What lore do you ignore?

[Vyrerus]

I'm scared of a world where a child's nightmares can become real.
I'm scared of the world where the Behemoth is celebrated as an achievement.

The more faults we have to invent for the Ascians' world, the more we just point out the faults in Sundered world.

You're scared of a world where a child's nightmares can become real, but the adults in that world have dreams aplenty that can put it back to bed.

You're scared of a world where nature is so powerful that things like the Behemoth are considered a good addition to it that will balance it. How much more scary its natural order must have been! But a far finer addition to any world than a gunship the size of an aircraft carrier, or the cannons that line the Ruby Sea bay outside Hingashi.

You're scared of a world that's so accepting that it allows people to eschew its own customs without punishing them, and your favorite Ancient Venat is proof of that.

You're scared of a world where everyone has the potential to cause great pain, but almost everyone chooses not to do such things, and instead battles each other with ideas. Well, prior to their Final Days driven Civil War, anyway.

You're scared of having a power that would let you share your soul with others so directly that you could not be misunderstood, should you choose to do so. I can only envy such a wonderful power.

But emotions, which fear is, are not exactly rational anyway, so I suppose I can't fault you for that.

Nowhere is perfect. Amaurot was not perfect. But it excelled in ways we can only dream of. Post war, post scarcity, and conservationally minded in the extreme. Global Warming? Climate Change? Never heard of it.

[Dikatis]

It's pretty common in every FFXIV storyline for the story to lean towards the whole, "Great Man Theory."

So you're complaining about named characters in positions of authority doing things of importance because of narrative conventions? Because that's what you're doing.

[Vyrerus]

So you're complaining about named characters in positions of authority doing things of importance because of narrative conventions? Because that's what you're doing.

So you're missing my point and making some sort of assertion against a strawman? Because that's what you're doing.

[Dikatis]

So you're missing my point and making some sort of assertion against a strawman? Because that's what you're doing.

I'm not. You complain about the common man not having enough to do and the story centering around a handful of characters because... yeah. That's how storytelling works. This isn't an in-depth political drama game. It's an action-adventure story. We're not going to examine socioeconomic factors in excruciating details because that's not the focus of the game and there needs to be characters capable of pushing the story forward lest we wind up in a board room wringing hands over every little action. So yeah, we're going to have heroes and leaders and people capable of enacting great change on their own. Because again, that's how high fantasy storytelling works.

So the idea that the named characters and leaders are competent, effective, and powerful is such a weird thing to complain about. And your narrative about "[the Scions] not believing in the common man" doesn't work when there's a lot of detail put into detailing the importance of the common man. Matsya saves the lines of dozens of refugees from Palaka's Stand and Vanaspati by reminding people of their faith and giving them succor in times of crisis. We need the people of Doman and even the sleepy village Namai to have a successful uprising against Yotsuyu. The support of people less important than city-state leaders is paramount to the plot. The alchemists of the Great Work develop the warding scales to enable common soldiers who are not blessed with the Echo and the Blessing of Light to fight primals and resist corruptive influences. The knights of Ishgard hold the other dragons at bay at the Final Steps of Faith while the Warrior of Light faces Nidhogg. The Eorzean Alliance fights the Garlean army while we take the fight to Zenos. The scientists of Labyrinthos are responsible for constructing a vessel capable of taking us to the end of creation to stop the Endsinger.

In your quest to villify the Scions as much as possible, you wind up making a milquetoast argument about characters actually being able to move the plot forward.

[redheadturk]

If your claim is that the Ancient world beyond the parts we've been to doesn't have the exact same restrictions as the places we've been, then I'd like to see the proof.

I'd be an interesting way to look at things, because Elpis actually does seem to be written as if it's free-spirited and expressive as far as the Ancients go: it's full of creatives trying to follow both aesthetic and functional flair, it's got a number of people written as bucking the trends of the society--Hythlodaeus, Venat and even Athena in their own, very different ways--and they even have a rule that visitors have to remove the masks that are otherwise customary.

And yet every single one wears the exact same thing.

I love how you totally ignore my point that how people dress isn't the only form of self expression. How debate and discourse are other perfectly valid methods of self expression that can promote differences even better than clothing.

[Vyrerus]

I'm not.

You are. My point, which you missed wholeheartedly in your attempted, "Gotcha!" Is that we are not of common stock from places of little importance rising to be and do great things. We didn't come from nothing. Same as the Scions (well, not all of them, but the generalization stands).

In your condescending prattle about storytelling (I know how it works, thank you very much), you are forgetting stories quite commonly feature people who rise out of common households and circumstances. In fact, up until a few years ago, the WoL was kind of supposed to embody that.

