The Road to 5.0

[Anonymoose]

I think it's a little of each, to be honest.

Part of the early 1.0 story (not just story that was released early, but the lower-levels of it) focused on the confusion of the ignorant. What was the Echo? Where did it come from? What were the primals? Did we have our own primal? Were the beast tribes correct that primals could resist the Empire? Was the Empire correct that the beast tribes would destroy Eorzea? What if we're ignorant of the severity of the threat we face and Garlemald's actions are appropriately severe?

That confusion doesn't work if "the lesser evil" isn't ambiguous.

By the time we got to Mor Dhona, this confusion was hitting a crescendo. We saw the beastmen's alleged gods strip men of free will and compel their worship and obedience. We saw the Empire's ruthlessness and lack of nuance. Moreover, we learned a harsh truth - Eorzea was on its own. When all sides are being manipulated by the only truly evil (as we understand evil) faction, the worst is brought out in everyone - including the depths of the city-states' greed and corruption.

For what it's worth, you're having the debate you're meant to be having.

[Cilia]

Ahh, sorry folks... I have been busy... fighting another morally grey war back on my old stomping grounds of Azeroth.

Well, it's morally grey if you consider unprovoked aggression, killing civilians to the point of near genocide by razing a presently demilitarized capital city, use of chemical weapons on friend and foe alike, and the desecration of said remains... ostensibly for the sake of a lasting peace... to be morally grey acts.

A-anyway, I hopped on and did the Rising event for the year... doesn't really bode well. It doesn't sound like things are going to work out for us, or perhaps the "hero of rebirth transcending" refers to Zenos? I'm going to go with the latter.

... and you guys had a whole Garlemald debate without me! I'm almost disappointed. Well, a lot of points I tend to iterate have already been brought up, but here's my fresh take.

When Garlemald is described as "evil," so to speak, it depends on the context in which you look at it. As a country on Hydaelyn, it seeks to preserve the world - a good end - but uses what most would classify as Lawful Evil methods to achieve that end. Lawful Evil is best summed up as "peace through tyranny," and that is something that fits Garlemald very well.

Garlemald's background as a struggling republic may have shaped its ruthless foreign policy, but it - and its proponents - need to recognize that it's no longer that struggling republic. It hasn't been for, if memory serves, 50 years. There's no longer a need for Garlemald to continue expanding its borders, let alone oppressing the people of territories it conquers. The common counterargument to this is that it does so in order to help prevent primal summons; however Garlemald (or more specifically Solus zos Galvus) chose to continue a campaign of conquest into Othard after conquering Ilsabard and before the Garleans were aware of the existence (or at least effects) of primals, so this is a retroactive justification at best and in practice serves as little more than a veneer to excuse Solus' wanton greed.

Furthermore Imperial activity has not diminished primal activity; on the contrary, it has spurred it on and is indirectly responsible for Eorzea presently being a hotspot for such activity.

Another common argument in favor of Garlemald's ruthlessness is that they must be this way due to lacking divine aid in the form of something akin to the Warrior of Light; however Eorzea did not have such aid either until after the initial Imperial attack on Silvertear, so this is very shaky. Neither Garlemald nor Eorzea were given the assistance of a Warrior of Light for over 1500 years, and at some point Eorzea even proved it does not need the Warrior of Light to take on primals either (high though the cost may be).

Were the Garleans persecuted, or were they simply not favored by nature? Persecution implies they were deliberately targeted and systematically mistreated based on racial factors. Unless something says, verbatim, that persecution was what happened, I simply believe they could not win large scale battles against other nations / tribes and were causally unable to hold more fertile lands, leading to them being pushed to less hospitable territory. That's not persecution, it's simply nature running its course - for better or worse. The Garleans developed magitek to adapt, later using it to fuel warmachina and retake their ancestral homelands - then did not stop there until Eorzea showed, time and again, that the Empire is not invincible and that even by Garlemald's "might makes right" paradigm it deserves its liberty regardless of what the Empire wants or believes. Hell, both the Eorzeans and Domans have even reclaimed lost territory from Imperial occupation.

