Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

I do think she felt that if they had the chance to make the call themselves her own people would have told her to fire. They all shared the same desire and goal and they had all chosen to do whatever was necessary to achieve that acceptance. There is something to be said for knowing your people well enough to be able to judge what their decision would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belhi

-snip-

---

The Eorzean Alliance had also secured multiple victories within Gyr Abania, too, up until that point. Largely due to the presence of the Warrior of Light. Someone who, in turn, has secured a string of victories elsewhere. In an effort to stand a chance to defeat such a force, the Warrior of Light's enemies are going to have to resort to increasingly desperate means. Which may explain Fordola's reasoning. It's also why I'm such a firm advocate of the Eorzean Alliance resorting to diplomacy because there's a huge risk that things will get messier otherwise and if they don't cease being the aggressor and seeking to liberate territory/fuel rebellions then all the blood spilled is going to be on their hands.

I don't particularly care for the comeback that Garlemald isn't interested in diplomacy. Neither Ishgard or the Dravanians were interested in diplomacy but the Warrior of Light and Scions did not take 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, Regula was more than willing to team up with the Warrior of Light for the sake of the greater good. Temporarily, perhaps, but had he survived it could very well have led to him having a word with the Emperor and seeking a different approach to all things Eorzea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Ishgard, Dravania, the Garleans and the effectiveness of Diplomacy.

---

The Dragonsong War was perpetrated on a lie. The Garlean conquest is not. There is, to our knowledge at least, no "grand misunderstanding" or thousand-year lie perpetrated by the people responsible for the war in the first place.

Of course, that may change, and there is always the chance that a change in leadership (or a change in the heart of leadership) can open up a way to diplomacy, but ending credit cutscenes hint otherwise. The last time a head of state was seen with Mr. White we ended up unseating them after revealing a millenia-long farce that had been perpetrated at the expense of the people, not to mention countless dragon lives. Then that head of state went on to try and become a living god, ultimately forcing us to put him down.

If the EA ever gets to a point where they have begun to push into imperial home territory, into the heart of Garlemald itself, then you would have an argument. But for now? It's a false equivalency. The situation during the Dragonsong War was nothing at all like the situation with Garlemald.

I'd also like to point out that saying the Ishgardians and Dravanians weren't interested in peace is a lie by omission. While it's true the Ishgardians had little faith in the idea, the Archbishop nonetheless agreed with our request to hold off an offense against the Horde until we had attempted to parley with them. (In reality this was likely just a ploy to buy time by distracting us and/or get Nidhogg out of the way of his plans, but I digress.) There were also a good number of Dravanians who were apathetic to the conflict, but when the opportunity was presented showed that they desired peace. Some Ishgardians still desired to go against the Dravanians (Lowdy's sunk cost fallacy), but Aymeric was able to convince them (Lowdy included) to put their hatred behind them. (Aymeric, not the Scions.) Some took more convincing than others (Hraesvelgr, Lowdy) but in the end peace was achieved by ripping out the root and perpetuator of the conflict (King Thordan by proxy, Nidhogg), and peace was desired by both groups when those corrupting influences were expunged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

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).

---

Okay maybe then: None of the alliance did something like her.

I am not really sure how I should rate the villager since there was the imminent danger that everyone in the village would die but yes he also killed his own friend but he also payed that with his own life. (And like I said I am not sure how to rate that situation because nobody was really holding a real gun at Fordolas head at that time and they did not know if they would even lose the fight against the alliance thus no immediate danger.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belhi

I do think she felt that if they had the chance to make the call themselves her own people would have told her to fire. They all shared the same desire and goal and they had all chosen to do whatever was necessary to achieve that acceptance. There is something to be said for knowing your people well enough to be able to judge what their decision would be.

---

Well she seems to have not known them enough because if she did not shoot them Conrad would have made them surrender and change side. At least we were told that they were ready to lay down their weapons so its seems that they did not see it her way. Also not sure if thats not a bad way to do something. I mean I could go around and do things and afterwards say that this person would have been alright with it but the problem is, they dont know that because they cant ask them anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I don't particularly care for the comeback that Garlemald isn't interested in diplomacy. Neither Ishgard or the Dravanians were interested in diplomacy but the Warrior of Light and Scions did not take 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, Regula was more than willing to team up with the Warrior of Light for the sake of the greater good. Temporarily, perhaps, but had he survived it could very well have led to him having a word with the Emperor and seeking a different approach to all things Eorzea.

---

These are two different situations..Garlemald is the aggressor that invaded Eorzea and took an independent state under their rule. They did not care about diplomacy when they conquered them with force, so why should the alliance use diplomacy with them? What good would that bring? Do you really believe that they would give away Ala Mhigo? Or that any of the options would be good for Eorzea? A complete freedom from Garlemald is the only really good solution for Ala Mhigo because they would be finally free to choose their own path again.

Most from Ishgard and the dragons never knew that it was a lie and thus they fought a war that they thought was right. We went with the believe that it was all the dragons fault and yet we still tried diplomacy with the dragons where we learned that it was all a lie..but why should anyone believe us? Yet Aymeric did and together with us they changed the future for Ishgard and for the dragons and not only with force but also diplomacy. (I mean that is what the one meeting with the dragon was about)

Also what should the Wol have done in your opinion? You are putting him and the scions down again even though Ishgard was living a lie and Nidhogg was not interested in peace..should we just go our way and leave a whole city state and all the dragons at war with more and more countless victims even though we knew that they are living a lie and that we may have the power to put an end to it? And wouldnt that mean that the alliance would be missing an important member in important fights thus even more victims?

We also cant say much about Regula because he is simply dead. He could have changed or he could have not.

And this will be the only thing I am going to write about Garlemald itself otherwise this will just turn into another debate of them which is off topic but I am not surprised that you started it again. Anyway I will not further this argument, I just brought my points to yours and this will be all.

What I'm most afraid of is that all of these questions will simply be skipped over, or rushed through. I remember when I learned the truth of the start of Ishgard's war, and after some thought, I said to myself 'you know, there's so much about this that's not being said'. We never learned Why the first King Thordan decided to throw aside 200 years of peace for a chance at draconic power. His Knights didn't seem so terrible, but we never learned what else was going on. So much room for exposition, for debate and questions, but we never had any of it. All the most important subjects were brought up and wrapped up just as fast as they were introduced, it seemed.

