After beating your dark side into submission, it says you can call on them whenever you want to drop the charade. Your dark self seems...happy when it says this, but I kind of don't understand why. Help me?
Question about LV50 Dark Knight quest *Spoilers*
Printable View
-
08-28-2015, 01:34 PMMilesSaintboroguhQuestion about LV50 Dark Knight quest *Spoilers*
-
08-28-2015, 01:56 PMCilia
All just my personal interpretation, but...
Our dark side is essentially our psychological shadow archetype; everything present in our psyche that we deny (that we're sick and tired of being everyone's tool for fixing problems, and the psychological damage we suffered in the wake of 2.x). Going with the pseudo-Persona thing DRK 30-50 has going on, our shadow doesn't want us to deny it; despite attacking us, our shadow wants us to accept it as a part of us.
The shadow only exists because we denied what it represents in our psyche. If we accept it, there's no reason for it to be angry with us. The fight was, essentially, a veiled test of our strength. -
08-28-2015, 07:05 PMAeliott
^Indeed. You could see it as "accepting" that part of ourselves, acknowledging its feelings, but choosing not to succumb to them. Our "dark side" is content with this after the battle, which I guess is partly why they're smiling, but gives us a parting reminder that if we ever really really get sick of it all, (s)he's still going to be there ready to turn his/her back on all the crap you didn't ask for, like they frequently suggested throughout the quests. I get the impression that side of us is very confident we won't be able to resist that urge forever and is feeling kinda happy about that thought.
-
08-28-2015, 08:51 PMMilesSaintboroguh
That's kind of creepy to know, though I think the idea will probably never be revisited since it's "concluded".
-
08-29-2015, 12:08 AMEisen-Zorn
The "Darkside" is actually the Self-Esteem of the character. They are the embodiment of the character's feelings of self-worth, and the Dark Knight stone gave it the power to take form in Fray's body and its own form at the end. The reason why your character accepts the "Darkside" at the end of the quest is because it was already a part of you. The Warrior of Light has probably been harboring resentment and animosity towards the people of Eorzea, secretly, for some time. The constant demands and ungrateful attitudes of the citizens of Eorzea would definitely weigh on people over time.
This is why your Esteem becomes enraged when the merchant and others take you for granted. The "Darkside" basically loves you more than anyone, and it finally decides that, to protect you from others, it needs to become dominant. It believes, at first, that it can convince you to allow this because of your desire to learn the ways of the Dark Knight. However, your good and compassionate nature proves too strong to allow your "Darkside" to take over completely.
You fight your "Darkside", and, in the end, come out victorious. The Esteem, however, still worries that the people of Eorzea will abuse you and use you only as their weapon. Still, it is willing to try it your way, but with the promise that if you ever get tired of being used by the people, it will be there to take over and protect you from the world. You reconcile with your "Darkside" and the two of you become one once again.
I put "Darkside" in quotations because, to be honest, the Esteem personality isn't so much dark as it is protective. Its flaw was that it, being the embodiment of your self-worth, valued itself above all others. However, that's not necessarily a dark quality, but more of a preservationist quality considering your history. -
08-29-2015, 01:41 AMMilesSaintboroguh
Protecting you from yourself huh?
-
08-29-2015, 02:38 AMCilia
Well, it's your shadow; everything you deny and repress in your psyche. Think of it as a photo-negative of the Warrior of Light's personality: the WoL will constantly and willingly throw themselves into danger for others, so the shadow would rather avoid unnecessary conflict because it's risking your life. It's fight or flight, and we always choose to fight, so our shadow has no problem fleeing any unnecessary conflict.
Your shadow just wants to make you happy, and as your repressed "darkness" (selfishness, among other things) wants you to live for yourself. Its relationship with you is... complicated, to say the least, but that's going to happen when you make a character something besides "Eorzea's hope." -
08-29-2015, 03:22 AMFenral
2.X had a tiny little problem with self-sacrifice. It was more than a little obsessed, and completely and utterly genre-blind in it's portrayal of those sacrifices, which would be great, if the notion of the stoic self-sublimating hero hadn't been prime deconstruction fodder in fantasy RPGs for the past fifteen-odd years. I mean, it's great that Yoshida had the whole team play WoW when working on this game, but would it have killed him to look at a modern JRPG or three while he was at it?
