Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[Quor]

Stop talking about X.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to talk about X.

Theo man, we know where you stand on this issue, and while I can't speak for everyone, I have seen more than a few people state, probably in exasperation (at least that's the feeling I feel when you inevitably bring up the diplomacy and false moral equivalency stuff) that the situation between Garlemald and the rest of the world isn't something that can be solved via diplomacy, at least not yet. Then you go on with this ridiculous analogy, stating that the Dragonsong War and the current continent-spanning conflicts caused directly by Garlemald are the same thing, and since diplomacy worked with the Ishgard/Dravanian conflict, clearly it should work with the current Garlean invasion. The problem with this is that you have to intentionally ignore so many differences to make this work that it's downright delusional. I don't say that as an insult; I'm stating it as fact. A person would literally have to ignore clear evidence in order to come to the conclusion that Garlean invasion of Eorzea = Dragonsong War. I mean, did you even read what Cilia wrote about the Dsong War?? The only reasons "diplomacy" worked was because there was a second "faction" of dragons who had stayed apart from the war that we could work with, and also because we killed the lead dragon responsible for the perpetrating things on the Dravanian front. In short, diplomacy worked there because of murder. We murdered Nidhogg and the lack of a leader scattered his Horde to the winds. At that point it was just a matter of killing the wannabe Ishgardian god and then explaining to the people of Ishgard that this other group of dragons are totally cool and didn't participate in the thousand-year murderwar.

Others have explained why diplomacy won't work - currently anyway - with the Garleans. I've explained aspects of it at least once or twice, but I'll do it again, because I love Quixotian endeavors I guess.

Let's start with the causes
Dragonsong - A betrayal that cost the life of a kind, loving (and beloved) ancient being due to the perpetrators desire to take the ancient beings' power for themselves. Not only was lust for power involved, but the betrayal part is key; the ancient being in question trusted, and could be argued even loved the people who betrayed her and ultimately slaughtered her ruthlessly (then went on to ingest at least some of her body, since all the other stuff wasn't terrible enough).

Garlean invasion - A technologically superior country desires to control all other countries in the belief that this will somehow create a situation wherein no Bad Things (i.e. Eikon summonings) will occur anymore. The fact that sovereign rights, territory, culture, customs, language, and peoples are ruthlessly crushed in all of this is merely the growing pains on the road to a Better Tomorrow. As far as we are aware, there was no trust, and no betrayal, between Garlemald and the Eorzean alliance. Maybe there was something that happened between Garlemald and some other countries that were closer to Ilsabard (I think the lorebook actually states something to that effect), but the Eorzean city states weren't a part of that. LL, Grid, Ishgard and Ul'dah have all been more or less doing their own things for awhile now. Grid is famously insular, Ishgard was tied up with that whole war thing for the last millenium, and while the merchants of LL and Ul'dah range far and wide, there's been no major direct military confrontations between the militaries of either city state and the Garleans prior to the Garlean invasion. Ala Mhigo, under the King of Ruin, probably screwed with it's neighbor to the east, but from what we know geographically thus far, that neighbor can't be Garlemald proper.

So in essence, Garlemald decided, without provocation, to invade Eorzea. Their justification, while I'm sure it makes great sense to the Empire, boils down to "you aren't under our control and we're going to change that." They sure as hell didn't send the Agrius on a mission of peace. And of course when someone starts a war with you, the proper way to win is to tell them to put down their instruments of murder and calmly join you at the treaty-table to discuss exactly how bad of a boy they've been.

Wait, no, that's not right. Oh yes, when someone comes to kill you and yours, making war on your home, you fight. Because at that point diplomacy won't work. There can be no compromise with a party who seeks your death or subjugation. Doubly so given that the general consensus among Garleans is that non-Garleans are "savages" who should be thankful for the Empire stepping in to "civilize" such uncouth creatures. When one group dehumanizes another group to the point that they see them as little better than wild beasts, there's no way diplomacy would work. You don't negotiate with a pack of hungry carnivores. You simply subdue and tame them or if that doesn't work, you put them all down. But you certainly don't talk with them. It'd be like bird trying to explain to a fish how to fly! The poor thing wouldn't even be able to comprehend it.

