The WOL and Mass Murder

[Cilia]

how can the Domans be the aggressors when they are being violently occupied? were the Confederacy also aggressors?

it's pretty revisionist to say what happened first and ignore the original Ala Mhigan and Doman Invasions.

The instances presented in Stormblood. I'm not revising anything - but, for reference, the sequence of events:

1. 25 years before ARR, the Garlean Empire conquers Doma and makes it into an Imperial province.
2. 20 years before ARR, the Garlean Empire conquers Ala Mhigo and makes it into an Imperial province.
3. 15 years before ARR, the Garlean Empire attacks Silvertear Falls.
4. 5 years before ARR, the events of Legacy play out.
5. A Realm Reborn occurs, followed by the events of Heavensward up to The Far Edge of Fate. (A Doman insurrection occurs around Through the Maelstrom, but is quashed by Zenos.)
6. Ilberd ("The Griffin") attacks Baelsar's Wall with his Masks wearing stolen Eorzean uniforms, leading the Empire to believe the Eorzeans have launched an offensive against it. (Also Shinryu.) Since they have no way to tell the Empire about Ilberd's false flag operation (and they probably wouldn't care anyway), the Eorzeans pick up where he left off, launching an offensive and taking Baelsar's Wall with the intent of liberating (invading) Ala Mhigo.
7. After meeting up with the Resistance leaders, the Alliance engages the Empire in a few skirmishes before the disaster at Rhalgr's Reach. With morale broken, the Scions travel to Othard in hopes of assisting the Domans with their rebellion to restore morale and give the Empire another headache to deal with.
8. While crossing the Ruby Sea into Yanxia, Gosetsu offers himself up as a distraction so we can save the villagers of Isari. In order to do so, we need to get the Confederacy to take action against the Empire, which it has largely left alone despite knowing that Imperial encroachment is eating away at (and will eventually destroy) their way of life. Alisae strikes a bargain with them; we uphold our end (getting rid of the Red Kojin mercenaries), so the Confederacy takes aggressive action against the Empire. The Imperial presence is expunged from the Ruby Sea.
9. After securing the aid of the Xaela clans, the Domans launch a successful attack on Doma Castle and reclaim their freedom and sovereignty. Hien sends shinobi throughout other Imperial provinces, destabilizing them with threats of rebellion and forcing the Empire to leave its forces where they are.
10. With the successful liberation of Doma and no threat of further reinforcements, the Alliance and Resistance resume their offensive into Gyr Abania towards Ala Mhigo (Rhalgr's Beacon); despite heavy losses, it is eventually successful. Ala Mhigo reclaims its freedom and sovereignty.

... for 25 and 20 years, respectively, there was peace in Doma and Ala Mhigo, though the native rulers were deposed and the native inhabitants treated like shit. They had every reason to rise up; I'm not denying that, but as it pertains to the conflicts in Stormblood the protagonists were, technically, the aggressors. There was no conflict until the Eorzeans launched their offensive that became known as Rhalgr's Beacon, and other than Yugiri's poorly thought out assassination attempt on Zenos, there was no conflict in Yanxia until the Domans attacked Doma Castle (though the Imperials did attack the Xaela during the Naadam). The Confederacy also acted aggressively against the Empire.

Considering how poorly the Domans and Ala Mhigans were treated, I don't fault them for rising up. Even so, regardless of circumstances or context... the actions taken by the protagonists against the Empire during Stormblood were aggressive. That's all I'm saying.

Does anyone suppose there was representation along with that taxation?

[NoblePigeon]

how can the Domans be the aggressors when they are being violently occupied? were the Confederacy also aggressors?

it's pretty revisionist to say what happened first and ignore the original Ala Mhigan and Doman Invasions.

Yeah, as Cilia described above, they're using the textbook definition of aggressor, which is "a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities".

That's exactly what Eorzea did because they had no choice because of Illberd's actions, and the Domans decided to rise up as well. The term "aggressor" doesn't carry the negative connotations it normally would in this regard because they were 100% justified in doing so, but by definition that's what they were doing, which was Cilia's original point in the first place.

[Enkidoh]

She's right. In theory, once the wall was breached by Ilberd, the city states could have set up defenses and let both Ala Mhigo and Doma rot. The Scions definitely would have had to go because of the threat of Shinryu, which would have inevitably brought us into conflict with Zenos.

Maybe in theory, but even then that theory is horribly flawed, as the Garleans were never going to be content to hide behind the wall and ignore Eorzea, it was simply the Primals that prevented them. When Varis took power, the Alliance leaders all but state that "it's not a question of if the Empire will renew it's assault on Eorzea, but when." They knew conflict with the Empire was inevitable, it was only a matter of time when that would happen. All Ilberd did was accelerate it. So accusing the Alliance of "firing the first shot" is simply folly.

