Political Ideology and Storytelling Within FFXIV

In before Garlemald's citizens had to be tempered because they demanded better roads and more job growth beyond the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vormela

The entire idea of calamities is that they end civilizations in the way we imagine civilization development and "uncivilized peoples" AKA beastmen to be since like the Enlightenment era and going back to Greece and beyond.

I don't see how a story based on civilization-ending calamities and religiosity and factions can not be political. That someone can take a history class and come out of it not understanding historical lenses, paradigm shifts, etc...it says a lot about the state of education and critical thinking.

I do like the idea posited that the way the politics works is within a specific historical timeframe. That seems like the best way to approach it. That makes it so we can still escape our present situation and fantasize.

Video games are escapist, and this game definitely is written with the MMORPG medium considered and pivotal to the story, as best exemplified by the Warriors of Light archetype in 5.3...we are all warriors of light even IRL just like the dopes at the Crystarium because we have played the game/seen the meteor shower... but if we don't do anything IRL that is Azem-like then are we truly warriors of light? This is so meta but I just know they are cognizant of these things while writing and it is these things that make me love the story so much more, even if they remove some of the fantasy.

Does anyone else have these ideas or is it just me? I don't know, maybe I am going insane. Their message wasn't lost to me in that scene. It made me verrry self-aware and not feeling fantastical at all for a brief instant. Just chef's kiss mwah A++ would play again even with politics.

---

I mean, I agree but not quite on the train you're saying. I think every form of storytelling is inherently political because it's impossible to NOT have some form of the writer's own views leak in somewhere. Not always in terms of what happens, but in terms of what's considered important and values.

I like the Calamities as an example, because 'world got wrecked' appears to be a fairly apolitical situation; everyone can agree that's bad. But how it happens, what's valued afterwards, what's seen as the biggest losses, that's where the political side of things. The Seventh Umbral Calamity was caused by military imperialism (and to a lesser extent a previous imperialist subjugation). The worst of it was stopped, but there are still wounds, yet despite the more physical effects of disaster upon the landscape, what's mourned is more the people lost. So immediately we're looking at an anti-imperialist narrative that values human lives, both in terms of the tragedy of death and the pains of subjugation by an imperial force. None of that's necessarily controversial (unless you're a terrible person), but it's also by no means points that aren't required to be said anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

After 3.0 wraps they actually become... something democratic, but otherwise unclear. They have a House of Commons and House of Lords, similar to Great Britain (which is actually a pretty bad democratic system.)

---

The UK's system is fine, especially for a society like Ishgard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Our system is fine.

---

Okay I don't want to get super verbose and real-world political on this one, but I will outline why 'fine' might be the best you can hope for with that system, because it actually makes perfect, 'I loved to see that's where they went with it' sense for why Ishgard adopted it.

The Houses of Lords and Commons are essentially a compromise of a political structure. You want to get the common people a way to have a say in how their country is run, but you have to do that in a way that doesn't disgruntle the people who already have the power--in both Britain and Ishgard, that was largely noblemen and the clergy. So you give them two houses of government; one for representations of the old established power, one for those elected by the masses, neither of which can completely overrule the other.

Now, if what you want is full democratic rule? It's not very good. Someone can still be literally born into power, the official religion still has outright political strength. You haven't fixed the problems of an aristocratic society, you've just reduced them. But it does have a strength, which is the same as the reason it was conceived: it doesn't make any one group too unhappy, which means that, extreme circumstances notwithstanding, basically every group will be content to play by the rules.

That's actually why I think, of every nation we see in the game, Ishgard is the one I'm certain will remain solvent for the forseeable future. A lot of nations in the game seem like they're one bad ruler away from an uprising (Limsa and Doma stand clearest, Ala Mhigo's not out of the woods of 'figuring out a good government' yet), or possibly even worse (Gridania and Ul'Dah seem like one bad ruling away from burning down, given the leadership already has problems), but Ishgard? Other nations will figure out better systems eventually, but judging by real-world history, Ishgard's will be 'good enough' for centuries; not the best system, but not bad enough to tear down and rebuild.

idyllshire is the best system of goverment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lihtleita

idyllshire is the best system of goverment

---

To the mild irritation of Slowfix Cointoss, upon whom the responsibility falls to herd all these quarrelsome settlers into something resembling a community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Crystarium: Uhh... post-scarcity socialist commune. It's basically Star Trek. Very weird choice for a story that's ultimately post-apocalyptic, gotta admit.

---

No post-scarcity about it, the Crystarium is more or less a voluntary commune under the absolute dictatorship of someone who luckily happens to be a good guy. Of course, depopulation and horror monsters keeping the population low helps keep that sort of thing manageable, and sanctuary from the massive existential threat helps keep people from wanting to leave.

If the Exarch hadn't specifically engineered the society to be safe and familiar to the WoL they probably wouldn't even have currency.

I like the political ramifications of Limsa and their Pirates, it makes for interesting storytelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vormela

The entire idea of calamities is that they end civilizations in the way we imagine civilization development and "uncivilized peoples" AKA beastmen to be since like the Enlightenment era and going back to Greece and beyond.

I don't see how a story based on civilization-ending calamities and religiosity and factions can not be political. That someone can take a history class and come out of it not understanding historical lenses, paradigm shifts, etc...it says a lot about the state of education and critical thinking.

