FFXIV is just FFTA from the other perspective

[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.

[Alleo]

G’raha did what he did under different circumstances. The world 200 years in the bad future is one of constant war where Black Rose was way more successful than expected and most of the world’s population died and there’s no end in sight. Reversing that will save all the millions who died on The Source, save those who remained on The First, push back the clock on the Rejoining, and provide a proof of concept of taking the fight to the Ascians on the shards.

I fully agree. The world right now is fine as it is. It might not be as great as it once was with the Ancient ones but without the constant thread of the Ascians the people would probably thrive and live quite good. Heck even with the calamities always resetting it, you can still enjoy a good life. So the world imo does not need saving. Thus what the Ascians are doing is trying to destroy something that is fine because it does not fit their view on it. Elidibus might talk about balance and that stuff but I doubt that this is true. What balance would be there for us if they go through with their goal. Graha was waking up in a world where the people thought that it would be better to change the past than to continue living in it. From the bare descriptions we got, it was probably not going to recover and with the WoL gone, it might have even been doomed to get Zodiark back.

But I guess this is all off topic anyways since it has not much to do with the OP anymore.

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.

She took Minfilias body because she has gotten so weak that she could not even talk to us directly. (And Minfilia went there willingly, she could have just ignored the plea and run) Of course this makes it not really possible to help Ardbert and his friends with the shards (we dont even know if she can directly even act on these shards) and we have to remember that time flows different there too. Maybe she heard their plea, was not powerful enough to contact us for help and when she finally got Minfilia they were already there. Heck even with Minfilia as her emissary we had to travel through the anti tower to finally speak with her again, while in the past she was able to reach us outside that realm.

In the end as soon as she got some power back, she sent Minfilia to the first to help.

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

Where was it stated that many opposed Graha Tia? Maybe I remember it wrong but this was never stated ingame? And in the short story it was all about the time where Cid was still alive. (Long before Graha Tia even woke up) And even Cid managed to turn the opinions around when it was about saving us and not about giving future people a better place to life. As far as we know we have no clue how many people are even alive after 200 years (just the hints that it was a dieing world) and how many of those agreed to it. But Graha needed to have a least quite some people behind him, because that time travel device was still just a plan. The ressources needed to construct that would be huge. I doubt that only a handful managed to do that. Also rereading the Twinning it was not him that started the project. It was the people from the future that opened up the tower to research a way to travel through the space.

[Theodric]

As the writers have stated on numerous occasions, it's all a matter of perspective. The protagonists have their reasons for doing what they do, the antagonists have their reasons for doing what they do. People are free to root for either or both, though I'd kindly suggest once again that those seeking to control the narrative cease policing who and what people root for around these parts.

Morality is complicated. Not everybody is going to agree with everything a character does. There's also a big difference between what a character does in a fictional setting and what someone seeks to do in the real world. At the end of the day, it's just pixels and a lot of people play the game to be entertained rather than to reaffirm their political and moral standpoints at every possible turn.

Please stop stifling discussion and speculation. Agree to disagree where it's clear moral relativism is involved and let everybody enjoy what it is they like about the game instead of engaging in gate-keeping and narrative policing.

[Eggpop]

Then I suggest people don't invite others to a discussion. Someone's opinion is bound to get challenged, so what's the point if we all agree that nuances, details and meanings don't matter because moral relavitism. Policing in discussion only happens if neither sides consider each other's opinion and it just becomes a shouting contest.

[Edax]

And the only reason we're not rooting for the Ascians is because we're not playing as one.

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance is about a group of people who watched the entire world magically change around them. The main character had to fight against everyone else, including some other people from the 'old world' who like the new one better, in order to make it all go back to normal. He had to become the villain in order to do what he knew was right.

FFXIV is basically just FFTA told from Mewt/Ritz/Cid's perspective. The only difference between Marche and Emet Selch is that we're not playing as an Ascian.

