Is anyone else dying to get to Garlemald?

[NoblePigeon]

There's some people in this thread who have, in the past, called Ala Mhigans filthy, disease-ridden barbarians whose refugees regularly commit terrorist acts, oh and also Eorzea hates them, because don't forget that war that happened a century ago that no one in Eorzea holds against them anymore! All on the basis of Illberd. That's it.

These people then say that nuance, complex socio-economic factors and moral greyness should all be kept in mind when regarding the Empire. And that we've only seen some bad apples in the Empire but keep in mind, not all Imperials are bad! They're a society with people of varying mindets and goals. But Ala Mhigans? "Basically desert savages, most of them. There's a few good ones, that's about it though."

Am I missing something? It's okay to brush Ala Mhigans with a broad paintbrush but suddenly you want us to have more nuance when it comes to Garleans? (By the way, saying that "I know there's good Ala Mhigan refugees but most/many are basically terrorists" doesn't cut it.) I also don't get why people who like the Empire dislike Ala Mhigo because of their past with wars and militaristic culture...because the Empire endorses that stuff too, dramatically more.

[Kallera]

I don't remember saying all of the Ala Mighans were like the resistance, only that the resistance was resorting to horrid means and that Eorzea would be responsible for Shinryu's carnage(which was sadly handwaved for the most part.) It was also discussed in the MSQ that the resistances actions did play a role in how people in Eorzea viewed supporting getting back Ala Mihgo.

And regarding the Imperials, I would see it as a mark of lazy storytelling if the whole of the empire was simply ineffectual soldiers and racism. It simply would not function, and would be going against its own established lore, in that there are places where people's lives went unchanged or improved under the imperial banner.

Fianlly, from an ooc standpoint, not everyone wants to play on the infallible side of magic crystal do gooders that hinge on 4-8 people with special powers to deliver them. It doesn't take much to realize that that shouldn't be sustainable in the long term either yet it is made so because we have no choice but to play on that side.

There's no real need to shame those here that are rooting for the empire, or not wanting to see an example of "freedom at the barrel of a gun". OOC: we are all as players, forced on the same side. and IC: you might to live with them not dying and maybe end up forced on the same side anyway.

[Cilia]

Hey now! While I understand the frustration with the hypocrisy, using ad hominem attacks isn't OK no matter whose side of the debate you're on.

Other than that I... kind of have to agree. It's pretty silly and very hypocritical to extol the virtue of the brutal, totalitarian Empire while condemning desperate refugees said Empire displaced. It is more complex than that - there are good and bad individuals on both sides - but overall the Ala Mhigans have been more civil with us than the Garleans (as of 4.0).

[NoblePigeon]

Hey now! While I understand the frustration with the hypocrisy, using ad hominem attacks isn't OK no matter whose side of the debate you're on.

I know, it's just pure frustration, little more. I didn't really want to call out specific names or such, it's just really aggravating to hear sometimes.

There's no real need to shame those here that are rooting for the empire, or not wanting to see an example of "freedom at the barrel of a gun". OOC: we are all as players, forced on the same side. and IC: you might to live with them not dying and maybe end up forced on the same side anyway.

My intention wasn't to shame people who root for the Empire, sorry if it came off that way. I just don't appreciate the hypocrisy of telling people to be mindful of how much variation the Empire has among its people, and then turn around and broadly call Ala Mhigans or their refugees "filthy terrorists" and dislike them on their militaristic culture, when that same type of culture is prevalent in the Empire as well.

My best hops is that Eorzea and Garlemald end up teaming up at some point, with the latter having a leadership that doesn't put expansionism as one of its primary doctrines.

Edit: oops, double posted

[Theodric]

Oh, some of those post quotes look awfully familiar...

[Alleo]

Well, after all this, i'm not moving from my original point, I would like to enter Garlemeld, but not as some conqueror. The semantics are just depressing and just make me not want to play.

Oh, that'd feel great.^^

Not to sound mean but you are against conquering Garlemald because that would be horrible but yet you would feel great if you could go over to the side of the empire and conquer the world?

This is not meant as an attack but really curious how its not okay from one side but fine from the others?

[Kallera]

A combination of grievance and annoyance with the changes of the setting and the character. If we destroyed the Garlean state, the world would seem flat to me, reduced to republics and all kowtowing to their destructive savior. I've argued for the beast tribes when they were summoning primals and people called for their destruction. It's not really resolved, just a thing that's there but ok because the Warrior of Light is around. And its proving no better as we continue to be the Warrior of light. I've had enough of empire destroying and regime change while realizing that all of this is impossible for normal folk, and simply because your character is special. I'm sick of single note stormtroopers being lined up as fodder. I'm tired of chaos being labeled as easy and faultless to inflict as unkillable beings from nations that do not, and cannot change.

If I'm going to play as the person forced to do things with coworkers they does not gel with in a game that, at times, feels akin to work without end, then sign me up for the baddies.