I do like the idea posited that the way the politics works is within a specific historical timeframe. That seems like the best way to approach it. That makes it so we can still escape our present situation and fantasize.

Video games are escapist, and this game definitely is written with the MMORPG medium considered and pivotal to the story, as best exemplified by the Warriors of Light archetype in 5.3...we are all warriors of light even IRL just like the dopes at the Crystarium because we have played the game/seen the meteor shower... but if we don't do anything IRL that is Azem-like then are we truly warriors of light? This is so meta but I just know they are cognizant of these things while writing and it is these things that make me love the story so much more, even if they remove some of the fantasy.

Does anyone else have these ideas or is it just me? I don't know, maybe I am going insane. Their message wasn't lost to me in that scene. It made me verrry self-aware and not feeling fantastical at all for a brief instant. Just chef's kiss mwah A++ would play again even with politics.

---

This reminds me when I was begging for help in FF XIV and all the "warriors of light" wouldn't even message me, lol. It's all a roleplay

I am glad someone else was affected IRL! We just have to share the good when it comes our way!

This game to me is amazing in its depth and its continued tone and focus on hope and goodwill (outside of religious fervor while still respecting people's connection to a higher power or stories that give their lives meaning). And that the message spans languages and cultures is a relief in this day and age.

I thought I was being stupid and obsessive until you posted that so thanks. I often get isolated in my mind and it is nice to know someone else is out there. XD Which is what an MMO has always been about IMHO. I am reminded not to take upvotes too seriously here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vormela

This game to me is amazing in its depth and its continued tone and focus on hope and goodwill (outside of religious fervor while still respecting people's connection to a higher power or stories that give their lives meaning). And that the message spans languages and cultures is a relief in this day and age.

---

While not really related to the subject of political ideology, I think the game is really smart and really sensitive about how they handle religion. Specifically, it recognizes the dangers of religious extremism, but also recognizes that such a thing comes from real circumstances, often oppression, and that those who fall into that extremism are no less victims of the circumstances because of it.

...well, either that or you get a power-hungry charismatic leader who's got extremely awful plans. But that's also very realistic, as well as very sensitive to the people who fall into that for reasons of genuine belief (for example, the Heaven's Ward).

I think a lot of people get led astray on that concept because of that one line in Stormblood that's pretty seriously at odds with the rest of the game's writing; "Just know I'll kill your god if I have to. Maybe even if I don't." That makes a lot of people think the game's just blanket anti-religion and anti-gods, which it's... really not. And incidentally, I wonder if the line reads that poorly in other languages, or if it's just English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

As an aside, I was roasted pretty heavily on Reddit for saying that during the cutscene with Emet-Selch when he tells us to "Remember us", I wished there was an option to simply say no. Because I felt like that was a very audacious request after he just spent the entire third act of the expansion insulting us, belittling us, and reconfirming the notion that he doesn't even consider us alive. Oh, and he shoots Graha-Tia. Not to mention, he wants to kill just about everyone on the Source and the First just to bring back his people and his god.

Regardless of his intentions and motives, you don't get to make that request in the end. You lost that right by the sheer merits of your actions. For that, the consequence is not your defeat, but that everything you fought for and ultimately died for, will be forgotten. That is called consequence, which I am very big on. You earn the behavior given to you by others. You forfeit the right of a last request based on what you did before that moment.

A poster on Reddit actually agreed with me, but had a more nuanced approach. He/she would rather have said to Emet-Selch, "I will remember your people, but you are best left forgotten." That's the approach I probably would have taken. And I think that get's to some of the nuance mentioned in this thread that some folks would like to see more of.

---

A fair point, but is that a decision that we are so deserving of making? He asked US to remember him, not proselytize Eorzea-wide "Hey you guys!! Ascians existed and they have a sad backstory!!" Us alone remembering him isn't too much to ask, I don't think. Doubly so if we make sure to remember his atrocities as well, to keep perspective. In the end, we are only human and selfishness is a great factor in what defines us. Our conflict with Emet boils down to, in my opinion a conflict of ideals. Neither could survive while the other yet lived, only one's hopes and dreams could come to fruition such was the sad reality. It's just as well, really for we mortal creatures will ever prioritize our own wants over the wants of others. Rarely would one take up a blade in defense of a complete stranger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

This is a big part of why I'm pretty down on the WoL's actual political stances (and honestly, the way the story itself gets framed as a result); Emet-Selch is a rancid, genocidal rat-man who has shown no remorse for his actions and has fairly direct lines to pretty much every single 'core storyline' problem in the entire game, as a leader of the Ascians, the Allagans and the Garleans. He is awful, and doesn't deserve the respect we are railroaded into giving him. I've always instead advocated for a '...' response to be available for every single dialog choice, though; it's a really good failsafe option for whenever the writing just doesn't really manage to reach the player (which will always happen to someone, eventually).

And I find the 'remember that we lived' request also a little rich, because... well, inside the story, there are completely incalculable amounts of civilizations that are dead as a direct cause of him; are they not just as worth memorializing, and just don't get to make the request because they don't have immortal ghost wizards to say it? The Scions pledge to remember them, but are they ever going to offer the same to the likes of Mhach, Amdapor and Nym, who got killed by these guys? It also actually hurts a bit on an OOC level, because... well, I play a Duskwight. I have been waiting for the writers to remember Gelmorra for YEARS now, and will probably be waiting for years more. Why does Art Deco Atlantis get to jump the queue?

