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

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

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.

 

There are quite a few people that would tell you (and yes, I happen to be one of them) that evil is evil.

 

Little evils aren't just "lesser."  Someone is suffering for each one of them, though you may never see their faces.  No, he's not eating people.  No, he's not molesting children.  But he may very well be causing marginalized people who are already very vulnerable to become more vulnerable to the kind of predators that do eat people and do molest children.

 

Now tell me this: If you place someone - through your own actions - in a situation where they are made helpless in the face of a predator like that, can you really say that your hands are clean of what happens to that person?

 

If you create or reinforce an environment where child predators and serial killers are allowed to operate with relative freedom, and further weaken what defenses the poor and endangered have against them, are you truly innocent of the crimes done to the weak and defenseless?

[Coatleque]

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

 

Neutrality is always the most difficult alignment to play. In my experience, the only characters who can truly play it off are the mentally insane ones. To be entirely neutral means you need to have exactly 0 sense of right and wrong because there can be no real motive behind your actions.

 

I would place Jin'li as a Neutral-Evil character, for example. He thinks his methods are right, clearly they are not. If it wasn't for the collars, bombs, and poison; If he was just a tad more "kind", he would fall closer to True Neutral.

[LiadansWhisper]

I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

 

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

 

Generally speaking, if what you're doing doesn't really harm anyone, it's neutral.  If it harms someone else (or even yourself), it's probably evil.  If it benefits someone else, it's probably good.

 

When it comes to an evil character, of course, intent matters a lot if they're doing something beneficial for another person.  For that matter, when it comes to good acts, intent matters a lot.  If you're doing it for personal gain, it's not really a good act and you probably wouldn't be awarded good points for it.

 

I should add: It's totally okay for personal gain to be a side benefit. But if it's the main benefit (or some evil plot you've come up with is the main benefit), then you're going to get reduced good credit from it, or none at all.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

We could argue this all day.  Gridania doesn't leave her people to starve in the streets.  As far as I can tell, if you lose your money in Ul'dah, it doesn't matter if you were born there, have relations 10 generations back, they'll still watch you starve and not lift a finger.  In Gridania, people are actually taken care of.  They simply won't allow in more refugees than the Twelveswood can handle (although if you do the Quarrymill questline, you'll note it's one Conjurer and the situation as to why they refuse the refugees is kind of...weird...  It's not explained well at all lol).

[Unnamed Mercenary]

Couple notes on Gridania and the Elementals. 

 

It's more likely that the Elementals would have chased out the refugees pre-calamity out of their own anger.

 

Post-Calamity though, they'd most likely whisper, or otherwise tell Kan-E-Senna to make them leave. We've certainly seen how the normally peaceful Sylphs reacted when they thought their forest was going to be taken away.

[111]

 

 

 

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.

 

There are quite a few people that would tell you (and yes, I happen to be one of them) that evil is evil.

 

Little evils aren't just "lesser."  Someone is suffering for each one of them, though you may never see their faces.  No, he's not eating people.  No, he's not molesting children.  But he may very well be causing marginalized people who are already very vulnerable to become more vulnerable to the kind of predators that do eat people and do molest children.

 

Now tell me this: If you place someone - through your own actions - in a situation where they are made helpless in the face of a predator like that, can you really say that your hands are clean of what happens to that person?

 

If you create or reinforce an environment where child predators and serial killers are allowed to operate with relative freedom, and further weaken what defenses the poor and endangered have against them, are you truly innocent of the crimes done to the weak and defenseless?

 

The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.

 

Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.

 

Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?

[FreelanceWizard]

I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

 

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

 

Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

 

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer.

 

EDIT: On the topic of Limsa, Limsa doesn't really have much in the way of refugees. Those it does have (ex-pirates in a lot of cases) are typically given jobs at places like Summerford Farms or the Moraby Drydocks. Some of them are resettled in areas that are kobold territory, which is one of many reasons why Titan is now a problem.

[Warren Castille]

Alignment, especially when considering precipice points for someone's character arc, is fluid. If we're swinging D&D alignments around, someone who's doing knowingly-questionable deeds for the greater perceived good would lend more towards Chaotic Good than anything. Knowing you could save people's lives and opting out to potentially save more lives isn't an inherently evil act because it's done to save more people, which is an inherently good act, unless of course he's saving them so he can use that as a political instrument, because then it's an evil act because he's lying to people unless he's lying to them so he can combat an evil democracy from within, at which point it becomes good again because it's for the greater good. Unless of course...

