Political Ideology and Storytelling Within FFXIV

[Cleretic]

So as someone who's actually really politically involved IRL, I mostly quite like the political concepts and leanings in FFXIV. A reasonable amount of it is very broadly based on real-world history, which is the source of a couple of problems.

Someone mentioned the Samurai questline, and the thing it touches on politically does have actual allusions to Japanese history; the main antagonist of the Stormblood stretch itself wants to agitate for a period that Japan actually did go through, that with hindsight we know went pretty bad (I'm not an expert on Japanese history, so I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I heard it's the Sengoku era). Bozja, similarly, has some roots in extremely specific times; it's Yasumi Matsuno tapping into his interest in the Yugoslav Wars that fueled his writing of the original Tactics Ogre, but there's some broader borrowings from late/post-USSR political environments. That whole time of 'everyone knows the occupying force is over, but nobody is quite sure what to do after'.

With other parts of the game we get a lot more broad, but generally speaking it feels like the world is in a roughly 1700s-1800s-esque time, when ideas of modern human decency and democracy are being realized as A Good Idea, but are still being figured out. Which personally, I like; you've got places like Ishgard and Ala Mhigo moving to what we start to recognize as modern democratic systems, but it's not a universal thing. Limsa's starting to learn the problems with colonialism (admittedly, a little bit earlier than happened IRL), both Hingashi and Doma are essentially Feudal Japan and have no great problems because of it. At the same time, we've got the soft-oppressive theocracy of Gridania showing no signs of stopping, and Ul'Dah, which really has no actual parallel in the real world but echoes of similar are all over the planet.

You've also got some points where it kinda grates on some people that the game world isn't as modern as we are. Perhaps most obvious there is the issue of slavery; some parts of FFXIV's world are coming to realize that's probably a bad thing, but not enough of it to actually see stoppage. Ul'Dah uses weasel words, Limsa can't muster enough political or military will to actually end what they know is wrong, Kugane is just overt about it and doesn't care, and Doma seems to be in a 'we'll let it keep going for now' position. I think we'd all like to see that issue is over in our escapist fiction, but FFXIV is realistic about it: its world just isn't there yet.

[Cleretic]

That said, there's talking about the overall politics of the world we're seeing, and then there's the actual political views of the WoL, which... if I'm honest, I am a little suspect of! Just going by dialog choices, I feel like the WoL has a weird respect to those in positions of authority, regardless of opposition, deeds or legitimacy. It's actually kinda weird and I'm not sure I like it. And of course, political leanings of a whole story get kinda weird when we're swinging from actually discussing politics to pretty much entirely dramatic-logic storylines. Like, reasonably speaking everyone in DRK's storyline should probably be in jail, including the WoL, but we kinda have to pretend rational society doesn't exist in that questline.

[Vyrerus]

That said, there's talking about the overall politics of the world we're seeing, and then there's the actual political views of the WoL, which... if I'm honest, I am a little suspect of! Just going by dialog choices, I feel like the WoL has a weird respect to those in positions of authority, regardless of opposition, deeds or legitimacy. It's actually kinda weird and I'm not sure I like it. And of course, political leanings of a whole story get kinda weird when we're swinging from actually discussing politics to pretty much entirely dramatic-logic storylines. Like, reasonably speaking everyone in DRK's storyline should probably be in jail, including the WoL, but we kinda have to pretend rational society doesn't exist in that questline.

Yeah, they kind of paint leadership of nations up as being similar to heroing everywhere, too. Like I said on the last page.

Of course, if we begin with the mindset that the adventurers are all mercenaries who are largely out of work or were out of work, and the WoL was one such Merc, then maybe it's their Merc tendencies showing. Wouldn't want to put off a possible employer! Especially since they're rolling in the dough!

[Payadopa]

Okay and that’s your opinion. I’m not a fan of it. Thought it was fairy obvious what kind of politics it was that i meant but i know this community loves to do mental gymnastics of assumptions. I’d rather not be interested in politics as it leads to arguments more often than not. I’m not a political person. So to the people saying “they only complain when the politics shown doesn’t make their own political ideas look good.” Please check yourself. This is exactly why i dislike politics lmao. People accuse and make assumptions about people they hardly know.

I was going by what you said, not what you were assuming I should, if that makes sense. I was just pointing out that what you said is borderline unachievable. I didn't mention any political ideas for a reason. It's not like I'm not annoyed by certain trends myself. But that's another discussion entirely. lol

To sum it up, nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Cleretic]

Yeah, they kind of paint leadership of nations up as being similar to heroing everywhere, too. Like I said on the last page.