The Dark Knight story is just one tiny baby step towards acknowledging an entire genre that was more or less ignored by the entirety of 2.X, but I'm hoping it doesn't stop there. -
08-29-2015, 07:25 AMCiliaUnfortunately, after the mask is forcibly ripped off by the shadow during the 50 quest, you put it back on and go back to being the all-loving, humble doormat of a hero you've always been. The closest you get to actually being able to play the proper role of a Dark Knight during 3.0 is swearing to kill Zephirin in revenge, and even the DRK 50-60 quest is rather like every other job quest in the game (you go back to helping out someone else). It is a bit more cerebral than most Job quests (just a bit), but the 50-60 line is ultimately not about you, which (I think) was the best thing about the 30-50 line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Funny enough, deconstructing the "epic hero" archetype started back with VII's Cloud before fanon turned him into an angsty brooding loner. 2.x was a reconstruction of that archetype on the surface in regards to the PC, but the DRK 30-50 line takes the archetype and rips it to shreds, showing just how little self-worth someone like the Warrior of Light probably has (even after the shadow offers to set you free, the Warrior of Light chooses to remain everyone's "Weapon of Light" because, arguably, it's the only worth they find in themselves).
Unfortunately most people play the game to be a superhero, not a real hero, so it's unlikely we'll ever get a full deconstruction of the altruistic, self-sacrificing hero role the Warrior of Light is cast in. Remember the complaining about how 2.5.5's ending made the WoL fallible again? It'd be that but 10x worse if we ran into something we were too psychologically stressed to deal with.
(Can't comment on NPCs, because that's up to their character, who I don't write. But given the WoL is designed to be a tabula rasa on which the player can project themselves, and most people play this game for the heroic fantasy, it's unlikely the WoL will ever be truly vulnerable. Thus, acting like a real person invites scorn on the writing.) -
08-29-2015, 08:04 AMMilesSaintboroguh
There's always future stuff for DRK if we get another level cap raise.
But also, I think Square simply couldn't let us deviate too much from what we want our WOL to be from the DRK quest series since you could have people who never done the DRK quests and wonder why their friends suddenly have a totally different character. Regardless of that, the WOL will always be the good guy for the common people and the realm and will always do the right thing because it's what Square wants. -
08-29-2015, 10:26 AMFenralUh, Tales of Phantasia would like to have words with you (granted that was more of a final knife twist than a full deconstruction, and even then not the first), but you're more or less correct about how, in-series, hero deconstructing started with VII. I certainly would never try to imply that FF14's writers haven't played any Final Fantasy beyond FF1 up to Matoya's Cave, FF3 up to the end of the Floating Continent, and the World of Balance arc of FF6, because that would just be a cheap shot. XIV doesn't really count as a reconstruction of anything, because aside from the DRK storyline, any obviously unfortunate implications are either handwaved or ignored entirely. A reconstruction only happens when those implications are faced head-on and addressed properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
2.0 lived and (violently) died by the idea that NPCs exist solely to reflect an image onto the player. They may have had a complicated childhood, burgeoning powers they barely understand, be your only link to a shadowy organization that surely can't be totally irrelevant to the ongoing plot, or even a fellow chosen one, but none of that actually matters. Even if Minfilia's every (in)action negates what characterization she's been given, what matters is that you understand your role in shaping the future, and that someone with strictly informed importance is telling you how important you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
3.0 is all about how there's a better way, and that NPCs can be more than just people who order you around. Arguably it needed 2.0 in order to enhance the contrast, but ultimately, those same people who proved to you that they, too, could do things on their own were rewarded by a half half dozen oddly-shaped bridges falling on them simply to ensure that, when the dust settles, you are still the only one left capable of doing anything positive for anyone.
So we're still stuck as the one and only hero, but they're trying. I think. -
08-29-2015, 12:19 PMCiliaPedantic argument over what JRPG was the first deconsctruction aside (Phantasia doesn't wholly count in my book because it's a straight hero story up to the ending, you just fought a bad guy with understandable and noble intentions if not methods), I said 2.0 was a reconstruction because it acknowledges that the world is crap but there's still a hero who will fight for what's right a la the Captain America movie. Just my personal interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Anyway, I'm not entirely sure we are the hero. None of the stories in the game, none of them, are about us except the DRK 30-50 line. 2.0? Resolving a Garlean threat with the Alliance. 3.0? Ending the Dragonsong War (it's about Ishgard and the Dravanians).
