Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

It's not 'impossible' to discuss Garlemald's morality as we've seen numerous examples of Garleans making decisions based on morality.

- Varis branding Zenos a 'monster' is an example of morality.
- Regula refusing to harm a child is an example of morality.
- Gaius refusing to approve of chemical warfare is an example of morality.
- Mixed opinions on Project Meteor, especially those speaking out against it is an example of morality.
- Baut being 'hard but fair' and being well liked by the people under his care is an example of morality.


To pretend as if there are no nuances does the setting and lore a major disservice, I feel. Garlemald has proven time and time again that it is a very mixed bag - there's horrific things that have been done, certainly, but much like the Roman and British Empires things are more complicated than it being a case of irredeemable invaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kallera

-snip-

---

As far as I see it, the biggest problem with the plot at the moment is that they made Zenos openly work against and denounce Garlemald which led to Garlemald losing not one but two provinces. This would be fine if it were openly acknowledged by the protagonists and plot that Zenos was an enemy and a detriment to both the protagonists and Garlemald. It doesn't help that Regula sacrificed his life to defend one of the Warrior of Light's allies only to never be brought up again afterwards. What was actually the point of his death if he could have been kept alive and show up to serve as a contrast to Zenos and a long term rival-and-friend to the Warrior of Light, eventually providing a direct voice of reason into the Emperor's ear due to their friendship? I guess his death will have meant something greater to the plot if Elidibus ends up taking on his appearance but if he doesn't then we're right back to square one.

I agree, though, in terms of Garlemald being more like Team Rocket these days. Magitek is supposed to be an immense threat and it's not as if the Garleans aren't developing new types of Magitek, either. Even those with no experience fighting Magitek - such as the Xaela - are now shown to be able to handle it easily despite Garlemald having met such success in the past because Magitek is supposed to be so fearsome and difficult to contend with even for seasoned combatants. I suppose most of it can be brushed off as 'Rule of Cool', though.

On the other hand, I'm not keen on the idea of Garlemald striking back. At this point, it's clear that Doma and Ala Mhigo are there to stay in their liberated state. I'm fine with that. Any counterattack, though, is inevitably going to be beaten back so I'd much prefer the two provinces to be left alone. I don't really want to see more 'liberation' plots moving forward, either. Things need to be more complicated and nuanced than simply miraculously succeeding at taking more and more territory from Garlemald until it has barely anything less and the Eorzean Alliance and their allies are instead the greatest force on Hydaelyn. Forcing Garlemald, the Warrior of Light and his allies to come together to oppose and bond over a greater threat would make for a much more compelling tale. One that isn't impossible, either.

If Garlemald lacking 'bite' isn't a step towards that, though, then things are going to be problematic.

When I say that Garlemald is amoral, I speak of the nation as a whole. Individuals within it may have particular moral leanings, but by and large all of Garlemald's decisions have been centered on aggressive expansion without thought to how it will impact the lives of the countries and territories it conquers (or even how it will impact the lives of its own citizens; re: Livia and Lucia are war orphans, likely of a war that the Empire started). It does not care who it has to kill and it does not care who it has to work with to achieve its goals. Individuals may object to the means, but the end is always the same - world domination under the guise of safekeeping. ("Let's bring peace to the world by violently conquering it!")

I'm an avid Magic player (well, when I can - 5 12s and an 8 kinda put the kibosh on that) who treats it as a game of philosophy, so here is how I reached the conclusion that Garlemald is amoral (Hideboxed for discretion):

I put Garlemald itself as being of a Mardu (Red/White/Black) bent. All individuals need not adhere to this philosophy, however; Varis strikes me as being closer to Esper (White/Blue/Black) in terms of alignment. Either way, Garlemald has consistently shown itself to be more concerned with its ruthless ambitions than whether or not its ambitions are good for anyone else (or even itself in the long run), so it has Black in the mix no matter how you slice it. It also has no concern for the natural world (beyond as something to rule) and a deep love of machines, so it has no Green. Ergo, the only alignments it falls under is Mardu (war is glorious, conquer whatever you can, disregard the cost) or Esper (calm, calculated, rational decision making to improve the world - this does not necessarily belie heroism, however).