I'm getting off track... right, "morally grey." The context in which this term is used is of vital importance. In terms of foreign policy, Garlemald is not morally grey. It launches unprovoked assaults on benign nations for the sake of conquest, enslaves the population, conscripts any able-bodied civilians into military service, is known to take women from said territories for use as "comfort women" (re: sex slaves), and reduces the rest of the populace to near-destitution from what we've seen. "Not all provinces are like this, some prosper under Imperial rule" - no province should be like that (anyone treated as such is fully within their rights to rise up), and there is presently no record of a province embracing Imperial rule [b]or[/i] doing better under Garlemald's banner (the best we have is them remaining "relatively unchanged," if I'm quoting Baut correctly).

"Eorzea's not perfect either!" ... but we're not talking about Eorzea, we're talking about Garlemald, its warmongering, and its oppressive foreign policy. Bringing up [X thing Y Eorzean nation did Z years ago] is nothing more than a red herring in context and should be disregarded.

Is this to say that all Garleans are "evil?" No, not at all; the Populares (populists) are proof. But as a nation - a unified political entity - Garlemald's aggressive and oppressive policies are [b]not/i] things to abide... regardless of whether or not one finds their past sympathetic or their excuse valid. The only way to deal with such a country is to hit it back twice as hard, without advancing beyond one's own borders (i.e. defending one's turf)... and at present that's all Eorzea and Doma have done.

To construe self-defense as a morally grey act requires jumping through a lot of logical hoops. "Garlemald is acting in self-defense too!" Yes and no; while it is earnest in its desire to suppress primal summons and activity, it is going about it in counterproductive ways for selfish ends, and would still have its aggressive and oppressive foreign policies even without those threats (minus, perhaps, the outlawing of any and all religious practices, no matter how benign). That is what makes the Eorzeans, Domans, and Warrior of Light the "good guys" in context.

To boil it down, a hero is someone who uses their strength for the sake of others - not only themselves. The Eorzeans (and in particular the Scions and Warrior of Light) have repeatedly done as much, while Garlemald has only ever fought and waged war for its own sake. So... saying they're just protagonists and not genuine heroes comes across as somewhat disingenuous.

Is Garlemald morally grey? Yes, in the sense that it has a long-reaching good end (preserving the planet), but the means it uses to do so, how it treats conquered territories and peoples, and the fact it does so only in order to have something to rule over pushes it so close to black saying the military conflicts between it and other nations are "morally grey" affairs is practically laughable.

Someone poke holes in this; I need to resharpen my argumentative skills.

[Kusanagi7]

hmm well said cilia.

[Alleo]

@Cilia: Thanks for this long thoughtful post. (Also many likes for that part about Wow )

Do they really want to help the planet? Or isnt that just one "argument" used to further be able to go to war? Because as you pointed out, before they ever saw their first primals they were already conquering other countries for their own gain. Only after seeing them did they put them on their agenda too. But honestly I do question if this was for the sake of the world, or just because they are stopping them in their conquest.

Because as we know they had no problem destroying part of the forest, which was one part that made the Slyphs afraid of them. They polluted one of the lakes in Ala Mhigo which is now just a brown thing. And they nearly destroyed the eco system of the ruby sea.

Anyway just to point out: I dont believe that everyone in Garlemald is evil. Someone pointed out Isghard and yes they were horrible too but at least they never took their conflict to other countries and just stayed isloated to battle the dragons. But they were able to change and if Garlemalds leaders are gone too and they change their behaviour they could become allies.

Like the example with any nation having a malfoy or a dumbledore. And I agree with that, but it still does not help anyone if the one in charge of it, is a Voldemort. (Or as the horde right now would say: That is not my warchief) And as long as Voldemort remains on top and makes the decision, the nation and everyone else will suffer. Thus those in the lead are imo evil.

A-anyway, I hopped on and did the Rising event for the year... doesn't really bode well. It doesn't sound like things are going to work out for us, or perhaps the "hero of rebirth transcending" refers to Zenos? I'm going to go with the latter.

I still believe that they meant the Ascians with it. Kinda how they helped to keep the lie up in Ishgard and how they would have started a bloody war in SB. And now it seems that they are working behind the scenes in Garlemald too. And the villian often see themselves as the hero of their own story so maybe thats why they are called hero in the poem.