Jobs? Just the ones I've done...
LNC: Foulques dealing with racism and guilt (ends tragically).
DRG: Estinien trying to overcome his fear.
ACN: Helping K'lyhia get over her PTSD from being enslaved by Doesmaga.
SCH: Learning about Nymian history and culture.
SMN: Helping Y'mhitra relearn lost Allagan summoning arts, and watching Tristan fall into darkness.
ROG: Getting Miala to realize the Rogues' Guild is the Limsan MI6, not a gang of thugs.
NIN: Doman culture, as well as Oboro becoming less stuck in dogma.
GLA: The complicated relationship between Mylla, Aldis, and Leavold.
MCH: Getting Ishgard to accept machinistry as a viable war asset (especially House Dzmael, was it?).
DRK (50-60): The negative impact of dogma (as if we need more evidence of this), as well as what it truly means to care for someone.
I'd argue we're only sort of the hero in 2.0; the protagonist role was shuffled around depending on where you were. The starter arc had you as the hero, the Ul'dah arc was mostly Thancred and a little more exposition, the Limsa arc was Y'shtola (you were just muscle), the Coerthas arc was (re)introducing Cid and Alphinaud, and Operation Archon was reuniting the Grand Alliance and exploring Gaius. 2.x was largely about political strife in Ul'dah. The Crystal Tower was about G'raha and some of the history of Allag. 3.0 is, once again, resolving the Dragonsong War. We're always just muscle, something our shadow gladly points out during the 50 quest (s/he calls us "[everyone's] Weapon of Light").
We're just an unstoppable force. The story's not really about us, our character. Except the DRK 30-50 line. -
08-29-2015, 12:29 PMMilesSaintboroguh
What do you suggest could be done about this?
-
08-29-2015, 12:57 PMFenralI know you've said before that you don't raid, but please, at some point, somehow, do the Binding Coil story (a 5-man group at level 60 is more than enough now). The "meaning" of the Warrior of Light is explored in more detail there than in any other story in the game, so why they locked it behind 11 stupidly difficult raid bosses (and two puzzle floors) is simply baffling. It causes me great pain to say it, but what the Crystal Tower attempted to do with G'raha is only an uninspired knockoff what was actually achieved with Alisaie's character arc. I'm still unsure if the ironic echo was intentional or not. (I do still love G'raha, but only because I believe he still has his own unrealized potential.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
-
08-29-2015, 03:12 PMCiliaThe problem is... nothing really can be done about it. The Warrior of Light is a silent protagonist to further sell the "blank slate" on which every player can project their personality. Since the WoL has to be a blank slate, s/he can't really have a personality, so s/he can't be the central character of the storyline.Quote:
Originally Posted by MilesSaintboroguh
DRK 30-50 is a special case because it deals with stress common to every PC. Otherwise, there's no way to tell how X PC would deal with the situation, so we have to be a blank, faceless "white soldier."
While I don't raid, I have watched most of the important Coil cutscenes. What I got from the Coil cutscenes is, again, you are the stoic badass who can endure anything, even striking down the sage-hero (that may very well be your mentor) who saved the world from untold ruin and continuing to shoulder the burden of being "Eorzea's hope." That's the only thing it really said about the Warrior of the Light - the rest was about Alisae, though Nael was touched on in the Second Coil and Alphinaud and Louisoix became more important in the Final Coil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Louisoix spares you a few words and entrusts you with the task of being "Eorzea's hope," but besides that and as muscle to kill stuff you can be taken out and the story could continue.
