About the Emperor [Major Spoilers for 4.4]

[Cilia]

In fairness to our Garlean sympathizers, I don't think anyone has ever tried to paint the Ascians (ANY of them) in shades of grey, and Solus is no exception now that we know he is one, and that his previously assumed motivations were all a lie. Every Ascian but Elidibus has made ZERO effort to present as anything other than a cackling supervillain - and even in the case of Elidibus, the closest thing to "sympathy" the players might feel is that he clearly knows things worth knowing, and it might be worthwhile to listen to what he has to say (if he'd actually ever bother to say it).

The point I was getting at was that Solus doesn't need to be "morally grey" or "nuanced" to be a good antagonist. A straight, capital E evil villain can still be effective, dangerous, and entertaining - just because they don't have some deeply complex reason for doing what they do, something that justifies their actions from a certain point of view, or some sympathetic element to them doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable and effective villains. (Solus, despite his flippant persona, is responsible for a Calamity and the Garlean Empire's incessant antagonism. Do not forget that.)

Actually, with the exception of Elidibus, it IS fair to call the Ascians evil. Their underlying motivations, mysterious or not, aren't important. What makes them evil is the fact that they REVEL in the carnage they cause. Each of them we've witnessed clearly LOVES causing death and misery among mortals, and are not the least shy about sharing that fact. If their motivation has a noble underlying goal, it is still possible to sow chaos and reap lives while being contrite or sorrowful about it - but no, not the black-cloak Ascians. They're chewing the scenery and milking the giant cow with every proclamation of doom.

Elidibus - there's no sign that he enjoys what he's taking part in bringing about. It is necessary, and must be done, and the casualties involved are inevitable. Neither does he show much in the way of sympathy for those casualties, but if there was a way to bring about his goals without causing misery, he'd probably consider it, if only because then the opposition against him might wind up being a bit less fierce. He, I'd be willing to concede may not be evil; more along the lines of a well-intentioned extremist.

Most of the Imperials we've met may not revel in what they do (though some do), but they clearly don't have objections to what's asked of them - or if they do, their superiors are apathetic (at best) to their concerns and they carry out their orders anyway. Considering the full scope of what their country does, does that make them evil?

The black-cloak Ascians, I agree, are evil from our perspective - but without knowing their full motives, declaring them evil for evil's sake is somewhat presumptuous. (Except Lahabrea, whose slip of the tongue in 2.55's stinger made it pretty clear he was doing what he was simply because he wanted to.) It depends on how you define evil, really.

Elidibus is the closest the Ascians have to a well-intentioned extremist, but one needs to remember that he has the same goal as the black-cloaked Ascians - even if he goes about it a different way and has a different demeanor, his ends are the exact same. What makes the black-cloaked Ascians evil, then - the means, or the end?

[LineageRazor]

With the understanding that the Question of Good and Evil is not a simple one, and that this is my own personal opinion...

What makes the black-cloaked Ascians evil, then - the means, or the end?

Neither. Both are irrelevant when talking about whether an individual is good or evil. Murder is an evil action, but that doesn't mean that a soldier who kills in battle is an evil person. Good people do bad things at times for reasons they think are justified. A sign of a good person is that they regret doing so - especially if they learn later that the action was NOT justified.

What makes a person good or evil is not as simple as ends and means. It has to do with their attitude. Unnecessary cruelty while performing a task is a pretty good indicator of evil. Self-indulgence knowingly at the expense of others is another. Delight in the suffering of others is a sign, as well. Speaking broadly, it comes down to selfishness versus selflessness. If you're performing an evil act for your own betterment or indulgence, you are probably evil. If you're performing an evil act for the benefit of others, you may not be. There may be times when someone's performing an action for multiple reasons, some selfish, some selfless.

As for your example with the Imperials, most of the rank-and-file don't wear their hearts on their sleeves the way the black-cloak Ascians do, so it's tough to tell on a case-by-case basis whether they're good or evil people. The ones who smile while bayoneting babies? Probably evil. The ones fighting for the betterment of their nation? Probably not evil, but possibly misguided. Propaganda can play a big part in whether a soldier's justification in following orders is sound; if a soldier is convinced that the only way to stop the barbarian hordes from invading is to subjugate and civilize them, their aggression becomes a defensive, protective action. Why should they object to that? (Of course the ones who go the extra mile and indulge in criminal actions such as robbery or rape clearly are more interested in self-indulgence than civilizing the savages.)

For the ones who do object, but obey anyway, there's also the penalty for disobedience to consider; in the case of the Garleans, it's implied that the military isn't kind to those who disobey orders. When someone is coerced into performing an evil act out of fear for their own well being or the well being of loved ones, it is not that individual who is evil, but the one coercing them. Even were this coercion not the case, though, there's faith that the ones have a big-picture view that the rank-and-file don't have. "This action might SEEM questionable, but I guess it must be necessary for reasons I don't fully understand, but the higher-ups do." (Which is, of course, true in the case of the Garleans, but unfortunately some of the higher-ups are literal monsters.)

