[SPOILERS] Minfillia' Fate in 3.2

[CyrusArjuna]

I hope they make the Warring Triad essential to the main story, honestly. With the way Regula is teased at the end of the Sephirot fight it makes it seem like if hostilities with Garlemald are renewed, that might be a pretty big cause. Plus all the Allagan stuff they're uncovering in Azys Lla could give the empire reason to temporarily withdraw while they devise new war tech with it

[CyrilLucifer]

Preaching to the choir about making it part of the MSQ, man. I really do think they will. It won't be required immediately, like the HM primals in 2.0, but later it'll be a requirement in order to finish 3.X, but possibly more integrated considering Eli was mentioning the Triad in the MSQ in 3.1.

Of course, this is also what's dooming Cutest Ascian to his death. So I have mixed feelings.

(As for the Moon being not vibrant, that's because it's Zodiark. Hydaelyn has all of the power that was originally shared right now, of course there isn't aether there sustaining life. I wouldn't be surprised if, just like FFIV, the energy lies dormant underground though).

[Fenral]

Preaching to the choir about making it part of the MSQ, man. I really do think they will. It won't be required immediately, like the HM primals in 2.0, but later it'll be a requirement in order to finish 3.X, but possibly more integrated considering Eli was mentioning the Triad in the MSQ in 3.1.

It's not that I don't want to believe, but I keep remembering the Defenders of Eorzea rule: MSQ shout-outs mean jack diddly squat.

[Kallera]

It's not that I don't want to believe, but I keep remembering the Defenders of Eorzea rule: MSQ shout-outs mean jack diddly squat.

It wouldn't be completely out of the blue to include Ulukanhai in the MSQ with a dialogue line difference depending on if you met him before in the ex trial. It would certainly ensure his survival at least.

[Rocl]

It's not that I don't want to believe, but I keep remembering the Defenders of Eorzea rule: MSQ shout-outs mean jack diddly squat.

I'm sorry have you met Legacy players who get an extra dialogue box when meeting Minfilia (again) and a slightly altered Praetorium ending CS and that's it?* Not to mention Before the Fall has us meeting up with our old caravan driver... oh wait... Legacy players didn't arrive in the city-states via chocobo coach but walked there from the stone of Athlyk.. (at least that was it was from Ul'dah)

I think, however, this is a bit different--including the Triad trials as a requirement for "3.5" MSQ would be analogous to the ARR MSQ. It's not really a "shout-out," and therefore should have some ramifications in the MSQ. Though I can't honestly remember if the Ifrit/Garuda/Titan hard modes were referenced in 2.5 lol

*There's definitely more--like the intro to the Holocharts still gets me pumped. "Your companion knows this place well, for it was here that he slew Nael van Darnus."

[Dualblade]

I'm about 60% sure the Warring Triad will be relevent in 4.0, and that we'll fight all three at once/have an EX version of said fight. Either after beating the last of the Triad in 3.4, or as a Trial in 3.5, Regula will end up asorbing all three partially. Depending on which patch it will either be a solo battle (so he only just started getting the power) or the Trial of the patch (has had more time to get the power.) Regardless of which he'll survive the fight, end up trying to off the Emperor only to be offed himself with the Triad's power now in his hands before taking leave of Azys Lla.

[Berethos]

But really, if you want to take discussion in a different direction, just do it.

Decided to come back and address this after some time away from the thread.

I tried.

That was the whole reason I brought up the "we don't actually know that she was called to sacrifice" thing was so that we would try and discuss other possibilities and to point out that it was being treated like a fact when we never actually knew for certain.

I was then shot down almost immediately and then effectively brushed aside twice more before we got pulled into the back and forth over seeking death vs being prepared for it as a possibility and which applied more to FFXIV. If you want to preach about changing the direction of the discussion, remember that I did try, and the thread was having none of it.

Also (and I'm being as silly as possible with this because otherwise I just know someone's gonna take me seriously if I don't)...regular contributors? Do ya'll have, like matching jackets and a club house and a secret handshake and all that jazz? Free goodie bag for reaching that level of lore posts?

[Fenral]

Oh, this again.

...regular contributors?

As in, the people wasting entirely too much of their lives in this particular thread before you came along to command us to discuss another topic. I'm hardly "regular" compared to Moose or Belhi, but I do talk a lot.

Anyway, my point was that:

I'd rather see more discussion about other possibilities.

doesn't count as taking discussion in another direction. Rather than simply present an idea you had, you presented the idea for an idea buried in picking a fight with me, which always goes badly.

So please, rather than start this again (you'll lose), present an idea. Please, just do it. And this isn't Highlander, so don't bother attacking others' ideas on the notion that "there can only be one." We're all wrong here. If you have an idea, express it. The entire thing. Don't just say "maybe you're wrong" and walk away like you've accomplished something, and then complain that we didn't follow your lead.

[Berethos]

As in, the people wasting entirely too much of their lives in this particular thread before you came along to command us to discuss another topic. I'm hardly "regular" compared to Moose or Belhi, but I do talk a lot.

I don't even know where to start.

I really don't.

Even with the silly disclaimer about a very silly part of the comment, you took that part seriously...

As for commanding...

I'll mention it again, because I keep seeing it brought up like it's a foregone conclusion already, that we don't actually know that Hydaelyn asked Minfilia to sacrifice herself.

That was bringing it up initially, because most of the conversation at that point was focused on it. That was before our discussion.

Or a third option, that she intended for Minfilia to carry a message and had to get her to the aetherial sea to give her the full message and then couldn't do that due to being so weak, much less send her back. Or a fourth, where the being guided/called is actually Minfilia's interpretation of something as simple and short as a call for help.

The point is there are ways it could have played out that didn't require the kind of manipulation or coercion to sacrifice oneself, yet that seems to be the only conclusion anyone uses and treats it like it's the truth. I'd rather see more discussion about other possibilities.

I also have thoughts related to the idea of free will, agency, and duty, but typing that out on a phone isn't something I feel like doing right now so I'll come back to the thread later with it.

That was in response to your response, in which you pretty much immediately shot down the possibility of discussion with your dismissive response. Why would I have taken the time at that point to write up a fleshed out idea if the mere mention of changing the direction of discussion got such treatment? Hence my continued efforts to see if ya'll were at all willing, mixed in with the other debate...and ya'll just wanted to keep on debating the one thing.

My point is that it's a discussion about a moral dilemma that is based on just one interpretation of events. I'm not expecting any one to change their moral stance on that situation, just to remember that it's not the only one and maybe discuss things based on those other interpretations.

And not just brush the idea aside because it doesn't fit their narrative, as we all are occasionally guilty of doing.

That was in response to somehow being accused of trying to change people's moral stance, which was never my goal (even in the midst of the debate, from my side it was whether a particular definition fit a particular situation, and thus what moral stances could be applied there).

You might have noticed by now that all three of my initial attempts at a new area of discussion were before I supposedly picked a fight with you.

Suggestion and encouragement to take the debate in a different direction, largely because we had already spent nearly 15+ pages debating the same thing. We are allowed to do that, right? Make suggestions?

Also, I've been part of this thread since page 2, contributing on several pages, and was right in the midst of the original discussion about moral dilemmas and sacrifice and all that, which is why I made the initial reminder and suggestion.

[Theodric]

Also (and I'm being as silly as possible with this because otherwise I just know someone's gonna take me seriously if I don't)...regular contributors? Do ya'll have, like matching jackets and a club house and a secret handshake and all that jazz? Free goodie bag for reaching that level of lore posts?

Don't call us, we'll call you.