Jump to content

Syndicate 'Lawful Neutral' group (some 2.3 story spoilers)


Recommended Posts

Howdy all,

 

So, my character is now a 'sipahi' (figured it to be the Ul'dahn term for 'knight') pledged to lord Lolorito, Chairman of the East Aldenard Trading Company. This is an interesting exploration as it is essentially a patriotic and morally upstanding character pledged to a ruthless but pragmatic individual. Cognitive dissonance I find a fascinating state of mind.

 

Now, we have a lot of Royalists. Do-gooders, Flames, free paladins, Sultansworn, and so on. That's fine, and all. But what about Syndicate RPers who are NOT moustache-twirling villains, but instead composed of individuals who believe that the economic interests of Ul'dah are paramount to the stability and prosperity of the city? They don't have anything against the Sultana necessarily (my character is still a closet Royalist), just they are pragmatists who realize the royalty is a good figurehead but nothing more. The motto of this group would be Lolorito's quote (which he took from the Sultana, granted) of 'The law is the law'. No moves against the Royalists akin to the assassins in the PLD storyline. Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Evil!

 

The only issue I see with this is if the story continues to paint the Syndicate in a 'villainous' light. We have the new villain who is a Syndicate member, BUT it is strongly hinted at that the rest of the Syndicate would not tolerate his plans. Unlike being, say, an Immortal Flames group which will always be part of the story in a positive light (primarily because they are tied to game mechanics), Syndicate RP might become troublesome akin to what happens to all RP around 'evil' groups. On the other hand, the only reason the Syndicate may be 'evil' is because our characters are surrounded by NPCs who say they're evil, i.e. an echo chamber effect. Kind of like the Garlean Empire. I may be mistaken in my assumption here.

 

Anyway, curious as to people's thoughts regarding the potential of Syndicate RP, or their thoughts on the morality of the Syndicate in general!

Link to comment
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I WANT TO POINT CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO KNOW JAMESON TAEROS TO THIS THREAD.

 

My recent RP arcs have involved a character, Jameson Taeros, who is heavily implied to have ties to Lolorito.

 

The best way I could describe him in one word is by saying he really is like "Ul'dah". He is very true to the law is the law. But whereas some people might think he is heartless I think that there are those on the Syndicate who just have their own interests mind. Shuffling people around is one thing but having people outright murdered who are in service is another and wouldn't be stood for unless those set to be killed are dealt with by use of Ul'dahn law.

Link to comment

The syndicate are definitely lawful neutral. They don't rule by force of arms, but by money and the equivalent of the american dream. They play pretty loose by the system sometimes, but they have an interest in staying inside of it, as that is what gives them power. The ordinary citizen supports the syndicate, and doesn't seek to overthrow it because they think that could be them someday.

 

So no, while members of the syndicate can do stupid things, as a whole they look out for ul'dah (including the sultanate) because thats where they get their power from. Most would probably fare poorly if the rule of law broke down.

Link to comment

I can echo the previous sentiments.

 

A more simplistic way of seeing it is that people who support the Syndicate would favor Democracy, with all of its failings and corruption. The main fault here is that cleansing a corrupt democracy is a slow and painful process without an outright rebellion.

 

Those who support the Sultana would favor Monarchy. The main fault there is that when one person holds absolute authority, you have a 50/50 chance of them being utterly evil, or completely just. But changing things always boils down to just one person, which can be removed with a single vial of poison rather than half the country uprising.

 

The power struggle between the two is what makes for a great story, and consequently good RP. But yes, there are people on both sides who can be viewed as both good or bad. From Crofte's own interaction with Kale, she's already quite surprised with his mannerisms.

Link to comment

Hey, thanks for your replies thus far, I should have been more clear that I -might- be interested in forming an LS (not FC) group of Syndicate RPers. 