And as an aside, I do like that scene with Nanamo and Godbert, too. Because... well, yeah, it is pretty terrible, but it isn't outright saying 'capitalism is the only right way to elevate the oppressed, despite capitalism being what oppressed them' like how a number of people seem to read it. It's basically saying 'this system is terrible, but it's possible to force it to produce good'.

---

Well, you can also offer to try and "redeem" Fandaniel too. You can say as much to Estinien, and if not you'll remember him. I suppose it's to encourage those who'd rather roleplay the messianic archetype, you know the ultra-shounen "forgive everyone, even the vilest of villains" type. Which I grant wouldn't jive well with the marginalized revenge seeker you've created. Besides, remembering him needn't mean honoring him or anything so trite. Isn't one of the virtues of recorded history to be able to remember the worst of us and go "Hey, remember this awful guy? Let's strive to be better than him." Word of mouth isn't reliable, tainted by bias as it often is passed down the grapevine so remembering Emet serves a purpose once we're dead.

It's important to remember the Ancients were more than what their Convocation (the Ascians) became; that they were people like anyone else. To do so would be to forget the common thread of humanity that binds us all.

... but it is equally important not to let said Convocation use their sob story as an excuse to deliberately and intentionally murder countless, helpless innocent people. No matter how much you sympathize with them they are far from the only victims, and a motive is not the same thing as justification.

That's all.

Agreed with the sentiment that Emet's "Remember us" rubbed me the wrong way in part because he never shifted over to truly sympathetic or charismatic to me - his justifications and beliefs only infuriated me the more he explained himself - and that I was one of those rare people that hated the Tempest the second I was zoned into it (It is my least favorite zone in the game, even more so than Pagos, Pyros, and BSF) and was asking for the metaphorical Brain Bleach after wandering Amaurot, which made his request deeply ironic.
BUT - the citizens of Amaurot were more than just their rulers and this city that I disliked the aesthetics and governance, the Ancient world had far more than just this one Art Deco oversized urban city with boring ugly robes, and best of all there had been Ancients who were willing to sacrifice to protect the new life instead of condemning the present and future on the chance to bring back the past. I'm definitely excited to meet and learn more from Venat. And it's telling to me that Azem in which our WoL has inherited some power and soul (but I think all of ShB makes obvious that we should not treat as the same person any more than we should Ryne=Minfilia or Gaia=Lohgrif) chose to adventure and befriend everyone outside of Amaurot and that's who they fought for. So for me, 'Remember us' is 'I will remember you, how much I hate what you've done but also why you did so, I will remember how much I don't like Amaurot but that doesn't mean the ordinary citizens deserved their fate- and most of all I will remember and honor those that opposed you and your Zodiark plan long before me'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderShinryu

I'm actually currently fearing that we'll see this with Zenos seeing as how some people are actually wanting him to essentially end up a Scion, even if it's not part of a full on face turn, and the developers definitely seem to be coddling his continued existence.

---

Sorry to quote something so far back in the thread but if we do not get the satisfaction of killing Zenos once and for all at the end of Endwalker, I will be very upset. Please Square, do not keep beating a dead horse. Let it die.

To jump in on the Emet discussion, I'll just say that my perspective on the "remembering" is more of a rememberance of the Ancients as a whole. I didn't really flip to the positive on Emet himself either given all he said and did, going back a very, very long time. He's interesting and entertaining to be sure but not, in my eyes at least, someone I really ever ended up on board with. This is really why I think I felt a lot more personally impacted by the 5.3 ending than the 5.0 ending. I suppose you could even say that my actual remembering of Emet himself is more of a cautionary remembering; a "remember this because this is what you shouldn't do and/or shouldn't become."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

At least in FFXVI all but one of their nations have a distinct fantasy feel. A Grand Duchy, a Holy Empire, and two Kingdoms. Only one republic.


Whereas here in FFXIV:
Limsa - a bizarre political system where its ex-pirates are pretending to be...something.

Gridania - child druids who commune with elementals. No distinctive architecture. Literally just trees.

Ul'dah - a "monarchy" where the monarch wants to abdicate and create a republic.

Ishgard - originally a monarchy, then a theocracy, and now it's a republic.

Doma - a monarchy we were actually able to preserve (thank God)

Hingashi - a monarchy (but we have access to only 1 city, and it doesn't fulfil the European fantasy of a kingdom)

Garlemald - literally Detroit

Thavnair - ??? potions ??? elephants ???

Dalmasca - in ruins, storyline shelved.

Bozja - killed the queen, on the way to becoming a republic.

Sharlayan - another republic.


One of the reasons 1.0 suffered so much is because so many fantasy elements were locked behind Ishgard. The only real castle in the entire game at that point. Even now, it's frustrating that the game lacks a fantasy feel until you reach 3.0. Wherever we end up going in 7.0, I just hope we return to fantasy instead of constantly nation building and trying to "liberate" people and turning their countries into more republics.

At least in FFXII where you're trying to liberate Dalmasca, you had the princess in your party and by the end she becomes Queen. In FFXV, your main controllable party member is a prince, despite its more modern feel. In FFXI, one of your starting areas was an elven kingdom. In FFIX, you have a princess in your party and its most iconic cities belong to kingdoms. In FFVI, you get to have two princes in your party, and in FFV you get two princesses. By the end of FFIV various characters who were implied to hold some kind of noble/military rank become the monarchs of their respective nations.

