3.4 speculation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

I have know doubt will meet more sympathetic Garleans one day but there going to be what you hate Theo, there going to be like Cid and Lucia, (not blinded by patriotism fascists which is what most Garleans actually are) and help us reform it, not suddenly reveal "Oh hey guys Garleans are cool now there genocides were justified"

---

Need I remind you of a certain general in a FF game who got away with genocide? heheh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VargasVermillion

Need I remind you of a certain general in a FF game who got away with genocide? heheh.

---

Rufus Shinra in FF7 and the side-story games did some very questionable things and got away with them. He was 'redeemed' and yet never lost much of what made him so interesting as an antagonist.

Kuja and Beatrix of FF9 did some very dubious things throughout FF9 and both of them were redeemed by the end of the game. In fact, Brahne can technically be included - though she actually died.

I assume Beatrix is who you are referring to though. :p

The mistake people make around these parts is assuming that a character or organisation is thoroughly evil and cannot possibly be redeemed in any way beyond death...when the franchise itself stands in defiance of that. Though it's possible that they simply haven't played any other Final Fantasy games, I suppose.

That's not a mistake I'm making at all, Like I said were going to meet sympathetic Garleans, but there going to be what YOU see as traitors, characters like Cid and Lucia, who already exist to show how not all Garleans are bad.

But do you know HOW they showed that? Bu having them actively oppose everything that present Garlemald actually is. Garlemald will be reformed the same way Ishgard was, introducing sympathetic NPC's who want to reform the obviously broken and corrupt part of there Society.

Varis and Regula are not going to be revealed as hero's they'll continue to be shown as what they are, arrogant, delusional, racists who want oh so very badly to be Allag Lite, there going to be used to contrast the bad from the good one's like Cid and Lucia, and then killed to allow reform to take place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

-snip-

---

Yes, I have little doubt that it will be reformed. I'm not certain that it's something to celebrate though when Ishgard had much of it's grit and unique aspects of its culture removed. Not everybody desires fantasy nations and races to conform to real world flawed socio-political issues. We don't need every nation to be 'nice' and there's absolutely no reason why Varis or Regula couldn't turn out to be unlikely allies. It's not a guarantee, certainly, but I don't think anybody is in a position to say with complete faith what will and will not happen as the story moves forward. Then again I'd like to think that the story isn't going to be completely predictable and 'cookie cutter' where 'good guys' and 'bad guys' are concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

That's not a mistake I'm making at all, Like I said were going to meet sympathetic Garleans, but there going to be what YOU see as traitors, characters like Cid and Lucia, who already exist to show how not all Garleans are bad.

But do you know HOW they showed that? Bu having them actively oppose everything that present Garlemald actually is. Garlemald will be reformed the same way Ishgard was, introducing sympathetic NPC's who want to reform the obviously broken and corrupt part of there Society.

Varis and Regula are not going to be revealed as hero's they'll continue to be shown as what they are, arrogant, delusional, racists who want oh so very badly to be Allag Lite, there going to be used to contrast the bad from the good one's like Cid and Lucia, and then killed to allow reform to take place.

---

Oh noes, anything but RACISTS!

I can see why fantasy as a genre is swiftly going down the gutter. If Garlemald is to be reformed in such a bland, uninspired way, I'd rather it were destroyed. The default response seems to be to reform anything and everything into some bland form of mob rule, at least if some of the less imaginative, more "morally" exercised parts of the playerbase got their way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

what, 25 years? Even if we do manage to liberate it I wouldn't expect it to go back to Ala Mhigan culture right away or... ever fully, possibly.

---

The other city-states might be thankful for that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

The other city-states might be thankful for that. ;)

---

Yeah, picking up the "conquer everything that doesn't conform" mindset from the Garleans is going to go well with the rest of Eorzea.