 

To keep my sanity, I'd've just changed that dude's alignment on his sheet half a dozen times as the story unfolded. Alignment is as much rules to govern your character with as it is earned through action.

[111]

I don't think anyone here is saying most of Ul'dah, the Syndicate or the Blades are "Good" in alignment.

 

... but what is the line separation for Neutral and Evil?

 

Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

 

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer.

 

This is a good point. D&D is a setting with rules and a cosmology that reinforce its alignment system. Good is a place, it's a thing. A celestial being of pure good can drop down and tell you if something is good or not. It's not complicated human morality, it's a system for streamlining if your paladin does bonus damage on his smite attack.

 

Out of that framework it tends to break down, and the waters muddy very quickly.

[Kage]

I'd argue still that Gridania is still not doing anything to help, no matter what excuses they have for not taking in refugees. Fact of the matter is, they're still refusing them. The Twelveswood can't handle it..

 

Ul'dah's own resources can't handle it.

 

 

I'd almost say look at the Costa Rican? refugee issues and illegal immigrants that are trying to get into the United States. Yes, they need help. But if we tried to solve everyone's problems over our "first world problems" we'd be doing our own poor an even worse disservice.

 

Would Ul'dah do it for its own poor? Probably not. But if we were always to say "you left them in the state to get ____" then everyone would be guilty of everything. We'd all be evil.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.

 

Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.

 

Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?

 

But that is not what's happening here, Natalie.

 

This isn't a case of someone not paying your rent and you evicting them (but my god, good luck with that, because unless you live in Arkansas, there are some strict laws on how you can evict people).

 

This is a situation where effectively homeless, destitute people have flooded an area that has systems in place (apparently - tho why the Flames are doing it I'm not sure!) to care for them temporarily.  It's kind of akin to the refugee camps set up around the world, only in Ul'dah.  And minus, you know, bare necessities like a roof over your head or clean water.

 

These people have no connections.

They have no power.

They have no say, because they are not citizens.

 

The thing is, your example doesn't work because the obligation of the government towards the destitute and needy is entirely different than the obligation of the individual towards those same people (unless, of course, you subscribe to those religious beliefs that say that, actually, yes you do have an obligation to help them).

 

You booting out a bad tenet is not the same as a city-state's government putting repeated roadblocks in the way of refugees integrating into society, finding jobs and/or getting out of the shithole they're currently in.  And it certainly isn't the same as a politician using his political power to scam already weak and vulnerable refugees out of what little money they have.

 

It boggles my mind that you seem to be advocating that Lolorito is (or could be) this great leader because he makes "hard choices."  Lolorito is a corrupt scam artist.  Most people would agree that putting a corrupt scam artist into a situation where he can gain yet more power is a bad idea.

[111]

 

 

 

The issue is you can't save everyone. Even if you have the best of intentions. Resources are *always* limited, it's stated in the quests that Ul'dah is really draining it's coffers to help the refugees it already has.

 

Edit, and yes, I can. For example, if somone rents a property from me, and they don't pay, I'd kick them out. Maybe they'd be on the street, maybe they'd die, who knows? But if I don't pay my own bills, that would happen to me next.

 

Same thing with child molesters and serial killers. With any justice system you have to strike a balance between being sure you don't convict an innocent person, and wanting to convict the guilty. You might let someone go who might be a serial killer, because you believe it's important that you have more solid evidence. That serial killer might go out and kill someone. On the other hand, maybe you do convict them, but it turns out they are innocent, and they get the electric chair. Which of those would be evil? Would they both?

 

But that is not what's happening here, Natalie.

 

This isn't a case of someone not paying your rent and you evicting them (but my god, good luck with that, because unless you live in Arkansas, there are some strict laws on how you can evict people).

 

This is a situation where effectively homeless, destitute people have flooded an area that has systems in place (apparently - tho why the Flames are doing it I'm not sure!) to care for them temporarily.  It's kind of akin to the refugee camps set up around the world, only in Ul'dah.  And minus, you know, bare necessities like a roof over your head or clean water.

 

These people have no connections.

They have no power.

They have no say, because they are not citizens.