 

I actually disagree with Royalist vs Monetarist conflict being monarchy vs democracy, but instead a more classical Renaissance/Enlightenment era conflict of monarchy vs republicanism. An Ul'dahn Republic would have democratic elements insofar that the merchant class would probably have the vote, and one would purchase suffrage (thus purchasing their way into that class). More like a merchant republic. It's semantics, true...but there is that slight difference between democracy vs republicanism (ignoring 'democratic republicanism' ofc).

 

Anyway, this theoretical Syndicate group could include more character types than what a Flames/Sultansworn group could, since the latter is combat-oriented (unlike the other Grand Companies, Flames don't have non-combat elements). It could include non-combat characters, too, especially that Lolorito owns the Weavers' and Goldsmiths' Guild. It could include miners, and well, any DoL/DoH class! What they would -do- however...

Link to comment

using this resource, I came to the following conclusions.

 

 

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

 

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

 

 

 

 

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

 

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

 

 

Raubahn: Lawful Neutral with tendencies to good

He tends to do the right thing that benefits Ul'dah and its citizenship

 

Lolorito: Lawful Evil

playing through the Ul'dahn 2.0 starting quests, you witness his Brass Blades, on order of Lolorito attempt to kill someone seeking to rise their position. in Horizon you witness the corruption within the Brass Blades that is seemingly given with permission from Lolorito, although that would never be admitted to publicly

 

Teledji: Lawful Evil

The megalomanical madman behind the Cartenau Reclamation Act, seeking to raise his position through the acquisition of the Cartenau Flats and the weapon that rests within, as well as masterminding the riots and dissent within Ul'dah, seemingly Machiavellian in his approach.

 

Godbert Manderville: Unknown

we don't know that much about their personality to acruately make a call regarding their alignment

 

tl;dr

I don't believe that you can claim that the Syndicate falls under the umbrella of a specific alignment, due to the fact that it is made of individuals, that seem to be at differing ends of the spectrum.

 

for the full pages:

Lawful Neutral

Lawful Evil

Link to comment

Oh, that much is true. I meant to say that the 'Lawful Neutral' would be a feature of a Syndicate RP group, rather than claiming that of the Syndicate itself. A shallow descriptor, but just something to get the general idea. This wouldn't be so much a discussion of alignments, instead exploring the concept that a Syndicate RP group doesn't have be all ebil and plotting.

Link to comment

Oh, that much is true. I meant to say that the 'Lawful Neutral' would be a feature of a Syndicate RP group, rather than claiming that of the Syndicate itself. A shallow descriptor, but just something to get the general idea. This wouldn't be so much a discussion of alignments, instead exploring the concept that a Syndicate RP group doesn't have be all ebil and plotting.

Ah, fair enough then, I guess I misunderstood when reading.

 

And as to the Flames not having a non-military arm, the only one (in the handy flowcharts at least) to visibly have a logistics arm is the Adders, though I do believe that the other two Grand Companies would have them, they would conceivably fail to function without them.

 

That is not to say that there wasn't any sort of outsourcing to a group funded by the Syndicate however, I could imagine that as the Syndicate attempt to leverage some control over Raubahn in regards to military matters.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure anything remotely intellectual involving either the Jackets or the Maelstrom goes through Maelvaan's Gate. They even do audits at the behest of Limsa authorities!

 

If it wasn't for the fact that the Brass Blades are an extremely unsympathetic sort in the story I'd be down for the group being Lawful Neutral. The FIRST thing you see them do is straight up set up someone for a bribe. That does not seem like anything someone lawful neutral would do.

Link to comment

But what about Syndicate RPers who are NOT moustache-twirling villains, but instead composed of individuals who believe that the economic interests of Ul'dah are paramount to the stability and prosperity of the city? They don't have anything against the Sultana necessarily (my character is still a closet Royalist), just they are pragmatists who realize the royalty is a good figurehead but nothing more.

 

So no, while members of the syndicate can do stupid things, as a whole they look out for ul'dah (including the sultanate) because thats where they get their power from. Most would probably fare poorly if the rule of law broke down.