It is true that there are a lot of unknowns in how Garlemald operates. But we know how Garlemald approaches its conquered people (non- to second-class citizens, forced conscription), and we know it from an unbiased source; in addition, we know how Garlemald approaches the Eorzean population capable of summoning Primals, and given what went down when they tried to take over Othard, it's hard to see them approaching that situation any differently.*

Whatever the case, the game's moral compass thus far is definitely not pointed in current-Garlemald's direction. Even if we do find out they had good reason to up and conquer Ilsabard and/or Doma, that doesn't change the fact that their actions NOW are oppressive, carried out with little reason other than their own sake (or, more likely, to keep the war economy rolling and to keep up a certain standard of living for the actual Garlean people, at the expense of those conquered; this is how empires operate). In fact, "we see, we conquer" is very much an established Garlean attitude - we outright KNOW that they tried to invade Eorzea because it was there, why assume Othard was any different (in fact, the ever-useful "Rise and Fall of the White Raven", written well before there were Domans kicking around, directly implies this)? Let's not forget that Ishgard still needed reforming and Niddhog still needed slaying, even when the origins of that conflict were revealed to be as muddy as they were; current Garlemald leadership are active antagonists seeking to spread their government to every corner or Hydaelyn Just Because, so no matter how that started, it's a problematic attitude that WILL need to be curbed.

No, if/when we ally with Garlemald, it's likely either going to be reformed ala Ishgard (or at least as part of the process of doing so; this would be so reminiscent of 3.0 that I hope it's not the route taken), or use the morally-dubious nature of such an alliance as a means of showing just how desperate the situation as become. I really don't expect the game to try and absolve Garlemald as it exists now.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*I actually have no idea where this "Garlemald lets their territories keep their traditions and culture!" thing comes from, since the only thing said on the matter implies the complete opposite; was it Gaius' 1.0 offer to the Eorzean city-states, which was along those lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Oh noes, anything but RACISTS!

I can see why fantasy as a genre is swiftly going down the gutter. If Garlemald is to be reformed in such a bland, uninspired way, I'd rather it were destroyed. The default response seems to be to reform anything and everything into some bland form of mob rule, at least if some of the less imaginative, more "morally" exercised parts of the playerbase got their way.

---

LOL get off, I used racism as a bullet point on the problems Garleans have, that's the point them being racists is part of the reason there cool with genocide, it's another reason reform is the only logical way we could ever be REAL allies with them.

It's not about being "morally exercised" or whatever drivel you just tried to spew, it's that after everything Garlemald has done, becoming allies with them longterm in there current state would be so actively OOC for so many of there allies that it would break the story. Garlemald getting away with everything they've done and staying the same with a slap on the wrist would be garbage White Washing to the extreme.

The fact that some people are so eager to excuse them strikes me as weird because the logical consequences of everything they've done would be they get wiped out or reform to are standards as an apology for all the genocide and droping fucking moons on where we live.

Moral grayness is great, but not when it bends the narrative to actively forgive and forget things that should be remembered.

I see this place continues to be an echo chamber for the self righteous, unfortunately. There's no need to get up in arms over a debate regarding the lore of a video game of all things...and it's perfectly possible for people to simply agree to disagree instead of regurgitating the exact same arguments every time Garlemald happens to be mentioned as a point of discussion.

As far as I'm concerned there's not enough information present to say with certainty that Garlemald lacks any justification for their actions. I also don't believe that real world morals should be forced upon fantasy races, organisations and individuals. It just makes for a dull, boring narrative. If anything, it's the protagonists who are consistently excused and shrouded in plot armour; not the antagonists.

Personally I'm rather fond of gritty elves. It's a real shame that they've been gutted and had much of their culture eroded away so that they can adhere to real world morality rather than their sense of morality. It happened in WoW with blood elves and night elves. It happened in ESO with the Altmer. It happened in FFXIV with Ishgardians...and whilst Garleans aren't elves I'm rather fond of them and it will, no doubt, happen with them as well.