FF has historically never focused so much on the idea of republics to this extent and by this point the gimmick has become stale.

---

The focus on Republics and less of a focus on royalty is something that's an extension of the way fantasy has shifted in reason years for a number of reasons. With the rise of "grimdark" fantasy, the upper class is genuinely awful, and with more and more writers coming from various marginalized peoples, there's a certain desire to make protagonists that buck the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderShinryu

To jump in on the Emet discussion, I'll just say that my perspective on the "remembering" is more of a rememberance of the Ancients as a whole. I didn't really flip to the positive on Emet himself either given all he said and did, going back a very, very long time. He's interesting and entertaining to be sure but not, in my eyes at least, someone I really ever ended up on board with. This is really why I think I felt a lot more personally impacted by the 5.3 ending than the 5.0 ending. I suppose you could even say that my actual remembering of Emet himself is more of a cautionary remembering; a "remember this because this is what you shouldn't do and/or shouldn't become."

---

Also, this. 100%. At least my Warrior of Light seeks to remember the past that once once... But she absolutely detests Emet, on account of him being a genocidal monster,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

The Houses of Lords and Commons are essentially a compromise of a political structure. You want to get the common people a way to have a say in how their country is run, but you have to do that in a way that doesn't disgruntle the people who already have the power--in both Britain and Ishgard, that was largely noblemen and the clergy. So you give them two houses of government; one for representations of the old established power, one for those elected by the masses, neither of which can completely overrule the other.

Now, if what you want is full democratic rule? It's not very good. Someone can still be literally born into power, the official religion still has outright political strength. You haven't fixed the problems of an aristocratic society, you've just reduced them. But it does have a strength, which is the same as the reason it was conceived: it doesn't make any one group too unhappy, which means that, extreme circumstances notwithstanding, basically every group will be content to play by the rules.

That's actually why I think, of every nation we see in the game, Ishgard is the one I'm certain will remain solvent for the forseeable future. A lot of nations in the game seem like they're one bad ruler away from an uprising (Limsa and Doma stand clearest, Ala Mhigo's not out of the woods of 'figuring out a good government' yet), or possibly even worse (Gridania and Ul'Dah seem like one bad ruling away from burning down, given the leadership already has problems), but Ishgard? Other nations will figure out better systems eventually, but judging by real-world history, Ishgard's will be 'good enough' for centuries; not the best system, but not bad enough to tear down and rebuild.

---

You don't fix the problems of an aristocratic society, but likewise, you don't get rid of the benefits of an aristocratic society either.
It's not very popular to acknowledge these days, but people literally raised from birth to rule tend to be pretty decent at the business of actual ruling, especially in a society like Ishgard where I imagine secondary and tertiary education isn't all that widely available.

Elected politicians providing a voice for the people and setting the agenda for governing, and then having that agenda put into action by people who have spent most of their life being raised and educated for ruling.
I'd say it's not just a 'good enough' system for Ishgard, it's a straight up good system, the main problem it has is that it comes up a tad short on the lofty ideals front and therefore doesn't stack up well when compared to various idealized utopian setups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

It's not very popular to acknowledge these days, but people literally raised from birth to rule tend to be pretty decent at the business of actual ruling, especially in a society like Ishgard where I imagine secondary and tertiary education isn't all that widely available.

---

While that can certainly be the case, as it is with Doma, the people stop being interested in monarchical rule when the will of the aristocracy stops being benevolent and no longer matches up with the will of the people as a whole. Without using real-world examples, the ruling nobility of Ala Mhigo and especially King Theodoric himself weren't exactly good for the people and the fact that the people were stuck with him due to him sharing blood with past rulers, meant that they had to revolt in order to change their government. An elected government is no more immune to misgoverning or corruption, but they're more easily replaced in theory. For Ishgard, the more egregious examples of nobles misusing their power had to be put to the sword in both the MSQ and DRK quests and there was no system in place to keep them in check or to stop them from being terrible people.

Ultimately, just because someone was taught from birth to be a ruler doesn't mean that they're going to be good at it, and it also doesn't mean that they won't use the position they attained only through being born to it which they can't be removed from to do bad things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

While that can certainly be the case, as it is with Doma, the people stop being interested in monarchical rule when the will of the aristocracy stops being benevolent and no longer matches up with the will of the people as a whole. Without using real-world examples, the ruling nobility of Ala Mhigo and especially King Theodoric himself weren't exactly good for the people and the fact that the people were stuck with him due to him sharing blood with past rulers, meant that they had to revolt in order to change their government. An elected government is no more immune to misgoverning or corruption, but they're more easily replaced in theory. For Ishgard, the more egregious examples of nobles misusing their power had to be put to the sword in both the MSQ and DRK quests and there was no system in place to keep them in check or to stop them from being terrible people.

Ultimately, just because someone was taught from birth to be a ruler doesn't mean that they're going to be good at it, and it also doesn't mean that they won't use the position they attained only through being born to it which they can't be removed from to do bad things.

