3.4 speculation

[Theodric]

It's not the 'truth' but a subjective opinion. As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

[PArcher]

It's not the 'truth' but a subjective opinion. As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

[Pomelo]

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

Don't mention it then, that was so below the belt it is literally unreal lmao

[Alleluia]

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

Did you seriously just try to pull the "So, you support the Nazis." card? When someone was supporting a fictional empire's motives being portrayed as more justified for the purposes of interesting storytelling? You do know that wanting a more interesting story in no way even implies that someone is ok with genocide in real life, right?

Wait, hold on...implications were made that I'm a Nazi supporter and believe that the Earth is flat and I'm the rude one? I'm not quite sure how that works...

Where someone said that?
Put the comment where someone said that you are a Nazi supporter. Nobody said such a thing.

He means these, Frederick:

Or...maybe, just maybe...everyone is against you because you are so wrong we can't believe how you're able to keep going.

Its as if you believe the earth is flat.

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

Its PArcher tossing around the ridiculous personal attacks.

On a different note:

And I know it'll never happen but if we get another "crew" together like we had through most of 3.0 I really want the Deftarm to come along wth us.

I've just recently started the Vath Beast Tribe stuff and I'd LOVE this idea so very very much.

[PArcher]

Random stuff

Basically...his arguments are as someone saying the Earth is flat, refusing to listen to the evidence otherwise, claiming no one has any proof because he can't tell with his own two eyes. Him never debating, only claiming no one else was willing too, only cements this further, and that rational discussion is a lost cause (as we've seen)

And yes, there are many similarities between what the Garleans are doing and the Nazis did in WW2. Heck, the Garleans are even based on their "perfect" race...



I also find it very ironic that I'm one of the people that thinks Gauis is still alive and we'll be allying with him in 4.0. Weird huh?

[Kallera]

snip

Please do not play the WW2 card as you have. The topic of genocide is more precise, farther reaching in practice than WW2 and has none of the personal attacks you were making on their character. that someone justifies the reason for a military campaign in the context of a fictional story doesn't mean they would approve of it in real life.

Nalien makes a point(cough) in pointing out that religious belief is a far more powerful and destructive weapon in the world of hydelyn. Without the presence of chosen ones to fight off primals and given the damage the primals do when summoned in such manners, the prospect of destroying the believers becomes a tantalizing solution(and one even the eorzean cities would have embraced, Gridania in particular).

We make our RL moral judgements from a position that neither has magic, nor supernatural beings popping out at the whims of the downtrodden, smiting their enemies. In Eorzea, that is a panic many people have been living with without the comfort of a Warrior of Light.(who just happens to survive every half cocked scheme to down said primals) The guys with magitek, half a clue, and the ability to down the local Shiva with miniguns? That looks senisble, teachable, even! You can't teach The Echo, near as I can tell, and some folks, like Garleans, just do not have it, what would their answer be in the face of such destructive faith, born of the light of crystals?

They found their answer in magitek and dominion, as imperfect and destructive as it is.

[Berethos]

Without the presence of chosen ones to fight off primals and given the damage the primals do when summoned in such manners, the prospect of destroying the believers becomes a tantalizing solution(and one even the eorzean cities would have embraced, Gridania in particular).

Specific to this - it's an interesting conundrum.

Garlemald is justified in wanting the primal threat to not be a threat. It's the same thing the Scions ultimately want - to prevent those who are capable of summoning primals from doing exactly that.

However, from the Garleans we have seen portrayed in a meaningful way thus far, which is mainly just the upper echelons of the Garlean military and the highest reaches of leadership, their particular response has been to crush those capable because they seem to see just being capable as a threat.

Conflict designed to stop a threat creating more of said threat - sounds like the kind of things Ascians are wont to do, so here's my 3.4 (and possibly 3.5) speculation...we'll discover that the Ascians have indeed had a hand in Garlemald beyond Lahabrea and Gaius. It fits with their usual modus operandi, being involved like that, and would make room for some interesting twists (crazy level being the current emperor is possessed by an Ascian in the way Thancred was, but that's crackpot theory level stuff).

[AutumnHarvestwind]

Specific to this - it's an interesting conundrum.

This is pretty interesting! We both fight to eradicate primal influence and existence, but one side is regarded with heroism and the other so villianous. Someone has mentioned before on this forums, that the Eorzean nations are still pretty unethical, Gridinia being xenophobic, Ul'dah being corrupted with money, etc, and Limsa Lominsa being a sort of gov't that's full of pirates and thiefs. But I guess we see our leaders trying to be more sympathetic and diplomatic, where as Garlemald wants to have no negotations and kill everyone lol. If the current leader being possessed by the ascian were true, i'd believe it straight out the bat. especially given the ishgard shit with thordan!

[Theodric]

Basically...his arguments are as someone saying the Earth is flat, refusing to listen to the evidence otherwise, claiming no one has any proof because he can't tell with his own two eyes. Him never debating, only claiming no one else was willing too, only cements this further, and that rational discussion is a lost cause (as we've seen)

You really can't resist lacing your posts with thinly veiled insults, can you? Still no apology either, I see - but I'd be lying if I said I was surprised by that fact. You don't even seem to be aware of what you're even arguing about because I have repeatedly gone on record stating that I'd love to see Garlemald painted in a more sympathetic light. Which suggests that, yes, I agree that they're doing some pretty awful things.

