a moral level. Sure, the Garleans believe they are doing what's best for the world, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this "Eorzean nation-building" that the Garlean Empire is so keen on doing directly violates my first principle above. All people's should be able to self-determinate, and as much as the Skulls - and Fordola - believed that they were acting in the best interests of their people, there were quite a lot of people, both those active in the Resistance and people living directly under the yoke of the Empire, who didn't see things the way the Skulls did.

However, most of the time, my standard for "right" is much simpler; am I on that side? If so, then that's the right side. All's fair in love and war. Luckily the situation in Ala Mhigo was pretty cut and dry. The Garleans were an occupying force who were benefiting directly off the backs of near-slave labor, while outright abusing their power against the locals. There are at least 2 or 3 separate quests that discuss how the Empire would purposefully leave security threats to be dealt with by the locals, while simultaneously either gutting the ability of the locals to defend themselves (via conscription or confiscation of weaponry) or else by actively punishing anyone who attempted to deal with the issue. Sure, I'm not allied with that guy holding a gun to your head and telling you to give me all of your money, and I certainly don't endorse what he's doing, but you should probably listen to him.

Hell, wasn't there a quest in Ala Ghirri where you have to go put down some local beasts because they threaten the townsfolk, and the Garleans specifically hadn't addressed the threat because of some bullshit bureaucratic reason? I mean, Fordola says she's doing it for "her people" yet there's loads of evidence that her actions - or lack thereof - either did not directly benefit "her people" or else actively made their lives harder.

Sometimes I think that Lyse calling Fordola a monster at Abania was just the straw that broke the camels back. She had seen Fordola and her men extort, physically abuse, and leave helpless "her people." She, and the WoL via side quests, had witnessed the actions of the imperials, both in Yanxia and Gyr Abania, purposefully make the local peoples helpless, with Fordola and her Skulls playing an active part in enforcing this helplessness throughout Gyr Abania. All for "her people" of course. Because she totally knows better.

Yes, if things had gone differently then things would have been different. But they didn't go differently. And beyond that, that's an entire side questline in Ala Ghirri dedicated to the townspeople running cover for an imperial Centurion (I think) who they had grown fond of because he had treated them well, with one of the local J tribe members even pledging to wait for him until he gets out of prison, saying that he will always have a home among the people of Ala Ghirri. How was it that an imperial of such status was able to do that much for the people in occupied territory, yet a native Ala Mhigan like Fordola couldn't? Both were just as subject to the whims of Zenos as the other. Yes, Fordola had more face time with Zenos, but it's safe to say that if word got back to Zenos that an imperial officer was being soft on the locals, he would have introduced that officer to one of his three good friends.

No, the more I think about it, the more I have to say that Fordola, as much as she talked about it, was not doing this for purely altruistic "my people" reasons. She had a great deal of skin in the game, and not just in terms of her life or the lives of her Skulls. She, and they, had relatively cushy lives. Sure, they "suffered" under imperial scrutiny, but they received the education, the chance at citizenship, and most importantly for many Ala Mhigans, didn't have to worry about going hungry on a daily basis, or watching a loved one wither away and die from the wasting sickness, or hear about how your husband/wife/father/mother/brother/whatever died on the way back from tributum to beastman bandits or rabid scorpions or magicked moving rocks or whatever horror the wilds of Gyr Abania decided to hork out that day. Fordola lived a life of privilege, and she wanted to preserve that for it's own sake as much as anything else.

So like I said, Abania was just the last straw for Lyse. She had seen enough to know that, for all of Fordola's talk about how what she was doing was for "her people" it rang hollow. By this point you had seen simple farmers, beaten and broken in Yanxia, finally stand up for themselves after over two decades of imperial rule. You had seen people in Radiata, ostensibly broken, subvert and fight against the Empire in any way they could, relying on one of them to smuggle you and your party into Castrum Abania to take out the cannon. In short, you and Lyse had seen otherwise, so to hear Fordola talk about "sacrifice" and doing it for "her people" Lyse, being Lyse, called it out for the bullshit it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Fordola stands accused of turning against her own people. Even more specifically, she is accused of knowingly giving the orders to fire on her own soldiers, Garlean-educated and Garlean-trained Ala Mhigans whom she considers kin.

These are the specific charges on which she's accused of being a monster.

