Thread: 3.5/4.0 Speculation & Discussion (Spoilers)

Nidhogg, to be fair, was the main antagonist of 3.0 - I do think his return could have been handled better though. For starters him taking over Estinien was a pretty cool moment but...it ended up being yet another 'fake out' by the end of it all. I do like Estinien, mind you, but after Haurchefant's demise I felt like there was just too much 'fake danger' when it came to Estinien, Aymeric and a handful of other Ishgardian NPC's.

Nidhogg also damaged the Steps of Faith and slaughtered many nameless generic soldiers but all of allies, both major and minor, emerged unscathed. I know some people will dislike me saying this but I feel like the main cast is too bloated at the moment and that some characters need to be written out of the plot one way or another. With any luck the events at Baelsar's Wall will at least result in some minor characters biting it. If it's just generic soldiers that we've no reason to care for or it ends up with yet another 'fake out' in regards to character deaths then it's going to be pretty disappointing and predictable.

As for the whole 'Garlemald was also meant to be evil' angle? Eh, I doubt that very much. It's no secret that there's a handful of vocal posters on this board who don't particularly like Garlemald and fight tooth and claw to try and paint them as stereotypical villains at every turn with little to no justification for their actions. They did this with the Dravanians, too, at first - as well as with the Ascians. Those of who did some digging and pieced together the subtle hints that existed, however, figured out pretty early on that was there much more to Garlemald than what was immediately apparent.

Thankfully we can take comfort in our righteousness, for we were correct in our speculation and much of what was revealed in the lore book was similar to what had been speculated. So I, for one, look forward to seeing what the future brings for Garlemald and I have faith that the developers really do have a satisfying, morally grey approach to their ongoing storyline.

Originally Posted by Theodric

As for the whole 'Garlemald was also meant to be evil' angle? Eh, I doubt that very much. It's no secret that there's a handful of vocal posters on this board who don't particularly like Garlemald and fight tooth and claw to try and paint them as stereotypical villains at every turn with little to no justification for their actions. [...] Those of who did some digging and pieced together the subtle hints that existed, however, figured out pretty early on that was there much more to Garlemald than what was immediately apparent.

Thankfully we can take comfort in our righteousness, for we were correct in our speculation and much of what was revealed in the lore book was similar to what had been speculated. So I, for one, look forward to seeing what the future brings for Garlemald and I have faith that the developers really do have a satisfying, morally grey approach to their ongoing storyline.

I am still waiting for this information. As I am a bit tight on money right now (buying $50 Magic cards I'll rarely get to use because people are tryhards doesn't help), I don't have a Lore Book of my own. However, all I have heard in regards to the Garleans' motivations is that they were a small nation that was abused by their neighbors until they developed magitek.

Regrettably, I believe this justifies neither their aggressive expansionist policies nor the cruelty with which they treat conquered peoples. Garlean war orphans? "Innocent" Garlean citizens killed in insurgency attacks? Disasters wrought by use of Allagan tech they don't understand? None of that would happen if they'd just stop. Relinquish the conquered territory and go home. Act in self-defense, but do not provoke other nations into war, and do not go conquering them "because we can." While it's rare of me to say such a thing, the Garleans bring such ill fortune on themselves by way of their imperialism and cruelty.

I'm not saying the Garleans can't shift into a morally neutral stance, but aside from their methods for saving Hydaelyn being technically valid (if highly immoral and often shortsighted), there is little grey in their philosophy, which effectively boils down to "Go conquer whatever you can, and damn anyone who tries to stop you!" They have similar goals but their Machiavellian approach to it is hardly "grey;" since said goals also include aggressive expansion it's hard to paint them in a morally ambiguous light.

When the producer has said that what easily qualifies as the most progressive and sympathetic Garlean (Gaius) was never meant to be sympathetic, you might want to take a step back and reevaluate. I'm not trying to paint Garlemald as stereotypical villains - they do that themselves.

Trying to force them into a moral grey area, when it's clear their only reason for doing anything close to moral is so they can still have territory to conquer and people to oppress, doesn't seem particularly wise. Again, I'm not saying they couldn't become morally grey or neutral or even good, but as it stands it would take major reforms, and Varis "Let's Become Allag 2.0!" zos Galvus and Zenos don't seem likely candidates to make those steps.

Here's hoping Nero doesn't backstab us with Omega...

While the Garleans do not do what they do purely for evil, Gaius himself literally said that he was trying to conquer Eorzea because he could. Yes, they do do this for kicks.

Originally Posted by Gaius van Baelsar

It is only right that I should take your realm. For none among you has the power to stop me!

... while how that attitude came about can be explained, that doesn't justify it or their actions. The Garleans are not strictly speaking evil, but that doesn't mean their actions are justified to anyone but themselves - and everyone is justified from their own perspective, so that doesn't really fly.

Patronizing me (and others) is not going to prove your point. If you understand the moral complexity of the Garleans' actions, pray enlighten us. Otherwise I am fine with leaving it as is, because yes many people are very stubborn and unlikely to change their opinion and doing this dance for the dozenth time is futile. The patronizing attitude...

Originally Posted by Theodric

[...]Some people recognise the complexities that come with the more dubious aspects of morality. Others do not. ...Maybe I just have a different insight into such things due to witnessing war myself firsthand...

...doesn't help your case, though.

Side note: You are not the only one with firsthand experience of war.

Originally Posted by Cilia

While the Garleans do not do what they do purely for evil, Gaius himself literally said that he was trying to conquer Eorzea because he could. Yes, they do do this for kicks.



... while how that attitude came about can be explained, that doesn't justify it or their actions. The Garleans are not strictly speaking evil, but that doesn't mean their actions are justified to anyone but themselves - and everyone is justified from their own perspective, so that doesn't really fly.

I think you are missing some earlier points that show Where Gaius and his directs are coming from and the conflict between Eorzea's and Garlemeld's approach. Namely, that Gaius has such a low opinion about the governance and people of Eorzea that he might as well put the rest of it under Garlean rule.

Note their interactions and responses in the face of the Primal question. The Garleans, as far as we know, do not play nice with primal summoning beast tribes, And the existing primals power being recorded was seen as pathetic according to Nero, and Gaius. Eorzea(pre 2.0)we have an already divided country, reduced to temporary fixes and independant negotiation against beast tribes under threat of the local primal flipping their lid and wrecking everything. It took Garlemeld knocking on their door to finally bring up the Grand Company idea, and any outside observer could see they were still well on their way to chaos, and that regime change can only help stabilize the situation before Eorzea was awash in Tidal Waves, Hellfire, and whatever motherly 2hr Nophica might have.

Im not going to state any real life examples here. But assuming one existed, im willing to bet seeing it would not inspire confidence from the "Garleans" that "Eorzean" example is little more than a tinderbox running on hopes and a prayer. Until there is some common ground found between these two, there is going to be a lot of lives lost, and we are on the side who pins stability on one lucky girl/boy and their motley crew...little doubt that such an approach requires convincing from those that aren't so fortunate to have a Warrior of Light, at least one that isn't slaughtering their brave men and women.