---

Of course you can end up with bad eggs, hence the addition of the democratic component to keep them in check. I don't think a pure system one way or the other would be good for Ishgard, (although it should be noted that their aristocracy did keep the country functioning throughout a thousand year war and pretty catastrophic climate change, so I'd say on the whole they're definitely pretty decent at what they do) but the hybrid system they've arrived at isn't just a compromise that keeps enough people happy to remain stable, it's a combination of the strengths of both systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

While that can certainly be the case, as it is with Doma, the people stop being interested in monarchical rule when the will of the aristocracy stops being benevolent and no longer matches up with the will of the people as a whole. Without using real-world examples, the ruling nobility of Ala Mhigo and especially King Theodoric himself weren't exactly good for the people and the fact that the people were stuck with him due to him sharing blood with past rulers, meant that they had to revolt in order to change their government. An elected government is no more immune to misgoverning or corruption, but they're more easily replaced in theory. For Ishgard, the more egregious examples of nobles misusing their power had to be put to the sword in both the MSQ and DRK quests and there was no system in place to keep them in check or to stop them from being terrible people.

Ultimately, just because someone was taught from birth to be a ruler doesn't mean that they're going to be good at it, and it also doesn't mean that they won't use the position they attained only through being born to it which they can't be removed from to do bad things.

---

Another example of this is Bozja, where the nobles had the vast majority of the wealth and the poor underclass was everywhere. The queen was a political tool, and the nobles treated those lower than them with other disdain. It's rather telling that Garlemald taking over actually IMPROVED life for those who were poor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoofiaBossVal

If you mean "political messaging in FFXIV" then, I guess I'm not a fan of the democracy wank. Out of the 5 nations the WoL helps establish a new government in, 4 of them became democracies (Ishgard gets a House of Commons. Ala Mhigo, Eulmore, and Bozja become democratic republics), and the story bent over backwards to demonize monarchy and glorify democracy. And we also have Charlemand's custom delievery questline, where he is a high ranking stogy noble who - within just a few quests - leaps to wanting every Ishgardian citizen to be equal? What? Going by this pattern, Lord Nerva (if he survived) won't become Emperor of Garlemald and it will just become yet another democratic republic (though in lore it started out as a republic, but I digress). Out of the other 2 nations that had alternative governments, Limsa was stripped of its unique political system of pirates and racing, leaving just Gridania and their prophets who interpret the will of the Elementals.

---

Honestly, I can understand most of the nations going for democracy, it's basically struggling nations following the example of the ones that are doing better, what I don't like is how magical they portray democracy to be, everyone agreeing when an emergency action must be taken(Or any action for that matter) is the least democratic thing I've ever seen.

I guess it's basically that situation where humans in fantasy worlds tend to not be really humans as know, seeing as they more often than not are not nearly as tribalistic or stubborn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hysorn

Honestly, I can understand most of the nations going for democracy, it's basically struggling nations following the example of the ones that are doing better, what I don't like is how magical they portray democracy to be, everyone agreeing when an emergency action must be taken(Or any action for that matter) is the least democratic thing I've ever seen.

I guess it's basically that situation where humans in fantasy worlds tend to not be really humans as know, seeing as they more often than not are not nearly as tribalistic or stubborn.

---

This is exactly the problem I'm having with the game.

The game is defying democracy as THE political way and answer to their old terrible monarchy that are either not working well enough or were horrendously bad in the past and oversimplify the solution by saying " we doing democracy now". They always give monarchy the worst image and show democracy as a redemption like when they show how gruesome and horrible the past king of Ala Mhigo was. "Oh we surely can't go back to monarchy after this". It's always in that way 'monarchy bad vs democratic republic good' never showing it could be the other way around. Not once.

I feel like a political story can be done showing huge drama, great strategies, plots and a bunch of thrilling events without the need to assert or show political biases especially by oversimplifiying the redemption as that particular political form of government.

I mean the amount of different systems possible is vast even within a republic, they don't even explore their options, no proposition of a feudal system, no proposition of a constitutional monarchy or City-state or any other than the simplistic humanist definition of a free state, democracy.

I mean, Doma is still a monarchy, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellodarknesu

This is exactly the problem I'm having with the game.

The game is defying democracy as THE political way and answer to their old terrible monarchy that are either not working well enough or were horrendously bad in the past and oversimplify the solution by saying " we doing democracy now". They always give monarchy the worst image and show democracy as a redemption like when they show how gruesome and horrible the past king of Ala Mhigo was. "Oh we surely can't go back to monarchy after this". It's always in that way 'monarchy bad vs democratic republic good' never showing it could be the other way around. Not once.

I feel like a political story can be done showing huge drama, great strategies, plots and a bunch of thrilling events without the need to assert or show political biases especially by oversimplifiying the redemption as that particular political form of government.

I mean the amount of different systems possible is vast even within a republic, they don't even explore their options, no proposition of a feudal system, no proposition of a constitutional monarchy or City-state or any other than the simplistic humanist definition of a free state, democracy.

---

I miss the days of FFIV, FFIX, and FFXII where monarchies are allowed to persist and the good guys end up taking the throne at journey's end. Final Fantasy players by and large want to go to kingdoms-not republics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsiron

I mean, Doma is still a monarchy, isn't it?

---

So is Ul'dah, and Gridania isn't a democracy either. Dalmasca is trying to restore Monarchy.

Most of the allied nations aren't Democracies. Which makes the complaining that there are to many strange.

