fate of emperor varis at the end

[LineageRazor]

When speaking of the Black Rose as a weapon of mass destruction, I think it's important to consider that the writers behind this game are Japanese. They have a unique perspective on the topic of WoMD's, being the only nation in the world to have nuclear weapons deployed against them in a war - and one result of this is that WoMDs are very rarely glorified in their media. There's no rationalizing that other means makes you just as dead as Black Rose does. It's very much an emotional feeling. To them, it's simply self-evident that such weapons are inherently evil in a way that doesn't apply to other forms of wartime-allowable murder.

Setting aside the Japanese perspective, however, chemical weapons are considered to be immoral elsewhere in the world, even when their method of death would technically be considered more merciful than guns, blades, or explosives. It's worth noting that the number of nations in the world that refuse to comply with the Chemical Weapon Convention can be counted on your fingers.

"Pseudo-Primal" is what we've kind of settled on in the Lore forums, due to the weirdness of Louisoix managing to mantle Phoenix into himself, but then getting tempered by Bahamut anyway, which is the only instance this ever happened. So special pleading had to be worked out, and we don't really know how applicable any of it is.

Actually, this is addressed in-game. Bahamut explicitly waited until Louisoix was dispersing Phoenix's energy, and THEN tempered him. Phoenix was unsummoned, or in the process of being unsummoned.

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.

Drest, an Imperial deserter, but not a Garlean himself (e.g., a conscript). His PTSD is largely caused by his former masters actively sending troops to try to kill him for his desertion, and also by the knowledge of what the Garleans likely did to his family when he ran away. This is one of the many atrocities the game uses to illustrate why folks should not sympathize with the Garleans.

The horrors inflicted upon their race for God knows how long before they formed their Empire,

What horrors would those be? The extent of our knowledge of what happened to the Garleans back then is limited. We know they were driven into an inhospitable area, and that violence was probably used. It likely wasn't at all pleasant, but there's no reason to believe it was any worse than any other international conflict. For all we know, there might have been very little bloodshed at all - their oppressors flashed some magic, said "Get out," and the Garleans up and ran, since they had no way to respond in kind. While they certainly had more than enough reason to be resentful, and eventually desire to retake their homeland, what we see in the Garleans now is a far cry from just that. They have a full-blown racial and cultural superiority complex going on, now.

[Absimiliard]

What horrors would those be? The extent of our knowledge of what happened to the Garleans back then is limited. We know they were driven into an inhospitable area, and that violence was probably used. It likely wasn't at all pleasant, but there's no reason to believe it was any worse than any other international conflict. For all we know, there might have been very little bloodshed at all - their oppressors flashed some magic, said "Get out," and the Garleans up and ran, since they had no way to respond in kind. While they certainly had more than enough reason to be resentful, and eventually desire to retake their homeland, what we see in the Garleans now is a far cry from just that. They have a full-blown racial and cultural superiority complex going on, now.

What little information we do have on them suggests that they were driven from their lands primarily over resources. Their inability to manipulate aether resulted in them being easy prey. Where this takes a darker turn is just how brutally the other races came at them. It wasn't just that they were driven from their lands - they were almost driven to the point of ceasing to be. It also appears that some Garleans were used a slave labor at some point, likely owing to their excessively strong bodies making them good workers and their inability to use aether all but eliminating any chance of them suddenly turning on their masters. I wouldn't be surprised if the Garlean propaganda machine doesn't go out of its way to make sure the people of Garlemald never forget where they came from. It is, after all, much easier to justify war and expansionism to the masses when they're under the delusion that outsiders, be they a race or a country, somehow owe them something.

Oh yes, Garleans today are definitely a far cry from what they were. They went from being oppressed and near-helpless to being a tyrannical military superpower. One can only speculate as to how they developed such a superiority complex, but I wouldn't be surprised if Emet-Selch's machinations somehow involved shaping modern Garlean society to function that way. He, as Emperor Solus, both praised Garlean pride and supported treating the conquered territories with a measure of kindness and respect to keep trouble down. Having these two conflicting mindsets running parallel to one another in a single society no doubt gave him numerous exploitable opportunities.

[ObsidianFire]

It wasn't just that they were driven from their lands - they were almost driven to the point of ceasing to be. It also appears that some Garleans were used a slave labor at some point, likely owing to their excessively strong bodies making them good workers and their inability to use aether all but eliminating any chance of them suddenly turning on their masters.

Where is any of this said in-game or in the lore books? All that is said is that the Garleans got driven out of Othard. It never goes into the how or why of it.