What I don't agree with, however, is the idea that they are completely and thoroughly evil - or even without justification for their actions. Much of the criticism directed at Garlemald is based off of warped modern day idealism and poorly thought out platitudes as far as I'm concerned. Much of the arguments against them can be summed up as 'war is bad', 'racism is bad', 'slavery is bad'. All are horrific things in the real world to be sure - but in a fictional setting that does not need to be bound by the same limitations it is perfectly possible for fictional organisations and races to be terribly flawed whilst still having noble goals - even if they're misguided.

Furthermore this was a thread based around speculation so ranting at people for speculating is completely and utterly laughable in itself.

So let's stop beating around the bush and agree to disagree (like I've been saying all along, really). You're unlikely to change my mind just like I'm unlikely to change yours - and that's completely fine. You don't need to go on a misguided crusade over someone's interpretation of a story - especially when there's only a tiny portion of people even coming to this particular sub-forum to post on a frequent and consistent basis in the first place. Naturally with such a small pool of posters to deal with the same points of discussion are going to be brought up quite often.

I don't rant and demand that people stop whitewashing the Ala Mhigans or the Scions whenever they're brought up - because I enjoy reading different perspectives and interpretations...and I also firmly believe that morality is a far more complex issue than many believe it to be.

[Cilia]

Seriously though, I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters movie, so you can ignore this 7,000 character review, please don't ban me...

It's solid! My one complaint is that none of the male characters are useful to the story - they range from useless at best to villainous at worst. Further details upon request, though I'll avoid spoilers as best as I am able.

... I don't agree with... the idea that [the Garleans] are completely and thoroughly evil - or even without justification for their actions. Much of the criticism directed at Garlemald is based off of warped modern day idealism and poorly thought out platitudes as far as I'm concerned. Much of the arguments against them can be summed up as 'war is bad', 'racism is bad', 'slavery is bad'. All are horrific things in the real world to be sure - but in a fictional setting that does not need to be bound by the same limitations it is perfectly possible for fictional organisations and races to be terribly flawed whilst still having noble goals - even if they're misguided.

I'm not convinced Garlemald is completely evil, but their flaws far outweigh their virtues. Their actions are reprehensible, and just because they're fictional doesn't make their actions more excusable. As I've iterated time and again (and you have so conveniently ignored), Garlemald was a small, backwater farming country before they made some magitek advancements, Solus zos Galvus became their emperor, and he told them to go forth and conquer. Garlemald's rise to power only began 50 years ago, so unlike with the Dragonsong War the truth of it is very unlikely to be lost to the mists of time. Any conflict they bring on themselves, any misfortune Garlemald (and by extension Garlean citizens) suffer is almost undoubtedly karma coming back to bite them. People would be happy if they'd turn off Conquest Mode, but they don't seem keen on that or relinquishing conquered territory.

Their goals are noble and very similar to ours - on the surface. But if you dig past that and think a bit about whether or not their means justify the ends, it becomes clear they don't. They claim to want Primal capturing technology to stop the beings from destroying the planet - but at the same time it's clear they also want it so people can stop using Primals against them and so they can potentially use Primals as aether batteries like the Allagans did. They claim genocide on the beast tribes will solve the Primal issue - it will, but the loss of life cannot be justified and it will just cause more and more survivors and other beast tribes to pray to their deity for salvation... meaning the Primal issue is just going to be exacerbated by this.

When given the option, I never needlessly fight and kill in vidja gaems. Pure Hero runs in the entire inFamous series, several perfect stealth and pacifist runs (at the same time) in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I can't bring myself to engage in pointless violence when I have the option not to, nor will I abuse power just to make things easier. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean it's okay to go on bloody wars of conquest or kill people for fun... or at least I don't feel that way, and beneath the veneer of nobility that is all Garlemald is doing, to say nothing of how horribly they treat conquered peoples.

As for Ala Mhigo, the Autumn War with Gridania (and later the rest of the Alliance) was 100 years ago. That's longer ago than Solus zos Galvus' rise to power. I don't think they deserved to be conquered for it or that it was even a factor in their conquering. That said I do wish the refugees would stop excusing their crimes with "For Ala Mhigo!" because it's grating and old.

As for the Scions, I don't recall them really doing many morally grey things, so I don't see what there is to whitewash. Usually it's just us doing the fighting and killing, and as I tried to bring up with the Zodiac Weapon it does make us kind of a bad person if you think about it a bit. To the Alliance and Scions we are the Warrior of Light, paragon of virtue and steadfast ally of justice... while to pretty much everyone else we are effectively the Angel of Death. Still, while it is very unfortunate we have to kill, doing nothing will result in greater casualties on all sides. If I must kill the guilty to protect the innocent... then so be it.

What I don't understand is why nobody seems to think Hydaelyn calling up Minfilia so she could eat her is reprehensible... but given this is a Japanese game and it was for the communal good, yeeeeeeeeeah.....