Thread: 3.4 speculation

Originally Posted by PArcher

snip

Please do not play the WW2 card as you have. The topic of genocide is more precise, farther reaching in practice than WW2 and has none of the personal attacks you were making on their character. that someone justifies the reason for a military campaign in the context of a fictional story doesn't mean they would approve of it in real life.

Nalien makes a point(cough) in pointing out that religious belief is a far more powerful and destructive weapon in the world of hydelyn. Without the presence of chosen ones to fight off primals and given the damage the primals do when summoned in such manners, the prospect of destroying the believers becomes a tantalizing solution(and one even the eorzean cities would have embraced, Gridania in particular).

We make our RL moral judgements from a position that neither has magic, nor supernatural beings popping out at the whims of the downtrodden, smiting their enemies. In Eorzea, that is a panic many people have been living with without the comfort of a Warrior of Light.(who just happens to survive every half cocked scheme to down said primals) The guys with magitek, half a clue, and the ability to down the local Shiva with miniguns? That looks senisble, teachable, even! You can't teach The Echo, near as I can tell, and some folks, like Garleans, just do not have it, what would their answer be in the face of such destructive faith, born of the light of crystals?

They found their answer in magitek and dominion, as imperfect and destructive as it is.

Originally Posted by PArcher

Basically...his arguments are as someone saying the Earth is flat, refusing to listen to the evidence otherwise, claiming no one has any proof because he can't tell with his own two eyes. Him never debating, only claiming no one else was willing too, only cements this further, and that rational discussion is a lost cause (as we've seen)

You really can't resist lacing your posts with thinly veiled insults, can you? Still no apology either, I see - but I'd be lying if I said I was surprised by that fact. You don't even seem to be aware of what you're even arguing about because I have repeatedly gone on record stating that I'd love to see Garlemald painted in a more sympathetic light. Which suggests that, yes, I agree that they're doing some pretty awful things.

What I don't agree with, however, is the idea that they are completely and thoroughly evil - or even without justification for their actions. Much of the criticism directed at Garlemald is based off of warped modern day idealism and poorly thought out platitudes as far as I'm concerned. Much of the arguments against them can be summed up as 'war is bad', 'racism is bad', 'slavery is bad'. All are horrific things in the real world to be sure - but in a fictional setting that does not need to be bound by the same limitations it is perfectly possible for fictional organisations and races to be terribly flawed whilst still having noble goals - even if they're misguided.

Furthermore this was a thread based around speculation so ranting at people for speculating is completely and utterly laughable in itself.

So let's stop beating around the bush and agree to disagree (like I've been saying all along, really). You're unlikely to change my mind just like I'm unlikely to change yours - and that's completely fine. You don't need to go on a misguided crusade over someone's interpretation of a story - especially when there's only a tiny portion of people even coming to this particular sub-forum to post on a frequent and consistent basis in the first place. Naturally with such a small pool of posters to deal with the same points of discussion are going to be brought up quite often.

I don't rant and demand that people stop whitewashing the Ala Mhigans or the Scions whenever they're brought up - because I enjoy reading different perspectives and interpretations...and I also firmly believe that morality is a far more complex issue than many believe it to be.

Originally Posted by Nalien

Seriously though, I haven't seen the new Ghostbusters movie, so you can ignore this 7,000 character review, please don't ban me...

It's solid! My one complaint is that none of the male characters are useful to the story - they range from useless at best to villainous at worst. Further details upon request, though I'll avoid spoilers as best as I am able.

Originally Posted by Theodric

... I don't agree with... the idea that [the Garleans] are completely and thoroughly evil - or even without justification for their actions. Much of the criticism directed at Garlemald is based off of warped modern day idealism and poorly thought out platitudes as far as I'm concerned. Much of the arguments against them can be summed up as 'war is bad', 'racism is bad', 'slavery is bad'. All are horrific things in the real world to be sure - but in a fictional setting that does not need to be bound by the same limitations it is perfectly possible for fictional organisations and races to be terribly flawed whilst still having noble goals - even if they're misguided.