The DRK 30-50 quest explores your suffering. Your inner conflict. Your sorrow. Your despair. Your desire. We wear the mask of "Eorzea's hope" and fight the battles no one else can or will, but beneath the mask of "Eorzea's hope" we're struggling and suffering. Nothing else in the game acknowledges this. Every other story in the game can happen without the Warrior of Light because they exist to make others' wishes come true; we are, in essence, the savior everyone wants, not a flawed person with desires of their own. The line in question is the only one that denies "Eorzea's hope" is our true character and deals with the Warrior of Light's selfish wish - to be freed of the endless cycle of conflict and suffering. -
08-29-2015, 11:43 PMFenralAnd Final Fantasy (the first one) says "hi." Even if your role is to be the hired muscle, the fact remains that the plot can't advance without you being there. G'raha even has a line to that effect when you go to Syrcus Tower with Unei and Doga.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
And that's why FFXIV can never be a reconstruction of the epic hero archetype. It may try to tease the possibility of more complex notions of good and evil, but ultimately our "good" is still "objectively good," and deviating from that is "selfish." Until they do something with it later, the great weakness of CT's finale is that, as soon as "the ancient's wish" became known, rather than actually stop and weigh that wish against the Tower's troubled history, G'raha's own desires, or the good he can do with that knowledge in the present, the "decision" is made offscreen. His "sacrifice" is simply presented as the only correct choice, and not even a choice at all, as nobody in the party is capable of disagreeing with notions the writers perceive as "objective good." We're stuck in a story that tries to have moral grey areas, but refuses to relinquish its objective morality, instead either ignoring contradictions or discrediting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
I'm currently of the opinion that "Hydaelyn's Champion" would probably have let Yuna go through with the Final Summoning, as its benefit to the majority was obvious enough that no further discussion was really needed ("10 years of peace for the price of one weepy doormat? Sold!"). Of course we'd always remember her and the beautiful sacrifice she made, and we'd live on to honor that memory in the world she made at the cost of her life.
I brought up Tales of Phantasia because, for its time, it cared to posit that even actions that seem like they benefit everyone are still a product of a protagonist-centric morality, just one that the majority agrees with. The Tales series since then has a good track record for accepting its protagonist-centric morality, and later Final Fantasy games as well, by accepting that even that "selfish" morality is still capable of positive change. So long as FFXIV continues to hide behind Hydaelyn's crystal skirts, however, our morality is the one "true" good before which all others must yield, no matter who tries to say otherwise. Every time Elidbus and his entirely-too-young voice show up, I hope FFXIV will start recognizing the folly of presenting its morality as absolute, but it hasn't happened yet.
I'd really love to see the branching quest outcomes from 1.X brought back at some point, even superficially. It wouldn't need to change everything ever, just give players a sense that their own decisions actually contributed to the outcome everyone would have attributed entirely to them anyway. -
08-30-2015, 12:56 AMMilesSaintboroguh
I think what we're falling back on is "let us determine the outcome because WOL=us". The closest thing we're getting so far is choosing how to react or reply when prompted and that's it. Final Fantasy always had linear stories and I don't see that changing anytime soon, especially for a game like this one where simply missing out on anything because of a choice you did or did not make will generate complaining from players.
-
08-30-2015, 04:53 AMCiliaTechnically true but our presence is a bit arbitrary. If you cut out the fight sequences and NPCs took initiative, there's no real need for us to be in +95% of the content. We aren't really a character, per sé, just a tool to kill whatever is in the way of the real characters. Crystal Tower, for instance, could happen completely without us if G'raha were a skilled enough fighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
I mean, I understand why that is. (And I have played the original Final Fantasy.) It's a limitation that comes with adding MMO to the RPG. It's just... kinda annoying sometimes, especially when RPGs and Final Fantasy have mostly evolved past the "silent protagonist" archetype or at least give you a personal impetus to go on the adventure. Here you immigrate to a city-state looking to become an adventurer, and end up getting roped into being the world's savior with all that implies.
The problem with that is, thus far, there is very little moral grey area. The Dragonsong War is a bit morally grey, but aside from Thordan and the Knights starting the war 1000 years ago, Ishgard's plight is portrayed entirely sympathetically. (Understandably, since everyone but the upper echelons of the Church are in the dark.) Everything we do is objectively good, since it all minimizes suffering. What NPCs do isn't up to us, and we can't object to boneheaded stunts like G'raha pulled because of the silent protagonist angle. We respect everyone's decisions because we are, again, just a tool to fulfill others' desires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Would the Warrior of Light let Yuna go though with the Final Summoning? Probably, because we respect everyone's decisions even if they're boneheaded. At the same time we'd probably not let it end there, and embark on a long journey to find a way to defeat Sin forever in those 10 years. Expecting victory without cost is just unrealistic; even if Yuna doesn't die, Tidus does unless you get the Perfect Ending in X-2. Minimizing casualties is nice, but sometimes people have to die or sacrifice themselves for the greater good...
