fate of emperor varis at the end

[Edax]

Now, I posed the above hypothetical to ask this question: If the above were true and you'd suddenly lost your advantage; if you were being pushed back time and time again by an enemy you were slowly becoming less and less able to handle, would you simply let your empire eventually fall? Would you let your people go back to the days of being oppressed because of their disability, or would you use every means available to you to prevent that from happening? Black Rose is a weapon of terror, yes - its destructive power is horrifying, but it is a weapon all the same. Who wants to go to war, especially one they're starting to think they might not win, when they can simply destroy their opposition without risking anything?

Would I let my Empire fall? No. But neither would I use Black Rose. I know my history, the first time the Allies used lethal gas weapons against Germany in WWI was after they capture stockpiles of mustard shells from the Germans and returned the favor. To use Black Rose is to have Black Rose used upon your Empire. It's just a matter of fact that powerful weapons end up captured by the enemy over time and reverse engineered or simply commandeered. Black Rose is an escalation from a war of survival to a war of extermination, to use is it is to doom the Empire.

I'm not saying the Eorzeans are looking to oppress here, but the Garleans probably think they are. We are after all talking about a race that suffered immeasurably for a very long time because of their inherent inability to manipulate aether. Consequently, we aren't claiming the war started as a result of Garlean desperation, either. Their initial use of Black Rose is not being defended at all. What we're arguing is that it would be perfectly understandable if they began to use it in larger quantities after the war begins to go incredibly poorly for them.

The Empire invades and conquers far distant countries and the Garleans think they are the ones being oppressed? That's too stupid for words. Gas weapons are not weapons of last resort, they escalate the conflict which is the last thing you want to happen when the war is going badly for you. If the war is going badly, you want to deescalate the conflict so you can get an armistice to save the country before it's invaded, not strengthen the cause of the enemy.

[Alleo]

I'm disappointed. The equivalent of 'no, u' as a comeback is rather pedestrian, don't you think? At any rate, you're incorrect! Garlemald isn't even my favourite faction in this game. My favourite characters aren't even Garlean, either. I just prefer bringing the facts to the table as they are established from the perspectives of the appropriate characters/factions to better counter the one sided arguments, manipulation of facts and moral grandstanding that goes on here.

It's pretty obvious that my posting style isn't super serious, too. Or at least it should be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The only reason I even bother posting here these days is due to popular request. Most of my posts are over on the general discussion board, since there's less uptight and preachy folk over there. Not nearly as much tone policing, either I've noticed.

I'm not sure why many here cannot simply agree to disagree. It's not at all difficult, especially when it comes to subjective elements.

At any rate, I disagree with the idea that the characters listed above didn't get enough character development. They had plenty - enough to get a feel for their personalities and for those who were objective, they correctly deduced that there was much more to their motives. Yotsuyu didn't owe the world anything, either. She had to be stopped, though when someone is tormented in such a horrific manner then it isn't at all surprising that they lash out in response...especially if they are never shown a single mercy. Some victims of abuse do not turn out that way, though they're typically the ones who get help and ongoing support.

Well if you start by attacking people and posting that they are way too serious while simply discussion their views in a discussion forum then dont be surprised at some answers. I mean if you are not even serious why the need of such a sentence at all?

Also my answers before the last post werent even at you yet even after saying that you want to agree to disagree you still answered my post that I wrote to others. I am not forced to agree to disagree, I am on a discussion forum to discuss things and if I have enough I simply dont answer anymore. Until that I feel quite comfortable to answer peoples posts that are mostly also just pure discussion too.

Edit: So it means that you are just discussing certain positions just for being on the opposite side? Well good to know.

Minor note: Gaius didn't object to Black Rose on moral grounds, ie he didn't think Black Rose was somehow "too terrible" to use. He objected to Black Rose on "pragmatic" grounds, in that he thinks Black Rose is too deadly and indiscriminate. Presumably if there was a formulation of Black Rose that had a definite non-100% casualty rate, he would be far less opposed to it.

