Thread: Revelations from Patch 5.5 (Part 2)

Originally Posted by Theodric

Also, for what it's worth...I don't care for head canon and instead debate from the direction of the story being told not from the perspective of mine or anybody else's character but rather the perspective of the established protagonist

Well, I only ever discuss the story from the perspective of an extremely gay catboy, his adopted children, and his squad of incredibly talented groupies.

Originally Posted by Riastrad

Yup. Because we, my dear sympathizer, are the good guys.

Well, naturally we can agree to disagree on that - the writers themselves have stated many times in interviews that the various conflicts are but a matter of perspective and not a case of black or white morality.

I'm not sure why you're using the term 'sympathiser', though. That's a little odd in the context of the discussion. Nobody is going around calling people Eorzean sympathisers. It's also a fictional fantasy setting at the end of the day, too...

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

This include the PTSD they have, the constant self-doubt and depression, and the knowing that they see that they themselves exist only to suffer and to fight? That btw is how I see the WoL's mentality anyway. A veteran of multiple conflicts that is just growing more tired and jaded as the years go on, just wishing for the battles to end. And considering 6.0 is to be the finale of the main conflict, if this were an anime, I'd write it with it being their finale as the WoL, whether it ending through their own death, being depowered and entering retirement, or the title of Azem being passed onto another.

That's pretty much how I see it as well. Especially in regards to the PTSD. There's a lot of pressure, a sense of being unable to save everybody, torn between conflicted loyalties and so on. It's fascinating, really - and a big part of why I adore this setting.

So few games - and especially MMO's - bother to examine the psychological impact that comes with killing for a living, especially when many conflicts are not black or white. Putting down Zenos, for example, is going to be very different to the tragedy of having to put down Nidhogg or Emet-Selch.

It'll be interesting to see where the story seeks to go once the 6.0 MSQ's wrap up, though. I imagine that the Warrior of Darkness will get a brief respite but obviously given the nature of the game there will still be new threats popping up left and right to deal with.

There's also a lot of potential locations to visit in the future. Inner Hingashi, Meracydia and so on. Maybe even other Shards!

Originally Posted by Theodric

Well, naturally we can agree to disagree on that - the writers themselves have stated many times in interviews that the various conflicts are but a matter of perspective and not a case of black or white morality.

I'm not sure why you're using the term 'sympathiser', though. That's a little odd in the context of the discussion. Nobody is going around calling people Eorzean sympathisers. It's also a fictional fantasy setting at the end of the day, too...

Aye, first "propaganda", now "sympathizer". One could be forgiven for thinking they're attending some Ethics 101 class (maybe a little too complimentary of me to call it that), rather than a game discussion board!

But if some people wish to pat themselves on the back over taking a side in a video game, so be it.

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

People rarely ever talk about Eorzea/Doma lol. It’s always Garleans bad bad bad. That’s why when i give points on why Eorzea really is no different,or the WoL/scions are just as bad, people seem to avoid them lmao. It’s just funny to me how people have this double standard pertaining to Garlemald when Eorzea is no better than them.

They are only no better than them if you see their problems on the same scale as Garlemald. I dont think that city states which are also still recovering from nearly being blasted out of existence, who has to fear an invasion and the constant summoning of primals who deal with some struggles and who make mistakes, are on the same ground as Garlemald. The states have problems. But they try to solve them and are now even in an alliance with every beast tribe.

And Eorzea and Doma are always talked about as soon as someone points out the horrible disgusting stuff that Garlemald does. Because them not being perfect somehow means that they are the same kind of bad that Garlemald is. The country that just thinks that they can conquer the world, that look down on non garlean as savages, that has beast tribe and echo user genocide on their agenda. That destroys whole cities like Bozja in their need for science. That has created one whole calamity which would have wiped out a whole continent if the scions had not fought back and which would have wiped out a big amount of the world with their black rose gas. Yes I am sorry I will stand that the city states are nowhere near that.

Edit:

If we all go on with black and white then lets also not forget that Yoshida himself stated that people should not already judge the story without getting Hydaelyns side of it. Sadly no matter how hard I looked I cant find the quote. But it was along the way that we should wait until we get Hydealyns view. This was seemingly on the reaction that are people fully believe only Emets view. If someone has that quote I would be quite happy.

Another one from an interview after he said that quote:

“The Shadowbringers storyline touched upon the core of FFXIV, which means we need players to understand who the Ascians are, how they are motivated, what their mission is, and why the Warrior of Light needs to fight them. In order to make this happen, the team meticulously planned it out so that it hits players. Seeing this result and this kind of feedback and emotion, the team feels it went over well.”

“If you just think about it without Emet-Selch’s humanised side, the Ascians have done these atrocious things seven times now, sacrificing so many lives. But the players are saying ‘we’re so sad, we want him back.’ That said, we haven’t heard what Hydalen has to say, because they’re two sides of the same coin, so we have to tell something about that as well.”

He mentions it again that we havent heard about Hydealyn.

Anyways seeing how Valen and Zenos exist I doubt that their stance is purely that no black exist, otherwise these characters have to be somehow morally grey too. I just think that the overall view might not always be that simple.

So time for bed. No idea if I can even post much longer, no idea if my sub break is already near the 14 day mark.

Friendly reminder: Whataboutery is not a valid argument. It is a propaganda tool designed to imply that all actions, regardless of context and magnitude, share a moral equivalency; therefore since nobody is perfect all criticism is hypocritical, and thus everyone should be free to do whatever they want.

The point I'm making is that whatever skeletons may be in Eorzea's closet don't excuse the Garlean Empire's actions. ("Yeah, it's true the Garlean Empire acts with unprovoked aggression against Eorzea... but what about Ul'dah using zombie powder on Sil'dih?")

This "logic" doesn't solve a problem or win an argument; it just incenses the people on the other side and purposefully muddies the issue.

Now please, continue. Without the faulty "logic" / propaganda tool, if you please.