In fact, this is is a big part of the reason why the Eorzean Alliance is confident that revealing Zenos as an Ascian will destabilize Garlemand. They're confident that plenty in the Empire had been taking it on faith that their superiors knew what's best for them and that Garlemand's actions were for the betterment of the nation. Knowing that Zenos is an inhuman entity with questionable ties to Garlemand will make call into question that faith, and enhance the regret the good people feel at the "necessary" wrongs their nation has committed.

[Cilia]

Also I'm glad we moved back to Solus. I got tired just by reading the debate on Garlean morality and Regula. It's like arguing with Potterheads about Draco Malfoy. If the best thing that can be said of you is that sometimes you help the good guys in your quest to conquer continents and cause mass genocide....you are not a good person. End of story.

I agree on principle, but now that I'm not falling asleep at my keyboard, I'd ask to be permitted one last question.

(Also... are you downplaying the positive elements and nuances of Garlemald? For shame! /sarcasm)

[I]f a [Garlean] soldier is convinced that the only way to stop the barbarian hordes from invading is to subjugate and civilize them, their aggression becomes a defensive, protective action.

Consider this: Neither Dalmasca, nor Doma, nor the Eorzean city-states are or were uncivilized barbarians in need of subjugation or civilization (they all have histories dating back centuries). Nor do they have a known history of conflict with the Garlean Republic of yesteryear. Nor did any summon eikons before the Empire's rise to power (prior to Silvertear there are no recorded summons in the Sixth Astral Era at all).

Given these truths, even considering the Garleans' history of being forced to inhospitable territory due to a natural disadvantage, can the Empire's attacks on other sovereign nations be construed as "good," "defensive," or "protective" in any meaningful way?

[LineageRazor]

Consider this: Neither Dalmasca, nor Doma, nor the Eorzean city-states are or were uncivilized barbarians in need of subjugation or civilization (they all have histories dating back centuries). Nor do they have a known history of conflict with the Garlean Republic of yesteryear. Nor did any summon eikons before the Empire's rise to power (prior to Silvertear there are no recorded summons in the Sixth Astral Era at all).

Given these truths, even considering the Garleans' history of being forced to inhospitable territory due to a natural disadvantage, can the Empire's attacks on other sovereign nations be construed as "good," "defensive," or "protective" in any meaningful way?

Ah, but do the rank-and-file know these facts? Likely not. They may know a fair bit about their immediate neighbors (who forced them into exile long ago), but what little they know about the nations beyond is likely provided or strongly influenced by the propaganda they are fed. The billboards and recruitment posters resonate with fear-mongering regarding the Primal Menace, but none of them mention that the Primal Menace didn't really start until Garlemand began its conquest (not even in small print!)

The nations Garlemand conquer and invade may have long, storied histories, but these things are not emphasized in the history books Solus and his regime approved - and if they're mentioned at all, my how these nations have fallen from their days of glory, to become the cesspools of corruption and barbarity they are today!

Even if they had, though, consider the Ala Mhigans under Garlean occupation. Folks in Ala Ghiri assumed the incoming Allied forces would unceremoniously execute any Garlean prisoners of war - and these were Ala Mhigans, people with a relatively recent history of conflict with Gridania who would have a pretty good idea of how they treat their PoWs. Even then, the propaganda was strong enough to convince them that Baut's life was in danger. It's not hard to imagine that Garleans do not recieve news of charming Starlight festivals, or what not, but instead get an unending barrage of tales of rampages by the likes of Ifrit and Leviathan and, oh lord, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! Propaganda can be a powerful thing, and can be used to prompt otherwise good individuals into doing some pretty terrible things.

I'd imagine that Garleans are pretty cruel to their PoWs - and why wouldn't they be? It's justice, for the torture and slaughter of good Garlean men and women unlucky enough to fall into the hands of those Eorzean barbarians!

[Iscah]

I'd imagine that Garleans are pretty cruel to their PoWs - and why wouldn't they be? It's justice, for the torture and slaughter of good Garlean men and women unlucky enough to fall into the hands of those Eorzean barbarians!

Indeed, and guarantees those soldiers will fight boldly to the last rather than be captured by such people, and would never dream of begging for mercy....




...gods be good. All those random Garlean soldiers we've had to kill in the course of the storyline. D:

[Cilia]

Ah, but do the rank-and-file know these facts? Likely not. They may know a fair bit about their immediate neighbors (who forced them into exile long ago), but what little they know about the nations beyond is likely provided or strongly influenced by the propaganda they are fed. The billboards and recruitment posters resonate with fear-mongering regarding the Primal Menace, but none of them mention that the Primal Menace didn't really start until Garlemand began its conquest (not even in small print!)

[...]

I'd imagine that Garleans are pretty cruel to their PoWs - and why wouldn't they be? It's justice, for the torture and slaughter of good Garlean men and women unlucky enough to fall into the hands of those Eorzean barbarians!

In short, it takes lies (both fabrications and by omission) to construe the Empire's actions as "defensive" and/or "protective" in light of the truths behind the nations it attacks? This is what you mean to say, is it not?