(09-01-2015, 03:45 AM)V Wrote:(09-01-2015, 03:37 AM)Oli! Wrote: Even this is speculation, however, that's the thing. Without knowing, anything has a basis in speculation.Here's my problem: you seem to be ignoring what we do know. That being that every single analogous NPC that ever existed in the position of Gatewarden was a member of their nation's military structure and that Ishgardians by and large absolutely hate having outsiders around to even perform basic chores. And yet you believe it's valid speculation that these same Ishgardians would put such a person in a position of command on their own territory in multiple instances?
Well, let's look at the other things that we know:
-- There is no specific mention of any races besides Hyur and Elezen being a part of the nation of Ishgard before or during its closing.
-- The Brass Blades, a city-state military subset, hires thugs and questionable individuals into its ranks.
-- Vast chunks of Limsa Lominsa's various forces are made up of sailors and pirates.
--
-- Ishgard is Xenophobic, Traditionalist, Religious, and highly intolerant of things that don't fit the country's views.
-- The Roegadyn previously mentioned was employed to House Dzmael; further societal ties were not mentioned.
-- Areas outside of Ishgard (the city) are claimed by houses.
-- Locations claimed by houses are owned by those Houses, and policed by their knights.
-- On an individual level, houses have some amount of autonomy; the hiring of outsiders, although perhaps frowned upon, is nonetheless a practice.
Some of these align rather neatly with one point of view. Others can play both sides. It is with these cues that we build interpretations and stances. Of particular importance to you is the fact that other nations use citizens as their guard force; of particular importance to myself is the fact that Houses can hire as they see fit, foreigners and otherwise, and use their own hires to police their property. These two things are at odds when inserted into the same context, but are still established elsewhere. They can also both be used to counter the other.
The problem is, we both have hints, but nothing solid; if we did have something solid, chances are this thread would have stopped at about three pages or so. When it comes to speculation, the best we can do is assume neutral ground, and then pull in either direction. If we start the discussion with "well, let's assume <X> is / isn't possible," then we do a great disservice to either side of the argument.
To use one source to further an argument does not require the outright dismissal of other established points; the key is to use said points where they are appropriate. We have no guiding keys towards this facet of the process, which means that we are unable to decisively place what we have gathered in the areas in which they should be.
If I were to summarize what we have all these pages in, it would be, "there were people in these places once, and we have multiple ideas shown elsewhere to be true that may explain what they were doing there, but we have no way of knowing which of these ideas is right." Both of these arguments leave us with weird things as well. For example, if we go with your approach, does that mean that Lalafell could have been Knights, too? There's a Lalafell Gatewarden there, If we can get both Miqo'te and Lalafell in there, who else can we find? What if those guard forces had Duskwights and Roegadyn and Highlanders too? Where did they all go? What would that mean for Ishgard's Xenophobia? Similarly, if we go with my approach, wouldn't that mean that houses that hire outsiders would end up being distrusted? Would others make political plays to disgrace that House? Would they lose their status due to trusting outsiders? Wouldn't that make it politically safer not to hire outsiders? Part of the nature of speculation is that all arguments have flaws to them; none of what we have presented here today is impenetrable. They both have bits of truth and snippets of hints embedded in them that we can quote as much as we want, but without knowing whether they actually belong in the circumstances we're putting them in, we're still stuck.
But as I said, none of this arguing really means that it's impossible in the first place. Absolute Certainty doesn't need to be achieved in order to Roleplay something, but it still does help to know that something may not be 100%. I don't think anyone on this board has a concept that's 100% Grounded and Proveable, Yoshi-P Stamp of Approval, Absolutely Authentic and Straight from the Lore Department Itself, and personally, I think that if we all realize that, we can have a better outlook and understanding when we look at other concepts. Recognition of difficulty does not lead to an impossibility. Although some in this thread took hardline stances on both sides, I still think that outlining the difficulties present in a concept can help make the concept better, because it gives us more to work with. For me, at the very least, this was never a Yes or No argument. I don't believe arguments should be used to snipe people out of the sky, I believe they should be used to troubleshoot.
A lot of people look at arguments and think they're only destructive, but they can be good, too. Plus, I don't mind being wrong. Give me super solid evidence of anything against me, and I'll be the first to shut my mouth. If I were to wake up tomorrow and see a Live Letter stating that those Gatewardens were Ishgardian citizens, I would be first in line to make my Lalafell Dragoon.
EDIT: Major spoiler didn't spoil correctly oh god that was close
