Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[Daralii]

I am not wanting to start a big discussion about Zenos but I also found it a bit funny how they wanted to create someone that is unlikeable and yet we have more than enough people who liked him and who even wanted to join his side. (Nothing wrong with that imo) So either they changed their stance on him or they have not managed to portray him as bad as they hoped.

The WoL might like to fight but imo they are still far away from being like him. They might have become more like him if they never had comrades but still he feels more of a "what if" WoL then someone we could truly relate too.

And like Lyse said nobody is born that way. There are many discussion in real life too, if some people are simple born that way and yes there are hints that sociopath do have certain brain scans but those are just one point. A lot of other factors are important on top of that to make someone a sociopath. I know that this is not real life but I do believe that the lore creators put Lyses sentence there to hint that he was not born that way.

A lot of SB's antagonists are set up to be kind of pitiable, but not sympathetic. They're still black-hearted monsters through and through. Just look at Yotsuyu.

[Kallera]

Killing is sinful, and we knowingly and willingly do so. Repeatedly and on a pretty grand scale. This makes it very, very easy to paint the Warrior of Light as a remorseless killer by ignoring the fact we fight and kill primarily to restore peace and/or freedom, or to preserve the well-being of others.

Killing repeatedly and in a pretty grade scale is enough for lesser beings to be marked for death, often by us. We can regret and mull all we like, but eventually the body count will get too high to hand wave it all away as "well, at least they don't force people to believe in them and do what they say..."

[Daralii]

Killing repeatedly and in a pretty grade scale is enough for lesser beings to be marked for death, often by us. We can regret and mull all we like, but eventually the body count will get too high to hand wave it all away as "well, at least they don't force people to believe in them and do what they say..."

Though the WoL might, based on what Zenos said about the Echo and its relation to tempering. Not deliberately, but still...

[Raqrie_Tohka]

I know. The point I'm getting at is that everyone says killing is wrong, but had absolutely no problem with killing Zenos because of the threat he posed. If you're going to criticize taking the lives of others, then all lives hold equal value - just because Zenos was a monster in human skin doesn't mean it was OK to go at him with the intent to kill, by that standard.

I acknowledge that killing Zenos was necessary. So, too, was killing those who guarded him with their lives. Doesn't mean it was fun or acceptable - not even Zenos. We did it because it was necessary. Practice compassion and mercy... but know when they must end.

Hmm interesting.

I for one do not agree that killing is inherently wrong. Even if it is, there are those times it is simply necessary, as you mentioned too. Such my philosophical stance is there is no such thing as unconditionally "right". Aka a dangerous direction not so different from Zenos himself. Ends sometimes can justify the means, if any "justification" is needed at all. There is no law, only politics.

Thus to any bystander observing the WoL, and even to Zenos himself, we may be every bit the hypocrite we perceive others to be. We practice "compassion and mercy" for our "friends", but not for our "enemies". To win one or two campaigns is nothing, but to consistently do it, and then be branded a "hero" ... such "prestige" stacks and snowballs, and eventually becomes its own justification. For one, exactly how justified one's actions are is not to be decided by ourselves, and two, may have nothing to do with the nature of the actual actions at all.

We can either pretend killing Zenos was "right", or we can pretend killing him was "necessary", mutually exclusive. If killing him was "necessary", then nothing in this world is inherently "right", including "not to kill". If killing him was "right", then there is no such thing as absolute righteousness either, for we are simply replacing one "right" with another, thus as there is no right there is no "necessary". Compassion and mercy is a choice, nothing more, it is not the "good" choice, nor necessarily the "desired" choice. While we can go into another philosophical realm with "choices", I'll just stop with that the Warrior of Light is called a "Warrior" for a reason: We kill. If killing is monstrous then we are monstrous, nothing more, nothing less, no need for justification. But we killed Zenos, we lived and he didn't. It is simply our way of being.

And to resonate with the title of people being called "monsters" ...
"We call those as monsters because we are afraid of them, that they are bigger than us, stronger than us, different from us, and disassociated from us."

Lyse can call Fordola a monster all she wants, and she may be "right". She may be "justified". And it may be "necessary" to do so. Same with us calling Zenos. But we are all a bit monstrous, if not monsters ourselves.

Yet, despite that, friendship, understanding, peace can happen between "monsters", and I refuse to believe that it is all just "politics". Unfortunately, we never saw such "miracles" in this expansion. Thus to me the MSQ for this expansion was just a bit narcissistic, shallow, monstrous. And from my stance, because Zenos killed himself in the end, thus absolving us of a lot of things, so he is the one who "won" this.

