Thread: 3.5/4.0 Speculation & Discussion (Spoilers)

Well, after some rethought at work (I have to pass the time somehow - building tractors isn't the worst job but it does get repetitive), I remembered that what Elidibus said was, specifically, that it requires "the gift and the knowledge both" to perceive and understand the Ascians. What I take from this is that those with deep worldly knowledge (i.e. non-Echo Scions) can perceive the Ascians, but not communicate with them unless said Ascian wants to communicate with them and uses "Common" instead of "Black Speech" to do so.

It... explains the inconsistencies. I think. I'd need to recheck the dialogue boxes between Lahabrea and Thordan and Urianger and Elidibus to be sure, but... ehh.

While I am not ruling out the possibility of Ascian possession, I run on the assumption that an Ascian is not possessing someone until we know they are. I don't want to be paranoid and assume every villain, or worse, every ally, could possibly be possessed.

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

[GARLEAN THINGS]

Kinda hard to swallow “rape, concentration camps, and genocide are bad, yes, but what if survivors go back to work/school/newfound army positions after?" as a devil's advocate defense of an invasion.

Originally Posted by Balipu

But we never saw it for ourselves, did we? That's my point. We never actually saw Garlean rule for ourselves. I don't want to drag IRL stuff into it as politics is messy but it can totally happen that a whole nation wan'ts foreign rule to end, only to realize later that it was a lot better than what came after.

Of course once the Domans rebelled (we don't exactly know what they did beside trying to take over) the city was destroyed, but we really don't know what it was like before.

Do we know exactly how life was in Doma/Othard? No. But we know that cities that didn't use to collectively starve are now dying of starvation (NIN), that tiny fringe villages are facing oppression they didn’t have before (DRK), and that things for Au Ra has become bad enough to warrant making a long/potentially dangerous journey for a chance at better life (DRK/Lorebook) or revenge (WHM). I think, even without having been to Doma, it is safe to say that Othard is worse off now.

Originally Posted by Rokke

Kinda hard to swallow “rape, concentration camps, and genocide are bad, yes, but what if survivors go back to work/school/newfound army positions after?" as a devil's advocate defense of an invasion.

I tried to take pains to say, "It's obviously not justified or moral, but have you read about the sack of any city prior to things like the recognition of human rights via international convention (or sometimes in spite of them)?" Rome, Berlin, hells, even the sack of King's Landing was Garlemald minus magitek. Loath though I am to bring up touchy real-world subjects, the Empire of Japan's hands weren't always clean, either. Citing a historical precedent for "horrible, less horrible later" doesn't mean I defend or deny such horrors. (Apologies if I gave that impression.)

Certain members of Garlemald earnestly believe that their actions are all that stand between this world and oblivion, and thus they feel justified being indefensibly brutal. Ends justify the means and all that. After you've "saved" that area, do you keep making all lives everywhere the worse for it, forever? It's a thought worth stirring the pot over, but I (see bold / red) don't have much aside from that. Doesn't feel like "Devil's Advocate", anyway.

Originally Posted by Rokke

But we know that cities that didn't use to collectively starve are now dying of starvation (NIN), that tiny fringe villages are facing oppression they didn’t have before (DRK), and that things for Au Ra has become bad enough to warrant making a long/potentially dangerous journey for a chance at better life (DRK/Lorebook) or revenge (WHM).

All fair points; I'm not fighting the idea that Garlemald is Final Fantasy XIV's stereotypical Evil Empire. Even FFXV has one.

Just seemed weird to not see any mention of Rhitahtyn's point of view.

Then again, I'm pretty sure that not every city the Roman Empire took was better for it, either.

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

.

I took the stewing the pot tiny text to mean the same as devils advocate. English isn't my first language, sorry if I misunderstood. I don't mean to say you're defending the things because of how you personally feel.

My original comment was directed at the idea that we can't be sure that Garlean rule in action isn't all that bad because we haven't seen it in person. Rhitahtyn's comments + the notion of things getting better after being so bad after being is a worse position might have worked out for him/struggling areas. At the same time, though, we have been told by various people from other conquered areas that life has ranged from bad to horrific since they were conquered.

Originally Posted by Rokke

I took the stewing the pot tiny text to mean the same as devils advocate.

I think we agree on more than not, lol. Some people are probably happy, some people are probably not, bringing it down will likely cause chaos. Maybe they'd have been better off if Garlemald just stayed home, maybe Ascian machination and primals would have eventually led them to ruin. We won't know until we see for ourselves, but the Empire has made bad impression after bad impression. (Even if Rhitahtyn gives me pause.)

For what it's worth, the difference between the idioms is whether you're taking a position. To play Devil's Advocate is to argue for something you don't believe to test its validity. Stirring the pot is just exacerbating something, lol. In this case, seeing an already stewing debate and throwing unused evidence into the cauldron. Sometimes I have no helpful answers, but perhaps people will find their own if the right things are on the table.

EDIT: Wow, this thread is up to almost 19,000 views!

There's not really going to be a solution that will satisfy everyone. There are most certainly decent human beings doing decently well in Imperial Ala Mhigo, and they will probably not do so well in the inevitable power-vacuum s[kupo]tstorm that has followed in the wake of every single violent governmental overthrow since the beginning of time. Bloodless revolution is not technically impossible, but AFAIK the actual real-world historical record was set by Great Britain, and stands at "only almost."