What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[CrownySuccubus]

Again, i ask, how is this any different from Uldah that still participated in slavery to this day, their mass genocide of Sildih and zombifying them, the mass slaughter of kobolds done by limsans and their acts of piracy and assassinations, or the place that promotes sex trafficking. There’s an interesting double standard here i have to say. Either way though, it’s a fictional race, fictional countries, fictional people.

Aren't the parties responsible for that in Uldah also considered villains? Likewise Limsa and likewise Doma? (In fact, Doma's situation was directly caused by the Garleans on that front.) Nanamo's entire story arc is about trying to reclaim her political power from those parties, and the Admiral likewise is trying to correct the injustices of her predecessors.

So yes, we have several similar groups of villains.

[Nekokaori]

I agree completely, I think it's been too long since someone major died last time it was in heavensward!! I was really hoping thancred would die personally, never liked the fella.

i honestly feel like at this point, i have 0 emotion for any character because I know they will ass pull it into living once again as they have shown every single time after heavensward, and honestly im sick of how much asspulling they do with characters

[Theodric]

They're a military dictatorship that invaded other countries, enslaved and/or oppressed its citizens, respected nothing but military might, and held complete contempt for the beliefs and way of life for those of outsiders. Given what we've seen them do throughout these expansions. calling their villainy a "matter of perspective" is quite romantic, to say the least.

As I also mentioned before, the only thing the Garleans have in common with Romans is their name. Unlike the Romans, the Garleans were not content to simply conquer a place and collect taxes from it. They were a colonial power focused on outright destroying other cultures due to their hatred for religion and outright contempt for anything outside of military strength. They were closer to 20th Century Fascists than they were to the Romans.

I don't particularly care if they invaded other countries. It's a fictional setting and many of the nations within it have invaded each other at one point or another in the game's established history. They're also not the only nation to do the things you mentioned and it's not like they did it because they woke up one day and decided to be evil for the sake of being evil - they themselves had been driven to the point of near genocide, forced out of their own lands and made to live in a bleak and inhospitable frozen wasteland.

They're the closest thing to the Blood Elves in terms of their backstory, which is what I liked and played in World of Warcraft. They, too, were almost wiped out through no fault of their own but did everything possible to try and thrive and survive. A concept that appeals to me far more than just being handed an 'I WIN' button to conveniently overcome any odds by being praised as a hero who, conveniently, rarely has to get their hands dirty.

What's next? People being attacked for liking the Altmer, Dunmer or Imperials in an Elder Scrolls game?

It's as simple as people having different personal tastes and tropes that they enjoy seeing in play.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Aren't the parties responsible for that in Uldah also considered villains? Likewise Limsa and likewise Doma? (In fact, Doma's situation was directly caused by the Garleans on that front.) Nanamo's entire story arc is about trying to reclaim her political power from those parties, and the Admiral likewise is trying to correct the injustices of her predecessors.

So yes, we have several similar groups of villains.

Except they’re still in power…with us doing nothing to them. I mean, it was the current person in power who sent us to go slaughter Kobolds in the first place lol. The devs themselves have stated the story isn’t black and white. They’ve even given us some good Garean army officials like Regula, so not everyone is corrupt or “evil” if you want to call it that. If we’re going to start saying “well ackshually this was caused by x.” Then i guess the discussion ends with the garleans only turned out the way they did because people decided to invade them, steal their land, and tried to drive them to extinction.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't particularly care if they invaded other countries. It's a fictional setting and many of the nations

This only makes it MORE appropriate to call them villains, since heroes and villains are distinctly a trope for fictional storytelling.

within it have invaded each other at one point or another in the game's established history.

This is "whataboutism". Yes, those other nations have also made villainous acts, and part of the story is making them pay for them.

it's not like they did it because they woke up one day and decided to be evil for the sake of being evil - they themselves had been driven to the point of near genocide, forced out of their own lands and made to live in a bleak and inhospitable frozen wasteland.

Sure. They have sympathetic backstories. Lots of villains have sympathetic backstories.

What's next? People being attacked for liking the Altmer, Dunmer or Imperials in an Elder Scrolls game?

I mean, the Altmer literally try to exterminate lesser races and the Dunmer regularly enslave Khajit and Argonians and treat them as sub-sapients.

Again, feel free to like what you like, but it's silly to get upset when they're called villains when they're villains.

[CrownySuccubus]

Except they’re still in power…with us doing nothing to them. I mean, it was the current person in power who sent us to go slaughter Kobolds in the first place lol.

She also then offered to let those same Kobolds kill her for what she did to them. I don't think the Admiral is blameless, but the game still acknowledges what she did as villainy.

If you want an expansion where we take her down for her villainy, by all means. Same with Garlemald.

The devs themselves have stated the story isn’t black and white. They’ve even given us some good Garean army officials like Regula, so not everyone is corrupt or “evil” if you want to call it that. If we’re going to start saying “well ackshually this was caused by x.” Then i guess the discussion ends with the garleans only turned out the way they did because people decided to invade them, steal their land, and tried to drive them to extinction.