So "hiding behind the wall and ignoring Ala Mhigo and Doma" would never have worked, the Alliance simply would have to deal with the Empire eventually. It's pragmatic warfare, better to get it over and done with when you have the initiative than simply sticking heads in the sand and pretending it will never happen, and then getting overwhelmed when it inevitably does.

Also, Zenos was not a particularly sane leader - he cared little for the politics of the war, he simply wanted to fight. His whole reason for his brutal regime, installing Fordola and Yotsuyu as his quislings to browbeat the Ala Mhigan and Doman people into submission was specifically to break them enough so that someone was bound to then rise up and say "No more!" and hopefully prove a worthy opponent in their resistance. He basically turned Ala Mhigo and especially Doma into a twisted safari park for his own amusement, specifically to hunt "the most dangerous game." And, he found it with the Warrior of Light (that's why he deliberately showed up with few bodyguards in Doma, he was deliberately using himself as bait to draw out potential 'game' - and Yugiri and the Warrior of Light fell for it.)

So really, such a leader kind of throws the whole morality over "who is the aggressor" and "who fired the first shot in the war" into confusion. Ultimately, it's irrelevant, for the good of not just Eorzea, but Hydaelyn as a whole, Zenos had to fall. Time was of the essence. The Alliance had to attack the Garleans in Gyr Abania and Othard when they did. Simply to stop even worse bloodshed, suffering and destruction from occurring. If they hadn't, the results would have been catastrophic for everyone.

[Cilia]

I am not arguing morality. I am arguing a strict technicality. Doing nothing and playing defensively was an option - an extremely unwise one, but available nonetheless. I agree that the Alliance taking the initiative and beginning an incursion into Gyr Abania was necessary to stop far worse, but it was still an aggressive move. That's all I'm saying.

The ultimate points are that, from a purely technical standpoint, Eorzea has not always acted defensively against the Empire but being aggressive, considering the circumstances and who they were dealing with, was pretty well justified. (Citing Zenos' monstrosity isn't really a fair argument because Eorzea was unaware of just how bad he was before the incursion into Gyr Abania; however, we do know Varis wanted to bring Eorzea into the Imperial fold anyway, and the likelihood of him using the attack on Baelsar's Wall as justification / an excuse for doing so is very high. The lack of an ambassador to speak to also doesn't help, and the only one currently known being a smarmy, two-faced cur doesn't bode well for that venue in the future either.)

[SkyEdge1]

I am not arguing morality.

The ultimate points are that, from a purely technical standpoint, Eorzea has not always acted defensively against the Empire but being aggressive, considering the circumstances and who they were dealing with, was pretty well justified. (Citing Zenos' monstrosity isn't really a fair argument because Eorzea was unaware of just how bad he was before the incursion into Gyr Abania; however, we do know Varis wanted to bring Eorzea into the Imperial fold anyway, and the likelihood of him using the attack on Baelsar's Wall as justification / an excuse for doing so is very high. The lack of an ambassador to speak to also doesn't help, and the only one currently known being a smarmy, two-faced cur doesn't bode well for that venue in the future either.)

This actually touches on my main gripe with the story of Stormblood thus far, in that no one really questioned whether or not we were doing a good thing by invading and retaking Ala Mhigo. Although they tried to make it seem like Fordola was the main resistance for our incursion she was made to be an outlier in the conflict. It seemed to me that everyone else in Ala Mhigo couldn't wait for us to white knight our way in and save them from their oppressors. Which is why i am super hopeful that if and when we do get to Garlemald we don't see a repeat of SB. I don't want to be the hero in shining armor that comes in and saves the day again. I want us to stroll into Garlemald ready to kick imperial ass, only to find out that the general population absolutely loathes us and are perfectly happy with imperial rule and law. How do you save someone that doesn't want to be saved or in truth need it at all. That is the grey area that should have been trod on when we went balls first into Gyr Abania. Not just another scenario of oh thank the 12 you are here, we've been waiting this whole time for you to come in and save us"

[Enkidoh]

Again there is this victim-blaming going on that is trying to paint Eorzea in a negative light simply because we rose up and successfully drove the Garleans out. What was the Alliance meant to do? Sit there while Ilberd taunted the Garleans with a giant Primal? Stick their heads in the sand and pretend "everything will be alright?" Of course not! We couldn't spend all our time sitting on our hands and just waiting to defend against Garlean attacks, especially as they were being led on a string by the Ascians who were just conveniently dropping things like the Ultima Weapon into their laps. We had no choice but to seize the initiative and take the fight to them.

