Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[Theodric]

...and yet in other threads, Cilia, you've argued that certain characters have had no choice but to do a specific thing even when plausible alternatives have been proposed and the one to suffer at their hands and lose their lives had sympathetic motives. So can we safely assume that your stance on Fordola is indicative of a different point of view or is it yet another case of the goal posts being moved to paint anyone associated with Garlemald in the worst possible light? At any rate, I'm in full agreement with Anonymoose's views on the matter. It's far more nuanced a situation than some here will credit and the thread will inevitably revolve around beating the usual dead horse that is morality in a fictional setting with vastly different issues and complexities to the modern day real world.

[VargasVermillion]

Since radiata was mentioned this is as good a place as any to ask but is radiata another province that was conquered and the workers there are brought over from said region or are they ala mhigans who are just used for slave labor and nothing else?

[TinyRedLeaf]

This is really an interesting discussion so far! Personally, I see Fordola as something of a tragic figure.

And personally, a discussion like this illustrates why I've enjoyed Stormblood much more than Heavensward. I was struck by the insight that the writers Banri Oda and Natsuku Ishikawa have drawn from similar situations in real life to create a fictional setting like this. And I enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on a number of issues, and imagine how I might behave in such cases, had they happened in reality.

So, on that note, let me first address this concern:

..the thread will inevitably revolve around beating the usual dead horse that is morality in a fictional setting with vastly different issues and complexities to the modern day real world.

I happen to have an usual perspective on gaming, particularly those rooted in stories: I believe such games can have educational value, especially when players are able to transpose their virtual interactions to actual behaviour in real life.

Therefore, I fundamentally disagree that real-life lessons can't be learnt from "morality in a fictional setting".

I think the problem in the other threads is that the original point of debate was often poorly defined, and this allowed everyone to get carried away.

I would also suggest that the point of a debate isn't to win, but to learn different points of view.

If we begin with the mindset that it's okay to have different perspectives and different positions, then it's less likely that we would end up arguing in circles over irreconcilable differences. It'll be easier to agree to disagree, and still end up feeling like a winner.

==========

Let's sum up two perspectives that have emerged from the thread so far:
(Consequentionalism)

It's important to remember that we're seeing Fordola in a position she didn't expect or desire. She seems to have bought into Baelsar's framing that Ala Mhigo was weak and corrupt and rightfully conquered... Is it better to thrive in chains or let your hollow, corrupt city collapse with its unearned pride and unmet potential? That's the worldview drilled into her by Baelsar.

(Categoricalism)

[Fordola] is still a monster, a monster is determined by their direct actions and the direct results of those actions. She knowingly fired on her own troops... Most dictators generally accepted as monsters thought they were doing what they thought was best for their people. It doesn't matter what their logic or reasoning behind it is.

It's really interesting to me that everyone has more or less divided into the two most fundamental positions in ethics and morality: Consequentialism (ie, the ends justifies the means) and categoricalism (ie, an action is categorically right or wrong, regardless of circumstances).

I want to point out right away that both are entirely valid philosophical positions to take. Each side begins from a worldview that is fundamentally opposed to each other. So, once you know which side of the divide you belong, there's no point badgering the other side about it.

It would be more helpful, instead, to find out how far you can clarify and explain your point and, in the process, maybe you'll learn something about yourself too.

==========

I'll add that virtually everyone here seems to agree that most of things that Fordola has done are unjustifiable. If this thread were her trial, she would almost certainly be found guilty.

The question, then, is what should her sentence be? To what extent should her punishment be mitigated — not excused, not pardoned — by her upbringing and circumstances?

And it is at this point that we need to weigh the significance of moral agency ("Fordola is fully responsible because she chose freely") against the impact of group psychology ("Was Fordola ever actually given a real choice?").

(Moral agency)

Fordola had a choice. The cost of disobeying would have been steep — extremely steep — but she had a choice.

(Hobson's choice, or the illusion of choice)

The difference between pulling the trigger and refusing to is what, then?
Refuse the Order

• All of the Skulls die.
• Ala Mhigans look more unreliable and untrustworthy than ever; every sacrifice and misdeed the Skulls endured was for nothing.
• Fordola dies.

On this part of the debate, I lean towards the view that Fordola is indeed a tragic figure because — monster though she may be — she was never really given an actual choice to become what she is today.

I am of the further view that those who argue that Fordola is fully responsible for her decisions underestimate the impact of group psychology on people.

"We proved, in a very dramatic way, that situations and systems have a much greater impact on human behaviour than we want to believe."

==========

Given what we know of how the Garleans in Ala Mhigo brutalised the population, to what extent can we really say that Fordola — and the Skulls, and all the Ala Mhigans who worked with the Empire — are completely and personally to blame for her actions?

Make no mistake: Fordola is culpable for her crimes.

