Political Ideology and Storytelling Within FFXIV

[Cleretic]

This game to me is amazing in its depth and its continued tone and focus on hope and goodwill (outside of religious fervor while still respecting people's connection to a higher power or stories that give their lives meaning). And that the message spans languages and cultures is a relief in this day and age.

While not really related to the subject of political ideology, I think the game is really smart and really sensitive about how they handle religion. Specifically, it recognizes the dangers of religious extremism, but also recognizes that such a thing comes from real circumstances, often oppression, and that those who fall into that extremism are no less victims of the circumstances because of it.

...well, either that or you get a power-hungry charismatic leader who's got extremely awful plans. But that's also very realistic, as well as very sensitive to the people who fall into that for reasons of genuine belief (for example, the Heaven's Ward).

I think a lot of people get led astray on that concept because of that one line in Stormblood that's pretty seriously at odds with the rest of the game's writing; "Just know I'll kill your god if I have to. Maybe even if I don't." That makes a lot of people think the game's just blanket anti-religion and anti-gods, which it's... really not. And incidentally, I wonder if the line reads that poorly in other languages, or if it's just English.

[SentioftheHoukai]

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.

A fair point, but is that a decision that we are so deserving of making? He asked US to remember him, not proselytize Eorzea-wide "Hey you guys!! Ascians existed and they have a sad backstory!!" Us alone remembering him isn't too much to ask, I don't think. Doubly so if we make sure to remember his atrocities as well, to keep perspective. In the end, we are only human and selfishness is a great factor in what defines us. Our conflict with Emet boils down to, in my opinion a conflict of ideals. Neither could survive while the other yet lived, only one's hopes and dreams could come to fruition such was the sad reality. It's just as well, really for we mortal creatures will ever prioritize our own wants over the wants of others. Rarely would one take up a blade in defense of a complete stranger.

[SentioftheHoukai]

This is a big part of why I'm pretty down on the WoL's actual political stances (and honestly, the way the story itself gets framed as a result); Emet-Selch is a rancid, genocidal rat-man who has shown no remorse for his actions and has fairly direct lines to pretty much every single 'core storyline' problem in the entire game, as a leader of the Ascians, the Allagans and the Garleans. He is awful, and doesn't deserve the respect we are railroaded into giving him. I've always instead advocated for a '...' response to be available for every single dialog choice, though; it's a really good failsafe option for whenever the writing just doesn't really manage to reach the player (which will always happen to someone, eventually).

And I find the 'remember that we lived' request also a little rich, because... well, inside the story, there are completely incalculable amounts of civilizations that are dead as a direct cause of him; are they not just as worth memorializing, and just don't get to make the request because they don't have immortal ghost wizards to say it? The Scions pledge to remember them, but are they ever going to offer the same to the likes of Mhach, Amdapor and Nym, who got killed by these guys? It also actually hurts a bit on an OOC level, because... well, I play a Duskwight. I have been waiting for the writers to remember Gelmorra for YEARS now, and will probably be waiting for years more. Why does Art Deco Atlantis get to jump the queue?

And as an aside, I do like that scene with Nanamo and Godbert, too. Because... well, yeah, it is pretty terrible, but it isn't outright saying 'capitalism is the only right way to elevate the oppressed, despite capitalism being what oppressed them' like how a number of people seem to read it. It's basically saying 'this system is terrible, but it's possible to force it to produce good'.

Well, you can also offer to try and "redeem" Fandaniel too. You can say as much to Estinien, and if not you'll remember him. I suppose it's to encourage those who'd rather roleplay the messianic archetype, you know the ultra-shounen "forgive everyone, even the vilest of villains" type. Which I grant wouldn't jive well with the marginalized revenge seeker you've created. Besides, remembering him needn't mean honoring him or anything so trite. Isn't one of the virtues of recorded history to be able to remember the worst of us and go "Hey, remember this awful guy? Let's strive to be better than him." Word of mouth isn't reliable, tainted by bias as it often is passed down the grapevine so remembering Emet serves a purpose once we're dead.