We have a 9-page discussion here about Fordola, an amazing discussion. But I'm SO mad at the thought that her whole story might just be wrapped up in a single patch. Some quests, some dialogue, a trial of some sort for the sake of whatever, and then on to the next thing.

Can you tell me why it might not work out that way?

I figured the Ascians were behind King Thordan's sudden lust for power. Who else could it be? /sarcasm, kind of. They tend to be the root cause of most conflict on Hydaelyn, not that the mortal races are incapable of warring among themselves without a push. Just a tiny nudge seems to be the typical Ascian MO - Lahabrea's forcefulness was noted as making him an outlier, though Nabriales' blunt directness draws that into question.

I don't think Fordola's story will end with a single patch. There are a multitude of issues that need to be addressed in tandem with her, and each patch could easily touch on her as a part of the larger scope of rebuilding Doma and Ala Mhigo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarantai

What I'm most afraid of is that all of these questions will simply be skipped over, or rushed through. I remember when I learned the truth of the start of Ishgard's war, and after some thought, I said to myself 'you know, there's so much about this that's not being said'. We never learned Why the first King Thordan decided to throw aside 200 years of peace for a chance at draconic power. His Knights didn't seem so terrible, but we never learned what else was going on. So much room for exposition, for debate and questions, but we never had any of it. All the most important subjects were brought up and wrapped up just as fast as they were introduced, it seemed.

We have a 9-page discussion here about Fordola, an amazing discussion. But I'm SO mad at the thought that her whole story might just be wrapped up in a single patch. Some quests, some dialogue, a trial of some sort for the sake of whatever, and then on to the next thing.

Can you tell me why it might not work out that way?

---

I agree with you. We do have that wonderful plot item called Echo yet we are barely using it. We are able to see the past of the first knights and I wished that they had shown some more reason but it probably comes down to either Ascians or greed. (Or both) SE imo has a bit of a problem of "show dont tell". They like to tell us something but often forget to show it to us to make it more believable. At least they did that right with Fordola imo. They showed her watching her underlings beating that guy up, they showed her scenes with Zenos and they showed her order on her own forces. This way we could see how she behaves. This is imo way better than just telling us that she did those things.

And I too hope that we will get more about Fordola and that they dont wrap her story up too fast. (I am already disappointed that they killed Zenos so early) But seeing how they threated the WoD story line...well I remain skeptic how they will end her story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Zenos dying too soon

---

Part of me thinks that we're not done with Zenos just yet. I mean, sure, we're done with the original Zenos, but given the guy who was in charge of his R&D, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Zenos clone or three out there in some top secret Garlean black site.

As for Thordan and his knights, I'm of the mind that the original Thordan and co. committed the murder of Ratatoskr for no other reason than good old mortal lust for power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Anyway I will not further this argument, I just brought my points to yours and this will be all.

---

Once again, you seem to be ignoring the offer that has been put forward to agree to disagree on plot points that are open to subjective interpretation. I have to wonder why, exactly, that is the case - because by not doing so you are the one furthering the argument; pinning the blame on another poster alone is simply dishonest. Nobody is stating that you should change your mind, just that you should agree to disagree and acknowledge that your interpretation of subjective plot elements are not the rule of law. I'd strongly suggest shifting whatever grudge you bear along with anyone else who cannot help but lace their posts with quips.

It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. If you want a specific issue to not be brought up constantly then compromises are to be made. If not, the cycle continues - day in, day out. Alternatively you can simply make use of the ignore function but if there isn't one around these parts then I'm sure simply skimming past my posts will suffice. :)

At any rate, in regards to the situation with Ishgard and the Dravanians the Warrior of Light decided to get involved and push for peace before knowing the truth of the war's origins. Learning the truth simply reinforced the desire to put an end to the conflict in such a way as to ensure that peace could be achieved - even after it seemed hopeless. Given that the war lasted for a thousand years and the conflict with Garlemald has been happening for a far shorter time it is dubious, then, that the Warrior of Light and his key allies are refusing to engage in diplomacy. That Garlemald is the 'aggressor' is irrelevant as Eorzea is now the aggressor, seeking to reclaim territory that has not belonged to them for a quarter of a decade. Then again, they were practically handed Yanxia and Gyr Abania on a silver platter thanks to Zenos not even caring about Garlemald and denouncing its cause...but so far even though he outright denounced Garlemald in a speech the Warrior of Light and his allies still have not done anything to acknowledge such complications.

Ranting about 'freedom' is all well and good but at this point the Warrior of Light and his allies are simply risking another situation such as the Dragonsong War where things escalate on both sides. You can't really pin the blame for the Dragonsong War's continuation on the Ishgardians or Dravanians solely as both did their part not only to survive but to seek vengeance. With the conflict with Garlemald, however, such a scenario is going to threaten to play out if the Eorzeans and their allies seek to push pack further without ever acknowledging the complications and nuances involved.

You know, much like most wars throughout history in the real world. As such, the situation with Fordola simply isn't black or white as far as I'm concerned. I suspect that will only be further cemented once we see more of her moving forward. It could be in 4.1 or it could be later on in the expansion depending on how things go from here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Stop talking about X.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to talk about X.

---

Theo man, we know where you stand on this issue, and while I can't speak for everyone, I have seen more than a few people state, probably in exasperation (at least that's the feeling I feel when you inevitably bring up the diplomacy and false moral equivalency stuff) that the situation between Garlemald and the rest of the world isn't something that can be solved via diplomacy, at least not yet. Then you go on with this ridiculous analogy, stating that the Dragonsong War and the current continent-spanning conflicts caused directly by Garlemald are the same thing, and since diplomacy worked with the Ishgard/Dravanian conflict, clearly it should work with the current Garlean invasion. The problem with this is that you have to intentionally ignore so many differences to make this work that it's downright delusional. I don't say that as an insult; I'm stating it as fact. A person would literally have to ignore clear evidence in order to come to the conclusion that Garlean invasion of Eorzea = Dragonsong War. I mean, did you even read what Cilia wrote about the Dsong War?? The only reasons "diplomacy" worked was because there was a second "faction" of dragons who had stayed apart from the war that we could work with, and also because we killed the lead dragon responsible for the perpetrating things on the Dravanian front. In short, diplomacy worked there because of murder. We murdered Nidhogg and the lack of a leader scattered his Horde to the winds. At that point it was just a matter of killing the wannabe Ishgardian god and then explaining to the people of Ishgard that this other group of dragons are totally cool and didn't participate in the thousand-year murderwar.