The same applies for Meteor: his objections to it were entirely because it killed everyone, or at least had a very high probability of killing everyone.
.

You are right. Maybe calling it morality was a bit wrong there. But at least he has his code of "honor" and wants at least countries and cities to still be there to rule over. Of course in ARR he also still could not be left alone simply because he wanted to conquer Eorzea but he got is character development and thus he is at least someone I would call a nuanced, grey character. Someone that one could see working together with for a common goal. I am not sure if he gets to be leader later, I wish that position more on someone like Maxima, a Garlear that does not want further war.

[Iscah]

I'm disappointed. The equivalent of 'no, u' as a comeback is rather pedestrian, don't you think? At any rate, you're incorrect! Garlemald isn't even my favourite faction in this game. My favourite characters aren't even Garlean, either. I just prefer bringing the facts to the table as they are established from the perspectives of the appropriate characters/factions to better counter the one sided arguments, manipulation of facts and moral grandstanding that goes on here.

It's pretty obvious that my posting style isn't super serious, too. Or at least it should be. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The only reason I even bother posting here these days is due to popular request. Most of my posts are over on the general discussion board, since there's less uptight and preachy folk over there. Not nearly as much tone policing, either I've noticed.

No, it isn't "obvious that your posting style isn't super serious". It comes off - certainly to me - as superior, not so much for the facts you state as the way you talk about the people who don't agree with them. You're not here to join in the conversation as an equal, you're here to correct us all and tell us how you're capable of seeing the facts that us poor Hydaelyn-addled "uptight and preachy folk" are too biased to see. The conveyed message is that if we don't agree with your take on things, it's because we can't appreciate the subtleties of a story and don't have our facts straight, not just because we've interpreted it differently.

And by "not naming and shaming" (as I saw you write in another post I can't find now) and instead making broad statements about what you think of some people... that doesn't lessen the blow, it just means more people think you're referring to them.

Like your post about the film Misery. Is that remark that "some people take the fictional setting too seriously" aimed at me because I posted earlier in defence of supporting Hydaelyn? Are you saying I'm taking it too seriously? I don't know if you're accusing me or not, but it feels like it.

In any case, we're in a forum with the sole intent of deeply discussing this fictional setting. Of course I'm going to talk about it seriously within this context - the discussion wouldn't get very far otherwise. It's not like I go out into everyday life and talk about it like it's real. And in any case it's not so much arguing back to defend Hydaelyn as to argue back why considering Hydaelyn innocent until proven guilty does not make me incapable of appreciating the details of the story and seeing the facts.

When your write things like the post above, it feels like an attack. I don't know if it's intended and I don't know who it's aimed at because you don't tell us, but it feels like an attack. And it is miserable.

[YianKutku]

You are right. Maybe calling it morality was a bit wrong there. But at least he has his code of "honor" and wants at least countries and cities to still be there to rule over. Of course in ARR he also still could not be left alone simply because he wanted to conquer Eorzea but he got is character development and thus he is at least someone I would call a nuanced, grey character. Someone that one could see working together with for a common goal. I am not sure if he gets to be leader later, I wish that position more on someone like Maxima, a Garlear that does not want further war.

True. Gaius would be what I would use for the example of "Lawful Evil", keeping in mind all the caveats about using D&D alignments (too simplistic, descriptive not prescriptive, so on and so forth). He's the example where the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but at least we can work together for a certain goal without fear that he will backstab us in the middle of it. (Afterwards is another matter, but for the duration, no backstab.)

Honestly I would prefer it if the Garlean Empire were to be taken down in the course of the story, to be replaced by the Garlean Republic, as it was before Solus zos Galvus. One of the weaknesses of the FFXIV story is that it has trouble presenting nations without personifying them in their heads of state; even though Ishgard is now a parliamentary democracy, we still get Aymeric as the chief representative because it's easier for players to identify with individuals rather than bureaucracies.