---

I actually agree with this, although I'm highly reluctant to use the word "monster", since it's entirely too vague and has too many degrees of monstrosity. I do accept the general gist of it, though.

What I was nitpicking at were two points:

Quote:

---

Categorically, that makes her a "kinslayer".

---

Yes it does. So would a lot of other actions done by other people, throughout the game's story, on all sides. For a villainous example, Gaius did order his XIVth Legion to execute any members of the VIIth Legion still around in Castrum Novum (now Castrum Centri), which I think would count. For a heroic not-quite-example, the only reason Aymeric isn't actually a kinslayer is because of the fear of Tempering, and in the days that followed those who opposed him did level that charge (specifically patricide).

(I'm not even going into the tangle of Ilberd's actions.)

So any fabricated history would probably not deny that Fordola killed her (metaphoric) kin. It would probably be more about whether doing so was justified. It's undeniably evil, but was it a necessary evil?

Of course, outside of the game, we all know that it's absolutely unnecessary and thus just evil. The question thus is that at that point of time, did Fordola believe that?

The second point is this:

Quote:

---

1) Whether the Alliance and the Resistance committed comparable atrocities during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo. (Answer: No.)

---

The part I'm quibbling with is "during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo". Because we've only seen Fordola during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo, so restricting the timeline to just that portion seems a little unfair. It implies that the Alliance, Resistance, and their component members (recall that the Masks of the Griffin were technically still Ala Mhigan Resistance; the Empire certainly would not see a difference) will only be judged by their actions during that time, and any other actions would be considered irrelevant, be it for good or ill.

There are cases of Victor's Justice already applied, although I concede that they're not really as dramatic or consequential as Fordola's case (present or hypothetical). How does the average citizen see Lolorito Nanarito?

(I'm going out for a bit, but when I return I'll add on a few more things unrelated to this particular point.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

As for the Resistance, the younger members welcome the Corpse Brigade back into the fold of "people on our side", to the consternation of the older members. The older members remember when the Corpse Brigade commit atrocities in the name of the King of Ruin. The younger members, for some reason, do not remember the atrocities the Corpse Brigade committed while they were bandits. But it's implied the Corpse Brigade are in the process of becoming members of the Resistance anyway.

---

Source that, if you would. I don't recall anything about the Corpse Brigade being remotely mentioned in SB content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

Source that, if you would. I don't recall anything about the Corpse Brigade being remotely mentioned in SB content.

---

There's an NPC named Hremfing who nurses quite a grudge against the Corpse Brigade. Depending on where you are in the story, he'll pop up and talk smack about them. He even hints that they will be among the factions most probable to cause trouble the the all-but-certainly upcoming fight for liberated Ala Mhigo's soul.

Quote:

---

A ways northeast of here you'll find the Sepulchre─a frightfully named place, no? Fitting, though, seeing as how it's best known as home to the villainous Corpse Brigade. To think that the erstwhile kingsguard of Ala Mhigo could end up a band of murderers and thieves. Mind you, they had a less-than-pristine reputation in the old days as well.

---

Quote:

---

It's all well and good that the Resistance is gaining new recruits, but we could do without the help of the Corpses. I've not forgotten the crimes they committed in the name of the King of Ruin. Nor have any of the older generation. But these young ones, they're all too happy to let bygones be bygones...

---

Quote:

---

No one is happier than me to see Ala Mhigo liberated, of that you can be certain. However, it is too early to be patting ourselves on the back. The Empire still has plenty of troops in reserve, and we do not yet know if the Corpse Brigade will attempt to reclaim power. The other day, I stumbled into a body between here and the Sepulchre. Done in by the Corpses, most like. Don't know who the poor sod was, but he was Ala Mhigan, far as I could tell. Couldn't well just leave him there, so I took the liberty of burying him.

---

Last one's a little ominous, no? On my list of dots to try to connect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

I actually agree with this, although I'm highly reluctant to use the word "monster", since it's entirely too vague and has too many degrees of monstrosity. I do accept the general gist of it, though.

---

Well, I have said that I wonder about the degree of Fordola's culpability. ;)

There is at least one way to argue for Fordola's innocence, with respect to her specific actions in Castrum Abania, but that wasn't the argument used in this case.

More importantly, the common argument that "history is written by the victors" is an inherently flawed defence for atrocities.