It doesn't matter if fantasy races aren't justified from our perspective. What matters is if they're justified from their perspective - and that is what should matter most. Otherwise the fantasy genre will continue to stagnate.

Morality is much more complicated and subjective than many here give credit to. So either we can agree to disagree or perhaps those who appear to be overly frustrated can make use of the ignore functionor something since I'm very unlikely to change my mind on this particular subject.

I could go off on a tangent about how it's also completely subjective as to how people read into various characters as well but that would require quite a bit of effort. One person may sympathise with Nanamo, for instance, whilst someone else considers her to be a complete and utter fool. Some may want her dead, others alive...and then there's all manner of other factors to read into and form opinions on. That's...generally how these things work so it's a shame for the same select few to shout down any and all opinions and 'reads' that are to the contrary of what they happen to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Personally I'm rather fond of gritty elves. It's a real shame that they've been gutted and had much of their culture eroded away so that they can adhere to real world morality rather than their sense of morality. It happened in WoW with blood elves and night elves. It happened in ESO with the Altmer. It happened in FFXIV with Ishgardians...and whilst Garleans aren't elves I'm rather fond of them and it will, no doubt, happen with them as well.

It doesn't matter if fantasy races aren't justified from our perspective. What matters is if they're justified from their perspective - and that is what should matter most. Otherwise the fantasy genre will continue to stagnate.

---

But Ishgard culture was literally built on a lie the got exposed, if it had stayed the same what would have been the point? It isn't even about morality real or fantasy, it's about what's logical and Ishgard not changing after what happened in Heavansward is not logical at all, just like it's not at all logical for us to ever be long term allies with present Garlemald considering the things they've done to the majority of are allies and us.

And if you think real world morals shouldn't be applied to the setting at all why did you try to come up with completely unsubstantiated reasons Garlemald could be justified like dead innocents? That's applying real world morality to vindicate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I see this place continues to be an echo chamber for the self righteous, unfortunately. There's no need to get up in arms over a debate regarding the lore of a video game of all things...and it's perfectly possible for people to simply agree to disagree instead of regurgitating the exact same arguments every time Garlemald happens to be mentioned as a point of discussion.

As far as I'm concerned there's not enough information present to say with certainty that Garlemald lacks any justification for their actions. I also don't believe that real world morals should be forced upon fantasy races, organisations and individuals. It just makes for a dull, boring narrative. If anything, it's the protagonists who are consistently excused and shrouded in plot armour; not the antagonists.

---

Dude, c'mon, you're as guilty as regurgitating the same arguments every time this comes up as anybody else. In fact, this particular conversation started when you used a discussion about Ala Mhigo to regurgitate your whole argument. We're all talking in circles here, but so are you.

Anyways, reading patterns of presentation in the narrative isn't forcing morals on fantasy races. Like it or not, this game is very very much in line with modern morals when it comes to things like colonialism, racism, genocide, religious extremism, and the like; its shades of grey comes from incorporating those things into its protagonist nations (as the setting allows), but it balances them by giving their leaders otherwise modern attitudes; its antagonists are routinely defined by things that modern morals find disagreeable. This is demonstrably not a neutral game in that regard.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. This is a very small sub-forum where only a small handful of active posters can be found - so for topics to be recycled is natural. On the other hand that ties in with the 'echo chamber' comment. Which, yes, is applicable to both sides of any debate.

Trying to diffuse the situation ( as I prefer that this topic don't get locked).... While I love a good, heated debate let's not try to slug dirt at the poster's who present their ideas. Though, good discussion guys just please remember we're tawkin' about some fantasy finals! You know the fantasy finals we all play and question the lore use of link pearls!!

I really love your guys thoughts on the subject manner, and wish I could contribute more wisely--but I am not good at lore--so I read and make threads and hope it starts a discussion I can take insight from!!!
Anyway Im back for the time being since for long periods I can't log into the forums so I can respond to topics and drabblings. lol.
nervous laughing aside..