Again, individuals can differ from their country's ethos. Gaius is presented as straight Mardu, but Regula is presented as Boros (Red/White - lacking Black's amorality and ambitious ruthlessness), while Zenos is presented as Rakdos (Black/Red - lacking White's desire for order in pursuit of his own selfish desires - or maybe he's Sultai. /shrug). As a sovereign nation, however, Garlemald has consistently shown the amorality, ruthlessness, and ambition of Black. Not all citizens agree with everything Garlemald does, but their nation still follows this course. (Or: not all US citizens thought going to war in Iraq was a good idea, but it still happened.)

A key thing to remember when discussing Magic philosophy is that no color is inherently good or evil - not even Black. Taken to extremes, however, this tends to happen - even White, ostensibly caring about the community and order, can be evil by mandating the sacrifice of individuals for the greater good and repressing freedom.

(/rant)

I've never said Garlemald is irredeemable. It is invasive, however, even if it invades under the guise of bettering the lives of the territories it invades (without considering that its idea of happiness may not line up with the local culture's idea of happiness, and disregarding the fact we've seen nobody's life improved by Imperial rule). Also note that amorality is different from immorality - the former does not concern itself with right and wrong, while the latter deliberately chooses to do the wrong thing. (Zenos, for example, is likely immoral.)

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VargasVermillion

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

---

It's the Empire treatment from Star Wars...

They need to demonstrate their power in some way soon. Let them actually kill a main character for once! I want to see the reason everyone fears them first-hand

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but I think it's worth considering that Garlemald is closer to a paper tiger than once assumed, and that much of its conquests rely on a combination of the element of surprise, enormous and overwhelming initial numbers, a secluded and entrenched capital, and the occasional brilliant strategist (ie, Gaius). Far from steamrolling over the forces of foreign barbarians, Garlean Magitek and industry seems to be plenty susceptible to magics and less-advanced weaponry; occupied lands would appear to be barely occupied (Ala Mhigo and Doma both had a token military presence and little else, with even that being the divided forces of a single Legion); and so on. This can be seen as incongruous, or it can be seen as revelatory - only further narrative development will make that clear - but I don't think it's necessarily contradictory that the Garlean military machine doesn't quite live up to the propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VargasVermillion

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

---

Those firing on him almost certainly weren't pure Garlean. Garleans aren't an exactly common race, and aren't the footsoldiers in their army either.

The thing is, Garlemald has shown that it does not rely on brute force alone to achieve its goals and shifts its approach and plans as needed. It values efficiency very highly and has a track record of being incredibly effective. For the sake of plot convenience the protagonists are never going to be wiped out. We know that - but as Vargas pointed out, Pureblood Garleans should have an advantage in regards to wielding firearms and aiming at a stationary target. It really does feel like the antagonists are deliberately 'gutted' in terms of their capabilities for the sake of 'Rule of Cool' moments. I went from liking Estinien to rolling my eyes when he emerged from his latest predicament unscathed. At least a few of the bullets should have struck him and caused him to take his leave whilst also having accomplished the goal he set out to do. A solid compromise since it's solidify the threat of Garlean weaponry but also allow Estinien to have his moment in the spotlight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PArcher

Those firing on him almost certainly weren't pure Garlean. Garleans aren't an exactly common race, and aren't the footsoldiers in their army either.

---

I'll have to rewatch the scene in question but I believe at least some of them were wearing the Centurion armour which is, as far as I can recall, a sign of the soldier within being a Pureblood. Even if they aren't Garlean Purebloods, though, Estinien was stationary - thus I believe the above point to still hold merit.

Not all Centurions are pureblood Garleans; case and point: Baut.

Estinien had cover from the railing and a great distance to keep him safe. The soldiers made no attempt to really aim, either.

Most of those centurions were purebloods, you could tell by the height difference generally speaking. Garleans on average are about as tall as elezen. Some cutscenes have a few hyurs, or just short garleans. It's quite impossible to truly know with the helms.
And while garleans aren't common within the army most of the officers are purebloods.

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corsinus

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.

---

I suspect it's also because Zenos killed people without good reason, or at least without good reason as seen from the Empire's perspective rather than Zenos's personal one.

