Thread: 3.4 speculation

I just hope we start focusing more on the other GCs/ City-states and their internal struggles, especially Ul'Dah. Surely, the change of Ishgardian government and peace with dragons would inspire Nanamo to abdicate and turn Ul'dah into a republic again, but maybe plan it better?

It really is a shame that the truth behind the Sild'hih - Ul'dah war was revealed in the Hildibrand quest.

Its also good to point out the Domans were unhappy enough with their conquest to revolt...and then face genocide.

There is no justification for that from an empire that is "good". None at all. And Othard isn't a recent conquest either.

Originally Posted by Theodric

It's perfectly possible that they killed many innocent Garleans and were punished severely as a result. We do not know the full circumstances surrounding the revolt in question; just a biased account from one side in particular. We also know - from Livia's account - that Garleans themselves are no stranger to the horrors of war and strife. She was an orphan after all (despite being a Pureblood) so it would be interesting to learn the circumstances surrounding that.

See, this is what I mean, Garleans commit a genocide and your like..

"Maybe it's the Domans fault they were invaded, subjugated, brutalized and then murdered in mass"

Let's say your completely unfounded in anyway by the game theory innocent Garleans somehow were killed during the uprising, that still doesn't justify ANYTHING.

If a couple of American citizens were killed in Iraq by terrorists and we responded bu WIPING OUT THE MIDDLE EAST to the point all that's left of them could fit on a cargo ship we would be rightly seen as genocidal monsters.

I have know doubt will meet more sympathetic Garleans one day but there going to be what you hate Theo, there going to be like Cid and Lucia, (not blinded by patriotism fascists which is what most Garleans actually are) and help us reform it, not suddenly reveal "Oh hey guys Garleans are cool now there genocides were justified"

People don't want a greyer light for Garlemald because some of us enjoy being in the antagonistic group, share similar ideals or whatever other possible reasons but just because it makes a more interesting story generally and makes sense, no political power in this world is created by 'evil' ideals from the main parties point of view, there is ALWAYS another motive and the whole 'conquering for pleasure' I doubt that's an actual reason as a whole. Also not many seem to remember Garlemald doesn't just wipe a countries culture slate, they preserve as much as they functionally can with their own society as mentioned in a lore panel.

Garlemald chose to have an emperor based on the bio for solus on the official site, so my best guess is when we do focus on Garlemald we are going to learn their history and what prompted them to go on the war path. We know very little about it's people or it's culture and history so all we can do is wait and see what SE has in store.

It is true that there are a lot of unknowns in how Garlemald operates. But we know how Garlemald approaches its conquered people (non- to second-class citizens, forced conscription), and we know it from an unbiased source; in addition, we know how Garlemald approaches the Eorzean population capable of summoning Primals, and given what went down when they tried to take over Othard, it's hard to see them approaching that situation any differently.*

Whatever the case, the game's moral compass thus far is definitely not pointed in current-Garlemald's direction. Even if we do find out they had good reason to up and conquer Ilsabard and/or Doma, that doesn't change the fact that their actions NOW are oppressive, carried out with little reason other than their own sake (or, more likely, to keep the war economy rolling and to keep up a certain standard of living for the actual Garlean people, at the expense of those conquered; this is how empires operate). In fact, "we see, we conquer" is very much an established Garlean attitude - we outright KNOW that they tried to invade Eorzea because it was there, why assume Othard was any different (in fact, the ever-useful "Rise and Fall of the White Raven", written well before there were Domans kicking around, directly implies this)? Let's not forget that Ishgard still needed reforming and Niddhog still needed slaying, even when the origins of that conflict were revealed to be as muddy as they were; current Garlemald leadership are active antagonists seeking to spread their government to every corner or Hydaelyn Just Because, so no matter how that started, it's a problematic attitude that WILL need to be curbed.

No, if/when we ally with Garlemald, it's likely either going to be reformed ala Ishgard (or at least as part of the process of doing so; this would be so reminiscent of 3.0 that I hope it's not the route taken), or use the morally-dubious nature of such an alliance as a means of showing just how desperate the situation as become. I really don't expect the game to try and absolve Garlemald as it exists now.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*I actually have no idea where this "Garlemald lets their territories keep their traditions and culture!" thing comes from, since the only thing said on the matter implies the complete opposite; was it Gaius' 1.0 offer to the Eorzean city-states, which was along those lines?