Think about Lord of The Rings, considered by many to be the grandfather of most high fantasy. The Hobbits are literal nobodies, but they save the world under their own power in spite of their faults and foibles. Like sure, Bilbo and Frodo were both selected by Gandalf, who is actually a divine being, but it turns out he's like 3rd rung angel, more or less. Then all of the heroes in the setting that are tied to some form of royalty still need armies at their backs, full of the common men, in order to succeed and aid those Hobbits, those literal nobodies.

Your point about Matsya is good. That's actually one of my most favorite parts in Endwalker, but you've left out that he himself could not get that chance were it not for being saved by the Twins and then by Estinien and Vrtra.

Your point centered around the Alchemists of The Great Work? Not so much. Those are all the best alchemists in Thavnair, and they report directly to Vrtra. And the key ingredient in their innovation? Vrtra's scales, without which all of their alchemy alone is not enough.

In your next cavalcade of examples, only Lucia leading the knights on the Final Steps of Faith comes close to how you think this story plays out, and that's an echo of a time when the game's story was closer to what you describe.

The Eorzean Alliance in Ala Mhigo starts as a charge with every leader there in person to fight. None of them get wounded, and we see no uncommon valor or performance from regular soldiers. We get some help pushing in on the throne room, but other leaders and soldiers were trying to fight their way there too. But none of them even get to the colossi guarding the throne room doors (save Lord Hien's group which is visible through the main walkway barricade), and all the while we dealt with things they did not. The Magitek Scorpion and Aulus mal Asina.

The scientists in Labyrinthos are Forum sanctioned geniuses that are in no way common who get to directly commune with Hydaelyn.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not trying to vilify the Scions. I actually like most of them, even if I'm tired of their screen presence. I'm just trying to dispel the notion that this story is about individualism at its core, because it really isn't.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

You're scared of a world where everyone has the potential to cause great pain, but almost everyone chooses not to do such things, and instead battles each other with ideas. Well, prior to their Final Days driven Civil War, anyway.

Is it confirmed anywhere that disagreement over the third sacrifice caused an actual civil war and not just arguing?

[Vyrerus]

Is it confirmed anywhere that disagreement over the third sacrifice caused an actual civil war and not just arguing?

I believe EE3 actually referred to the clash between Venat's faction and the Convocation's as such. There's 0 specifics on battles fought, where they were fought, how they were fought, or if it was literally all just, Venat consumes all of her faction and becomes Hydaelyn and then starts fighting Zodiark or not.

A few pages back Moose pulled a quote out of EE3 called, "The Schism." It ended with the line, "And then conflict erupted in earnest."

[Dikatis]

You are. My point, which you missed wholeheartedly in your attempted, "Gotcha!" Is that we are not of common stock from places of little importance rising to be and do great things. We didn't come from nothing. Same as the Scions (well, not all of them, but the generalization stands).

In your condescending prattle about storytelling (I know how it works, thank you very much), you are forgetting stories quite commonly feature people who rise out of common households and circumstances. In fact, up until a few years ago, the WoL was kind of supposed to embody that.


Think about Lord of The Rings, considered by many to be the grandfather of most high fantasy. The Hobbits are literal nobodies, but they save the world under their own power in spite of their faults and foibles. Like sure, Bilbo and Frodo were both selected by Gandalf, who is actually a divine being, but it turns out he's like 3rd rung angel, more or less. Then all of the heroes in the setting that are tied to some form of royalty still need armies at their backs, full of the common men, in order to succeed and aid those Hobbits, those literal nobodies.

Having the scrappy underdogs from humble beginnings fight their way through a situation that they should have no business being in is a method of storytelling and one that can craft a compelling narrative. But I don't think FFXIV espouses "the great man theory" either.

The Great Man Theory is the idea that "exceptional individuals' innate qualities and talents that make them born leaders. It emphasizes individual agency and willpower as the primary causes of historical change, while downplaying the role of contextual factors."

There isn't a lot of evidence that any of the central characters is really the type of "Great Man" ala Napoleon or Julius Caesar that this framework of history espouses. Alphinaud believes himself to be this until the Crystal Braves incident sends his ego crashing down. Even then, he's only effective by befriending others and utilizing their talents to make up for his shortcomings. Nanamo wants to be a just, capable queen, but her blind, somewhat sheltered idealism leads to self-destructive actions that she's forced to confront when she's nearly assassinated and only saved by the manipulations of the man she considered her worst enemy. Lyse is labeled the leader of the Ala Mhigan Resistance for her abilities as a fighter and as a figurehead, but actively admits that she's in over her head when it comes to actual leadership and lacks an innate genius that would let her make effective decisions without consulting more experienced and able people like Raubahn.