[Cilia]

It's important to remember the Ancients were more than what their Convocation (the Ascians) became; that they were people like anyone else. To do so would be to forget the common thread of humanity that binds us all.

... but it is equally important not to let said Convocation use their sob story as an excuse to deliberately and intentionally murder countless, helpless innocent people. No matter how much you sympathize with them they are far from the only victims, and a motive is not the same thing as justification.

That's all.

[Denishia]

Agreed with the sentiment that Emet's "Remember us" rubbed me the wrong way in part because he never shifted over to truly sympathetic or charismatic to me - his justifications and beliefs only infuriated me the more he explained himself - and that I was one of those rare people that hated the Tempest the second I was zoned into it (It is my least favorite zone in the game, even more so than Pagos, Pyros, and BSF) and was asking for the metaphorical Brain Bleach after wandering Amaurot, which made his request deeply ironic.
BUT - the citizens of Amaurot were more than just their rulers and this city that I disliked the aesthetics and governance, the Ancient world had far more than just this one Art Deco oversized urban city with boring ugly robes, and best of all there had been Ancients who were willing to sacrifice to protect the new life instead of condemning the present and future on the chance to bring back the past. I'm definitely excited to meet and learn more from Venat. And it's telling to me that Azem in which our WoL has inherited some power and soul (but I think all of ShB makes obvious that we should not treat as the same person any more than we should Ryne=Minfilia or Gaia=Lohgrif) chose to adventure and befriend everyone outside of Amaurot and that's who they fought for. So for me, 'Remember us' is 'I will remember you, how much I hate what you've done but also why you did so, I will remember how much I don't like Amaurot but that doesn't mean the ordinary citizens deserved their fate- and most of all I will remember and honor those that opposed you and your Zodiark plan long before me'.

[Mchappy]

I'm actually currently fearing that we'll see this with Zenos seeing as how some people are actually wanting him to essentially end up a Scion, even if it's not part of a full on face turn, and the developers definitely seem to be coddling his continued existence.

Sorry to quote something so far back in the thread but if we do not get the satisfaction of killing Zenos once and for all at the end of Endwalker, I will be very upset. Please Square, do not keep beating a dead horse. Let it die.

[StriderShinryu]

To jump in on the Emet discussion, I'll just say that my perspective on the "remembering" is more of a rememberance of the Ancients as a whole. I didn't really flip to the positive on Emet himself either given all he said and did, going back a very, very long time. He's interesting and entertaining to be sure but not, in my eyes at least, someone I really ever ended up on board with. This is really why I think I felt a lot more personally impacted by the 5.3 ending than the 5.0 ending. I suppose you could even say that my actual remembering of Emet himself is more of a cautionary remembering; a "remember this because this is what you shouldn't do and/or shouldn't become."

[DreadCrow]

At least in FFXVI all but one of their nations have a distinct fantasy feel. A Grand Duchy, a Holy Empire, and two Kingdoms. Only one republic.


Whereas here in FFXIV:
Limsa - a bizarre political system where its ex-pirates are pretending to be...something.

Gridania - child druids who commune with elementals. No distinctive architecture. Literally just trees.

Ul'dah - a "monarchy" where the monarch wants to abdicate and create a republic.

Ishgard - originally a monarchy, then a theocracy, and now it's a republic.

Doma - a monarchy we were actually able to preserve (thank God)

Hingashi - a monarchy (but we have access to only 1 city, and it doesn't fulfil the European fantasy of a kingdom)

Garlemald - literally Detroit

Thavnair - ??? potions ??? elephants ???

Dalmasca - in ruins, storyline shelved.

Bozja - killed the queen, on the way to becoming a republic.

Sharlayan - another republic.