I'm not convinced Garlemald is completely evil, but their flaws far outweigh their virtues. Their actions are reprehensible, and just because they're fictional doesn't make their actions more excusable. As I've iterated time and again (and you have so conveniently ignored), Garlemald was a small, backwater farming country before they made some magitek advancements, Solus zos Galvus became their emperor, and he told them to go forth and conquer. Garlemald's rise to power only began 50 years ago, so unlike with the Dragonsong War the truth of it is very unlikely to be lost to the mists of time. Any conflict they bring on themselves, any misfortune Garlemald (and by extension Garlean citizens) suffer is almost undoubtedly karma coming back to bite them. People would be happy if they'd turn off Conquest Mode, but they don't seem keen on that or relinquishing conquered territory.

Their goals are noble and very similar to ours - on the surface. But if you dig past that and think a bit about whether or not their means justify the ends, it becomes clear they don't. They claim to want Primal capturing technology to stop the beings from destroying the planet - but at the same time it's clear they also want it so people can stop using Primals against them and so they can potentially use Primals as aether batteries like the Allagans did. They claim genocide on the beast tribes will solve the Primal issue - it will, but the loss of life cannot be justified and it will just cause more and more survivors and other beast tribes to pray to their deity for salvation... meaning the Primal issue is just going to be exacerbated by this.

When given the option, I never needlessly fight and kill in vidja gaems. Pure Hero runs in the entire inFamous series, several perfect stealth and pacifist runs (at the same time) in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I can't bring myself to engage in pointless violence when I have the option not to, nor will I abuse power just to make things easier. Just because it's fictional doesn't mean it's okay to go on bloody wars of conquest or kill people for fun... or at least I don't feel that way, and beneath the veneer of nobility that is all Garlemald is doing, to say nothing of how horribly they treat conquered peoples.

As for Ala Mhigo, the Autumn War with Gridania (and later the rest of the Alliance) was 100 years ago. That's longer ago than Solus zos Galvus' rise to power. I don't think they deserved to be conquered for it or that it was even a factor in their conquering. That said I do wish the refugees would stop excusing their crimes with "For Ala Mhigo!" because it's grating and old.

As for the Scions, I don't recall them really doing many morally grey things, so I don't see what there is to whitewash. Usually it's just us doing the fighting and killing, and as I tried to bring up with the Zodiac Weapon it does make us kind of a bad person if you think about it a bit. To the Alliance and Scions we are the Warrior of Light, paragon of virtue and steadfast ally of justice... while to pretty much everyone else we are effectively the Angel of Death. Still, while it is very unfortunate we have to kill, doing nothing will result in greater casualties on all sides. If I must kill the guilty to protect the innocent... then so be it.

What I don't understand is why nobody seems to think Hydaelyn calling up Minfilia so she could eat her is reprehensible... but given this is a Japanese game and it was for the communal good, yeeeeeeeeeah.....

Originally Posted by Cilia

What I don't understand is why nobody seems to think Hydaelyn calling up Minfilia so she could eat her is reprehensible... but given this is a Japanese game and it was for the communal good, yeeeeeeeeeah.....

Because that isn't what happened...

I'm really not sure where the concept of Hydaelyn acting maliciously comes from... It has been stressed at great lengths that Hydaelyn is weak, she couldn't talk to us following Praetorium and she couldn't even spirit Minfilia away without hijacking whatever Y'shtola was casting. I see nothing that suggests Hydaelyn wanted to eat Minfilia, I get the distinct impression that she wanted to tell Minfilia what WotM told us, and then wait for us to come collect her as we attempted to, except she made a mistake and was too weak to even talk to Minfilia directly when she arrived... Do you really think Hydaelyn was just giving Minfilia the silent treatment at that point, so she'd get distressed and opt to willingly sacrifice herself? All so she could fail to deliver a message to us and cut off mid sentence? No, Hydaelyn has been displayed as fairly incompetent at this point... What happened to Minfilia is an unfortunate consequence of that IMO. You honestly might as well be complaining that we killed Haurchefant IMO... Hydaelyn didn't check how many talk minutes she had left, and we didn't check our flank...

It honestly makes no sense to me... We were obviously going to come looking for Minfilia, if Hydaelyn is secretly bad and aiming to eat all the XIV waifus, then that was perhaps the dumbest plan to manipulate us with... That it calls her character into question is fairly telling IMO... Either she is much more manipulative and devious than I expect, or she is just an unfortunate victim in all this... I'd go with the later because, well... Look at what the Ascians do for a living... you think the plot is going to turn around and explain Hydaelyn is actually super evil because one person sacrificed herself for her, and the Ascians are justified in the countless lives they've ruined or worse through several Rejoinings? No, Hydaelyn is just incompetent and facing a threat she can't handle...

