3.4 speculation

[Slatersev]

Personally I'm rather fond of gritty elves. It's a real shame that they've been gutted and had much of their culture eroded away so that they can adhere to real world morality rather than their sense of morality. It happened in WoW with blood elves and night elves. It happened in ESO with the Altmer. It happened in FFXIV with Ishgardians...and whilst Garleans aren't elves I'm rather fond of them and it will, no doubt, happen with them as well.

It doesn't matter if fantasy races aren't justified from our perspective. What matters is if they're justified from their perspective - and that is what should matter most. Otherwise the fantasy genre will continue to stagnate.

But Ishgard culture was literally built on a lie the got exposed, if it had stayed the same what would have been the point? It isn't even about morality real or fantasy, it's about what's logical and Ishgard not changing after what happened in Heavansward is not logical at all, just like it's not at all logical for us to ever be long term allies with present Garlemald considering the things they've done to the majority of are allies and us.

And if you think real world morals shouldn't be applied to the setting at all why did you try to come up with completely unsubstantiated reasons Garlemald could be justified like dead innocents? That's applying real world morality to vindicate them.

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

I see this place continues to be an echo chamber for the self righteous, unfortunately. There's no need to get up in arms over a debate regarding the lore of a video game of all things...and it's perfectly possible for people to simply agree to disagree instead of regurgitating the exact same arguments every time Garlemald happens to be mentioned as a point of discussion.

As far as I'm concerned there's not enough information present to say with certainty that Garlemald lacks any justification for their actions. I also don't believe that real world morals should be forced upon fantasy races, organisations and individuals. It just makes for a dull, boring narrative. If anything, it's the protagonists who are consistently excused and shrouded in plot armour; not the antagonists.

Dude, c'mon, you're as guilty as regurgitating the same arguments every time this comes up as anybody else. In fact, this particular conversation started when you used a discussion about Ala Mhigo to regurgitate your whole argument. We're all talking in circles here, but so are you.

Anyways, reading patterns of presentation in the narrative isn't forcing morals on fantasy races. Like it or not, this game is very very much in line with modern morals when it comes to things like colonialism, racism, genocide, religious extremism, and the like; its shades of grey comes from incorporating those things into its protagonist nations (as the setting allows), but it balances them by giving their leaders otherwise modern attitudes; its antagonists are routinely defined by things that modern morals find disagreeable. This is demonstrably not a neutral game in that regard.

[Theodric]

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. This is a very small sub-forum where only a small handful of active posters can be found - so for topics to be recycled is natural. On the other hand that ties in with the 'echo chamber' comment. Which, yes, is applicable to both sides of any debate.

[AutumnHarvestwind]

Trying to diffuse the situation ( as I prefer that this topic don't get locked).... While I love a good, heated debate let's not try to slug dirt at the poster's who present their ideas. Though, good discussion guys just please remember we're tawkin' about some fantasy finals! You know the fantasy finals we all play and question the lore use of link pearls!!

I really love your guys thoughts on the subject manner, and wish I could contribute more wisely--but I am not good at lore--so I read and make threads and hope it starts a discussion I can take insight from!!!
Anyway Im back for the time being since for long periods I can't log into the forums so I can respond to topics and drabblings. lol.
nervous laughing aside..

( Also I am finally able to log into the forums again damnit can anyone explain why I get locked out lol)

[VargasVermillion]

( Also I am finally able to log into the forums again damnit can anyone explain why I get locked out lol)

Did you resub recently? You aren't allowed to go on the forums unless you have logged into the game within 20 days or so, i speak from personal experience.

[Cilia]

I see this place continues to be an echo chamber for the self righteous, unfortunately.

Sorry for the delay - my computer is being stupid and obstinate and refusing to keep a network connection. Anyhoo, I originally had something longer drafted but think I'll discard it in favor of cutting to the chase.

People aren't regurgitating arguments at you, they are regurgitating facts, known truths. They're not points of contention. We know to be true that:

• Garelmald's motivation for conquest is essentially "because we can."
• Conquered peoples aren't even given basic citizenship unless they serve 20 years in the military.
• Conquered peoples are liable to be forcefully conscripted.
• Garlean footsoldiers (mostly conscripts) are liable to be executed for minor infractions.
• Most pureblood Gareleans are almost blatantly racist against non-Garleans.
• Garlemald responds to revolts against their rule with brutal, unnecessary force.
• Garlemald is trying to recreate Allag despite the myriad problems they left behind and the known dangers of toying with Allagan stuff.
• A recent development under Varis' rule, but the Garleans would sooner genocide the beast tribes than try and find a peaceful solution to the Primal issue.
• As icing on the cake, Garlemald takes freedom of religion away from conquered peoples.

"But maybe they have a justification for this!" you have said. No. Nothing justifies all this. It's understandable - they consider themselves most powerful and thus capable of doing whatever they want - but there is a vast difference between being understandable and being justifiable (not to mention that very same hubris is what led to the fall of Allag).

Now, you may avoid applying conventional morality to the Garleans... but most people won't, and the game doesn't really either.

Agree to disagree if you wish. But this is the known truth, not argument, and your defense of the Garlean Empire is one part willfully ignorant of their unsavory points and the other highly hypothetical. People are going to disagree as a matter of course.

[Theodric]

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

[Lauront]

its shades of grey comes from incorporating those things into its protagonist nations (as the setting allows), but it balances them by giving their leaders otherwise modern attitudes; its antagonists are routinely defined by things that modern morals find disagreeable. This is demonstrably not a neutral game in that regard.

"Modern morals" = received doctrine on the majority of those topics, as little of it comes from anything resembling a "moral" system, or even a factual examination of these topics, since most academics are embedded in what is effectively a self-flagellation/grievance industry. It is just a doctrine of original sin.

It is a good thing I don't subscribe to this game on account of the quality of its storytelling, as that is a mistake with any MMO, this one included. Its quality is on par with very explicitly SJW pieces of work. I think Theodric is quite right to address this as an echo chamber of virtue signalling.

[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.

[Theodric]

A rational debate seems impossible, then, I see.

If you're going to associate a fondness for a morally dubious fictional race with supporting Nazi Germany then it's pretty clear that you're not interested in a debate in the first place.

Then again it isn't the first time such an 'argument' has been put forward on this board and it likely won't be the last either.

As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on the subject. Which, incidentally, is yet another attempt to get people to discuss something else instead of allowing things to escalate further.