(02-22-2014, 07:32 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: But when we say things like "society won't accept baby-killers" or "they're all 'humans' so they all have the same ethics and morals we do" - what society are we talking about?General human societies that does not practice infanticide due to paternal lineages.
The reason why I pointed out that Miqo'te are generally accepted, and therefore unlikely to participate in large-scale infanticide, is because RL humanity has a history of hating on "other people", which is what I use for this theory/supposition.
Miqo'te already have an extra limb to differentiate themselves, and they came to Eorzea relatively late and started to compete over prey. If they showed any widespread inclination to kill (and maybe even eat, going by the lion-centric theory) their offspring just because of paternity, the other races would have the perfect excuse to eradicate the Miqo'te together and then mistreat the surviving remnants (and then go back to hating each other).
On your Hellsguard point: It is very different (cultural PR speaking) for a tribe in a harsh environment casting out "extra" children (who seem to be old enough to manage to get to the city-states) because they cannot support them (they might even be pitied for having to make the choice), compared to simply killing children because they had another father.
Isn't it sort of pointed out that the Coeurlclaws actively work against integration? I mean, they choose the same sort of lifestyle as the Redbellies in the same area, and the only reason why Duskwights and Wildwoods separated was because the Duskwights refused to integrate with outsiders. (Yet, from what I've heard, Coeurlclaws somehow managed to get a King of all things a matriarchal, traditionalist clan could do.
This is what I mean when I say that S-E couldn't commit to their first inspiration of the lore or to rehab it to a more acceptable standard, so contradictions crop up all the time.)I should also point out that the Drake tribe, despite no longer having all the merchants around and with a distrust of strangers, still keep and maintain an aetheryte, suggesting that while they are protective of their way of life, they seem to accept having adventurers around (maybe because of their nunh?), and the adventurers in turn, while they might find them strange, does not find them "other" or off-putting enough to make a thing out of it.
TL;DR: Humanity is merciless if you're considered "other" in even the smallest ways and not be able to arouse pity. If you start doing things they find morally abhorrent on top of that (just think about everyone's reaction to lion males killing and eating lion cubs, though as "mere beasts" it is tolerated as natural), even enemies might agree to work together to make you conform or destroy you, before going back to their mutual enmity. Hence, tribal/clannish Miqo'te might be considered strange, but since there is no major discrimination outside the most xenophobic areas (Gridania/Ishgard?), they would likely not break some of the largest social taboos without some NPC rallying against them (and their allowed presence in the city-states). Also, Drake tribe is toeing the line between protecting their own culture, and the changing times.
This doesn't mean that they're "just" humans with fancy ears and a tail, it just means that their culture isn't "strange" in ways that might prompt the other races to "correct" it for the greater good of humanity.
Erm, I hope I got across what I meant, because I kinda lost the plot somewhere in the middle.