If we follow the argument to its logical conclusion, it basically means it's never justified for the victors of a fight to prosecute losers for wrongdoing.

Obviously, that cannot be the case. If a crime can be proven, then the ones responsible have to answer for their mistakes. It's actually irrelevant whether they were the winners or losers of the fight, if we're truly interested in justice.

Of course, it has to be noted that if you're the loser, you'd hardly be in the position to prosecute, but that's another matter. The key point to remember is that as long as a proven crime is left unanswered and unpunished, then justice is not served.

==========

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

So any fabricated history would probably not deny that Fordola killed her (metaphoric) kin. It would probably be more about whether doing so was justified. It's undeniably evil, but was it a necessary evil?

---

As I said, you raised fair points about the long list of injustices committed in other places and situations.

But the reason they should not be conflated with the issues around Fordola is that every case is a product of different circumstances. We can draw broad comparisons, and highlight general similarities but, in the end, Fordola's specific circumstances are different from those of Ilberd and the Corpse Brigade.

In short, each defendant has crimes of his or her own to answer for, but we can't prosecute them on generalities. That wouldn't be fair. And it wouldn't be just, if the process isn't fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

The part I'm quibbling with is "during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo". Because we've only seen Fordola during the campaign to liberate Ala Mhigo, so restricting the timeline to just that portion seems a little unfair.

---

It is indeed arbitrary. But let me flip the coin and throw it back at you: Where do we draw the line, when it comes to using the examples of others to defend Fordola's actions during the liberation of Ala Mhigo?

If we don't stop specifically with the actions of the Alliance during the revolution, then where do we stop?

For example, you want to include the actions of Ilberd and the Corpse Brigade. I would ask, why stop there? Why not bring in several generations' worth of grievances as well, going back as far as the Autumn War?

It seems to me that, if we want to be fair, we have to compare apples with apples, oranges with oranges.

Fordola's actions were all conducted in the context of her being a product of Garlean upbringing. On this basis, her "monstrosity" is different from that of Ilberd or the Corpse Brigade, simply because they did not undergo her circumstances.

Again, I should stress that none of this is meant to excuse Ilberd's crimes. In the end, the man had become a twisted husk, a mockery of the ideal he once cherished.

We may quibble over the "necessity" of his evil, but I don't think any of us are in disagreement over his actual evilness.

And that is the key difference at the heart of our apparent disagreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

Source that, if you would. I don't recall anything about the Corpse Brigade being remotely mentioned in SB content.

---

There is something in little Ala Mhigo about it post-season, because I remember reading this in game as well

I think I find Fordola more sympathetic because we also see she is shown as a character that has to work for her position. Lyse just...isn't that interesting. Her flaws are too minor, her road too easy. She just "rawr, freedoms tho!" and everything falls into place.

I think a lot of folks in this thread have very different concepts as to what makes an individual a monster. For some, actions are enough. Someone who performs monstrous actions, regardless of the reasons, is a monster. I, personally, think that the individuals motivations and reasons for doing those actions are an important factor, as well; depending on one's headspace, one can perform monstrous actions without being a monster.

Fordola's headspace is complex, to say the least. I think she knows that the things she's doing are evil - but believes that they are justifiable, necessary evils leading to a greater goal down the line: Ala Mihgo being accepted as a worthwhile and valuable part of the Empire. For this reason, she's okay with allowing her Skulls and the Garleans in general to beat every last bit of resistance out of the Ala Mihgan people. Once they'd been broken down to the point where all thoughts of rebellion or freedom were out of their heads, they could be rebuilt into loyal and happy Garlean subjects, many of whom could opt to try for Citizenship, just as she and her Skulls had.

At the same time, though, I think the underlying reasons she has for wanting this acceptance are very ugly and personal: she wants Ala Mihgans to be accepted so that SHE can be accepted. It's quite clear to her that her Garlean peers and countrymen both hold her in contempt. She sees the continued stubborn resistance of her fellow Ala Mihgans as a big contributor to this contempt. Once Ala Mihgo falls into line and become happy Garlean subjects, she'll no longer be a traitor to them, but instead a shining example of success. For now, though she's angry at her marginalization, and of the two targets of her anger - her Garlean peers and her countrymen - only one provides a viable outlet for her rage. I think that the day the WoL and Lyse walked into her life was, perversely, a very good day for her, as it gave her a LEGITIMATE target to hate and lash out at.

