Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[YianKutku]

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.

I suspect it's also because Zenos killed people without good reason, or at least without good reason as seen from the Empire's perspective rather than Zenos's personal one.

We see Zenos kill his own subordinates twice on-screen, and hear of more instances (including flaying, which is above and beyond mere execution). This is not the action of an effective military commander, despite all we've been told of Zenos's tactical acumen.

Previously, we see Nero kill a man because he believed that man to be a spy. Summary, but technically justified in the Empire's view. Livia killed a subordinate for disobeying orders: this is closer to what Zenos did, and I would classify it as the same, but we only see it once, so we can't fully judge that, and my classification of it is just my own opinion.

In any case, the mindset of a man who kills because he is bored, or because the victim did not live up to his own personal bizarre expectations, would probably be enough for Varis to call Zenos a "monster". Not out of moral judgment, but out of practical judgment: such a person is too small-minded and unsuited for the throne.

Fusing with a Primal just confirmed Varis's view, in a "of course Zenos would do something like that" kind of way.

[LineageRazor]

When I say that Garlemald is amoral, I speak of the nation as a whole.

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

It's all-too-easy for folks in power to throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, I know that this was wrong, but I had to do it because it was to the benefit of our stockholders citizens." Essentially, making decisions supported by practically no one in the nation - including the ones making them! - because they think they're obligated to.

[Draginhikari]

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

More or less, politics is less about the actual reality of an situation and more of how best to convince people to agree in a particular set of actions.

[Cilia]

Actually, rather than the nation as a whole, it sounds as though you're speaking of the amorality of its government and national policy. As you say, people are people, and individuals may have moral leanings, but the folks in charge of the country have definitely taken a "whatever most benefits our nation is acceptable" viewpoint. The leaders feel that they are obligated to make decisions that benefit the nation, regardless of how those decisions jive with their own particular moral leanings. A bit like a corporation, I'd say.

It's all-too-easy for folks in power to throw up their hands and say, "Yeah, I know that this was wrong, but I had to do it because it was to the benefit of our stockholders citizens." Essentially, making decisions supported by practically no one in the nation - including the ones making them! - because they think they're obligated to.

That is the gist of what I'm getting at, I suppose. Still, given Garlemald is a military dictatorship, the nation and it's leader(s) are practically synonymous. Individuals may speak out against their nation's decisions, but since the Garlean people have no power in their government, they are forced to do as Varis says. (Well... unless a populist uprising were to occur...)

Corporations are a bit different, since they actually are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, but the principle is the same I suppose.

[SendohJin]

Corporations are a bit different, since they actually are legally obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders

this is 100% not true.

[LineageRazor]

this is 100% not true.

Well... it's KINDA true, at least if the browsing I did was accurate. While not required to take any opportunity to maximize profits, corporations are required to act in the best interests of their shareholders - which may, on occasion, mean sacrificing profit for one reason or another.

On the other hand, this could still be interpreted as maximizing profits, as sacrificing profits in this way is USUALLY intended to promote the health and well-being of the corporation as a whole over the long term. For example, donating to charity reduces shareholder profits, but gives the corporation a good public image that benefits them in the long term, whereas outsourcing to cheap foreign labor that's barely better than slavery may improve shareholder profits, but can be quite ugly in the public eye and reduces profits as the public loses faith.

Naturally, this does not stop corporate executives from choosing either (or both!) plans, depending on how they judge their fiduciary responsibilities. As far as I can tell, legally speaking it's an EXTREMELY murky area that basically boils down to whether the executives can convince the courts that, yes, the decisions that brought them under legal scrutiny were NOT intended to bring harm to some or all of the stakeholders.

Nevertheless, however we want to interpret corporate responsibilities, Cilia's right in that there's no greater legal power restricting Garlean leadership. While it's not fair to say that they're TOTALLY unfettered (there's always the possibility of a civil uprising if they get too out-of-hand, and the various families in power also keep each other in check to one degree or another), they can pretty much make or change their own laws as they see fit.

[Xie_Belvoule]

I will say that I've throughly enjoyed this thread and everyone's input. Lots of great well thought out posts.

