Revelations from Patch 4.2

[Lauront]

By using technology from a lost age that they almost certainly only got there hands on due to even more outside interference (Ascians), which they gleefully use on non-primal threats as well. And thats when they aren't trying to use the primals in some form to further augment their ability to conquer and destroy as well (See Ultima Weapon and Zenos). Said tech also wasn't enough to stop the age it comes from being ruined, so it probably won't be enough and will only end in another Calamity, just as the Ascians want.

True, their ability to reverse-engineer and utilise Allagan technology conferred them that ability to wipe out primals.

But then the Allagan actually had to be ingenious rather than relying on some godling's protege being thrown in their direction.

[Berethos]

Well, if we're going to go on about chain reactions and inadvertent consequences, it seems like a logical starting point, does it not?

I'd appreciate you responding to my main point, which you conveniently edited out of your response. The bit about sins of the father was more glib than serious - the question about how many pure-blooded Garleans actually suffered through the unjust persecution their people did are alive (and more importantly) in positions of power in modern Hydaelyn.

It's an important distinction - their persecution does explain and to an extent justify why they pushed for Magitek and why they pushed to conquer those that had conquered them...but that was completed 50 years back.

How much sway should that still hold in justifying their current actions, especially if those actions have been against nations that weren't part of the group that persecuted them in the first place? How many current Pure-blooded Garleans can be "justified" in their racism towards others, when chances are many of them grew up in the Empire, not the tiny nation that had to fight to survive?

[Dualblade]

True, their ability to reverse-engineer and utilise Allagan technology conferred them that ability to wipe out primals.

But then the Allagan actually had to be ingenious rather than relying on some godling's protege being thrown in their direction.

Except going by what we have learned in things like the Crystal Tower it was one person (Xande) that kept everything together and running right and upon his death it was just one long, slow decline. Then he got revived and everything went pearly shaped cause as it turns out being dead kinda affects how you think of things.

How much sway should that still hold in justifying their current actions, especially if those actions have been against nations that weren't part of the group that persecuted them in the first place? How many current Pure-blooded Garleans can be "justified" in their racism towards others, when chances are many of them grew up in the Empire, not the tiny nation that had to fight to survive?

While what you think on this is most likely what I think on it (and even though you aren't asking me), I'd also say that in real life people, countries, cultures, etc use past grudges to justify lots of things even if its been so long since the occurance happened that literally noone alive could have been around for it. So I could see it being used to "justify" themselves even if other places like Eorzea don't agree.

[Lauront]

I'd appreciate you responding to my main point, which you conveniently edited out of your response. The bit about sins of the father was more glib than serious - the question about how many pure-blooded Garleans actually suffered through the unjust persecution their people did are alive (and more importantly) in positions of power in modern Hydaelyn.

It's an important distinction - their persecution does explain and to an extent justify why they pushed for Magitek and why they pushed to conquer those that had conquered them...but that was completed 50 years back.

How much sway should that still hold in justifying their current actions, especially if those actions have been against nations that weren't part of the group that persecuted them in the first place? How many current Pure-blooded Garleans can be "justified" in their racism towards others, when chances are many of them grew up in the Empire, not the tiny nation that had to fight to survive?

I mean when you say "should" you're appealing to a specific moral standard. I don't even believe that a group needs a specific abstract justification to hold its own interests over those of another group. It can aim at supremacy with or without a legitimising narrative behind it, much like the Optimates are probably doing, although an awareness of their own history has probably rendered them deaf to protests by the territories they conquered, throughout which the style of their rule varies. Back then, the development of magitek and use of ceruleum enabled them to stabilise their position. Now, it is more a matter of eradicating eikons for good. I would not be surprised if Bahamut's tempering of Eula has emboldened their resolve.

[Lauront]

Except going by what we have learned in things like the Crystal Tower it was one person (Xande) that kept everything together and running right and upon his death it was just one long, slow decline. Then he got revived and everything went pearly shaped cause as it turns out being dead kinda affects how you think of things.

Whether it was maintained or not through one person, they still did it without any aid from Hydaelyn. The fact of the matter is, their aetherochemical technology is useful, reliable and potent whether or not one dabbles in the Void, is religious etc.

[ObsidianFire]

So basically, they're not against religious observances, as long as there isn't an actual god involved?

If anything, the opposite is true. A good chunk of the beast tribes say that the god they worship and do not summon is the real god and the god that is summoned is the fake god. Or if they are a god, they aren't worthy of being worshiped as one. Eorzea's Twelve are gods and everyone worships them and nobody has expressed the desire to summon them (except some people from Little Ala Mhigo and we all know how that turned out).

That statement is a pretty good summation of Garlemald's stance on religion as a whole though. Most Garleans are atheists and think all religion is false at best and detrimental to the planet at worst (since religion = summoing primals).

Even in the case of a more "benevolent" primal like Ramuh, you still have significant numbers of his children being corrupted and I guess summoning a corrupted version of the primal.

