6.0 Predictions: Will it be Garlemald, Sharlayan, or Meracydia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

I think what you're missing here is I want the expansion areas to be justified by the plot. I'd also like to chill on the Empire (the people and politics) because they deserve better than be represented by Zenos and whatever Ascian of the month feels they can pull strings. I feel everyone can clearly see that a "reformed" Gaius is the future leader of the Empire because he is the lesser of all evils and doesn't bow down to Ascian manipulations. Let their military might fall off screen, and honestly, since you can do Sorrows and Bojza and MSQ you've really dismantled them all along here.

---

I would say that if there is a way to reform the Empire, preferably into not-an-Empire, in a way that is good, then we should be taking that way, instead of settling for "lesser of all evils".

Gaius has yet to prove himself as a "good leader". As Legatus of the XIVth, he totally bowed down to Ascian manipulations. In his current role as Shadowhunter, he's more of a pocket tactician who has the proverbial Sword of Damocles over his head keeping him honest.

If Garlemald turns into a democracy and Gaius is elected as leader (as Aymeric was for Ishgard's House of Lords), then sure, Gaius would have proven himself. But until then, there's nothing he has done that would make me, or indeed anyone in the setting, trust him to lead Garlemald. Even Estinien, who thinks Gaius has stopped wanting to conquer, has said nothing about his leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kesey

I feel everyone can clearly see that a "reformed" Gaius is the future leader of the Empire because he is the lesser of all evils and doesn't bow down to Ascian manipulations.

---

There's a few problems I see with Gaius becoming leader of the Empire.

The primary reason, is that he is considered a traitor many times over. He deserted, then he started attacking Garlean military facilities, then he became the primary suspect in the eyes of Garlemald for assassinating the emperor, and after all that he joined the Eorzean Alliance and started helping them destroy their weapons. The average Garlean isn't going to know, let alone believe the story of everything that happened in the background and in the end, he still deserted his post and left an entire legion behind, leaderless and abandoned behind enemy lines. He has no support from any Garlean at all who isn't already considered a deserter and already joined with Eorzea. Garlemald is still a military nation and a general who abandoned his troops would not have the backing of the military. If we were to help him become leader of Garlemald, he would face an uphill battle and would likely look like an usurper with foreign backing.

Secondly, there's a whole royal family out there with more of a right than Gaius does. The royal family is more than just Solus, Varis' dad, Varis, and Zenos. Unless ALL of the extended family were killed in both civil wars, there's someone out there with more legitimacy.

Lastly, and what I see as the most important reason since this is a video game, Gaius is the star of a side content quest line now. Since this quest line can be done at any time, I don't see him suddenly becoming emperor yet also being buddies with us wearing dusty clothes hunting down the VIIth legion. Other MSQ NPCs that end up relegated to side content don't end up having big starring roles in the MSQ anymore. Cid, Nero, and Krile for example sometimes show up in the MSQ, but those appearances are smaller than their previous ones don't put them into situations that threaten their ability to continue to show up in previous and future side content without a paradox. On top of all that, and in my own personal opinion, I feel like Gaius is throwing heavy death flags in this story line and I don't expect him to survive it.

The next patch comes out in a few days so we might learn more that changes my positions on the matter, especially since Gaius' quest line takes us to one of his legion's forts. But as of now, I don't think it's likely for him to become emperor. The matter of Garlean succession is interesting though, and I'm hoping we off Zenos by 5.5 and we spend 6.0 making our way through Western Ilsabard to Garlemald to put down Fandaniel and Zodiark once and for all, finishing all the story we've done since 1.0 and allowing us a breather and time for something different in 7.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

I would say that if there is a way to reform the Empire, preferably into not-an-Empire, in a way that is good, then we should be taking that way, instead of settling for "lesser of all evils".

Gaius has yet to prove himself as a "good leader". As Legatus of the XIVth, he totally bowed down to Ascian manipulations. In his current role as Shadowhunter, he's more of a pocket tactician who has the proverbial Sword of Damocles over his head keeping him honest.

If Garlemald turns into a democracy and Gaius is elected as leader (as Aymeric was for Ishgard's House of Lords), then sure, Gaius would have proven himself. But until then, there's nothing he has done that would make me, or indeed anyone in the setting, trust him to lead Garlemald. Even Estinien, who thinks Gaius has stopped wanting to conquer, has said nothing about his leadership.

---

The only thing that the Garelans should be doing is giving back all the land they stole from people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

The only thing that the Garelans should be doing is giving back all the land they stole from people.

---

The Garleans were routinely pushed out of any lands they had settled in until they were forced to the far north of Islbard, if anything the Garleans weren't aggressive 1st until they started to expand to Othard and Aldenard. Those provinces captured in Othard still in the Empire are unfortunately a by product of the cruelty the Islbard people inflicted on the Garleans.

If the Garleans had just taken Islbard and left the rest of the 3 great continents alone, things could've turned out very different but with the knowledge that Solus was Emet-Selch that was never going to happen.

Garleans are far from innocent (I mean what government is :p) but they are also far from monsters and initially they wanted the lands that were taken from them first, it was when they started their Othard campaign that they became full aggressors.

