Is Fordola the monster Lyse says she is?

[Theodric]

It's not 'impossible' to discuss Garlemald's morality as we've seen numerous examples of Garleans making decisions based on morality.

- Varis branding Zenos a 'monster' is an example of morality.
- Regula refusing to harm a child is an example of morality.
- Gaius refusing to approve of chemical warfare is an example of morality.
- Mixed opinions on Project Meteor, especially those speaking out against it is an example of morality.
- Baut being 'hard but fair' and being well liked by the people under his care is an example of morality.


To pretend as if there are no nuances does the setting and lore a major disservice, I feel. Garlemald has proven time and time again that it is a very mixed bag - there's horrific things that have been done, certainly, but much like the Roman and British Empires things are more complicated than it being a case of irredeemable invaders.

-snip-

As far as I see it, the biggest problem with the plot at the moment is that they made Zenos openly work against and denounce Garlemald which led to Garlemald losing not one but two provinces. This would be fine if it were openly acknowledged by the protagonists and plot that Zenos was an enemy and a detriment to both the protagonists and Garlemald. It doesn't help that Regula sacrificed his life to defend one of the Warrior of Light's allies only to never be brought up again afterwards. What was actually the point of his death if he could have been kept alive and show up to serve as a contrast to Zenos and a long term rival-and-friend to the Warrior of Light, eventually providing a direct voice of reason into the Emperor's ear due to their friendship? I guess his death will have meant something greater to the plot if Elidibus ends up taking on his appearance but if he doesn't then we're right back to square one.

I agree, though, in terms of Garlemald being more like Team Rocket these days. Magitek is supposed to be an immense threat and it's not as if the Garleans aren't developing new types of Magitek, either. Even those with no experience fighting Magitek - such as the Xaela - are now shown to be able to handle it easily despite Garlemald having met such success in the past because Magitek is supposed to be so fearsome and difficult to contend with even for seasoned combatants. I suppose most of it can be brushed off as 'Rule of Cool', though.

On the other hand, I'm not keen on the idea of Garlemald striking back. At this point, it's clear that Doma and Ala Mhigo are there to stay in their liberated state. I'm fine with that. Any counterattack, though, is inevitably going to be beaten back so I'd much prefer the two provinces to be left alone. I don't really want to see more 'liberation' plots moving forward, either. Things need to be more complicated and nuanced than simply miraculously succeeding at taking more and more territory from Garlemald until it has barely anything less and the Eorzean Alliance and their allies are instead the greatest force on Hydaelyn. Forcing Garlemald, the Warrior of Light and his allies to come together to oppose and bond over a greater threat would make for a much more compelling tale. One that isn't impossible, either.

If Garlemald lacking 'bite' isn't a step towards that, though, then things are going to be problematic.

[Cilia]

When I say that Garlemald is amoral, I speak of the nation as a whole. Individuals within it may have particular moral leanings, but by and large all of Garlemald's decisions have been centered on aggressive expansion without thought to how it will impact the lives of the countries and territories it conquers (or even how it will impact the lives of its own citizens; re: Livia and Lucia are war orphans, likely of a war that the Empire started). It does not care who it has to kill and it does not care who it has to work with to achieve its goals. Individuals may object to the means, but the end is always the same - world domination under the guise of safekeeping. ("Let's bring peace to the world by violently conquering it!")

I'm an avid Magic player (well, when I can - 5 12s and an 8 kinda put the kibosh on that) who treats it as a game of philosophy, so here is how I reached the conclusion that Garlemald is amoral (Hideboxed for discretion):

I put Garlemald itself as being of a Mardu (Red/White/Black) bent. All individuals need not adhere to this philosophy, however; Varis strikes me as being closer to Esper (White/Blue/Black) in terms of alignment. Either way, Garlemald has consistently shown itself to be more concerned with its ruthless ambitions than whether or not its ambitions are good for anyone else (or even itself in the long run), so it has Black in the mix no matter how you slice it. It also has no concern for the natural world (beyond as something to rule) and a deep love of machines, so it has no Green. Ergo, the only alignments it falls under is Mardu (war is glorious, conquer whatever you can, disregard the cost) or Esper (calm, calculated, rational decision making to improve the world - this does not necessarily belie heroism, however).