So the best I can hope for is that someone (probably someone we know, due to player familiarity) will end up in an Aymeric-like position, where the actual government is made of many people in an institution, and the person who shows up at summits and negotiations just happens to be one of the members whom we get to interact with more, rather than the actual top dictator whose word is law, like an Emperor (or Merlwyb or Hien, for that matter). We've seen the weaknesses of a hereditary monarchy in the Garlean Empire, and it is only because the timeline won't actually advance due to time bubble that I believe Doma won't fall to the same issues.

[Evraeh]

And Gaius claimed that Might Makes Right, but when we defeated him and his Ultima Weapon, he still refused to believe that we (as representatives of Eorzea, which he addressed us as) could rule our own destiny.

Basically, I'm calling Gaius a hypocrite, in that his actions do not match his stated words.

He doesn't refuse to believe that we could rule our own destiny, in opposite, he is convinced that you are the one who could rule over Eorzea with your mighty power, not just to rule as despot (like garlemald). He think you could save this "blinded realm riddles by false gods" since you have the power to destroy Eikons.

And why will he go back to conquer now that he knows all the Empire's actions are made but for chaos ? In conquering Eorzea and all others zones, he was thinking it was for the good of the planet (even if it's wrong).
But are we doing it right ? I mean, we know now Hydaelyn is a "Primal" - how can we say her actions are good and objectives ?

For me, everyone can make mistakes but when you are willing to see what you have done and change everything, you can find redemption.

[Cilia]

He doesn't refuse to believe that we could rule our own destiny, in opposite, he is convinced that you are the one who could rule over Eorzea with your mighty power, not just to rule as despot (like garlemald). He think you could save this "blinded realm riddles by false gods" since you have the power to destroy Eikons.

And why will he go back to conquer now that he knows all the Empire's actions are made but for chaos ? In conquering Eorzea and all others zones, he was thinking it was for the good of the planet (even if it's wrong).
But are we doing it right ? I mean, we know now Hydaelyn is a "Primal" - how can we say her actions are good and objectives ?

For me, everyone can make mistakes but when you are willing to see what you have done and change everything, you can find redemption.

To me, Gaius' "dying" words to us come across as confusion as to why we don't use our great power to dominate Eorzea; why, if we have the power to "rule," we choose to serve the interests of others. This would be expected of someone accustomed to having his own way through force of arms. (This is what makes the PC "good" by conventional morality - placing the common good and interests of others over their own).

Has Gaius changed? Maybe. At the very least he's hunting Ascians, which is a good thing from the perspective of mortals. Whether he believes continuing the Imperial conquest is an acceptable path forward or he has taken a different political stance has not been touched on. Why might he go back to conquest? The same reason(s) Varis doesn't change course - though based in a lie, he could still believe it to be the best way forward.

Hydaelyn being a primal doesn't really change much of anything. Yes, she is a primal, and yes, we have sworn to slay them - but it's not as if all primals are evil (to man or otherwise). Ramuh and Alexander previously showed that primals can be benign if not outright benevolent, depending. We also haven't actually seen Hydaelyn on the material plane; all of our meetings with her have been on the aetherial plane, and it's not as if we can just jump over there. Primals on the aetherial plane are no danger - it's only when they're summoned to the material plane that they begin consuming aether.

Hydaelyn's raison d'être is protecting the races of man from becoming fuel for Zodiark to resurrect the Ancients that sacrificed themselves to him. While not objectively good, to the races of man she is a magnanimous benefactor, so I do not see the issue with her hanging around so long as she does not try to control man's future (and she has shown no effort to do so, only make sure man has a future).

[Absimiliard]

The Empire invades and conquers far distant countries and the Garleans think they are the ones being oppressed? That's too stupid for words. Gas weapons are not weapons of last resort, they escalate the conflict which is the last thing you want to happen when the war is going badly for you. If the war is going badly, you want to deescalate the conflict so you can get an armistice to save the country before it's invaded, not strengthen the cause of the enemy.

