About the Emperor [Major Spoilers for 4.4]

[LineageRazor]

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?

Indeed - but it is the powers that be the bear the fault for those lies, not the rank-and-file. The average Garlean soldier cannot be considered evil for participating in the invasion, as they have been convinced that it is necessary for the preservation of their family and home. It's only slightly different from the situation with the average conscripted soldier, who is ALSO fighting for the preservation of their family and home (except in their case, it is their Garlean masters providing the threat rather than nebulous "barbarians").

It's easy to justify. They were pushed to near extinction.

Not really. What you're suggesting would be akin to the survivors of Sil'dah being justified in conquering Thavnair because they were driven nearly to extinction by Ul'dah. Aside from the odd scholar, it's likely no one in Thavnair has even HEARD of Sil'dah, and their ancestors at the time of the Ul'dah/Sil'dah war likely knew even less.

There's no indication that the ancestors of anyone in Eorzea or Orthard had anything to do with the ancient Garleans' oppression, and yet Doma and Ala Mhigo were conquered all the same. Any state that had a direct hand in forcing the Garleans into exile is currently hidden underneath the clouds on the map, and has not been directly named or referenced in-game. It's clear that whatever motivation Garlemand has now for its expansion, they've left the justification of "Revenge against those who oppressed us!!!" long behind. Their current mission statement seems to be, "Conquest as a precaution against possible future oppression!!!" which is a lot tougher to justify.

[ObsidianFire]

The Empire's claim to meritocracy seems to... vary.

van Baelsar seems to have been a firm believer in the concept, though that doesn't seem to be the case for most other Imperials we've met. Rhitahtyn and Fordola both got their high rankings under his command, and he even accuses the soldiers of abandoning Rhitahtyn to his death at Cape Westwind (untrue - Rhitahtyn told them to leave so we wouldn't kill them in the battle).

I can easily see Fordola going higher up the Hirarchy under Giaus as more spots in the legion's high command open up. Although given as Giaus doesn't seem like the kind of Legatus who would kill his officers whenever they messed up, that would probably be limited to when those officers died in battle. Which given that they got those ranks under Giaus, probably means they're really good at their jobs.

Varis also promoted van Hydrus on merit, though this could be seen as blending with nepotism a bit (van Hydrus helped Varis become Emperor, which he rewarded by giving him the rank of Legatus... if I remember correctly).

It's the other way round, Regula is a weird case of both people ignoring how good Regula really was as a soldier and not promoting him and then Varis showing nepotism by promoting him to get around the people who actually were ignoring the meritocracy. When Varis was High Legatus he promoted Regula to Legatus of the VIth Legion specifically because the VIth Legion was corrupt. The Ilsabardian territories they were holding were not rebelling against the Empire, but were bribing the VIth Legion to keep their interests in mind instead of Garlmald's. The bribery was so rampant, that the VIth Legion was basically the territory's private army. So Varis promoted Regula specifically because he knew that Regula was loyal to him and that he really was good at what he did and had him clean out all the corruption in the VIth Legion. Regula then backed Varis as Emperor because Varis had seen where he really should have been in the Garlean Hierarchy and put him there.

So yeah, I'd say it's very likely that the Garleans (the ones in the military anyway) ignore the Hierarchy a lot in favor of promoting the people they want rather then the people that deserve it. Given how the Hierarchy works outside the military though (It's more descriptors of people's general jobs and roles then how much power someone has in the military), I see it being harder to abuse.

On the other hand, the racism coming from nearly every other Imperial is blatant. This is probably hammered home best with both mal Asina's declaration that the Garleans are superior, both physically and intellectually (except their inability to wield magicks)...

...This could be seen as purely due to Zenos' malign influence, but even van Hydrus repeatedly refers to the Eorzeans he interacts with as savages... so it's not quite so contained.