 

The thing is, your example doesn't work because the obligation of the government towards the destitute and needy is entirely different than the obligation of the individual towards those same people (unless, of course, you subscribe to those religious beliefs that say that, actually, yes you do have an obligation to help them).

 

You booting out a bad tenet is not the same as a city-state's government putting repeated roadblocks in the way of refugees integrating into society, finding jobs and/or getting out of the shithole they're currently in.  And it certainly isn't the same as a politician using his political power to scam already weak and vulnerable refugees out of what little money they have.

 

It boggles my mind that you seem to be advocating that Lolorito is (or could be) this great leader because he makes "hard choices."  Lolorito is a corrupt scam artist.  Most people would agree that putting a corrupt scam artist into a situation where he can gain yet more power is a bad idea.

 

Could you explain to me why this is Ul'dah's problem? They are already doing more than the other city states to help the problem. Also how is lorilito a scam artist, or corrupt? He agrees to give the refugees food, he's not gaining anything from that.

 

How about this, you may be right that Syndicate is evil, but if so the Governments of Limsa and Gridania are even more evil by not even attempting to help the refugee problem. If you agree to that, then we'll be in perfect alignment (heh).

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

Motivation and consequence, I'd argue, but Neutral on its own is very poor alignment descriptor.

 

I think this thread is a great example of the problems the D&D alignment system has, especially when dealing with settings without an objective good and evil. Palladium tends to deal with those better, but that's like saying Budweiser is better than Coors if you hate American mass market beer.

 

EDIT: On the topic of Limsa, Limsa doesn't really have much in the way of refugees. Those it does have (ex-pirates in a lot of cases) are typically given jobs at places like Summerford Farms or the Moraby Drydocks. Some of them are resettled in areas that are kobold territory, which is one of many reasons why Titan is now a problem.

 

I like the Alignment system as a framework.  It's a great place to start!  That or you can use the..crap, I forget the name...there's a vaguely similar system in White Wolf's game system that combines personality traits with a humanity/morality system without bringing "Good" and "evil" into the equation.

 

Alignment, especially when considering precipice points for someone's character arc, is fluid. If we're swinging D&D alignments around, someone who's doing knowingly-questionable deeds for the greater perceived good would lend more towards Chaotic Good than anything. Knowing you could save people's lives and opting out to potentially save more lives isn't an inherently evil act because it's done to save more people, which is an inherently good act, unless of course he's saving them so he can use that as a political instrument, because then it's an evil act because he's lying to people unless he's lying to them so he can combat an evil democracy from within, at which point it becomes good again because it's for the greater good. Unless of course...

 

To keep my sanity, I'd've just changed that dude's alignment on his sheet half a dozen times as the story unfolded. Alignment is as much rules to govern your character with as it is earned through action.

 

I'm pretty sure I could never play a D&D paladin.  But I also think the alignment system is, as I said previously, designed to greatly emphasize how hard it is for a good person to stay good in a bureaucracy.

 

 

 

 

This is a good point. D&D is a setting with rules and a cosmology that reinforce its alignment system. Good is a place, it's a thing. A celestial being of pure good can drop down and tell you if something is good or not. It's not complicated human morality, it's a system for streamlining if your paladin does bonus damage on his smite attack.

 

Out of that framework it tends to break down, and the waters muddy very quickly.

 

It's actually a pretty complicated framework, but...then again I spent a lot of time RPing on D&D servers in NWN.  

 

I'd argue still that Gridania is still not doing anything to help, no matter what excuses they have for not taking in refugees. Fact of the matter is, they're still refusing them. The Twelveswood can't handle it..

 

Ul'dah's own resources can't handle it.

 

 

I'd almost say look at the Costa Rican? refugee issues and illegal immigrants that are trying to get into the United States. Yes, they need help. But if we tried to solve everyone's problems over our "first world problems" we'd be doing our own poor an even worse disservice.

 

Would Ul'dah do it for its own poor? Probably not. But if we were always to say "you left them in the state to get ____" then everyone would be guilty of everything. We'd all be evil.

 

From what I understand, the bulk of the refugees flooded to Ul'dah.  Gridania took in some but stopped taking more after they hit their limit.  I think the fact that Limsa is on an island discouraged a lot of others from trying there.

