Thread: 3.4 speculation

Has the democracy bug spread to MMOs too now?

Originally Posted by Morningstar1337

Took a few second to look at those "Ark Angels" and I feel like that might be the case. Unfortunately I can only fin that they are a thing, that they consist of one member of each of that games races, and that they seem to be associated with negative emotions, so their lore in XI is lost on me.

Your basically talking about the Crystal Warriors from Final Fantasy 11 Online

Originally Posted by Lauront

Has the democracy bug spread to MMOs too now?

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this.

Originally Posted by DrakkenX9

Your basically talking about the Crystal Warriors from Final Fantasy 11 Online

y-y-yes? That's exactly what she's talking about?? Pretty sure they're the same thing, non?

Originally Posted by Lauront

Has the democracy bug spread to MMOs too now?

What's the old saying? Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones? Something like that. Anyways, it's less pro-democracy (I think modern Ishgard is the only government that comes close), and more like the anti-imperialism and anti-fascism bug.

Anyways, we've been over this a lot recently, and I tend to side with Cilia. Imperial Garlemald is bad news bears, has only ever been presented as bad news bears, and while we may get sympathetic characters within/under Garlemald in the future, I doubt that the current state is going to get their actions pardoned by the narrative anytime soon. Not with the way this game has portrayed Imperialism thus far, anyways (it's not like the Allagans are painted in the most sympathetic light either). I don't think that "bloody conquest for bloody conquest's sake = bad" is a controversial (or even really debatable) position for the game to take, though, and there's lots of ways the game can play with shades of grey even with that attitude, so it doesn't especially bug me.

There are lots of reasons, many pointed out in this thread, that we would team up with Garlemald out of necessity down the road. There's also a lot of intrigue to be drawn from doing so with a bad news bears Garlemald (off the top of my head, a truce that involves pulling out of Ala Mhigo/Eorzea but none of their other territories creates tensions with the Doman refugees). We don't need to go Archadian with them, and I'm actually kind of interested to see where they're taken as a Gestahlian state in the narrative. As you've pointed out before, Theo, the game is generally good at not being black and white, and sympathetic villains aren't the only way to generate shades of grey.

There's conflicting sources, though, and we already know that what we see in-game is often told from a biased perspective. The Ala Mhigans, for example, often wail about the loss of their homeland and how they're tragic figures without much in the way of admittance that they themselves repeatedly screwed over Eorzea before the Garleans even entered the picture. Not only that but the Garleans were able to swoop in and take over the nation largely because of how much instability could be found within Ala Mhigo and the surrounding area. On top of that many Ala Mhigans have since turned to crime and even engaged in treachery against foreign monarchs and indulged in all manner of atrocities in the name of their fallen homeland.

Garlemald, by comparison, has been stated to allow conquered regions to continue to embrace their own culture with the exception of religion (something which has proven to lead to chaos in this setting anyway) so one does have to wonder if much of the tales of Garlemald's cruelty are exaggerated. Yes, there's bad apples - but that applies to every region. The whole 'Might Makes Right' approach played out with the British and Roman Empires in our own world and neither Empire was 'evil' or completely without redeeming qualities. Both have also left a long lasting impact upon the cultures of the lands they conquered throughout history - and even some of those that they didn't conquer. Garlemald is likely to be in a similar scenario from what we know.

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

What's the old saying?

I don't adhere to that line of thinking, nor do I consider it true. It's just a platitude. Ishgard was more of a theocracy created out of necessity, so its reasons for abandoning that are to do with the fact that that is no longer needed. Had Thordan not maintained the myth of why they were fighting the dragons, it is likely morale would have depleted far sooner and the city would have fallen to the dragons, who were unprepared to forgive the Isghardians under any circumstances for the sins of their forefathers. At any rate, it would have been difficult to forge another monarchy out of it for those reasons.

Anyways, we've been over this a lot recently,

It's more that wholesale destruction of/war with the empire will involve more than just destroying its elite. So SE will have to find some redeeming qualities to it, and I am certain that won't be difficult. They managed to find some for Ul'dah (but as yet, none for Ala Mhigo.)

I just hope we start focusing more on the other GCs/ City-states and their internal struggles, especially Ul'Dah. Surely, the change of Ishgardian government and peace with dragons would inspire Nanamo to abdicate and turn Ul'dah into a republic again, but maybe plan it better?

It really is a shame that the truth behind the Sild'hih - Ul'dah war was revealed in the Hildibrand quest.