This right here is all you should need to see that the two situations are almost completely different in every way. Both the Garlean invasion and the Dsong War have clearly defined sides, and both have resulted in a lot of death and destruction, but the similarities end there. This doesn't mean diplomacy can't work eventually. It just means it can't work now or in the foreseeable future. There may come a day in that future where the Empire has been bloodied enough that they realize they have met their match, and would be willing to come to the table. Or perhaps something bigger than their silly war will appear that forces a "strange bedfellows" situation that ultimately results in a lasting diplomatic peace. But for now, the Empire still believes that they are both the biggest kid on the block and that they have the largest sticks. And they're right. For all the amazing things we've accomplished, much of it has been on the back of enemy failure. Zenos and his failure to actually be a god damned leader. The Skulls and their failure to pick out the infiltrator that convinced them to fall for the ruse that resulted in the capture of Velodyna. Yotsuyu and her failure to see the variety of threats arraying themselves before her, and taking appropriate action against them (she was much too busy enjoying being a sadist). Everything we've fought against so far has, for the most part, been some kind of "expeditionary force." We have yet to contend with anything besides occupying forces tied down in a foreign land.

Which is the final nail in the "diplomacy" coffin; when you are in a position of strength, why would you want to compromise? Why would the Empire want to come to a negotiating table when they have yet to unleash their full might upon us? Why talk with the savage, inferior races of the world when you can instead just take whatever you want, whenever you want? Why give them a chance to get anything at all?

Diplomacy won't work until the Empire feels like it's opponents are true threats, or until they are faced with something that they cannot beat on their own, thus compelling them to seek allies. Until at least one of those conditions are met, you're barking up the wrong tree with all this diplomacy and false equivalency talk.

[Theodric]

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the situation between Garlemald and Eorzea cannot be solved through diplomacy. Nobody is stating that it will be easy - but at some point it is going to be a necessity for both sides for the sake of avoiding a bitter war not dissimilar to the Dragonsong war.

We know that there is more to Garlemald than initially meets the eye. It's confirmed as much at various points in-game and within the lore book itself. We also know that the protagonists themselves have been exposed to this knowledge, a sliver of it it at least - but so far even the purest of elements such as Regula's heroic sacrifice have been ignored outright by the protagonists with no actual followup. So, too, has Zenos' denouncement of the Garlean Empire been ignored by the protagonists despite him clearly being shown to be unhinged and as actively sabotaging and attacking his own allies just as often as he sought to torment his enemies.

If nothing else, though, diplomacy should be sought to prevent a situation of escalation and needless bloodshed on both sides of the conflict. As it stands, most of the protagonists have shown a willingness to push for diplomacy in countless situations that seem hopeless but for some strange reason they do not so so where Garlemald is concerned. This is hypocritical and morally dubious of them, thus I will continue to see it as such until there is a genuine push for it. Does this mean that Garlemald requires no reform? Not at all - and I have never stated as much in the past. There's the Garlean Consulate in Kugane at any rate - so it's not as if there isn't a suitable location to engage in negotiations with someone from Garlemald. Hopefully that will be a plot point at some point during this expansion.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Okay guys. Can we call a time-out now? This thread is in danger of being hijacked by an out-of-topic discussion. May I request that the parties involved take the debate on the relative good-and-evils of Eorzean/Garlean diplomacy elsewhere.

As for the actual topic, more to come, once I'm back at my desk.

[Alleo]

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.

Dont worry I bear no grudge but like I said this is a discussion forum. Also should people really have to completely ignore those posts, even if you bring them up in topics that have barely or nothing to do with it? Why not just not post them? Why do we have to compromise and not you? Why are you answering my post and not simple agree to disagree? So in the end if someone goes around and post a certain topic in each single existing thread (no this is general argument, not about you) then people should be fine with that and ignore it? I am honestly just a bit tired that some should confirm to these "rules" but others dont.

In the end its simple: If one does not start it, by posting something off topic, then others will not have to agree to disagree, or it will not turn something further off topic. So you have the exactly same amount of responsibility of not turning another thread into a off topic discussion as all the other posters. And no I will not black list you or anything because I do like to read some of your posts, especially in the General forum and I would not see those anymore.


On topic:

Barely anyone said that its black and white with Fordola..we also know that its partly her upbringing but every human being has a choice and some of the choices she did were horrible. In the end people are just not sure if this would make her a monster or kin-slayer or not, but I dare to say that most would agree that those things were horrible and that she has to be punished for it.

But even after all she did I still feel more positive towards her than our other female enemy. Not sure why since both have done horrible things but at least it looked like Fordola does not enjoy it but sees it as something necessary while Yotsuyu truly enjoys the killing of innocent people.