It's not so much that the game portrays selfishness as bad, but that selfish actions are completely unavailable. We don't have a morality. The Scions have a morality, the Alliance has a morality, Ishgard has a morality, but we're just a tool to fix their problems. Tools don't have morality. Everything we do so far has been portrayed positively, but it's not our will - it's because Hydaelyn said to do it, or because we've a debt to pay. It's Hydaelyn's morality that really needs to be questioned, because everything revolves around "Hydaelyn / Light = good, Zodiark / Darkness = bad." (Really hope Elidibus shakes up that notion sometime soon.)
The Warrior of Light still isn't able to take selfish actions, and as the DRK 50 quest suggests selfishness is bad here. (I'd like to go Dark Knight on some wenches who are essentially mugging a man in the lower area of Limsa, and steal Animus books from G'jusana since she's extorting people for tomestones, but noooooooo...)
... it's not even about having branching quest outcomes that are ultimately meaningless (that's just an illusion of choice). It's about having our character's personality influence the story, or exploring who we are beyond "Eorzea's hope" / "Hydaelyn's Champion." Which will never happen except in bits and pieces (and absolutely never affect the MSQ) because we're blank slates to be written as each player sees fit. -
08-30-2015, 05:30 AMFenralThe problem Final Fantasy XIV is running into is that it's trying to be a "classic" "chosen by the crystal" story, but it came out hot on the heels of Fabula Nova Crystallis, which is more or less a collection of parallel stories exploring what happens when free-thinking human beings are suddenly told that they're now taking orders from a sentient rock. Unsurprisingly, all the ones I can think of end with God dead on the floor, and for good reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
Eldibus, for the moment, seems to exist just to trick us into thinking that we may have a shot at that sort of development, but I'm hesitant to bet against "anyone trying to convince you that the universe has any moral complexity is just playing mind games." -
08-30-2015, 10:33 AMEisen-ZornThe quest does not suggest that selfishness is bad. The quest shows that the Warrior of Lights selflessness has been taking a toll on them subconsciously. The Dark Knight stone didn't create those feelings out of nowhere, but instead it gave the true feelings of the Warrior of Light a physical form. However, these feelings were quite strong and threatened to overtake the Warrior of Light to protect them from those who would take advantage of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
-
08-30-2015, 11:25 AMFenral
Took a bit more time than usual to think up this part of the reply, but here you go:
Tidus is an odd duck, but ultimately he gets a special exemption for being the player character. What Bahamut told him ultimately amounted to "if you beat the final boss, the game ends." It's the Klonoa rule: when you beat the game, the credits roll, and that's that. You can't stick around in the world you saved. By virtue of being the player character, he accepts that his story will end when he creates the ending he desires: saving Yuna and ending the Sprial of Death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
The Spiral of Death itself is Spira's culture of fatalism: by accepting unquestioningly that sacrifices must be made, Spira has trapped itself in a cycle, endlessly repeating the same sacrifice simply because they believe that it is the way things have to be. Of course, Yuna has a speech in X-2 to the effect that they ultimately only traded one sacrifice for another, which is true, but ultimately what mattered is that they didn't simply accept the first chance to sacrifice someone as "the way things have to be," choosing instead to understand and confront the root of the problem. Getting to shove Tidus on his smug, self-sacrificing ass afterwards was just an optional extra for players who believed that the growth Yuna went through because of his sacrifice wouldn't be undone if he came back.
It's never acts of sacrifice that bug me, it's when a Final Fantasy game simply accepts the necessity without question (on top of the supposedly affected characters never mentioning it again) that chafes more than a bit. Nearly 30 years of history can build some pretty hefty expectations. -
08-30-2015, 12:57 PMCiliaIronically, we were (supposedly) free-thinking human beings before we started taking orders from a sentient rock... the only difference is our sentient rock is supposedly benevolent. Given XIV runs on the binary "good vs. evil" viewpoint of classical fiction, you're more likely than not right... even though I wish that weren't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
It's not directly stated that our shadow is straight evil, but s/he is utterly ruthless in resolving conflicts and has no problem doing so the quick and easy way. The shadow doesn't just want to protect us from those who would take advantage of us, s/he wants us to leave Eorzea's conflict and have it settle itself (or cut out the meaty bits and leave the dust to settle). That would just cause chaos, which is the opposite of what we're supposed to do - solve problems by finding the most peaceable solution and if none is available take up arms while minimizing casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisen-Zorn
... so not strictly bad or evil, but not who we're supposed to be, and only by suppressing our selfish wish to be freed of Hydaelyn's yoke are we able to continue onward. I understand the point of it (accept your darkness but don't yield to it), but the fact that it represents our deepest wish - freedom - doesn't paint a very good picture of Hydaelyn from a certain perspective.
