[Spoiler warning] DT role quests

[MediocreIndigo]

Going to use this thread, because the topic is pretty close, but did anyone else have a somewhat strong reaction to the final quest?

The bit at the end, where she mentions becoming homeless, having her belongings confiscated under vagrancy laws, and a bit of sympathy is shown from our group, but ultimately she's played off as a bum that deserved it.

was extremely shocking to me given real-world events in cities like Los Angeles.

Obviously, this is a comedy questline, so take this with a grain of salt, but I found the ending to be

a surprisingly conflicted and strangely political commentary on anarchism and libertarianism (especially as an American, where these ideologies are more of a normal thing).

Overall, I found the questline to be pretty good and entertaining, but I did not expect to be politically analyzing cheesy serial villains.

The issue I had with how

Apyaahi was presented is that she's made out to be this sort of anarchist revolutionary, but her ideals don't really align with that ideology. I'm not an expert on political ideologies, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I got the sense that real-life anarchists generally aren't in favor of the absence of any kind of rules, but rather the absence of states and rulers. In theory, they're driven primarily by a desire to better society rather than to achieve total personal freedom. Apyaahi's belief that people should be able to do whatever they want without regard for consequences doesn't really fit this. It seems more like what the average person thinks of when they hear the word "anarchy" than the actual ideology.

[Rosenstrauch]

It explains her choices of allies, too: she doesn't really have greater ideals or greivances, she's just gone 'Society Bad', called it there, and grabbed a bunch of people who did similar. Some outright dangerous people who've been rejected by society for good reason, some just outright chaos agents, at least one that's as deluded but shallow as she is.

Adding onto this.

I think it's important to note that Apyaahi and her cohorts were all united specifically by self-interest. She truly did not care in the slightest what any of her followers wanted so long as what they wanted was inherently selfish, and so long as pursuing those selfish wants would lead to the downfall of the civilizations they were targeting. The elevation of self-interests to the exclusion of all else is the core tenant of Anarcho-Egoism, or just "Egoism". Which, oddly enough, is one of the core principles behind Objectivism—if not for her staunchly anti-capitalist rhetoric, it wouldn't be too out of character for Apyaahi to quote one of Ayn Rand's most infamous characters, John Galt.

But even with the caveats attached to it, it still felt in poor taste to play off Apyaahi's inciting moment as a joke. I think, or rather hope, that it wasn't meant to be taken as commentary on homelessness or vagrancy in general. But like the 4.1 scene wherein Godbert gave a rather weird speech on the ills of charity, it feels a bit... off to me.

Unrelated, but while I very much enjoyed all of the role quests, I can't help but feel like this capstone quest ended a bit abruptly. Right near the start we're introduced to the idea that Apyaahi and her organization are being funded by someone with a lot of money in Ul'dah. To the best of my knowledge, that was never resolved—and the way the quest ended suggested that we hadn't seen the last of the Passage of the Unbound. Which leaves me wondering if perhaps there'll be another continuation of this later down the line.

[Cleretic]

The issue I had with how

(spoilers cut for space)

Adding onto this.

(spoilers cut for space)

I think that both of these can be effectively discussed with one extra element about the character that really can't be understated.

She's an idiot.

She's selfish and egotistical, basically just spouting revolutionary rhetoric as justification for doing whatever she wants, but she's also stupid as hell. We kinda knew this from the moment she tried to hold an evil meeting in a public restaurant and apparently saw nothing wrong with that. Her political stance doesn't make any sense because it's A: post-hoc justification for what she wants to do, and B: EXTREMELY underbaked because she has not actually thought about it. To some extent, the storyline is ABOUT the problems of underthinking it.

Also, recall that her inciting incident wasn't 'I was poor and was refused service because of it', even if the actual event resembled that. It was 'I refused to do work and faced the consequences'. It wasn't that she couldn't afford the room, it was that she objected to paying.

[Cilia]

I was promised tacos that I never received.

[Iscah]

From my perspective, it seemed that the Tank questline pivoted away from humorous antics into the horror and tragedy of the totem the villain had stolen. That's not to say there wasn't humor, though, just that it really took a backseat to the whole "people being forced to sleep their lives away" thing.

A certain bit near the end was still pretty funny though, imo.

The WoL taking the bullet for Tentoawa? Dramatic and cool. The WoL sleeping like a baby after that? Adorable.

The jarring part of that whole questline was how the village's system ever became a thing. Placing the entire burden of responsibility of the village's safety on one person, however strong, and then going "oh we just never considered the possibility of having multiple warriors, wow you guys had a good idea with that" is just bizarre.

[Dikatis]

The jarring part of that whole questline was how the village's system ever became a thing. Placing the entire burden of responsibility of the village's safety on one person, however strong, and then going "oh we just never considered the possibility of having multiple warriors, wow you guys had a good idea with that" is just bizarre.

Presumably, the Wide Eye was sufficient for generations. If someone could train and prepare for decades on end, fight tirelessly, and be constantly on alert to obtain information, presumably they'd have a severe advantage over those who can't. It's not like we don't have characters like the Warrior of Light and Zenos tearing through small armies on their lonesome. Tentoawa and his village live in a part of Xak Tural so cold that one's breath freezes as soon as it leaves your lungs, so these villages that Tentoawa contends with can't be that big and certainly wouldn't coordinate an assault.

And frankly, if you can offload all the responsibility for protection onto one person, it means more people can work on other things like maintaining shelter and clothes, gathering and preserving food, raising children, and caring for the elderly. It's an odd bit of worldbuilding that wouldn't make any sense in the real world, but this isn't the "real world" and there are practices people don't question just because they've been around for longer than anyone can remember.

[Rosenstrauch]

I'm gonna add that Tentoawa is genuinely able to keep pace with the WoL in the few fights he's present for, and the WoL was already considered exceptionally capable as early as Copperbell Mines. Can one person protect a lone village? If they never get tired, never need to sleep, and they're at least as jacked as the WoL was an expansion or two ago—that's completely believable to me.

Besides that, I don't really see a point in nitpicking the very premise of the story. That usually indicates a lack of suspension of disbelief—it's like saying you can't get into Terry Pratchett's Discworld series because the idea of a mostly flat planet floating on the backs of four elephants standing on a giant turtle is too ridiculous for you. It really doesn't matter how Tentoawa's village came to rely on a single person to defend themselves. What matters is how being that sole protector has shaped his life, the consequences it has had for the person dearest to him, the ensuing fallout when the totem enabling him is stolen, and how his experiences with the world outside his home as he attempts to get that totem back change him as a person.

[Cleretic]

Also, I think there's a lot of cases where people stick with a bad situation because it works well enough; yeah, we saw the Wide Eye situation fail, but it seems like it worked pretty well for them when someone wasn't stealing their totem, I don't think they'd particularly want to change it after coming up with it. If anything, I find it a little unbelievable that they'd abandon that approach after it broke one time.

It's unintentional, but the best example I can give is Ishgard: Ishgard pivoted their government to the same system the UK uses, which is honestly a pretty terrible system of democratic government... but it's also a 'good enough' system, none of its flaws are intolerably egregious, they're just things you can do better than. And that's to the point where I can't imagine anything short of total societal collapse would call for them to change it.