Others have explained why diplomacy won't work - currently anyway - with the Garleans. I've explained aspects of it at least once or twice, but I'll do it again, because I love Quixotian endeavors I guess.

Let's start with the causes
Dragonsong - A betrayal that cost the life of a kind, loving (and beloved) ancient being due to the perpetrators desire to take the ancient beings' power for themselves. Not only was lust for power involved, but the betrayal part is key; the ancient being in question trusted, and could be argued even loved the people who betrayed her and ultimately slaughtered her ruthlessly (then went on to ingest at least some of her body, since all the other stuff wasn't terrible enough).

Garlean invasion - A technologically superior country desires to control all other countries in the belief that this will somehow create a situation wherein no Bad Things (i.e. Eikon summonings) will occur anymore. The fact that sovereign rights, territory, culture, customs, language, and peoples are ruthlessly crushed in all of this is merely the growing pains on the road to a Better Tomorrow. As far as we are aware, there was no trust, and no betrayal, between Garlemald and the Eorzean alliance. Maybe there was something that happened between Garlemald and some other countries that were closer to Ilsabard (I think the lorebook actually states something to that effect), but the Eorzean city states weren't a part of that. LL, Grid, Ishgard and Ul'dah have all been more or less doing their own things for awhile now. Grid is famously insular, Ishgard was tied up with that whole war thing for the last millenium, and while the merchants of LL and Ul'dah range far and wide, there's been no major direct military confrontations between the militaries of either city state and the Garleans prior to the Garlean invasion. Ala Mhigo, under the King of Ruin, probably screwed with it's neighbor to the east, but from what we know geographically thus far, that neighbor can't be Garlemald proper.

So in essence, Garlemald decided, without provocation, to invade Eorzea. Their justification, while I'm sure it makes great sense to the Empire, boils down to "you aren't under our control and we're going to change that." They sure as hell didn't send the Agrius on a mission of peace. And of course when someone starts a war with you, the proper way to win is to tell them to put down their instruments of murder and calmly join you at the treaty-table to discuss exactly how bad of a boy they've been.

Wait, no, that's not right. Oh yes, when someone comes to kill you and yours, making war on your home, you fight. Because at that point diplomacy won't work. There can be no compromise with a party who seeks your death or subjugation. Doubly so given that the general consensus among Garleans is that non-Garleans are "savages" who should be thankful for the Empire stepping in to "civilize" such uncouth creatures. When one group dehumanizes another group to the point that they see them as little better than wild beasts, there's no way diplomacy would work. You don't negotiate with a pack of hungry carnivores. You simply subdue and tame them or if that doesn't work, you put them all down. But you certainly don't talk with them. It'd be like bird trying to explain to a fish how to fly! The poor thing wouldn't even be able to comprehend it.

This right here is all you should need to see that the two situations are almost completely different in every way. Both the Garlean invasion and the Dsong War have clearly defined sides, and both have resulted in a lot of death and destruction, but the similarities end there. This doesn't mean diplomacy can't work eventually. It just means it can't work now or in the foreseeable future. There may come a day in that future where the Empire has been bloodied enough that they realize they have met their match, and would be willing to come to the table. Or perhaps something bigger than their silly war will appear that forces a "strange bedfellows" situation that ultimately results in a lasting diplomatic peace. But for now, the Empire still believes that they are both the biggest kid on the block and that they have the largest sticks. And they're right. For all the amazing things we've accomplished, much of it has been on the back of enemy failure. Zenos and his failure to actually be a god damned leader. The Skulls and their failure to pick out the infiltrator that convinced them to fall for the ruse that resulted in the capture of Velodyna. Yotsuyu and her failure to see the variety of threats arraying themselves before her, and taking appropriate action against them (she was much too busy enjoying being a sadist). Everything we've fought against so far has, for the most part, been some kind of "expeditionary force." We have yet to contend with anything besides occupying forces tied down in a foreign land.

Which is the final nail in the "diplomacy" coffin; when you are in a position of strength, why would you want to compromise? Why would the Empire want to come to a negotiating table when they have yet to unleash their full might upon us? Why talk with the savage, inferior races of the world when you can instead just take whatever you want, whenever you want? Why give them a chance to get anything at all?

Diplomacy won't work until the Empire feels like it's opponents are true threats, or until they are faced with something that they cannot beat on their own, thus compelling them to seek allies. Until at least one of those conditions are met, you're barking up the wrong tree with all this diplomacy and false equivalency talk.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the situation between Garlemald and Eorzea cannot be solved through diplomacy. Nobody is stating that it will be easy - but at some point it is going to be a necessity for both sides for the sake of avoiding a bitter war not dissimilar to the Dragonsong war.

We know that there is more to Garlemald than initially meets the eye. It's confirmed as much at various points in-game and within the lore book itself. We also know that the protagonists themselves have been exposed to this knowledge, a sliver of it it at least - but so far even the purest of elements such as Regula's heroic sacrifice have been ignored outright by the protagonists with no actual followup. So, too, has Zenos' denouncement of the Garlean Empire been ignored by the protagonists despite him clearly being shown to be unhinged and as actively sabotaging and attacking his own allies just as often as he sought to torment his enemies.

If nothing else, though, diplomacy should be sought to prevent a situation of escalation and needless bloodshed on both sides of the conflict. As it stands, most of the protagonists have shown a willingness to push for diplomacy in countless situations that seem hopeless but for some strange reason they do not so so where Garlemald is concerned. This is hypocritical and morally dubious of them, thus I will continue to see it as such until there is a genuine push for it. Does this mean that Garlemald requires no reform? Not at all - and I have never stated as much in the past. There's the Garlean Consulate in Kugane at any rate - so it's not as if there isn't a suitable location to engage in negotiations with someone from Garlemald. Hopefully that will be a plot point at some point during this expansion.