The question at stake is the degree to which she's culpable.

To me, it would be an injustice if her circumstances are not taken into consideration, when the time finally comes to mull over her inevitable sentence.

[Anonymoose]

It's really interesting to me that everyone has more or less divided into the two most fundamental positions in ethics and morality: Consequentialism (ie, the ends justifies the means) and categoricalism (ie, an action is categorically right or wrong, regardless of circumstances).

I think the fact that Fordola was obviously an antagonist at the beginning of the debate makes it's easier for us to fall into the pit of debating the degree to which motivations matter (coupled of course with the fact that the OP's specific question was "Is she a monster?" which leans on the scale), thus bringing out consequential and categorical ways of thinking - especially at first, as debate has yet to whittle down the obvious rough edges on each point of view.

Though as I was brushing up on the subject, this caught my eye.

Conrad
If the only way to forge the future we want is to cut down our own, then...

M'naago
Then what was it all for!? What will you say to the families of the fallen─to the mothers and the widows and the orphans? Will you tell them it was all for nothing!?

Raubhan
Listen to the girl. We dare not suffer our comrades' sacrifices to have been in vain. Now is the time to steel our resolve and press on, painful though it may be.

Is it so hard to believe this discussion was only happening on one side?

The question, then, is what should her sentence be? To what extent should her punishment be mitigated — not excused, not pardoned — by her upbringing and circumstances?

Ironically, I don't care much what hand she's dealt from the punishment deck (so long as it suits the greater narrative). I care that important points not be ignored (that the Skulls are the scions of Ala Mhigans of high status, indoctrinated as children, given Garlean education with promise of citizenship; that she signed on to Baelsar's "meritocracy" only to end up yoked to Zenos's "hunt"; ethical considerations of "who is the traitor" when the city's army is commanded by foreign conquerors; that her judges will represent the nascent soul of the liberated Ala Mhigo; et cetera). She also has a purpose if the writers kept her alive at all (if nothing else to speak for one interpretation of "loyalty").

On this topic, to fail to contemplate the character completely is to render pointless contemplating her at all.

Well, that and I just like throwing un-discussed facets of a topic at the wall and seeing what sticks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For all I care she could bust out to rejoin Gaius when he TOTALLY COMES BACK YOU GUYS <weeps into his drink>

[Eyvhokan]

M'naago
Then what was it all for!? What will you say to the families of the fallen─to the mothers and the widows and the orphans? Will you tell them it was all for nothing!?

Isn't this kind of similar to Lowdy's reasons?

[Anonymoose]

Isn't this kind of similar to Lowdy's reasons?

She used similar rhetoric, yeah. Though she was pretty honest about her motivations: to convince the citizens of Ishgard that their pain and loss was so great that peace born of anything short of Dravanian annihilation was false peace. It was purely a call for vengeance because the loss of her husband filled her with hatred. In German, she says that revenging herself upon the dragons has become her entire reason for living.

Lowdy
Remember your husbands and wives, never returned from war! Your children, torn apart by fang and claw! All your loved ones, shown no mercy! Does not your heart cry out for vengeance!? Your blood boil at the injustice!? Remember the face of your enemy, brothers and sisters! Remember it and strike back!

Lowdy
Der Krieg gegen die Drachen ist alles, was mir geblieben ist, der Sinn meines Lebens!
The war against the dragon is all that remains for me, the meaning of my life!

[FJerome]

Ironically, I don't care much what hand she's dealt from the punishment deck (so long as it suits the greater narrative). I care that important points not be ignored (that the Skulls are the scions of Ala Mhigans of high status, indoctrinated as children, given Garlean education with promise of citizenship; that she signed on to Baelsar's "meritocracy" only to end up yoked to Zenos's "hunt"; ethical considerations of "who is the traitor" when the city's army is commanded by foreign conquerors; that her judges will represent the nascent soul of the liberated Ala Mhigo; et cetera). She also has a purpose if the writers kept her alive at all (if nothing else to speak for one interpretation of "loyalty").

Their age and their citizenship are an interesting factor for me because to quote your earlier quote;

I've worked and toiled harder than any man! I'm a citizen, godsdammit!

Citizenship normally takes 20 years of service, right? Gaius must have backdated their "service" to the moment when their education began or declared they did some sort of outstanding act but either way they seem to have benefited from a marked degree of favoritism. Then they hit the usual dilemma of a collaborator in a colonialist system, the huge power imbalance means that everything you've "earned" can be taken away immediately and suddenly you're in the same position as the people your overlords had been using you to oppress, and under Zenos they lost almost everything.

The thing I'm wondering about is to what degree this was because they were Ala Mhigan and what degree it was because they were Gaius' pet project.