 

Why they picked Ul'dah is honestly beyond me.  Sure, the city is rich, but it's in the middle of a damn desert.  If you're a farmer fleeing the conflict, where the hell are you going to farm there?  Where are you going to find water on a consistent basis?  Wood for your fires and homes?  I mean...

 

Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me.  It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

[TheLastCandle]

Sometimes I think people have a serious persecution complex when it comes to criticism of Ul'dah/the Syndicate/Momodi's popoto souffle. Lolorito is pretty clearly acting selfishly for his own gain. I'd say he's hovering somewhere between Neutral Evil/True Neutral using the D&D scale. I usually hesitate to apply the system to characters not in a D&D setting where there is a very tangible presence of "good" and "evil."

 

But since that's the topic we're on, Neutrality actually isn't utterly lacking a motive, or being insane. That entirely depends on the character's ethos. For example, a Lawful Neutral leader tends to value law and order above all else, and will do whatever it takes to maintain that. They don't necessarily LACK morals, but they're overall not as important as obeying their ethos, whether it be dictated by law, tradition, or code.

 

A farmer who's only living his life and attempting to feed his family? True neutral, in most cases. Chaotic neutral tend to value personal freedom above all else - this can be something as extreme as an extremely erratic insane person, or just a free-spirit who prefers to live in the moment and doesn't give any thought to good or evil so long as he remains free to pursue his goal at the time. Jack Sparrow would be a great example of this, though I suppose it could be argued that he's insane as well. ;P

 

To sum up Neutral Evil, I'm just going to quote directly from the source.

 

A Neutral Evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on their allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. They have no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit to it. They abide by laws for only as long as it is convenient for them. A villain of this alignment can be more dangerous than either Lawful or Chaotic Evil characters, since she or he is neither bound by any sort of honor or tradition nor disorganized and pointlessly violent.

[Aya]

As has been mentioned by a couple of people, reading too much into the D&D alignment system will result in nothing but trouble

 

Gaspard has used "Lawful Neutral" has a very brief descriptor to take a stab at the philosophy he's looking for the group to possess.  This is a terrific use of the alignments, because they have value in economizing space, but their utility ends once anything of depth or anything regarding motivation is plumbed.

 

Re: Lolorito: It may be a bad idea from an OOC perspective, but entirely more interesting IC!  He's the kind of character that makes Ul'dah tick

[Unnamed Mercenary]

Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me.  It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

 

We know what happened when refugees did flee to Gridania/The Shroud though. The sylphs freaked out. Assuming the elementals either allowed, put up with, or couldn't do anything about it, Ul'dah was made to be the manufactured choice because it has that "American Dream" idea of pushing up the ranks. ...they just don't tell people that it's probably impossible.

[111]

 

 

From what I understand, the bulk of the refugees flooded to Ul'dah.  Gridania took in some but stopped taking more after they hit their limit.  I think the fact that Limsa is on an island discouraged a lot of others from trying there.

 

Why they picked Ul'dah is honestly beyond me.  Sure, the city is rich, but it's in the middle of a damn desert.  If you're a farmer fleeing the conflict, where the hell are you going to farm there?  Where are you going to find water on a consistent basis?  Wood for your fires and homes?  I mean...

 

Some of the "crisis" is kind of manufactured from my perspective, because the logic of where they decided that everyone went doesn't really jive with me.  It would have made more sense to me if they'd run to Gridania, tho I suppose that the bad blood between Ala Mhigo and Gridana + the mystique of the Black Shroud might have warned them away.

 

They came to Ul'dah because it was literally the only place that will take them. Gridania is Xenophobic, and turned away everyone they could, they probably couldn't afford the boat to Limsa, and Ishgard is closed. Ul'dah could have just turned them back into the desert, and they'd be nothing but a footnote in some quests. Instead it makes an honest effort to take care of them. While you say that Gridania took in some but stopped after they hit their limit. Ul'dah is way over it's limit, that's why there is so much turmoil. Ul'dah can't keep supporting these people, but they are trying as long as they can. So I don't get why Ul'dah and the syndicate get painted so unfavorably because of the refugee problem.

 

Edit: To those that think Lorilito is obviously evil, please show something evil he's done. He helps feed the refugees, so that's not evil.

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

Could you explain to me why this is Ul'dah's problem? They are already doing more than the other city states to help the problem. Also how is lorilito a scam artist, or corrupt? He agrees to give the refugees food, he's not gaining anything from that.