Okay guys. Can we call a time-out now? This thread is in danger of being hijacked by an out-of-topic discussion. May I request that the parties involved take the debate on the relative good-and-evils of Eorzean/Garlean diplomacy elsewhere.

As for the actual topic, more to come, once I'm back at my desk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Once again, you seem to be ignoring the offer that has been put forward to agree to disagree on plot points that are open to subjective interpretation. I have to wonder why, exactly, that is the case - because by not doing so you are the one furthering the argument; pinning the blame on another poster alone is simply dishonest. Nobody is stating that you should change your mind, just that you should agree to disagree and acknowledge that your interpretation of subjective plot elements are not the rule of law. I'd strongly suggest shifting whatever grudge you bear along with anyone else who cannot help but lace their posts with quips.

---

Dont worry I bear no grudge but like I said this is a discussion forum. Also should people really have to completely ignore those posts, even if you bring them up in topics that have barely or nothing to do with it? Why not just not post them? Why do we have to compromise and not you? Why are you answering my post and not simple agree to disagree? So in the end if someone goes around and post a certain topic in each single existing thread (no this is general argument, not about you) then people should be fine with that and ignore it? I am honestly just a bit tired that some should confirm to these "rules" but others dont.

In the end its simple: If one does not start it, by posting something off topic, then others will not have to agree to disagree, or it will not turn something further off topic. So you have the exactly same amount of responsibility of not turning another thread into a off topic discussion as all the other posters. And no I will not black list you or anything because I do like to read some of your posts, especially in the General forum and I would not see those anymore.


On topic:

Barely anyone said that its black and white with Fordola..we also know that its partly her upbringing but every human being has a choice and some of the choices she did were horrible. In the end people are just not sure if this would make her a monster or kin-slayer or not, but I dare to say that most would agree that those things were horrible and that she has to be punished for it.

But even after all she did I still feel more positive towards her than our other female enemy. Not sure why since both have done horrible things but at least it looked like Fordola does not enjoy it but sees it as something necessary while Yotsuyu truly enjoys the killing of innocent people.

In the end I am still of the opinion that both of them should land in prison, maybe with Fordola having a chance to get out after xx years. I just dont want this to end in any kind of sacrifice from any of them.

Right, the discussion has moved on a fair bit since I last posted. I believe the key points have already been adequately addressed. But YianKutku and Alleo both alluded to the one major defence — and possibly the only one — that's applicable to Fordola's actions at Castrum Abania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

I am not really sure how I should rate the villager since there was the imminent danger that everyone in the village would die... I am not sure how to rate that situation because nobody was really holding a real gun at Fordolas head at that time and they did not know if they would even lose the fight against the alliance thus no immediate danger.

---

Thanks for bringing up the situation at Isari village! It hadn't occurred to me before, but it serves as a very interesting counterpoint to the events at Castrum Abania.

Now, intuitively, none of us would blame the poor man for shooting his fellow villager at Yotsuyu's orders. That's because the threat to his life, and the lives of the other villagers, was clear cut: It was do or die. As such, we can easily argue that he was acting in self-defence.

So, the question is: To what extent can the argument of self-defence also apply to Fordola at the battle for Castrum Abania?

Anonymoose had already pointed out that the "choice" before Fordola wasn't much of a choice: Refusing Zeno's order on the spot would have most certainly cost her life, and subsequently the demise of the Skulls.

Fordola, I think, knew very well she couldn't refuse. Consider the exact words she used to rebuke the Garlean centurion who tried to clarify her order:

Quote:

---

Imperial centurion
Commander, if I may! Our people — your people are still there! They will be slaughtered!

Fordola
You think I don't know that!? I want nothing more than to help them — to lead the bloody charge — but I have my orders! Lord Zenos said no reinforcements. He would have us use the main cannon to destroy the installation.

Imperial centurion
What...kill our own soldiers! You must be mistaken!

Fordola
Mayhap you'd like to ask Lord Zenos yourself?

Imperial centurion
...

Fordola
I thought not.

---

Now, it's one thing to say that a soldier is under no obligation to follow an illegal order (international law has in fact been updated to make it absolutely clear that "superior orders" cannot be used as a defence for war crimes.

But it's quite another when the soldier's life is under threat, in which case, it can be argued that self-preservation takes precedence.

It ought to be clear, from the quotes above, that Fordola was under no illusion that disobeying Zeno's orders would be fatal — the centurion himself virtually confirmed her assumption.

That being the case, should Fordola be held personally responsible for giving the order? The parallel with the situation in Isari is actually quite uncanny and, now that it's been brought to my attention, I wonder if that was the intention. If so, my kudos again to the writers. :)

If we don't blame the villager for shooting a fellow villager, under duress, then to what extent can we blame Fordola for the same action, committed under a similar context of duress?

By the by, as Alleo and Quor have also observed, Fordola has much more to answer for other than the atrocity at Castrum Abania. She remains responsible, be it directly or indirectly, for worsening the oppression on ordinary Ala Mhigans. On this count alone, there are more than enough grounds to prosecute a case against her as a "traitor" to her people.

But it was specifically after the events of Castrum Abania that Lyse first accused Fordola of being a "murderer" and "butcher" as well.

Hence my focus on that battle, and on what's perhaps the only credible defence for Fordola's allegedly "monstrous" action during the fighting.

One last minor thing I also wanted to point out:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

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

---

I understand what you're trying to say but, actually, the above is just semantics. ;) I don't see how someone found guilty of committing a "monstrous" act can be anything other than a "monster". It'll be akin to suggesting that an individual guilty of committing a criminal act is somehow not a criminal.

Either the action is not a crime, and the accused is not a criminal; or the action is a crime, and the defendant is guilty.

The question, as before, is the extent of guilt, and the degree to which Fordola can be held responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If we don't blame the villager for shooting a fellow villager, under duress, then to what extent can we blame Fordola for the same action, committed under a similar context of duress?

---

It's not similar, Zenos was not in the room there was no gun pointed at her head at that moment. If her prevailing motivation was her own safety and the safety of those in that control room she can choose desertion, defection or surrender. She chose to do none of those things.

I don't remember the scene exactly but wasn't that villager forced to choose between shooting one person vs all of the other villagers? Fordola also chose the few over the many.

