Revelations from Patch 5.5 (Part 2)

[KizuyaKatogami]

Let's set aside the fact than Garlemald's whole purpose of existence and creator was to be an agent of chaos/sacrificial lamb. The majority of the major Garlean aligned characters are, for lack of a better word, Madmen. Valens, Nael, Varis, Zenos, Yotsuyu, Asahi, etc... Sure we get a couple that break the mold in the form of Gaius and Regula, but the majority are walking war crimes. So claiming any type of grey morality, outside of a few situations, is wishful thinking at best. As for Misijia, much like Yotsuyu, her character and crappy "redemption" arc ruined the story for me. It would have been better to let her skull of been ground to paste beneath the WoL's boot in DR>

I mean, people seem to forget that the Garleans were literally forced to conquer because they were kicked out of everywhere else. Disregarding that though, it's not as if we and other nations havent committed war crimes. Doma castle flooding? Our mass murdering of various beast tribes etc. It's a war though. As seen in stormblood, both sides do whatever they deem necessary regardless of if its a war crime or not. It just so happens we're on one particular side.It really is just the way war itself is. Again though, if i actually had a choice i would wholeheartedly join the IVth instead of the bozjans in a heartbeat.

[Lauront]

Let's set aside the fact than Garlemald's whole purpose of existence and creator was to be an agent of chaos/sacrificial lamb.

Has very little bearing on Gabranth, since he is intending to create a break from the original empire anyhow and do his own thing. So much so, the Bozjan Resistance opts to adopt elements of the 4th Legion's approach into its future regime.

The majority of the major Garlean aligned characters are, for lack of a better word, Madmen.

Valens, Nael, Varis, Zenos, Yotsuyu, Asahi, etc... Sure we get a couple that break the mold in the form of Gaius and Regula, but the majority are walking war crimes. So claiming any type of grey morality, outside of a few situations, is wishful thinking at best. As for Misijia, much like Yotsuyu, her character and crappy "redemption" arc ruined the story for me. It would have been better to let her skull of been ground to paste beneath the WoL's boot in DR>

I.e. if they do write them in a way which is conducive to moral greyness, i.e. the sort of writing Matsuno is very capable of (and exhibited in Bozja), it'd "ruin" the story for you, because it doesn't sate your bloodlust.

[Theodric]

I'm inclined to think that if the story was 'ruined' by exploring the nuances and horrors of war from both sides of a conflict then the investment and interest was perhaps not there to begin with.

Furthermore, only Valens, Zenos and Asahi were written in such a way as to lack any redeeming qualities or sympathetic motives. The others were far more complicated than many here give credit - or are willing to concede when faced with choosing to take the story as it is written rather than whatever emotional reactions get in the way.

Much like we can see with some of the reactions aimed at Alisae and Alphinaud's father.

Then again, I've never cared much for 'morality' arguments. Especially when the writers themselves are repeatedly on record as stating such things are a matter of perspective and that each character is the hero of their own story.

[Caurcas]

I'm inclined to think that if the story was 'ruined' by exploring the nuances and horrors of war from both sides of a conflict then the investment and interest was perhaps not there to begin with.

Furthermore, only Valens, Zenos and Asahi were written in such a way as to lack any redeeming qualities or sympathetic motives. The others were far more complicated than many here give credit - or are willing to concede when faced with choosing to take the story as it is written rather than whatever emotional reactions get in the way.

Much like we can see with some of the reactions aimed at Alisae and Alphinaud's father.

Then again, I've never cared much for 'morality' arguments. Especially when the writers themselves are repeatedly on record as stating such things are a matter of perspective and that each character is the hero of their own story.

No, it was ruined by the story twisting itself in weird ways in order to make an unlikeable character "sympathetic" or "redeemable". I mean the pieces were set for a trash fire at the end of Castrum in southern front. Literally the most pants on head stupid error was made to make this character a threat, on top of WoL is a dunce in cutscenes syndrome. Then in the follow up, she is practically ruining her trousers in sadistic glee at tempering resistance members. Not to mention gleefully turning others into bioweapons. Then, of course, at the end we get a "they're not all bad!" ending. Garbage. Nothing nuanced, and as someone who enjoys the RTI raid series and XII I was disappointed. Also the IVth aren't saints, as they engage in necromancy and making their own in bioweapons.

[EdwinLi]

I am curious how will Part 3 of FFT/FFXII story handle events of Part 1 and Part 2 if they allow players to jump into it without requiring them to complete Part 1 and Part 2.

My best guess for events of Part 2 since WoL never took part in the battle leading up to how it ended...

Castrum Lacus still fell but it was due to the efforts of the Blades but they still got corrupted.

Bajsaljen, Marsak, and Mikoto complete the events of Delubrum Reginae.

Dalriada is dealt with by Bajsaljen, Marsak, Mikoto and the rest of the resistance. Even Oboro takes part in it as he most likely lead a team to deal with the upper path of Delubrum while the others dealt with the lower path.

[BlitzAceRush]

While they at times ignore if something has happened yet, I've never known them to take us out of events we were part of before, have they done that before?

[WhiteArchmage]

The game only assumes you haven't done the events YET, although there are a few dialogue changes depending on your story progression (notably, Estinien's 3 ways when you meet again in 2.55; and Thubyrgeim having I think also 3 different options: either you completed the quest Tataru is currently doing, you didn't unlock ACN, or you unlocked ACN and took the quest but haven't completed the task Tataru is doing). Outright pretending events happened without the WoL is... unprecedented.

My best guess is that, if Dalmasca will feature in Part III; we get a differing line in case the PC didn't do Bozja. Say, Fran acknowledging meeting us in Bozja and saying it was time we helped in Dalmasca if you DID complete it, or... just saying something vague like "I've been hoping you'd meet us in Dalmasca after so long." in case you didn't.