I highly doubt that ANYONE in this thread actually feels as though Fordola is in the right, that her actions really are justified. If agreement that her actions are not justified is enough to brand her a monster, than there is nothing left to debate. However, if we are allowed to factor Fordola's motivations into the equation, I think things become a lot more grey. She wants to build a better future for Ala Mihgo. However, a large component of why she wants this is in order to build a better future for herself, since she is Ala Mihgan. It's a selfish desire, certainly, but not an monstrous one. I think pretty nearly everyone wants to feel as though they belong, as though they are valued by other people. Heck, it was the sole softening, non-monstrous aspect of the obvious monster of this expansion: Zenos, ultimately, was looking for someone who could appreciate him for who he was.

I definitely think that Fordola was the most interesting, nuanced character of this expansion. Perhaps it is for this reason that I'm reluctant to simply brand her with a label like "monster", that carries so many unfortunate connotations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

And beyond that, that's an entire side questline in Ala Ghirri dedicated to the townspeople running cover for an imperial Centurion (I think) who they had grown fond of because he had treated them well, with one of the local J tribe members even pledging to wait for him until he gets out of prison, saying that he will always have a home among the people of Ala Ghirri. How was it that an imperial of such status was able to do that much for the people in occupied territory, yet a native Ala Mhigan like Fordola couldn't? Both were just as subject to the whims of Zenos as the other. Yes, Fordola had more face time with Zenos, but it's safe to say that if word got back to Zenos that an imperial officer was being soft on the locals, he would have introduced that officer to one of his three good friends.

---

Baut is a very interesting case for me. (He is, or was, indeed a Centurion, to confirm your supposition.)

Certainly to Zenos, Baut would have been seen as being soft on the locals. But Zenos's aim was to make the populace hate him, yet not be broken; there were reports (I forget if it was in the Ala Mhigo or Doma part of Stormblood) that he literally flayed officers who went too far in their oppression. So we'll just put Zenos's bizarre standards aside.

The citizens of Ala Ghiri sing Baut's praises during that questline. He took time out to play with the children. He took care of problems the townspeople brought to him. He ordered his troops to stand down when the Alliance rode in, in order to avoid bloodshed.

Most intriguingly, he was described as "hard but fair". Not "soft", or "lenient". Yet also "kind" and "gentle" (or at least "gentle soul").

Even Baut himself notes that all he did (at least in his eyes) was to stop the brutality. He also says he did so because he was just tired of seeing his men beating people, when it doesn't serve any purpose. So just that acknowledgement led Baut to become a beloved man in the town he supposedly occupied.

That Fordola did not see fit to do the is certainly a point against her. I don't suppose we'll ever know why, since there are too many possible reasons, and just because one of them happens to be the case doesn't mean another may be just as likely.

For those wondering about ranks, as Centurion, Baut would have been in charge of a hundred men or so. Fordola would probably be one command tier above him, as (probably) Tribunus Militum. (Lorebook page 179, for reference.) It's highly likely that Baut's immediate superior is one of those unnamed helmeted Garleans seen in Zenos's court. Since nothing has actually happened to Baut until the Alliance liberated Ala Ghiri, we can assume that Baut's superior favoured discretion over attracting Zenos's potentially lethal attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyssahtyn

Source that, if you would. I don't recall anything about the Corpse Brigade being remotely mentioned in SB content.

---

Anonymoose has covered it pretty well. The quote I was actually thinking of when I posted that was the second one. I thought I already uploaded it (to point it out on a different forum), but I can't find it anywhere, so here's a re-upload.

http://i.imgur.com/BbW7jG9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4oo70P9.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

We may quibble over the "necessity" of his evil, but I don't think any of us are in disagreement over his actual evilness.

And that is the key difference at the heart of our apparent disagreement.

---

I should probably lay out where I stand in this whole discussion, to prevent misunderstandings.

If you were to ask me, as a person, what I think should happen to Fordola, my answer would be an immediate "I don't know". If you were to press the issue, I'd probably hedge my way to an answer very, very similar to the one you already give.

The reason I keep poking at it anyway is that while I don't know what I want to happen to Fordola for it to feel like justice is served, I do believe that the actions should be taken with full consideration of what it actually means, in terms of results both intended and otherwise. If we are going to condemn Fordola, we should condemn her with eyes wide open, so to speak.