(Disclaimer, the expansion was still remarkable and there were many aspects I admired and enjoyed, I just thought the MSQ did not live up to the quality of all the other artistic assets.)

[Cilia]

I guess this demands a full write-up on my philosophy in regards to killing and war. Hide boxed for discretion (it's long).

Killing is acceptable if it serves to save more lives than those you took and only then. Going to war is acceptable if it is to preserve or restore peace and/or freedom, or to protect the well-being of others. Refusing to fight and kill under such circumstances, while morally pure, is selfish - placing one's innocence and purity above the freedom and well-being of others. The "sacrifice" soldiers make is not limited to their lives - soldiers sacrifice their innocence and purity, knowingly and willingly, so that others need not do so or suffer the consequences.

Let's take a look at the war in Stormblood and the circumstances surrounding it. The pretext from 3.5 was that Ilberd used a false flag operation to get the Empire to believe Eorzea had launched an offensive against it, ensuring that war would come to Eorzea regardless of our actions or choices. Eorzea does not have any official channels to engage the Empire in diplomacy. It has repeatedly made aggressive moves against Eorzea. The Eorzeans had no way to talk the Empire out of what would surely be used as a justification (from an Imperial perspective) for war. The real only option left to us, then, was to sully our hands and go to war. Otherwise the Empire would have begun an invasion of Eorzea in earnest; Varis wants to conquer Eorzea, and Zenos would be more than willing to oblige him. At what point does it become the greater sin to sit by and do nothing while the Empire conquers Eorzea, killing countless, helpless, innocent people along the way? Are you okay with telling people "Sorry you're going to suffer and/or die, but my innocence and purity is more important."?

Killing is wrong, in most circumstances. Only when someone poses a clear and direct threat to the well-being of others does it become necessary and, largely, acceptable to kill someone. This is true of Zenos; as a psychopath in a position of authority and power he had no business being in, he was a massive threat to both Eorzeans and Garleans. Few argue that killing him would have been wrong. Yet, there are countless Imperial soldiers that defended him with their lives, be it out of fear or duty, and the Warrior of Light is heavily criticized for having killed them to get to Zenos. This is fair criticism, but in light of the threat Zenos presented, what other choice was there? Nobody else possesses the power and skill necessary to fight Zenos on even ground - he would have killed anyone else who went up against him, and could have easily killed the Warrior of Light twice already had he so chosen.

Fordola and Yotsuyu were no longer threats. We were able to neutralize them without killing them, unlike Zenos, who required a kill or be killed mentality. Granted we did not end up killing Zenos anyway, but to go against him with anything other than lethal force would have been inviting death. Yotsuyu was not a fighter and by exploiting a flaw in the Resonant Echo we were able to dispatch Fordola without killing her. That luxury isn't always available. We kill nameless soldiers for a very similar reason - we do not have the means to dispatch them nonlethally, and it is kill or be killed. (Given the option to go nonlethal I would do so in a heartbeat - the option to kill doesn't even tempt me, and in games like the inFAMOUS series and Deus Ex: Human Revolution I do not kill anyone if it can be avoided at all. Helicopter shot down, pilot gonna get killed by heavily armed mercs with killer robots? No problem! Just dart around invisibly, shooting them with a stun gun and tranq rifle, and toss an EMP grenade at the 'bot to disable it! Pilot gets away and nobody died! Jensen (the PC) is later stuck in a room with a heavily armed cyborg coming at you with a plasma rifle and the intent to kill... sympathy or not, it's kill or be killed.)

Do we impose our will on others? No, not really. Other than putting down primals because they are a danger to people and slowly killing the world (the latter is unverified, and I will consider it as such until we see some topographical erosion like Magic's Ulamog produces), we do not force others to agree with our views. The Doman and Ala Mhigan people did not want Imperial rule, but lacked the power to make that desire for independence a reality. We are simply conduits for their will - we fight for them because they lack the power to fight for themselves, or at least do not possess power enough to make their dreams come true. Owing to the Empire's "might makes right" philosophy, the only way to earn your independence back from it would be through martial force. If we believe their cause just... that Doman and Ala Mhigan independence is worth the cost, worth sacrificing our innocence and purity for... what issue is there with fighting for it?

The protagonists are often criticized for being too reactive, yet here we have situations they are proactive about but are heavily criticized because their actions resulted in casualties. There is no way to win.

