>>6376
I think this case is definitely different since you're literally encountering them in the zone as this happens and immediately after it happens. The intention is 100% to convey they are autonomous.
>>6373
"there are no conflicts"
"the conflicts don't matter"
"the conflicts don't matter because Wuk Lamat immediately solved them"
"the conflicts that Wuk Lamat didn't solve were 'solved' anyway in sidequests so they don't matter"
zzzzzzZzzzzZZzzzzZZzzzzz
>>1118853
You use two examples where Wuk Lamat wasn't even involved in the "resolution". And neither of those were a total resolution. The red giants are not suddenly friendly to everyone, it was literally one instance of trade. The Pelu pelu employ some of the bandits, but it's kinda childish to think they are employing all of the bandits.
You see, you're declaring problems as "solved" when at best they are only partially addressed. It takes the smallest amount of hint of anything for you to start making wide sweeping generalizations about the events occurring. And again, I've said it a few times, what I'm saying is true independent of the quality of the writing that might be present. If the writing is really so bad you shouldn't have to constantly make up shit and blatantly lie about it being bad.