Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[Belhi]

I do think she felt that if they had the chance to make the call themselves her own people would have told her to fire. They all shared the same desire and goal and they had all chosen to do whatever was necessary to achieve that acceptance. There is something to be said for knowing your people well enough to be able to judge what their decision would be.

[Theodric]

-snip-

The Eorzean Alliance had also secured multiple victories within Gyr Abania, too, up until that point. Largely due to the presence of the Warrior of Light. Someone who, in turn, has secured a string of victories elsewhere. In an effort to stand a chance to defeat such a force, the Warrior of Light's enemies are going to have to resort to increasingly desperate means. Which may explain Fordola's reasoning. It's also why I'm such a firm advocate of the Eorzean Alliance resorting to diplomacy because there's a huge risk that things will get messier otherwise and if they don't cease being the aggressor and seeking to liberate territory/fuel rebellions then all the blood spilled is going to be on their hands.

I don't particularly care for the comeback that Garlemald isn't interested in diplomacy. Neither Ishgard or the Dravanians were interested in diplomacy but the Warrior of Light and Scions did not take 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, Regula was more than willing to team up with the Warrior of Light for the sake of the greater good. Temporarily, perhaps, but had he survived it could very well have led to him having a word with the Emperor and seeking a different approach to all things Eorzea.

[Quor]

Ishgard, Dravania, the Garleans and the effectiveness of Diplomacy.

The Dragonsong War was perpetrated on a lie. The Garlean conquest is not. There is, to our knowledge at least, no "grand misunderstanding" or thousand-year lie perpetrated by the people responsible for the war in the first place.

Of course, that may change, and there is always the chance that a change in leadership (or a change in the heart of leadership) can open up a way to diplomacy, but ending credit cutscenes hint otherwise. The last time a head of state was seen with Mr. White we ended up unseating them after revealing a millenia-long farce that had been perpetrated at the expense of the people, not to mention countless dragon lives. Then that head of state went on to try and become a living god, ultimately forcing us to put him down.

If the EA ever gets to a point where they have begun to push into imperial home territory, into the heart of Garlemald itself, then you would have an argument. But for now? It's a false equivalency. The situation during the Dragonsong War was nothing at all like the situation with Garlemald.

[Cilia]

I'd also like to point out that saying the Ishgardians and Dravanians weren't interested in peace is a lie by omission. While it's true the Ishgardians had little faith in the idea, the Archbishop nonetheless agreed with our request to hold off an offense against the Horde until we had attempted to parley with them. (In reality this was likely just a ploy to buy time by distracting us and/or get Nidhogg out of the way of his plans, but I digress.) There were also a good number of Dravanians who were apathetic to the conflict, but when the opportunity was presented showed that they desired peace. Some Ishgardians still desired to go against the Dravanians (Lowdy's sunk cost fallacy), but Aymeric was able to convince them (Lowdy included) to put their hatred behind them. (Aymeric, not the Scions.) Some took more convincing than others (Hraesvelgr, Lowdy) but in the end peace was achieved by ripping out the root and perpetuator of the conflict (King Thordan by proxy, Nidhogg), and peace was desired by both groups when those corrupting influences were expunged.

[Alleo]

Depending on how strictly you want to define "shoot" and "comrades", there's also Zenos (definitely own comrades, but did not shoot) and that unfortunate villager in the Ruby Sea (shot, may or may not be own comrade, but certainly fellow villager).

Okay maybe then: None of the alliance did something like her.

I am not really sure how I should rate the villager since there was the imminent danger that everyone in the village would die but yes he also killed his own friend but he also payed that with his own life. (And like I said I am not sure how to rate that situation because nobody was really holding a real gun at Fordolas head at that time and they did not know if they would even lose the fight against the alliance thus no immediate danger.)

I do think she felt that if they had the chance to make the call themselves her own people would have told her to fire. They all shared the same desire and goal and they had all chosen to do whatever was necessary to achieve that acceptance. There is something to be said for knowing your people well enough to be able to judge what their decision would be.

