Is anyone else getting the feeling

[blaen]

Personally, I don't feel as though the developers should have to limit story telling because there are certain religious groups that don't like certain themes or references to their religion that are negative.

[TheMightyMollusk]

Odin is a violent psychopath obsessed with fighting, eschewing the actual Odin's continual drive for knowledge and wisdom. He also can't be killed permanently, contrary to Odin knowing he is fated to die at Ragnarok. And he has both eyes. As a heathen this offends me.

[Arngrim_Greyashe]

Odin is a violent psychopath obsessed with fighting, eschewing the actual Odin's continual drive for knowledge and wisdom. He also can't be killed permanently, contrary to Odin knowing he is fated to die at Ragnarok. And he has both eyes. As a heathen this offends me.

I second this. Praise Odin!

[Shougun]

For OP:

CGM: Until now, much of FFXIV‘s narrative has been centered around the player being a champion of Light who fights against the forces of Darkness.. With Shadowbringers, the script is flipped on a large scale. Were there any challenges in disentangling the ideas of “good” and “light” from one another, and how is this reflected in your creative approach to enemy design in Shadowbringers?

NY: From my own personal experience with fantasy media, there typically seems to be a conflation of “light” or “justice” with the notion of “good.” It feels unilateral to me. Surely any force that goes too far in one direction can’t be entirely good, right? That’s why I figured that if there was too much “light” in the world of FFXIV, then there had to be some negative effects. The linchpin here is the Warrior of Light being so thoroughly active in their duties as the realm’s champion that their “light” has become overbearing, disrupting the balance. That’s exactly what happened in the First—the setting for Shadowbringers—and why it has been decimated by the Flood of Light. We felt that restoring that balance would make for a very Final Fantasy-like narrative.

In terms of enemy design for Shadowbringers, this was actually a big stumbling block for us. Some context: generally speaking, Japanese people tend to be rather…agonstic, so to speak, acknowledging aspects of all religions. On Christmas, we exchange presents with one another, but a week later, we’re at Shinto shrines making offerings for the New Year. We’re neutral in that sense. So when we think about the concept of “evil,” we have a comparatively large pool of ideas to draw from. Now, in designing foes that stem from a source of light that has become too powerful, it’s all too easy to immediately jump to the idea of a fallen angel. We specifically wanted to avoid that pitfall in Shadowbringers. Players will be fighting against the First’s “Sin Eaters,” yes, but they are not necessarily angels. It’s funny—when our artists first started conceptualizing new enemies, many couldn’t resist the pull of drawing meticulously feathered wings on their creatures. I feel that’s oversimplifying things. That’s why I had to ask them for several retakes whenever I saw those wings start to appear. I had to explicitly ask them to tone down the designs. Basically…I told them to come up with something super demonic-looking, and then make it white. (laughs) We definitely did struggle with this concept because it’s apparently been ingrained into our collective consciousness to associate white with “good” and black with “evil.”

Obviously you were referencing some of the Ishgard stuff in the beginning (this focuses on shadowbringers), but I wanted to share this as both solace and evidence that you don't need to carry/worry the feelings you have.

A bit related but the following question in the article is another great point to that:

CGM: At the 2019 Media Tour in San Francisco last month, you gave a thoughtful and nuanced answer to the hot topic of gendered expression in FFXIV via clothing options. I wanted to say thank you for being aware of this discourse and giving thought to players’ feelings. Is there anything you haven’t had an opportunity to express on this issue or any comments you would like to clarify at this time?

NY: Individual expression actually ties into what we’re trying to depict in Shadowbringers by challenging the idea of light being good and dark being bad. They are not absolutes.

As people, our values are formed at the intersection of many factors: education, history, religious teachings, and so on. They are typically something we gain through instruction. With regard to the conversation surrounding gender and matters of personal expression, we need to acknowledge that people’s values influence whether they see this is a positive or a negative thing. We can’t change that. We can’t change what people are taught. But we are in the process of changing our perspective, and that’s important to keep in mind.

With matters regarding LGBTQ+ expression in FFXIV, we can’t necessarily say that people who oppose it are universally evil and that people who are for it are universally good. It’s understandable that if you were raised with certain preconceived notions about gender or sexuality, then you would not necessarily think to challenge them. What we are trying to impart to our players is a sense of freedom. The freedom to choose how they want to express themselves as individuals, and the freedom to retain their own values. We don’t want to place blame on either side. If we do become one-sided in the way we approach these things—much like the seemingly “good” force of light overtaking the First—we run the risk of being too extreme and alienating the people who stand on the other side of the issue. We are prioritizing freedom, and we are still on the road to finding a way for everyone to understand that we all are free to make our own choices.