We see Zenos kill his own subordinates twice on-screen, and hear of more instances (including flaying, which is above and beyond mere execution). This is not the action of an effective military commander, despite all we've been told of Zenos's tactical acumen.

Previously, we see Nero kill a man because he believed that man to be a spy. Summary, but technically justified in the Empire's view. Livia killed a subordinate for disobeying orders: this is closer to what Zenos did, and I would classify it as the same, but we only see it once, so we can't fully judge that, and my classification of it is just my own opinion.

In any case, the mindset of a man who kills because he is bored, or because the victim did not live up to his own personal bizarre expectations, would probably be enough for Varis to call Zenos a "monster". Not out of moral judgment, but out of practical judgment: such a person is too small-minded and unsuited for the throne.

Fusing with a Primal just confirmed Varis's view, in a "of course Zenos would do something like that" kind of way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

When I say that Garlemald is amoral, I speak of the nation as a whole.

---

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

It's all-too-easy for folks in power to throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, I know that this was wrong, but I had to do it because it was to the benefit of our stockholders citizens." Essentially, making decisions supported by practically no one in the nation - including the ones making them! - because they think they're obligated to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

---

More or less, politics is less about the actual reality of an situation and more of how best to convince people to agree in a particular set of actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

It's all-too-easy for folks in power to throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, I know that this was wrong, but I had to do it because it was to the benefit of our stockholders citizens." Essentially, making decisions supported by practically no one in the nation - including the ones making them! - because they think they're obligated to.

---

That is the gist of what I'm getting at, I suppose. Still, given Garlemald is a military dictatorship, the nation and it's leader(s) are practically synonymous. Individuals may speak out against their nation's decisions, but since the Garlean people have no power in their government, they are forced to do as Varis says. (Well... unless a populist uprising were to occur...)

Corporations are a bit different, since they actually are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, but the principle is the same I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Corporations are a bit different, since they actually are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders

---

this is 100% not true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

this is 100% not true.

---

Well... it's KINDA true, at least if the browsing I did was accurate. While not required to take any opportunity to maximize profits, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders - which may, on occasion, mean sacrificing profit for one reason or another.

On the other hand, this could still be interpreted as maximizing profits, as sacrificing profits in this way is USUALLY intended to promote the health and well-being of the corporation as a whole over the long term. For example, donating to charity reduces shareholder profits, but gives the corporation a good public image that benefits them in the long term, whereas outsourcing to cheap foreign labor that's barely better than slavery may improve shareholder profits, but can be quite ugly in the public eye and reduces profits as the public loses faith.

Naturally, this does not stop corporate executives from choosing either (or both!) plans, depending on how they judge their fiduciary responsibilities. As far as I can tell, legally speaking it's an EXTREMELY murky area that basically boils down to whether the executives can convince the courts that, yes, the decisions that brought them under legal scrutiny were NOT intended to bring harm to some or all of the stakeholders.

Nevertheless, however we want to interpret corporate responsibilities, Cilia's right in that there's no greater legal power restricting Garlean leadership. While it's not fair to say that they're TOTALLY unfettered (there's always the possibility of a civil uprising if they get too out-of-hand, and the various families in power also keep each other in check to one degree or another), they can pretty much make or change their own laws as they see fit.

I will say that I've throughly enjoyed this thread and everyone's input. Lots of great well thought out posts.

It's clear to me that I have a very differant sense of what's right and wrong compared to most people. My moral code and ethics run counter to most posters in this thread. For example, Zenos is the only character in SB that I can really identify and sympathize with, while I find Lyse utterly reprehensible.

It's been fascinating reading others thoughts on SB, it's like we played two differant games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

-snip-

---

Why is that?

Things are never as simple as we make them out to be.

So let's take a look at this problem from both Garlean and Eorzean perspectives.

Garlean: she did her duty; however, I don't think anything she could have done to gain respect for Ala Mhigans in the empire. Most garleans really didn't seem to care much about her or her men, and were essentially kind of like a 'Oh, why can't you be like these people.' then a, 'I wanna join them when I come of age!' It's pretty clear that the garleans had no respect for her and were questioning why a dog trying so hard to act like a person. Under someone like Gaius, she would have thrived, but Zenos corrupted her, and turned her from a person with reasonable goals and expectation, to an unrepentant soldier who followed orders without question.