Well she seems to have not known them enough because if she did not shoot them Conrad would have made them surrender and change side. At least we were told that they were ready to lay down their weapons so its seems that they did not see it her way. Also not sure if thats not a bad way to do something. I mean I could go around and do things and afterwards say that this person would have been alright with it but the problem is, they dont know that because they cant ask them anymore.

I don't particularly care for the comeback that Garlemald isn't interested in diplomacy. Neither Ishgard or the Dravanians were interested in diplomacy but the Warrior of Light and Scions did not take 'no' for an answer. Furthermore, Regula was more than willing to team up with the Warrior of Light for the sake of the greater good. Temporarily, perhaps, but had he survived it could very well have led to him having a word with the Emperor and seeking a different approach to all things Eorzea.

These are two different situations..Garlemald is the aggressor that invaded Eorzea and took an independent state under their rule. They did not care about diplomacy when they conquered them with force, so why should the alliance use diplomacy with them? What good would that bring? Do you really believe that they would give away Ala Mhigo? Or that any of the options would be good for Eorzea? A complete freedom from Garlemald is the only really good solution for Ala Mhigo because they would be finally free to choose their own path again.

Most from Ishgard and the dragons never knew that it was a lie and thus they fought a war that they thought was right. We went with the believe that it was all the dragons fault and yet we still tried diplomacy with the dragons where we learned that it was all a lie..but why should anyone believe us? Yet Aymeric did and together with us they changed the future for Ishgard and for the dragons and not only with force but also diplomacy. (I mean that is what the one meeting with the dragon was about)

Also what should the Wol have done in your opinion? You are putting him and the scions down again even though Ishgard was living a lie and Nidhogg was not interested in peace..should we just go our way and leave a whole city state and all the dragons at war with more and more countless victims even though we knew that they are living a lie and that we may have the power to put an end to it? And wouldnt that mean that the alliance would be missing an important member in important fights thus even more victims?

We also cant say much about Regula because he is simply dead. He could have changed or he could have not.

And this will be the only thing I am going to write about Garlemald itself otherwise this will just turn into another debate of them which is off topic but I am not surprised that you started it again. Anyway I will not further this argument, I just brought my points to yours and this will be all.

[Sarantai]

What I'm most afraid of is that all of these questions will simply be skipped over, or rushed through. I remember when I learned the truth of the start of Ishgard's war, and after some thought, I said to myself 'you know, there's so much about this that's not being said'. We never learned Why the first King Thordan decided to throw aside 200 years of peace for a chance at draconic power. His Knights didn't seem so terrible, but we never learned what else was going on. So much room for exposition, for debate and questions, but we never had any of it. All the most important subjects were brought up and wrapped up just as fast as they were introduced, it seemed.

We have a 9-page discussion here about Fordola, an amazing discussion. But I'm SO mad at the thought that her whole story might just be wrapped up in a single patch. Some quests, some dialogue, a trial of some sort for the sake of whatever, and then on to the next thing.

Can you tell me why it might not work out that way?

[Cilia]

I figured the Ascians were behind King Thordan's sudden lust for power. Who else could it be? /sarcasm, kind of. They tend to be the root cause of most conflict on Hydaelyn, not that the mortal races are incapable of warring among themselves without a push. Just a tiny nudge seems to be the typical Ascian MO - Lahabrea's forcefulness was noted as making him an outlier, though Nabriales' blunt directness draws that into question.

I don't think Fordola's story will end with a single patch. There are a multitude of issues that need to be addressed in tandem with her, and each patch could easily touch on her as a part of the larger scope of rebuilding Doma and Ala Mhigo.

[Alleo]

What I'm most afraid of is that all of these questions will simply be skipped over, or rushed through. I remember when I learned the truth of the start of Ishgard's war, and after some thought, I said to myself 'you know, there's so much about this that's not being said'. We never learned Why the first King Thordan decided to throw aside 200 years of peace for a chance at draconic power. His Knights didn't seem so terrible, but we never learned what else was going on. So much room for exposition, for debate and questions, but we never had any of it. All the most important subjects were brought up and wrapped up just as fast as they were introduced, it seemed.