Money = power. Power = camel. Camel = 5 celery sticks. 5. I miss my Yakkity-yak-yak mount from WoW. What did I say about using waffles?!
I'm not going to comment further on X, since though I did play and finish it I didn't particularly enjoy it, and I've barely touched X-2 for the same reason. My point was, even if it's framed as "finish the game and it ends," there was necessary sacrifice in the ending, which made it kind of realistic; it wasn't the sugary, happy, fairytale "everyone lives" good ending. A price had to be paid to break the cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Now, does Final Fantasy as a franchise generally reject fatalism? Generally. It skirts back and forth, with XIII's protagonists being firmly on the "screw destiny" side of the spectrum while VIII's Ultimecia is a villain because she wants to do the same thing. (It could be argued their methods are what differentiate them, but their motivations are largely the same.) There's usually a more "screw destiny" attitude, or "I'll make destiny what I want it to be" than acceptance of fate's flow, but it depends on the game and character.
XIV falls under the "acceptance" route more often than not. We unquestioningly accept we're Hydaelyn's champion, the Scions have no problem with sacrificing themselves for us because of that same reason, and G'raha doesn't hesitate to fulfill his "designated role." (The problem with G'raha's sacrifice being unavoidable is, since it's side content, people don't necessarily have to do it, so it can't be brought up in the MSQ ever or only as a side-note / optional comment that doesn't have any meaningful impact. Dick move, I know, but the game can't assume you've done any optional content. Unless they pull an Estinien on us, but... not gonna bet on that.) -
08-31-2015, 12:27 AMFenralThat is the irony, isn't it? Tease a bunch of moral complexity, but then harp on people for not seeing good and evil as binary. I'm not sure if it's the sign of a mature writer or a totally immature writer stubbornly insisting their way is right by simply saying it is rather than carefully illustrating the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
No idea. That is how people in LS'es spell "W'fharl" though. XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
In case you're unclear, the issue I continue to have with CT (that only gets worse as I'm forced to go back and talk to those NPCs again) is that, in spite of it leaving some poor bewildered kid sealed in a time bubble, it's actually treated as the mostly-ideal outcome. What amounts in practical terms to a symbolic suicide is treated instead as a moment of positive character growth for someone I can only assume the writers intended to be selfish and unlikable. (Also, 2.0 had a tiny "catboys are gross" problem.) Say what you will about how sacrifices are sometimes necessary, but it's not actually portrayed as that in-universe, even though it quite clearly is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
My guess is we were meant to care more about the Tower itself (and all the nostalgia it represents) from the start, and feel that by getting rid of that guy nobody cared about anyway, we've basically guaranteed a bright future for humanity, even if that isn't in the present. That loops back around to the "ignoring moral complexities" problem, though, as the Tower was rather plainly presented as a more complex issue than simply "we don't know how it works," but when the time came to wrap it up, all that was ignored.
There's no Ser Zephirin or Regula van Hydrus to be the target of your frustration should you not be okay with that outcome, everyone simply agrees with you about how wonderful it is that he finally found his destiny. The possibility that anyone could be upset by it is simply ignored. It's probably the most ham-fisted moment in the entire game simply for how much it feels it needs to dictate the emotions of a character who is supposed to be a blank self-insert. (Oh hey, did I end up back on topic?)
I would have liked someone besides Ramnbroes in the SMN quests to at least have remembered that it happened, but since G'raha falls pretty neatly into the "Plot Destroying Superpower" category, I understand them not wanting to immediately acknowledge the existence of that in the MSQ. Still, I feel like the writers maybe shouldn't introduce that sort of character at all into a setting with no intentions of actually using them. (I never actually meant to involve him in this topic at all, since he could use a break, but you name-dropped him first.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
4.0 will allegedly have no scenario gate, and instead include some way of recapping the story so far. Feel free to pull out the Ancient Aliens gif, but I think that could be the way they fit BCoB and CT (and probably Alex and Void Arc) into continuity so that their various hanging threads can be addressed without gating or simply Spineshatter Diving continuity like Estinien did.