 

I agree with these two statements in regards to the 'lawful neutral' argument. Mijisaa, being a successful Ul'dahn business woman who dabbles somewhere between lawful neutral to lawful evil, supports both the Syndicate and the Sultana.  She sees them as two parts of the same system that makes Ul'dah (and herself) prosperous. Having one of the parts too autocratic would ruin the city and having breakdown of laws is also never good for business.  Mijisaa supports the Sultana because she's a good figurehead, someone for the common people to rally around, and she supports the Syndicate because they make sure things keep working. Sure, the lines are blurred but so are the lines in Mijisaa's life so it makes no difference to her.

Link to comment

I write and plot for Jameson along with the player who never checks these forums. He also plays Anden Anduron who is a Captain of the Brass Blades.

 

So I will share some thoughts on them both.

 

Jameson is squarely on the Monetarist side and works closely with Lolorito. He walks the fine line between Lawful neutral and Lawful evil. His actions and decisions are driven by his own motivations, and I don't want to really give away what's going on with him, but he has blackmailed, framed, and possibly been responsible for torturing people. He has also provided his own cure for the poison that was plaguing Ul'Dah. 

 

I see him very much doing what is necessary for both himself, but also possibly for Ul'Dah.

 

Same with Anden, who is ambitious and ruthless, and will do anything he can to keep the Brass Blades in line, for the good of Ul'Dah. He is considered an antagonist, but he firmly believes most of his decisions and actions benefit Ul'Dah and look to advance himself in the ranks because he believes he is good for the Jewel.

 

They are not played often though, I usually have to pull the player into plots. So while they can join this LS, I don't think you'd see them often.

 

I like the idea though.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure anything remotely intellectual involving either the Jackets or the Maelstrom goes through Maelvaan's Gate. They even do audits at the behest of Limsa authorities!

 

If it wasn't for the fact that the Brass Blades are an extremely unsympathetic sort in the story I'd be down for the group being Lawful Neutral. The FIRST thing you see them do is straight up set up someone for a bribe. That does not seem like anything someone lawful neutral would do.

 

Re: Brass Blades...strictly IMO, but less that they are inherently corrupt but more that not enough is done against corruption. There are Brass Blades who shout 'For Ul'dah!' like true patriots when defending Highbridge...from that, it means you can easily be a non-corrupt Brass Blade I reckon...

 

Also, there seem to be different Brass Blade units that have a sort of knightly name to them. Brass Blades of the Rose, then Brass Blades of the ...Remora? Or something, during the 2.3 Hildibrand questline.

Link to comment

Honestly I never did read much about the alignments and so forth. It's never been something I ever had to deal with until I heard about them in the last few months ish.

 

I also would state that I believe most Brass Blades would be lawful neutral and that it's possible that most of the Syndicate are either Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil. I'm not sure where the line is drawn ><

 

Many Blades, while the organization is shown to set people up for bribes etc, will still put their lives up to save the people of Ul'dah. As evidenced by the same scene showing the corruption, they also give their lives in fighting off against the Amalj'aa. Those guarding other locations as well as the Gates of Ul'dah also come to peoples' aid (fighting off the little tiny mobs or the FATEs etc).

 

They're just, as a whole, not the most generous of compassions.

Link to comment

however, how much of the coming to peoples aids is because it is just, and how much is because they most like wouldn't get paid if they didn't?

 

As I pointed out above, you can't put an alignment tag on the entirety of an organisation, unless that organisation consists solely, or primarily of a particular type.

 

Through the Ul'dah story quests for instance is the Lalafel (I forget his rank, though I think he is a captain?) in the Brass Blades who is completely unaware of the corruption within the Blades, and it mentor who was aware, but iirc he was shunned and removed to a distant posting (with the refugees) for being clean.

 

So yes, there are members of the Blades who are there to do the right thing.