I typically dislike this option when it comes to debate, but we may simply have to agree to disagree on the subject of Black Rose and the validity or invalidity - from the Garlean perspective specifically, I would note - of choosing to deploy the weapon. I personally do not believe Eorzeans have truly grown beyond the atrocities committed in their past. Reaching an accord with them would, in my opinion, be begging for a knife in the back somewhere down the line. Given their track record, they're honestly just as bad as the Empire in a lot of ways. Neither side could ever really trust the other. There would most likely be a dangerous amount of friction on both sides almost from onset. For these reason as well as others outlined further below, I suspect the a not insignificant portion of the Garlean population could indeed be influenced to view the use of Black Rose as a viable and warranted military action.

As for the Garleans thinking they're being oppressed? No one said they currently feel that way. A major part of Garlean history is that they were abused horribly by the other sapient races prior to their discovery of ceruleum and subsequent invention of magitech. So horribly, in fact, that they lost nearly all of their lands and found themselves driven into a virtually uninhabitable region. If I'm not mistaken it was implied somewhere that a significant portion of their population was lost as a result. Considering this, it could easily be said that much of their current mindset (or at least that of the dominant faction) was likely shaped by those experiences - and in all probability having Emet-Selch on hand at the Empire's inception to do more than a little gaslighting. It's not hard to behave irrationally when so much of your racial history - and comparatively recent history at that - consists of suffering loss after loss on account of an inborn disability putting you at significant disadvantage. The Garlean Empire is not that old, after all. It is very likely that some of the people living in it today remember the "good old days" of barely managing to eke out a living in the harsh landscape their forbears were driven to.

Anywho, an unhealthy combination of imperial propaganda, the aforementioned gaslighting, and their actual history being one rife with shocking levels of abuse and suffering make it very easy to picture them being lead to believe the "savages" from outside Garlemald would seek to oppress, demean, and potentially even destroy them all over again. Whether or not the Alliance would actually do this is secondary to how easily the Garlean populace could be given the impression that this very thing would happen in the event of any outcome where the Empire doesn't come out on top. Desperate people will do some pretty insane things.

[Alleo]

I typically dislike this option when it comes to debate, but we may simply have to agree to disagree on the subject of Black Rose and the validity or invalidity - from the Garlean perspective specifically, I would note - of choosing to deploy the weapon. I personally do not believe Eorzeans have truly grown beyond the atrocities committed in their past. Reaching an accord with them would, in my opinion, be begging for a knife in the back somewhere down the line. Given their track record, they're honestly just as bad as the Empire in a lot of ways.

Can you give examples please? Its always easy to point out that one side is exactly the same as the other but its hard to discuss things without seeing what someone sees as horrible acts.

I give my examples. (And again we are only talking about recent events not stuff that happened hundred years ago)

Garlemald:

- Wanted to drop a meteor on Eorzea which then released Bahamut which would have created another huge calamity if the scions did not prevent it at least a bit. Still destroyed a lot of land, killed people on both sides and created the ground for a lot of conflict with the beast tribes in Eorzea.
- Force people of conquered cities into the war by keeping their loved ones as hostages and as soon as something bad happens they kill them, including the children. (And sometimes even kill them when nothing bad happens..)
- Threats quite some of the conquered states quite badly and look away at violence. Even put people like Zenos in charge. Takes away their culture and their ways to earn Gil, leaving them starving and without a great future. (Something Rome for example has never done because they knew that this would just cause rebellions..)
- Use people as leaders that are known to be hateful and violent towards the people they should rule.
- Creates and uses a chemical weapon, first on human test subjects then later on their own people who oppose the leader politically. Would have created the 8th. calamity with said weapon, destroying the source with it, killing the lands and their own people too. It would have created a war that was still going on 200 years in the future. (So they would have created two calamities..)
- Leader works together with the Asicans and wants the calamities to happen so that they will get stronger to maybe defeat the Ascians later..completely ignoring that most would probably be death anyways..
- Leader restricts freedom of speech and punishs anyone that goes against him, even if its just for art.
- Soldiers are killed by the likes of Zenos for nothing, and nobody does anything
- Planned genocide of the whole beast tribes and at the start of the echo users too.
- Using echo users and some other humans for experiments to create super soldiers, maybe even doing said experiments on a garlean child.