Many people have pointed out that Marche is the villain protagonist of FFTA and I can somewhat get behind that interpretation. Marche's is going against the wishes of his friends and potentially destroying their happiness with harsh reality.

[Theodric]

Then I suggest people don't invite others to a discussion. Someone's opinion is bound to get challenged, so what's the point if we all agree that nuances, details and meanings don't matter because moral relavitism. Policing in discussion only happens if neither sides consider each other's opinion and it just becomes a shouting contest.

The discussion itself isn't the issue so much as the habit of people speaking in absolutes in situations where both the game and developers themselves have quite clearly painted scenarios as more than simply black and white.

There's an unfortunate trend in many fandoms where the loudest voices drown out those who appreciate the setting as a whole. There's a big difference between posters debating the lore as it is established and people shaming others for liking and supporting a particular fictional character/faction when it comes to the narrative.

Which is precisely why the suggestion to agree to disagree was put forth. Morality is a complicated issue and in some cases it seems there's more interest in preaching instead of debating the story and characters as they are presented.

Whenever morality is brought up the discussions end up becoming very circular. At which point it strikes me as wise for people to just shrug and agree to disagree instead of pushing the false narrative that their 'absolute' is correct.

[Eggpop]

The discussion itself isn't the issue so much as the habit of people speaking in absolutes in situations where both the game and developers themselves have quite clearly painted scenarios as more than simply black and white.

There's an unfortunate trend in many fandoms where the loudest voices drown out those who appreciate the setting as a whole. There's a big difference between posters debating the lore as it is established and people shaming others for liking and supporting a particular fictional character/faction when it comes to the narrative.

Which is precisely why the suggestion to agree to disagree was put forth. Morality is a complicated issue and in some cases it seems there's more interest in preaching instead of debating the story and characters as they are presented.

Whenever morality is brought up the discussions end up becoming very circular. At which point it strikes me as wise for people to just shrug and agree to disagree instead of pushing the false narrative that their 'absolute' is correct.

The issue is the people, I agree. Which is why if one is unwilling to take in differing opinions and continue to deflect them with moral relativism, they shouldn't publicly invite people to add their opinions. My issue with this discussion is that objectivity is being hand waved, and objective truths are mistaken with everything being the matter of perspective. We can still hold a discussion beyond the writers' intention as long as we are consistent and focused in an objective manner without battling for moral high ground.

edit: Anyway, I don't want to derail this even further so I'm out of here :,3

[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.

[Alleo]

Please stop stifling discussion and speculation. Agree to disagree where it's clear moral relativism is involved and let everybody enjoy what it is they like about the game instead of engaging in gate-keeping and narrative policing.

Then maybe the other side should stick to that too, because this topic started out perfectly well on topic only to be brought down by the question on why Graha Tia is not seen in such a bad light like the Ascians. If people should just agree to disagree then those should do that too and agree that there might be people that see it as different and that have different views on what count as right or wrong.

But like Eggpop said, what would be the point in discussion then? If you bring up a question and people try to argue with that in their own view then "agreeing to disagree" is nothing but a way to stop that from happening..as if someone wants to post their opinion in a discussion but does not allow people to challenge that. When I dont want to argue about a point anymore and I know that this wont go anywhere, then I simply dont argue about that point. No need about any agree to disagree posts, just simply not write about it and then the discussion will either stop or people discuss it with others, which is in their rights to do. In the end "agree to disagree" is a way to stifle speculation, especially when its posted by someone who was not even mentioned in the post itself.

I am honestly also quite curious where people shamed those that liked the Ascians? Heck I too feel a bit bad for Emet and love his character. Does not change my view on them that they are bad guys and needs to be stopped and that their way is wrong. (And even a lot of Ancient ones agreed with that too so its not just purely from the look of our character) Like Garlmald, Ascians and Zodiark all you want, but people disagreeing with your arguments on their actions is not them shaming you. Posters going out of their way to say that people might have not understood the story, dont understand nuance or are not truly objective is way more shaming..