But I thought we were talking about Dark Knight? -
08-31-2015, 05:51 AMCiliaWell, the problem is that people try and draw connections to other games. Despite possessing common elements (summon names, spell names, classes, etc.) they exist in separate universes or at least on separate worlds, so trying to draw parallels between games unless they have a canonically stated connection is wont to end poorly. For instance, while Hydaelyn and all fal'Cie are all sentient magical rocks (more like machines in the case of fal'Cie), they have distinctly different origins and myths behind them. Considering that, it's not surprising at all they have differing morality systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
The devs never teased there would be a morally complex story. If you said "Well, XIII had moral complexity here and there with sentient magical rocks (machines), and Hydaelyn here seems to be a similar thing, so it's going to be morally complex here too!" well... that's jumping to a conclusion.
I was making a reference to an old flash cartoon, but that's nice to know. Your nickname is now Waffles :3Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
The thing is, while the Crystal Tower's story ending is mostly ideal, it's not perfect, and nobody is really happy about it. Before G'raha holes himself up in the tower everyone tries to dissuade him, hell, Cid outright asks if he can change his mind, to which G'raha's response is "No." Wedge was on the verge of tears, and though everyone put on a strong face and respected his decision they didn't want him to do what he did. Was it a necessary sacrifice? No, it wasn't, but it was what G'raha chose to do even though nobody (else) wanted him to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
So really, if you want to be frustrated with someone, be frustrated with G'raha.
(I made a passing comment. And, well, we were, but when you make a thinly-veiled metaphor comparing Yuna's situation to that of G'raha I don't see the need in dancing around the issue with you, Waffles.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
Now, could they integrate the Coil, Crystal Tower, Alexander, and Void Ark into a recap and have them become MSQ relevant? Yes they could, but the Main Scenario is already a lot to dump on people and even then 2.0 - 3.x players won't necessarily have done them all. So it's entirely plausible, but I don't personally consider it probable. -
08-31-2015, 06:46 AMCooperal
With most of the details being fleshed out before entering the thread, I will say that I doubt we'll be getting much of a revisit from our darkside in physical form again. At best, only threatening to break out while coinciding with a larger picture that's not focused on the player.
Talking to Sidurgu and Rielle after concluding your level 60 quest will give strong indications that Rielle might become trained in the ways of the dark knight. So you can imagine that you'll be witnessing the dark side more thoroughly from the third-person perspective than any time previously. It's easy to speculate that if Sid does intend to train her, he'll want you to share an equal part of the role, if not more because of his stronger personal bond to Rielle. She is bound to have a bumpy road. I think standing up to Sid and sentencing her mother to death are the least she could have done to harden herself before letting her timid nature contend with the darkside. If we're lucky, we'll get a cap raise or an extra chain of 60 job quests quicker than we get another new expansion. It's a long time to wait and see how that pans out. -
08-31-2015, 07:11 AMFenralI AM, DAMMIT. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
But maybe, just maybe, if the "promise" we made is something that can actually be made good on in some tangible form, any one of the people I have no choice but to let speak for me might be just a little bit more persuasive the second time. Or at least, not blithely let history repeat itself.
I certainly never intended to say they have to continue it in the MSQ, just that even a perfunctory nod from someone would have been better than what we've gotten so far, which, format be damned, borders on retcon. I think Wedge has done more for Gilly than G'raha, which is more than a little sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
Tracking back on topic:
You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that FFXIV has to be morally complex, just that its current relative lack thereof persists by feigning ignorance of notable recurring themes from elsewhere in the series. It just means that the holes in the current setup get more obvious the more FF games you play, which leads to expectations both justified and not, and waiting to see if they actually get addressed is like pulling teeth. Mostly FFXIV seems content with just committing to being noncommittal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
Eldibus is hopefully going to start playing more of a role soon, and ideally be given more than just a strawman argument when we inevitably tell him that "no, light is the absolute good for everyone and you're just a meanie jerkface servant of bad, evil darkness." With how things have played out so far, though...
It'd be cool if the Warrior of Darkness had a bonus line (like Yugiri) commenting on your dark side, at least. -
08-31-2015, 07:56 AMMilesSaintboroguh
Except I don't believe the Warrior of Darkness is going to have any parallels to the Dark Knight story. If Final Fantasy III is anything to go by, WOD will be just the opposite of what you're doing and not necessarily doing it for the sake of "I DO WHAT I WANT!"