Eorzean: She is an odd person, someone who is working with the occupying force IN the region that she is from. This is an oddity in Garlean orders since most conscripts are sent to different nations to work. When we were there for our 50-51 quests, she was just at the level of a basic recruit. When we came back at like 57ish she had gained strenght to act as an appropriate level enemy. The she went through 'Resonanceing' and gave the order that is central to this entire conundrum. As Arenvald said, "She was given the world, all in exchange for her soul."

Personally, I think that she should be classified as monstrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SendohJin

this is 100% not true.

---

Trueish. I stand corrected. Corporations are not legally obligated to maximize profits, but they are legally obligated to act in the interest of their shareholders... which often means maximizing profits. Some corporations are actually shady enough to deliberately break laws because paying the fine is cheaper than staying within legal boundaries. Some corporations do try to go green as per their shareholders' wishes, but are still bound by profit first and foremost.

... but I digress...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xie_Belvoule

It's clear to me that I have a very differant sense of what's right and wrong compared to most people. My moral code and ethics run counter to most posters in this thread. For example, Zenos is the only character in SB that I can really identify and sympathize with, while I find Lyse utterly reprehensible.

---

To me, Zenos is a tragic but not sympathetic character. As Lyse says, he wasn't always a wild dog of war, and was (to a degree) shaped into one by his upbringing and environment. While Zenos did do many, many terrible things to a great many people, he was only a symptom of Garlean social problems, just as Yotsuyu is a symptom of Doman social problems. Not gonna lie, Zenos was stark raving nuts... but he regarded you as his first friend and entrusted the future to you, in his own twisted way. Still had to be stopped, but knowing that he grew up seemingly friendless and was made into the monster he was by Garlemald... I just can't bring myself to hate Zenos.

I feel Lyse was mishandled a bit by the writing. I'll also ask why you found her, ah, reprehensible.

My stance on Fordola has not changed: she did some monstrous things, but showed honest guilt over it, so I do not believe she is a monster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corsinus

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.

---

The thing is, Zenos is a textbook psychopath. He takes no pleasure in killing, he feels nothing. The reason why he tortures and plays with his victims (including the people of the lands colonized by the Empire) is to make them hate him to the point that he might feel some form of satisfaction in killing them. And he jeopardizes the empire in this selfish pursuit. Think about it, he couldve crushed the Doman and Ala Mhigan resistance and killed you and your allies with ease. After he trampled Rhalgr's Reach, he knew that your forces were still there. He couldve eliminated them completely and then turn his attention to the Eorzian Alliance who already struggled holding Castrum Oriens.

Come to think of it, in a way, he had the same goal as Lyse to an extent. To rouse the populace to stand up against him. But instead of inspiring people to fight for a better future, he was whipping a caged dog in an attempt to make it vicious. But to his chagrin, the dog would only cower with its tail between its legs. Except for Fordola and Yotsuyu, and thats why he promoted them.

imo this is why Varis didnt seem to give a hoot about losing his son. He was a liability and a emotionless murderer. A monster. A rabid beast that needed to be put down.

I think someone had mentioned that Fordola couldn't envision a future where Zenos is defeated, and I think that's actually a very valid point. I think it was implied by her words when she was captured that she knew about Zenos having Shinyru under lock and key. That is to say, she knew that Zenos was basically withholding a nuke, and that the resistance really had zero chance of survival. Zenos had multiple opportunities to utterly wipe the resistance and everything about it clean off the map. Furthermore, he had already bested the so called slayer of gods not once, but twice! With that kind of firepower at his disposal, what's the point in defying his order to fire the cannon? He's certainly going to kill you, and fire the cannon himself anyway, further making all the sacrifices in vain. It kinda ties into an earlier point that she honestly believed that Lyse and friends had damned Ala Mhigo to destruction.

It really is truly only by both sheer dumb luck and gross incompetence that Ala Mhigo was liberated. I hope more than anything that in the inevitable posturing about how Lyse's path was "right" and how Fordola "made the wrong choices"; that their "victory" was only made possible by the WoL and no one else. They can say all they want about how they helped set the thing up, but the fact is had the WoL jobbed to Shinryu, it would have all been for nothing, and they'd have all died anyway. I feel like they won't touch on this, and that Lyse will likely go on about how her path was the right one and yada yada.