Ramuh is a weird primal. Word of God (Koji) has confirmed that he only tempers the slyphs that want to be tempered by him. He also flat out asks the WoL to kill him as the situation isn't dire enough for him to be summoned. The Slyphs in Little Solace say that their view of Ramuh is similar to that of the "Touched" slyphs, but they're going to honor Ramuh's desire to not be summoned as he (the primal) knows that the risks of summoning him outway the befits (getting the Garleans out of the Twelveswood). Alexander is also similar in that it searched all of Time and decided the best thing for the timeline was freezing itself in time so that while it was still summoned (and therefore can't be summoned again) it wasn't constantly absorbing aether from the surrounding land.

It could be that the primal as such does not really vary based on the summoner's disposition. Perhaps not everything we're told is a primal is actually one.

This directly goes against what has been said time and time again about primal summoning. It has always been the case that the emotional state of the summoner of a primal effects what the primal is like. This is the entire reason Tiamat has never esscaped Azys Lla; she recognizes that her desperation made the primal version of Bahamut nothing like the real Bahamut who died and is punishing herself for it.

What makes a primal and primal is pretty set in stone as early as the fight against Ifrit (Lord of the Inferno quest). It's a thought-form (for lack of a better term) that spends most of it's time in the Lifestream. In contrast, Ascians are outside the Lifestream while other living things go to the Lifestream when they die and their aether is recycled into something else. Sometimes, people who know of the thought-form call it out of the Lifestream into the corporeal realm with a large amount of aetherand that is when it's really a primal. While the thought-form is in the corporeal realm, it needs large quantities of aether to maintain it's corporeal form so it pulls aether from the surrounding area which isn't good. Some thought-forms expedite this process (for whatever reason) by somehow brainwashing people with their aether so the people are obsessed with them. This causes them to want to summon that specific thought-form again if the thought-form looses it's hold on the coporeal realm and sent back to the Lifestream. Which starts the whole cycle all over again.

The problem with stopping such a cycle is that the cycle is based on ideas. So long as the idea is remembered and the thought-form is in the Lifestream, it can be brought out of the Lifestream (with enough aether). The Garleans are trying to stop the cycle on both fronts by both wiping out the ideas that are summoned as well as keeping the actual thought-form from going back to where it can be summoned from again. Problem is, wiping out ideas never works well if you do it by force (Don't think about elephants). And as far as I can tell, there's nothing to stop people inventing thought-forms once they've forgotten the old ones so long as they have enough aether...

[Theodric]

While what you think on this is most likely what I think on it (and even though you aren't asking me), I'd also say that in real life people, countries, cultures, etc use past grudges to justify lots of things even if its been so long since the occurance happened that literally noone alive could have been around for it. So I could see it being used to "justify" themselves even if other places like Eorzea don't agree.

Mm. It ranges from friendly rivalries to bitter feuds and outright hostility, yet many countries in the present day real world loathe each other for events that happened in the past. It's largely why 'everyone can come together as equals' is such a flawed, idealistic dream...and I doubt it is any different in Hydaelyn, either. Especially not when slaughter is the preferred route for dealing with anyone who does not adhere to any given major faction's ideals.

I don't buy into the idea that the 'cycle is ended' either. Ishgard didn't undergo true reform, it simply found a new enemy to distract the masses with: Garlemald. It didn't address the divide between the rich and poor even with the revelation that the nobles weren't actually nobles at all. Anyone who wanted vengeance for the deaths of their loved ones were either locked up or killed. (Ironic, given that the protagonists often go on about seeking vengeance themselves whenever anything does not go their way, but I digress...)

[Berethos]

By that logic, neither Yanxia or Gyr Abania should have been liberated as they had both been successfully conquered. Fifty years is not a terribly long stretch of time nor does it suddenly render past problems immediately resolved.

I'm curious how you've connected the idea that "Garleans were pushed around and persecuted" is pretty thin as a justification after 50+ years of being an empire and a powerhouse nation to two nations that were actively being persecuted and were struggling as a result of the empire's control of the area not having reason to have been liberated.

Additionally, I was pointing out the passage of time to question just how many around today experienced that persecution? Chances are most of the pure-blooded Garleans alive in Hydaelyn now were born into an Empire that has been enjoying being the big dog. Unless most of the Garleans are 60+ (so age 5-10 at minimum when Ilsabard was conquered), most of the nation has simply not been in a position where they were the ones being persecuted. That's why I question it as a justification.

[Berethos]

It can aim at supremacy with or without a legitimising narrative behind it

Oh they absolutely can, and I believe that's ultimately exactly what the Garleans are doing...

I'm responding to those that try to add the legitimizing narrative as an ongoing thing where the justification for it being applicable is thin.

[Theodric]

At this point the discussion is more about subjective ethics, morals and justifications, so agreeing to disagree seems to be the best option, I believe, as it is highly unlikely that anybody here is going to change their mind from what we've seen in the past.

For what it's worth, I despise the likes of Zenos - they do not benefit anyone, least of all Garlemald itself. I'm much fonder of the likes of Gaius and Regula who have more depth and redeeming qualities.