Savage is a... rather specific term for the Garleans. It actually has the same idea behind it as "Beast Tribe" does (and yes, the Eorzeans borrowed the idea of Beast Tribes from the Garleans). It's specifically a group of people who have summoned an eikon or are willing to associate with people who summon eikons.

That said, oh yeah, the Garleans have racism and culturalism in spades. I'd actually say the best place to see it that isn't overblown is the Prima Vista as that gets rid of most, if not all, of the military overtones of Garlean racism/cultralism.

Fordola's painful acknowledgement that you won't be treated as an equal unless you prove yourself to be exceptionally superior to Garleans. (There's even a bit of sexism there too, with Imperial soldiers implying Fordola only got her rank by whoring herself out, rather than because she deserved it.)

The sexism I'm pretty sure is more the XIIth Legion (and probably other Legions) then anything else. The idea of the XIVth Legion saying that to Fordola anywhere Livia could get wind of it is... darkly amusing. Because I have a feeling that's probably what a lot of people outside of the XIVth Legion think of Livia behind her back...

If memory serves right the "sas" limitation only applies to naturalized citizens - those born into the Empire can (theoretically) go as far as their merit takes them (up to "van," but "wir / yae / zos" is still reserved for the royal family), but integrated peoples can't advance further. My memory might not be right, though, and if it's wrong that is literally institutionalized racism.

This was how I read it too. However, only 30% of the native population of Garlemald isn't racially Garlean, so statistically speaking, it's probably something most native cultural Garleans never end up worrying about. There's only 14 Legatus, so there's what... maybe 30 Tribunus (14 Lactivicus and 14 Angusticlavius) spots that naturalized citizens can't get too. Even within Garlemald, you'd have to be crazy good to even get a shot at getting into any of those spots. Like, Rhaiahtyn was the first naturalized citizen to even get that high up the Hierarchy...

Class divides, even among Garleans, are also there. Again, shaky memory, but I believe it was mentioned that van Hydrus came from common birth, which is why so many of the other Imperial Legatuses (nobles) were opposed to his promotion and why there were efforts to sabotage his mission on Azys Lla that led to Sophia's release.

I'm pretty sure Regula wasn't a commoner. If anything he was probably a noble as he and Varis were childhood friends. People try to sabatoge him because they were preventing him from advancing as far as he should and Varis promoted him to Legatus anyway. And then Regula backed Varis in the War of Succession. So a lot of people don't think he deserves to be a Legatus because of nepotism... only, he probably really did, it's just no one wanted to promote him so Varis had to step in... yeah, that's a really messy situation...

The better example is probably Nero and Cid. They're the same age and both of them are magiteck geniuses. However, Cid is the son of the guy who invented the cerulum engine and is practically a noble. Nero is from some Garlean backwater. Cid gets all the attention and Nero gets none. Cid being Cid is oblivious to all of this. Nero ends up seeing Cid as his rival since the only way he could hope to get people to notice him is if he's better then Cid is. Then Bozja happens and Cid defects to Eorzea. This still doesn't help Nero as now Cid is basically a legend. Literally everything Nero ends up doing is because he's trying to prove he's better then Cid. That's why he joins the Garlean Legions (they get better access to Allagan tech then the Magiteck Academy does) and fixes the Ultima Weapon (so he can be known as the one who solved the primal problem). Nero only stats to stop comparing himself to Cid once he and Cid are on even footing for the first time in their lives in Eorzea. Mostly since the people in Eorzea really do care about what people do and so far Nero's skill at dealing with the problems he finds himself in has been consistently good.

... while the Empire says it's meritocratic, that's not necessarily true. What things say on paper and how they work in practice are often two different things.

This is a good rule of thumb to apply to just about everything about the Garlean Empire.