 

How about this, you may be right that Syndicate is evil, but if so the Governments  of Limsa and Gridania are even more evil by not even attempting to help the refugee problem. If you agree to that, then we'll be in perfect alignment (heh).

 

As far as I know, both Gridania and Limsa actually took in some refugees, but the vast majority went to Ul'dah.  There is one incident of Ala Mhigan refugees having issues in Quarrymill, but all you're ever told is that they "sinned against the forest."  It's never explained what it was, and it's a single Conjurer who makes the decision that they have to leave.  And yes, that system is ripe for abuse and actually figures into my character's backstory.

 

But - and this is a big "but," - Limsa taking in more refugees would absolutely lead to either a return of Leviathan or Titan, since in both situations it was Limsa either trying to reclaim land for re-settlement, or outright breaking their treaty with the Kobolds in an effort to secure land for - guess what - refugees.

 

In the case of Gridania, though they avoided a similar issue early on with their initial wave of refugees, when people started fleeing Uldah and heading into the Shroud, it freaked the Sylphs out so bad that they summoned Ramuh for a second time.  That's not even touching the fact that the Gridanians live in the Shroud by the good graces of the Elementals.  Now, we know that they're weakened by the Calamity, but we also know from the White Mage questline that they are still a serious problem.  The major Elemental you're trying to keep asleep during that questline is described as something that could take an untold number of lives if he was allowed to wake and rage.  If the Gridanians break their pact with the Elementals - which they would be if they took more Refugees than the Shroud can handle - then they would not only be dooming their own people to death, they'd be dooming the refugees as well.

 

That said, I don't recall that Gridania was even offered the refugees from Doma, and I thought that Frontlines was - ostensbily - being fought ICly to determine who will own what lands in Mor Dhona specifically to give TO the refugees to resettle (and yes, I know that's not the "real" reason, but that's the reason they claim IC up front before explaining what's actually going on).

 

As far as why it's Ul'dah's problem, my examples were entirely to your responses defending Lolorito's actions.  That's why I framed them the way I did.  As far as the Syndicate goes, I'm not going to go right out and say, "Oh, it's evil to the core," because we don't know enough about all of the members to say that.  But I will say that it's corrupt to the core.    All the way to the rotten core.  

[Aya]

A farmer who's only living his life and attempting to feed his family? True neutral, in most cases. Chaotic neutral tend to value personal freedom above all else - this can be something as extreme as an extremely erratic insane person, or just a free-spirit who prefers to live in the moment and doesn't give any thought to good or evil so long as he remains free to pursue his goal at the time. Jack Sparrow would be a great example of this, though I suppose it could be argued that he's insane as well. ;P

See, herein lies part of the problem with the DnD alignment system.  What is described is that the farmers behavior determines his alignment.  He does not risk himself to do good, therefore he is neutral (out primarily for his own self-interest, which in this case is also family-interest).  But what if he is personally religious, and believes in the concept of goodness, and wishes to see it succeed?  What if he offers meager alms, or provides spare bread for those who cannot feed themselves?  He is still unprepared to risk himself heroically, he is still not going to do anything that puts his farm or family at risk to accomplish "good" - but his heart is good, his intent is good, and in his actions he is good when he can be.

 

Is he still neutral?  Or perhaps even more importantly: does it matter?

[111]

Stuff.

 

I agree with all those reasonings, but at the same time Ul'dah has problems just as severe to deal with, but IT was the one that stood up and tried to do something about the refugee problem. Everyone else shook their heads and pushed them away, but Ul'dah is trying to help.

 

Maybe they are doing a bad job, maybe they could do more, but at least they're doing something.

[Kage]

I'd wager more that Telediji is evil.

 

Lolorito himself is bankrolling the Brass Blades which is why they resort to bribes. A single man's company (especially an Ul'dahn man) cannot just fun an entire city-state's law enforcement. They still give their lives up for it. If they were evil, maybe I just don't know the D&D alignment system, but if they were they'd just let everyone die and say "yeah we couldn't save them."

[LiadansWhisper]

Sometimes I think people have a serious persecution complex when it comes to criticism of Ul'dah/the Syndicate/Momodi's popoto souffle. Lolorito is pretty clearly acting selfishly for his own gain. I'd say he's hovering somewhere between Neutral Evil/True Neutral using the D&D scale. I usually hesitate to apply the system to characters not in a D&D setting where there is a very tangible presence of "good" and "evil."

