[Discussion] Ala Mhigo and it's hypocrisy...

[Theodric]

I'm curious as to whether this will be addressed as the story moves forward. For all the screaming from the Ala Mhigans regarding their homeland being occupied they seem to conveniently forget that throughout history they were quite content to try and invade neighbouring nations.

This has, unfortunately, largely been brushed aside....or so it seems. So I'm hoping that if and when we do visit Ala Mhigo we won't see a situation where the Garleans are once again painted as having very few redeeming qualities. Surely there's going to plenty of Garlean civilians who just happen to be doing the jobs given to them within Ala Mhigo.

If Ala Mhigo tries to revolt will those non-combatants/regular Garleans be injured/killed and if so will the story paint the Ala Mhigans as the bad guys (at least to some extent) instead of heroes to be praised for their obsessive patriotism?

I'm hoping that, like with the conflict with Nidhogg there will be two sides to the story and we will once again be treated to more morally grey stuff.

Back in 1.0 it seemed like the Garlean Empire had a lot more depth to it and could easily be sympathised with. The same can be said of their appearance in 2.0 and 3.0 to some extent but it feels like they all too often end up adhering to many of the tropes associated with outright villains.

I've said this before in a few other threads but personally I would love it if the Garlean Empire ends up being more like Archades from Final Fantasy XII when we finally address it directly.

So, thoughts? Do people here think that'll happen - both the Garlean Empire being presented in a more pleasant light and the Ala Mhigans being shown as rabid, dangerous and hypocritical?

[Anonymoose]

For all the screaming from the Ala Mhigans regarding their homeland being occupied they seem to conveniently forget that throughout history they were quite content to try and invade neighbouring nations.

While it could simply be the complaints of the disenfranchised, I've tried to adjust my perception to account for who we're listening to and how they ended up where they did. For one, it's unfair to assume that everyone just trying to live their lives within a given nation shares the goals, morals, and beliefs of their government (or even one another). We're also hearing these complaints mainly from patriots who fled Ala Mhigo rather than be executed specifically because they rejected Garlean rule outright. The resistance has had its fair share of victories and defeats (though, victories have won them little and defeats have cost them much).

There may have been some public dissent to the attempted expansion into Gridanian territory (though, as far as we know, plenty of people thought the economic growth and glory of conquest were great). King Theodoric wasn't very popular after some of his later decisions, given how easily Gaius van Baelsar's spies turned the people against him. Talk to Erik about that one; the guy was a tyrant. His actions and policies led him to be called the King of Ruin, after all. I'm sure if Ala Mhigo had Gallup Poll records, we'd see the kind of diversity you're looking for.

So I'm hoping that if and when we do visit Ala Mhigo we won't see a situation where the Garleans are once again painted as having very few redeeming qualities. <...> I'm hoping that, like with the conflict with Nidhogg there will be two sides to the story and we will once again be treated to more morally grey stuff.

The Garleans continue to exist in a sort of philosophical gray, whereby they're correct about the threats to the planet and the need to solve them, at least. They didn't do much to give Varis the benefit of any doubts, morally, though, did they... The end justifies the means might as well be the current Garlean motto with his complete lack of sympathy or consideration for the "eradication of certain elements" that might occur.

But, with 3.0, even Thordan wasn't as unilaterally wrong / "bad" as I expected him to be. Given the position he was in with the information he had, I can see things from his point of view (and also, from mine, where he was wrong). I was pleasantly surprised, and if they can even give "Jeuno with a Pope" some redeeming qualities, I assume we'll continue to see some from Garlemald. Maybe not from Varis...

But was Gaius so wrong, in the end? And I'm talking about 1562 Gaius, before the whole downward spiral through Silvertear Skies, Nael van Darnus, dying Emperor, and Ascian Puppet. The tempered do need to be put down until such a time that we can find a cure - Thancred admitted as much. The primals do need to be eradicated. Our world is at stake. The guy's downfall was that the Empire is wholly unwilling to compromise and assumes its logic is infallible. That is the part I'm not sure if we'll see change at the faction identity level. "Kill them all and let (their false) gods sort them out" is kind of hard to humanize aside from having interesting and dynamic individuals who are handling that approach in different ways (with regards to the leadership/military), or who are dealing with the position that puts them in (with regards to everyone else in their territories).