[YianKutku]

Something I'd be curious about is how far the story will go with the Optimates and Populares when it comes to parallels with Rome.

As in, one reason Julius Caesar was assassinated by the Roman Senate was because Caesar was Populares, and his assassins were Optimates. Because Caesar wanted to consolidate his power by riding on the approval of the masses (or so his critics claimed), and the Optimate Senate wanted to keep the power in the hands of the nobility and out of the Dictatorship/Emperor. So it's not a case where the Emperor must be aligned with the nobility; in fact, quite often the monarch is directly opposed to the nobility (Louis XIV is kind of the poster boy of this when it comes to breaking the power of the nobility), and whipping up the sentiments of the middle classes and peasantry is often a useful way to keep the nobility in check.

However, we're told here that the Optimates are the hawkish faction, and Varis is also a hawkish Emperor, while the Populares are the dovish faction, and the 4.4 trailer also calls them the "liberal voices". So I'm not sure how far to read into the names of the factions here.

[KingOfCheese]

Something I'd be curious about is how far the story will go with the Optimates and Populares when it comes to parallels with Rome.

As in, one reason Julius Caesar was assassinated by the Roman Senate was because Caesar was Populares, and his assassins were Optimates. Because Caesar wanted to consolidate his power by riding on the approval of the masses (or so his critics claimed), and the Optimate Senate wanted to keep the power in the hands of the nobility and out of the Dictatorship/Emperor. So it's not a case where the Emperor must be aligned with the nobility; in fact, quite often the monarch is directly opposed to the nobility (Louis XIV is kind of the poster boy of this when it comes to breaking the power of the nobility), and whipping up the sentiments of the middle classes and peasantry is often a useful way to keep the nobility in check.

However, we're told here that the Optimates are the hawkish faction, and Varis is also a hawkish Emperor, while the Populares are the dovish faction, and the 4.4 trailer also calls them the "liberal voices". So I'm not sure how far to read into the names of the factions here.

I'm interested in this as well. Though if I were to make a guess, I don't think the parallels will be that strong. The real-world factions occurred in the days of the late Roman republic, where no central power within the government existed, because Rome hated kings. Julius Caesar nearly upset the balance, but his assassination gave way for Augustus to become something greater than a king. The Garleans, on the other hand, had already past that stage of stop being a republic.

If we were to take the literal meaning of each faction, it fits the politics of Garlemald. The Populares meaning "favouring the people", goes well with their desire for peace, favouring the welfare of the common man, be they Garleans or non-Garleans. As for the Optimates, their meaning is "best ones" or "good men", which goes with the traditional Garlean thinking that the Empire has taken the noble crusade of eliminating the Primals, believing themselves to be the best ones for the job. Not to mention how they view the non-Garleans as "savages".

Though I may be proven wrong later, I believe that the factions are named the way they are for their literal meaning, not for the historical context.

[Cilia]

Another thing backing up the inversion from real-world historical context is that a lot of the Optimates (nobility) work to curry the Emperor's favor, not undermine his authority. Lolorito reached out to Garlemald's upper crust through his merchant network before the Calamity in an effort to dissuade them from going through with Meteor to no avail. One can only presume this was due to wanting the Emperor's favor and thus being unwilling to overtly denounce Meteor.

Meanwhile we know for a fact that the Populares (populists) want to forge more peaceful relationships with other countries based on our interactions with them during 4.2 and 4.3, and if their label is accurate and the little information we presently have from Thancred regarding the social climate in Garlemald as a result of Tsukuyomi is accurate... the Populares are indeed working for the common folk (as a "liberal" stance seems to be the minority in Garlemald).

@Cilia: Thanks for this long thoughtful post. (Also many likes for that part about Wow )

Well, I can't limit my justice-bringing to just one world! [/sarcasm]

I do believe the Garleans are earnest in their desire to preserve the world, but the question then becomes for whose sake? Their own, of course, and only their own. (Cf. the Eorzeans, who unified to try and prevent the Calamity, fought off Imperial aggression with Operation Archon, lent their aid to Ishgard at the Steps of Faith, and banded together to free Ala Mhigo from Imperial occupation, as well as the Domans (or at least Hien) who lent their aid to Ala Mhigo's liberation as well).