( Also I am finally able to log into the forums again damnit can anyone explain why I get locked out lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AutumnHarvestwind

( Also I am finally able to log into the forums again damnit can anyone explain why I get locked out lol)

---

Did you resub recently? You aren't allowed to go on the forums unless you have logged into the game within 20 days or so, i speak from personal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I see this place continues to be an echo chamber for the self righteous, unfortunately.

---

Sorry for the delay - my computer is being stupid and obstinate and refusing to keep a network connection. Anyhoo, I originally had something longer drafted but think I'll discard it in favor of cutting to the chase.

People aren't regurgitating arguments at you, they are regurgitating facts, known truths. They're not points of contention. We know to be true that:

• Garelmald's motivation for conquest is essentially "because we can."
• Conquered peoples aren't even given basic citizenship unless they serve 20 years in the military.
• Conquered peoples are liable to be forcefully conscripted.
• Garlean footsoldiers (mostly conscripts) are liable to be executed for minor infractions.
• Most pureblood Gareleans are almost blatantly racist against non-Garleans.
• Garlemald responds to revolts against their rule with brutal, unnecessary force.
• Garlemald is trying to recreate Allag despite the myriad problems they left behind and the known dangers of toying with Allagan stuff.
• A recent development under Varis' rule, but the Garleans would sooner genocide the beast tribes than try and find a peaceful solution to the Primal issue.
• As icing on the cake, Garlemald takes freedom of religion away from conquered peoples.

"But maybe they have a justification for this!" you have said. No. Nothing justifies all this. It's understandable - they consider themselves most powerful and thus capable of doing whatever they want - but there is a vast difference between being understandable and being justifiable (not to mention that very same hubris is what led to the fall of Allag).

Now, you may avoid applying conventional morality to the Garleans... but most people won't, and the game doesn't really either.

Agree to disagree if you wish. But this is the known truth, not argument, and your defense of the Garlean Empire is one part willfully ignorant of their unsavory points and the other highly hypothetical. People are going to disagree as a matter of course.

It's not the 'truth' but a subjective opinion. As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hinoto-no-Ryuji

its shades of grey comes from incorporating those things into its protagonist nations (as the setting allows), but it balances them by giving their leaders otherwise modern attitudes; its antagonists are routinely defined by things that modern morals find disagreeable. This is demonstrably not a neutral game in that regard.

---

"Modern morals" = received doctrine on the majority of those topics, as little of it comes from anything resembling a "moral" system, or even a factual examination of these topics, since most academics are embedded in what is effectively a self-flagellation/grievance industry. It is just a doctrine of original sin.

It is a good thing I don't subscribe to this game on account of the quality of its storytelling, as that is a mistake with any MMO, this one included. Its quality is on par with very explicitly SJW pieces of work. I think Theodric is quite right to address this as an echo chamber of virtue signalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

It's not the 'truth' but a subjective opinion. As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree. :)

---

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

A rational debate seems impossible, then, I see.

If you're going to associate a fondness for a morally dubious fictional race with supporting Nazi Germany then it's pretty clear that you're not interested in a debate in the first place.

Then again it isn't the first time such an 'argument' has been put forward on this board and it likely won't be the last either.

As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on the subject. Which, incidentally, is yet another attempt to get people to discuss something else instead of allowing things to escalate further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A rational debate seems impossible, then, I see.

If you're going to associate a fondness for a morally dubious fictional race with supporting Nazi Germany then it's pretty clear that you're not interested in a debate in the first place.

Then again it isn't the first time such an 'argument' has been put forward on this board and it likely won't be the last either.

As I said, we shall simply have to agree to disagree on the subject. Which, incidentally, is yet another attempt to get people to discuss something else instead of allowing things to escalate further.

---

We gave you concrete evidence and you said that this debate is not rational? wow.. okay

Well, OF COURSE the Garleans had a reason to start their conquest. Probably one they could justify to themselves, like perhaps their original land lacked the natural resources to feed their own people, but their neighboring nations did.