Otherwise fine! Have your war, but destroy it all.

tdlr: My sense of disbelief for eorzea and my character is broken. It is not a question of morality, when you are taken out of the setting and just stop caring for the day you are brought back.

[Alleo]

Thanks for answering my question.

But wouldnt the world be even more flat if the empire rules it all? I mean they see belief as a reason for primal summoning (otherwise why forbid it) so any different culture, belief, way of living would be forbidden. There would be no true freedom, only the way of living from the Garlean people. Everyone, even if they want to or not, would be forced to live their life like Garlemald wants. Also lets not forget that elementals still exist and if Garlemald would take over Gridania and destroy the forest they would strike back. Maybe the people of Gridania would even give them some energy to help them with it, out of fear for having to live under their rule. The last time the elementals were really angry a calamity happened.

You would go around and kill all beast man tribes (even those that you helped in the story and that does not want to create a primal), so you would be part of true Genocide. Then you would truly start to kill innocent people as the WoL and not only out of pure necessity or self-defense.

I would feel better if we help with turning Garlemald into a better government, where conquering and mass killing is not necessary and where we will fight together against the ascians that are the main problem. And if the people see that Garlemald is no treat for their lives and that they show need to conquer their countries and take away their freedom, This way I would gladly visit Garlemald itself and see their city with less negative eyes. Also then their way of living and their culture would simply be theirs and would be interesting to see but at least other cultures would also still exist around the world.

Will there ever be true peace with no conflict? I dont think so but that would also not be quite realistic anyway.

[Kallera]

@Alleo I just get sick of the setting. You don't have to tell me your stance again. I just get sick of being involved stood at the front, and told who to kill and hearing how "good is not soft".

I'd rather not be involved, I want to believe in peace but the msq involves playing the one character that cannot not be involved, ever.

I'd rather be roleplaying.

[Theodric]

I'd say it's as simple as Garlemald not being the 'bad guys'. There's a difference between villains and antagonists as far as I'm concerned. The former are irredeemable and the latter are simply individuals who are opposed to the protagonists due to differences in opinions. In a setting such as this where the world is incredibly messed up already it is completely understandable as to why some individuals and factions take the route of well intentioned extremism. The writers themselves are not painting Garlemald as irredeemable - just like they did not choose to paint Ishgard or the Dravanians as irredeemable.

It's largely biased players doing that due to a bizarre obsession with trying to erect a pedestal to stand atop and claim moral superiority. Aside from it being a fictional setting morality is by no means a simple matter to discuss. Just like law and politics it's all very nuanced. Murder and theft may be against the law - and rightly so - but individual cases may very well be handled differently due to the circumstances involved. Someone stealing a TV for the sake of greed is going to be handled differently to someone who steals food to feed their starving family. Someone who murders another person in cold blood is going to be treated differently to someone who kills in self defence or out of vengeance for years of abuse.

Now, applying that mentality on a large scale...we have Garlemald. They seek to save the world as a whole and eliminate the threat of Primals/Eikons. A noble enough goal and one the protagonists share. The only difference is the methods involved - with Garlemald willing to go to extremes to achieve their objective.

...and the only reason they do go to such extremes is because they do not have the luxury of being able to fall back on the Warrior of Light to solve their problems like the Eorzeans and Domans do. If Garlemald is going to be reformed then the Eorzeans themselves need to acknowledge the nuances involved and the reasons behind their actions. Garleans only came to take such an aggressive policy in the first place due to years and years of abuse and being pushed around so much that they were forced from fertile territory and forced to carve out a living for themselves in a wasteland. It kept their numbers low, it forced them to become hardened and driven by efficiency and pragmatism. They reclaimed their territory upon gaining access to Magitek. Then they expanded further.

There is a cycle of hatred that needs to be broken by both sides much like with the war between the Dravanians and the Ishgardians. Continuing to push for war with Garlemald and claiming it to be 'just' simply proves their fears correct - that 'savages' will seek to take all that they hold dear.

Then, of course, there's the simple matter that it probably isn't a good idea to try and push such a powerful organisation into a corner in the first place. Desperation brings out the worst in people, after all as we have seen many times before.

I agree with Kallera in regards to wanting to seek peace. At the very least, I want to see at least one of the protagonists make a point out of trying to secure peace between Garlemald and Eorzea. Preferably more, because it's getting tiresome seeing them complain about losing their allies to Garlemald's forces when they themselves are doing nothing to try and reach out. Zenos could not be reasoned with, obviously - but others such as Baut and Regula could. There's no reason for them to assume that all Garleans are unreasonable. They already know from Ishgard that things are not nearly so simple or obvious as they appear.

...but that isn't brought up. It's treated like a self contained story. Nobody says 'we put an end to a thousand year war, we achieved the impossible...now let us band together and find a way to resolve this new conflict'.

...and they really should because realistically taking on Garlemald should not be so simple as it has been presented thus far. As a conflict it has also gone on for much less time than the bitter war between the Ishgardians and the Dravanians and as such the possibility of peace should not be seen as a lofty, out of reach goal. Not. After. Ishgard.