fate of emperor varis at the end

[Absimiliard]

Yet for the Eorzean Alliance to reach the heartland is very much a case of extreme aggression on their part, cutting through any and all who stood in their path. That is, logically, a lot of bloodshed - and Garlemald only deployed Black Rose as a last resort. For it to be presented as 'unforgivable' isn't realistic at all, since the Eorzeans have resorted to similar extreme and dubious methods of their own when cornered with no other alternatives. That is why Hien's antics and Omega were brought up.

I would say freezing, burning, electrocution, slowly decaying from the inside out, etc. seems a far more heinous end to me than the sort of death the Black Rose brings. And that's not even getting into Eorzeans having individuals powerful enough to drop meteors on their enemies. Dropping a meteor even the size of a car would be absolutely catastrophic to the surrounding area, likely killing every living thing over a rather significant radius. Some of their people are literal walking natural disasters waiting to happen.

Given that Hien is one of my favourite characters, it isn't a case of bias. I simply find it disappointing that the story only portrays brutal weaponry as 'unforgivable' when it is embraced by the antagonists, but not the protagonists.

Agreed. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

The Eorzeans have the luxury of being able to manipulate aether and they have a walking weapon of mass destruction to call upon in their time of need that conveniently saves them from having to resort to extreme measures. Other nations do not have that luxury and as such should realistically be viewed with that in mind.

Just think; Zenos would've been the Empire's own "walking weapon of mass destruction" if not for the fact that he has been completely off his rocker seemingly from the very beginning.

[Theodric]

I would say freezing, burning, electrocution, slowly decaying from the inside out, etc. seems a far more heinous end to me than the sort of death the Black Rose brings. And that's not even getting into Eorzeans having individuals powerful enough to drop meteors on their enemies. Dropping a meteor even the size of a car would be absolutely catastrophic to the surrounding area, likely killing every living thing over a rather significant radius. Some of their people are literal walking natural disasters waiting to happen.



Agreed. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.



Just think; Zenos would've been the Empire's own "walking weapon of mass destruction" if not for the fact that he has been completely off his rocker seemingly from the very beginning.

Yeah, I think a lot of people overlook the extent of how painful and cruel some of the abilities used by various NPC's actually are. Obviously the game's rating has to be taken into account so the extent of such brutality cannot be shown on screen. Yet if we embrace realism (which the game doesn't shy away from in many cases) then the consequences are obvious.

A mother looking upon a murdered son or daughter would be more unnerved by seeing them incinerated by a fireball compared to seeing them killed by Black Rose. Not to get too gruesome, though melted flesh is not pleasant to behold - especially when accounting for armour and clothing fusing with bone and charred flesh.

In the case of actual explosions, that would lead to body parts flying everywhere.

So, from a logical standpoint it simply makes no sense for Black Rose to be a step too far - and the only reason it is presented as such is because of hypocrisy on behalf of the protagonists.

It's something that extends both ways. Many Garleans need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Yet lessons need to be learned on both sides and the Eorzeans are largely to blame for continued escalations as of the events at Baelsar's Wall.

But, yeah - not to get too off topic but Black Rose can only realistically be considered 'abhorrent' if those rules of engagement are applied across the board. Since they aren't, then I will not consider it to be a 'gotcha' moment on behalf of the protagonists.

On my end, I'm not even against such themes being explored. I found Ishgard and Ala Mhigo far more intriguing before their reforms - since flawed fictional societies are more interesting than those that are forced to conform to modern day morals. I suspect it will be much the same with Garlemald and even Hingashi, should we end up seeing reform there as well. I just hope the writers realise that there are a lot of people who fell in love with the setting and characters because of the gritty realism and that they do not handwave such things just to make the protagonists look good and the antagonists look bad.

Like I said earlier, I adore Hien as a character. Yet I felt it was a disservice for the story to overlook the cruelty and brutality of the effects of flooding Doma Castle as well as the shadiness of him effectively strong arming the Xaela into joining a war that did not concern them up until that point. I do not doubt that if it was Yotsuyu who enacted Hien's plan in reverse then there would have been an uproar from the likes of Alphinaud and Hien.

