The Road to 5.0

[Theodric]

whatever helps you sleep at night you do you.

So, just to be clear - can I safely take that as an admission that you're unwilling to talk out whatever problem you have with me? If so, I encourage you to make use of the ignore function.

[YianKutku]

As for the other stuff...as I've said before, if anyone has an issue with my posts they're more than welcome to contact me in-game or request a chat over Discord to smooth out any issues. I won't tolerate personal attacks, though. Especially over something as meaningless in the grand scheme of things as the lore of a fictional setting. I'll assume we all come here because we enjoy the game's story, so it'd be nice if more people could learn to play ball. We don't have to be friends - though it really isn't hard to simply agree to disagree or change the subject when a debate starts to get intense and it's clear neither side is going to budge in their stance.

I mean, I've given you a day, and you still haven't responded to my post, so I'm not sure that you're arguing in good faith either.

[Theodric]

I mean, I've given you a day, and you still haven't responded to my post, so I'm not sure that you're arguing in good faith either.

Nobody is obligated to respond to every single post and as I've stated many times I'm rather bored of the stalemate. Some people here aren't going to change their stance, myself included, when it comes to aspects of the lore that are open to interpretation and revolve around grey morality. I typed out literal quotes from the lore book by hand only to have them ignored and downplayed to fit a biased argument. I'm happy to agree to disagree - and I think it's fair to suggest that personal attacks are far more important to smooth out than the same tiresome arguments about Garlemald that have gone around in circles for...two years, now? Three? I don't know exactly how long it's been happening, though it's been since Heavensward at the very least.

The fact of the matter is as Anonymoose stated. There's good in Garlemald and there's bad in Garlemald. I have never argued otherwise. Yet when I see people falsely claim that Garlemald is 'evil' or characters such as Regula or Yotsuyu aren't without sympathetic qualities I intervene. I've never done anything beyond that, which makes the accusations that I defend Garlemald at every turn all the more baffling. I argue from their perspective at times, certainly, but I have also pointed out frequently that Garlemald requires reform. My point with discussing Garlemald's origins, however, was that they would have died out if not for ceruleum being present in the territory they forced to retreat into. They also had few options but to resort to warfare to improve their situation. First within their scattered numbers, then their neighbours (securing the territory they used to live in as a consequence) and later came the attempt to secure the rest of Hydaelyn. I agree that they never should have ventured beyond their current and former territory. It's why I'm not too bothered by the loss of Gyr Abania and Yanxia. Or Rabanastre - which is likely to be freed as well based on developer commentary.

At the end of the day, though, FFXIV is a vast setting with many aspects of its story to discuss. Garlemald is but a small part of it - so it's a shame that this place seems to revolve around the same circular arguments again and again and again. Does nobody want to discuss Pagos, for instance? I tried to start up a discussion about that in another thread and nothing really came of it. This place does not need to be a battlefield and it certainly shouldn't resort to personal attacks such as what was posted earlier by another poster.

I, for one, would like to see this place prosper and to put these unpleasant arguments behind us. Yet that requires a group effort and all involved need to grasp for the olive branch and admit that - as Maxima aptly stated - mistakes have been made.

Putting all that aside, though...

I was hoping that we'd have the 4.4 trailer to discuss today. Though it has, unfortunately, been delayed. At least Dragon Quest XI is out on Tuesday, so hopefully we'll get the trailer by then too! Is anyone else planning on getting the game?

[Lauront]

I feel like it would be within the capabilities of the Garleans to design some manner of weaponry that's able to focus aether effectively enough to destroy Ascians if they've gone so far as to be able to artificially replicate the Echo (Though there's a rather large chance the Ascians were involved in that).

For that matter, I'm curious as to whether or not the Shadowhunter has been actually killing off lower ranking Ascians somehow, since even those require an extremely powerful aetheric force to destroy completely (If the HW SMN quests were any indication).

It's a two phase thing, because you basically have to also prevent their aether from 'escaping' and coalescing back into its original form. The lesser ones don't take on a new body, so they're not as huge a challenge to permanently kill. Could the Garleans do so? Perhaps, but they'd also need to weaken it first, and Ascian overlords are formidable foes, particularly without something like the Echo and the BoL, but even with it they're dangerous. Elidibus is also no doubt cognisant of these tricks, is aware of the Resonance and may take measures to ward against them, including ways of disrupting any Allagan-type machinery they try use; I still wonder if an Ascian empowered by something like a Blessing of Darkness is possible, even in Zodiark's dormant state. Elidibus, being his emissary, would be a sure candidate.

However, I don't really think Varis has an intention of killing Elidibus, so much as seeing how he can benefit the Empire. He may have failsafes and one potential plotline could be their failure, resulting in Varis's death. My other suspicion is that Varis takes draws a line in the sand, Elidibus baits him by crossing it, kills him and becomes the new Emperor in Zenos's form. It all depends on how subtle he intends to be.