Originally Posted by AutumnHarvestwind

This is pretty interesting! We both fight to eradicate primal influence and existence, but one side is regarded with heroism and the other so villianous. Someone has mentioned before on this forums, that the Eorzean nations are still pretty unethical, Gridinia being xenophobic, Ul'dah being corrupted with money, etc, and Limsa Lominsa being a sort of gov't that's full of pirates and thiefs. But I guess we see our leaders trying to be more sympathetic and diplomatic, where as Garlemald wants to have no negotations and kill everyone lol. If the current leader being possessed by the ascian were true, i'd believe it straight out the bat. especially given the ishgard shit with thordan!

Gaius actually seemed fairly reasonable in his attempt on Eorzea... He sent an ultimatum, he could have just flown into the city-states with Ultima and taken over, but he opted to negotiate after having just solved our Primal problem... The Eorzean Alliance was even ready to accept the terms until Minfilia walked in and convinced everyone war was a better alternative than Garlean rule... A war that ended in the destruction of Ultima Weapon and the release and subsequent resummoning of Ifrit, Garuda, and Titan... Not to mention Hydaelyn having to exert the last of her strength defending us from Ultima... Garlean occupation is really going to have to be displayed as hellish in order to justify the current narrative... "but we want to worship Nald'Thal and let corrupt individuals attempt to assassinate the Sultanate!" is a piss poor justification for letting the Primals run amok again... I really don't get why people are so scared of Garlean rule, when groups can summon monsters that can steal your free will... I guess there was a scene with Garleans brainwashing children in 1.0 that might still be true (I'd hope not), but at least you can get on Garlemalds good side through service, you think Ifrits tempered get nice magitek toilets and air conditioning for their servitude?

Originally Posted by Nalien

Gaius actually seemed fairly reasonable in his attempt on Eorzea... He sent an ultimatum, he could have just flown into the city-states with Ultima and taken over, but he opted to negotiate after having just solved our Primal problem... The Eorzean Alliance was even ready to accept the terms until Minfilia walked in and convinced everyone war was a better alternative than Garlean rule...A war that ended in the destruction of Ultima Weapon and the release and subsequent resummoning of Ifrit, Garuda, and Titan... Not to mention Hydaelyn having to exert the last of her strength defending us from Ultima... Garlean occupation is really going to have to be displayed as hellish in order to justify the current narrative... "but we want to worship Nald'Thal and let corrupt individuals attempt to assassinate the Sultanate!" is a piss poor justification for letting the Primals run amok again... I really don't get why people are so scared of Garlean rule, when groups can summon monsters that can steal your free will... I guess there was a scene with Garleans brainwashing children in 1.0 that might still be true (I'd hope not), but at least you can get on Garlemalds good side through service, you think Ifrits tempered get nice magitek toilets and air conditioning for their servitude?

I don't think we can fault the city states for being reluctant to submit themselves to foreign rule, regardless of how cushy it may or may not be depending on their level of cooperation. Might just be me being American here, but "Give me liberty, or give me death!" seems appropriate in this situation and a sentiment I happen to sympathize with.

Garlemald would have had better luck proposing an alliance to help Eorzea deal with its primal problem. Acknowledge that the city-states are equals and meet them as friends. That's not happening b/c that's just not the current mindset in Garlemald. They think they're the only ones who can save the world, that they don't need allies, and that they're above everyone else anyway (due to their tech advances and their mission) and you can't form a viable alliance with a non-equal partner. Garlemald has a good goal, ie: "Stop primal summoning", but its getting bogged down by bad methodology. There are flaws in our methods, too, but (due in part to plot convenience/luck) they're still working so far for the most part. If the Garlean methodology problems can be corrected, I'd be very interested in contemplating a serious alliance with them.

I'm almost sure we'll have an alliance of convenience against the Ascians at some point. A true alliance might build out of that, as the Garleans involved interact with us on a more equal basis and both sides see the benefits of working together and Garleans are forced to see that Eorzeans (both Beastmen and non-Beastmen, hopefully) aren't necessarily the "savages" they believe.