[Lauront]

We don't have a difference on lore questions here, just a fundamental difference in morality. I am not sure I could say anything to convince you that "conquered lands are the property of their conquerors" is fundamentally wrong, but I can't imagine a much more abhorrent philosophy for the game or for reality.

I can't say I agree with this mentality. Sometimes I like being able to explore "abhorrent" philosophies, in a game, purely on a "what if" basis. For example, being able to play as a member of the Sith in some games, or yes, siding with an empire keen on expanding its territories. I don't think the above represents the most abhorrent philosophy, in any case, but nonetheless all states are constituted on a hegemony principle anyway. Most have simply stabilised the situation enough to no longer encounter violent opposition from their subject territories/cities. The only fundamental difference with an empire is that it lays bear the process that has since stabilised in smaller states.

And I would lay money that's not a moral belief system the writers subscribe to or one that's going to be vindicated by the story.

Maybe, maybe not. A good writer does not need to believe in something to write well about it or put forward such a view without necessarily holding to it. I probably don't even agree with them on a number of their viewpoints. Not every story has to be a form of moral lecturing.

If I can't get to a world where people have transcended this kind of sociopathy in real life, let's at least have it in our fantasies. There's no doubt in my mind that Varis is meant to be read as a villain.

And yet not everyone will agree with such an assessment. In my view, he was simply trying to out-play the Ascians whilst they were attempting to do the same with him but his intention was ever to preserve Garlemald's well-being.

They could go for a redemption arc with him, but I think Gaius has kind of stolen his thunder on that point. Even as a villain, Gaius had redeeming qualities (like his refusal to exterminate existing populations, and his hatred of the Empire's prejudice against its female and non-Garlean soldiers) so the seeds of something redeemable were already there. Varis only thinks in terms of power and control, with a weird side of racist ideology. Even if he considers you a useful ally I have little doubt he'll betray us in the end, assuming he survives.

Putting aside how useful the "racist" label is, I take it you mean his comments on the Rejoining - it's pretty clear this isn't some weird side of "racist" ideology but his view on what is required to overcome the Ascians, assuming he was even being genuine in that scene. He was exposed by that point to the truth of the Sundering. As for Gaius's views on the Empire's "prejudice", eh, whatever. Purely assigning roles based on "merit" isn't necessarily the smartest thing to do, particularly if there are more important variables which are deemed to be important. But sure, it does serve to make him more palatable to some.

[YianKutku]

So, from a logical standpoint it simply makes no sense for Black Rose to be a step too far - and the only reason it is presented as such is because of hypocrisy on behalf of the protagonists.

No, it is presented as such because the story goes out of its way to tell us that Black Rose is especially brutal, from the moment it is introduced. Whether the story should have done so is another matter, but it is presented as so terrible that even Gaius, during his "Might Makes Right" days, thinks it went too far.

So it's intended to be seen as objectively terrible, by the standards of the setting, regardless of affiliation. And given its potential use as a catalyst for a Calamity, it is likely to be intended to be seen as terrible as Meteor.

Again, whether the story should have done this, or whether it did it correctly, is a completely different matter.

[Theodric]

No, it is presented as such because the story goes out of its way to tell us that Black Rose is especially brutal, from the moment it is introduced. Whether the story should have done so is another matter, but it is presented as so terrible that even Gaius, during his "Might Makes Right" days, thinks it went too far.

So it's intended to be seen as objectively terrible, by the standards of the setting, regardless of affiliation. And given its potential use as a catalyst for a Calamity, it is likely to be intended to be seen as terrible as Meteor.

Again, whether the story should have done this, or whether it did it correctly, is a completely different matter.

...and if the writers want such claims to be taken seriously then then they need to be consistent across the board. Characters can screech about how horrible a certain something is all they like, though if they aren't going to abide by similar rules of engagement and standards themselves then it just comes across as rather silly. Furthermore, it isn't the only element of the war with Garlemald that has conveniently been hand-waved in order to ignore the realistic consequences of a conflict that has never been portrayed as 'black vs white'.

