Thread: Revelations from Patch 5.5 (Part 2)

It's really just coming down to another circular disagreement about 'morality' which isn't based on anything present in the game itself but rather the knee-jerk reactions from individuals who have come to loathe specific characters in the story. It happens in a lot of fandoms these days, unfortunately.

Furthermore, it's fascinating to me how often the goalposts are moved. If it had been Yotsuyu who chose to flood Doma Castle and send the likes of Gosetsu and Yugiri to a watery grave then there would be not end to the claims as to how 'unforgivable' the act happened to be. Though because it's 'just' a bunch of Garlean soldiers being drowned and being crushed beneath debris then it's supposedly fine and completely justified.

Luckily the game isn't even presenting such things as anything but unpleasant aspects of war and the escalation that inevitably comes as a result of it.

It also ignores the nuance surrounding key concepts such as how there is a clear distinction between an antagonist and a villain. Or how it is an exceptional disadvantage to be unable to easily manipulate aether in a setting overly reliant on aether for pretty much every aspect of one's life. Or how quickly the 'heroes' insist that people forgive and forget grudges, but the moment they themselves have a desire for vengeance it's suddenly alright to threaten to rip out someone's heart (as per the threat aimed at Ser Zephirin) or various other similar dialogue choices offered up throughout the story.

Really, it seems to me that a lot of people around aren't looking at the lore from the perspective of the characters themselves and instead base their discussion around 'feels' rather than established circumstances and logic.

Hien's one of my favourite characters in the story. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore that some of what he did happened to be questionable - such as strong-arming the Xaela into joining his uprising through the exploiting of their proud traditions or, indeed, the flooding of Doma Castle.

Equally, a lot of what Garlemald has done has been far from perfect - but it's understandable to me that they'd resort to such measures in an effort to avoid being wiped out as they nearly came close to being through no fault of their own in the past.

So too is it the case for Misija and Yotsuyu. They weren't being evil for the sake of being evil. They had both been subjected to immense degradation from their respective societies, failed by everyone around them and both saw Garlemald's way of life as preferable to living in squalor.

Which, to me, is perfectly understandable. Just as it is understandable for Hien to want to reclaim Doma on behalf of his people.

I guess I keep coming here assuming people want to discuss the lore as it is, rather than their pet peeves with individual characters though. Much in the same way as how general Final Fantasy discussion boards have become insufferable due to endless arguments over which is supposedly the 'best' game in the series, even though objectively they all have their perks and flaws.

Poorly written and executed characters can make an otherwise decent story bad. See Misijia. Because apart from her and her influence on the story arc, Bozja was fine. Lyons was interesting, Gabranth was interesting, various members of the IVth were interesting. All this was squandered by Misijia's poor writing and arc.

Whether a character is 'poorly written' is entirely subjective in itself.

Indeed, given that Matsuno is responsible in large part for creating multiple beloved games rich in detail and nuance such as Vagrant Story, Final Fantasy Tactics and Final Fantasy XII I'm much more inclined to side with him over some of the posters who flock to this particular board.

A character not being dragged through the coals and punished for supposed misdeeds is not equal to 'bad writing'. Even flawed individuals can do some good at the end of the day. So too has it been the case throughout history in the real world and within the FFXIV setting itself.

The ending scene of Castrum begs to differ. As they had to make everyone act in an extremely stupid way in order to get the Misijia plot moving. Really cast a damper on the rest of the story.

Originally Posted by Caurcas

The ending scene of Castrum begs to differ. As they had to make everyone act in an extremely stupid way in order to get the Misijia plot moving. Really cast a damper on the rest of the story.

In what manner was it 'stupid' in your opinion?

Misijia was taken prisoner to interrogate for information. Her field notes take the format of an interview to explain her opinions, background and thoughts. Invaluable information for the Bozjan Resistance to work with.

What did she do, in your opinion, that is supposedly so 'unforgivable'? I may be wrong, but I'm assuming you mean the part where she turned enemy combatants into thralls? That isn't terribly different to how the Warrior of Darkness allowed soldiers from Eulmore to be turned into leafmen, which the Warrior of Darkness and Scions were fine with.

Originally Posted by Theodric

In what manner was it 'stupid' in your opinion?

Misijia was taken prisoner to interrogate for information. Her field notes take the format of an interview to explain her opinions, background and thoughts. Invaluable information for the Bozjan Resistance to work with.

What did she do, in your opinion, that is supposedly so 'unforgivable'? I may be wrong, but I'm assuming you mean the part where she turned enemy combatants into thralls? That isn't terribly different to how the Warrior of Darkness allowed soldiers from Eulmore to be turned into leafmen, which the Warrior of Darkness and Scions were fine with.

You are thinking the DR capture, I was talking about when she first showed her hand in Litore. However, I will go ahead an answer why she is "unforgivable". The answer is simple, it's the sadistic glee she takes in it.

Originally Posted by Caurcas

You are thinking the DR capture, I was talking about when she first showed her hand in Litore. However, I will go ahead an answer why she is "unforgivable". The answer is simple, it's the sadistic glee she takes in it.

The same sort of sadistic glee that the Scions and Warrior of Darkness have expressed multiple times before going to inflict mass death upon a group of their opponents, often over mere geopolitical disagreements? Furthermore, Misija grew up with an immensely poor lot in life, failed by Bozjan society at every turn. Indeed, before Misija's 'betrayal' we see sadistic glee aimed at her from some of her supposed allies who looked down on her based on her background.

This doesn't appear to be a case of bad writing to me so much as dislike of the character herself.

Once again, it's a matter of perspective. So let's agree to disagree, eh? Alisae and Alphinaud have the luxury of a walking plot device on their side in the form of the Warrior of Darkness that solves all their issues before they're forced to resort to the same extremes as their opponents.