That doesn't justify Garlemald's current leadership treating anyone not Garlean as slave labor, cannon fodder, or a trophy to win. I'm not even touching the whole sex slave issue, but it needs to be mentioned that it's a thing that exists!

So, while I don't think Garlemald's entire pureblood population is evil to the core, nor that we couldn't find some allies who stay on the side of Garlemald, it's ABUNDANTLY clear that the people in charge of the nation think their atrocious acts against humanity are justified, even if only because that's what they've been taught their whole lives.

War is never simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick22

We gave you concrete evidence and you said that this debate is not rational? wow.. okay

---

You didn't, really. I pointed out - repeatedly - that the Garleans are painted in a negative light largely because we haven't seen their side of the story. It's much in the same way as how the situation with the Dravanians played out. How many people brushed them off as mindless beasts to be slaughtered because they were 'evil' up until the 'big reveal', I wonder? Quite a few, I imagine. In fact if you go through the older threads on this board then there's many posts to be found regarding such matters.

If you don't agree, that's fine. There's no need to make it personal though, especially with the horrid associations with supporting Nazi Germany. Will I get a genuine apology for that, I wonder? I doubt it very much. To me it just cements my concerns that quite a few vocal posters here are more than willing to get nasty and seek to drive away people with different opinions to them. Which wouldn't be unusual for a site like this - coming from a WoW background I am well aware of the bizarre and weird lengths at which people go to in order to defend their favoured faction or race.

Add to that a hive mind mentality and it makes for a dangerous combination...especially when the number of active posters is rather small to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PArcher

So, you think the Nazis were justified with World War 2 and the Holocaust, right?

Its not the same thing exactly, but there are plenty of similarities.

---

Don't mention it then, that was so below the belt it is literally unreal lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

YAdd to that a hive mind mentality and it makes for a dangerous combination...especially when the number of active posters is rather small to begin with.

---

Or...maybe, just maybe...everyone is against you because you are so wrong we can't believe how you're able to keep going.

Its as if you believe the earth is flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

I have a feeling that WoD's team will end up helping us once they realize that the Ascians are up to no good. But not before we have an epic fight with them. They could be this games' Ark Angels so we may have to fight them one by one and the Minstrel's Ballad version is the Divine Might version where we have to fight all of them at once.

---

Sounds lame, it would be better if the WoD team helped us realize that the giant talking crystal was the bad guy all along and that we have been destroying Eorzias protectors (the primal's).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ametrine

Well, OF COURSE the Garleans had a reason to start their conquest. Probably one they could justify to themselves, like perhaps their original land lacked the natural resources to feed their own people, but their neighboring nations did.

---

It doesn't take much to realize what kind of history a country where it's people have a genetic disadvantage to almost every other species on the planet would have. A civilization born on the ideals where the weak get trampled by the strong is a pretty big give away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PArcher

Or...maybe, just maybe...everyone is against you because you are so wrong we can't believe how you're able to keep going.

Its as if you believe the earth is flat.

---

I think you might be taking it a little seriously, as mentioned we don't know enough to outright call them nazis, much less people who are interested in seeing more about garlemald AS an empire and a country with more sympathetic people, not just generic evil doers and something we defeat and recreate into a new government.

I think 3.4-3.5 is going to culminate in a schism between the remaining Scions: Elidybus already has Uriangier listening to him, and Thancred will be easy to pry away if he dangles something about getting Minfillia back from her current state in front of him. I could see the dynamic duo going separate ways for a while as well; big Papa being concerned about his duties to the world at large vs Yda's efforts in aiding the Ala Mhigan resistance. I also think Alisae is gonna take her brother's spot as our chief sidekick for most of 4.0. And I know it'll never happen but if we get another "crew" together like we had through most of 3.0 I really want the Deftarm to come along wth us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Add to that a hive mind mentality and it makes for a dangerous combination...especially when the number of active posters is rather small to begin with.