Nope, too many hypotheticals. We can't go with what could have happened. We can only go with what did happen, and what we know about the defendants' state of mind at the time of the action.

And, no, the villager wasn't forced to choose between shooting one person or the rest.

Yotsuyu "requested" that the villagers affirm their loyalty to the Empire. She did not say how at first, but presented a captured villager who was allegedly trying to escape to Kugane. It's only after one villager volunteered that she gave him a gun, and indicated that he should shoot the alleged deserter to prove his own loyalty.

I say again: Yotsuyu did not at first tell the villagers how she wanted them to "affirm" their loyalty. It's only after one villager volunteered, and was given a gun, that everyone realised what she intended.

At that point, anything could have happened, besides shooting the "deserter". The villager could have refused, and returned the gun. Or, even better, he could have shot Yotsuyu at point-blank, when he had the chance.

Let's be creative! There could have been a hundred different things the villager could have done. In a better, more ideal world, one of those possibilities could have happened.

But, in reality, it did not: The villager chose to meekly obey orders to murder an alleged deserter.

Why? Because it's clear that all of the villagers were terrified of what Yotsuyu would do to them if they refused to follow her orders at that point.

The instinct for self-preservation is perhaps the strongest of all emotions that any of us could feel, and it's quite understandable that, when presented with a moral dilemma, most people would choose the option that takes them out of harm's way.

By the same token, we know for certain that both Fordola and the centurion wanted not to fire the cannon at their own soldiers. We know for certain that Fordola wanted to personally lead the charge. We know for certain that the centurion had the presence of mind to question his immediate superior about the wisdom of her order.

We also know for certain that both of them didn't feel they had any other option than to obey Zenos' order.

So, again, the situation is similar. Not the same, I grant you, but similar enough that we should pause and consider the extent to which self-defence is a viable argument for Fordola's actions at Castrum Abania.

Excellent points! I think it's also worth noting that there's pretty excellent reason for even seasoned soldiers to fear the wrath of Zenos. Fordola and the Centurion may have heard stories of the Warrior of Light's impressive accomplishments. Zenos had, at that point in the story, defeated the Warrior of Light not once but twice. To oppose Zenos would likely mean their deaths - and neither of them have any obligation to sacrifice their lives. Heck, the protagonists themselves made numerous quips about how that isn't something to aspire to.

Not as much as Lyse makes her out but still pretty bad.

Like a good deal of villains, she had a good pretext but went about it in one of the worst, violent, bloodiest, ends justify the means ways about it. In case you skipped it or missed it, she wanted the Ala Mhigan people to earn respect from the Garleans through work so that they could climb up and enjoy from Garlean lofty lifestyle someday. To this end she forsook the country of Ala Mhigo that easily fell to their own corruption and madness and embraced the new Ala Mhigo that was born through Garlean conquest.

Her efforts would most likely never see fruit as Garleans are very racist and see all other peoples as savages. If anything, it would take several generations after she her that would see any type of change, if any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Nope, too many hypotheticals. We can't go with what could have happened. We can only go with what did happen, and what we know about the defendants' state of mind at the time of the action.

---

Okay, so let's go over what did happen. I'm watching the CS as I write this. He says "I have a family" right before he shoots the 'deserter' so his motivation is just as much about his family as himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

At that point, anything could have happened, besides shooting the "deserter". The villager could have refused, and returned the gun. Or, even better, he could have shot Yotsuyu at point-blank, when he had the chance.
...
But, in reality, it did not: The villager chose to meekly obey orders to murder an alleged deserter.

---

Does anyone buy this when immediately afterwards when he's ordered to shoot his parents, he indeed does try to shot Yotsuyu and was gunned down by her troops? That's not a hypothetical, that happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The instinct for self-preservation is perhaps the strongest of all emotions that any of us could feel, and it's quite understandable that, when presented with a moral dilemma, most people would choose the option that takes them out of harm's way.

---

But this villager chose to overcome that instinct and died, that's why most everyone gives him a pass.

So the key differences between Fordola and the villager.
1) Yotsuyu and her troops were an immediate threat in front of them with weapons. Zenos was not there.
2) The villager had a lot less time to restrain his instinct, he was given the gun and reacted within seconds. Fordola had much more time to contemplate the order.
3) If self-defense is the argument for the first shot, the villager was not only concerned for himself also his family. Fordola and the operator put no one before themselves.
4) Both were given the option to shoot again, the villager overcame his instinct and/or valued his family over himself and turned the gun on Yotsuyu when the stakes were increased. Fordola would have fired again but was stopped by an outside force.
5) He's a civilian, they are not.

1 and 2 already does it for me really as why it could've been viable for the villager but not Fordola.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

To oppose Zenos would likely mean their deaths - and neither of them have any obligation to sacrifice their lives. Heck, the protagonists themselves made numerous quips about how that isn't something to aspire to.

---

"likely mean their deaths" not "certain". the opposite of not aspiring to die isn't to kill other people, that's taken way out of context here. people shouldn't aspire to be poor isn't a blank check to steal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

"likely mean their deaths" not "certain". the opposite of not aspiring to die isn't to kill other people, that's taken way out of context here. people shouldn't aspire to be poor isn't a blank check to steal.

---

Zenos is repeatedly shown to murder his own people on a whim. They really had no reason to assume he wouldn't kill them for failing to obey his orders - especially in Fordola's case as it was not the first time she had proven to disappoint Zenos' expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

But it's quite another when the soldier's life is under threat, in which case, it can be argued that self-preservation takes precedence.

It ought to be clear, from the quotes above, that Fordola was under no illusion that disobeying Zeno's orders would be fatal — the centurion himself virtually confirmed her assumption.

That being the case, should Fordola be held personally responsible for giving the order? The parallel with the situation in Isari is actually quite uncanny and, now that it's been brought to my attention, I wonder if that was the intention. If so, my kudos again to the writers. :)

If we don't blame the villager for shooting a fellow villager, under duress, then to what extent can we blame Fordola for the same action, committed under a similar context of duress?

---

It is really difficult because they are so similar but I would dare to say that the villager did pay it with his life in the end. For me its kinda like the question if someone is a murderer or killed someone in self-defense. Like someone is standing there with you, pointing the gun at you and your family and in an act to save them you kill the attacker. In our time this is counted as self-defense (as far as I know) but if one is truly accurate that person still killed another.