So yes, the Garleans did get driven to Northern Isabard. They then discovered ceruleum there fairly early and used it to make sure they could survive in what is essentially Siberia. They managed to unite their different cities (there were at least nine) through various means and then had a successful republic for 800 years. During that time they fended off anyone trying to take over their nation via subterfuge and politics, not open warfare. They couldn't compete with the magic of the nations around them, and they knew it, so they did compete with them in the spheres that they knew they could win in. There's a reason the Garleans have constantly been portrayed as knowing what is going on in all the different countries even when they aren't there anymore. They also apparently didn't try to (or at least succeed in) taking over the nations surrounding them for 800 years either.

It's only once an Ascian is at the head of their military that they have a tech revolution and start conquering the nations surrounding them. I find the timing of that very suspicious. 800 years is a very, very long time to nurse a national grudge about getting kicked out of somewhere to the point that a nation wants to go back to that place as soon as they have the technology to do so. If the Garlean Republic had been around for a lot shorter period of time, then I'd be more open to thinking that the Garleans had been nursing a national grudge.

[Absimiliard]

Where is any of this said in-game or in the lore books? All that is said is that the Garleans got driven out of Othard. It never goes into the how or why of it.

It comes in bits and pieces from all over. Sometimes in-game, sometimes in peripherals. Not much about their history is ever directly stated, I concede, but some things have been implied. Notice my careful use of phrasing; terms such as "suggests" or "I wouldn't be surprised". Garlean lore is sadly lacking outside of anything other than vague commentary, limited innuendo, and the host of atrocities they are continually depicted performing and/or condoning in-game. If you want exact sources for the in-game part, I can't help you there. You're welcome to make whatever assumptions you want based on a "lack of evidence". I just legitimately don't have the free time or care to pour over a bunch of text from such a long time ago.

So yes, the Garleans did get driven to Northern Isabard. They then discovered ceruleum there fairly early and used it to make sure they could survive in what is essentially Siberia. They managed to unite their different cities (there were at least nine) through various means and then had a successful republic for 800 years. During that time they fended off anyone trying to take over their nation via subterfuge and politics, not open warfare. They couldn't compete with the magic of the nations around them, and they knew it, so they did compete with them in the spheres that they knew they could win in. There's a reason the Garleans have constantly been portrayed as knowing what is going on in all the different countries even when they aren't there anymore. They also apparently didn't try to (or at least succeed in) taking over the nations surrounding them for 800 years either.

This information is correct. I was, however, under the impression that their discovery of ceruleum was a comparatively recent event. Comparatively meaning around the time their technological revolution first began - or, more precisely, that it was what directly enabled that technological revolution.

It's only once an Ascian is at the head of their military that they have a tech revolution and start conquering the nations surrounding them. I find the timing of that very suspicious. 800 years is a very, very long time to nurse a national grudge about getting kicked out of somewhere to the point that a nation wants to go back to that place as soon as they have the technology to do so. If the Garlean Republic had been around for a lot shorter period of time, then I'd be more open to thinking that the Garleans had been nursing a national grudge.

You can nurse a grudge for a very long time without ever acting on it. Just look at the friction between some of the Northern and Southern states in the US today. It's no 800 years but I'd say that a considerable length of time has none the less passed. Regardless, nobody seems to be looking to spark a civil war, but there's definitely still some bitterness there. In any case, I think a lot of it can be traced back to Emet-Selch gaslighting (or enabling, at the very least) them. All it takes to turn a lingering grudge into a full blown war is one man (or Ascian, in this case) with the gift of the silver tongue. Military accomplishments alone do not typically install someone as the leader of an entire nation - they must earn and/or manipulate their way there, generally through spoken word. The more distinguished their service, the greater the weight their career can add to their words and ideals.

[Ardox]

It comes in bits and pieces from all over. Sometimes in-game, sometimes in peripherals. Not much about their history is ever directly stated, I concede, but some things have been implied. Notice my careful use of phrasing; terms such as "suggests" or "I wouldn't be surprised". Garlean lore is sadly lacking outside of anything other than vague commentary, limited innuendo, and the host of atrocities they are continually depicted performing and/or condoning in-game. If you want exact sources for the in-game part, I can't help you there. You're welcome to make whatever assumptions you want based on a "lack of evidence". I just legitimately don't have the free time or care to pour over a bunch of text from such a long time ago.

Problem is you didn't initially presented anything you said as speculation at all: If you present something as implied and hinted at people will assume you have the care to pour over a bunch of text from a long time ago to back what you said. Heck, ObsidianFire did opened her lorebook to get you the right time line. Dismissing her the way you did just make you look like a unconditional Garlean apologist..