CGM: Thank you for thinking about this. It’s a delicate issue, to be sure. For what it’s worth, I appreciate that FFXIV did grant me the freedom to use the Ceremony of Eternal Bonding to marry my male partner back in 2015, and that meant a lot to me.

NY: I’m glad. And to reiterate, I don’t want to measure our players on a yardstick of good versus bad. We just want to give them options. FFXIV is a social game, and there are always going to be players from different countries, decades, cultures, backgrounds, and so on.

SE may beg the question, may suggest freedom to view the world with your own lenses rather than those prescribed, nor is that question just directed at you or those similar to just you- that's for all of us to check our own prescribed lenses and to make sure we're free to view the world and interact with it. Rather than just wear the shades we're told to wear and jump as high as we're commanded to jump. So they may ask something, but you're allowed to answer .

I know it's a bit similar to what I posted on the first page but I thought this was pretty great in relation to they're own words (or at least the director/producer's words). They're not giving you the answer or forcing one upon you (or targeting you specifically).

It's an encouragement for self discovery really, which is pretty cool I think.



Also super unrelated but on that interview, ayeee yes cookbook. Make that and I'll make a youtube channel making them lol.

[source]

[Melichoir]

No. Dismissing someone's concerns is not persecuting them, especially when those concerns are unfounded. Of course, you have the right to complain. I never said that. You just don't have the right to be taken seriously when your complaint is silly. For example, I'm not persecuting my kid when she complains that I won't let her eat Doritos for dinner. She has the right to whine and cry about it all she wants, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take her seriously. In the real-life example that I gave earlier, all the stores were flooded with wreaths, Christmas trees, Santas, and religious music. How is that a war on Christmas? How is that persecution? The cashier saying, "Happy Holidays," is not an attack on Christianity. After all, Christmas is a holiday too.

Well this one has a lot of nuance that needs to be addressed. In regards to your child, it's not persecution to deny your child (someone you have ward over) because they want to eat doritos and you say no. Youre not saying no becuase of some characteristic they have, but that you feel eating doritos isnt healthy and she is (at her age) not responsible enough to mind her own personal health and understand that. Itd be persecution if the only reason you denied her doritos was if you did something akin to "No, Doritos are only for boys. Females are all horrible witches and Im gonna be mean as hell to you because youre a girl." Thatd obviously fall under sexism, but the point is youre going after a specific factor and collectivizing.

As for Xmas, yeah the War on Christmas is silly, but the concerns didnt pop out of the Aether either. For Christmas, a holiday that is very big for Christians and has religious significance for them particularly, being told from outside organizations that saying Merry Christmas is exclusive and hurtful and people should say "Happy Holidays" does come across as a ding. The reason? There would be no Xmas holiday if not for the religion itself, and saying Merry Christmas is a part of that religious practice on a cultural level. This gets more worrisome for same said crowd because Christmas has become more and more coopted as a public holiday that is disconnected from its religious roots. It's become more corporatized and some people within the faith are not happy about it. It's a bastardization of their religious beliefs and the religious significance of the holiday. Think of it htis way, if we corporatized Yom Kippur or Ramadan in the same fashion as Christmas, do you feel that those groups would not be thrilled by it?

Nuance is key to discussing issues. There's more on top of this too, as people have a hard time adapting to change, or the different outlooks between sects of Christianity regarding the subject, or whether it matters due to some of the paganistic roots that Christmas comes from. Etc.

No, it's not. As I said earlier, you have the right to complain. You don't have the right to be taken seriously. If you're going to complain that you're a Christian being discriminated against in a room full of Christians on the basis of your religion, then you'd better bring pretty compelling evidence because I'm going to find it unlikely, especially when all the visible evidence suggests otherwise. "Cannot be persecuted" is not the same statement as "not being persecuted." You're jumping to a completely different conclusion from what I stated.

My point was simply more along the lines of whether or not the dismissal of said complaint is at the individual level (i.e. you personally reject the personal assertions of the other person for specific flaws in that person's position) or if its collect (i.e you reject their complaints because of their group affiliation and use an overly broad brush). As a side point, you really dont know much about faiths in general it seems. A 'room full of christians' wont persecute christians? Certain sects of Christianity absolutely hate other sects. There is a real hate for Catholics in some circles from other Christians (Some parts of 7th day adventists come to mind; theyre not fond of the catholic church and actively view its leadership as the antichrist.) If you want to lookoutside Christianity as an example, much of the conflict in places like the middle east are between Sunni and Shia Muslims, two factions of Islam. They are not fond of one another typically. This is what I mean by "Overly broad brush."

This doesnt even address a key aspect - Just because you belong to a majority does not mean people cannot persecute you.

