Death unto Dawn page up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riastrad

I'll grant you that the Garleans were bullied early on. But until evidence is given otherwise? I'm going with the Ascians creating a slave race with a chip on it's shoulder to instigate a war and cause mayhem the world over to make the beast tribes summon primals to justify expansion to create more conflict to create havoc... etc. etc.

---

It was a little more than bullied... They were literally shunned for something that was out of their control and forced into non-fertile lands in hopes of them essentially becoming extinct. Also losers of a war they started...even prior to that, the alliances have always been holier than thou, trying to dictate everyone without acknowledging their own flaws. It’s ironic everyone bashes on Garlemald for their conquering of nations when how many of our “beloved” city states/alliances have mass murdered beast tribes and conquered their land.

The Dragonsong War lasted for a thousand years. Untold amounts of Dravanians and Ishgardians perished on both sides of the conflict. Despite that, the Ishgardians and the Dravanians managed to make peace and those thousand years of conflict were put behind them, albeit with a few growing pains. If a conflict of that length can come to a clean end, then a much shorter conflict where Garlemald is concerned can easily be put behind everyone.

It's not uncommon around these parts, but I do hope more people can bring themselves to separate their own biases from the context of fictional races. I'm not sure what not liking the nobility or Romans has to do with the fantasy equivalents of each - especially when both are exceptionally popular tropes across much of the world.

Garlemald isn't perfect, though neither is pretty much any in-game nation. They've all been established as having their own perks and drawbacks.

It seems we're straying into head canon territory at this point, though. Though even if the Garleans end up being some sort of manufactured race, that would simply make them even bigger victims than they are already. Personally I'm more inclined to think that their inability to manipulate Aether - bar rare exceptions - is just a consequence of the Sundered world.

I need some help with the Timeline, I thought Return to Ivalice theorized (or outright stated, it's been a while) that Garleans are descended from the Gougians who emigrated North after Ramza blew up the Lighthouse, they're certainly descended from Ivalicians because of the Lexentale/Durai family. But at what point did the Gougians exist? I'm assuming Post-Allag since Allag certainly had a prescence on Othard, and while Gougian technology seems somewhat different from Allagan, it strikes me more that the Gougians excavated Allagan tech (like Goug excavating pre-Cataclysm tech in Tactics) rather than the other way around.

Granted, it doesn't mean that Gougians/Ivalicians WEREN'T some Allagan experiment that ended up founding their own kingdom(s) and were later pushed northwards to Ilsabard, but depending on how separate they were, they may have just evolved differently without Allagan intervention.

But who am I kidding, it's always Allag (or Ascians, but considering what Emet told us, it's a distinction without a difference).

As for "retributions", this game has always edged more towards "reconciliation with reparations": Lolorito's arc all the way to Stormblood, Fordola's arc that is apparently finally being continued, Limsa making a new treaty with the Kobolds. So if Garlean high command survives the plot of 6.0, I wouldn't be surprised for the Alliances to extend the olive branch, which I'm not sure the most radical elements of the various resistances would be too happy about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteArchmage

As for "retributions", this game has always edged more towards "reconciliation with reparations": Lolorito's arc all the way to Stormblood, Fordola's arc that is apparently finally being continued, Limsa making a new treaty with the Kobolds. So if Garlean high command survives the plot of 6.0, I wouldn't be surprised for the Alliances to extend the olive branch, which I'm not sure the most radical elements of the various resistances would be too happy about.

---

I feel like it'll depend on how things go in 6.0. Fandango seems the type to purposefully announce happily to the Garleans about how they were led on by Ascians from the beginning, how they were always the villains, how they were manufactured, about how they were meant to be sacrifices, etc etc and then actually start killing them left and right to use their sorrowed screams of pain and suffering to fuel whatever causes The Final Days. In such a case, the Garleans may very well take the olive branch. But again, everything depends on the chaotic force that is Fandango.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhiteArchmage

I need some help with the Timeline, I thought Return to Ivalice theorized (or outright stated, it's been a while) that Garleans are descended from the Gougians who emigrated North after Ramza blew up the Lighthouse, they're certainly descended from Ivalicians because of the Lexentale/Durai family. But at what point did the Gougians exist? I'm assuming Post-Allag since Allag certainly had a prescence on Othard, and while Gougian technology seems somewhat different from Allagan, it strikes me more that the Gougians excavated Allagan tech (like Goug excavating pre-Cataclysm tech in Tactics) rather than the other way around.