I wouldn't say Fordola's a monster yet, at least not for the cannon incident. To me she was acting under duress and a bit of self preservation (seeing as she knew she cheated death several times, and would certainly be killed for failing this last time). However, I think that she could possibly become one. I can see the redemption going horribly wrong and she becomes one out of pure spite, similar to how Ilberd lost his way. There are a number of directions this story can take, but I firmly believe that it's gonna be a downer ending no matter what.

I also believe that Ala Mhigo is gonna destroy itself via civil war, but that's for another thread

But if she had known that he has such power and such a beast behind him, why should they even care that they might lose that one place to the alliance? I mean the only one that stands a change against such a beast is the WoL which Fordola probably did not know either so why taking out a part of your military when Zenos could wipe them out anyway? I mean yes we knew the reason why Zenos did not do that but did Fordola really knew it? (That he would not wipe them out completely to ensure that they will hate him even more) Also not sure if Zenos was even near the cannon so I cant believe that he would have shot it himself. Anyway in the end this might have been her death but that all falls back to the question if its still a right decision to shot because your own life is in danger or if you should die and protect others from being killed.

And I agree that its quite obvious that the only reason Ala Mhigo (and partly Doma too) was only liberated thanks to the WoL but also because of Zenos. Thus I am honestly do not feel great about that victory because it only happened thanks to them writing Zenos in such a way..it just feels to me, that the only reason he existed, was to give us a chance to liberate them and I honestly find that just bad writing. (But thats just my opinion on this)

Same reason why American troops fight even with weapons that can decimate the populace wholesale, they only know they have it, the decision to use it is not theirs. Fordola cannot order Zenos to use his trick with Shinryu, now could she? But she did know he was known to decomate his opposition easily, and using Shinryu was certainly one way to decimate the opposition easily...had it been used in ANY OTHER WAY IMAGINABLE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kallera

Fordola cannot order Zenos to use his trick with Shinryu, now could she? But she did know he was known to decomate his opposition easily, and using Shinryu was certainly one way to decimate the opposition easily...had it been used in ANY OTHER WAY IMAGINABLE.

---

I still wonder if she even knew about his power. At least the story never showed us this so we can only assume. Also till the very end she believed that Garlemald would not lose (and they would not have if we were not there) so its still a big question why they wanted to keep that one post with all costs? And it still remains if she should just have risked her own life in exchange for the lives of all the other soldiers (and her own comrades). But that probably depends all on personal opinion. At least ingame the alliance was more than shocked by such an action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

I still wonder if she even knew about his power. At least the story never showed us this so we can only assume. Also till the very end she believed that Garlemald would not lose (and they would not have if we were not there) so its still a big question why they wanted to keep that one post with all costs? And it still remains if she should just have risked her own life in exchange for the lives of all the other soldiers (and her own comrades). But that probably depends all on personal opinion. At least ingame the alliance was more than shocked by such an action.

---

It's probably just that Zenos wanted to see how far he could push Fordola until she broke while also wanting to keep fanning the Alliance and rebellion's hatred of him. It'd be easy enough to rationalize to the sane, since it stalled our offensive(and could have stopped it if not for Estinien) on Castrum Abania.

One could probably make whole threads questioning the sanity of continually letting the fate of military offensives, nations, and even standing up for yourself, rest on whether one particular person is moved to violence for or against.

As far as to whether Fordola is a monster, consider the devestation one shot did to the offensive, it killed the resistence commander and put the attackers dead to rights. 2-3 would have stopped the offensive entirely, leaving the Resistance crippled and key officers/ the WoL dead. So I'm not going to judge it too harshly, especially since:

1. It took Estinien, the most Ala Mihgan of Ala Mihgans, to show up From the plot hole he came from to stop it.

2. We're kind of a load bearing boss of Eorzean superiority/morality as it stands.

Monster, not a monster, what confuses me is why she was kept alive. Hacked and slashed our way through hundreds of conscripts to get at her, why does her life matter so much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Monster, not a monster, what confuses me is why she was kept alive. Hacked and slashed our way through hundreds of conscripts to get at her, why does her life matter so much?