Again, even Maxima, a ranking of the Populares, thought the fringes of the Empire just needed a firm hand and didn't realize until laying eyes on them that "mistakes have been made".

Good post. On that point, I'm of the view that Varis may have dismissed Aulus (was he guided by Elidibus?) to Gyr Abania, where he could entertain a far more interested Zenos, partly because he was intrigued to see whether Aulus's theories could bear any fruit, without him making a mess of things in the imperial heartlands. Zenos was probably smart enough to ensure that the intel that flowed back to the Empire did not unveil the true extent of his activities, hence why Maxima was taken by surprise.

whatever helps you sleep at night you do you.

I don't think this is a constructive approach and I fail to see what he said that merits it. He's made some pretty good, well backed up arguments here.

It is said of the lore forum that it can be a petty upvote echo chamber. I don't like to believe that, but seeing some of the posters here, perhaps it is not entirely wrong to say so, but it need not be so.

[Ssmiley_Bjakkzz]

Hellluuuuuu

[YianKutku]

Nobody is obligated to respond to every single post and as I've stated many times I'm rather bored of the stalemate. Some people here aren't going to change their stance, myself included, when it comes to aspects of the lore that are open to interpretation and revolve around grey morality. I typed out literal quotes from the lore book by hand only to have them ignored and downplayed to fit a biased argument. I'm happy to agree to disagree - and I think it's fair to suggest that personal attacks are far more important to smooth out than the same tiresome arguments about Garlemald that have gone around in circles for...two years, now? Three? I don't know exactly how long it's been happening, though it's been since Heavensward at the very least.

The issue is that when you cite lore sources and are ignored, you claim bias and personal grudges, but when I (and others) cite lore sources and you ignore them and I (and others) call you on it, you go "well, let's just agree to disagree". That is why I said I doubt you are arguing in good faith.

[Theodric]

The issue is that when you cite lore sources and are ignored, you claim bias and personal grudges, but when I (and others) cite lore sources and you ignore them and I (and others) call you on it, you go "well, let's just agree to disagree". That is why I said I doubt you are arguing in good faith.

The only issue is that I have repeatedly attempted to clear up any misunderstandings and instead of embracing that offer, certain posters resort to sassy retorts or personal attacks. It's not unreasonable to expect people to band together and stamp out this sort of behaviour. Only a handful of people post here actively in the first place and even then it's fairly quiet outside of the time window immediately before and after a new content patch.

As I said, my primary concern is tackling misinformation. Garlemald isn't perfect, I've never stated it is. Yet it does have a complicated history and there's much more to it than some here like to portray it as. It's much like Ishgard - guilty of horrible things, certainly, though hardly worthy of being wiped off of the map. It was forced into a difficult situation that had no easy resolution and it's very telling that it took the Warrior of Light to finally put an end to the chaos. The game goes to great lengths to show grey morality at almost every turn. I find it fascinating, and tend to consume the sort of media that cultivates such an approach.

It's exactly why the Ivalice games are amongst my favourite. The same can be said of The Witcher 3. The same can be said of FFXIV. I'm pretty passionate about the game. Much of my speculation has come true over the years so it does grow tiresome when I see people constantly push the false narrative that Garlemald has no depth. When Regula was revealed to be an honourable man and died to save a certain someone I was...well, annoyed that he perished but excited to see such a selfless act performed by a Garlean. Yet rather than get the chance to discuss it, some people here went to great lengths to paint him as 'evil' just because he said the word 'savage' a few times.

That's my main hang up. If people stop doing stuff like that, then I'll stop commenting outside of fresh revelations. Bear in mind, this isn't necessarily aimed at you - it's more of a general thing. I just want people here to pull together and agree to put an end to this tiresome cycle. I'm sure quite a few people would appreciate it. We don't have a shortage of other subjects to discuss. Perhaps some more lighthearted discussion threads are needed. What do people want to see?

[Iscah]

As I said, my primary concern is tackling misinformation.

It may be what you think you are doing, but I feel like you are spreading a different misinformation - because as we've discussed in this topic already, your insistence on the "persecution" the early Garleans faced seems to be a level above and beyond what is actually described in the lorebook - particularly that they were clearly driven into the north by this persecution, when the book gives no definite reason. It's a possible inference but it's not yet solid fact.

From re-reading the whole lorebook page, not just the quotes you posted, something that stands out to me is that it mentions other tribes and even countries in northern Ilsabard. Whatever exactly happened, it's not just poor Garlemald pushed out into the cold, alone in the north while everyone else enjoys the warm weather in the south. The "territorial feuds" you referenced seem to have least partly occurred after the Garleans migrated there.

