Will Shiva be an Evil Primal?

[ShinkuTachi]

We don't know if the Dragons are "evil", maybe it was the Ishgardians who decided, Hmmm nice land, I wants it! and started to systematically slaughter the dragon inhabitants and they were just defending themselves and fighting for their land. Or it could be the same in reverse.

Or neither, and it's been the Ascians all along pushing the conflict.

Hopefully questions get answered.

That's a very good point Sapphic
One that I feel like a dunce for not considering until now, considering their hands have pretty much been in everything thus far. I mean yeah, they were with the high priest, but who knows what they've been doing with the heretics.

[TheRogueX]

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't Garuda more like Ramuh before 1.0, it wasn't untill she killed a snake primal and drank it's blood to survive her wounds from the battle that she became corrupted?

"Garuda returns in Final Fantasy XIV as the Primal worshiped by the Ixal, and is known as the Empress of Birds. It is said that in past ages, Garuda slew the malevolent Lord of Snakes to end his foul attempt to bind the world’s creatures to the earth. Though birds became free to roam the skies, Garuda was terribly wounded by the battle and was forced to feast upon the snake's carcass to recover her energies, said to have since then a taste for the flesh of land-bound mortals."

From http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/G...al_Fantasy_XIV

@ OP: The enemy is alawys seen as "Evil". In my opinion I don't see the primals as evil or good, they just are. They were summoned to protect their people, a weapon, in a way, utilised by the beastmen in their fight against the people of Eorzea, who are as much, in some cases more to blame for the ongoing conflict between the peoples and the tribes. With the Beastman quests you find some want peace and others not so much. The same applies to the 3 city states also. There are some who want to destroy the beastman tribes, believing their will only be peace until they are gone, and others who want to work on a peaceful coexistance.

It's more a shade of grey than black and white, on both sides.

^THIS, oh so much this. Everyone seems to want this to be a cut & dry, black & white thing. Do we just have a bunch of absolute idealists on this game, or is everyone's view of good and evil just that immature?

This game really doesn't have any Good Guys or Bad Guys (I'm not even sure about the Ascians yet, though they're the only real candidate for true "Evil" that I've seen), just a bunch of people who are in it for themselves, their nations, and their people. Even the beast tribes are just trying to protect themselves and their right to exist, for the most part.

[Ryans]

Primals aren't evil. They're forces of nature.

Leviathan - aspect of water. Again, he is protecting his people from the Limsans, who happily slaughter the Sahagin in droves so that they can expand their territory.
[/B]

Leviathan gave immortality to one of his followers and then proceeded to feed on his "soul." I believe that is pretty evil.

[Gilraen]

Leviathan gave immortality to one of his followers and then proceeded to feed on his "soul." I believe that is pretty evil.

Actually, it was the Ascians that taught the sahuagin how to gain immortality. It just happens that the process turns you into a being of aether and we all know how much primals love aether.

[ShinkuTachi]

Everyone seems to want this to be a cut & dry, black & white thing. Do we just have a bunch of absolute idealists on this game, or is everyone's view of good and evil just that immature?

It's not so much about being idealists or immaturity. People just look at these things in a different manner, based on their own moral codes and beliefs. Storytelling in JRPGs (which this game is) usually features a nuanced villain of ideals, more than someone who is outright evil. Just like many of the heroes now aren't completely completely good. This is because completely evil villains (antagonists), and completely good heroes (protagonists) do not capture the human experience.

When I consider whether or not a character is necessarily "evil," I examine a few factors: what is their goal, what is the purpose of their goal and why, and by what means are they achieving their goal. Then, of course, I weigh this to my personal moral compass. Everyone has one, and everyone's is different to a degree.

All that said, it's a bit far-reaching to start calling people immature for not sharing your view or belief. I mean, I could call people immature for believing in certain fairy tales if I wanted, but that wouldn't be right and I wouldn't be justified in doing so. We have ourselves a very nice discussion going on here, so let us please keep it cordial and respectful. No use in having a good, lore centered, discussion thread locked. Don't you agree?

[TheRogueX]

All that said, it's a bit far-reaching to start calling people immature for not sharing your view or belief. I mean, I could call people immature for believing in certain fairy tales if I wanted, but that wouldn't be right and I wouldn't be justified in doing so. We have ourselves a very nice discussion going on here, so let us please keep it cordial and respectful. No use in having a good, lore centered, discussion thread locked. Don't you agree?

Not really.

First, I wasn't saying 'immature' in a derogatory fashion. I meant 'immature' as in 'not yet matured,' not 'childish' or 'silly.' There was no disrespect in my post. I'm sorry that you took it as such. Interestingly enough, I don't think people should ever consider the term 'immature' an insult while they're still young, unless it is absolutely obvious that it is being used in a derogatory fashion.

