That Garlean guy, what was his name? Gaius Van Baelsar

[RyuRoots]

Oh, yes, because wallowing in one's eternal lack of worthiness is totally the right path a better world. Maybe they lack scruples, but you can't get anywhere by always playing it safe. There isn't an empire in the whole of history that was evil for evil's sake. The stronger and more pure the ideals, the easier it becomes to justify "tragic necessities."

This seems to be a common problem with this forum. Seeing "A is a bad idea" and replying with "WHAT, SO YOU WANT ZZZZZZZZZZZZ?!?!?!". Like....no, chill. There's an inbetween. Like realizing that some things really were absolutely horrible ideas from the outset. Like powering a refugee ship with enslaved demons, or trusting a power source you know literally nothing about.

[Khalithar]

Snip

Interesting quote, thanks for posting that! I look forward to fighting against the empire, mainly because I'm hoping we got some Garlean style armor sets. I'm also looking forward to waging some war on their turf and seeing the Garlean civilians. Though I have another nickname for them: insurgents.

[Theodric]

I'd rather embrace Garlemald as a whole, flaws included, than have it toned down considerably to appease those who happily criticise the place at every turn but then turn a blind eye to Eorzea's problematic behaviour and attitudes.

Final Fantasy games have a long history of making factions and individuals extreme but with redeeming qualities. Ishgard was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall. Ul'dah was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall either. Garlemald was - and still is - rather shady. It, too, does not need to fall.

It's interesting and unique enough to be much more than a generic evil faction - especially when very little in this setting appears to be purely good or purely evil.

[Fenral]

This seems to be a common problem with this forum. Seeing "A is a bad idea" and replying with "WHAT, SO YOU WANT ZZZZZZZZZZZZ?!?!?!". Like....no, chill. There's an inbetween.

I really only bring up extremes as they are presented in-game, you know. It'd be something else entirely if we were ever presented with more than two diametrically opposed courses of action at a time, but that never happens.

They'll get there, eventually, maybe even with some stock message about finding the path between the two extremes, but with this pacing it'll be more of a "yeah, and?" than the shocking revelation they want to build to.

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

Yeah, it'd be NICE if Garlemald was moderate enough to embrace, flaws and all, but when those flaws include "brutal expansionism", it might not actually be possible. Their misguided, wanton use of Allagan technology is one thing, and hardly a deal-breaker; rampant imperialism is something else entirely*. And that's the rub. That's their major antagonistic quality, and it's one that has to go before we would join forces with them.

It's a problem compounded by the fact that, historically, empires are characterized by their imperial nature defining their entire national identity. It means the leadership is pro-expansionism, certainly, but it also tends to mean the citizens themselves are pro-expansionism. There's always a counter-culture that can be latched onto (and, as some have mentioned here, that's almost certainly going to be an aspect to the war at some point), but I don't think it's too much of a long shot to imagine the average Garlean citizen is actively proud of their nation and its "accomplishments". You think we're having trouble with Ishgard now? Try convincing the people of a strong, thriving nation that they're in the wrong for doing the very thing that is making them strong. It'd be like telling the average British citizen of the colonialism era that their empires abroad were harmful - they tend to conveniently ignore the fact that their prosperity is at the expense of literally everyone else.

But! Maybe the people of Garlemald proper aren't living all that great. Maybe the constant state of conquering and war-waging has wearied them, much as it did to Ishgard. We have no idea. But yeah, I'm not sure if the elimination of their very Imperial nature would be considered "toned down considerably", Theodric, but it's going to be what has to go.

---------------------------------------------
*And is, in fact, several orders of degree worse than anything else the other City-States have done

[ChazNatlo]

I really only bring up extremes as they are presented in-game, you know. It'd be something else entirely if we were ever presented with more than two diametrically opposed courses of action at a time, but that never happens.

Muder all the dragons because otherwise they will burn ishgard to the ground, or side with the dragons because Ishgard is Shit?

I'd rather embrace Garlemald as a whole, flaws included, than have it toned down considerably to appease those who happily criticise the place at every turn but then turn a blind eye to Eorzea's problematic behaviour and attitudes.

Final Fantasy games have a long history of making factions and individuals extreme but with redeeming qualities. Ishgard was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall. Ul'dah was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall either. Garlemald was - and still is - rather shady. It, too, does not need to fall.