---

The game is unclear on this and as far as I'm aware there's no hard canon declaring when everything happened, but the Save the Queen dossier narrows it down a bit. Save the Queen is a "trigger weapon" designed by Allag in order to facilitate the summoning of primals, and the basis for its design was the auracite Ultima produced. That would require Ultima to have been around before or during the Third Era. Given that Orbonne Monastery was already a mystery in Ramza's time, but there being little to no involvement of Allag in Return to Ivalice's storyline, my money is on Ultima's summoning happening during the Second Era, while Ramza's War of the Lions taking place during the Fourth Era.

We also know that Rabanastre was founded before the Calamity of Water, as early into the RtI questline Ramza Lexentale calls it an antediluvian city. Since Rabanastre is built on top of Lesalia, and Lesalia was around at the same time as Ramza Beoulve and Goug, that means the War of the Lions and therefore Goug's abandonment would have to be before the Calamity of Water too.

So it either was before Allag or during the Fourth Astral Era (no way it was during Allag or they'd have been played a role given they were across all three continents). I'm inclined to think Fourth as well just because pre-Allag seems way too long ago for the story to be so well remembered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

The Dragonsong War lasted for a thousand years. Untold amounts of Dravanians and Ishgardians perished on both sides of the conflict. Despite that, the Ishgardians and the Dravanians managed to make peace and those thousand years of conflict were put behind them, albeit with a few growing pains. If a conflict of that length can come to a clean end, then a much shorter conflict where Garlemald is concerned can easily be put behind everyone.

---

You're talking about two completely different type of conflicts. The Dragonsong War was a war that was waged on both sides, while Garlemald is empire that has and continues to attempt to colonize other nations. Any body that engages in hostility with Garlemald inherently has a moral high ground in that conflict of either defense, reclamation, or liberation; the only exception I can think of is if you are attempting to do something similar to what Noah Gabranth is doing and building your own empire off of re-captured pieces of land.

I don't think arguing the particulars of how the Eorzean Alliance would treat with Garlemald upon winning the war matters since it looks like the empire (or at least the capitol and presumably most major members of their governing body) are going to be obliterated, but it wouldn't surprise me if this still plays out where the Garleans are more or less put back in the little corner of the world after everything shakes out and Ilsabard starts to re-stabilize.

It's all a matter of perspective, not black and white morality as per what the writers themselves have repeatedly stated across various interviews in relation to both Garlemald and the Ascians.

Ishgard, Ala Mhigo, Doma, Bozja, Werlyt are all being given free rein in how they govern themselves post-war in spite of knowing they all have some significant societal or governmental flaws... Ul'dah is still governed by the corrupt Syndicate, and Gridania at the caprice of the elementals

The idea that Garlemald must be uniquely punished/raked through the coals/forced to repent and grovel amounts to little more than a revenge fantasy on the part of a sub-set of players.

Emet-Selch even compliments the Scions and Warrior of Darkness for taking the high road in regards to Eulmore. The easy route would have been to waltz into Vauthry's domain, slaughter a significant portion of the people defending him and then leave the survivors to clean up the mess. That didn't happen, since the trend thus far has been to mediate between both sides of even the most brutal conflicts and attempt to find common ground.

That's very likely to happen when it comes to Garlemald and the survivors. The destruction of the Royal Palace and surrounding area also opens up two possibilities - either the territory is rebuilt, or a relocation effort is established to finally give the Garleans somewhere of their own to live where, for once, they're not forced to ike out a living in a bitterly cold and inhospitable location.

At the end of the day, it isn't as if the Garleans decided to wake up one day and conquer the world for no reason at all. They were nearly driven to outright extinction, clawed their way to a position of power and then decided to try and put themselves at the top of the food chain.

One can easily argue that they went too far, though the fact remains that they deserve to have at least some fertile territory to call their own. Especially given the lack of an ability to manipulate aether through conventional means.

We've also seen no shortage of collaborators willing to defect from the conquered territories and side with Garlemald because their own people treated them so terribly, so...I'm inclined to think it's not a case of 'moral superiority' no matter how many times that particular phrase is thrown around these parts. Especially when we're talking about fictional characters and entities that do not actually exist.

We can agree to disagree on specifics. Even broader strokes - though Shadowbringers established firmly that the game isn't interested in exploring black and white morality. I debate from the perspective that the writers themselves have established, not 'feels' or revenge fantasies.

Being overly punitive wouldn't be a good idea. It would just create more fertile ground for future conflict, like what happened with Germany between WW 1 and WW 2.

And honestly big changes are going to be a necessity if Garlemald survives as a nation anyway. With Varis and Solus gone and Zenos being...Zenos I don't think there's really a clear successor to the throne.

Maybe they'll go back to being a republic and get rid of the monarchy. That's what they were before Emet-Selch stepped in anyway.

https://i.imgur.com/U2D3APm.jpg

I still wonder what we and G'raha gotta do in that old pvp area... already looking for our flight to the moon?