6.0 Predictions: Will it be Garlemald, Sharlayan, or Meracydia?

[Vyrerus]

Textbook Fascism

Unfortunately, it's not textbook Fascism. It's a little more tribal than that, imo. While he does place a great deal of importance on strength, he also yields to higher strength. This is shown both by his loyalty to the Emperor and by his acquiescence to the WoL(in later patches). But it's also shown in his speech, where he asserts that you're welcome to stop him, if you can.

Textbook Fascism is dictatorship, enforced through violent means if necessary, where the dictator won't even conscience opposition or shared leadership. Kind of makes sense, coming from someone raised in an empire. Fascists want authority, and that's pretty much it. They'll sacrifice their people, their family, their good image, and basically anything to gain and keep authority. Gaius on the other hand is advocating for a kratocracy. A type of rule where might makes right, because they mighty are those who can solve problems and keep the populace safe. He offers you regency of Eorzea before the first boss in Prae, if you side with him.

Essentially, he's a master moralist and a universalist like Immanuel Kant. It's made evident by him wanting you to take up his view, and by him noting that he would be perfectly fine with someone else stronger than him ruling. To him, might is right, is a categorical imperative. So while it does share some qualities of fascism, such as authoritarianism, it's not fascism.

As for Gaius's motivations for Ascian killing and the options open to him... Well, his option, singular, at the time was convince this Elezen BLM to not kill him. As we have been told so far. I wouldn't expect Gaius to have changed dramatically fresh out of his ass whooping. He kept to his convictions even in defeat.

As for Livia being a plot hole. Nah, it's not a plot hole at all. The more pressing matter at hand was that we were penetrating deep into the Castrum, and we needed to be stopped. While I can admit that it's weird that there was nary a mention at all, ever since, and certainly no mourning, we can take that as Gaius wanting to exude strength in his speech about how strength is all that matters. He's trying to lull us over to his line of thinking to ally with him, and he certainly did make a good point about how we're the ones with actual power at our fingertips, rather than the city-state leaders. Had he mentioned Livia or cursed us for killing her, it'd betray emotion and weaken his position.

[Vyrerus]

Gauis isn't a good ruler he's everything you don't want in a new Garlemald. Him opposing the Meteor project and Black rose? Pragmatic. He's a conqueror first and foremost you can't conscript copses into your army. You can't plunder a land for resources of it's been reduced to a crater. The weapons project? You do realize he's the reason they are orphans in the first place right. He took them in and raised them to so they'd be loyal subjects of the Empire. The skulls Program was basically him doing this on a larger scale. Sure he want's the Ascains out of control in his country and he wants to stop the weapons program for the reasons above. The man has not shown any regret for all the things his conquests have led to.

Idk man, when he comes to Ala Mhigo to beg the WoL's aid in stopping the Ruby Weapon, he refers to his past actions as foolishness. He also refers to the Ultima weapon program as a mistake that he wishes to undo.

"The fates will enjoy the irony while I endure the ignominy." "What price must the world pay for my hubris?"

[Kuroka]

To me, Gaius is a good man, who did the wrong things for the right reasons. He did say he wants to kill as few as possible from his feature citizens, he did not want mass murder by biological weapons, he had mhigan ppl at his diners which means he embraced the non garlean citizens (surely If they comited to bein garlean but still) and further one of his highest ppl were non garlean as well - you know that joke trial at 49 lol.

He sure is no Angel, but dont forget neither Gridania, Limsa, Uldah or Ishgard were that nice at some times... And by all means he is a man of Reason, not a maniac, lacking any emphaty... Him and Maxima would make a good ruler ship, even if its just temporary...

[thegreatonemal]

Idk man, when he comes to Ala Mhigo to beg the WoL's aid in stopping the Ruby Weapon, he refers to his past actions as foolishness. He also refers to the Ultima weapon program as a mistake that he wishes to undo.

"The fates will enjoy the irony while I endure the ignominy." "What price must the world pay for my hubris?"

Sounds on brand considering he saw what Ultima could do and does not want that. This is the same guy who said something along the lines of "They'll use black rose and there will be no soldiers to conscript no resources to take, and they will call it victory." back in SHB. Pretty on brand for the man who wants to conquer to make the Empire stronger.

[Vyrerus]

Sounds on brand

He's pretty off brand actually. In the first meeting with the WoL in The Burn, he refers to his past self as having, "blinkered conviction." In the scene where he and Alphinaud find Black Rose victims, he refers to it as an atrocity and butchery. He also refers to his past effort at Eorzea's conquest, as conquest in the name of peace. Which is on point with the actual contents of the elevator speech. Granted, it's peace through force, but his desire for conquest cares a great deal for the lands' inhabitants.

