Is the WoL actually good though?

[CrownySuccubus]

I was more referring to desperate people forced to do horrid things in order to survive rather than those who gleefully go around doing bad things with no greater purpose in mind. Both are technically bad, though a mother murdering a stranger to protect her son because he'll die if she doesn't play along is very different to someone doing it for the thrill of the hunt.

I would believe you if your prior argument hadn't been:

During Stormblood, the Eorzean Alliance shifted from the 'defender' to the 'aggressor' but they certainly didn't just shrug and say 'they were just defending themselves' whenever Garlean experimentation/body horror was put into play. Fae body horror and transformation is little different, really.

It's kind of silly to specify that desperate people doing desperate things to survive or in self-defense okay, but then try to portray the Alliance as "aggressors" on the subject of Garlean experimentation. Retaking a conquered territory from an expansionist military empire is a very loose definition of the term "aggressor", and likewise ignores what purpose those experiments were to serve. The Garlean Empire, as an expansionist military empire, is literally an eternal aggressor. Even if they're not currently invading your country right now, they've made it 100% clear that they will do so eventually.

Morality in itself, however, is often very flexible. More than many would care to admit. There are countless examples of such throughout history. If a city is under siege and there is no way to escape or easily secure food, many survivors would do abhorrent things in order to feed their loved ones. Things that they did not believe themselves to be capable of, even.

Right. But that argument relies on some sort of external, greater villainy or threat which is predicating their actions. Their actions are only morally gray because of an external moral black. So, even by the way you are defining it, that means there STILL needs to be some moral element that the audience is expected to find unambiguously "bad". If the point is for the audience to accept that people need to lie, kill and steal to avoid a bad thing, then that first requires the audience to accept that the bad thing is bad. For example, Fordola as a character doesn't work if everything was wonderful sunshine and rainbows before she joined the Garlean military and became "The Butcher". The writers have to first convince the audience that the situation she was in was terrible itself before they can sell the argument that Fordola is morally complex for the things she did to become "The Butcher"

[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.

[KizuyaKatogami]

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.

It’s subjective in the end though. You don’t have to agree but….considering Limsa is literally where it’s at because of conquering and every city state has shitty things going on they’re all in a moral greyness zone. Uldah with its slavery gridania with its racism etc. Not sure why this is even up for debate.

[CrownySuccubus]

It’s subjective in the end though. You don’t have to agree but….considering Limsa is literally where it’s at because of conquering and every city state has shitty things going on they’re all in a moral greyness zone. Uldah with its slavery gridania with its racism etc. Not sure why this is even up for debate.

You aren't? "Everyone else has also done bad things" isn't a catch-all justification that each side is right. Especially when the entire point of FFXIV as a story is that the Eorzean city-states are trying to make up for the wrongs they've done, which is certainly NOT the case for Garlemald at present. Even if we were to take this argument completely at face value, though, Garlemald is still worse. They have done every single bad thing that the individual city states have done (except maybe primal summoning), but have also done more atrocities aside from that. There is also a matter of scale -- as bad as Gridania's racism may be, Garlemald has still basically spread a campaign of cultural genocide across multiple continents. You might be able to pass judgment on Uldah for wiping out an entire city, but bringing the same judgment upon Garlemald brings up the immediate question "Which one?".

[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.

[Vyrerus]

Especially when the entire point of FFXIV as a story is that the Eorzean city-states are trying to make up for the wrongs they've done

Sort of. The current leaders of the city states are trying to make up for the wrongs their nations have done, because they can currently afford to and/or have received the aid of the world's champions(WoL/Scions) in putting down insurrections/dissenters/primals/tempering etc.

Garlemald could never be afforded the same opportunity, at least as it was, because it was receiving the auspices of the antagonists. As well as the impetus from them to conquer the world.

The city states themselves can't be capable of that kind of wickedness, because if they were, then they wouldn't be the heroic underdogs. Rather, it's not because the city states are necessarily on the moral hill because they're intrinsically good. They're there because they've been pushed to be there because they were weak. They essentially bow to the WoL and Scions overtures, because the WoL and Scions are strong, strong enough for them to stand by their principles or at least the appearance of principles.

Imagine for a moment that Ul'dah were larger or more powerful than Garlemald. What would stop the Syndicate from trying to take other places over? What put a stop to such ambitions, anyway? The knowledge that they don't have the manpower or means to do as such.

Any one of the city states, except for perhaps Gridania, given the same Ascian auspices as Garlemald could have been just as bad as Garlemald. If not worse, considering aether manipulating races are capable of aetherochemistry. Of course, the Garlean people make for the ultimate slave race in such a setting.

That's why it's considered so grave when we find out dirty things like Ul'dah's elimination of Sil'dih.

In short, just because a group of people does not have the means to express their malevolence/ambition does not mean they would not, given the chance.