-
08-31-2015, 12:46 PMCiliaActually... most Final Fantasy titles were pretty black and white. It's not until VIII that a villain with relatable motives appeared, and she was mostly offscreen since the focus was on Squall and Rinoa's romance. The only main antagonist who brings real moral complexity to the table is Vayne. Various minions are morally complex, but the villain is almost always a finger-twiddling, mustache-twirling Saturday Morning Cartoon villain. To really be considered morally complex the hero has to ask at some point "Is what I'm doing right?," and the only villain who makes you ask that question is Vayne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenral
It could get complex like that, but, well, Elidibus still won't tell us what he's so convinced will sway us to his point of view. Jerkface.
It would be cool if the Warrior of Darkness notices you've been tainted by the shadow, but well... we still don't know what exactly the darkness is. Sidurgu says there's a little darkness, a little void, in everyone, and that's the source of a Dark Knight's power, but we don't know if that's connected to Zodiark or what. If it is... that makes this really freakin' complicated... -
08-31-2015, 01:51 PMPArcherWhat was it that Ramuh said to us about Light, Dark and Man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
-
08-31-2015, 02:13 PMCiliaBasically, he's hypothesizing that light and dark only exist because of the spoken races. Which... as he says, would explain much and more than he realizes, I think. The rest is the usual "Don't lose your way, Warrior of Light" stuff everyone says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramuh, Main Scenario Quest "Levin an Impression," Scene 1
... so we exist because of the darkness, or the darkness exists because of us... -
08-31-2015, 08:36 PMCyrilLuciferThe Ramuh comment, and really, the first part of your second statement, is why I think hope they might go the FFXI route with Altana/Promathia and Hydaelyn/Zodiark. Before CoP (the second expansion) Promathia was definitely considered a Dark, evil God in the lore. After CoP, however. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
I cannot express how disappointed I will be if Elidibus is just a meanie head who should bathe in all glorious, radiant light to cleanse his dark aether soul. -
09-01-2015, 01:43 AMFenral
So, if Hydaelyn and Zodiark are older than man, would that make them older than light and darkness? That would mean the "darkness" used by Dark Knight (which is essentially the same stuff that Zeromus was made out of) is not a part of Zodiark, but it would also mean that Hydaelyn and Zodiark can't actually be the avatars of light and dark we currently see them as. They can still be in eternal conflict, but light and darkness are merely the tools of their conflict, not what they represent.
Maybe. Might still need more coffee for this one. -
09-01-2015, 02:17 AMCilia
Ehhh... while I do consider the "we're all tiny bits of Zodiark" theory a viable one, I'm not going to put my chips on it. References and shout-outs are cool, but to reuse entire plot points... not cool, guys. Not. Cool.
Anyway, we do need more information, and Ramuh is just making a wild guess (or, in Moose terms, putting on his Darksteel Foil Hat). It could be that we're all tiny pieces of Zodiark. Or it could be that Zodiark only exists because of us. Or we only exist because of the darkness and vice versa, so as long as man is around so too shall be the darkness. Ramuh's belief in the inverse (darkness shall linger as long as man exists) is why he passes his harsh judgment, and then says he'll go on a genocidal rampage if we can't prove to him that not all men are evil by enduring his wrath.
My personal theory is that Hydaelyn is somehow an invasive parasite who took over the planet from Zodiark at some point in the distant past, and created us as containers for his essence to keep him weak / sleeping / dead. It explains a significant amount of the non-"generic evil megalomaniac" dialogue of the Ascians. I'm probably wrong on that, but from what information we have... it's the best I can put together. -
09-01-2015, 06:04 AMCyrilLuciferI was considering something like this as well. I'd really be okay with anything that's not "Zodiark is pure evil because darkness" though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
My own pet-and-definitely-wrong theory is about the balance and flow of Aether. There should be natural flow between Zodiark and Hydaelyn, waxing and waning. Balance, to throw Elidibus' term around. Hydaelyn and light in general somehow unbalanced the long-term overall Aetheric flow, drawing too much and being "parasitic" to either Zodiark or the dark. This caused not only damage to Zodiark, but to Hydaelyn. It may seem counterproductive, then, for the Primal summoning to drain Aether, but the Ascians would need to weaken Hydaelyn enough so that they can reverse the dominant flow initially.
Because damn if that scholar in 2.5 seeing something wrong with the Aether in South Shroud and then never being mentioned again wasn't the biggest tease I've ever seen.