Of course, if we begin with the mindset that the adventurers are all mercenaries who are largely out of work or were out of work, and the WoL was one such Merc, then maybe it's their Merc tendencies showing. Wouldn't want to put off a possible employer! Especially since they're rolling in the dough!

See, in a lot of places that makes some sense, because FFXIV's world has a lot of nations with leaders that kinda had to fight for their right to be as good as they are now. Aymeric, Raubahn, Lyse, Hien, and now even Chai-Nuzz and Bajsaljen all had to fight for their own sovereignty. The Exarch built the Crystarium from the ground-up (admittedly, while cheating super hard). Even Nanamo and Merlwyb deserve due credit and sympathy for fighting tooth-and-nail to modernize their countries.

But that all makes sense, it's not really what concerns me about the WoL. I've just noticed over time that the WoL is meaner to complete randoms asking for legitimately-needed help than they are actual despots. Varis, Yotsuyu, Emet-Selch, and even Nidhogg (admittedly in a sidequest) get a weird amount of respect, and it's not even in 'don't burn bridges to potential employers' senses, since they're all either not the type to hire or are well past having any power. I'm pretty sure Gaius also got off pretty easy back when the Praetorium had lines, but I don't know how to check that.

It's kinda reached a point where I'm no longer wondering what all of those characters did right, I'm wondering what Thordan did wrong to get treated so much more harshly. (Vauthry I get, he didn't exactly give the chance.)

But overall, that big focus on the leaders does lend to a bit of a 'great men' view of the history of FFXIV's world. Everything hinges on individual leaders rather than greater groups and movements. The success of Doma ultimately ends up attributed to Hien, and very little else. Which is a disappointing way to approach real-world history, but in fiction... well, FFXIV is ultimately character dramas and hero's journeys and foremost, they don't really provide room for seeing stuff like union movements.

[Vyrerus]

See, in a lot of places that makes some sense.

As far as Thordan goes, it's because he conspired to kill the WoL, and would have if not for Haurchefant, so it's personal.

When were we not mean to Varis? I mean, the times we met him he either had a giant battleship pointed at us, or we were in a formal parley where we still told him that we could run counter to his will, directly to his face, with one option being, "Your goal is a lie; your masters demons." It's more like terse acquiescence to the situation, sort of.

Nidhogg we killed... twice. So it doesn't really mean much other than respecting the dead, probably mainly because the dragons do.

Emet-selch it's due to the proffering of peace... we still wind up killing him. But maintaining the peace while remaining vigilant did get us our catgirl waifu out of a pickle.

Yotsuyu and the WoL don't have many direct interactions, but when they do it's either with the rest of the cast beside them, so that they aren't interacting. When they do come face to face, we're sorrowful about it, but we ultimately kill her. If anything, it just gives me the feeling that the WoL doesn't like killing someone they can sympathize with, and her tragic backstory did seem to make the WoL concerned. We have the Gosetsu feelings and angle to consider too.

I'd saw the WoL's moral compass seems skewed between sidequest interactions and MSQ ones because when we're in the MSQ we have other folks we deem smarter than ourselves to sort of follow. When we don't, we relax our morals because I guess we're guilty of not caring what the common rabble thinks. Performative goodness when people we care about are watching, I guess.

But that's only me trying to view it from your perspective. I don't find the WoLs interactions to be all that different between things, and even if they are, they're usually presented from an understandable place. Like this Dwarf just joked about me playing fetch. Of course I understand the WoL being a jerk to them. We are only "human" after all.

As far as important figures in history... well it does make for a better drama. But you gotta understand too, that a lot of history even in the real world revolves around important figures. Generals, admirals, emperors etc. Like sure, they had legions and underlings actually responsible for the work, but they get the credit because they organized it all and gave the commands on the field of battle. Or in the lawmaking room. Great admirals or generals also inspire great morale. Like Admiral Yi Sun-sin pretty much singlehandedly directing the course of the Imjin War.

[Lium]

I haven't read all the comments yet, but from what I've read this is a real interesting thread. As a storyteller, I prefer nuance, but I understand why the game goes the idealized and straightforward route. Good guys are good, bad guys are bad.

I do however, think the Stormblood storyline where the WoL meets with Nanamo about helping the refugees was well done. Nanamo starts off somewhat naive, but after she meets with Godbert she realizes the only way she can help the Ala Mhigan refugees is if it benefits the state economically. Hence, she meets with Lolorito to discuss ways to make this happen, and they all agree that reopening the Saltery and putting the refugees to work as employees is the best way to do it. It revitalizes the local economy in the region, while also benefiting the Uldahn economy.