Sure, there is individual gray within the Garleans, but the Garlean Empire itself is very much NOT gray. A government =/= its people. Saying that the Garlean Empire (and its military) were villains is not saying that each individual Garlean person was evil. For example, there were good people in Eulmore, but that didn't change the fact that Vauthry needed to be taken down. If Garlemald had survived and a more benevolent leader taken the throne, fine. But, even BEFORE the Telopheroi appeared, the Garlean military destroyed their own country based on its own prevalent philosophy of might makes right.

[Theodric]

Who is getting 'upset' by the use of incorrect terminology? Furthermore, terms such as 'whataboutism' are more often than not thrown around to excuse the reason for something happening in the first place. I've stated many times throughout this very thread that I firmly believe that it makes sense for the Sundered to do everything possible in order to avert their own destruction. However, I feel the same is applicable to the Unsundered. Equally, I can apply that to the Garleans and those in opposition to them.

Which is very much in line with comments made by Yoshi-P himself in various interviews, including this one:

The current state of global affairs is incredibly complex and simple two-dimensional theories of good/bad from ancient times can no longer quantify this world we live in. As such, a large factor [that contributed to the selection of these themes] is that I thought I could cultivate new values and a new sense of realisation within myself by changing perspective and carefully considering the other party’s arguments in regard to a given event. Half of the time these things are born from one’s intuition and flashes of inspiration. I guessed as much but it really is hard to explain.

Source: https://www.impulsegamer.com/naoki-y...vs-lore-story/

So, no, conflicts are rarely as simple as 'good' and 'evil', 'villain' and 'hero'. You're free to believe otherwise but so too are others perfectly at liberty to see the nuance in any given situation. Personally I prefer to understand why something is happening so it can be prevented from happening again rather than pretending as if people just wake up and decide to do 'evil' things with no context.

[tokinokanatae]

Regula is one of my favorite NPCs in the game, but his individual decency when it comes down to the wire does not redeem the entire Empire or their goals in subjugating the entire world.

What made Regula "good" wasn't his attachment to Garlemald, it was the fact that he laid down his life to save an innocent person even at the expense of his duty. Regula was a good, decent person in spite of being in a position of command in the Garlean army, not because of it. He could have been even better if he hadn't been furthering the interests of a fascist military.

[KizuyaKatogami]

She also then offered to let those same Kobolds kill her for what she did to them. I don't think the Admiral is blameless, but the game still acknowledges what she did as villainy.

If you want an expansion where we take her down for her villainy, by all means. Same with Garlemald.




Sure, there is individual gray within the Garleans, but the Garlean Empire itself is very much NOT gray. A government =/= its people. Saying that the Garlean Empire (and its military) were villains is not saying that each individual Garlean person was evil. For example, there were good people in Eulmore, but that didn't change the fact that Vauthry needed to be taken down. If Garlemald had survived and a more benevolent leader taken the throne, fine. But, even BEFORE the Telopheroi appeared, the Garlean military destroyed their own country based on its own prevalent philosophy of might makes right.

So then if a garlean came up to us and offered to be killed for the garlean empires crimes it’d make everything a-ok? What happened to two wrongs don’t make a right…. Either way this discussion is meaningless and i’d rather it not devolve into yet another long discussion that eventually leads up to some japanese morals or mythology or whatever the earlier conversation was. Regardless, in the end the devs have stated it’s grey, the garleans as a whole, people and empire. People can choose to disagree with them and hate him that is perfectly fine. But to act like and say it’s wrong for someone to like them or “romanticize” them is a bit of a reach. I feel like a lot of people forget that in the end these are all pixels. I’ve seen people think someone is mentally unwell for wanting to see certain characters die or because they supported certain sides and in the end it’s a game. I highly doubt someone who likes the garleans is just going to go around murdering people like some people seem to think.

[CrownySuccubus]

Who is getting 'upset' by the use of incorrect terminology?

I guess nobody, since the term isn't incorrect. The Garleans are villains.

Furthermore, terms such as 'whataboutism' are more often than not thrown around to excuse the reason for something happening in the first place.

The use of whataboutism in the first place exists to make excuses. "Oh I did this bad thing? Well what about these other guys who also did the bad thing?"

I've stated many times throughout this very thread that I firmly believe that it makes sense for the Sundered to do everything possible in order to avert their own destruction. However, I feel the same is applicable to the Unsundered. Equally, I can apply that to the Garleans and those in opposition to them.

You can believe whatever you like. But the Ascians were, in fact, just as much villains as the Garleans were.

The Ascians turned out to have sympathetic motives for their goals, but they were still cackling genocidal madmen with sadistic contempt for others.

So, no, conflicts are rarely as simple as 'good' and 'evil', 'villain' and 'hero'. You're free to believe otherwise but so too are others perfectly at liberty to see the nuance in any given situation.

Saying that the world overall has nuance is not saying that there are NO villains or good and evil.

pretending as if people just wake up and decide to do 'evil' things with no context.

Things nobody said for 100 Alex.