So how would I differ between them? Well I would say that intent and motivation is a big part. The person in the village killed his comrade/neighbor because otherwise everyone else would be killed and the danger was real and imminent. So he did not even act out of pure selfishness but also to protect the others. When he understood that Yotsuyu never planned to spare the others, he tried to take her out. With Fordola, we only hear her ordering the shooting. We never hear what Zenos truly said as a threat. Would failure mean death for only her or for all of them? If its the latter, then yes even if its not imminent I would say that its comparable to the villager. But if its not and the only one that would have suffered is her then it would be different imo. Because she would see the survival of herself higher than that of the others. Thats like saying: "Well I was the only one that could control the bomb and they wanted to kill me if I dont do it so I used it and killed x people to save myself".

I do believe that Lyse started to call her that because she was (rightfully) shocked that she did not just kill the people of the rebellion (which was still fine since they were on different sides of the war and at least she did not torture them) but her own underlings too. (So she did become the kin-slayer at the end) She might not have known that this would have meant death for her but its still a quite shocking action and on top of that Lyse lost a good person and lots of comrades in that attack too. With such raw emotions, its not really surprising that she called her monster. (And maybe it was also to anger Fordola herself or make her feel bad)

If she is monster in our eyes will probably differ from everyones view. All her actions and her will to go really far for her task makes her near a monster for me. I am kinda interested if she will further turn into that (and maybe as a side effect from the experiments even in body) or if she will see her errors and try to change. Nonetheless she should land in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Zenos is repeatedly shown to murder his own people on a whim. They really had no reason to assume he wouldn't kill them for failing to obey his orders - especially in Fordola's case as it was not the first time she had proven to disappoint Zenos' expectations.

---

I kinda agree that he would have probably killed her but at the same time I have no idea what goes on in his head so maybe he would have seen more reason to let her live (he did it before). At the same time we always saw him killing the leader of the army that failed so there would be a big chance that only she would have been killed. So its kinda a situation where you put the live of your own against those of others. We know thanks to Lyse that her group was ready to stop fighting, so they would have been traitors anyway and on the kill list of the empire but at least they would have gotten the choice of trying to truly help their people. Still Fordola also did not know that.

(As a what if that I only write down because I find it interesting and not to use it as an argument: What if the alliance had lost and Garlean soldiers would have gotten to know about her deeds..the one pushing the button only did it on her forceful command and with arguing so I could see that even the other soldiers would paint her as bad. Why? Well they never liked her and her underlings. This would be the perfect way to finally put her out of the ranks or even let her be killed. I mean she probably did not only kill her own men but other Garlean soldiers too..and Zenos probably would not care what will happen to her after he is done playing with her. So it even could be that she would be deathly punished for that and not seen as some kind of savior/hero. But thats just a what if that just came to my mind)

Zenos behavior of killing those that fail him can be kind of hard to follow. On the one hand we saw him cut down multiple people that worked for him but when Grynewaht failed rather then killing him he killed Grynewaht's superior instead seeming with the reason that Grynewaht was less of a coward then the superior who had done nothing. Shipping Grynewaht off to Doma instead. It seems like take a certain liking to either a particular level of strength or a certain level of anger and uses it to drive his point forward. He probably didn't need to push the order on Fordola too hard at that point, she was already humiliated, angry, and frustrated. By the time we fought her near the end she seemed to have nothing left to lose then to do whatever it took to win even allow for potentially unethical experiments to be performed on her or kill those she should by.

Is Fordola a monster? It is kind of hard to say when people are driven to desperation they will do just about anything. One thing is for sure Zenos was really, really good at pushing the right buttons to get what he wanted.

Fordola had a choice. It wasn't even a Hobson's choice. She could have chosen to use her newfound power to strike at the heart of Castrum Abania itself, handing the Resistance an even easier victory. She could have taken a principled stand and attempted to rally the imperials around her against Zenos and his obvious madness. She could have (easily) slaughtered them with her newfound Resonance, then sabotage the Castrum herself before turning coat on the Empire in lieu of joining the resistance.

But she didn't. Because she didn't *want* to. I brought this up earlier; she had more skin in the game than she let on with all her talk of "her people." Best case scenario you can argue is that it didn't even occur to her that the Empire could lose. This doesn't hold much water however, as despite the mounting evidence that the Empire could be beaten, Fordola still remained loyal to her occupiers. After all, Doma had since been liberated, with a complete rout/annihilation of Imperial forces, while the EA and Resistance had taken control over large swaths of Gyr Abania.

This leads me to believe her talk about doing what she did for "her people" was as much a lie to herself as it was to us. Fordola told herself this comforting lie so she could actually find some semblance of peace in the sea of horrors she was forced into each day. She told herself this lie for so long that she started to believe it herself. At first it was probably (mostly) out of survival, with a few nice carrots tossed on to soften the blow. But eventually it was a reflection of the madness Zenos himself had poured into her. She is most certainly a tragic figure, and definitely not past the point of redemption, but she is damaged beyond belief on a spiritual level. Most of that damage was externally inflicted, but some of it? Some of it came from herself, in the way she willingly engaged in atrocities with the thinnest of justifications. So again, in that moment, with the weight of all she had seen Fordola do crashing down upon her, Lyse unleashed with a raw, ugly, brutal truth. She called out Fordola for the monster she had become.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

---

---

This is what it comes down to. There are many junctures at which Fordola could have chosen to disobey Zenos' orders and many ways in which she could have gone about it. Had she considered the order to fire on Specula Imperatoris unlawful she would have disobeyed it; instead she acted as a loyal hound, carrying out her master's orders to the letter despite personal misgivings. The Imperial officer in the Castrum balking at the order suggests it's not exactly the sort of order issued every day, and only when similarly coerced by Fordola does he issue it. (Even then he asks Fordola to confirm the target.)

Note that I'm not saying Fordola is beyond redemption; far from it, her hesitation suggests she's not completely gone. I do hope she ends up redeeming herself, but only Fordola can do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

This is what it comes down to. There are many junctures at which Fordola could have chosen to disobey Zenos' orders and many ways in which she could have gone about it. Had she considered the order to fire on Specula Imperatoris unlawful she would have disobeyed it; instead she acted as a loyal hound, carrying out her master's orders to the letter despite personal misgivings. The Imperial officer in the Castrum balking at the order suggests it's not exactly the sort of order issued every day, and only when similarly coerced by Fordola does he issue it. (Even then he asks Fordola to confirm the target.)