It shows that the only real way you can make change happen is to follow the coin, and to make sure powerful interests are appeased. It was also a nice moment for Nanamo to show some character growth. Lolorito even comments on that. She was now acting and thinking like a responsible head of state. We can help the refugees, but only if it benefits Uldah.

Now, I know this is a no-brainer. Everyone knows that is how the real-world works. If you want to really make a difference, you have to go after a company's bottom line or a country's economy. Everything else is just lip service. But it was nice to see a version of this sentiment play out in a game that otherwise treats good and evil as absolutes.

As an aside, I was roasted pretty heavily on Reddit for saying that during the cutscene with Emet-Selch when he tells us to "Remember us", I wished there was an option to simply say no. Because I felt like that was a very audacious request after he just spent the entire third act of the expansion insulting us, belittling us, and reconfirming the notion that he doesn't even consider us alive. Oh, and he shoots Graha-Tia. Not to mention, he wants to kill just about everyone on the Source and the First just to bring back his people and his god.

Regardless of his intentions and motives, you don't get to make that request in the end. You lost that right by the sheer merits of your actions. For that, the consequence is not your defeat, but that everything you fought for and ultimately died for, will be forgotten. That is called consequence, which I am very big on. You earn the behavior given to you by others. You forfeit the right of a last request based on what you did before that moment.

A poster on Reddit actually agreed with me, but had a more nuanced approach. He/she would rather have said to Emet-Selch, "I will remember your people, but you are best left forgotten." That's the approach I probably would have taken. And I think that get's to some of the nuance mentioned in this thread that some folks would like to see more of.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I haven't read all the comments yet, but from what I've read this is a real interesting thread. As a storyteller, I prefer nuance, but I understand why the game goes the idealized and straightforward route. Good guys are good, bad guys are bad.

Weird to see this. Even the devs themselves have stated very little in the game is black and white. It’s really not straightforward at all and this becomes very prevalent in shadowbringers where the main conflict stems from a matter of perspective. Both sides want their people to live. Both sides fight to see that through. Some people agree with one side, some people agree with the other side and the devs encourage this and don’t want it to be seen as one side is evil one side is good. It’s why they use the term protagonist and antagonist as opposed to hero/villain. Story has never really been straightforward.As for the emet selch thing, its personal preference but he was doing me a favor by shooting graha and i will remember him for that ;p. As far as nuance goes, i would prefer for their to be actual consequences(which you mention) but for the protagonists and not just a one sided issue with the antagonists. I want to see the protagonists have to actually deal with the consequences of their actions and bad judgement. Something ShB was missing greatly.

[QUOTE=GoldStarz;5675100]Imagine claiming there are politics in FFXIV, or even just that they're not a big focus, when literally in the last major patch one of the major story beats was Merlwyb openly admitting that Limsa had been colonizing La Noscea throughout their history and attempting to make reparations with them knowing full well that nothing she could personally do would repair the damage her nation had done.


Why would you rather fight for a facist government that openly claims racial superiority over all others?

I'd fight for them purely because what happened to them was completely out of their control. They were kicked out by other countries simply because they couldnt use aether. They then adapted and conquered those same countries. Pretty cool conquest story and i do quite like conquest.

[Lium]

I want to see the protagonists have to actually deal with the consequences of their actions and bad judgement. Something ShB was missing greatly.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. If you look at the second post in this thread, as well as many others following it, they share in the sentiment that the game is pretty straightforward and avoids any sort of nuance, for the most part. (Please see the bold part). Another poster in this thread even pointed out that regardless of what Yoshi or any of the other devs may have said in interviews, what is shown in the game is often the opposite. With the good guys clearly being good, and the bad guys clearly being bad.

There are exceptions. But a lot of folks would like to see more.

[MikkoAkure]

It’s why they use the term protagonist and antagonist as opposed to hero/villain. Story has never really been straightforward.

The Japanese title of the expansion Shadowbringers is literally “Jet-Black Villains”.

Lahabrea laughs and monologues while floating above carnage he caused in ARR. At that point of the story, I don’t think you’re supposed to think “hmm, this is morally ambiguous and he may have a very good reason for this”.

You can easily say the game has become more nuanced since then, but ARR is very straightforward and black and white.

I'd fight for them purely because what happened to them was completely out of their control. They were kicked out by other countries simply because they couldnt use aether. They then adapted and conquered those same countries. Pretty cool conquest story and i do quite like conquest.

That was 800 years ago, and they went to war and lost against the natives of Southern Ilsabard after making territorial claims on that land after they had already blown their own homeland up.

Conquest isn’t exactly the cool thing to do either, neither in video games nor in real life. Especially when it’s based on a lie spread by shadowy spirits at the behest of their dark god. But you do you I guess.