What is with the constant mistreatment of the Garlean story?(6.1 Patch spoilers)

[Lauront]

Since we aren't talking about a real life event, nor something that can be replicated in real life, words like "murder" and "genocide" are invented by the players in order to create a moral rejection of an aspect of the story. The story itself never uses those words. The moral judgment (whether or not it's correct) is one completely fabricated by people of the audience.

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

[CrownySuccubus]

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

Sure. Which is why I said to Theodric.

By the exact same token, if someone creates an "anatomically correct" doll and you are left to speculate what was done with said anatomically correct doll, then the game doesn't explicitly need to tell you that they are using their dead girlfriend's likeness as a fleshlight and passing it to their friend.

It is silly to refer to one of these criticisms (both of which affect how players view a character) as "virtue signalling" and not the other.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

With all due respect, the players aren't "inventing" anything. They are using readily available terminology to interpret what is happening. Now you can argue whether a murder is justified, and that is obviously a moral judgement (and depending on how you go about it, could be an instance of virtue signalling), but in and of itself, one does not need the story or the writers to use the word to arrive at the conclusion that that's how the action is to be described, i.e. the intention behind and consequences of the action, which is how these terms are defined. Just because it's a fictional scenario doesn't mean you can't apply the terms in that descriptive way...

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

[Lauront]

I mean, by your logic, garlean were commuting genocide and atrocities on the people and beast tribes they were invading, and the ascians wanted to commit genocide on all living things across 14 worlds.

I'm not aware of anyone disputing that - much as we can lay such terms on Ul'dah, which made use of the concept of a beast tribe to benefit its own ventures, or indeed Hydaelyn, who as per the Q&A, allowed Emet-Selch to escape, knowing what would result from that once she sundered the world...