Revolutions Hype Thread

[Rocl]

I've watched it three times and still I can't find Carvallian. May I trouble someone for a screenshot/time stamp?

Forgive the quality, but approximately ~1:46



The Elezen gentleman, obviously.

"twin knives, two swords..."
"given in to shadow whispers; wicked words."
"yet tell me who doth louder call..." (cannot make this one out much XD)
"a rival's cry for the oaths that spur him onward"?

Rocl lyrics fit better, ill still leave these up though incase they "help" XD

Also don't worry, I've been furiously updating them as I think I hear something anew and your post definitely helped me with the last line there!

[Wolfman88]

I was watching the new trailer and began wondering about the Eorzean Alliance. What role will the Eorzean Alliance play in stormblood? Would they directly support the revolution in Ala Mhigo and Doma? This is where I began wondering the possible repercussions of this. If the alliance directly supports the revolution, will that count as an act of war toward the Empire?

Our connection, as the WoL, with the 4 city states and us venturing into the new region to help the revolution could be independent of the Eorzean Alliance since we are going in with the scions and for Lyse. Granted, the empire knows our connection with the Eorzean alliance is tight so it could be seen as an act of aggression towards the empire regardless of the WoL's intentions.

Then there is Raubahn who has an interest in the revolution. Will his actions be in the best interest of the Eorzean alliance? I'm guessing by the trailer that Raubahn will play an important role but will he drag the others with him?

[LyricalM]

I noticed that as well. Though I didn't see anyone from the Eorzean Alliance in Othard. It might be that they don't want to leave the border of Gyr Abania, which would mean that they're protecting themselves from any re-precautions from the Garleans. I really do think that the actions of the WoL are going to cause a lot of trouble and with the connections made with all 4 city states, it seems pretty obvious that they're going to be defending themselves from the Garleans after the revolution of Ala Mihgo.

And for Raubahn and his actions? Well, the Eorzean alliance was already dragged into the fight by the Griffin so we will have to wait and see what kind of decisions they make and if they have any personal conflict there. I assume that there will be some, but I'm not sure how deep it will do. I'm excited to see what will happen to say the least.

[RobinMalvin]

My hype goes to the shot where some Ala Mhigan Resistance fighters shown victorius alongside an Ananta!! Finally we can get an alliance between men and beast tribes (whatever this term refer to). Minfillia will be so proud. This also gives me some theory that we'll fight Lakhsmi to prove our righteousness and win her follower's approval. Can't expect any less from the wife of Rama.

[Theodric]

The lyrics intrigue me and paint a picture that things may not be so black and white after all, much like the Dragonsong War. My guess? The Eorzean Alliance - or some of its allies - will go too far in the quest for 'liberation'. Given what happened at Baelsar's Wall it seems very likely. Some of those murdered in the name of 'freedom' will be sympathetic, no doubt - perhaps unexpectedly so. I fully expect 4.0 to shed some light on the plight of the Garlean people, perhaps giving us the faction of Garleans that are loyal to their homeland and people but not necessarily loyal to Zenos and his aggression/indifference that a lot of us here are hoping for.

Very interesting that Doma appears to be...flooded?

I wonder who the 'lover lost' is and how that'll tie into the story?

[Belhi]

While I am hoping we see a different, more moderate side to Garlemald and we have some hard choices in this expansion, I am not sure if the Garleans themselves really have a plight. They have been the top of their society since they began their expansion.

That said I think they are going to have to start showing at least some benevolence to the Garleans because I fully expect to go to Garlemald in 5.0 and I expect it to be dealing with the political and social consequences of any damage we do in this expansion.

Don't worry, I got you:
*image*
(Quite literally standing with us. Hah! Wordplay!)

I just had the image enter my head of dragoons taking out Garlean flyers mid air ala the intro cinematic to HW.

[Theodric]

-snip-

It's confirmed in the lore book - and it's not as if they had the Warrior of Light to fall back on to solve all their problems, thus they had to resort to increasing desperate measures for the sake of their continued survival after being forced to carve out a living in a wasteland. Should they have rolled over and allowed themselves to be wiped out instead? Push people far enough and they start pushing back. Much like the Roman Empire, there's a lot of bad, yes, but they're hardly irredeemable and one only has to look at how many 'good' countries in the real world get involved in conflicts that they shouldn't but still have their own redeeming qualities.

We've already seen redeeming elements in regards to Regula and - to a lesser extent - Gaius. The latter more so in 1.0 than 2.0. Zenos is likely to be a straight up villain, though from what little we've seen of him so far it's clear he doesn't care all that much about his own allies which is likely to be his downfall, I believe.

As an aside, I wonder if the Doman Viceroy and Hien used to be lovers? Or if they're directly related - as siblings, perhaps. I could have sworn it said 'a family torn' as it panned to the Viceroy...but that may just be me.

As per usual, the trailer may be strategically cut in places to make us believe one thing is happening whilst something else is actually the case. It'll be very interesting to see how it all plays out...and as a fan of FFXII, I'm eager to see which elements of that game they bring into 4.0. FFIX, too, will get a lot of love and in-game references I hope!

[YianKutku]

Much like the Roman Empire, there's a lot of bad, yes, but they're hardly irredeemable and one only has to look at how many 'good' countries in the real world get involved in conflicts that they shouldn't but still have their own redeeming qualities.