 

The syndicate themselves are only 6 people, and we have only interacted with 4 of them, two of which seem clearly Lawful Evil.

Link to comment

I think only one person on the syndicate can possibly be seen as evil, and that's the one orchestrating the events of the 2.3 patch. As far as Lorilito, scamming refugees and such doesn't make you evil.

 

An interesting semi quote I heard once is that, "In order to be an effective leader of a sovereign state, you need to be willing to let tens of thousands of people die." In a normal sense, that would make someone a monster, but with few exceptions in human history it's always been the state of things. Leaders have to make decisions, and often there is no perfect answer. I don't think you can apply adventurer D&D morality to the syndicate.

 

For example, lets say that he did do everything Nanamo wanted, what if the coffers ran out and they couldn't pay the brass blades? What if it caused massive inflation to the economy of the city and food shortages? What if Ul'dah lost it's competitive edge financially to a place like Limsa (which conveniently doesn't have to deal with refugee problems) and became a second rate power.

 

In order to be a good leader of a country with as tenuous as Ul'dah's is, you have to make hard decisions. Now it's possible Lorilito could find a way to help everyone and keep Ul'dahs might, but I wouldn't judge him so harshly for what he does.

Link to comment

I think only one person on the syndicate can possibly be seen as evil, and that's the one orchestrating the events of the 2.3 patch. As far as Lorilito, scamming refugees and such doesn't make you evil.

 

An interesting semi quote I heard once is that, "In order to be an effective leader of a sovereign state, you need to be willing to let tens of thousands of people die." In a normal sense, that would make someone a monster, but with few exceptions in human history it's always been the state of things. Leaders have to make decisions, and often there is no perfect answer. I don't think you can apply adventurer D&D morality to the syndicate.

 

For example, lets say that he did do everything Nanamo wanted, what if the coffers ran out and they couldn't pay the brass blades? What if it caused massive inflation to the economy of the city and food shortages? What if Ul'dah lost it's competitive edge financially to a place like Limsa (which conveniently doesn't have to deal with refugee problems) and became a second rate power.

 

In order to be a good leader of a country with as tenuous as Ul'dah's is, you have to make hard decisions. Now it's possible Lorilito could find a way to help everyone and keep Ul'dahs might, but I wouldn't judge him so harshly for what he does.

 

It really depends on how you define "evil."  In a strictly D&D sense, yes, scamming refugees does make you evil because the act is an evil act and pushes you further along the continuum towards Evil.  If you scam them enough times, your alignment will shift, no matter how good you are on paper.

 

You also need to consider intent in your equations.  Now, your "what-ifs" might very well be accurate, but what we've seen in cutscenes within the game itself shows that Lolorito's motivations are wholly selfish and self-aggrandizing.  His actions might have some side benefits that are good for Ul'dah as a whole, but the only reason he does anything is for his own benefit.  The fact that his motives are wholly selfish is very important, and something you really should keep in mind.

 

By the way, a leader that lets tens of thousands of his or her own people die when they could have prevented it is still a monster, no matter what justifications and excuses they may offer.

Link to comment

I think only one person on the syndicate can possibly be seen as evil, and that's the one orchestrating the events of the 2.3 patch. As far as Lorilito, scamming refugees and such doesn't make you evil.

 

An interesting semi quote I heard once is that, "In order to be an effective leader of a sovereign state, you need to be willing to let tens of thousands of people die." In a normal sense, that would make someone a monster, but with few exceptions in human history it's always been the state of things. Leaders have to make decisions, and often there is no perfect answer. I don't think you can apply adventurer D&D morality to the syndicate.

 

For example, lets say that he did do everything Nanamo wanted, what if the coffers ran out and they couldn't pay the brass blades? What if it caused massive inflation to the economy of the city and food shortages? What if Ul'dah lost it's competitive edge financially to a place like Limsa (which conveniently doesn't have to deal with refugee problems) and became a second rate power.