---

Because while we kill in battle, I'm not sure we ever execute the captured.

Lyse I am afraid still fails from a hard-headedness that is going to take a long time to break. She things clearly to black and white of "us" verses "them" when we know as the hero of light and experience it is not that easy. Lyse has a lot to learn I think and needs to stop jump to conclusions or getting so angry all the time. Tge Fordola case is an indication of this. Yes she is Ala Mighan, but she was born and grew up in Garlemald controlled Ala Migho and deal with the psycho path that was Zenos, which I question at times if he too was simply the way he was due to how Garlemald operates and the experiments done on him, as well as all the "pure-blood" Garlemald generals. Anyone born in that atmosphere doesn't now any better and would go to extremes to be recognized as being a valuable asset to the Empire because if she didn't Zenos would have kilked her. We have extremely effective, or was, brain washed soldier Fordola verses very black & white, needs to grow up quickly leader Lyse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Because while we kill in battle, I'm not sure we ever execute the captured.

---

It's also hard canon that the WoL regrets just about every death at their hands, despite predominantly killing for defensive reasons. I'm not sure where the idea that the WoL is some kind of coldhearted butcher got so much traction when the DRK quests completely contradict it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Because while we kill in battle, I'm not sure we ever execute the captured.

---

The Eorzean Alliance is not known to execute POWs. Garlean propaganda says that we do, which was why the townspeople of Ala Ghiri were so unwilling to give up Baut. However we did not execute Baut (he is in fact pardoned for good conduct), did not execute the Garlean soldier we helped in the wake of the incident at Specula Imperatoris (he is, to our knowledge, still alive - albeit in jail), did not execute Fordola, and did not execute the POWs we took after capturing Ala Mhigo (they are shown being marched through the streets with Fordola in one of 4.0's closing scenes). Hell, even Zenos might still be alive, had he not committed suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daralii

It's also hard canon that the WoL regrets just about every death at their hands, despite predominantly killing for defensive reasons. I'm not sure where the idea that the WoL is some kind of coldhearted butcher got so much traction when the DRK quests completely contradict it.

---

Killing is sinful, and we knowingly and willingly do so. Repeatedly and on a pretty grand scale. This makes it very, very easy to paint the Warrior of Light as a remorseless killer by ignoring the fact we fight and kill primarily to restore peace and/or freedom, or to preserve the well-being of others.

... but if one must kill the guilty to save the innocent... which is the greater sin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Hell, even Zenos might still be alive, had he not committed suicide.

---

Doubtful.

https://i.imgur.com/zkh9bdk.jpg

(/10char)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Doubtful.

https://i.imgur.com/zkh9bdk.jpg

(/10char)

---

I can pretty easily see them pulling a Batman-type deal, where the WoL refuses to kill Zenos because they know that becoming an executioner could easily set them down the same path Zenos walked. It would also mirror Lyse's refusal to outright execute Fordola after her defeat. The Alliance would be pissed, but what are they gonna do about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Doubtful.

---

I know. The point I'm getting at is that everyone says killing is wrong, but had absolutely no problem with killing Zenos because of the threat he posed. If you're going to criticize taking the lives of others, then all lives hold equal value - just because Zenos was a monster in human skin doesn't mean it was OK to go at him with the intent to kill, by that standard.

I acknowledge that killing Zenos was necessary. So, too, was killing those who guarded him with their lives. Doesn't mean it was fun or acceptable - not even Zenos. We did it because it was necessary. Practice compassion and mercy... but know when they must end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daralii

I can pretty easily see them pulling a Batman-type deal, where the WoL refuses to kill Zenos because they know that becoming an executioner could easily set them down the same path Zenos walked. It would also mirror Lyse's refusal to outright execute Fordola after her defeat. The Alliance would be pissed, but what are they gonna do about it?

---

To, uhh... not kill Zenos after slaughtering our way through the Garlean ranks garrisoned at Ala Mhigo would be... extremely hypocritical. The poetic point stands, but given the threat he posed not killing Zenos would be really stupid. Lucia outright tells us that with him it's kill or be killed. (I still would have at least tried to keep him alive as a political bargaining chip.)