Again, individuals can differ from their country's ethos. Gaius is presented as straight Mardu, but Regula is presented as Boros (Red/White - lacking Black's amorality and ambitious ruthlessness), while Zenos is presented as Rakdos (Black/Red - lacking White's desire for order in pursuit of his own selfish desires - or maybe he's Sultai. /shrug). As a sovereign nation, however, Garlemald has consistently shown the amorality, ruthlessness, and ambition of Black. Not all citizens agree with everything Garlemald does, but their nation still follows this course. (Or: not all US citizens thought going to war in Iraq was a good idea, but it still happened.)

A key thing to remember when discussing Magic philosophy is that no color is inherently good or evil - not even Black. Taken to extremes, however, this tends to happen - even White, ostensibly caring about the community and order, can be evil by mandating the sacrifice of individuals for the greater good and repressing freedom.

(/rant)

I've never said Garlemald is irredeemable. It is invasive, however, even if it invades under the guise of bettering the lives of the territories it invades (without considering that its idea of happiness may not line up with the local culture's idea of happiness, and disregarding the fact we've seen nobody's life improved by Imperial rule). Also note that amorality is different from immorality - the former does not concern itself with right and wrong, while the latter deliberately chooses to do the wrong thing. (Zenos, for example, is likely immoral.)

[VargasVermillion]

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

[SunAurel]

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

It's the Empire treatment from Star Wars...

They need to demonstrate their power in some way soon. Let them actually kill a main character for once! I want to see the reason everyone fears them first-hand

[Hinoto-no-Ryuji]

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but I think it's worth considering that Garlemald is closer to a paper tiger than once assumed, and that much of its conquests rely on a combination of the element of surprise, enormous and overwhelming initial numbers, a secluded and entrenched capital, and the occasional brilliant strategist (ie, Gaius). Far from steamrolling over the forces of foreign barbarians, Garlean Magitek and industry seems to be plenty susceptible to magics and less-advanced weaponry; occupied lands would appear to be barely occupied (Ala Mhigo and Doma both had a token military presence and little else, with even that being the divided forces of a single Legion); and so on. This can be seen as incongruous, or it can be seen as revelatory - only further narrative development will make that clear - but I don't think it's necessarily contradictory that the Garlean military machine doesn't quite live up to the propaganda.

[PArcher]

The gunblade fire on estinien felt pretty forced since he wasn't moving, garleans are supposedly meant to have good marksmanship, it's one of the things that third eye grants them. Now even if they couldn't hit estinien because of his skill or what have you that's fine but he wasn't even moving, like come on guys.

Those firing on him almost certainly weren't pure Garlean. Garleans aren't an exactly common race, and aren't the footsoldiers in their army either.

[Theodric]

The thing is, Garlemald has shown that it does not rely on brute force alone to achieve its goals and shifts its approach and plans as needed. It values efficiency very highly and has a track record of being incredibly effective. For the sake of plot convenience the protagonists are never going to be wiped out. We know that - but as Vargas pointed out, Pureblood Garleans should have an advantage in regards to wielding firearms and aiming at a stationary target. It really does feel like the antagonists are deliberately 'gutted' in terms of their capabilities for the sake of 'Rule of Cool' moments. I went from liking Estinien to rolling my eyes when he emerged from his latest predicament unscathed. At least a few of the bullets should have struck him and caused him to take his leave whilst also having accomplished the goal he set out to do. A solid compromise since it's solidify the threat of Garlean weaponry but also allow Estinien to have his moment in the spotlight.

Those firing on him almost certainly weren't pure Garlean. Garleans aren't an exactly common race, and aren't the footsoldiers in their army either.

I'll have to rewatch the scene in question but I believe at least some of them were wearing the Centurion armour which is, as far as I can recall, a sign of the soldier within being a Pureblood. Even if they aren't Garlean Purebloods, though, Estinien was stationary - thus I believe the above point to still hold merit.

[Cilia]

Not all Centurions are pureblood Garleans; case and point: Baut.

Estinien had cover from the railing and a great distance to keep him safe. The soldiers made no attempt to really aim, either.

[VargasVermillion]

Most of those centurions were purebloods, you could tell by the height difference generally speaking. Garleans on average are about as tall as elezen. Some cutscenes have a few hyurs, or just short garleans. It's quite impossible to truly know with the helms.
And while garleans aren't common within the army most of the officers are purebloods.

[Corsinus]

I want to add a little something about Varis branding Zenos as a monster. Did he said that because he killed peoples or because he fused with a primal ?
Imo, it is the latter. I don't think Varis care much about the so called savage population. He care about the threat of the Eikon, though. His son merging with one is a travesty il his mind, that's the reason I think he called him like that. Nothing about morality there.