 

In order to be a good leader of a country with as tenuous as Ul'dah's is, you have to make hard decisions. Now it's possible Lorilito could find a way to help everyone and keep Ul'dahs might, but I wouldn't judge him so harshly for what he does.

 

It really depends on how you define "evil."  In a strictly D&D sense, yes, scamming refugees does  make you evil because the act is an evil act and pushes you further along the continuum towards Evil.  If you scam them enough times, your alignment will shift, no matter how good you are on paper.

 

You also need to consider intent in your equations.  Now, your "what-ifs" might very well be accurate, but what we've seen in cutscenes within the game itself shows that Lolorito's motivations are wholly selfish and self-aggrandizing.  His actions might have some side benefits that are good for Ul'dah as a whole, but the only reason he does anything is for his own benefit.  The fact that his motives are wholly selfish is very important, and something you really should keep in mind.

 

By the way, a leader that lets tens of thousands of his or her own people die when they could have prevented it is still a monster, no matter what justifications and excuses they may offer.

 

Eh, a good example is the Coventry raids in WWII. The British had broken the enigma code, and knew there would be a large air raid on the city of Coventry. If they took any action to protect the city, such has having fighters ready to meet them, increasing air defences, or evacuating civilians, they'd give away that they had access to German communications. So Churchill did nothing, and let thousands of civilians die, civilians he could have saved. However he did it because he thought the enigma code was more important than the lives of those civilians.

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

Edit: Apparently there is some disagreement if Churchill actually knew the target or not. But it was just an example, there were lots of such decisions made that cost lives in order to protect the enigma code.

Link to comment

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

A tough decision to make either way. At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

Link to comment

 

 

 

Eh, a good example is the Coventry raids in WWII. The British had broken the enigma code, and knew there would be a large air raid on the city of Coventry. If they took any action to protect the city, such has having fighters ready to meet them, increasing air defences, or evacuating civilians, they'd give away that they had access to German communications. So Churchill did nothing, and let thousands of civilians die, civilians he could have saved. However he did it because he thought the enigma code was more important than the lives of those civilians.

 

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

That doesn't make his actions any less evil, and it doesn't mean that the man himself isn't evil.

 

Here's the thing, when you start looking at alignments, you run into this kind of shitty dilemma.

 

Lawful Evil can swing almost any action without drifting away from its alignment if said action ultimately benefits the character's long term plans.  Yes, even seemingly-altruistic actions may not affect the character's Evil Alignment depending on the intent behind them.

 

Good, on the other hand - especially Lawful Good - does not have that "wiggle room."  An action is either evil, or it is good, but intent - while it does matter - doesn't excuse you from committing an evil act.  A Good character that allows thousands of people to die when they could have saved them will receive evil points - even if their intent was noble ("I have to save this really important thing that could decide the war").

 

In terms of alignment, if Lolorito was a Good-aligned character, he would no longer be a Good-aligned character at this point because he has committed far too many evil acts in pursuit of his goals.  Now, you can argue that the morals of the state differ from the morals of the man, but if the character is Good aligned, it doesn't matter.  If a Good character commits an evil act - by action or inaction - regardless of their ultimate intent, they will drift towards evil.  But if an Evil character commits an act of altruism or good, their intent is taken into account when you consider whether the character has drifted towards Good or not.

 

From this perspective, there's about a 0% chance that Lolorito is anything that could be described as "good."  He may do things that benefit others, but there is no way on Hydaelyn's Green Eorzea that he is Good-aligned.

Link to comment

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

A tough decision to make either way. At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

 

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

Link to comment

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

A tough decision to make either way.  At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

 

This is an excellent point, and it's part of why such an action would garner you Evil points in an alignment-based system.

Link to comment

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

A tough decision to make either way.  At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

 

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

 

But that's kind of the point.  It's the illustration of how governance is soul-sucking and tends to both destroy the good people who try to be forces for change, and exalts those who are evil who pursue power for purely personal gain.

