About the Emperor [Major Spoilers for 4.4]

[Cilia]

This game has nobody declare their sole reasons for doing what they do "because I'm evil." That's simply unrealistic and doesn't work outside of Saturday Morning Cartoons.

Solus, despite his flippant personality, appears to be very much committed to the Ascians' cause. The big mystery that remains is "exactly what is their endgame and what do they mean by "return mankind to its rightful state"?" If one considers this, the only real difference between Solus and Elidibus is that the former is flippant and the latter has a tendency toward austerity - and nobody has accused Elidibus of being a "mustache twirling Saturday Morning Cartoon villain."

The Ascians may be evil from our perspective, but we still don't have the whole picture of what drives them, so it's presumptuous to simply dismiss them as evil. The closest thing in-game to evil is Zenos, and even he has motivations more complex than doing evil for evil's sake. (Not much, but even so.)

Solus came off as, while being prone to theatrics, fully believing in the mission statement of the Ascians as presented by Elidibus. So I suppose that leaves it to be what would cause a young soldier/officer of the at the time republic to come to the thinking of Rejoining as salvation for the natural order of all life.

This ties in to one of the main mysteries behind Solus - we know he was an Ascian when founding the Empire, but was he one before that, and if so for how long?

I'd like it to be simple enough as just saying he was always one (and just possessed some Garlean noble to do what he did), but the revelation that people can transcend mortal limitations with or without the Ascians' gift makes it plausible that he transcended somehow and was simply convinced to support the Ascians' goals. Ultimately we don't know when he became an Ascian or if he always was one, so I feel it's too early to say a Garlean officer was swayed to their cause (because he could have always been on the Ascians' side).

[Remedi]

I agree with you there, but there's always the risk, especially with the ascians since for now they are not really endearing as villains, since they've not been really a serious threat in their actions, we are told that they spread chaos, but so far we've systematically thwarted their effort.
Only Elidubus is being written as a serious problem and Lahabrea has been written as one in the 2.0 portion of ARR, but otherwise both Nabriales and Igheyorm were rather poor? Not to mention that Igheyorm failed in her world and that is not an in-game lore but a book lore.
So when you consider that most of them have being written rather poorly, with poor backstory and motives, the risk of Solus falling into this category is very high and that's why i'm very cautious

[LineageRazor]

And I am fine with them being outright villains. Not everything needs to be ~morally grey~ or ~nuanced~.

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 Ascians may be evil from our perspective, but we still don't have the whole picture of what drives them, so it's presumptuous to simply dismiss them as evil. The closest thing in-game to evil is Zenos, and even he has motivations more complex than doing evil for evil's sake. (Not much, but even so.)

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.

[ChaoticCrimson]

I concur that there's probably more to Elidibus than what we know. They're certainly risking a bit by playing the long game in terms of fleshing out his character, if this is indeed the case. I also believe that Solus is undeniably evil, but he seems different from the other similarly-ranked Ascians we've already dealt with. I get the feeling he's more dangerous and clever than they were by a good measure. Solus seems to hold Elidibus in high regard for his judgement too, despite being frustrated by his worrisome nature. Despite being evil and a trusted follower of Elidibus, I suspect Solus might also have some agency of his own, and could shake things up.

The main difference between Solus and the previous Ascians we've encountered is that he does have personal connections to other characters, namely Varis and quite possibly the real Zenos as well. It could prove interesting how these relationships will play out as the story progresses. I'm not expecting Solus to actually really care about what happens to his grandson, and I don't expect he's had much remorse over Zenos' apparent death either. Still, I suppose given his theatrical nature he could be hiding a vague semblance of familial affection underneath the mummer's mask of cold flippancy, however unlikely. What implications such emotions would have is also highly speculative, though I can almost say with absolute certainty that it won't lead to any kind of redemption. At best, he'd be a "pitied but not forgiven" antagonist, perhaps not too much unlike Varis as well. Of course, he could just end up being a "generic, cackling villain" like the others as well. I, for one, would enjoy being pleasantly surprised if they actually try to work more to flesh Solus out and make his development at least a bit less cliched.

[ObsidianFire]

Well... Solus presumably spent at least 60 year as the Emperor of the Garlemald. And that's even taking into account that he possessed someone that long. I can not see any of the other Ascians we've met (barring Elidibus) sticking that long with a plan that complicated and having no one suspect a thing. That's really impressive. Solus isn't stupid and he isn't out for short-term goals. And that makes him really dangerous.

[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?

[Remedi]

Depends, if you were to ask a Gaul he would say that Romans were the devil since Caesar pretty much wiped them out, however ironically thanks to that Gauls were allowed to live in Rome thanks to the Romans citizenship and that act actually allowed eventually the formation of France.

[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.

[Remedi]

You made me realize something. Perhaps Elidubus actually foresaw this too and choose Zenos as a host as a failsafe too. If we expose Zenos as an ascian, we also weaken Varis' hold on the empire, and the ascians can then allow someone more in line with them on the throne.

[Balipu]

Tbh the final boss of SB was a surprise since I expected Shinryu to come out in the Omega story, I knew I would be fighting Zenos, but I had several theories of what could happen at the end.
Unlike HW where you know who is the final boss from halfway trough the end.

However the problem with flippant villains is that they tend to be very hard to write and give a good reasons for their villany, a villain with a weak backstory will feel bland and boring with the resultant reasoning "I do these stuff because I'M EVIL".

Like Nidhogg. Oh boy. I absolutely hated that guy. Frankly I hated the whole dragonsong war. The leveling story was better in Heavenward, but I much prefer the SB patch stories.
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.

As for Solus' reason to be an Ascian? Well....I doubt this will be the last Ascian expansion. And I'd think any huge revelations that would make us rethink what we know about Hydaelin and Zodiark would have to wait untill we are ready to deal with all the overlords. I think we will have to settle for a villain who is evil just because. At least he is entertaining to watch. And has a cool theme.