This is a straw man argument. It's one thing to say that racism against white can't exist. It's another to say that racism against whites does exist. I'm certain that racism against whites exists in some neighborhoods and among various cultural groups. Does it exist on a systemic basis in the United States? Absolutely not. It's less likely to exist when whites are a majority. When most of the people in charge are white, they are unlikely to discriminate against their own.

It's not a strawman. Im giving you an example of the concept that being a part of a majority group does not mean you cant receive hate. Racism is just a readily digestible example. I never argued systematic either. I argued that it can occur. Maybe I wasnt articulating it , but my point was that collectivism sucks, and that issues should be addressed at the individual level.

Also, you really dont know your history to well either. Whites have been a majority and in power in the US for a while, but they certainly did discriminate against other whites at times. People tend to forget Irish and Italians were both actively discriminated against. Borderline systemic at some points. This goes beyond that though - groups can find ways to discriminate against people who would otherwise be a part of that same group for all sorts of reasons. It's not a unique phenomenon.

What does this even have to do with what I was saying? The only point I was trying to make was that many, but not most, Christians in the United States claim that they're being persecuted despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

Much like racism can occur at the individual level, so can persecution. That was the equivilance I was attempting to illustrate. There being a majority or minority or whatever is a moot point. Beyond that, the point ultimately should be if you think someone isnt benig persecuted, you address them at the individual level. "Youre not being persecuted because of x, y, and z." is far different from "Youre not being persecuted cause your part of the Majority." My criticism is simply that what you mentioned appeared to follow the latter train of logic.

[NessaWyvern]

My point was simply more along the lines of whether or not the dismissal of said complaint is at the individual level (i.e. you personally reject the personal assertions of the other person for specific flaws in that person's position) or if its collect (i.e you reject their complaints because of their group affiliation and use an overly broad brush). As a side point, you really dont know much about faiths in general it seems. A 'room full of christians' wont persecute christians? Certain sects of Christianity absolutely hate other sects. There is a real hate for Catholics in some circles from other Christians (Some parts of 7th day adventists come to mind; theyre not fond of the catholic church and actively view its leadership as the antichrist.)

This doesnt even address a key aspect - Just because you belong to a majority does not mean people cannot persecute you.
Also, you really dont know your history to well either. Whites have been a majority and in power in the US for a while, but they certainly did discriminate against other whites at times. People tend to forget Irish and Italians were both actively discriminated against. Borderline systemic at some points. This goes beyond that though - groups can find ways to discriminate against people who would otherwise be a part of that same group for all sorts of reasons. It's not a unique phenomenon.

Aye, I agree completely, I know a little bit about this as I am descended from Roman Catholic Irish who had to leave Ireland due to the great famine and oppression.
They were being oppressed like you wouldn't believe.
Persecution is still occurring towards them in different forms. Despite being agnostic/athiest, I was appalled to hear from my mother that she didn't like Catholics and thought the Irish Roman Catholics deserved to die in the great famine (do to them being catholic), I asked why, and she said in along the lines of, that it was partly due to her being Anglican, and partly due to how catholics are portrayed in the media, even though my dad was sitting right next to her and he was raised catholic (which is where my Roman Catholic Irish heritage comes from).

[Edax]

For Christmas, a holiday that is very big for Christians and has religious significance for them particularly

And what of the Christians who banned Christmas for having no Scriptural justification and for being associated with Paganism? The Puritans who founded America believed quite strongly that Christmas was sinful. And if you celebrate Thanksgiving, you celebrate the very Christians who banned Christmas. And yet, in modern times, Christians engage in a war for a holiday they themselves have banned. There's a reason outsiders are plain sick of the persecution complex. You can't reason with a religion engaged in doublethink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...an_New_England

[TheMightyMollusk]

Every day we stray further from the light of the crystal.

[TheMightyMollusk]

Christmas in particular has strong roots in the Norse holiday of Yule. Santa was basically Odin, before Coca-Cola reimagined him as a jolly fat guy in the 1930s.

[AnimaAnimus]

Christmas in particular has strong roots in the Norse holiday of Yule. Santa was basically Odin, before Coca-Cola reimagined him as a jolly fat guy in the 1930s.

To be fair, that is another modern pagan misconception, just like the Futhark being used as fortune telling runes or having any religious significance at all. We just don't know but a lot of authors in the NeoPagan movement either have no historical evidence or they take possible theories or speculation and pass them off as fact and that goes for a lot of ancient cultures, not just Norse. There is very very little known about old Norse culture, especially religious practice or belief because it was quashed and destroyed by the church and then appropriated and twisted by the Nazi party. We do know the Norse were quite liberal, even by today's standards, but especially by the standards of their day and age which makes it all the more facepalming the symbolism and gods are invoked by white supremacists.

As someone who is of Scandinavian decent, I studied it quite closely in uni. We have the Edda, but that is also post-christian so its only considered to be partially accurate at best.