Political Ideology in Heavensward :
"Dragons be bad"
"Sickness must be purged!"
"Daddy issues"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

So is Ul'dah, and Gridania isn't a democracy either. Dalmasca is trying to restore Monarchy.

Most of the allied nations aren't Democracies. Which makes the complaining that there are to many strange.

---

For the sake of counting them up, the democracies of FFXIV's world, when talking about the present-day (so not including stuff like 'Garlemald was a republic once') and only counting the places we've been:

1. Ishgard, post-HW
2. Ala Mhigo, post-SB
3. Eulmore, post-ShB
4. Sharlayan

And the non-democracies, along with the forms of government they actually are, while excluding the ones that reformed in-story like Ishgard since we don't need them for this argument:

1. Ul'Dah (compromised monarchy)
2. Gridania (theocracy)
3. Limsa Lominsa (uhh... boat race-determined thalassocracy)
4. Hingashi (Shogunate-puppeted empire)
5. Doma (monarchy)
6. The Crystarium (...benevolent dictatorship?)
7. Amaurot (weirdo Platonic philosopher-kingdom*)
8. Garlemald (totalitarian empire)
9. Thavnair (monarchy, technically)

*For the record, selection of a new Convocation member was done by the rest of the Convocation with no mandatory input or weighting to public response (although they generally listened), so they aren't democratic.

And the uncertainties, for the record:

1. Crystarium, post-ShB
2. Bozja, post-Save the Queen

Democracies aren't a small number, by any means, but they're actually outnumbered by hereditary-ruled nations (both monarchies and empires). Though I would point out, with the exception of Sharlayan, all of those democracies came off the back of long-standing, widely-disliked totalitarian governments where the people had no say; why would any of those people, left to choose their own government once again, pick a form that would continue to give them no say in their own lives? Frankly, every government that's a democracy in this game is one I'd entirely expect to become one of their own volition given their circumstances. Whereas Doma... well, they liked living under a monarch when the monarch didn't suck, and a lot of the nation still remembers when they had a good one.

If anyone's curious, I did a whole video on most of the nations of the game and what they're actually based on in the real world or fiction (it's over here). Still working on part two, which is all the Garlean-occupied nations--and I don't want to record everything today only for the live letter to tell me something new on Sunday. But honestly it's a really interesting subject to me to discuss the forms of rulership we see in the world, and the problems all these nations face, so I'm really hoping we see more of it soon.

Getting into some of the weirder political systems, you have the Fae in Il Mheg with a monarchy based entirely around the possession of magical artifacts, the factions of Idyllshire and their political union, the beast tribes and their chieftains, the Viera tribes, and the political haziness surrounding Mor Dhona and the Adventurers Guild (is it an independent town, is it a corporate town?).

Honestly there’s not to many democracies comparatively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

Ultimately, just because someone was taught from birth to be a ruler doesn't mean that they're going to be good at it, and it also doesn't mean that they won't use the position they attained only through being born to it which they can't be removed from to do bad things.

---

Well put!

Regardless of what the actual numbers are the fact remains is that democracy is still painted as the good guys in this game and they are given far more focus while monarchies continue to be villanized or the few remaining ones have exited the plot due to irrelevance.

Aymeric, designed as a "tragic prince" becoming speaker of the house was ridiculous. Were this FFIV or FFIX he would have been rightfully crowned king by virtue of his leadership.

Hien at the very least got to take back his throne, but now there is no reason to go back to Doma. Would that he could have been the muscle in our party instead of Thancred or goodness forbid, Lyse.

There doesn't even appear to be much hope of restoring monarchy to Garlemald, with one of the sidequest chains revealing that the rest of the royal family has been slain by rampant war machines just outside their supposed safehold.

I don't play FF games to spread freedom and democracy like some bizarre American fantasy, I come here for the high fantasy elements: kings, gods (of which there are now none), castles, that sort of thing. I outright reject the trend of liberating these nations and sucking the magic straight out of them by turning them into another part of the United States of Final Fantasy. Enough is enough.

We're left in a world whose story has been resolved-which would be ok if that meant the game was ending-but I do not see how we can go forward for the next 10 years in a world bereft of deities and monarchs, in favor of more tiring "we are a free republic so we are the good guys here to save you!" I can only hope that the wills of Hydaelyn and Zodiark persisted and reincarnate into new gods, and that 7.0 represents a return to high fantasy, with sights as iconic as Ishgard's castle, knights in shining armor like Aymeric and Estinien, and that we leave the snoozefest of Sharlayan's "peaceful democracy" behind forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

“A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt."

---

Well spoken. So as to avoid drawing parallels to real-world locations, take Princess Garnet for example. A young woman who learns and grows so much by the end of her adventure, and goes on to likely lead Alexandria into a golden age. Cecil Harvey, not even of Baron is entrusted with the crown due to his heroism and his previous leadership of the Red Wings, roughly analogous to Aymeric's position as leader of the Temple Knights, taking the noblewoman Rosa as his queen. This is what people come to Final Fantasy for-not for this "House of Lords/House of Commons" nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Well put!

---

“A King may be ill advised and act wrong, a Republic never acts right, for a knot of villains support each other, and together they do what no single person dare attempt."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

This is what people come to Final Fantasy for-not for this "House of Lords/House of Commons" nonsense.

---

Your speaking for a very large fanbase here without any real justifications. I highly doubt the majority of fans, weather it be just XIV or the series as a whole get mad at the idea of turning a monarchy into a democracy.