---

Just wow..... Cilia gaves you concrete evidence, I gave you concrete evidence and Parcher too.
But you still think we have a hive mind and saing irracional things.

Just by adding the music of the garlean empire is very similar in some way to the all known popular song of Dark Vader. Common.

Little ppl supports you. Just admit we are right in what we are saing.

Also what made the Nazi german evil was Hitler, Gobbels and the SS. But the people of its nation, some did not agree, just remember Operation Valkyrie.

Garleam empire is similar. A militar dictatorship. But of couse there could be someone on the army that doest agree with this. I agree that is posible we may become allies with one of the unknow legatus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laili

I think 3.4-3.5 is going to culminate in a schism between the remaining Scions: Elidybus already has Uriangier listening to him, and Thancred will be easy to pry away if he dangles something about getting Minfillia back from her current state in front of him.

---

It's possible, Alphinaud would want to focus on more diplomatic issues, rebuild the Crystal Braves, and lead the Rising Stones as I could imagine the Dragonsong war was taxing on him.

I'm inclined to assume about Thancred that we could find out that Minfillia's fusion with Hydaelyn is actually a tricked/forced abduction and the Ascians knew. Alisaie could easy spill the beans and he'd be the first to know... and he already feels pretty bitter about being unable to get Minfillia back. I get the feeling as WoL we aren't getting the full story and Ascians would rather play us as pawns than tell us straight. There is a faint hint with the W'soD that at some point Elidibus might of convinced them they're following a falsehood...

Or, they could be converted into Zodiark's thralls that were taken when Louisoix ported them away from the planet (The opening ARR cutscene) before Bahamut would finish them off. Even as powerful as Louisoix was, the Binding Coil story explains how he was being controlled by Bahamut when you see him in the SCoB cutscenes. We did see a CS of the W'soD attacking an Ascian in 3.1 in a place similar to when we talk to our crystal only to fade to white moments later.

EDIT: Come to think of it, this thrall thing, my jaunt through all of coil recently opened up some possibilities... Elidibus seems to be the most approachable character among his associates, oddly clad in white, while still having a dark secret he's keeping but right now he's on good terms with Urianger and assuming he's Unkawhatshisname (Kid-lidibus) master. I'll bet he has a much grander scheme and has been using the other Ascians... who also might just be merely thralls of Zodiark as a means to an end. Where as Lahabrea and co. want Zodiark to revive, where Elidibus seeks to reunite Zodiark with Hydaelyn... which might explain how Urianger seems to be "going along" with this idea so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laili

I think 3.4-3.5 is going to culminate in a schism between the remaining Scions: Elidybus already has Uriangier listening to him, and Thancred will be easy to pry away if he dangles something about getting Minfillia back from her current state in front of him. I could see the dynamic duo going separate ways for a while as well; big Papa being concerned about his duties to the world at large vs Yda's efforts in aiding the Ala Mhigan resistance. I also think Alisae is gonna take her brother's spot as our chief sidekick for most of 4.0. And I know it'll never happen but if we get another "crew" together like we had through most of 3.0 I really want the Deftarm to come along wth us.

---

I would be glad if it goes this way. I want Ali to spend more time in the limelight, and I'd like Yugiri to see more action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A rational debate seems impossible, then, I see.

---

A rational debate is perfectly possible. You are, however, being willfully ignorant of Garlemald's motive and sweeping their very ugly side under the rug.

Why did Garlemald become a military culture driven by conquest? Solus zos Galvus introduced them to magitek 50 years ago, became their emperor, and told them to go forth and conquer. That is it. That is literally the entire reason. Not because they wanted better land or because their neighbors were abusive to them. Pre-empire they were a small, backwater farming nation. Then they got magitek and zos Galvus told them to use it to subjugate others. So they did. Might there be more to the story? Possibly... but this is what we know to be true with what information we have.

