In regards to something involving the main cast

[KariTheFox]

Hey, I wasn't around the forums when the big Garlean Debate or whatever was happening, but what does "supporting the Garleans" even means in this context.

Do we mean recognizing that Garleans are ordinary people, and not inherently evil or unworthy of respect or dignity, and may or may not even agree with the actions of their government - because, duh, yes.

OR do we mean "thinking that the Garlean Imperial Project Is Good Actually And Thier Wars Of Expansion And Aggression Are Totally Justified," because that does kinda sound like genocide apologia.

[Theodric]

Hey, I wasn't around the forums when the big Garlean Debate or whatever was happening, but what does "supporting the Garleans" even means in this context.

Do we mean recognizing that Garleans are ordinary people, and not inherently evil or unworthy of respect or dignity, and may or may not even agree with the actions of their government - because, duh, yes.

OR do we mean "thinking that the Garlean Imperial Project Is Good Actually And Thier Wars Of Expansion And Aggression Are Totally Justified," because that does kinda sound like genocide apologia.

It's a fictional nation in a fictional setting. Who cares if someone likes and roots for Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones instead of Ned Stark? It's not real.

Fandoms have long been plagued by creepy people who mistake liking or disliking a fictional character as indicative of some sort of character flaw. Which simply isn't true. The people who liked and played the Horde in World of Warcraft didn't become 'genocide apologists' by continuing to commit to the faction after certain events in that game's story.

The people who signed up to the Dark Brotherhood in Elder Scrolls Online didn't become complicit in murder because they actively assassinated NPC's as part of a quest.

It's little more than a transparent attempt to try and deflect from the simple fact that many people are perfectly capable of separating reality from fiction and are comfortable enough in their moral compass to be able to enjoy darker aesthetics and themes in a video game or movie.

None of this should really need to be explained, either - nor does it make much sense in the context of the discussion. If I were petty, I could point out the hypocrisy of the concern trolling over people maybe liking the Garleans or Ascians for any number of reasons. Especially when coming from individuals who, in the same breath declaring the Garleans and Ascians as 'genocidal' utterly refuse to paint Venat with the same brush.

Though in regards to Garlemald itself? I liked the nuance that existed when and where the story wasn't presenting them as one note villains. I've never made it any secret that my favourite Garlean characters are the likes of Regula and Jullus, both of which are very far removed from the likes of Valens and Zenos in terms of their actions and personalities.

I also like the blend of Roman and Russian aesthetics/inspiration. The former because I live in Europe and Roman influence is to be found almost everywhere here to this very day. The latter because it's a fascinating country with a rich history and I count some good friends of mine amongst the Russians.

Beyond that? The aesthetics of the cool robots and the armour used by the Legatus that is clearly inspired by Final Fantasy XII certainly helps. Especially when in itself that is my favourite game in the main series.

I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have, though.

[Lauront]

Fandoms have long been plagued by creepy people who mistake liking or disliking a fictional character as indicative of some sort of character flaw. Which simply isn't true.

Indeed. Really looking forward to (more of?) this coming "conflict of morals" stuff. I'm sure it'll make for some fun conversations, like this one.