It's clear to me that I have a very differant sense of what's right and wrong compared to most people. My moral code and ethics run counter to most posters in this thread. For example, Zenos is the only character in SB that I can really identify and sympathize with, while I find Lyse utterly reprehensible.

It's been fascinating reading others thoughts on SB, it's like we played two differant games.

[Omury]

-snip-

Why is that?

Things are never as simple as we make them out to be.

So let's take a look at this problem from both Garlean and Eorzean perspectives.

Garlean: she did her duty; however, I don't think anything she could have done to gain respect for Ala Mhigans in the empire. Most garleans really didn't seem to care much about her or her men, and were essentially kind of like a 'Oh, why can't you be like these people.' then a, 'I wanna join them when I come of age!' It's pretty clear that the garleans had no respect for her and were questioning why a dog trying so hard to act like a person. Under someone like Gaius, she would have thrived, but Zenos corrupted her, and turned her from a person with reasonable goals and expectation, to an unrepentant soldier who followed orders without question.

Eorzean: She is an odd person, someone who is working with the occupying force IN the region that she is from. This is an oddity in Garlean orders since most conscripts are sent to different nations to work. When we were there for our 50-51 quests, she was just at the level of a basic recruit. When we came back at like 57ish she had gained strenght to act as an appropriate level enemy. The she went through 'Resonanceing' and gave the order that is central to this entire conundrum. As Arenvald said, "She was given the world, all in exchange for her soul."

Personally, I think that she should be classified as monstrous.

[Cilia]

this is 100% not true.

Trueish. I stand corrected. Corporations are not legally obligated to maximize profits, but they are legally obligated to act in the interest of their shareholders... which often means maximizing profits. Some corporations are actually shady enough to deliberately break laws because paying the fine is cheaper than staying within legal boundaries. Some corporations do try to go green as per their shareholders' wishes, but are still bound by profit first and foremost.

... but I digress...

It's clear to me that I have a very differant sense of what's right and wrong compared to most people. My moral code and ethics run counter to most posters in this thread. For example, Zenos is the only character in SB that I can really identify and sympathize with, while I find Lyse utterly reprehensible.

To me, Zenos is a tragic but not sympathetic character. As Lyse says, he wasn't always a wild dog of war, and was (to a degree) shaped into one by his upbringing and environment. While Zenos did do many, many terrible things to a great many people, he was only a symptom of Garlean social problems, just as Yotsuyu is a symptom of Doman social problems. Not gonna lie, Zenos was stark raving nuts... but he regarded you as his first friend and entrusted the future to you, in his own twisted way. Still had to be stopped, but knowing that he grew up seemingly friendless and was made into the monster he was by Garlemald... I just can't bring myself to hate Zenos.

I feel Lyse was mishandled a bit by the writing. I'll also ask why you found her, ah, reprehensible.

My stance on Fordola has not changed: she did some monstrous things, but showed honest guilt over it, so I do not believe she is a monster.

[Saiah]

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.

The thing is, Zenos is a textbook psychopath. He takes no pleasure in killing, he feels nothing. The reason why he tortures and plays with his victims (including the people of the lands colonized by the Empire) is to make them hate him to the point that he might feel some form of satisfaction in killing them. And he jeopardizes the empire in this selfish pursuit. Think about it, he couldve crushed the Doman and Ala Mhigan resistance and killed you and your allies with ease. After he trampled Rhalgr's Reach, he knew that your forces were still there. He couldve eliminated them completely and then turn his attention to the Eorzian Alliance who already struggled holding Castrum Oriens.

Come to think of it, in a way, he had the same goal as Lyse to an extent. To rouse the populace to stand up against him. But instead of inspiring people to fight for a better future, he was whipping a caged dog in an attempt to make it vicious. But to his chagrin, the dog would only cower with its tail between its legs. Except for Fordola and Yotsuyu, and thats why he promoted them.

imo this is why Varis didnt seem to give a hoot about losing his son. He was a liability and a emotionless murderer. A monster. A rabid beast that needed to be put down.