Second, as people mature, their views on the world change, usually quite drastically. They should hopefully learn that morality is not simple and not just black and white. Believing in a duality of "Good" and "Evil" is extremely idealistic. That said, there's nothing wrong with idealism; indeed it's a necessary thing. Too much idealism, though, can blind a person to what's true and cause them to make bad decisions.

Third, I would like to argue against your first assessment: JRPGs are FULL of black and white, completely good heroes and completely evil villains. They did start to mature in the 1990s, but before that the heroes were pretty much always white knight good guys and the antagonists were pretty much always grimdark evil overlords.

I guess in the end I judge only my own actions via my personal moral compass and try not to judge others without at first attempting to understand their motivations. Hilariously, you could call me idealistic, in the end, because I try to find the good in everyone's actions instead of immediately condemning all actions I disagree with as evil.

[ShinkuTachi]

Not really.

First,I wasn't saying 'immature' in a derogatory fashion. I meant 'immature' as in 'not yet matured,' not 'childish' or 'silly.' There was no disrespect in my post. I'm sorry that you took it as such. Interestingly enough, I don't think people should ever consider the term 'immature' an insult while they're still young, unless it is absolutely obvious that it is being used in a derogatory fashion.

Second, as people mature, their views on the world change, usually quite drastically. They should hopefully learn that morality is not simple and not just black and white. Believing in a duality of "Good" and "Evil" is extremely idealistic. That said, there's nothing wrong with idealism; indeed it's a necessary thing. Too much idealism, though, can blind a person to what's true and cause them to make bad decisions.

Third, I would like to argue against your first assessment: JRPGs are FULL of black and white, completely good heroes and completely evil villains. They did start to mature in the 1990s, but before that the heroes were pretty much always white knight good guys and the antagonists were pretty much always grimdark evil overlords.

I guess in the end I judge only my own actions via my personal moral compass and try not to judge others without at first attempting to understand their motivations. Hilariously, you could call me idealistic, in the end, because I try to find the good in everyone's actions instead of immediately condemning all actions I disagree with as evil.

First, fair enough.

Second, dogmas actually makes these choices for MANY people.

Third, I said usually, not always. By the time we get to the 90's (during the 4th generation), we start seeing more fleshed out characters with a lot of grey areas. Sure, we still got some black and white, but it had no sort prevalence. Before the 90's we weren't getting fleshed out stories, in fact, there was no real character development at all. All the heroes were simply symbols of the purest righteousness and all villains were symbols of the purest evil, and that was about as deep as it got..

While I may not completely agree with you, I understand the points your making, so it's all good. ^^

[PArcher]

If I were to give the 5 known Primals alignments (oh no, bringing D&D in here), I'd probably go with this:

Garuda: Chaotic Neutral, though a touch more on the Evil side of Neutral. She's crazy, power-hungry, not afraid to do anything to be the most powerful. But I just can't say she's out-right Evil.

Titian: Lawful Neutral. He only wants to protect his children, and only because the Limosians broke their treaty. I wish I could have talked to him rather than just fought.

Ifrit: Chaotic Evil. Now, yes, Fire would be Chaotic Neutral; wild, unpredictable, all-consuming, similar to the Wind. However, I feel Ifrit is trying to consume and burn everything a little more maliciously than Garuda is; hes also not insane like Garuda, knowing exactly what he is doing

Leviathan: Neutral. Leviathan is his peoples protector and guide; he seeks to make them prosper and punish their enemies. He is like Water, ordered and yet chaotic at the same time, consuming and protecting. The fact that he accepts the finless willingly also speaks to a less "evil" nature, but he can also be devastating when provoked and will be merciless and uncaring when enraged (including to his own followers).

Ramuh: Lawful Neutral, with a hint of Good. He is like Titan, trying to just protect his children, but unlike Titan is at least willing to parley and change his judgement. robably the closest to a "Good" Primal so far.

Now Shiva...we just don't know enough to say anything. She could be like Ifrit or Garuda, just seeking to dominate and conquer, to change the world into an icy domain she rules. She could also be trying to "save" people from another threat (perhaps she knows the Ascians are in control of Ishgard and is trying to assemble a force to get rid of them or something, or something worse). We do know she's sly and is very different from the other Primals so far, but beyond that...


Just my opinions. Of all the Primals, I feel Ifrit is the Evil one his actions and desires align with Evil the closest, though Garuda is also close, but her insanity screams CN), and the rest are more Neutral. None are truly Good, as they all eventually resort to fighting or have a desire to eliminate the innocent (even Ramuh is guilty of this)