There are probably more but that does not make them look good.

Eorzean alliance

- Limsa: Breaks contract with the kobolds which forces them into conflict. Still has to deal with its past of being pirates.

- Gridania: Very negative to outsiders that go into their country, out of fear of angering the elementals. Which in turn means that people might die because they get no help.

- Uldah: The rich control the city and might do everything to keep control. Leader still tries everything to help others but cant do much. Also dont help the refugees much.

-Ala Mhigo: Was under Garlean rule for over 20 years and afterwards is now rebuilding their city back. On a good way and one cant say much about it because they were under a different rule before that.

-Ishgard: Had built itself on a lie and was at constant war thanks to that. Did not help at the battle a few years ago because of their own problems and did not want strangers in their city. Also they were ready to kill anyone that opposes them and also killed quite a bit of Au Ra because they believed them to be related with dragons. Government changed and now these problems are gone.

Now these are the points I can think of. Nothing comes close to what Garlemald has done the recent years and a lot of the problem even just arised because of Bahamut..without that the Sahagin for example would not have lost their breeding grounds and maybe Limsa would not have broken their contract. Still the problems they are having will probably be found in a lot of governments even in real life. And we cant forget that at least the elementals are real too.

But at the same time next to all of this, the leaders of the Alliance have shown to be good people. Even after that horrible battle years ago Kan-E-Senna went out of her way to even heal Garlean soldiers and she took one in as her personal guard.

Nanamo has now created a way for Ala Mhigo to earn some money by getting Lolorito to finance the saltery. Which will help the people in these countries quite a bit.

The Alliance also found some of Black Rose but instead of using it to create their own weapons they were disgusted by that and destroyed every single bit of it. They are also fighting the fight with their own manpower.

After the battles to get Ala Mhigo back they also did not kill the soldiers that surrendered, heck the WoL for example even healed some. They could have easily let the mob kill Fordola too but Raubahn wanted a fair trial and there they even gave her the chance to life by helping out the alliance with the primal problems.

People on the army are as far as we know not forced and you are free to say whats on your mind towards the leaders. Ysthola was calling the admiral out of it and she does not need to fear punishment. Do the same in Garlemald with at least a bit of power behind you and you will find yourself killed and your family probably too.

So I am looking forward to see some of the atrocities that they are seemingly able to do. Because none of the leaders right now seems to be that way. They might not be perfect (nobody said they are) but their problems and bad things they are doing are nothing when you compare them to Garlemald.

About Garlemalds past:

Can we please stop with saying that they suffered thus they have the right to use this against other countries that had nothing to do with that? First this happened a long time ago. Garlemald existed a long time before Emet Selch took over and that was already when they have combined several tribes into one. Nobody from that time is alive anymore and many generations have passed. This cant be used as an argument anymore, simply because they already got their land back. Anything else is just them feeling like they should rule.

[Scintilla]

Uldah: The rich control the city and might do everything to keep control. Leader still tries everything to help others but cant do much. Also dont help the refugees much.
...
So I am looking forward to see some of the atrocities that they are seemingly able to do.

To be completely fair though, that description of the Eorzean Alliance members does downplay some of the more unpleasant aspects, Ul'dah in particular. Whilst not incorrect, your description of the (admittedly many) flaws of Garlemald are far more detailed.

- Slavery; Citizens of Ul'dah, including children, could be sold to repay debts. With able men kept imprisoned and forced into brutal fights before an audience in the Coliseum for their freedom. Meanwhile, less able prisoners were forced into a daily routine of back-breaking chores followed by training in which even minor mistakes were punished with beatings.
- Syndicate; Whilst Nanamo may be the 'face' of Ul'dah leadership with her role as the Sultan, much of the power lies with the rest of the Syndicate: the richest in society and the seats of which can be bought. Needless to say, being able to buy a position of power is far from ideal and is something even Garlemald (as far as we know) didn't go as far as to do. Not only would such an arrangement increase the already considerable rift between the wealthy and poor, but lead to an easier manipulation of the vulnerable.