Note that I'm not saying Fordola is beyond redemption; far from it, her hesitation suggests she's not completely gone. I do hope she ends up redeeming herself, but only Fordola can do that.

---

It's probably gonna hinge on the Empire's possible reprisal and what her sentencing is like. There's also the possibility that her Resonance will end up affecting her somehow and require us to put her down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quor

Because she didn't *want* to. I brought this up earlier; she had more skin in the game than she let on with all her talk of "her people."

---

I think it's telling that after the defeat at Castellum Velodyna, when Zenos asked Fordola what she really wanted, her answer was "power". Enough power to defeat those who stood in her way.

Not the integration of Ala Mhigo into the Empire, or respect for Ala Mhigans or herself from other Imperials. Just power.

Power might have been used to gain those other things, but at that point, I think Fordola has mistaken the process for the goal. Instead of power for a purpose, it's just power for its own sake.

Which happens to be what Zenos approves of, which is probably why he sends her to the Resonant augmentation.

i don't think Fordola is as much of an irredeemable monster as Yoyotsu is, especially considering the Garlean Empire basically molded her throughout her entire life into what she is today. However, it cannot be denied that she has crossed the line by firing on her own troops in Specula Imperatoris. Sure it's true that she was ordered to do so by Zenos directly, but she still decided to pull the trigger instead of disobeying such a clearly amoral order. Even Gaius van Baelsar would have most likely disobeyed it despite his loyalty.

Honestly, I could see a redemption arc for Fordola working. After all, Zenos is gone, Ala Mhigo has been freed, and the illusion of the Empire's might and authority that she grew up in has been shattered. But it would take a long time and a lot of hard work for her to go on the right path, and odds are that Ala Mhigo won't forget her crimes.

Oh, but do let us kill Yoyotsu please. She is a monster who should have died in Doma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dameron

Even Gaius van Baelsar would have most likely disobeyed it despite his loyalty.

---

Gaius already disobeyed an order at the start of ARR, that order being "don't attack Eorzea until the Emperor says so". This is why the XIVth was considered to have gone rogue, and marked for death if they tried to retreat back to Garlemald.

I don't mention 1.0, largely because I have no idea how blatant the disobedience was when Gaius did all his machinations against Nael.

So I really doubt Gaius would have disobeyed an order as was given to Fordola due to moral stances. He would probably have disobeyed it because he did not see it as practical, and he had some other plans of his own. Same result, different motivations.

I see Fordola having a redemption arc as more likely than Yotsuyu having one, largely because Fordola arrived at her conclusions and actions through some sort of reasoning, even if the premises and processes are (provably) mistaken. In other words, she can theoretically be convinced.

Yotsuyu had no such reasoning. She just wanted to hurt Domans because she hates them, and she hates them because she was mistreated horribly when she was younger. It's a conclusion based off emotion, not reason. I can't think of any way to create a redemption arc from that which doesn't feel cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Yotsuyu had no such reasoning. She just wanted to hurt Domans because she hates them, and she hates them because she was mistreated horribly when she was younger. It's a conclusion based off emotion, not reason. I can't think of any way to create a redemption arc from that which doesn't feel cheap.

---

I wonder about that, considering the general direction of all three arcs of FFXIV since A Realm Reborn. There's always been the constant refrain for everyone to break the cycle of hate.

Justice without mercy becomes a form of tyranny. That may well be something that the Scions and the Alliance will have to consider, if they get around to putting Yotsuyu on trial.... buuuuuut, that's another discussion for another thread, assuming that someone wishes to get this particular discussion going (I believe it's already been debated in other threads, in any case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I wonder about that, considering the general direction of all three arcs of FFXIV since A Realm Reborn. There's always been the constant refrain for everyone to break the cycle of hate.

---

That's a little different, I think. Breaking the cycle of hate requires the people in the cycle to say "no more, this stops now", and carry through with that. The motivations and reasoning are dependent on the context, but so far the general trend is "if we give in to hate as a group, this will never end".

Which is a noble goal, but it's different from a redemption plotline. A redemption plotline, to me, would involve the major player(s) saying "I was wrong, and I am going to make an effort to put things right". It may help break the cycle of hatred, but it's not the core component as such.

For example, it's entirely possible for the population of Doma to cease hating Yotsuyu, and try to help her past her hatred, but Yotsuyu refuses to change, and continues to hate Domans. It still escapes the hate cycle, because Doma forgives Yotsuyu, but it has nothing to do with whether Yotsuyu herself changes.

(I keep thinking of the ending of one of the King Arthur/Merlin TV movies/series I've seen way back when, where the evil witch is defeated not by punishment or battle, but simply by everyone just walking away and ignoring her.)

And I think it's rather presumptuous to assume that there's no way to write a believable redemption arc for Yotsuyu.

As I said, it has to begin with mercy, stemming first from an acceptance that Doman society also had a role in turning Yotsuyu into the monster she is. Hien has already indicated the beginning of such an acceptance, in his declaration that he'll remember her final words of abuse and many suffered cruelties.

If Doma refuses that responsibility, and denies any mercy for Yotsuyu, then it's understandable that she would find no point in striving for redemption.

I believe this has everything to do with overall aim of breaking the cycle. There must first be a belief that everyone deserves a second chance. This in itself is almost certainly going to be a nearly impossible goal, with regard to Yotsuyu's predicament, but a chance at redemption must first be offered, before the monster can be redeemed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

And I think it's rather presumptuous to assume that there's no way to write a believable redemption arc for Yotsuyu.

---

I should probably clarify my stance. I think it is more likely for Fordola to have a redemption arc than Yotsuyu. This says nothing about how believable I think a Yotsuyu redemption arc will be, taken alone.

Completely separate from that, I also think it is very difficult to write a believable redemption arc for Yotsuyu in the context of the FFXIV patch cycle. The limitation of the medium, so to speak. This difficulty increases if the writers have to do a Fordola redemption arc as well, in addition to everything else the patch cycle brings.