The Crystal Exarch would not have made it to the First without the efforts of generations of people before him, including common people like the Namazu of Yanxia. Even as a near philosopher king, he questions himself and prefers to consult the people he governs rather than make so-called genius plays. Some of his plans are outright hare-brained and overly self-sacrificing, as Alisaie, Y'shtola, and Krile rake him over the coals for being so willing to throw himself on the pyre when other options can be reached. Even leaders like Hien and Aymeric who are incredibly effective suffer consequences from their short-sighted decisions, like Hien humoring Gosetsu and thus denying his people closure or Aymeric's rush to separate church and state making the clergy pariahs in their homeland. None of these people are the sort of invincible geniuses that would really justify you labeling FFXIV as a supporter of the Great Man Theory.

Even WoL and the Scions only enact great change with the help of others. Even in Shadowbringers, where they upend an entire world order, is done with the aid of the people whose support they've won through their actions and could not have accomplished otherwise. If the Great Man Theory specifies that these people did great things regardless of contextual factors, then FFXIV argue that these great things could not happen without those contextual factors.

Your point about Matsya is good. That's actually one of my most favorite parts in Endwalker, but you've left out that he himself could not get that chance were it not for being saved by the Twins and then by Estinien and Vrtra.

Your point centered around the Alchemists of The Great Work? Not so much. Those are all the best alchemists in Thavnair, and they report directly to Vrtra. And the key ingredient in their innovation? Vrtra's scales, without which all of their alchemy alone is not enough.

In your next cavalcade of examples, only Lucia leading the knights on the Final Steps of Faith comes close to how you think this story plays out, and that's an echo of a time when the game's story was closer to what you describe.

The Eorzean Alliance in Ala Mhigo starts as a charge with every leader there in person to fight. None of them get wounded, and we see no uncommon valor or performance from regular soldiers. We get some help pushing in on the throne room, but other leaders and soldiers were trying to fight their way there too. But none of them even get to the colossi guarding the throne room doors (save Lord Hien's group which is visible through the main walkway barricade), and all the while we dealt with things they did not. The Magitek Scorpion and Aulus mal Asina.

The scientists in Labyrinthos are Forum sanctioned geniuses that are in no way common who get to directly commune with Hydaelyn.

The problem with this is that listing every single soldier of valor would drag down the pacing of the story. Introducing characters just for a throwaway mention doesn't work in an interactive medium when compared to a novel. We do see leaders get injured (see Raubahn getting his arm cut off, Aymeric being stabbed, Alisaie getting slashed by Fordola, and so on. And we do see soldiers of uncommon valor in sidequests. For example, there's an entire questline in The Peaks focusing on a Garlean conscript named Baut who fought tirelessly to improve conditions for those in the occupied Ala Ghiri, to the point that he won the hearts of everyone in the city. When the Eorzean Alliance comes marching in, he tries to smear his own name out of fear that the people would get themselves hurt protecting him should the Eorzean try to prosecute him for being in the Garlean army. His fears are unfounded, but his kindness and willingness to fight his fellow conscripts and his Garlean officers are true.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not trying to vilify the Scions. I actually like most of them, even if I'm tired of their screen presence. I'm just trying to dispel the notion that this story is about individualism at its core, because it really isn't.

[/QUOTE]
And you're right. I entered this conversation with a swaggering, condescending attitude because I've generally grown tired of so many threads saying "Scions bad, Garleans and Ascians good" and the mental gymnastic some posters will use to justify their opinions. I apologize for that.

Still, I disagree with your notion that FFXIV is somehow supportive of the Great Man Theory when the heroes repeatedly succeed because of others rather than in spite of others.

[Anonymoose]

Is it confirmed anywhere that disagreement over the third sacrifice caused an actual civil war and not just arguing?

Most English references say that an ideological divide gave way to open conflict and a final battle between Hydaelyn and Zodiark of a like usually found only in myth, but in French we have...

Hythlodaeus
Pour la première fois de son histoire, l'humanité était divisée en deux camps se livrant une guerre sans merci...
For the first time in its history, humanity was divided into two camps waging a merciless war...

I wouldn't say it was focused specifically on the third sacrifice, though. That was one part of a larger whole, the trend of trading more and more sacrifices (out of less and less true necessity) in a futile effort to restore "a past that could never be restored" (see: Unending Journey). It was a snowball at the core of which was the refusal to give new life and future generations a say in the way forward, aiming to reclaim the past even if it meant the "stewards of the planet" sacrificing the things they swore to be caretakers of.