On the topic of whether Gaius's warmongering makes him "evil", it should be noted that he plainly believed that conquering the other lands was for the greater good. He felt that strong leaders were necessary to prevent "weak leaders from leading the people astray", and that conquest was a necessary evil in order to oust those weak leaders and to ensure that the peoples of those lands had a better tomorrow (under strong Garlean rule). He saw unneccesary slaughter, such as that caused by Meteor or Black Rose to be undesirable, albiet for pragmatic rather than humanitarian reasons. I definitely think this paints him as a man of grey morality, rather than black, and thus capable of redemption.

My beef, though, is that Gaius shouldn't WANT redemption, or even feel that he NEEDS redemption. The revelation that Ascians have been pulling the strings behind the scenes should not automatically make him back down from his ideals of a strong leader being necessary for the good of all. The Ascians need to be rooted out of Garlemald, that goes without saying, but after the job is done he should be all about setting Garlemald back on its path of conquest. The strong should still govern the weak, after all, and the Ascians aren't responsible for the Eorzean leaders weak-willed insistence on continuing the worship of the Twelve. (Or maybe it is - all the more reason to step in and take control!) Ascian corruption and the proliferation of weak Eikon-loving rulers are two seperate problems, and both need to be solved.

Somehow, though, Gaius has come to some kind of epiphany that Ascians popping out of the woodwork suddenly means everything he believed in is a lie. That just seems like too big a jump for me, too big a change to his character.

Quote Originally Posted by ObsidianFire View Post
Emet-Selch set things up so that his death as "Solus" would happen while he had declared no "official" heir just to destabilize Garlemald into a civil war within the Royal Family. And then when he saw an opportunity to start yet another Calamity (because apparently the 7th Umbral Calamity wasn't enough for him) he eggs Varis on until he sets it up. The entire conversation between Varis and Emet-Selch (the very first time we meet Emet-Selch!) has Emet-Selch telling Varis that it's not Varis' job to think; just to do what Emet-Slech tells him to do... which by the time of 5.4 is to use Black Rose while causing a huge war (since that can cause the 8th Umbral Calamity). Which Varis does in the doomed timeline. The only reason why he can't do it in the "current" timeline... is because Gaius, Alphinaud and Estinian are running around destroying all the stockpiles of Black Rose, which they never got the opportunity to do in the "doomed" timeline.
Well, this isn't QUITE right. In both timelines, Gaius and crew are presumably destroying stockpiles, but the reason things go pear-shaped is because the Warrior of Light is participating fully in the war against the Garleans. The WoL's involvement pushes Varis so far into a corner that he unleashes the Black Rose - just in time for the First to flood into the Source with all its Umbrally-charged Aether.

In the saved timeline, this doesn't happen. The WoL is busy stablizing the First, and the Alliance-Garlean war is at a stalemate instead. Gaius also does not have Alphinaud to help destroy Black Rose, for whatever difference that makes.

The differences between the two timelines take place because of the Crystal Exarch's involvement, and his involvement basically involves removing the WoL and the Scions from the picture. Anything else, presumably, would have happened the same way in both timelines. If Gaius is destroying Black Rose in the saved timeline, he probably was also doing it in the doomed one. If he wasn't - why wasn't he? What change did the Exarch make to send him on a different path? And if it wasn't the Exarch, what else could have?