What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[CrownySuccubus]

*Awkwardly stares at the Venat genocide that was hand waved from the story*

Sure.

*Awkwardly stares at Ala Mingo not getting flak after they failed at forcefully taking Gridana*

Pretty sure they established that this was why nobody wanted to help Gyr Abania after they were invaded by Garlemald, and why people hated Ala Mhigan refugees.

*Awkwardly stares at Sil'Dah*

Huh? They specifically portray those people as antagonistic or villainous. Nanamo's entire storyarc is about reclaiming her power from those people.

The game picks and chooses what atrocities it wants you to feel bad about, don't think too much about it. lol

Thus why I said "inconsistent" in my first post. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

[RyuDragnier]

Huh? They specifically portray those people as antagonistic or villainous. Nanamo's entire storyarc is about reclaiming her power from those people.

You must be thinking of something different here. Sil'dih was the sister neighbor of Ul'dah. It created a way of flood control which resulted in a war between it and Ul'dah over water, which Ul'dah ultimately won due to their thaumaturges creating a powder that brought the dead back to life as zombies, which they used on Sil'dih via catapults tossing it into the city. They then lied to the populace of Ul'dah that Sil'dih had been bringing back the dead, and used it as a preface for war, and then sealed Sil'dih so everybody would die.

[CrownySuccubus]

You must be thinking of something different here. Sil'dih was the sister neighbor of Ul'dah. It created a way of flood control which resulted in a war between it and Ul'dah over water, which Ul'dah ultimately won due to their thaumaturges creating a powder that brought the dead back to life as zombies, which they used on Sil'dih via catapults tossing it into the city. They then lied to the populace of Ul'dah that Sil'dih had been bringing back the dead, and used it as a preface for war, and then sealed Sil'dih so everybody would die.

Ah, okay. I honestly forgot about Sil'dih.

Yeah, that seems to fit with FFXIV's history of "This was grossly unjust, but doing anything about it now would disturb the status quo. Sooooooo...."

I just want a consistent approach. If the game presents something as 'unforgivable' and worthy of violent reform then I don't want it to then double down and say that the same thing is actually fine, so long as 'mommy' is the one partaking of it.

Then the game needs to start treating the WOL as a villain after taking certain actions. Even if we look at the case of the kobolds, a player character can go around and kill kobolds and then go on a diplomatic mission to make peace with the kobolds, and nobody is going to stop them.

If we want "consistency", then players need to be prepared to have the game stop coddling them.

I also want variety in the sort of cultures and nations that we interact with. Just because some people dislike the idea of the monarchy as a concept, I'd rather we didn't do away with the concept of a monarchy everywhere just to push through some lazy copy and paste of real world modern day 'democracy'. Equally, I wouldn't want the likes of the Imperials to be removed from an Elder Scrolls game just because some people dislike the idea of an Empire.

The game seems fairly neutral on concept of monarchy, to be honest. Nobody in-game is up in arms for Nanamo or Hien or Titania or the Moogle King to give up their thrones, and most countries that chose to forego monarchy did so for understandable reasons. Gyr Abania, Garlemald, and Eulmore all had literal tyrants that led their people to destruction. So it's not really surprising that they're not interested in putting another one on the throne.