 

 

 

Yeah, it's really kind of amusing, tbh.

 

 

 

 

We know what happened when refugees did flee to Gridania/The Shroud though. The sylphs freaked out. Assuming the elementals either allowed, put up with, or couldn't do anything about it, Ul'dah was made to be the manufactured choice because it has that "American Dream" idea of pushing up the ranks. ...they just don't tell people that it's probably impossible.

 

Far as I can tell, Gridania took every single refugee they could without upsetting the Elementals.  But they were also directly on the front lines of the Ala Mhigan border, so I could see why people would be worried about settling there - what with the bad blood between the two city-states, the Garleans, AND possibly violent Elementals policing the place.

 

And yeah, the "American Dream" angle makes sense.

 

 

 

They came to Ul'dah because it was literally the only place that will take them.

 

That's simply not true.  :-\  Where are you getting this?  I know you love Ul'dah, but seriously...

 

Gridania is Xenophobic, and turned away everyone they could,

 

While Gridania is xenophobic, they did not, as far as I can tell, "turn away everyone they could." They took as many refugees as they could without breaking their pact with the Twelveswood.  Around this time, btw, the Sylphs summoned Ramuh for the first time - in direct reasponse to the influx of refugees and the Garlean troops moving through the forest.  Gridania managed to calm them down, but when a second wave of refugees came tromping through the forest, the Sylphs freaked out again, and summoned Ramuh a second time.

 

they probably couldn't afford the boat to Limsa,

 

Apparently some of them could, because Limsa did take refugees in, and as a result ended up with both Titan and Leviathan summoned.  So that was great.

 

and Ishgard is closed.

 

Ishgard actually has some refugees working for them in Coerthas.  I think a better rationale is that a) Ala Mhigo and Ishgard didn't get along in the first place and b) it's a frozen wasteland and people don't like frozen wastelands filled with religious fantatics.

 

Ul'dah could have just turned them back into the desert, and they'd be nothing but a footnote in some quests. Instead it makes an honest effort to take care of them. While you say that Gridania took in some but stopped after they hit their limit. Ul'dah is way over it's limit, that's why there is so much turmoil. Ul'dah can't keep supporting these people, but they are trying as long as they can. So I don't get why Ul'dah and the syndicate get painted so unfavorably because of the refugee problem.

 

It's because of how they have chosen to deal with it.  The Syndicate is portrayed, in quest text and cutscene, as taking advantage of the refugees as much as possible and basically making their plight worse in order to achieve political and economic goals.  It's interesting to note that most of the refugees jump at the chance to work for a decent employer who will actually pay them a decent wage - and make comments that imply that many of them can't find jobs in Ul'dah, or if they do, they're underpaid or not paid at all.

 

I am actually surprised that Ul'dah didn't draft most of them into the army and make a special unit just for the refugees.  Gridania has one.  

[Aduu Avagnar]

as has been stated, making hard decisions, does not absolve you of them, and Intent is everything. Lolorito, through what we have seen, has only done things that benefit him, or when strongarmed into it when the Syndicate vote was against him.

[Kage]

The Immortal Flames has the Ala Mhigan Brigade.

[111]

I'd wager more that Telediji is evil.

 

Lolorito himself is bankrolling the Brass Blades which is why they resort to bribes. A single man's company (especially an Ul'dahn man) cannot just fun an entire city-state's law enforcement. They still give their lives up for it. If they were evil, maybe I just don't know the D&D alignment system, but if they were they'd just let everyone die and say "yeah we couldn't save them."

 

True, the brass blades are essentially Lorilito's private army. While they are sometimes shown to be quite corrupt, they are *always* shown as willing to put their lives on the line to proect Ul'dah and its people, even at the cost of profit. I think the same thing is true of Lorilito himself, but we won't know until we get more story about him.

[LiadansWhisper]

The Immortal Flames has the Ala Mhigan Brigade.

 

Thanks for the clarification.  I was curious!  I still don't know why they don't just make a mercenary group out of the vast majority of them.  I mean, most of the refugees are depicted (in cutscenes/NPCs, anyway) as seemingly hale and hearty adult men and women.  Yet they're just standing around doing nothing?