Revolts against Garlean rule causing the death of innocent Garleans? Maybe. But Garlemald brings it on themselves by subjugating other nations purely because they can, and the possible death of non-military Garleans in the name of liberation is tragic but Garlemald has proven they are not open to willingly relinquishing conquered territory. Slaughtering countless, helpless innocent people in response to this is not justified.

War orphan sob stories a la Livia? Another thing they bring on themselves with their gluttonous desire for conquest.

What of the rest? I've yet to see a rebuttal. If you want to debate let's go, but don't excuse some of their atrocities and conveniently ignore the rest.

I said it before and I'll say it again - Gaius van Baelsar was an exemplar of the best and worst aspects of the Empire. While his legion was rogue, they were effectively a microcosm of Garlemald proper, and he explains his motives and much of his philosophy verbatim before the elevator duel against him:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius van Baelsar

For the world of man to mean anything, man must own the world. To this end, he hath ever fought to raise himself through conflict - to grow rich through conquest. And when the dust of battle settles, it is ever the strong who dictate the fate of the weak. ... It is only right that I should take your realm, for none among you has the power to stop me!

---

Wait, hold on...implications were made that I'm a Nazi supporter and believe that the Earth is flat and I'm the rude one? I'm not quite sure how that works...

If you don't want to involve personal matters in a debate then it helps to not make and support such bizarre statements and accusations in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Wait, hold on...implications were made that I'm a Nazi supporter and believe that the Earth is flat and I'm the rude one? I'm not quite sure how that works...

If you don't want to involve personal matters in a debate then it helps to not make and support such bizarre statements and accusations in the first place.

---

Where someone said that?
Put the comment where someone said that you are a Nazi supporter. Nobody said such a thing.

It certainly seemed to be the implication. Especially when combined with the later quip about believing that the world is flat. At any rate I'd like to hope that I don't have to explain why it isn't a good idea to bring up Nazi Germany so casually. Especially in a time period when it has become very fashionable to shut down debate and opposing views by comparing people and concepts to Nazi Germany knowing full well that many people are going to react poorly to such an implication/accusation or back down altogether.

So, again, let's drop the matter to avoid the thread getting locked. Agreed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

[L]et's drop the matter to avoid the thread getting locked. Agreed?

---

Disagreed! You implicitly want a rational debate on the issue and I'm offering one. Let's go. I am desperately in want of a .gif of Senator Armstrong saying the same...

If you need time to cool down, that's okay. But if you don't get back it looks very much like you don't want to actually debate and would prefer to close your eyes and cover your ears when people bring up the myriad ways Garlemald is really not cool.

Gushing (gushing!) about your favorite subject once in a while is fine, but when you do it all the time it gets a bit grating, and when you say you would like to debate and someone offers to do so and you decline it sounds like your argument(s) is very weak.

Guys, why don't we start this over? I thought we were trying to not be like the General Discussion board.

I'm going to ignore the last few pages of this thread and start on a different track. Yesterday, I watched my girlfriend get through the last few quests of 3.3 and so got to rewatch all the final cutscenes and it made me think a lot about Ala Mhigo and what comes next. I took a trip to East Shroud due to its geographical closeness, and wandered here:

http://i.imgur.com/eQ3ruER.png

This is more or less as close you can get to the great wall, and it has a prominent Garlean presence. Obviously all the interesting paths are blocked off, but I thought - might this be what will become the entryway into Gyr Abania later on? How different was this part of the Shroud in 1.0, and are there any quests now that talk about the region and what happened after the Autumn War?

Garlemald uses troops of ala mhigo and others as invading troops after 15 years of brainwashing them. That's why they even have mages in their ranks.

They think their cause is just because they got told every single day.

Because wild tribes summoning primals which drain the ether.

Because being free and not under imperial order leads to chaos and anarchy.

As for now, I bet, the story puts of with the dragon eyes thrown into the abyss and east shroud as starting point towards ala mhigo/xelphatol