[YianKutku]

Unfortunately, it's not textbook Fascism. It's a little more tribal than that, imo. While he does place a great deal of importance on strength, he also yields to higher strength. This is shown both by his loyalty to the Emperor and by his acquiescence to the WoL(in later patches). But it's also shown in his speech, where he asserts that you're welcome to stop him, if you can.

Textbook Fascism is dictatorship, enforced through violent means if necessary, where the dictator won't even conscience opposition or shared leadership. Kind of makes sense, coming from someone raised in an empire. Fascists want authority, and that's pretty much it. They'll sacrifice their people, their family, their good image, and basically anything to gain and keep authority. Gaius on the other hand is advocating for a kratocracy. A type of rule where might makes right, because they mighty are those who can solve problems and keep the populace safe. He offers you regency of Eorzea before the first boss in Prae, if you side with him.

Essentially, he's a master moralist and a universalist like Immanuel Kant. It's made evident by him wanting you to take up his view, and by him noting that he would be perfectly fine with someone else stronger than him ruling. To him, might is right, is a categorical imperative. So while it does share some qualities of fascism, such as authoritarianism, it's not fascism.

As for Gaius's motivations for Ascian killing and the options open to him... Well, his option, singular, at the time was convince this Elezen BLM to not kill him. As we have been told so far. I wouldn't expect Gaius to have changed dramatically fresh out of his ass whooping. He kept to his convictions even in defeat.

As for Livia being a plot hole. Nah, it's not a plot hole at all. The more pressing matter at hand was that we were penetrating deep into the Castrum, and we needed to be stopped. While I can admit that it's weird that there was nary a mention at all, ever since, and certainly no mourning, we can take that as Gaius wanting to exude strength in his speech about how strength is all that matters. He's trying to lull us over to his line of thinking to ally with him, and he certainly did make a good point about how we're the ones with actual power at our fingertips, rather than the city-state leaders. Had he mentioned Livia or cursed us for killing her, it'd betray emotion and weaken his position.

It actually is "textbook fascism", but as mentioned, it's a textbook by Umberto Eco, which I've found useful as a quick guide for identifying fascist ideologies. Actual academic analysis is kind of beyond the scope of Internet discussions, though.

I'm not going to go through the points one by one (Eco notes that just one of the fourteen points he listed is generally enough to form the core of fascism), since it goes a little far afield of FFXIV, but among the ones which spring out are the "cult of strength", or rather "contempt for the weak". This is usually paired with "popular elitism", ie the in-group is superior to the out-group, and thus stronger. Which is a major part of Garlemald's culture at this point, where non-Garleans are "savages", and even conscripts who eventually managed to gain citizenship still look down on non-Garleans, like the soldiers in the SB MSQ.

There's also how the "enemy" is "simultaneously strong and weak", ie the enemy of the "other" is strong enough to oppress the in-group, while still being weak enough to be easily defeated as long as the in-group is macho and resolute enough. This is absolutely on-the-nose for Garlemald's culture.

These are the aspects of Garlemald which are clearly fascist, and which Gaius importantly does not contradict. As for Gaius personally, he falls under the points of "action for action's sake" (taking action is itself a virtue, regardless of what that action is or what it leads to) and "worship of warfare", tying together into my earlier assertion that Gaius's immediate response to any problem is violence, whether personally smacking it with his gunblade, or ordering people to enact violence on the problem until it goes away. Not only that, but he believes very strongly that this is the best course of action available to him. Both in the sense that he genuinely thinks it's the obvious way to go, and also how he's blinded (probably without even realizing it) to other possibilities.

As for the time when Gaius encountered Valdeaulin, Gaius specifically says that he wants to live to be able to kill Ascians ("rid the world of the Ascian menace", which Gaius has apparently interpreted as "kill their host bodies"). After that, he says Valdeaulin is free to kill him. This does not seem like someone who is trying to stay alive for as long as he can for the sake of living, but instead someone who wants to live for the sake of exacting revenge and violence and nothing else. Which also happens to be another point of fascism, "cult of death" ("dying as a hero is better than living", contrast the SB line of "Dying's easy, living is harder"), but I concede that it's vague enough that it could be argued otherwise.

Once again, I don't think Gaius is forever beyond redemption, but I do think he has not been redeemed, and whether he will be redeemed depends entirely on what the writers do about him. He's not even on the road to redemption; he's just kind of sitting stagnant in philosophical limbo, while performing the same style as his earlier problematic actions out of sheer habit. If presented with the leadership of Garlemald in this state, and if Gaius continues to be who he is (because we cannot see the future of what he will be like), that would just continue Garlemald's fascism. And I don't even think Gaius would be aware of it, since as you pointed out, he was molded by the Empire, and breaking that mold is difficult. (Maxima did so, which makes him immediately superior to Gaius as a potential leader.)