In the end I am still of the opinion that both of them should land in prison, maybe with Fordola having a chance to get out after xx years. I just dont want this to end in any kind of sacrifice from any of them.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Right, the discussion has moved on a fair bit since I last posted. I believe the key points have already been adequately addressed. But YianKutku and Alleo both alluded to the one major defence — and possibly the only one — that's applicable to Fordola's actions at Castrum Abania.

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

I am not really sure how I should rate the villager since there was the imminent danger that everyone in the village would die... 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.

Thanks for bringing up the situation at Isari village! It hadn't occurred to me before, but it serves as a very interesting counterpoint to the events at Castrum Abania.

Now, intuitively, none of us would blame the poor man for shooting his fellow villager at Yotsuyu's orders. That's because the threat to his life, and the lives of the other villagers, was clear cut: It was do or die. As such, we can easily argue that he was acting in self-defence.

So, the question is: To what extent can the argument of self-defence also apply to Fordola at the battle for Castrum Abania?

Anonymoose had already pointed out that the "choice" before Fordola wasn't much of a choice: Refusing Zeno's order on the spot would have most certainly cost her life, and subsequently the demise of the Skulls.

Fordola, I think, knew very well she couldn't refuse. Consider the exact words she used to rebuke the Garlean centurion who tried to clarify her order:

Imperial centurion
Commander, if I may! Our people — your people are still there! They will be slaughtered!

Fordola
You think I don't know that!? I want nothing more than to help them — to lead the bloody charge — but I have my orders! Lord Zenos said no reinforcements. He would have us use the main cannon to destroy the installation.

Imperial centurion
What...kill our own soldiers! You must be mistaken!

Fordola
Mayhap you'd like to ask Lord Zenos yourself?

Imperial centurion
...

Fordola
I thought not.

Now, it's one thing to say that a soldier is under no obligation to follow an illegal order (international law has in fact been updated to make it absolutely clear that "superior orders" cannot be used as a defence for war crimes.

But it's quite another when the soldier's life is under threat, in which case, it can be argued that self-preservation takes precedence.

It ought to be clear, from the quotes above, that Fordola was under no illusion that disobeying Zeno's orders would be fatal — the centurion himself virtually confirmed her assumption.

That being the case, should Fordola be held personally responsible for giving the order? The parallel with the situation in Isari is actually quite uncanny and, now that it's been brought to my attention, I wonder if that was the intention. If so, my kudos again to the writers. :)

If we don't blame the villager for shooting a fellow villager, under duress, then to what extent can we blame Fordola for the same action, committed under a similar context of duress?

By the by, as Alleo and Quor have also observed, Fordola has much more to answer for other than the atrocity at Castrum Abania. She remains responsible, be it directly or indirectly, for worsening the oppression on ordinary Ala Mhigans. On this count alone, there are more than enough grounds to prosecute a case against her as a "traitor" to her people.

But it was specifically after the events of Castrum Abania that Lyse first accused Fordola of being a "murderer" and "butcher" as well.

Hence my focus on that battle, and on what's perhaps the only credible defence for Fordola's allegedly "monstrous" action during the fighting.

One last minor thing I also wanted to point out:

Firing on her own soldiers doesn't make [Fordola] a monster, but it's hard to construe the action itself as anything other than monstrous.

I understand what you're trying to say but, actually, the above is just semantics. ;) I don't see how someone found guilty of committing a "monstrous" act can be anything other than a "monster". It'll be akin to suggesting that an individual guilty of committing a criminal act is somehow not a criminal.

Either the action is not a crime, and the accused is not a criminal; or the action is a crime, and the defendant is guilty.

The question, as before, is the extent of guilt, and the degree to which Fordola can be held responsible.

[SendohJin]

If we don't blame the villager for shooting a fellow villager, under duress, then to what extent can we blame Fordola for the same action, committed under a similar context of duress?

It's not similar, Zenos was not in the room there was no gun pointed at her head at that moment. If her prevailing motivation was her own safety and the safety of those in that control room she can choose desertion, defection or surrender. She chose to do none of those things.

I don't remember the scene exactly but wasn't that villager forced to choose between shooting one person vs all of the other villagers? Fordola also chose the few over the many.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Nope, too many hypotheticals. We can't go with what could have happened. We can only go with what did happen, and what we know about the defendants' state of mind at the time of the action.

And, no, the villager wasn't forced to choose between shooting one person or the rest.