So I'm pushing back against the strict categorical interpretation, that certain actions like firing upon her own people or becoming the commander of the Skulls is an automatic qualification for being a monster. And the term "kinslayer" is one of those that's kind of strict liability: it is trivially easy to prove, and does not require mens rea. The issue then becomes a question of "so what". Fordola is a kinslayer; does that action of kinslaying, divested of all context and intent, make her a monster? That is not a rhetorical question, incidentally; I think that it, and questions like it, are a major part of the original question posted in the thread title.

Similarly, I'm pushing back against the strict consequentialist interpretation. I suspect strongly that Fordola does believe the ends justifies the means, but that doesn't mean I believe that. (If anything, my belief is that the ends must justify the means: if the means are evil, the ends had damn well better be worth both it and all the consequences they bring.)

I also believe that what judgment Fordola receives should set a standard and precedent, and all actions, in both directions of the temporal arrow, should be judged by that standard. Which does mean ancient history might be subject to the same moral stance, but I'll cover that in a bit.

This has nothing to do with the punishment Fordola should or should not receive. That is an entirely different situation, which I think bears next to no relation to how Fordola is judged. After all, it has to satisfy not only in-universe justice, but also out-of-game justice (as we perceive it as players), and narrative justice (ie what feels "satisfying" to the story).

So with this judgment divorced from punishment, the obvious question would be "so what". So what if Fordola is judged to be a monster? In which case I fall back upon my usual "I don't know". This, again, ties into my belief that all actions must be judged on the same standard. We can judge those long-dead all we want, but, outside of Allagan cloning or Lifestream shenanigans, they are beyond caring. So it's entirely valid to just shrug and move on.

In reply to TinyRedLeaf

1. Their is in fact a moment after Frodola fires the cannon where off behind a building two alliance soldiers are going to kill a Garlean soldier who has already dropped his weapon and surrendered. They only don't kill him beacause the WoL steps in.

2. Here's a hypothetical: Raubahn is forced to order a bombardment of alliance lines to slow the Garleans advance toward castrum orienis. He refuses to let them retake baelsers wall so he orders the deliberate shelling of his own men to buy time for renforcments. How would FFXIV treat this hypothetical moment. It wouuld be treated as a tragic but nesscacry heroic sacrifice to halt the Garleans. Raubahn would be hailed as a commander willing to make the calls others can't. This is literally no differant from what Frodola did.

Let's be real for a minute, Frodola had no way of knowing any of her men were even left alive, they might be slaughtered by the resistance for being traitors to Ala Mhigo. She had no way of knowing that Conrad would try to talk them down and spare them. Your using your meta knowledge of events to pass judgement on her. As far as she knew they were as good as dead, being trapped in a forification being over run by the enemy. The alliance aren't saints either, as I told you theirs a moment right after she fires where two alliance soldiers are going to kill a Garlean soldier who had already surrendered.

P.S. Soldiers who fought in the Civil War were kinslayers (sometimes literally slaying their next of kin) and yet they aren't monsters. Unless you want to label all Union soldiers monsters for slaying Confederate soldiers, literally their fellow countrymen. Being a kinslayer does not make one a "monster" nor does firing on your own troops.

Also Victors Justice is real, or do you think the brutal treatment of post war Germany and Japan was fair and reasonable. If the US had lost they would have charged the US with war crimes like the hellish fire bombing campaign of Tokyo by allied forces which killed a hundred thousand civilians or the allied bombings of Germany that killed over 100,000 German civilians. Speaking of war crimes how about the US's hienious use of nuclear weapons on civilian population centers Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Make no mistake, history is written by the victors, it's a fact of life.

Fordola was a pilus prior, the tribunus militum's were the dudes with the red tabards that hanged near their feet and the red crosses on their helms. The skulls were more or less a individual cohort so her rank meant little to the other officers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

Let's be real for a minute, Frodola had no way of knowing any of her men were even left alive, they might be slaughtered by the resistance for being traitors to Ala Mhigo. She had no way of knowing that Conrad would try to talk them down and spare them. Your using your meta knowledge of events to pass judgement on her. As far as she knew they were as good as dead, being trapped in a forification being over run by the enemy. The alliance aren't saints either, as I told you theirs a moment right after she fires where two alliance soldiers are going to kill a Garlean soldier who had already surrendered.