We have a 9-page discussion here about Fordola, an amazing discussion. But I'm SO mad at the thought that her whole story might just be wrapped up in a single patch. Some quests, some dialogue, a trial of some sort for the sake of whatever, and then on to the next thing.

Can you tell me why it might not work out that way?

I agree with you. We do have that wonderful plot item called Echo yet we are barely using it. We are able to see the past of the first knights and I wished that they had shown some more reason but it probably comes down to either Ascians or greed. (Or both) SE imo has a bit of a problem of "show dont tell". They like to tell us something but often forget to show it to us to make it more believable. At least they did that right with Fordola imo. They showed her watching her underlings beating that guy up, they showed her scenes with Zenos and they showed her order on her own forces. This way we could see how she behaves. This is imo way better than just telling us that she did those things.

And I too hope that we will get more about Fordola and that they dont wrap her story up too fast. (I am already disappointed that they killed Zenos so early) But seeing how they threated the WoD story line...well I remain skeptic how they will end her story.

[Quor]

Zenos dying too soon

Part of me thinks that we're not done with Zenos just yet. I mean, sure, we're done with the original Zenos, but given the guy who was in charge of his R&D, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Zenos clone or three out there in some top secret Garlean black site.

As for Thordan and his knights, I'm of the mind that the original Thordan and co. committed the murder of Ratatoskr for no other reason than good old mortal lust for power.

[Theodric]

Anyway I will not further this argument, I just brought my points to yours and this will be all.

Once again, you seem to be ignoring the offer that has been put forward to agree to disagree on plot points that are open to subjective interpretation. I have to wonder why, exactly, that is the case - because by not doing so you are the one furthering the argument; pinning the blame on another poster alone is simply dishonest. Nobody is stating that you should change your mind, just that you should agree to disagree and acknowledge that your interpretation of subjective plot elements are not the rule of law. I'd strongly suggest shifting whatever grudge you bear along with anyone else who cannot help but lace their posts with quips.

It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. If you want a specific issue to not be brought up constantly then compromises are to be made. If not, the cycle continues - day in, day out. Alternatively you can simply make use of the ignore function but if there isn't one around these parts then I'm sure simply skimming past my posts will suffice.

At any rate, in regards to the situation with Ishgard and the Dravanians the Warrior of Light decided to get involved and push for peace before knowing the truth of the war's origins. Learning the truth simply reinforced the desire to put an end to the conflict in such a way as to ensure that peace could be achieved - even after it seemed hopeless. Given that the war lasted for a thousand years and the conflict with Garlemald has been happening for a far shorter time it is dubious, then, that the Warrior of Light and his key allies are refusing to engage in diplomacy. That Garlemald is the 'aggressor' is irrelevant as Eorzea is now the aggressor, seeking to reclaim territory that has not belonged to them for a quarter of a decade. Then again, they were practically handed Yanxia and Gyr Abania on a silver platter thanks to Zenos not even caring about Garlemald and denouncing its cause...but so far even though he outright denounced Garlemald in a speech the Warrior of Light and his allies still have not done anything to acknowledge such complications.

Ranting about 'freedom' is all well and good but at this point the Warrior of Light and his allies are simply risking another situation such as the Dragonsong War where things escalate on both sides. You can't really pin the blame for the Dragonsong War's continuation on the Ishgardians or Dravanians solely as both did their part not only to survive but to seek vengeance. With the conflict with Garlemald, however, such a scenario is going to threaten to play out if the Eorzeans and their allies seek to push pack further without ever acknowledging the complications and nuances involved.

You know, much like most wars throughout history in the real world. As such, the situation with Fordola simply isn't black or white as far as I'm concerned. I suspect that will only be further cemented once we see more of her moving forward. It could be in 4.1 or it could be later on in the expansion depending on how things go from here.