In the long run, our actions save more lives than they take. We waded into war in order to end it, not because we wanted to. Killing to prevent a greater number of deaths and to bring about peace is not wrong. In Fordola's context? She chose to kill for her ideal - that Ala Mhigo would be better off accepting existence as an Imperial province, the wishes of the Ala Mhigan people be damned. She fought not for Ala Mhigo, but for herself. Again, I do not think Fordola is a monster, but she did do some monstrous things; just the same, the Warrior of Light is not a bad person, though they may do some bad things. Rielle acknowledges this if you speak to her post-70 DRK, though she admits she hasn't the stomach to follow such a path and would rather pursue Conjury.

We aren't innocent or pure. One day we will face judgment for our actions - but until that day comes, we can but carry on doing what needs to be done for those we have lost and those we may yet save. That is the least we can do. Call me a self-righteous hypocrite if you like - I really don't care.

[Sarantai]

I loved this discussion at first, but it’s starting to become far too.... whatever this is. Philosophical? Political? Religious? I fear this talk is simply going to go in endless circles now, as everyone still involved is most likely deeply involved in their views and not likely to be swayed by any argument put forth by the others.

Thank you for the debate. Guess there’s nothing left (for me at least) but to see what comes in 4.1. Till next time.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Well, the thread lost focus of its main topic, and I was too busy to get back into it.

I think the upcoming patch will add fresh impetus, since it appears we'll see how Fordola is adjusting to life as a prisoner, and as someone on the wrong side of history. We'll know for certain then if she has any remorse and, consequently, whether she's worthy of redemption.

[Raqrie_Tohka]

Killing is acceptable if it serves to save more lives than those you took and only then.
We aren't innocent or pure. One day we will face judgment for our actions - but until that day comes, we can but carry on doing what needs to be done for those we have lost and those we may yet save. That is the least we can do. Call me a self-righteous hypocrite if you like - I really don't care.

Nice and good point.

How my perspective still differs is that I don't buy in to the "innocent and pure" theory. Not in a way that I think nothing is innocent or pure, but just that I don't think anyone can be innocent and pure, only threads of logic can be "innocent" and interpretive art be "pure". And since there is no need to worry about innocence and purity, there is no need to worry about taint and corruption either, except maybe in thought. "It is just as easy to fall into darkness, as it is to fall unto light". "There is no difference between positive and negative energy, only more energy". Thus you can see how dangerous my point is; Zenos is pure energy, and in that itself justifies its existence. Of course this energy has its consequences, one which happened to be in the form of WoL and which happened to show up at his door. We then mutually chose to clash with each other, and the rest, including Zenos, is now history.

While killing to save lives is sound and valid logic, usually there are no situations that are so "pure", except in knee-jerk conundrums and small-scale box-ins requiring finale level sacrifices. One can see how hard the writers tried to force such a situation to happen in the MSQ, and that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. For real life, what I think is soldiers don't need our pity and empathy for losing nonexistent "purity and innocence". They need our respect and acknowledgement. And what I think of war is that it's a slippery slope into a "circle of hate none can break". Resorting to killing to address problems, any problem, is a slippery slope necessitating more similar actions of that nature. This is the fallacy to the logic of killing. While what I say makes killing sound like an undesirable and lesser solution, it is because in the grand scheme of things it tends to cause more problems than it addresses, and in the situations it doesn't, it still causes more entropy than addresses. Except in situations so fudged up and perfectly set up that it will resolve something. Yet, war is not "wrong". It just can't be "right", either. But it is as far away from qualitative "miracles" as we've ever understood it. (And I didn't play a game with "final" in its name to witness anything short of miracles.)

So while the MSQ ended in a "happy ending", for me, I took it as a personal defeat, because I did nothing "above and beyond" the "usual course" of the WoL, i.e. there were no miracles. Zenos won philosophically. There was nothing else to win. While saving lots of resistance fighters and granting them a nation was something probably worth celebrating, if I hadn't managed it though, I wouldn't have been unacceptably sad either. If everyone died because the statue just happened to crash and cause the mountain to cave in it would have been in the natural order of things too, and if somehow we gained a few extra castrums and cannons and extra victories too I would just respond with a "meh". But immunization against such scales of sadness, unfortunately, also immunizes against equivalent scales of happiness. In short, I did not enjoy the MSQ as the writers intended, but not their fault, it is my own cowardice in thought, due to longstanding habit.