One of the reasons 1.0 suffered so much is because so many fantasy elements were locked behind Ishgard. The only real castle in the entire game at that point. Even now, it's frustrating that the game lacks a fantasy feel until you reach 3.0. Wherever we end up going in 7.0, I just hope we return to fantasy instead of constantly nation building and trying to "liberate" people and turning their countries into more republics.

At least in FFXII where you're trying to liberate Dalmasca, you had the princess in your party and by the end she becomes Queen. In FFXV, your main controllable party member is a prince, despite its more modern feel. In FFXI, one of your starting areas was an elven kingdom. In FFIX, you have a princess in your party and its most iconic cities belong to kingdoms. In FFVI, you get to have two princes in your party, and in FFV you get two princesses. By the end of FFIV various characters who were implied to hold some kind of noble/military rank become the monarchs of their respective nations.

FF has historically never focused so much on the idea of republics to this extent and by this point the gimmick has become stale.

The focus on Republics and less of a focus on royalty is something that's an extension of the way fantasy has shifted in reason years for a number of reasons. With the rise of "grimdark" fantasy, the upper class is genuinely awful, and with more and more writers coming from various marginalized peoples, there's a certain desire to make protagonists that buck the status quo.

[DreadCrow]

To jump in on the Emet discussion, I'll just say that my perspective on the "remembering" is more of a rememberance of the Ancients as a whole. I didn't really flip to the positive on Emet himself either given all he said and did, going back a very, very long time. He's interesting and entertaining to be sure but not, in my eyes at least, someone I really ever ended up on board with. This is really why I think I felt a lot more personally impacted by the 5.3 ending than the 5.0 ending. I suppose you could even say that my actual remembering of Emet himself is more of a cautionary remembering; a "remember this because this is what you shouldn't do and/or shouldn't become."

Also, this. 100%. At least my Warrior of Light seeks to remember the past that once once... But she absolutely detests Emet, on account of him being a genocidal monster,

[Jandor]

The Houses of Lords and Commons are essentially a compromise of a political structure. You want to get the common people a way to have a say in how their country is run, but you have to do that in a way that doesn't disgruntle the people who already have the power--in both Britain and Ishgard, that was largely noblemen and the clergy. So you give them two houses of government; one for representations of the old established power, one for those elected by the masses, neither of which can completely overrule the other.

Now, if what you want is full democratic rule? It's not very good. Someone can still be literally born into power, the official religion still has outright political strength. You haven't fixed the problems of an aristocratic society, you've just reduced them. But it does have a strength, which is the same as the reason it was conceived: it doesn't make any one group too unhappy, which means that, extreme circumstances notwithstanding, basically every group will be content to play by the rules.

That's actually why I think, of every nation we see in the game, Ishgard is the one I'm certain will remain solvent for the forseeable future. A lot of nations in the game seem like they're one bad ruler away from an uprising (Limsa and Doma stand clearest, Ala Mhigo's not out of the woods of 'figuring out a good government' yet), or possibly even worse (Gridania and Ul'Dah seem like one bad ruling away from burning down, given the leadership already has problems), but Ishgard? Other nations will figure out better systems eventually, but judging by real-world history, Ishgard's will be 'good enough' for centuries; not the best system, but not bad enough to tear down and rebuild.

You don't fix the problems of an aristocratic society, but likewise, you don't get rid of the benefits of an aristocratic society either.
It's not very popular to acknowledge these days, but people literally raised from birth to rule tend to be pretty decent at the business of actual ruling, especially in a society like Ishgard where I imagine secondary and tertiary education isn't all that widely available.

Elected politicians providing a voice for the people and setting the agenda for governing, and then having that agenda put into action by people who have spent most of their life being raised and educated for ruling.
I'd say it's not just a 'good enough' system for Ishgard, it's a straight up good system, the main problem it has is that it comes up a tad short on the lofty ideals front and therefore doesn't stack up well when compared to various idealized utopian setups.