While I wouldn't mind Part III being locked behind completion of Bozja, it'd need some heavy nerfs and reworks to future-proof it, since a player could in theory get through all of Return to Ivalice in less than one day, going from rank 1 to 25 and getting all the people necessary for CLL, DR, and Dal would be... taxing...

[Iscah]

The game only assumes you haven't done the events YET, although there are a few dialogue changes depending on your story progression (notably, Estinien's 3 ways when you meet again in 2.55; and Thubyrgeim having I think also 3 different options: either you completed the quest Tataru is currently doing, you didn't unlock ACN, or you unlocked ACN and took the quest but haven't completed the task Tataru is doing). Outright pretending events happened without the WoL is... unprecedented.

It's a slippery thing because although it treats your progress as "not yet", doing that progress later doesn't make it happen later. The Binding Coil is a good example because everything that happened there must happen prior to Alisaie rejoining the MSQ team at level 60. If you're half-done at the time she'll make a reference to that half-finished state of affairs, but if you go back to do the rest later then it's "altering the past" rather than "finishing it now", and if you rewatch the level 60 cutscene then her remarks will have changed.

She won't ever claim she got it sorted out on her own, though, and I think that's an important distinction.

It switches from getting partway through it with you to all the way through it with you, not from doing it without you to doing it with you. The player's progress is central to it.

If the MSQ is going to reference Bozja I would expect a passing line about it being a war front or a liberated state according to what you've done, and possibly we might see characters whose personality is much the same from start to finish (so it doesn't matter what you have or haven't done yet), but I can't see them bringing in any characters or locations whose situation has changed as a result of the battle.

If the story is going to continue, I would expect a further side story, possibly with some boosts to Bozja levelling so it's not hard to get through it.

[Vyrerus]

I mean, people seem to forget that the Garleans were literally forced to conquer because they were kicked out of everywhere else. Disregarding that though, it's not as if we and other nations havent committed war crimes. Doma castle flooding? Our mass murdering of various beast tribes etc. It's a war though. As seen in stormblood, both sides do whatever they deem necessary regardless of if its a war crime or not. It just so happens we're on one particular side.It really is just the way war itself is. Again though, if i actually had a choice i would wholeheartedly join the IVth instead of the bozjans in a heartbeat.

When people have talked about war crimes in this thread, they've constantly shown that they are applying real world war ethics to a fantasy setting/setting that is medieval. There were no such stipulations on combat in the older eras, and our morals don't carry over there. That and people are also showing that they are not entirely cognizant as to what constitutes war crimes.

The flooding of Doma Castle wasn't a war crime in any sense.

Also it's relevant to note that usually what constitutes war crimes for a long time were decided by nations already exercising excessive military power and presence. They're usually brought about post war as a way of punishing the losing side further. All while the winning side reaps in deals made so that leaders can avoid prison/execution.

Also it's laughable that you're asserting the Garleans were "forced" to conquer. They were forced alright, but not just because they were pushed around by the magical races. They were given the means to conquer, and they had their old grudges stoked. But even if we paint them as victims of exploitation, they still murdered hundreds of thousands, used chemical warfare, and did human biomechanical experimentation. Really without cessation for almost a century. And I mean, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

What makes our side right in this war is that the Bozjans/Eorzeans/Nagxians/Domans don't do that kinda crap, and they're resolved to put an end to it. The IVth, however good Gabranth's envisioned utopia is, is still using all means dastardly to try to bring it to fruition. Even if they succeeded in defeating the Bozjans, and then went on to found his ideal nation, it'd fall apart at the seams due to the vast gulf between its founder's vision and the reality of how it came to his hand. I'd never want to be part of something like that.

[Alleo]

I like the quote with the part about everyone being their hero more as "Nobody's the villain in their own story". Valen and even Asahi wont see themselves as the villains of their own story too. The question is imo not if the people see themselves as a hero or not, the question is, how others see them.

Of course that might be more difficult to judge in certain situations and of course in war there is often the case that the winner will try to show themselves as THE heroes. The question is, how are the others truly seeing them? What did they do to achieve that? I mean even in the real world it happens that the winning side will punish some of their own because they committed war crimes.

I am not sure that most Garlean people saw Zenos as a hero, no matter how many battles he won. They probably saw him as a monster. Yet in his view he might see himself as the one being right, after all the others just had to defeat him. Its their fault that they died and thus lose.

I am honestly really curious, how many of the Ancients would see the actions of the Ascians as heroic. How many of those that willingly sacrificed themselves would be happy with what the Asicans are doing?

Gaius too is another example. He may have finally understood that he was not the hero that he thought he was. He may have realized what he had truly done. And even though he is a proud Garlear he still saw that the actions of certain other garlean people are morally bad. He was so shocked when he learned what some where doing.

So for me even if everyone sees themselves as the heroes of their own story they can still do morally wrong things and be judged for them. Of course what counts as morally wrong depends on the story too. If we had one where the world accepts that someone is killed for the smallest of crimes then doing that would not be morally wrong for them.

FF14 has its own moral code. Maybe it changes a bit depending on the countries but there still should be one, after all they have a punishment system for crimes and someone doing something absolutely nasty does get a reaction from a lot of NPCs too.

But those are just my few cents on that.

Edit:

Also for me nuanced or morally grey characters cant exist without judging all characters with the same criterias. After all if someone is seen as morally grey they need to have done something that makes them that. They had to have done something that makes them neither completely good or bad. But to judge that you will have to give actions morality.

For example why is Zenos evil? There has to be a moral compass that says that what he does is evil.