To be fair, just because they are impoverished and displaced does not make them the responsibility of others who themselves aren't swimming in resources. Then when they start robbing and killing the villagers to survive it really doesn't help add sympathy to their cause. Sure in some situations it's moral to help them, but when it's between a family just wanting to stay in a derelict sheep sty and most others robbing and killing locals because they feel entitled to at least some kind of help just because they're refugees it's hard to say that's the moral decision. I had to play the beginning twice and I did both sides to see what the results were and I would argue siding with the refugees is just morally wrong given the overall outcome. If they lived side by side, sure that's a good result but instead they just kill and rob people who already had established homes for themselves.

That's a fair point of view. I do like how the first area is very grey morally. I definitely leaned into helping the refugees in the beginning but personally found myself siding with the villagers as news of the refugees resorting to violence and robbery started to show. I sympathized with them but felt it was wrong to hassle the people already there. In my head it seemed like resources weren't abundant and taking on the refugees would be detrimental to both parties. On top of that I did feel the sacred forest should be left alone and not used. But I also have ties to Native American heritage and find sacred things should be cherished.