1 thing i hope is when the empire changes they get rid of the class system such a pain -_-

Now this I don't know about. We don't have any records about when the Garlean Hierarchy was first implemented as far as I can tell. While I can see Solus coming up with it when the Empire was founded, I can also see it being something the Garlean Republic came up with way back when. There's pretty good evidence that the military ranks pre-date the Hierarchy (Solus was a Legatus in a Legion) and the Garleans have been using subterfuge and fighting wars all while they were a Republic. If it's something Solus introduced to the Empire, I have an easier time seeing the Garleans get rid of it. If it's something old that's been part of Garlean culture for a long time though... I can see them ditching the zoz, yae, wir and aan titles and calling it a day. Those are the only really troublesome ones.

[Cilia]

Indeed - but it is the powers that be the bear the fault for those lies, not the rank-and-file. The average Garlean soldier cannot be considered evil for participating in the invasion, as they have been convinced that it is necessary for the preservation of their family and home. It's only slightly different from the situation with the average conscripted soldier, who is ALSO fighting for the preservation of their family and home (except in their case, it is their Garlean masters providing the threat rather than nebulous "barbarians").

Time for my closing argument on the subject.

If it is acknowledged that it takes lies to construe the Empire's actions as "defensive" or "protective," then the military conflicts it engages the Eorzeans and Domans in cannot be considered "morally grey." Tragic to be sure, since there are lies and threats in the case of forced conscripts, but morally grey? Hardly.

Even in the case of their aggressive actions, the Eorzeans are acting solely in preemptive self-defense against all but certain Imperial retaliation for acts they did not commit. With no official channels to speak to the Empire and explain things, and plenty of reason to believe the Empire wouldn't care anyway, what other choice have they? Should they let their people be killed and enslaved as punishment for crimes they did not commit?

Bear in mind, any conflict not involving both the Eorzean city-states and Garlemald (either the Republic or the Empire) is extraneous to the debate.

---

Regula's situation and promotion is complicated, but if he deserved a higher rank and was denied it (for whatever reason) until Varis directly intervened, that contradicts the Empire's claim to meritocracy.

I rechecked and yes, it is impossible for someone of non-Garlean ancestry to reach tol / van, natural-born Imperial citizen or no. Regardless, how easy or difficult it is to reach those positions is irrelevant - it's literally impossible for non-Garleans to attain those ranks, even if they are deserving of them. Institutionalized racism, right there.

[Theodric]

The situation with Garlemald is far more complicated than some posters here credit, thus the best course of action is to simply agree to disagree on elements that are open to personal interpretation. The writers have done an excellent job at creating a nuanced game world with fascinating lore and a richly detailed established history. In my opinion it does the writers a disservice to view their creation through such a narrow window...especially when there's a very long track record of antagonists and situations turning out to be much more in-depth and sympathetic than initially assumed.

[LineageRazor]

Time for my closing argument on the subject.

If it is acknowledged that it takes lies to construe the Empire's actions as "defensive" or "protective," then the military conflicts it engages the Eorzeans and Domans in cannot be considered "morally grey." Tragic to be sure, since there are lies and threats in the case of forced conscripts, but morally grey? Hardly.

Even in the case of their aggressive actions, the Eorzeans are acting solely in preemptive self-defense against all but certain Imperial retaliation for acts they did not commit. With no official channels to speak to the Empire and explain things, and plenty of reason to believe the Empire wouldn't care anyway, what other choice have they? Should they let their people be killed and enslaved as punishment for crimes they did not commit?

Bear in mind, any conflict not involving both the Eorzean city-states and Garlemald (either the Republic or the Empire) is extraneous to the debate.

Tragedy is the right word for it. The only moral greyness involved is the fact that pretty nearly everyone, even the top-ranked individuals (likely even Varis), had drunk the cool-aid Solus was serving and so honestly believe (or used to believe) they're doing what's best for their nation.

There's no doubt that the Eorzean alliance and their allies are justified in resisting the Garlean's invasion - and I'd go so far as to say that they're justified in dismantling the Garlean war machine, as well. The Garlean leadership have shown absolutely no interest in looking for a peaceful solution save for ONE instance (Asahi's overtures), which turned out to be a trick designed to further solidify the propaganda they use to keep the citizenry backing them. From the Alliance's perspective, Garlemand is a mad dog. Any hand extended in peace will be bitten. The only way to stop its rampage is to put it down, ideally with as few casualties on either side as possible.