And if you want to be truly technical about the war, really, the war never really ended after Gaius fled Lake Silvertear with his tail between his legs. The Garleans did not stop fighting Eorzea due to a peace treaty or cease-fire, they simply drew back because they encountered at Silvertear a force that was too much for them to handle, while still remaining in a state of war. A cold war, true, but a war none the less, and a cold war that occasionally flared hot only to smoulder away again, as the Garleans continued to make small-scale military operations into Eorzea, attacking aetheryte camps and the like with impunity. To say nothing of the whole Dalamud affair and the Calamity, which was fully endorsed by the Emperor.

And after, Gaius moved and seized land and built strongholds, again with impunity. The only reason the Alliance did nothing is they were powerless to do so. So this shows that the war was still on, it was just smouldering rather than blazing hot until Operation Archon where we took the fight to them (and all the Alliance really did was blockade, not capture, the Garlean strongholds, the Praetorium's destruction was all Lahabrea's doing).

Thus, Baelsar's War and everything that came after was simply an extension of the cold war that has smouldered and occasionally flared up since the Garleans fired the first shot when they annexed Ala Mhigo 20 years before (Ala Mhigo after all is a part of Eorzea, so it only makes sense to be included). So we didn't really become "the aggressors", Eorzea simply finally started to mount a significant counter-attack against the Garlean invasion - it took over 20 years, but hey, better late than never!

[Theodric]

Can we stop throwing terms like 'victim blaming' around, please? It doesn't make for a debate - it's an overly emotional response aimed to try and shut down any opinions that are contrary to the group think narrative. A lot of people's opinions on the story are presented as fact when they are, in fact, based solely around subjective elements of morality. Garlemald has various established reasons for doing what it does - as does Eorzea. Both are just two sides in a complicated conflict...and it just so happens that we are currently seeing things from the perspective of the Ala Mhigans and Domans. Over time, though, we're seeing more of Garlemald from its perspective. Including its better elements.

Furthermore, it isn't as if many earnest attempts have been made to forge peace with Garlemald. At least not with the military elements. Obviously that would never work out with Zenos but Gaius could be reasoned with to an extent and Regula proved to be a hero. He's of a lesser rank, but there's also Baut to consider as well.

Cilia is absolutely right in regards to Eorzea being the aggressors. Eorzea does have the right to defend itself, too. Directly. Preemptively. Yet at some point very soon it is going to need to recognise that a softer, more intricate approach is required - otherwise a considerable number of people will die; including innocents. The protagonists also need to start acknowledging the better parts of Garlemald that they have seen so far in the MSQ's.

Much like with Ishgard, we've seen the worst of Garlemald first. Yet we're seeing more of the good the closer we get to it - and that 'good', contrary to what some try to portray, isn't limited to non-combatants. There's also the simple fact that each legion, so far, has been treated as a separate entity by the story.

[Alleo]

You mean the same Gaius that went to the city state leaders and said that they either give up and became part of Garlemald or he will delete them with Ultima? How is that a peace threaty in any way? Dont put the blame on Eorzea that still has to heal up after Garlemald threw the moon onto their land..I mean there are two sides. Where are Garlemalds attempt for a true diplomatic ending of this? Eorzea never had the power to step up to them and force them into such a meeting and Garlemald did simply not care or they could have tried it. Regula was an interesting character but he still only took our side because it was good for Garlemald and because he kinda was stuck there. I am quite sure that he would not have stopped with his airship and asked for a short term alliance if they were still able to fly.

Garlemald came years ago and took land that did not belong to them. Eorzea and Doma were not part of the land they lost when they were still small. So they were the aggressors for no reason other than wanting to expand their empire (stated in the lore book). The only reason why Eorzea is still free is thanks to the primals and Middy.

I also agree with Enkidoh. The war never truly stopped, Gaius and his legion needed a break after the fall of the moon but they still continued to attack Eorzea. The same with Doma. The rebellion never stopped and before Zenos put an horrible end to a lot of them there was always some kind of unrest.

Eorzea and Doma are the victims in this because they did nothing to provoke the first attack of Garlemald..Eorzea even got a moon dropped on them which would have killed probably most of them if it was not for our old elezen hero. Still even after that they kept their heads low and never really attacked back after the fall of Dalamud since they need to rebuilt their states, so in a way it truly was a cold war. Yes in the end it was the alliance that ended the stand by modus of this war but the original aggressor was still Garlemald.