Gaius deciding to ignore orders and continue to invade Eorzea, essentially going it alone for five years, seems like something that should have had some pretty significant fallout. We've already seen some of it with Nero, who seems to have chosen self-exile over whatever the consequences of returning will be. So how much of the Wolves' getting busted down was a political show, "this is what'll happen to your legacy if you step out of line", and how much of the Wolves' devotion to duty stems from trying to prove the man that oversaw their childhoods was "right" to grant them special treatment?

[Anonymoose]

Citizenship normally takes 20 years of service, right?

Yyyes... Ostensibly.

Would there be anything preventing Gaius from brokering deals with influential Ala Mhigans that their children be elevated from aan to oen immediately upon enlisting as a groomed and educated legionarius? I know it's to the Empire's benefit to dangle citizenship over the heads of those who would claim it until they've been of service, but I'm not sure there's anything stopping them from just handing it out if they think it's a good deal. Careful education of (and even marriage into) the upper echelons of a target society is a proven way to cement transference of power.

Lyse
So you walked in Fordola's memories. What did you see?

Arenvald
A woman promised the world─education, training, citizenship─all that and more if she but sold her soul. A traitor to her people, a pretender to her masters...

Side note: Cool that they grabbed Fordola's biography right off the website, yet warped it with Arvenvald's biases.

A young soldier born and raised during the imperial occupation of Ala Mhigo, Fordola was promised the world─education, training, citizenship─in exchange for service. Scorned as traitors by their people and savages by their Garlean masters, she and others like her struggle to forge their own path in an unforgiving world.

Anyroad, say Gaius tried the carrot with the upper crust of Ala Mhigo ("dignitaries" Conrad called them). Say he offered that they "lead their people into the new age"; retain their status, be free from tributum, have their children become full citizens. How many would take the offer? With the amount of suffering Garlemald was clearly capable of inflicting on the defiant...

Gaius deciding to ignore orders and continue to invade Eorzea, essentially going it alone for five years, seems like something that should have had some pretty significant fallout. <...> how much of the Wolves' getting busted down was a political show, "this is what'll happen to your legacy if you step out of line", and how much of the Wolves' devotion to duty stems from trying to prove the man that oversaw their childhoods was "right" to grant them special treatment?

I'm curious about how far down the chain of command Garlemald would hold the soldiers of the XIVth accountable, especially the ones whose orders were not contradictory to those High Legatus and the Emperor in the first place. What happens to the guy who obeys the spirit of the High Legatus's wishes by being insubordinate to the direct order of everyone from the Legatus to his commanding officer? And what of the cohorts that were to stay in Ala Mhigo? It doesn't look like the Skulls did anything rogue-y.

[Alleo]

Yes, she killed Meffrid and Conrad, but Fordola is an imperial: how does killing them make her a "kin-slaying traitor" instead of a tremendously effective soldier?

Like others already wrote she is from Ala Mhigo herself but grew up when it was under the rule of Garlemald, so she slays her own kin because even if its under their rule she is still an Ala Mhigan. In war you will always have to kill your enemy if you are at the front but in this war she killed those that are from the same place thus her kin. This makes Lyse quite angry because she cant understand how someone can do it. But at least this point was still understandable for me, because Fordola was raised under Garlean rule so its kinda not surprising that she chose to help them.

I did feel for Fordola for some time but there is no excuse for her treating the common people really bad..she said nothing when that poor man was nearly beaten to death, they also dont do their task and protect the Ala Mhigan that are under Garleans rule. On top of that she even goes so far and kills her own underlings too, which is kinda a bad way and which was the final point, where I lost a lot of respect for her. She might not be that much of a traitor since she never was on the "good" side anyway but she definitely slew her own kin and even her own men.

And a friendly reminder that Ala Mhigo is historically a warmongering state, and has previously tried to do to other city-states what Garlemald has done to them. But muh evil Garleans, or something.

Yes they went against other city states very very long time ago..such a long time ago that even the city states themselves are over that situation. Using that as a argument really is not that good since that would mean that no state in the world would ever be free of their burden of their past..if they would have gone against the states just years ago then maybe this would be a better point but not something that was so far in the past.

In the end I am kinda interested in how they will threat Fordola in further patches. Will she show remorse and get her punishment or will she turn into a bigger enemy and thus show us that some cant just be saved? Anyway I still find it horrible that she shot her own men, which is something the alliance at least never did. (And no taking a rebellion down is not the same)

---

I do love a good discussing and even if we have different opinion its fine as long as there are no mean personal attacks. Yet nobody is forced to discuss things endlessly so if this discussion will turn into a circle for some and they are annoyed by it, then nobody is forced to still participate in it.

[Mieck]

Can I just say that the fact that there are two distinct sides (as identified by TinyRedLeaf) is a credit to the writers. To instil enough grey areas to allow for the debate is something that makes the conflict between Lyse and Fordola interesting in the first place.