It's interesting and unique enough to be much more than a generic evil faction - especially when very little in this setting appears to be purely good or purely evil.

I'd hardly want them to whitewash Garlemald, but I'd rather not side with them beyond an alliance of necessity unless they dealt with SOME of their issues.

But really a bunch of us are asking for a more moderate option in Garlemald. This wouldn't be too much different from the reformists in Ishgard, the Royalists and decent Moneterists in Ul'dah, or the Privateers in Limsa. As opposed to the Papacy, Lolorito, and the Lominsans that want to go back to open piracy.

[Belhi]

I'd rather embrace Garlemald as a whole, flaws included, than have it toned down considerably to appease those who happily criticise the place at every turn but then turn a blind eye to Eorzea's problematic behaviour and attitudes.

Final Fantasy games have a long history of making factions and individuals extreme but with redeeming qualities. Ishgard was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall. Ul'dah was - and still is - rather shady. It does not need to fall either. Garlemald was - and still is - rather shady. It, too, does not need to fall.

It's interesting and unique enough to be much more than a generic evil faction - especially when very little in this setting appears to be purely good or purely evil.

We oppose elements of the City States too when we believe there is an injustice. Ishgard is a perfect example. We fight quite a few Temple Knights and such throughout HW, particularly in the DRK thread. We fight Brass Blades, Pirate Elements and Unscrupulous merchants. The main different with the city states is their rulers policies aren't aggressively threatening others or commiting state sanctioned atrocities.

The current city states aren't even in the same ballpark as Garlemald when it comes to be shady and this includes a city made up of former pirates. Its not even close.

[CyrilLucifer]

snip

To be fair, though, we do a bit of glossing over on some of the bad decisions of the city-states in the MSQ, like how Limsa basically destroyed Sahagin culture and they fight, rightfully, in self-defense, and were the ones who provoked the Kobolds. Or, for Gridania, they seem to have toned down the harsher demands of Elementals a bit unless you actually know to look for it.

I do feel as if there's a bit of an uneven portrayal, at least. Heavensward and the beast tribe quests were a bit better about it, but they still feel as if the city states are intentionally portrayed as "lighter," no matter their decisions, because we're supposed to like them and ally with them. It's the opposite for Garlemald. We're not supposed to like them, so we're shown the bad parts while we gloss over most of the good.

Edit: That is not to say that I think we're in a position for currently allying with them, mind you.

[Belhi]

Limsa didn't destroy Sahagin culture. The conflict between the Sahagin and the Limsans is due to the Calamity destroying the Sahagin's old spawning grounds forcing the Sahagin to take new lands for the spawning site. This caused the Sahagin to attack a Limsan settlement which the Limsan's took understandably as an act of war. The Kobolds are on the Limsans but they aren't trying to wipe out the Kobolds. In both cases, at least the Limsans are open to a peaceful solution.

With Gridania, your dealing with an natural force rather than something that is good or evil. Its the price of living in the forest. Even then, the demands of the Elementals tends to be about who they are willing to let live in their forest. They operate entirely on what is best for the forest.

The fundamental different is the policy of the city's rulers and overarching policy of the population's doesn't involve harming, oppressing or abusing others. Garlemald's issues are government endorsed and frankly enforced. They are Garlean policy. The issues of the city states are things they are at least trying to mitigate or are open to change with.

[CyrilLucifer]

With Gridania, your dealing with an natural force rather than something that is good or evil. Its the price of living in the forest. Even then, the demands of the Elementals tends to be about who they are willing to let live in their forest. They operate entirely on what is best for the forest.

This. This right here is basically proving my point that the MSQ at least intends for you to view the city-states in a more positive light, regardless of their issues.

The Elementals have shown, without a doubt, that what they believe is best for the forest does not always mean what is best for the people living within it - or the mortals, or the world in general. They caused an Umbral Era - something that influences a much larger world, because of their forest and Eorzea. That's terrifying.

The Elementals are not nice. The Elementals do not care. And yet you're willing to defend the choice of Elemental worship and accept their occasional cruel apathy because you're (a general 'you,' not specific) conditioned to by the game, because "it's the price of living in the forest."

Looking out from Eorzea and in, I can see how one might view this as complete madness, to subject yourself to essentially the whims of fickle creatures that don't care about you just so you can live on their lands. And if they don't like you? Tough luck.