About the topic of the thread:

I think most was already said. The WoL is far away from being a mass murderer. We killed people but those were always in either self defense or in a war like situation. We might not know every story behind a criminal but none of those that we killed were innocent and it was them that decided to kill us and they surely would not let us live if they had the chance.

And since we do a lot for the different countries outside of our main mission to stop the Ascians it would not make sense if they would ever go against our back or sell us to the enemy.

[LystAP]

There's also another issue in that the limitations of gameplay mechanics keep alternatives from just murdering everyone from being possible. Although we do have quests with dialogue that states despite very visibly murdering them, you just fight them off. The combat AI has improved somewhat, but we're still someway from the mooks dropping their weapons and begging for mercy after you murder all their allies.

Although this does highlight the fact that the WoL can be merciful. Whenever they feel like it. Or remember too. Like Zenos.

[Cilia]

Looks like things are heating up!

...Baelsar's War and everything that came after was simply an extension of the cold war that has smouldered and occasionally flared up since the Garleans fired the first shot when they annexed Ala Mhigo 20 years before (Ala Mhigo after all is a part of Eorzea, so it only makes sense to be included). So we didn't really become "the aggressors", Eorzea simply finally started to mount a significant counter-attack against the Garlean invasion - it took over 20 years, but hey, better late than never!

Valid point in regards to the cold war, but the Eorzeans still struck the first blow in regards to the conflicts portrayed in Stormblood. That's all I'm saying. I do not fault them for this, since the context was basically "go on the offensive or get conquered." I am perfectly fine with it and do not consider it wrong for them to have done so. Waiting for the Empire to muster its forces would have been really, really dumb.

Can we stop throwing terms like 'victim blaming' around, please? It doesn't make for a debate - it's an overly emotional response aimed to try and shut down any opinions that are contrary to the group think narrative.

No, that's wrong! Blaming, say, the Domans for refusing to accept Imperial occupation is factually stating that people who have done nothing to warrant the seizure of their liberty deserve to have it taken from them. As it pertains to the above commentary on Imperial rule, if people want it they should be left to it; but by that same coin, those who do not (or more accurately in this case, never wanted it) should not have it forced on them. Blaming those who never wanted Imperial rule and did nothing to warrant it (a.k.a. victims of Imperial aggression) for resisting is victim blaming.

In this case, I do think it wrong to fault the Eorzeans for their incursion into Gyr Abania considering the context.

Garlemald has various established reasons for doing what it does - as does Eorzea. Both are just two sides in a complicated conflict...and it just so happens that we are currently seeing things from the perspective of the Ala Mhigans and Domans. Over time, though, we're seeing more of Garlemald from its perspective. Including its better elements.

Garlemald's reasons, in comparison to those of the Eorzeans', are very flimsy and oftentimes fallacious. Given a choice, I will always go with the Eorzeans. Garlemald's "better elements" have, thus far, also been limited to a single legatus willing to forge an alliance of necessity with the protagonists... and a theater troupe who, by and large, also detest the Empire. Ultimately, any "good" Imperial citizen also lives in fear of their own government, since speaking out against it is grounds for imprisonment and/or a death sentence for themselves and/or their loved ones.

Furthermore, it isn't as if many earnest attempts have been made to forge peace with Garlemald. At least not with the military elements. Obviously that would never work out with Zenos but Gaius could be reasoned with to an extent and Regula proved to be a hero. He's of a lesser rank, but there's also Baut to consider as well.

Without an ambassador to speak to, earnest attempts to forge peace with Garlemald cannot be made. Garlemald has not offered any deals or attempts at diplomacy, and its stance on foreign policy remains "shoot first, ask questions never." Gaius followed this philosophy; his idea of diplomacy was "surrender or die." Ultimatums are not diplomacy, they are threats. Regula forged an alliance of necessity, mostly for the sake of saving his soldiers; this is noble and I regard it as such, but it doesn't wash away his less savory characteristics. Baut was never in a position to negotiate with the Eorzeans.

Peace cannot be made with the Imperial army because it is not interested in peace. There is now an ambassador present in Asahi; however, he turned out to be smarmy, duplicitous, and uninterested in peace as well.

MAJOR EDIT
This is an instance of victim blaming itself. Your argument, in part, is that Eorzea is responsible for Garlemald's hostility. ("It's not like the Eorzeans have made any real effort to forge peace with Garlemald;" or, "The continuation of hostilities is Eorzea's fault.") It's not. Garlemald is responsible for Garlemald's hostility, and the Eorzeans are under no obligation to make peaceful overtures towards a hostile nation.