Yotsuyu "requested" that the villagers affirm their loyalty to the Empire. She did not say how at first, but presented a captured villager who was allegedly trying to escape to Kugane. It's only after one villager volunteered that she gave him a gun, and indicated that he should shoot the alleged deserter to prove his own loyalty.

I say again: Yotsuyu did not at first tell the villagers how she wanted them to "affirm" their loyalty. It's only after one villager volunteered, and was given a gun, that everyone realised what she intended.

At that point, anything could have happened, besides shooting the "deserter". The villager could have refused, and returned the gun. Or, even better, he could have shot Yotsuyu at point-blank, when he had the chance.

Let's be creative! There could have been a hundred different things the villager could have done. In a better, more ideal world, one of those possibilities could have happened.

But, in reality, it did not: The villager chose to meekly obey orders to murder an alleged deserter.

Why? Because it's clear that all of the villagers were terrified of what Yotsuyu would do to them if they refused to follow her orders at that point.

The instinct for self-preservation is perhaps the strongest of all emotions that any of us could feel, and it's quite understandable that, when presented with a moral dilemma, most people would choose the option that takes them out of harm's way.

By the same token, we know for certain that both Fordola and the centurion wanted not to fire the cannon at their own soldiers. We know for certain that Fordola wanted to personally lead the charge. We know for certain that the centurion had the presence of mind to question his immediate superior about the wisdom of her order.

We also know for certain that both of them didn't feel they had any other option than to obey Zenos' order.

So, again, the situation is similar. Not the same, I grant you, but similar enough that we should pause and consider the extent to which self-defence is a viable argument for Fordola's actions at Castrum Abania.

[Theodric]

Excellent points! I think it's also worth noting that there's pretty excellent reason for even seasoned soldiers to fear the wrath of Zenos. Fordola and the Centurion may have heard stories of the Warrior of Light's impressive accomplishments. Zenos had, at that point in the story, defeated the Warrior of Light not once but twice. To oppose Zenos would likely mean their deaths - and neither of them have any obligation to sacrifice their lives. Heck, the protagonists themselves made numerous quips about how that isn't something to aspire to.

[Erudito]

Not as much as Lyse makes her out but still pretty bad.

Like a good deal of villains, she had a good pretext but went about it in one of the worst, violent, bloodiest, ends justify the means ways about it. In case you skipped it or missed it, she wanted the Ala Mhigan people to earn respect from the Garleans through work so that they could climb up and enjoy from Garlean lofty lifestyle someday. To this end she forsook the country of Ala Mhigo that easily fell to their own corruption and madness and embraced the new Ala Mhigo that was born through Garlean conquest.

Her efforts would most likely never see fruit as Garleans are very racist and see all other peoples as savages. If anything, it would take several generations after she her that would see any type of change, if any.

[SendohJin]

Nope, too many hypotheticals. We can't go with what could have happened. We can only go with what did happen, and what we know about the defendants' state of mind at the time of the action.

Okay, so let's go over what did happen. I'm watching the CS as I write this. He says "I have a family" right before he shoots the 'deserter' so his motivation is just as much about his family as himself.

At that point, anything could have happened, besides shooting the "deserter". The villager could have refused, and returned the gun. Or, even better, he could have shot Yotsuyu at point-blank, when he had the chance.
...
But, in reality, it did not: The villager chose to meekly obey orders to murder an alleged deserter.

Does anyone buy this when immediately afterwards when he's ordered to shoot his parents, he indeed does try to shot Yotsuyu and was gunned down by her troops? That's not a hypothetical, that happened.

The instinct for self-preservation is perhaps the strongest of all emotions that any of us could feel, and it's quite understandable that, when presented with a moral dilemma, most people would choose the option that takes them out of harm's way.

But this villager chose to overcome that instinct and died, that's why most everyone gives him a pass.

So the key differences between Fordola and the villager.
1) Yotsuyu and her troops were an immediate threat in front of them with weapons. Zenos was not there.
2) The villager had a lot less time to restrain his instinct, he was given the gun and reacted within seconds. Fordola had much more time to contemplate the order.
3) If self-defense is the argument for the first shot, the villager was not only concerned for himself also his family. Fordola and the operator put no one before themselves.
4) Both were given the option to shoot again, the villager overcame his instinct and/or valued his family over himself and turned the gun on Yotsuyu when the stakes were increased. Fordola would have fired again but was stopped by an outside force.
5) He's a civilian, they are not.

1 and 2 already does it for me really as why it could've been viable for the villager but not Fordola.