I mean, the entire point of Zenos - by Yoshi-P's own admission - is that he was created with the intention of making a character who players would not sympathise with.

Zenos deserved to be killed without hesitation. He revealed that he cared nothing for Garlemald, he only wanted a 'good fight'. Which means that he toyed with his enemies and his own allies alike for no reason other than to sate his boredom. Countless lives were lost because of his actions. He was also very likely to have been a bad apple all along and him not 'having friends' could easily be a result of people being too terrified of him to get close enough to him rather than because of his upbringing. His father, for instance, is described in the lore book as having grown up playing with Regula in the Royal Palace which resulted in a strong friendship that spanned decades. So it's not as if being a Garlean Pureblood of high standing negates the opportunity to befriend others.

Then, of course, there's the matter of experimentation. His father sent Aulus - the man responsible for Resonant experiments - away. It was Zenos who approached Aulus and willingly empowered himself, no doubt in a similar manner to how he willingly merged with Shinryu. His father's commentary in regards to Zenos being a 'monster' is right on the ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I mean, the entire point of Zenos - by Yoshi-P's own admission - is that he was created with the intention of making a character who players would not sympathise with.

---

And that is why I dislike SB compared to HW. Anyone who would knowingly tries to create a character with absolutely no chance of redemption or empathize with, would find that it is actually quite impossible to do so. There are yet those who would empathize with Zenos, hell, they even gave us the option themselves in the dialogue to acknowledge him. The simple fact that the Garlean emperor, a cold man, has no pity and empathy for his own son perhaps shows us that it's not right to write ppl off like that, and there is even the argument that writing them off so easily can be part of the reason they turn into monsters. If there is any character redemption arc for Fordola and Yotsuyu at all, then the same mercy should be granted to Zenos. In fact, the only reason that I might be persuaded to hold SB in a good light compared to HW by now is if even Zenos himself is redeemed. Then I will trust in miracles, "Final" "Fantasy", and this expansion again.

So yes, a Zenos redemption arc would truly make this expansion amazing again. And if the developers are truly as great as they are they'd realize the potential in pulling of something like that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Because while we kill in battle, I'm not sure we ever execute the captured.

---

Well, we execute those tempered by primals, & we know shes had some Garlean experimental echo thing done. Best to play it safe IMO.

Nah, I'm not that bothered by her capture, I just don't really have high expectations for what they'll do with her character. I'm expecting some rather cliched redemption arc, maybe, I'm probably being needlessly pessimistic.

Quote:

---

Anyone who would knowingly tries to create a character with absolutely no chance of redemption or empathize with, would find that it is actually quite impossible to do so.

---

Have you ever met a genuine sociopath? Someone who actually has anti-social disorder? These people are downright TERRIFYING. If you don't believe me, YouTube has various interviews will well known mass murderers describing their actions. They are chilling. It's very hard to portray that in a video game.

Quote:

---

There are yet those who would empathize with Zenos, hell, they even gave us the option themselves in the dialogue to acknowledge him.

---

As the Warrior of Light, our place is to constantly be fighting and to be separate from our peers. In us, he sees a kindred individual.

Quote:

---

The simple fact that the Garlean emperor, a cold man, has no pity and empathy for his own son perhaps shows us that it's not right to write ppl off like that, and there is even the argument that writing them off so easily can be part of the reason they turn into monsters.

---

Unless Zenos was like that from the start.

I am not wanting to start a big discussion about Zenos but I also found it a bit funny how they wanted to create someone that is unlikeable and yet we have more than enough people who liked him and who even wanted to join his side. (Nothing wrong with that imo) So either they changed their stance on him or they have not managed to portray him as bad as they hoped.

The WoL might like to fight but imo they are still far away from being like him. They might have become more like him if they never had comrades but still he feels more of a "what if" WoL then someone we could truly relate too.

And like Lyse said nobody is born that way. There are many discussion in real life too, if some people are simple born that way and yes there are hints that sociopath do have certain brain scans but those are just one point. A lot of other factors are important on top of that to make someone a sociopath. I know that this is not real life but I do believe that the lore creators put Lyses sentence there to hint that he was not born that way.