Othard and Ala Mhigo aren't necessarily the same as the other Garlean provinces in Ilsabard. They may consider themselves to be more Garlean.
It'd be like kicking white people out of the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crushnight

The Garleans were routinely pushed out of any lands they had settled in until they were forced to the far north of Islbard, if anything the Garleans weren't aggressive 1st until they started to expand to Othard and Aldenard. Those provinces captured in Othard still in the Empire are unfortunately a by product of the cruelty the Islbard people inflicted on the Garleans.

If the Garleans had just taken Islbard and left the rest of the 3 great continents alone, things could've turned out very different but with the knowledge that Solus was Emet-Selch that was never going to happen.

Garleans are far from innocent (I mean what government is :p) but they are also far from monsters and initially they wanted the lands that were taken from them first, it was when they started their Othard campaign that they became full aggressors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

Othard and Ala Mhigo aren't necessarily the same as the other Garlean provinces in Ilsabard. They may consider themselves to be more Garlean.
It'd be like kicking white people out of the US.

---

What.

Besides both of you being wrong on several different levels, Garlemald as a conquering force has only been around for about 62 years. Before that, they were a small republic for 500. And then before that, they were scattered tribes. I'm not sure what world y'all are from but being kicked out of your land over 600 years ago doesn't entitle you do violently subjugate the people who moved in and I don't think half a century of cultural imperialism means Ilsabard shouldn't be liberated. Considering how Terncliff is happy to be rid of the empire that has held them for 55 years, I don't think your logic means anything.

Besides, the whole point of the empire was not to conquer and control lands in the same way Rome historically did (which is already morally dubious), but to cause as much devastation as possible in order to drive the victims of the empire to desperation and cause a calamity. Yikes, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphor

Othard and Ala Mhigo aren't necessarily the same as the other Garlean provinces in Ilsabard. They may consider themselves to be more Garlean.
It'd be like kicking white people out of the US.

---

Taking back their old homeland is all well and good but they didn't stop there and the Empire has only been around. The empire has only been around 50 years or so it hasn't been that long.

Honestly I wouldn't mind if the Empire and its land were entirely dissolved and returned to the victims of the Garleans to teach them a lesson in tolerance of people that aren't them (while also having the Garleans integrate into the other nations as a result). But I am also aware that there would be many that wouldn't learn it and would continue this cycle instead of letting go of the past (plus considering Ala Mhigo there is a tinge of hypocrisy in this course of action).

Still Hydealyn would be better off if Garlemald wans't an empire, and since complete dissolution is likely off the table, there is still the option of using borders that were in place before the empire formed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

What.
Snip

---

People are illogical creatures and Ascians are manipulators, not hard to see how a group of people who have been repeatedly downtrodden want to seek revenge against those that caused their situation(I never once brought up morality into this, that is your words in my mouth, stop that now), and finally given the means to do so after centuries of endurement(and that is what was going on, if the Ascians hadn't intervened Garleans may have been wiped out due to how harsh northern Ilsabard is supposedly).

Look at Bozja storyline for exactly this scenario and how long hatred can be passed down (since 4th calamity/Umbral era) so Garleans holding a grudge for 600 years of mistreatment(and that is putting it mildly if your forced to move your entire civilisation multiple times it is a bit more than mistreatment) is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

A nation that just took back lands they used to own and stopped is easier to talk to and get them to see how they are treating those they have subjugated is wrong(a point I never brought up you did so I am now addressing it), than an all aggressive nation that Garlemald is. The whole point I made about if they stopped at just Ilsabard was a hypothetical scenario because of what really happened, it is why I used the very obvious wording of 'IF'. You even reinforce my point of why that didn't happen due to Emet-Selch, where was I wrong?

Are the Garleans wrong for wanting to take back land that used to belong to them hundreds of years ago? No
Are they right? No
Are the Garleans wrong to take lands from people who had no history to them? Yes
Do the people of Ilsabard deserve the same freedom like Doma/Ala Mhigo from the empire? Yes(again a point I did not even bring up yet you did so here is my answer)

Garlemald as a nation is a villain but they weren't originally, they were molded into one, through repeated abuse by other civilisations and Ascian machinations. The people of Ilsabard are not innocent little saplings that must be protected at all cost, their ancestors help create what Garlemald became and at this point I'd say just go redo HW to see why I say this and why i view Ilsabard more harshly.

Do the people of Ilsabard believe they are innocent of not causing Garlemald to be formed? Can't rightly say, we can go to one town at the moment and they may have done nothing to the Garlean people, too little information at this point.

But the fact is the people of Ilsabard caused the Garleans people to go further north to a harsher environment to suit their own needs at the time. The people of Ilsabard are partly responsible (emphasis on partly, as most was Ascian involvement) for the reason Garlemald is the way it is, and I'd like if we ever go to Ilsabard to see some acknowledgement on that fact because if we get we're all innocent of any wrong doing because evil empire will just be disappointing.

You all give far too much credit to Emet. All he did after cerulem was discovered was propose a military application for it. The garlean people themselves wanted payback and they did so simple as that. Once they were fully hooked mean Garlean supremacy. All Emet really had to do was say "Hey we should take over the world we are superior after all."