Also - not refuting your argument but something that just really sounds odd - as ObsidianFire mentioned earlier, their republic was founded to protect their people from foreign aggression, by one town declaring itself "the centre" and uniting the other villages through "negotiation and force"... wait, what? This doesn't sound like persecuted people banding together for protection, it sounds like the seed of the aggressive empire we have now. (How and why do you even use force to make someone cooperate with you, when your claimed goal is to protect them from others? And why did they refuse in the first place if they really needed the help?)

I feel like this page, at an in-universe level, might have been produced by asking an actual Garlean to give their version of their history. It seems to paint things in a very positive light.

Were the tribes that founded Garlemald driven from their lands because they were "inferior, third-eyed, magic-less abominations", or just because pretty much every society wars against their neighbors for territory, security, wealth, and influence? Are these cultural myths about righteous victims and cultural strength and persecution complex and so on objectively valid or just that - the cultural myths of a people made to feel weak who seized a different kind of strength and unity in their hardship?

This is what it comes down to. It sounds to me that the Garleans might have been targeted more often because in a place where everyone is struggling to survive, the neighbouring tribe is going to choose to raid "the safe option" that can't shoot fireballs at them. It's harsh for the Garleans, but not the same as persecuting them.

[Theodric]

It's harsh for the Garleans, but not the same as persecuting them.

It's the very definition of persecution. They were targeted for a specific reason, being seen as 'easy targets' due to their lack of an ability to wield aether. It is also stated outright that if not for the presence of ceruleum in their new home they would have died out due to the extreme climate and lack of easily acquired food.

Your post is an excellent example of what I was referring to when I claimed that certain posters will take any quest, any lore passage and any positive portrayal of Garlemald and downplay it only to then later go on to portray any negative elements of Garlemald as being far worse than they actually were. It's been a common trend for the last few years around these parts...and unfortunately it seems like nothing is going to change.

[Lauront]

It may be what you think you are doing, but I feel like you are spreading a different misinformation - because as we've discussed in this topic already, your insistence on the "persecution" the early Garleans faced seems to be a level above and beyond what is actually described in the lorebook - particularly that they were clearly driven into the north by this persecution, when the book gives no definite reason. It's a possible inference but it's not yet solid fact.

Well no, it's not "misinformation". The lorebook describes two stages. One, their expulsion - it uses that exact term - from their homelands in the south, to the colder north, and secondly, raids on them that both limited the growth of their villages and made their very survival a struggle, hence the Republic's goal of uniting the villages, to rise above a base level of existence (remember: what was preventing this was the raids), and then to repel the aggressors through a variety of means. Bearing in mind that the Garlean purebloods did not possess the ability to wield the aether, whilst their neighbours did, they were, for a long time, at a distinct disadvantage. You are free to call it whatever you like, but as far as they were concerned, it was the world around them, against them. Not sure what's the issue here - that there wasn't specifically a call for them to be wiped out by a specific individual? From their perspective, it alters nothing as the outcome is materially the same.

I know, of course, that you're trying to dilute the significance of the lorebook by not so subtly insinuating it is not an historical record but just some Garlean's opinion. However, the foreword by the writers is quite clear that the encyclopaedia is knowledge of Eorzea's forebears, in terms of their histories, legends and fables. If the above was all some manner of opinion, we can be certain that it would be drawn out as such. Until the book is explicitly contradicted on this by another equally valid canonical source, I am taking it as a good canon source of their history.

This doesn't sound like persecuted people banding together for protection,

Why not? If you consider that without strength in numbers you will fall, it makes perfect sense. The lorebook even explains why in the same paragraph, so it's hardly cryptic.

Here are the exact passages:

https://14kuponuts.tumblr.com/post/1...-history-other

It's the very definition of persecution. They were targeted for a specific reason, being seen as 'easy targets' due to their lack of an ability to wield aether. It is also stated outright that if not for the presence of ceruleum in their new home they would have died out due to the extreme climate and lack of easily acquired food.

Your post is an excellent example of what I was referring to when I claimed that certain posters will take any quest, any lore passage and any positive portrayal of Garlemald and downplay it only to then later go on to portray any negative elements of Garlemald as being far worse than they actually were. It's been a common trend for the last few years around these parts...and unfortunately it seems like nothing is going to change.

Yes, to the point where anything that could be interpreted as explaining the Garleans' mentality must be some Garlean just giving "their" version.

Spycraft and mercenaries.

Like, this is clearly and explicitly explained in every single lore source, most notably the lorebook. I don't know why you seem to be ignoring it in favour of some unsupported speculation of your own.

The phrasing of the book indicates that they used those methods to achieve survival in the section on the "early republic" (as opposed to "empire"); the section on "unifying the north" specifically mentions conquering their neighbours once Galvus had introduced warmachina. So I consider that his interpretation is correct.