Ilberd

[Theodric]

I think a lot of people just refuse to consider that maybe, just maybe, Garlemald is more complex than being another dull and stereotypical 'evil empire'. Very little in this game's lore has ever been presented as purely 'good' or purely 'evil'. Why would they make Garlemald the exception, especially when they've already taken steps to make the place morally grey rather than morally black?

I've also said this before but...Eorzea really isn't in a position to take the moral high ground. It's not as bad as Garlemald, sure, but that doesn't mean much when Eorzea is typically presented as a terrible place to live - and not just because of Garlemald being the 'aggressor', either, before that card is pulled out again.

Heck, the recent patch pretty much revolved around Aymeric refusing to address his people's legitimate concerns and ensuring that the flawed status quo of inequality continues...and that his people focus their attention on Nidhogg rather than each other due to 'national pride'. That isn't too different to how Garlemald operates - and it may very well have been how Garlemald first began taking the steps towards taking a more direct approach to acquiring more power and influence.

As for not being able to 'sympathise' with Garlemald, I thoroughly contest that. You don't need to approve of everything that a nation or society does in order to sympathise with them. For all we know there's a fairly good reason as to why Garlemald is so aggressive - if they were pushed around, for example, and it turns out that initially they weren't the aggressors and were pushed around back when they were a weaker nation then that changes quite a lot of things. Putting that aside, however, since it's only speculation...

...we can go right back to the clear similarities between the Garleans and the Romans. Say what you will about the Romans but for all the bad stuff they did they accomplished an immense amount of brilliant stuff that influences us to this very day.