The criteria for Gaius to change my mind is for him to solve a major problem (basically a major questline, in game terms) without resorting to violence or accepting violence. It doesn't even have to be all he does; he's free to be military and violent per normal, as long as he understands that there are other ways. Pointing the WoL at the Weapons is still violence, just delegated. Killing Ascian host bodies is violence. Starting an orphanage is not violence, assuming he actually maintains that orphanage, which he obviously failed to do for the orphans involved in the Werlyt questline. (Recall that Gaius abandoned them to concentrate on conquering Eorzea for five years since the Calamity.) I'm obviously fine with violence against non-sapients for necessities, like hunting for food or materials, but unless Gaius has been eating Ascians I don't think that's what he's been doing.

(If anyone tries to go "but what about the WoL's violence", I'm an omnicrafter who's muddling through Ishgard Restoration, so that's an obvious counterpoint.)

[Kesey]

Sounds on brand considering he saw what Ultima could do and does not want that. This is the same guy who said something along the lines of "They'll use black rose and there will be no soldiers to conscript no resources to take, and they will call it victory." back in SHB. Pretty on brand for the man who wants to conquer to make the Empire stronger.

Isn't this taken out of context? As he says this in lamentation that they've chosen weapons of mass destruction (black rose) over a traditional foot-soldier war (which is the form of war he respects--now that he has seen the failure of things like Ultima Weapon). The terminology is on brand for guy who was soldier and spent his life warring, but it is definitely off brand for the "old" Gaius given the scope of which he discussing, reflecting his change in nature and purpose.

[Kesey]

snip.

Not to get nitpicky here over Umberto Eco's 14 features of fascism, but Gaius doesn't fit most of the categories as he is willing to change based on evidence (Ascians manipulate me and cause destruction, therefore they are the "real" enemy), is willing to work with foreigners (he comes straight to the alliance, Cid and the WOL for help with Werlyt), he isn't manipulating the middle class or in this context his followers (everyone who follows him or calls him father does so out of respect), he also isn't subverting and demonizing sexual norms, he isn't using populism to control policy, and he isn't forcing news media to be on point. Plus his acts as Shadowhunter have also made him treasonous in the eyes of the Empire.

Selectively, he has believed in action for action's sake and claims that the enemy is strong and weak. Which, yes could mark him as a fascist, but it could also be issues forced on him politically because he is a practical military leader in ARR, and then has claimed to have shirked those beliefs.

Your boy Maxima on the other hand has violated many more of the fascist tenants then Gaius. Maxima believes in the cult of tradition as he refuses to believe facts unless they come from the Emperor himself. He is a traitor in his own right, but still condemns Cid as traitor. His populares movement seeks to overwrite the majority voice of Empire citizens to his minority movement. He wants to control the messaging in the Empire to gain traction for his movement.

Now we can debate each of their fascist tendencies all day, but what boils down here is Gaius has experience leading and has offered to change and has begun to make amends. Maxima is hiding with the Alliance because he doesn't want to be killed. Which one would you follow? The leader who wants to do right or the coward?

[Vyrerus]

textbook

Umberto Eco wrote an essay not a textbook or even a book on fascism. He is one academic who's notorious for writing in abstruse style, and his main focus of study for the majority of his life was semiology. Further, his point on only needing one item from his, "14 Points" in order for fascism to form for a nation is basically his way of wanting to be right, without actually being right.

Gaius doesn't fit the mold for very many of the 14 points, though Garlemald does. Gaius himself only really falls into the 10th point, "Contempt for the weak," but even in this he fails to fit Umberto Eco's mold completely, because he does not despise his underlings and does not eschew conscripts. He is also not anti-intellectual, given his respect for Louisoix.

As far as Gaius's reason for living, yes, he's driven by revenge. He's also driven by the need to completely separate Garlemald, as in his homeland, from Ascian influence. He already views part of his past as, "found wanting," and his former convictions, "blinkered," so he's well on the road to redemption and changing.

Also, in spite of you not wanting people to bring up the WoL's violence, it has to be addressed. There is no part of the main story line where violence is completely unattached, due to the nature of the game being combat centric. There are attempts, obviously, and a success or two in very minor ways, here or there, but even the pacifistic Kan-E-Senna has to resort to violent means to protect her peoples and uphold alliances. I don't think we'll see such an event that meets your criteria for Gaius.

As far as Maxima goes, he is young, much younger than Gaius, with far less connections and social standing. Certainly he'd make great advisor and provisional aid in diplomatic matters, but a leader he is not. IMO he has scriptwriter's doom, but I guess we'll see.

[KageTokage]

I'd be surprised if we didn't end up allying ourselves with one of the Garlean legions courtesy of Maxima and Gaius.

It sounds like some of them are more interested in keeping the empire from falling apart then trying to seize the throne (Which is kind of a wash now that Zenos is there, anyways).