Is the WoL actually good though?

[Theodric]

I have at no point ever suggested that both sides in a conflict cannot do everything possible in order to survive and protect their loved ones, though. In fact, that's exactly why I was so satisfied with how the final confrontation in Shadowbringers played out. Which, I believe, I have pointed out many times across the relevant threads.

I must confess, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that I'm suggesting that people should not defend themselves in a fight regardless of whether they are on the offense or defensive in a territorial dispute...?

[CrownySuccubus]

I have at no point ever suggested that both sides in a conflict cannot do everything possible in order to survive and protect their loved ones, though. In fact, that's exactly why I was so satisfied with how the final confrontation in Shadowbringers played out. Which, I believe, I have pointed out many times across the relevant threads.

I must confess, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that I'm suggesting that people should not defend themselves in a fight regardless of whether they are on the offense or defensive in a territorial dispute...?

Your "both sides" argument here is exactly the sort of example I'm talking about. There's no "both-siding" the example of the Garleans and the Eorzean Alliance in this case. The Garleans are unambiguously the aggressor party here. Their ancestors/founders once had sympathetic motives, sure, but the Empire by the time of FFXIV is a nation of militaristic conquerors. Once again, this is a PERFECT example of why I'll hard pass on advocating for absolute moral greyness. Because you end up trying to conflate everybody into being "equally valid" even when it isn't the case.

[Theodric]

Your "both sides" argument here is exactly the sort of example I'm talking about. There's no "both-siding" the example of the Garleans and the Eorzean Alliance in this case. The Garleans are unambiguously the aggressor party here. Their ancestors/founders once had sympathetic motives, sure, but the Empire by the time of FFXIV is a nation of militaristic conquerors. Once again, this is a PERFECT example of why I'll hard pass on advocating for absolute moral greyness. Because you end up trying to conflate everybody into being "equally valid" even when it isn't the case.

You're free to buy into the idea that territorial disputes are not incredibly complex. Much of the world - both in-game and outside of it - was built on just that. Territorial conflicts. There's plenty of nuance to it, though.

At the end of the day it's just a video game and we're talking about fictional nations. I'm here to be entertained, not use the game as a soapbox for my personal beliefs.

As it happens, I find a race forced to do horrid things due to external manipulation and an innate inability to manipulate aether decidedly more sympathetic and interesting than a bunch of self proclaimed 'heroes' who are not only brought back to life when they die but are actively empowered and given all sorts of advantages that other, desperate people in the setting are denied.

Nobody is suggesting that you have to think or feel the same way. Which is the merit to the compromise of allowing players to come to their own conclusions about specific characters and events.

[CrownySuccubus]

You're free to buy into the idea that territorial disputes are not incredibly complex. Much of the world - both in-game and outside of it - was built on just that. Territorial conflicts. There's plenty of nuance to it, though.

Sometimes, yes. But other times, no. There are countless examples of "territory disputes" (aka conquest and/or genocide) which is pretty black and white with one group unquestionably on the moral low ground.

At the end of the day it's just a video game and we're talking about fictional nations. I'm here to be entertained, not use the game as a soapbox for my personal beliefs.

At best, that makes you like everybody else.

As it happens, I find a race forced to do horrid things due to external manipulation and an innate inability to manipulate aether decidedly more sympathetic and interesting than a bunch of self proclaimed 'heroes' who are not only brought back to life when they die but are actively empowered and given all sorts of advantages that other, desperate people in the setting are denied.

Nobody is suggesting that you have to think or feel the same way.

Then what's the point of this debate? You gave your opinion. I stated why I disagreed with it. That should have been the end of it.

Which is the merit to the compromise of allowing players to come to their own conclusions about specific characters and events.

Sure. But one of the downfalls of that, as I said, is forcing other players to ignore certain atrocities.

[Theodric]

Then what's the point of this debate? You gave your opinion. I stated why I disagreed with it. That should have been the end of it.

Which...is precisely why I suggested agreeing to disagree in my prior posts...?

That aside, I posted my thoughts in the thread and you responded to them. Which led me, in turn, to clarify...

[CrownySuccubus]

Which...is precisely why I suggested agreeing to disagree in my prior posts...?

That aside, I posted my thoughts in the thread and you responded to them. Which led me, in turn, to clarify...

Right. And then I stated why I don't agree with those clarifications.

Most of your posts, however, were NOT offers to agree to disagree. But if that's what you want to do, we're more than welcome.