FFXIV is just FFTA from the other perspective

[Palibun]

It's way more complicated than you're making it out to be

Ivalice was just a dream, and Marche knew that A. No one would die, and B. It was better not to live in a dream, even if it would hurt Mewt, his brother... and i guess Ritz even if her motivation was stupid.
Everyone in FFXIV is alive and well, Emet, while i dont think is 100% evil, is still killing people for a somewhat selfish goal. If anything Emet is more like Mewt, he wants to charge the world in his image and cant understand that whats happened happened.
Marche was doing the right thing where as Emet is misguided, big difference. The Ascians in general are pretty misguided, after all they kept killing themselves for Zodiark.

[Lersayil]

By that argument Grahas world could've also decided to build upon their loss, survive, and continue figthing against the Ascian agenda, instead of pushing the time travel button and trying to save the past. Ascians aside we know that the Source already survived multiple calamities so its not impossible.

The argument isn't that Graha is as horrible or uncaring as the Ascians, but that on principle they made the same decision... and if the narrative presents this principle to be wrong, then it should be acknowledged on both sides in some form.

[Alleo]

By that argument Grahas world could've also decided to build upon their loss, survive, and continue figthing against the Ascian agenda, instead of pushing the time travel button and trying to save the past. Ascians aside we know that the Source already survived multiple calamities so its not impossible.

The argument isn't that Graha is as horrible or uncaring as the Ascians, but that on principle they made the same decision... and if the narrative presents this principle to be wrong, then it should be acknowledged on both sides in some form.

No it does not have to be both wrong if you take the moral complexity in it. The game for example does not show it as really bad that the Ancient ones summoned Zodiark to save their planet and thus needed sacrifice. It does show it as wrong that they continued to want unwilling sacrifice after the planet was safe.

The calamity was already 200 years gone but seemingly the world was still so worse (and I am sure that people tried to rebuilt it) that generations after us decided that the best course of action would be to change the past. It seems that the world was still dieing (which is not surprising since the gas did affect everything and even turned the soil bad). This is the difference! The Ascians got their world reborn, they had survived, the world was there to be rebuilt, it was whole and healthy. The future world after the 8th was not.

Real world example about same principle: Killing a person is the same no matter the situation, right? No, even in law there is difference thanks to the situation and intent behind it.

Kill someone in cold blood and you are seen as a bad person, kill someone in self defense in your own house when your life is at rist and it does not count as murder but self-defense. And if someone kills another to stop him from killing others then they are too seen as the hero and not the bad one. But in the end if you break it down, in each case you have taken a life. But the way it was done and why will change the perspective of it quite a bit.

[Lersayil]

snip

No offense but your example about killing isn't great for this case. If you want to apply it, it would be more appropriate to bring up the death penalty, or those hypothetical scenarios from psychopathy tests. I.e.: is it moral to kill one innocent to save 5 others?

It boils down to a simple question: is it worth to sacrifice the present of others to bring back the past? I argue that the answer to that question is a lot more important than the justifications. Why? Because the justifications don't matter to the unwilling, that gets sacrificed. In the end its just an excuse to oneself and the audience.

My own stance aside, the answer to that question is character defining by itself, and if the story goes with the narrative that the Ascains were wrong to do it, then in my view so was Graha (the opposite also applies naturally). He just had the benefit of being successful, being on our side, and conveniently achieving the effect with less suffering.

[RicaRuin]

That - and the fact that Hydaelyn is shady as well - is why I hope we get a 'Third Path'. Aka, the option to support the Ascians' goal, but via finding a path that requires no bloodshed at all.

(My posts here might not show it, but I'm a big fan of the Ascians and would join them asap. It's just that even though liking them I have quite a problem with genocide...)

[SannaR]

That - and the fact that Hydaelyn is shady as well - is why I hope we get a 'Third Path'. Aka, the option to support the Ascians' goal, but via finding a path that requires no bloodshed at all.

(My posts here might not show it, but I'm a big fan of the Ascians and would join them asap. It's just that even though liking them I have quite a problem with genocide...)

Okay this is the one thing I don't get when people are all Hydaelyn is bad/evil. When have we been shown that she's shady or done a Tataru evil lalafell grin behind our backs? Yes that grin made me stop fully loving and trusting Tataru. I mean we just helped her out while she went clamming. We say goodbye and both of us start walking away but she stops turns to look at us and gives us that creepy lalafell only grin. In that instant I was all ok she's tottally going to backstab us at some point. Though I want to say that was the moment she got her idea for the outfit she gets three people to tackle us so she can get our measurements, but still I haven't fully trusted her since then.

Now nowhere have I seen anything like that grin scene or something even less subtle when it comes to Hydaelyn. I'm not a legacy player so i don't know of every instance of her talking to us, but from what I know of her and her MO she comes off as a loving parent that just wants her children to live happy lives. Unfortunately she's had to deal with three guys who go out and recruit and or temper ten other people who's sole goal is to cause chaos just so they can ultimately try and get some of their friends back from maybe even the first few seconds post sundering.