The Garleans have their reasons. The Eorzeans have their reasons. Both are opposed to one another (for the time being) yet for peace to be obtained, both sides need to stop being hypocrites when it comes to certain matters.

[TankHunter678]

Black Rose is seen as such a terrible thing because of the lasting effects it has on the areas it is used in. Aside from destroying everyone that comes into contact with it, it also destroys the very ability of the land to support life. Any plant life hardy enough to survive its diluted form becomes literal poison that drives living things insane (something I only learned about recently when I finally went through the side quests to unlock the Ananta beast tribe) when consumed.

Sure we may have magic that causes a person's lungs to cease functioning, we can call down meteors that could cause massive craters and large amounts of devastation... but at least the land survives that and can recover to support life.

Not to mention, those spells we use to kill people are things we use at such a range where we have to face the fact we are killing people. A weapon like Black Rose is one such that it can be deployed out of sight, out of mind, and have no effect on the mental state of the person deploying it against their enemies. It allows them to easily cease to see the people they kill as people, and instead as numbers on an after action report.

Much like why chemical weapons in our wars were largely banned after WWI. The artillery crew would fire normal rounds to force people into the trenches, then fire chemical rounds to flood those trenches with toxic gas. To the artillery crew all they are firing is at a set of coordinates. To the commander ordering the barrage all that is happening is a set of trenches being bombarded.

[Absimiliard]

Sure we may have magic that causes a person's lungs to cease functioning, we can call down meteors that could cause massive craters and large amounts of devastation... but at least the land survives that and can recover to support life.

A meteor impact very much renders the surrounding land unable to support life. It takes a very long time for that kind of catastrophic damage to heal. There is nothing to suggest that the aftermath of Black Rose is permanent, though I will concede that it would probably take a longer time to recover from than the impact of a big space rock. Y'know, depending on size. Toss a big enough space rock and it won't matter anymore because everything will be dead.

Not to mention, those spells we use to kill people are things we use at such a range where we have to face the fact we are killing people. A weapon like Black Rose is one such that it can be deployed out of sight, out of mind, and have no effect on the mental state of the person deploying it against their enemies. It allows them to easily cease to see the people they kill as people, and instead as numbers on an after action report.

That is only a game mechanic. Eorzean spellcasters can actually launch their magics across quite an impressive range.

Much like why chemical weapons in our wars were largely banned after WWI. The artillery crew would fire normal rounds to force people into the trenches, then fire chemical rounds to flood those trenches with toxic gas. To the artillery crew all they are firing is at a set of coordinates. To the commander ordering the barrage all that is happening is a set of trenches being bombarded.

It is in everyone's best interest that soldiers not to be put in a situation that requires then to contemplate the the lives they're taking until after the fact. Should this occur, there is a very real possibility that the weight of it all will come crashing down all at once. A single compromised individual being unable to hold their own is all it takes for a squad to be wiped out.

[Alleo]

Are we truly trying to make the use of a chemical weapon like the black rose seen as something fine? Even someone like Zenos sees this as a cowardly weapon and even Gaius who was completely fine with conquering countries and putting down people saw this as something utterly horrible.

Can people not just accept that Garlemald does some very messed up stuff? When the story again and again hits you over the head with people (even Garleans themselves) saying how horrible it is? I am quite sure that the very same people defending this would surely blame Eorzea (rightfully!) if they would use such methods. Its fine if you love Garlemald but maybe its time to accept that stuff they are doing is not fine. Trying to spin this as something positive or spinning it as if they had to use it even though it was again the empire that striked back is victim blaming at its finest. Especially when you kinda forget that these countries did not belong to Garlemald, did not want to belong to Garlemald but seemingly that was fine? But when these people with the help of other countries get their homes back and then defend it they are in the wrong? What?

Remember that if they were not stopped and we did not change the future they would have used Black rose and would have thrown the world into the next calamity (a goal that varis too had, even after knowning about the ascians) which would have still been going on after 200 years and which would have left the world death thanks to it turning the soil bad. A meteor cast by a mage can never ever be that devasting.