P.S. Soldiers who fought in the Civil War were kinslayers (sometimes literally slaying their next of kin) and yet they aren't monsters. Unless you want to label all Union soldiers monsters for slaying Confederate soldiers, literally their fellow countrymen. Being a kinslayer does not make one a "monster" nor does firing on your own troops.

---

If there were even the possibility of her comrades still being alive, firing on Specula Imperatoris as Fordola did is extremely ruthless at best. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be fighting on the front lines knowing my comrades might turn artillery fire on my position because it's an efficient tactic. Note that even the Garleans agree - we helped a Garlean soldier in the wake of that strike, and when doing so he decries the decision and states he'd rather be home in Ilsabard than fighting this stupid war in which he could be killed by his comrades.

The Union and Confederate soldiers placed their ideals above kinship; Fordola did the same. Firing on her own soldiers doesn't make her a monster, but it's hard to construe the action itself as anything other than monstrous.

Quote:

---

Firing on her own soldiers doesn't make her a monster, but it's hard to construe the action itself as anything other than monstrous.

---

Yep, firing on your own soldiers is always monstrous...guess the Russians shouldn't have fired on this hero eh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-HIMSELF.html

Funny you mention that Garlean as he is the very one I mentioned. If you talk to the two alliance soldiers next to to him first, they say they should just kill him. After talking to him and then talking to them again they are frustrated they can't just kill him.

P.S. Besides it must not be too hard to construe it in another light because I certainly can and do.

The Corpse Brigade are pretty much dealt with in the MNK quests. They did kind of have a plan to make a play at power but I am not really sure how successful it would be. Fun fact though. The Corpse Brigade were trained in techniques specifically designed to counter Monk techniques which is why they were so successful at beating the Fist of Rhalgr. Regardless, while they might make an appearance, I don't think the Corpse Brigade has enough influence or legitimacy to make an attempt at power, particularly after their failures in the MNK quests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

---

---

There is a colossal difference in making a sacrifice play (ordering airstrikes on your position knowing you could be killed) and your CO knowingly sacrificing you without your consent (said CO ordering artillery fire on your position because it's an efficient tactic despite knowing you're in the line of fire). Soldiers go into war knowing they may die; they should be able to trust their own comrades not to kill them, though.

If those Alliance soldiers (actually one Ala Mhigan Resistance member) actually had killed the wounded Imperial, they should have been court-martialed for it and / or imprisoned. As far as we know they did not - they asked us to give the order, and we never did, so to the best of our knowledge that Imperial is still alive. Tensions run high, but you condemn any such actions.

... the only way to interpret firing on your own soldiers as "not monstrous" is to believe in amorality. That the ends justify the means. While this seems to be the Garlean standard, I cannot abide that.

There is a difference between calling a strike in on your own position ( Ibeleive it's called Danger Close is the US military) and ordering a strike on others.

I am not really sure if we should talk about things that could theoretically happen and look more at the facts and true happenings. The alliance could order such an attack and I would feel anger at them but they did not do anything like that. Heck in that one side quests they could have saved that poison to experiment on it and use it against Garlemald somewhere in the future but they were shocked about this and immediately destroyed it and any research about it. I mean if we go around and assume things then we could say that Aymeric is one step away from murdering everyone in the council to lead Ishgard alone but something like that should not be part of a discussion.

Fact is, that Fordola was the only one in that war (until now) to shot against her own comrades (and not only Garlean soldiers but also her own underlings). It depends on everyones view on how harsh of an action this is but in the end this situation and the one where she let someone be beaten near death where kinda points that made me lose some respect that I had towards her character and that she is quite near at being a monster. I mean how far would she go?

Also there is a difference between being at war and having to kill the enemy and being at war, torturing the enemy, using horrible items to make them suffer even more or even shooting at your own people even though there is no imminent threat of losing the whole war.

In the end there is a reason why people are punished after wars if they did horrible things to the people..they cant just say that they did it under order if its something horrible and this is how it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Fact is, that Fordola was the only one in that war (until now) to shot against her own comrades (and not only Garlean soldiers but also her own underlings).

---

Depending on how strictly you want to define "shoot" and "comrades", there's also Zenos (definitely own comrades, but did not shoot) and that unfortunate villager in the Ruby Sea (shot, may or may not be own comrade, but certainly fellow villager).