I'm reminded of the historical tidbit of the Roman historian Livy, who claimed that Rome only responded to provocations, and therefore Rome conquered much of Europe in self-defense. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying.)

The lorebook also states how the cuisine of Garlemald has improved significantly since they started empire-building, with foods from all over their empire. It's not hard to see how the average Garlean citizen benefits from the expansionist policy, and they're not likely to be pleased if they're forced to go back to the old days of boring food.

(Technically they could also have reaped the same benefits through trade (eg Limsa and the Culinarian's Guild) rather than invasion, but that's another topic.)

So that's a case where Garlemald didn't need to conquer the land in order to survive, but it still led to an improvement in lifestyle, and now that they're on this path, they probably don't see the need to change. And if the game's story eventually leads to the Garlean Empire being humbled, that's a lot of people who won't see their sudden downgrade in living quality as fair, even if their current wealth is built on the suffering of the conquered lands.

Plenty of the policies (both official and unspoken) enacted by the Garleans are still evil, of course. And many more might not be as morally repugnant, but they are still unacceptable to us as the Warrior of Light from Eorzea. I'm curious if the alleged sympathetic Garleans we see will be people who have a high enough rank to effect policy changes, or if they'll just be random soldiers or civilians who can't help the world they live in.

[Belhi]

It's confirmed in the lore book - and it's not as if they had the Warrior of Light to fall back on to solve all their problems, thus they had to resort to increasing desperate measures for the sake of their continued survival after being forced to carve out a living in a wasteland. Should they have rolled over and allowed themselves to be wiped out instead? Push people far enough and they start pushing back. Much like the Roman Empire, there's a lot of bad, yes, but they're hardly irredeemable and one only has to look at how many 'good' countries in the real world get involved in conflicts that they shouldn't but still have their own redeeming qualities.

They had a plight. It stopped being a plight 50 years ago. Most Garleans alive today have been part of an expanding empire for their entire lives. There is pushing back and then there is conquering everything you can and forcing the bulk of your population into a role little better than slaves. Now if your fortunate to have a benevolent governor its probably not too bad. But if you don't its not like you have many options. You cant up and move. They kill people who try that.

The Victim card only is valid for so long and it doesn't excuse you becoming the one victimising others.

We've already seen redeeming elements in regards to Regula and - to a lesser extent - Gaius. The latter more so in 1.0 than 2.0. Zenos is likely to be a straight up villain, though from what little we've seen of him so far it's clear he doesn't care all that much about his own allies which is likely to be his downfall, I believe.

As an aside, I wonder if the Doman Viceroy and Hien used to be lovers? Or if they're directly related - as siblings, perhaps. I could have sworn it said 'a family torn' as it panned to the Viceroy...but that may just be me.

As per usual, the trailer may be strategically cut in places to make us believe one thing is happening whilst something else is actually the case. It'll be very interesting to see how it all plays out...and as a fan of FFXII, I'm eager to see which elements of that game they bring into 4.0. FFIX, too, will get a lot of love and in-game references I hope!

Actually I have a feeling that she will turn out to be either a rival house or in some way the victim of traditions. It would explain her hatred of her own people's desire to return to their old ways. In that way I could see very well why she would see herself as in the right.

[Theodric]

-snip-.

It's more nuanced than that. People are very biased - and understandably so - because so far we've only really seen the situation through Eorzea's eyes and easily fall into the trap of looking at it through the perspective of real world modern day morality which is very different to how things play out in a fictional setting. Eorzea's own history is laced with controversies, both recent and distant. Garlemald has made mistakes, yes, but it has done so due to a combination of well intentioned extremism and misguided self defence. Garleans cannot use magic, bar certain exceptions. Their homeland is a wasteland. They cannot grow crops. They were displaced from their original territory and forced to carve out a living for themselves in a location that made it incredibly difficult to keep their numbers up. They had to do whatever was necessary to survive and at some point they discovered the potential of ceruleum - thus bringing forth the wonder that is magitek.

Still, that doesn't solve their plight. They still need resources and their neighbours did nothing but antagonise them - likely in large part due to being perceived as 'easy' targets. So they sought to expand, leading to the acquisition of fine foods and drinks, leading to many Garleans finally being able to lead comfortable lives. This plays out in the real world quite often when you see how various nations came to improve and expand their operations. Does this excuse Garlemald on every level? No, but they're not without their own justifications and seemingly many people here expect them to have simply rolled over and died out or allowed themselves to be tormented again and again.

It is very likely that the Garleans attempted diplomacy and it did not benefit them in any way. Ultimately people do what it takes to survive which is why morality is considered to be so complicated. Murder and theft are wrong - but it becomes much more murky in terms of morality when the specific circumstances are considered. It isn't rigid. There's often two sides to every story. I have little doubt that - once again - I will be proven right in regards to Garlemald being much more nuanced than many here pretend. It wasn't so long ago that some people were saying that Garlemald was a stereotypical evil organisation without any redeeming qualities or justifications for their actions. Then we got the lore book and it rendered a lot of the theories proposed by Garlean enthusiasts as canon such as the likelihood that they suffered immensely themselves before securing the power of magitek.

It happened again with Regula. Many of the same people were saying he had no redeeming qualities and would betray the Emperor. That didn't happen, he turned out to be very honourable and even sacrificed his life for the sake of one of the Warrior of Light's allies. I have little doubt that it will happen again in 4.0 and things will be very complicated. The lyrics of the trailer even imply as much.