It's also important to consider that we're unlikely to have heard about the underlying issues or past wrongdoings of the alliance members, as they're our allies. Similar to how regular Garlean citizens are unlikely to know the list of questionable actions of Garlemald, instead hearing only a biased account of how bad the Alliance is.

People on the army are as far as we know not forced and you are free to say whats on your mind towards the leaders. Ysthola was calling the admiral out of it and she does not need to fear punishment. Do the same in Garlemald with at least a bit of power behind you and you will find yourself killed and your family probably too.

After a quick check, the wikia states that Limsa's army is formed partially from 'conscripted pirates'. Conscription being a compulsory enlistment into such a service. Though I can't say exactly where that information was sourced from. The rest I completely agree with though.

[Edax]

I typically dislike this option when it comes to debate, but we may simply have to agree to disagree on the subject of Black Rose and the validity or invalidity - from the Garlean perspective specifically, I would note - of choosing to deploy the weapon. I personally do not believe Eorzeans have truly grown beyond the atrocities committed in their past. Reaching an accord with them would, in my opinion, be begging for a knife in the back somewhere down the line. Given their track record, they're honestly just as bad as the Empire in a lot of ways. Neither side could ever really trust the other. There would most likely be a dangerous amount of friction on both sides almost from onset. For these reason as well as others outlined further below, I suspect the a not insignificant portion of the Garlean population could indeed be influenced to view the use of Black Rose as a viable and warranted military action.

I do not see Eorzeans exterminating cities. You may look down on them, but I have yet to see the leaders of Eorzean debate whether to kill every last man, woman and child in the city of Garland. But this is what the Garleans are debating, the death of every man, woman and child of the cities on the other side of the world. Eorzea is not in much of a position to put a "knife in the back" of the Empire given the vast amount of distance between them, that's like arguing that the British could never negotiate with the American Revolutionaries because this would result in "a knife in the back" to the British Empire somehow. The Colonials and British were equivalently "bad".

As for the Garleans thinking they're being oppressed? No one said they currently feel that way. A major part of Garlean history is that they were abused horribly by the other sapient races prior to their discovery of ceruleum and subsequent invention of magitech. So horribly, in fact, that they lost nearly all of their lands and found themselves driven into a virtually uninhabitable region. If I'm not mistaken it was implied somewhere that a significant portion of their population was lost as a result. Considering this, it could easily be said that much of their current mindset (or at least that of the dominant faction) was likely shaped by those experiences - and in all probability having Emet-Selch on hand at the Empire's inception to do more than a little gaslighting. It's not hard to behave irrationally when so much of your racial history - and comparatively recent history at that - consists of suffering loss after loss on account of an inborn disability putting you at significant disadvantage. The Garlean Empire is not that old, after all. It is very likely that some of the people living in it today remember the "good old days" of barely managing to eke out a living in the harsh landscape their forbears were driven to.

Anywho, an unhealthy combination of imperial propaganda, the aforementioned gaslighting, and their actual history being one rife with shocking levels of abuse and suffering make it very easy to picture them being lead to believe the "savages" from outside Garlemald would seek to oppress, demean, and potentially even destroy them all over again. Whether or not the Alliance would actually do this is secondary to how easily the Garlean populace could be given the impression that this very thing would happen in the event of any outcome where the Empire doesn't come out on top. Desperate people will do some pretty insane things.

You know, I'm sure some Americans were horribly abused by the British, but I don't see these as legitimate reasons to go to war with several nations and gas civilian populations. If they want to exterminate the world, they they'll sacrifice their Empire to do it because no one will think twice on returning the favor. So I'll repeat, I'd save the Empire, but I wouldn't escalate the war to do it. Even a certain insane German dictator who was gassed several times in his life was absolutely terrified that the British would gas Berlin so he would NEVER provoke the British by escalating the war to that level despite being desperate.