Question about LV50 Dark Knight quest *Spoilers*

[Fenral]

Took a bit more time than usual to think up this part of the reply, but here you go:

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...

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.

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.

[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."

Ironically, 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.

The 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.

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.

... 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?!

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.

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.

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.)

[Fenral]

Ironically, 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.

That 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.

What did I say about using waffles?!

No idea. That is how people in LS'es spell "W'fharl" though. XD

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.

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.

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?)

(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.)[/size]

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.)

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?

[Cilia]

That 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.

Well, 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.

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.

No idea. That is how people in LS'es spell "W'fharl" though. XD

I was making a reference to an old flash cartoon, but that's nice to know. Your nickname is now Waffles :3

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.

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.

So really, if you want to be frustrated with someone, be frustrated with G'raha.

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.)

...

But I thought we were talking about Dark Knight?

(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.)

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.

[Cooperal]

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.

[Fenral]

So really, if you want to be frustrated with someone, be frustrated with G'raha.

I AM, DAMMIT.

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.

So it's entirely plausible, but I don't personally consider it probable.

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.

Tracking back on topic:

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.

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.

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.

[MilesSaintboroguh]

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!"

[Cilia]

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.

...

It'd be cool if the Warrior of Darkness had a bonus line (like Yugiri) commenting on your dark side, at least.

Actually... 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.

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...

[PArcher]

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...

What was it that Ramuh said to us about Light, Dark and Man?

[Cilia]

... All blame [for conflict] doth lie with the darkness that resideth in the breast of man. Whence sprung this calamitous seed? In the beginning, no such duality existed. Were light and dark given form when man was born? It would explain much.

Basically, 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.

... so we exist because of the darkness, or the darkness exists because of us...