Thus, I do care. I just don't get affected by it. Which means nothing even slowed me down from cleaving up Zenos' face. But I don't try to justify what I did, because not only does it requires no justification, but there is no possible justification for it in the first place. Only pure logic. Of which this MSQ tried very hard to shove down our throats, instead of "show, not tell", and let us form our own conclusions.

“A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”
― Rabindranath Tagore

Ahem ... but he never said it's a bad thing, though. I mean, try doing something that matters when your mind is all the opposite of logic. x)

(P.S. I am still upset I couldn't help Zenos be redeemed. But it seems like he didn't need/want my help anyways. So, meh.)

(P.S.S. And thus is how the MSQ sort of just flew all over my head, and failed to move me. "The most heart-touching stories are the ones soft enough to reside into a heart." - Me. For me, the MSQ was too heavy-handed, inconsequential ("shallow"), almost narcissistic, to ultimately move me. While I can understand some people want to be an epically justified WoL, it's just a bit too much for me.)

[Kallera]

We started a larger war to prevent a smaller one, because we refused the option of diplomacy. And it is unconvincing because the writers cannot seem to make the garleans competent. We have had around 4 rl years of beating them handily. We are supposed to hate them, to be as biased against them as the Scions are, while I hope it is for some narrative rug to be swept out from under us, I don't see that coming around from the empire. There are no pure garlean npcs, in kugane (a neutral territory, presumably) There is a worry of Garlean spies(instead of spies in general?) despite the utter lack of garlean people around to begin with, most people under them have the whole "I don't like them blah blah blah,"It sounds like we are just going to just destroy them from a mile away. I kinda want the whole crusade against the empire to spiral out of control, because this is Eorzea starting a war, not stepping into one, and we have seen the aggressors of the conflict routinely being wrong, or at least unable to justify their reasons for so much bloodshed to be taking place. Bloodshed with the WoL at its spearhead.

I would like nothing better than for the WoL to be punished for all they've done...but I don't see the writers going through with it. Because of the whole Chosen One narritive that is around the WoL, everything they do is justified: because without them, Eorzea/the planet falls apart. Only the prsence of another Warrior of Light would address this, and the damn thing as a whole if they were to end the whole thing entirely. We are the one thing holding this together, and once again, nothing threatens us or is a check on our power.

nothing lasting more than the patch cycle we bother to lift a sword at it anyway...

So why resist the Warrior of Light? why try, in the face of a slayer of gods and men? What is it that has people so inspired to rush towards their deaths? If we are a force of agency and freedom and all that, Why are we the irreplacable fixture? The force against which failure is the only option?

Would the next WoL be the one that kills us?

There's likely family and money and fear of dying behind those other spears.

They should have a planet endorse them.

tldr: divine selection makes us retroactively "the right side". and that feels wrong in the face of our task being destroying the divine and fighting for human agency. It feels like a broken lesson, intentionally binding everyone to the Warrior of Light's destiny makes them no different than the gods they are tasked to destroying.

[Alleo]

We started a larger war to prevent a smaller one, because we refused the option of diplomacy.

We simply did not have the chance at diplomacy thanks to Ilberts actions. The Eorzean alliance did nothing against Garlemald until either Gaius threatened them with the Ultima weapon or Ilbert forced their hands thanks to his actions. We cant even say that we prevented only a smaller one with that. It was a high chance that Garlemald would attack back harshly against Eorzea which could have lead to an all out war on the whole continent. This is far away from being small. So they had to attack first to take them by surprise but they only attacked because Ilbert left them no choice. I mean how big is the chance that the empire who is not known for their diplomacy would hear them out, when they believe that the alliance attacked them first?

The WoL is in no position to negotiate completely alone and against the wishes of the alliance. We are no leader of a country and it was the decision of the alliance to go to war and we helped them for our own reasons. With our assistance we probably stopped the empire from slaughtering them all and gave two countries their freedom back. How is that wrong?

And I am still not sure what horrible stuff our WoL did to earn so much hate? Yes we are not morally pure white but we are far away from being a bad one. We do a lot to make the lives of people better but yes we also kill if its necessary. But we should also not confuse ingame stuff with whats truly happening. We probably did not kill thousand and thousands of people/monster/animals, and we are also shown as someone that gives a person another chance or let them just arrest them. Everyone probably has a different view point for the WoL but I still kinda wonder why he/she is seen in such a negative view by some.

Anyway until now we never killed our own allies in the name of someone else, so imo someone like Fordola is really on another level and I am interested in seeing how she will turn out.