I was around when 3.3 dropped. People weren't mad that Aymeric became Lord of the House instead of a king. Hell Ishgard pre HW wasn't even a Monarchy anymore anyway, the church had already assumed full control and the nation was a Theocracy with a Noble Class under it.

Stormblood has us reinstate one Monarchy and reform another into a Democracy.

Eulmore was a Democracy pre Vauthry, we just returned it to that state.

None of the OG 3 City-States are Democracies. The idea that they have somehow gotten less focus is flat wrong.

The game treats various forms of gov with a pretty even hand. But even if it didn't I think its a bizarrely narrow view to get mad at the idea of a Democracy or several of them existing in a world of High Fantasy and Gods. There not mutually exclusive at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

Your speaking for a very large fanbase here without any real justifications. I highly doubt the majority of fans, weather it be just XIV or the series as a whole get mad at the idea of turning a monarchy into a democracy.

I was around when 3.3 dropped. People weren't mad that Aymeric became Lord of the House instead of a king. Hell Ishgard pre HW wasn't even a Monarchy anymore anyway, the church had already assumed full control and the nation was a Theocracy with a Noble Class under it.

Stormblood has us reinstate one Monarchy and reform another into a Democracy.

Eulmore was a Democracy pre Vauthry, we just returned it to that state.

None of the OG 3 City-States are Democracies. The idea that they have somehow gotten less focus is flat wrong.

The game treats various forms of gov with a pretty even hand. But even if it didn't I think its a bizarrely narrow view to get mad at the idea of a Democracy or several of them existing in a world of High Fantasy and Gods. There not mutually exclusive at all.

---

I've been around since ARR and also cleared patch 3.3. when it dropped. I was not pleased with the outcome other than Estinien surviving.

Stormblood's monarchy, Doma, is so far removed from the world that we have no reason to go back to it unless they want to take us for another eastern themed expansion, which is extremely unlikely for the start of season 2.

Ala Mhigo was arguably better off with a mad king at its head than with a government that has anything to do with Lyse, goodness help them. The entire kingdom is a colorless wasteland that failed massively to get me to fall in love with it or its people, who I would have much preferred to abandon to the Garleans. Nearly every patch sees us return there for a meeting, or Limsa Lominsa whose pirate-land politics failed to ever catch my interest.

Eulmore was a democracy, a completely failed one at that given that they elected Vauthry's egotistical father who was just as much a villain as he was, only without the magic powers to see his agenda through.

As for the OG 3 city states? The ones who were so bereft of traditional fantasy elements that so many people complained about it that Yoship made an express point to dangle Ishgard right in front of our noses in ARR so as to tease Heavensward? Yeah, I don't care much for them either. Gridania was cool for 10 minutes before Kan-E-Senna opened her mouth and relegated the city-state to little more than a starter village with a complete lack of defining features besides: "forest!"

The number one place that people seem to have fallen the most in love with is Ishgard-the castle on the mountain, where we had an entire expansion's worth of prince charmings and knights. That is what you can sell to Final Fantasy fans-not this tired "lets go liberate X country because freedom!" Stormblood-era writing, whose story was the worst received of all by the playerbase. But hey, if they want to set up the United States of FF in place of Garlemald next expansion starting with Corvos, they can go on ahead. Or better yet, an African Safari in Meracydia or fighting an "evil!" Colonial Empire in the New World.

I refuse to follow down this game down that pathway, I'm sick of these tropes and now that this world does not even have any gods there is less allure to it than the mechanized settings of FFXIII's games and modern setting of FFXV. I refuse to be Sharlayan's new peacekeeping mercenary, wielded by none other than Alphinaud and the great leader G'raha Tia himself! I'd rather fight on the Garleans side in the name of a new emperor, or hop over to another shard and leave the source behind entirely. Failing that? Consider me gone, nebulous "themes" of freedom didn't sell me on Heavensward: the castle on the mountain and Aymeric did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aveyond-dreams

The number one place that people seem to have fallen the most in love with is Ishgard-the castle on the mountain, where we had an entire expansion's worth of prince charmings and knights. That is what you can sell to Final Fantasy fans-not this tired "lets go liberate X country because freedom!" Stormblood-era writing, whose story was the worst received of all by the playerbase. But hey, if they want to set up the United States of FF in place of Garlemald next expansion starting with Corvos, they can go on ahead. Or better yet, an African Safari in Meracydia or fighting an "evil!" Colonial Empire in the New World.

I refuse to follow down this game down that pathway, I'm sick of these tropes and now that this world does not even have any gods there is less allure to it than the mechanized settings of FFXIII's games and modern setting of FFXV. I refuse to be Sharlayan's new peacekeeping mercenary, wielded by none other than Alphinaud and the great leader G'raha Tia himself! I'd rather fight on the Garleans side in the name of a new emperor, or hop over to another shard and leave the source behind entirely. Failing that? Consider me gone, nebulous "themes" of freedom didn't sell me on Heavensward: the castle on the mountain and Aymeric did.

---

Now this is an interesting hill. Most often the criticism runs the opposite way, for good reasons admittedly, that the game flirts too much with classist systems of power and inadvertently paints over the way even the best of these types of systems rely on exploitation. Which makes this take interesting!