Quote:

---

I believe this has everything to do with overall aim of breaking the cycle. There must first be a belief that everyone deserves a second chance. This in itself is almost certainly going to be a nearly impossible goal, with regard to Yotsuyu's predicament, but a chance at redemption must first be offered, before the monster can be redeemed.

---

And my disagreement with that is not that Yotsuyu cannot be redeemed, or that Doma must first reach out in mercy before Yotsuyu can be redeemed.

My point is that these are separate matters. My definition of a "redemption arc" is at its core, a character who acknowledges that they were/did wrong, and now wishes to make things right. This is completely tangential to the business of "breaking the cycle", which is when a long-standing feud is perpetuated by people refusing to let go of past wrongs, and is stopped by people going "enough is enough".

Together, they make a good story, and each can bring out aspects of the other that further add to the story. But while they are complementary, they are not actually interlinked.

There may be a redemption plotline. There may be a breaking the cycle plotline. They may both happen at once, to the same characters, in the same story. But to me, that doesn't mean either inherently has anything to do with the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I wonder about that, considering the general direction of all three arcs of FFXIV since A Realm Reborn. There's always been the constant refrain for everyone to break the cycle of hate.

Justice without mercy becomes a form of tyranny. That may well be something that the Scions and the Alliance will have to consider, if they get around to putting Yotsuyu on trial.... buuuuuut, that's another discussion for another thread, assuming that someone wishes to get this particular discussion going (I believe it's already been debated in other threads, in any case).

---

But if you see it like that, people will never be punished for their wrongdoings which would just spurn on others to just commit them because they dont have to fear justice. Because in the end is it really hate that they have towards her if they punish her? Or cant they just simply say: She has done x crimes thus she should be punished with y. Also there are no people that would truly miss her (as far as we know) so there should not be someone out there that wants to take revenge for that.

In the end they still could just throw her in prison forever but doing nothing would just be imo the worst way.

You really have to be quite kind to feel sorry for her if you are part of those that got hurt by her actions. I just cant see how she would ever redeem herself in the eyes of those that got hurt by her..because you need those behind you if you want to redeem her, otherwise there will be attempts on her life because not everyone is fine with letting someone free that committed torture and murder on innocent people for her own joy. In real life she would maybe land in prison and the rest of her life after that in closed therapy. But there is no such form of therapy in FF14, so I am not sure how they would be able to make it feel right, for her to suddenly change her mind. Deep traumas like that are normally not changed just because one person showed her some kind of kindness.

I agree with Yian that Fordola has a bigger chance at a good written redemption (where she should still be punished for her crimes and sit in prison) because she outwardly did not truly enjoy all of this.

It shouldn't be a matter of punishment. It should be a matter of reform, if anything. As I've pointed out many times in the past this is a Final Fantasy game. Very shady characters have been redeemed, reformed and have even been allowed to walk away without punishment in previous titles. I see no reason why the same approach cannot be applicable in FFXIV, especially when the waters are murky as to whether or not a character is truly a villain or merely a product of Hydaelyn being a pretty unpleasant place to live for the vast majority of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

But if you see it like that, people will never be punished for their wrongdoings

---

Eh... I never said anything about not punishing Yotsuyu.

What I am saying is that I don't see why she doesn't deserve redemption.

Criminals are sentenced to jail, not just to punish them, but also to reform them. The two objectives go hand in hand.

But first, there must be mercy. If Yotsuyu's punishment is tyrannically harsh, then it'll only serve to harden her already warped view of society's inherent cruelty.

And it'll also prove the Ascians right: That the way to provoke chaos is to stir ever more fear and hatred, because mortals, in their view, will never be able to rise above their emotions.

At a time when everyone would demand Yotsuyu's head, for all the cruelty she has inflicted, the greatest symbolic act of mercy would be to provide her a chance to redeem herself. Whether or not she sincerely takes the chance is separate from the issue of giving her that opportunity to reform, in the first place.

That's why — contrary to the apparent expectations of so many people here — I think the story would go to a higher level if it decisively demonstrates that the way forward is to make a clean break with the rancor of the past.

I'm also quite certain, at the same time, that this would provoke howls of protest among many in the fan community, if indications here are anything to go by.

It'll just prove a point — to me, if no one else — that most of us are good at talking about justice, about harmony, about peace, and all the good things, without fully appreciating what it means to live a just, harmonious, peaceful life.

The most important parting point that Lyse reflected on, in the concluding moments of Stormblood, is that monsters like Zenos and Fordola are made, not born. It was not just an observation of fact, but also a warning to all who follow, that good people can become monsters if they're forced by circumstances.

Who is the greater monster, truly? The monster at hand, or the society that created the monster? Both sides will no doubt have valid reasons to bear grudges against each other, but the cycle of hate can only be decisively broken if at least one side takes the first step to forgive.

To forgive is not to forget. Yotsuyu and Fordola ought to be made to answer for their crimes. But in return, they should both be given a chance at redemption, however monstrous they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Zenos is repeatedly shown to murder his own people on a whim. They really had no reason to assume he wouldn't kill them for failing to obey his orders - especially in Fordola's case as it was not the first time she had proven to disappoint Zenos' expectations.

---

They have every reason to assume he would try. The original argument was: the Resistance was so close to winning Fordola had no choice but to fire the cannon at her own people because that's the only way to stop the Resistance. She can't believe that to be true and also believe that if she defected/surrendered to the Resistance that Zenos would still be able to kill her.

The non-monstrous choice when given that order is to defect from the person that gave you that order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

What I am saying is that I don't see why she doesn't deserve redemption.

Criminals are sentenced to jail, not just to punish them, but also to reform them. The two objectives go hand in hand.

---

What someone deserves in that regard can't be measured.

There gets to be a point where the crime is so great reform is unnecessary and only punishment matters. I would not have a problem with a society that decided both of them should be executed for war crimes. I also don't have a problem with a society that doesn't have a death penalty.

Is there a point to grant parole to proven mass murderers? What kind of society is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

The non-monstrous choice when given that order is to defect from the person that gave you that order.

---

Would Fordola know that the Alliance/Resistance do not actually torture/execute any prisoners-of-war they get? I mean, the people of Ala Ghiri didn't, hence the whole mess with Baut.