As for the Imperial leadership being evil...? Well, given Varis' first major act on the stage is to order the extermination of the Zundu tribe despite them not being tempered, calling him "good" is a long stretch. A Well-Intentioned Extremist, perhaps, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions and extremism rarely leads anywhere good. Killing innocents (or at least ordering their deaths) cannot be construed as a good action unless it is absolutely necessary, which is simply not the case there. Even then it's still a stain on the soul of the one who does the deed, necessary or not, that must simply be lived with. The issue is that someone like Varis doesn't consider it a stain on his soul - it's perfectly acceptable to him to murder innocents if it fulfills his ambition; the man himself may not be evil, but from most perspectives his ambitions and the means he is willing to use to achieve those ambitions most definitely are. Subjugating the world... isn't exactly what most people would consider an amicable ambition, regardless of why you have that ambition, and taking a Machiavellian stance to do so is going to do the opposite of making you friends.

Evil though? Malice for malice's sake? Not quite. Someone whose ambitions need to be kept in check, through force if necessary, due to the death and destruction those ambitions entail? Most definitely.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing - whether it's Varis trying to put the entirety of Hydaelyn beneath his heel, or Sylvanas killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians because nobody is willing to make a moral stand against her. The why behind both cases is understandable and truly morally grey, but the means used to achieve those ends are anything but.

[Zohar_Lahar]

What I'm really wondering is if 5.0 will have a repopulated Ala Mhigo as the new city-state zone (like Ishgard and Kugane).

[Kallera]

It all sounds fairly familiar to how Gaius viewed Eorzea from the beginning, a territory that needed to be taught, with force, that it needed to upend its customs and policies.


Perhaps it might end in the same manner, the aggresor duped into more machinations that further the Ascian designs.


But If the citizenry simply bends over backwards for the eorzeans this would be a very stupid looking war indeed. I'd rather have a populace that is as fierce of their own customs as our own faction, and just as resistant to throw away what they've grown up with. Since we are threatening to enter territories long established as imperial, the notion that every province is some tinderpot with its own band of rebels waiting to be saved is just ridiculous. It really feels like the imperials haven't put any points on the board and the time for them to come out swinging as a faction needs to be now.

[Alleo]

Well, I can't limit my justice-bringing to just one world! [/sarcasm]

Thanks for your answer.

Then the question is, who are truly evil in your eyes? We know that Varis idea of solving the problem with the primals is genocide. That alone should make someone really morally black. The only reason some might consider genocide a necessary task is, if there are no other options and leaving them alive would kill everyone else. None of that really can be said about the beast tribes, since we do know that this would also mean the death of all of those that are not tempered and want just to live in peace. Also what if they find out that everyone could summon a primal if they have enough belief and crystals? What if he find out that echo user could theoretically turn into primals without losing their minds? Would he start a echo user hunt too?

We also know thanks to the theater group, that the former emporer was still allowing any kind of art to happen, even those that might be a bit negative towards them. They said that Varis does not allow that and only allows something that he likes, thus there is no true freedom of speech under him either and that kinda makes him into a dictator. Who knows if those nobels are just puppets that can be killed if they are not following his view. I mean he had no problem sending in soldiers to shot down a ship with another opposing partie in it, so he is not bellow killing those that could be a danger to his rule.

Then his reaction to the death of his son that surely was not born as such a messed up person and now he is even working with Elidibus. He might have other reasons for doing it but he is still working with those that are the reasons that beast tribes even know how to summon primals.

And then we have all the other horrible things like human experimentation as an example. He as the head must have known of them. Yet nothing was done thus they are probably given a pass by him.

I am just curious of what he should still need to do to be seen as at least slightly evil by you. (Again just curious, I am agreeing with a lot of your points too.)

In the end the english word evil has a lot of different words for in german and for me this just means that he is a bad person, that does or orders quite some bad things. Maybe I could say it more around: I find Varis to be a bad person, who is imo a morally black person thanks to his actions and plans.