Is it the aesthetic of these systems that make it appealing to you, or do the systems themselves that you like? I can agree that I like the aesthetics of “sword and board, fight the dragon, save the kingdom fantasy” but the latter? Ehhhhhh lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Now this is an interesting hill. Most often the criticism runs the opposite way, for good reasons admittedly, that the game flirts too much with classist systems of power and inadvertently paints over the way even the best of these types of systems rely on exploitation. Which makes this take interesting!

Is it the aesthetic of these systems that make it appealing to you, or do the systems themselves that you like? I can agree that I like the aesthetics of “sword and board, fight the dragon, save the kingdom fantasy” but the latter? Ehhhhhh lol

---

When I first looked at Ishgard’s castle, I went “woah, that place is cool, I want to go do things over there with their knights instead of lame pirate/desert/forest people.” A religious theocracy instead of a kingdom? Kinda sucks, but it’s still a place I wanted to check out, especially with the whole Dragonsong war and heretic stuff going on. Heavensward then proceeded to blow us all away.

When I look at the state of present-day Ala Mhigo, I think “man this place looks boring and I can’t wait to be out of here, why am I the errand boy of a character who is no longer her bubbly self anymore, they want to turn this into a republic? Helping these people was a mistake.” Now that Garlemald’s noble class has all but been exterminated, I predict that that they will revert to being a republic and “be good again!” just like Bozja, with more “every citizen gets a say!” nonsense.

In any case, I do not believe that monarchy has to be linked to exploitation. There are poor people in every country of the world and arguably such a state of affairs is often exacerbated by the existence of republics-because a group of politicians cannot feel or empathize with people on the level that an individual ruler can, especially one who believes it is their god-given right to rule and preserve the integrity of their kingdoms.

Princess Garnet from FFIX, King Edgar from FFVI, Princess Lenna and Princess Krile from FFV, King Cecil from FFIV, King Alistair from Dragon Age, King Hien, and Aymeric-these are people who cared for their people and would make better rulers and advocates for the wellbeing of their people than some faceless mass of nobodies.

This goes deeper than mere aesthetics however-even Noctis showed the makings of a king by his journey’s end, despite Insomnia quite literally being Tokyo mixed with what appears to be an upperclass London vibe. We went on an adventure with retainers who were loyal to us-one whose sense of duty was so strong that he blinded himself for our sake and another who actively challenged our ideals when we began to falter.

Contrast this experience to the good-doers of the scions. A bunch of yes men who were only made tolerable by the state of affairs surrounding us in Shadowbringers and Endwalker-I celebrated when they met their apparent demise at the end of ARR and we were shipped off to Ishgard instead. At least Estinien, our knight in bloodied armor, joined with us in Endwalker though I would have much rather journeyed on with him and Aymeric in other kingdoms inspired by Europe as opposed to:

The entire Ala Mhigan arc of Stormblood-a specific portion that holds the esteemed position of being what must be the worst writing in the history of Final Fantasy

African or Australian Inspired Meracydia

New World full of colonial conflicts “because someone is oppressing X people again!”

Reforming Garlemald into a republic

These are not stories or experiences that you can sell to a fantasy lover or a Final Fantasy player unless they are hopelessly attached to the game. If such a game didn’t have the FF title attached to it, it would be destined to fail. Even I, who has been here since day 1 of ARR, would bow out if that’s where the road to 7.0 leads. No gods, no kingdoms? Just more nation building and reforming because “king=bad democracy=good? and more abstract hope vs despair conflicts?” I’ll be gone faster than you know it.

Instead of more direct lifting and copy pasting the real world into FFXIV, here's my take on what Meracydia should look like (since of course they decided that it would have the shape of Austrailia, as can be seen from the moon), complete with an entire plot that draws inspiration from the wars on FFIX's Mist continent and monarchies from past titles-this is what I want to see instead of us fighting kangaroos and colonial powers next expansion:

https://i.imgur.com/80TY1Ea.jpeg

Them already mentioning that 7.x would involve a "conflict of morals" is giving me a vibe that we're going to be dealing with another "ends justify the means" sort of villain in a foreign land.

I do enjoy some level of political intrigue, but at the core of things as long as I'm getting to see new places and cultures and getting to punch more nasties in the face the game will hold my interest for the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Them already mentioning that 7.x would involve a "conflict of morals" is giving me a vibe that we're going to be dealing with another "ends justify the means" sort of villain in a foreign land.

I do enjoy some level of political intrigue, but at the core of things as long as I'm getting to see new places and cultures and getting to punch more nasties in the face the game will hold my interest for the future.

---

Honestly, I'm hoping we get more proper, 2.5 or Heavensward-level political intrigue. While I really love how they wrote Garlemald, as far as actual political maneuvering goes nothing all too intricate really happened.

2.5 and Heavensward were hampered by the writers still not knowing quite what they could fit into their workflows and story space (hence why the titular Heaven's Ward were barely factors), so I'd love to see what they could do if they circled around and, now that they have a much better idea of what fits into an expansion, just doing a story that's ALL politics.

That said, I'm a little worried about the idea that 7.0 will be a 'conflict of morals', because... well, if Endwalker has taught me anything it's that parts of this fanbase are real bad at those.

you have the problem that many people think political plots are boring though a common complaint about a lot of stories is they "waste" to much time on the politics a lot of people crave action that's why you have a lot of people who won't even watch cutscenes in the msq if it even hints at politics