[RicaRuin]

Okay this is the one thing I don't get when people are all Hydaelyn is bad/evil. When have we been shown that she's shady or done a Tataru evil lalafell grin behind our backs? Yes that grin made me stop fully loving and trusting Tataru. I mean we just helped her out while she went clamming. We say goodbye and both of us start walking away but she stops turns to look at us and gives us that creepy lalafell only grin. In that instant I was all ok she's tottally going to backstab us at some point. Though I want to say that was the moment she got her idea for the outfit she gets three people to tackle us so she can get our measurements, but still I haven't fully trusted her since then.

Now nowhere have I seen anything like that grin scene or something even less subtle when it comes to Hydaelyn. I'm not a legacy player so i don't know of every instance of her talking to us, but from what I know of her and her MO she comes off as a loving parent that just wants her children to live happy lives. Unfortunately she's had to deal with three guys who go out and recruit and or temper ten other people who's sole goal is to cause chaos just so they can ultimately try and get some of their friends back from maybe even the first few seconds post sundering.

No, Hydaelyn hasn't done anything 'bad' so far, but she has willingly withheld truths from us. Another thing is the fact that apparently she knew how the First suffered, but only stepped in when Arbert showed up, almost as if to assure us she's still the good one. So, shady in my book.

And what the post above me said.

[Elladie]

I defined the protagonists in my response, not because I don’t understand the concept (I have a Masters degree in Literature) but because I am excluding G’raha from their number in this instance. After all, the categorising of protagonist and antagonist is in itself very much a matter of perspective. We can assume we know whom the writer considers to be the protagonist; we can also assume we know ourselves who they are; but finally the decision is a subjective one. Hard as we try to be objective, if we don’t acknowledge how much stands in the way of that, we are falling into a very insidious trap.

Of course it isn’t vital to be objective when enjoying a video game. Personal enjoyment is, after all, highly subjective, and the cause of much ‘discussion’ on these very forums. Enjoying the story is dependent on personal preferences, and none of us have the right to dictate what aspects of the story are good, bad or indifferent to the individual. However pointing out stylistic elements that exist in the story is not a matter of opinion. Denying they exist doesn’t cause them to stop existing.

Emet Selch wishes to restore the world he remembers and loves. G’raha Tia wishes to restore the world he remembers and loves (from before the 8th Calamity).

In order to restore the world he remembers and loves, Emet Selch must sacrifice many, if not all, of those currently living. In order to restore the world he remembers and loves, G’raha Tia must sacrifice many, if not all, of those currently living (after the 8th Calamity).

Many of those currently living oppose Emet Selch. Many of those currently living (after the 8th Calamity) oppose G’raha Tia.

Emet Selch believes that it is worth sacrificing all these people to achieve his objective. G’raha Tia believes that it is worth sacrificing all these people to achieve his objective.

I could go on, but I’m fairly sure my point is obvious by now. The only real difference between Emet Selch and G’raha Tia is that one of them is an antagonist, and the other is a protagonist. The definition of which is a matter of perspective. I do appreciate it is very difficult for a lot of people to take this on board, but it really is inarguable.

Once again - and I know I’m in danger of belabouring the point - I’m not saying Emet is right and G’raha wrong or vice versa. In the story as it stands, Emet is the antagonist. But if the PC had been the WoD, Zodiark’s champion, from inception, then the story would stand very differently, and the Scions and G’raha would be the antagonists. I don’t want to bore everyone by saying the same thing over and over so this will be my final word on the subject.

[RenewalXVII]

No, Hydaelyn hasn't done anything 'bad' so far, but she has willingly withheld truths from us. Another thing is the fact that apparently she knew how the First suffered, but only stepped in when Arbert showed up, almost as if to assure us she's still the good one. So, shady in my book.

And what the post above me said.

I mean, this is deeply uncertain because of the wonkiness of the difference in time between Source and Shard, but there's no evidence that Hydaelyn was in any position to do anything when the Flood began. Assuming the Flood is roughly contemporaneous with ARR/early HW, without the First's time dilation between late HW and ShB, then Hydaelyn was at her absolute weakest at that point in time, after protecting us from Ultima. And she literally only shows up when Ardbert arrives to face us, because that clash between our Crystals of Light is what finally enables her to manifest and take action at the same time. Yes, she's withheld information from us, but her inaction in regards to the First is entirely due to the machinations of the Ascians weakening her, not because she's willfully negligent.

[Kusanagi7]

No, Hydaelyn hasn't done anything 'bad' so far, but she has willingly withheld truths from us. Another thing is the fact that apparently she knew how the First suffered, but only stepped in when Arbert showed up, almost as if to assure us she's still the good one. So, shady in my book.

And what the post above me said.

its cuz of hydaelyn that minfilia is gone that atleast to me is bad in my book and because of that i fully distrust hydaelyn now.