Personally, I hope we meet a lot more Garleans like Rhitatyn sas Arvina. Despite his small role in the game, he was one of my favorites. Go back and watch those Westwind cutscenes and compare his sentiments to Urianger's lamentations that "doing the right thing" makes the salvation of this world so much harder, and take so much longer, and demand so much more suffering and sacrifice, but is just something we have no choice but to bear. Do you risk failing to save your world by refusing to become a world not worth saving, or do you do whatever it takes and worry about redemption after you have results?

We do need antagonists that aren't Ascians, though, so don't be too disappointed if you still hate them even if you can understand them, lol.

[dragoelete]

uh oh here comes the moose :O
(curious what moose will enlighten us with )

[Fenral]

If Heavensward is any indicator, we can perhaps one day look forward to a nice extended camping trip in Gyr Abana with two distinct and familiar individuals serving as stand-ins for the two sides of that ideological coin. Raubahn and Ilberd, maybe. Or perhaps Widargelt, should something fortunate (for us) happen to Ilberd before then.

[Theodric]

Well, ideally I'd quite like to encounter more Garleans that remain loyal to their homeland - unlike Cid - but who are striving to protect their people, culture and homeland in such a way as to make them quite likeable. Think Larsa and Gabranth from FFXII.

Gaius and Varis have motives that some players - myself included - may sympathise with but for obvious reasons we don't get to ally with them. So in short, I'm hoping we'll get to ally with some real Garleans - rather than just defectors - at some point in the future. Perhaps when the more power hungry elements within the Garlean Empire have been dealt with. After all it's not like every Garlean is interested in expanding into Eorzea.

[Lauront]

One thing I would love for is a playable Garlean option.

If Heavensward is any indicator, we can perhaps one day look forward to a nice extended camping trip in Gyr Abana with two distinct and familiar individuals serving as stand-ins for the two sides of that ideological coin. Raubahn and Ilberd, maybe. Or perhaps Widargelt, should something fortunate (for us) happen to Ilberd before then.

I can't say I like either of them.

[Shippuu]

See, the issue is what constitutes as a Garlean? Purebloods only? Citizens under the Empire that come from conquered lands? Pureblood Garleans are relatively low in number and managed to conquer so much because of their technology, which then expanded their army through brainwashing and other not so particularly good things.

It's unlikely we'll see many "real" Garleans because as stated, there's not a whole lot, and we have zero access to their actual homelands. Ala Mhigo isn't their home to protect, it's just one of many, many conquered areas under the fold of the Empire.

I do think it's funny you'd bash Ala Mhigans for their attempted expansion, yet find sympathy with the Garleans who have conquered two continents and razed at least one city to the ground completely (Doma). There's no real grey morality in that action, they burned the place to the ground to set an example.

[Theodric]

Garleans intrigue me more, that's true - largely because they're heavily inspired by the Archadian Empire of FFXII (as is much of FFXIV's setting) and that happens to be my favourite main title in the franchise. Ala Mhigans in general don't interest me a whole lot by comparison - perhaps due to how they're the stereotypical 'big berserker' race that is very common in fantasy settings.

Yet I didn't create this thread to 'bash' Ala Mhigo. I created it in the hope that we'll get some insight as to whether or not we'll be seeing the wonderfully complex morality and depth that Ishgard was given applied to the Garlean Empire. I really, really love the Garleans and hope that they're not just ultimately going to be wiped out/turned into generic villains at every turn with a few token defectors/traitors being our only allies/link to their society.

After all, if reading this forum has taught me anything it's that I'm not alone in my adoration for the Garlean Empire.

[Lauront]

We do need antagonists that aren't Ascians, though, so don't be too disappointed if you still hate them even if you can understand them, lol.

Or at least some Ascians who aren't throw-away MSQ trial/dungeon bosses. Those fail to do justice to their power.

[Shippuu]

I mean, your bias is definitely clear here, but the same kind of things can be said about the Empire. Highlanders may have a stereotypical "berserk/barbarian/war monger" archetype, but the Empire is your pretty run of the mill Empire tbh. Based more on the Romans than anything from FF12 to be honest. We also know very little about either the Empire or Ala Mhigo, in terms of their culture and politics. It's rather unfair to simply write one off just because of your own personal bias. Ala Mhigo could have plenty of deep political and social aspects. They pushed for expansion and had plenty of jingoism, but they also resisted invasion from the east for quite some time. We know little about King Theodoric's decent into madness and what could have caused it or if he just went bonkers on his own. There's plenty of potential to be had with expanding upon Ala Mhigo's rise and fall.

And your topic is misleading then if your intent was to just talk about the Garlean Empire. You could have just titled it "Future Garlean stuff" or whatever, not bait with "Ala Mhigo and it's hypocrisy".