Also why use an answer from Yoshida which mentions two completely different types of villians to make an argument for another character? If he had mentioned Varis in there then fine but that is nothing but trying to put him into something which the devs never done themselves. They at least showed Varis which one big evil smirk (including the evil aura) which some took as him being taken over. We know that its not the case. Even Zenos points out that he has a hard time holding Garlemald together and people like the theater group flee because of his rule. Just because someone lost some people does not suddenly make them good. Zenos also in that case lost his mother and was raised by an Ascian and his father and yet you would probably not be sympathetic with him.

[Theodric]

As an aside, the Warrior of Light has been shown to have the equivalent of PTSD. Garlean combatants have also been shown to have the equivalent of PTSD.

- Livia begins to lose it after realising that once again, everybody she cares for is being cut down right before her eyes.
- There's a soldier in La Noscea who hides away in a hut. I forgot his name, though.

Insofar as magic and environmental destruction is concerned, airships have been shot down by Eorzean forces. I doubt the land scorched by the twisted wreckage is going to sustain life for quite some time. One can argue that it is a necessity in war, though.

Which brings us back to Black Rose. When it was used, it was used at Elidibus' behest - not Garlemald. The exception to that is when it was used in the future, though that was done after much hesitation and as a last resort when Eorzea's forces where literally about to take Garlemald's capital. A scorched earth policy, at that point, makes sense. The Garleans would have lost most if not all of their territory beyond it. The people within would fear for their lives (and wish vengeance for their loved ones who had been cut down).

So, yes, its use is perfectly understandable in such a context. The unintended consequences were unfortunate, though given the Eorzean's inability to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict one can argue that they should not be surprised that such a thing would happen. You don't slaughter your way through large swathes of territory, murdering any and all that stand in your way and then complain when a last desperate act is made.

Again, the Eorzean's are the aggressors in such a scenario. Which, strangely, does not seem to be acknowledged by many around these parts...

[Lauront]

Zenos calling it a "cowardly" weapon is just a product of his deranged mind; he does not care about warfare as such - he only wishes to have the WoL to keep him entertained, so it was more about him losing his fun. So it is all well and good for him to call it that, but... so what? He may end up using it himself if he determines it will achieve his goal. He just didn't want to lose the source of his blood sport.

As for Gaius, he wanted to conquer and rule over the Eorzeans, so yes, it is natural he would not take kindly to such a weapon. At the same time, other than its unpredictable spread that may be the result of the surge of corrupted Light, it is no different to other weapons in the setting. Be it fire, a bomb, a cannon, a machine gun - even some of the Samurai's sword magic arts, and the Ninjutsu, have been shown to be capable of causing destruction over a wide area - all are capable of causing indiscriminate deaths. If the expectation was that these effects would remain confined to the battlefield, to reduce the Garlean death toll, I don't see what the issue is in Varis making use of it. Again, the spread was not something seen in experimental uses of it and is likely attributable to the excess Light.

If their mainland is being encroached upon it makes sense to me that they would be willing to utilise such a device to protect it. The city-states enjoy the massive subsidy of the WoL and I bet without him/her and the Scions they'd still be butting heads rather ineffectively against the beast tribes or the dragons.

Lastly, Yoshida's answer is apparently their general writing style for antagonists; Zenos and Emet-Selch were simply the two examples focused on. There is no reason why such logic cannot be extended to Varis given the nature of the answer. Reposting it:

So when making the villain characters, what the dev team tries to keep in mind is that they have to stand out, either by being really hateful and the players really hate them or still kinda loveable in a way. So for example Zenos is some sort of entity of ultimate Evil. [spoiler]But for Emet-Selch, he just wants to restore his world, that he believes is the best world.[spoiler]. So each time we create a new villain, we try to put them on either end of the scale, either complete evil or with having their own belief, their own goal. Having someone in-between is quite half-baked and is something the dev team wants to avoid.

Seems pretty clear to me that it's generally applicable to their antagonists and, given his aims, I would certainly put Varis closer to Emet-Selch.