To be fair, the Alliance does not know about the Ascian origins of the Garlean war machine, or that Varis is, perhaps, having second thoughts. If they did, they might try a bit of diplomacy with him. As far as they know right now, though, the guy is as uninterested in peace as anyone among the Garlean high command.

[Keever]

The situation with Garlemald is far more complicated than some posters here credit, thus the best course of action is to simply agree to disagree on elements that are open to personal interpretation. The writers have done an excellent job at creating a nuanced game world with fascinating lore and a richly detailed established history. In my opinion it does the writers a disservice to view their creation through such a narrow window...especially when there's a very long track record of antagonists and situations turning out to be much more in-depth and sympathetic than initially assumed.

Posters here have thoroughly explored the complexities, something which you seldom do. Talking down to people from your high horse without actually having any compelling arguments does not place you in good stead. You are, as always, entirely misrepresenting the positions of those who are arguing against your own.

[Theodric]

Posters here have thoroughly explored the complexities, something which you seldom do. Talking down to people from your high horse without actually having any compelling arguments does not place you in good stead. You are, as always, entirely misrepresenting the positions of those who are arguing against your own.

That's incorrect. There's a vocal little band of posters who add nothing but snark to a thread as they scream about Garlemald and how evil it is at every possible turn. As I've said in the past, you and the other posters involved are more than welcome to contact me in-game or arrange to chat over Discord to smooth out any issues with me. Yet that has been repeatedly declined.

Morality is largely irrelevant to the discussion and is often little more than a method that certain posters use to virtue signal/derail threads.

[Lauront]

Institutionalized racism, right there.

I'm failing to see the issue with it, but then I am not an SJW or a believer in blank slate fantasies.

Posters here have thoroughly explored the complexities, something which you seldom do. Talking down to people from your high horse without actually having any compelling arguments does not place you in good stead. You are, as always, entirely misrepresenting the positions of those who are arguing against your own.

Did you just come here to gripe? Because that's all you're really doing.

Cilia has been debated on this topic and I consider that Theodric usually goes to some pains to back his arguments through the lore. There are differences in how to interpret the events, Cilia has her spin on it, Theodric his; he is entirely correct in his assessment that Garlemald is more complex than some posters here would like to pretend. He's been debating this on and off for years. Does he need to list every single argument and point each and every time they come up again? If a poster feels they're being "misrepresented" then it's on them to try get their point through. They're not helpless little babes, incapable of doing so.

You, on the other hand, I recall having nothing of any merit to offer on the topic, and I doubt that is set to change. As such, on the topic of high horses, I'd suggest you go first in descending from yours.

[Lauront]

This is a good rule of thumb to apply to just about everything about the Garlean Empire.

Or any state in the game.

[Theodric]

Perhaps the issue is some sort of language barrier? I don't know what to suggest at this point other than to once again state that I am more than willing to agree to disagree when it comes to the subjective elements of the game lore. It seems like I post one thing and some posters claim that I'm saying something completely different. I have never stated that Garlemald is fully justified and without fault. I have repeatedly stated how it needs to undergo reform - for its own benefit - and have highlighted the merits of diplomacy coming into play at some point.

Yet that doesn't change the simple fact that characters such as Gaius, Regula and Varis have been implied and shown to have much more to them than is credited around these parts. A number of posters - myself included - have been pointing out the parallels between FFXII and FFXIV for years where Garlemald is concerned. With each new content patch we've been seeing those parallels get stronger.

We all come here because we - presumably - enjoy FFXIV's lore. We're also going to have different tastes when it comes to characters and nations. I'd humbly suggest that people work to put aside whatever grudges they have with other posters to ensure that there's a more pleasant atmosphere around these parts.