Also, the American civil war was only 165 years ago and there's still racial tensions: this is why it is way fresher in the country's memory. It would be like having a grudge about something that happened in year 1220; Emet-Selch made Garlemald into a super power during a lifetime worth of their history.

[Absimiliard]

Problem is you didn't initially presented anything you said as speculation at all: If you present something as implied and hinted at people will assume you have the care to pour over a bunch of text from a long time ago to back what you said. Heck, ObsidianFire did opened her lorebook to get you the right time line. Dismissing her the way you did just make you look like a unconditional Garlean apologist..

If being unable to sit down and spend hours pouring over text in a game when I am rarely actually home to do so is somehow dismissive, so be it. Some of us lead very busy lives, though I suspect mine will thankfully calm down a bit in the near future. Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

Also, the American civil war was only 165 years ago and there's still racial tensions: this is why it is way fresher in the country's memory. It would be like having a grudge about something that happened in year 1220; Emet-Selch made Garlemald into a super power during a lifetime worth of their history.

Alright. Since you communicated a belief that racial tensions are the sole cause of people still bearing a grudge from the Civil War after nearly two hundred years have passed, I will give you a different example. Take a look at the Middle East, at Europe. Some of the countries over there have grudges that go back hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years. Some of these groups actively fight over it while others limit themselves to mere derision and other commentary. The point here is that people are really, really good at holding a grudge. Why, if people in real life can maintain a grudge over things that they themselves never personally experienced or that occurred long ago, is it beyond the realm of possibility for Garleans to have done the same?

Some of the worst world leaders we ever saw from throughout history got to their positions by preying on public perceptions. Even a certain German dictator took advantage of preexisting tensions to sway the masses over to his line of thinking. Why, then, is it beyond the realm of possibility for Emet-Selch do have done the same?

[Ardox]

If being unable to sit down and spend hours pouring over text in a game when I am rarely actually home to do so is somehow dismissive, so be it. Some of us lead very busy lives, though I suspect mine will thankfully calm down a bit in the near future.

I'm not sure what you trying to say with this: Are you suggesting "you have a busy life" as in "everyone that can find a source to back their suppositions have nothing to do with their lives"? Since I see you chime in of a variety of subjects on this forum, I would argue you have at least some some spare time and you could at least spend some of it to do some internet searching to back your points of view.

Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

You said:

What little information we do have on them suggests that they were driven from their lands primarily over resources. Their inability to manipulate aether resulted in them being easy prey. Where this takes a darker turn is just how brutally the other races came at them. It wasn't just that they were driven from their lands - they were almost driven to the point of ceasing to be. It also appears that some Garleans were used a slave labor at some point, likely owing to their excessively strong bodies making them good workers and their inability to use aether all but eliminating any chance of them suddenly turning on their masters.

The statement in bold is presented as a hard fact.
The statement in italic is presented as a something strongly hinted. — "It appears" doesn't equal "I believe".
Eg.: "It appears we possess the soul of sundered Ancient" vs "I believe we possess the soul of an sundered Ancient"

Alright. Since you communicated a belief that racial tensions are the sole cause of people still bearing a grudge from the Civil War after nearly two hundred years have passed, I will give you a different example. Take a look at the Middle East, at Europe. Some of the countries over there have grudges that go back hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.

That's not an example, there's nothing specific; that's just tossing something my way in the hope it sticks.

[Iscah]

Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

The thing is, even if you believe that something is true, it's generally accepted in these discussions that you should be able to explain why you believe it, and what was said that led you to that conclusion.

If you can't explain how you came to believe something, it's possible you misunderstood or the text was ambiguous. To discuss the story in the depth that we do, referring back to the story and "spending hours poring over text" is necessary, or we'd all just be running on our own vague memory of what happened.

There's also a critical difference in how you use the word "believed". I questioned your use of the phrase "it is believed" the other day, though you didn't reply - but saying that isn't the same thing as "I believe", which clearly marks your own opinion. Saying "it is believed" implies that it is general knowledge and you're stating a common theory if not a solid fact.

We have to work from facts here. 'Fictional facts', but we still want to be on the same page to discuss what happened and what happens next. If you disagree on those facts, but can't say how you came to that alternate understanding, how can you be certain that you are right - and how can we rely on your claim over what we do understand from poring over the text? If there's something we missed, we want to know about it. If you can't tell us where the something exists, we can't assume that it exists at all.


Edit to add: this isn't to say you can't join in the conversation until you've studied the script in-depth - just that it's much better to phrase things as "I thought..." or to ask questions than to state things like facts if you aren't able to reference them. Those of us who do have a good memory for script details are happy to clarify things or say whether your understanding is correct or not - and it makes for a far more pleasant atmosphere than having to query your statements at every turn.