 

i.e. Yes, actually, government is evil in most RPGs.  Even the good ones.

 

As far as Gridania goes, I really doubt the Elementals could be roused that far, considering their weakened state after the Calamity.  But Gridania has already refused multiple refugees on the borders of their city-state.  Check out the Quarrymill questlines sometime!

Link to comment

 

That doesn't make his actions any less evil, and it doesn't mean that the man himself isn't evil.

 

Here's the thing, when you start looking at alignments, you run into this kind of shitty dilemma.

 

Lawful Evil can swing almost any action without drifting away from its alignment if said action ultimately benefits the character's long term plans.  Yes, even seemingly-altruistic actions may not affect the character's Evil Alignment depending on the intent behind them.

 

Good, on the other hand - especially Lawful Good - does not have that "wiggle room."  An action is either evil, or it is good, but intent - while it does matter - doesn't excuse you from committing an evil act.  A Good character that allows thousands of people to die when they could have saved them will receive evil points - even if their intent was noble ("I have to save this really important thing that could decide the war").

 

In terms of alignment, if Lolorito was a Good-aligned character, he would no longer be a Good-aligned character at this point because he has committed far too many evil acts in pursuit of his goals.  Now, you can argue that the morals of the state differ from the morals of the man, but if the character is Good aligned, it doesn't matter.  If a Good character commits an evil act - by action or inaction - regardless of their ultimate intent, they will drift towards evil.  But if an Evil character commits an act of altruism or good, their intent is taken into account when you consider whether the character has drifted towards Good or not.

 

From this perspective, there's about a 0% chance that Lolorito is anything that could be described as "good."  He may do things that benefit others, but there is no way on Hydaelyn's Green Eorzea that he is Good-aligned.

 

Oh I agree, he's not good in a D&D sense, but I don't think he's evil. I'm just saying it's not that useful to try to peg leaders of states into the holes that the alignment system gives.

 

He's not eating people, he's not sexually molesting children, he's a politician who is looking at the long term health of Ul'dah. Yes, he's also doing it for his own gain, but this is Ul'dah, everyone is looking out for their own gain on the side.

 

Maybe he could be a kinder guy, but he's not the kind of evil that would set off the 'detect evil' radars of every D&D paladin in the room.

Link to comment

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The issue is you don't know, and leaders have to make those sort of decisions. You might say Lorilito's reasoning is wrong, but the morals of states are not the same of the morals of man.

 

A tough decision to make either way.  At the end of the day though, he let fear of what the Germans 'might' have done dictate his action rather than using current knowledge to save lives.

 

Yes, but I'm just saying that every effective leader in a time of crisis generally has to make those types of decisions. If it makes them evil, then basically every leader is evil. Which I guess is fine, but it's a little boring. For example, how would the Gridanians deal with refugee problems on the scale of U'dah? How would Limsa? The fact that the Syndicate even puts up with Nanamo feeding the refugees is probably way more than the Gridanians would be willing to do. I wouldn't be half suprised if they just had the elementals chase them out.

 

But that's kind of the point.  It's the illustration of how governance is soul-sucking and tends to both destroy the good people who try to be forces for change, and exalts those who are evil who pursue power for purely personal gain.

 

i.e. Yes, actually, government is evil in most RPGs.  Even the good ones.

 

As far as Gridania goes, I really doubt the Elementals could be roused that far, considering their weakened state after the Calamity.  But Gridania has already refused multiple refugees on the borders of their city-state.  Check out the Quarrymill questlines sometime!

 

I didn't know that about quarry mill. But it just shows then, the often maligned Ul'dah and it's syndicate is actually the most altrustic and humanitarian city state. The syndicate grumbles about it, but they still pay the bills. I think you could make an argument that Ul'dah is actually the least evil of the three city states currently. Ul'dah at least tries to help, rather than just pushing people away.

 

Though Limsa might help too, I've never played their story.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...