fate of emperor varis at the end

[Absimiliard]

Problem is you didn't initially presented anything you said as speculation at all: If you present something as implied and hinted at people will assume you have the care to pour over a bunch of text from a long time ago to back what you said. Heck, ObsidianFire did opened her lorebook to get you the right time line. Dismissing her the way you did just make you look like a unconditional Garlean apologist..

If being unable to sit down and spend hours pouring over text in a game when I am rarely actually home to do so is somehow dismissive, so be it. Some of us lead very busy lives, though I suspect mine will thankfully calm down a bit in the near future. Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

Also, the American civil war was only 165 years ago and there's still racial tensions: this is why it is way fresher in the country's memory. It would be like having a grudge about something that happened in year 1220; Emet-Selch made Garlemald into a super power during a lifetime worth of their history.

Alright. Since you communicated a belief that racial tensions are the sole cause of people still bearing a grudge from the Civil War after nearly two hundred years have passed, I will give you a different example. Take a look at the Middle East, at Europe. Some of the countries over there have grudges that go back hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years. Some of these groups actively fight over it while others limit themselves to mere derision and other commentary. The point here is that people are really, really good at holding a grudge. Why, if people in real life can maintain a grudge over things that they themselves never personally experienced or that occurred long ago, is it beyond the realm of possibility for Garleans to have done the same?

Some of the worst world leaders we ever saw from throughout history got to their positions by preying on public perceptions. Even a certain German dictator took advantage of preexisting tensions to sway the masses over to his line of thinking. Why, then, is it beyond the realm of possibility for Emet-Selch do have done the same?

[Cilia]

Just pointing out a few things again. (I work in a factory, so I can't hop in during the day.)

The Eorzeans do have airships, but their technology is vastly inferior to the Garleans'. No Eorzean airships are combat equipped except for Ishgard's The Protector (which is only equipped to fight dragons and has loads of technical problems besides); every other is just a small transport vessel. Conversely, the Empire has dreadnoughts like the Agrius and Gration that are equipped with countless armaments and serve as mass transport vessels besides. Just one such airship could bomb an Eorzean city-state off the map if they really wanted to do it. (Thankfully such massive airships are limited in number and one was destroyed by Midgardsormr, but there are plenty more smaller ones.)

The Garleans discovered ceruleum relatively early when settling in Northern Ilsabard (exactly when hasn't been explained, but it was needed to survive the harsh winters). It wasn't until Solus (Emet-Selch) introduced them to the ceruleum engine that they weaponized ceruleum as magitek. (To be fair it's not stated that Solus developed the ceruleum engine, only weaponized it, but circumstances are exceedingly suspect.)

The Limsans' navy is better than the Empire's (the Empire's navy is actually crap because the seas around their home territory are often frozen, and air power far outweighs naval power), but it's not known if the entire Limsan navy has ceruleum engines capable of allowing them to move faster than the wind allows. Carvallain's ceruleum engine is stated to be contraband, and no other Limsan vessels are known to have one that I am aware of. (I honestly would not be surprised if more do, but again I doubt the entire Limsan navy is equipped with them.) Regardless, the Limsan navy outmatching the Empire's is of little consequence given their restriction to the sea compared to the Empire's air force.

Now, the Imperials' mindset is certainly understandable. Much of what they do is informed by false propaganda. That said, again, those who look past it and refuse to (keep) drink(ing) the Kool-aid tend to defect or join the Populares. However, in regards to the use of Black Rose at all (or "for the Garlean Empire"), consider the following:

Cait Sith: ...As long as Marlene is safe, who cares what else happens, right? I been itchin' to say this to ya fer a while now! When ya blew the Midgar No. 1 up, how many folks d'ya think died?

Barret: ...that was for the life of the planet. Ya gotta expect a few casualties.

Cait Sith: A few? Whaddya mean 'a few'? What may be a few to y'all is everythin' to them who died...... Protect the planet. Hah! Y'all sure sound good! Ain't no one that'd go against ya. So ya think ya can do whatever y'all want?

Then consider the Empire started the war. "The Garleans are justified in their own minds" is a very poor defense because everyone is justified in their own minds; everyone rationalizes why their actions are necessary for whatever reason. In this regard, "Anything the Empire does to defend itself is acceptable" quickly breaks down into "if it's good for me, screw everyone else," which is a (conventionally) evil point of view. (Not everyone in the Empire is evil, but the actions it often takes certainly are from a conventional standpoint. All Imperials may not be evil, but that doesn't prevent them from doing evil things. The only truly evil character we've been shown thus far is Zenos, but he simply takes the Empire's "hooray for me, to hell with everyone else" mentality to a personal level.)

People understand why the Empire would use Black Rose, but it's still an unacceptable thing to do that escalates the war from one of survival to one of extermination.

[Ardox]

If being unable to sit down and spend hours pouring over text in a game when I am rarely actually home to do so is somehow dismissive, so be it. Some of us lead very busy lives, though I suspect mine will thankfully calm down a bit in the near future.

I'm not sure what you trying to say with this: Are you suggesting "you have a busy life" as in "everyone that can find a source to back their suppositions have nothing to do with their lives"? Since I see you chime in of a variety of subjects on this forum, I would argue you have at least some some spare time and you could at least spend some of it to do some internet searching to back your points of view.

Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

You said:

What little information we do have on them suggests that they were driven from their lands primarily over resources. Their inability to manipulate aether resulted in them being easy prey. Where this takes a darker turn is just how brutally the other races came at them. It wasn't just that they were driven from their lands - they were almost driven to the point of ceasing to be. It also appears that some Garleans were used a slave labor at some point, likely owing to their excessively strong bodies making them good workers and their inability to use aether all but eliminating any chance of them suddenly turning on their masters.

The statement in bold is presented as a hard fact.
The statement in italic is presented as a something strongly hinted. — "It appears" doesn't equal "I believe".
Eg.: "It appears we possess the soul of sundered Ancient" vs "I believe we possess the soul of an sundered Ancient"

Alright. Since you communicated a belief that racial tensions are the sole cause of people still bearing a grudge from the Civil War after nearly two hundred years have passed, I will give you a different example. Take a look at the Middle East, at Europe. Some of the countries over there have grudges that go back hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years.

That's not an example, there's nothing specific; that's just tossing something my way in the hope it sticks.

[Iscah]

Also, if you read anything I said as being presented as fact, it means you ignored words such as "suggested", "implied", "probably", "believed", etc.

The thing is, even if you believe that something is true, it's generally accepted in these discussions that you should be able to explain why you believe it, and what was said that led you to that conclusion.

If you can't explain how you came to believe something, it's possible you misunderstood or the text was ambiguous. To discuss the story in the depth that we do, referring back to the story and "spending hours poring over text" is necessary, or we'd all just be running on our own vague memory of what happened.

There's also a critical difference in how you use the word "believed". I questioned your use of the phrase "it is believed" the other day, though you didn't reply - but saying that isn't the same thing as "I believe", which clearly marks your own opinion. Saying "it is believed" implies that it is general knowledge and you're stating a common theory if not a solid fact.

We have to work from facts here. 'Fictional facts', but we still want to be on the same page to discuss what happened and what happens next. If you disagree on those facts, but can't say how you came to that alternate understanding, how can you be certain that you are right - and how can we rely on your claim over what we do understand from poring over the text? If there's something we missed, we want to know about it. If you can't tell us where the something exists, we can't assume that it exists at all.


Edit to add: this isn't to say you can't join in the conversation until you've studied the script in-depth - just that it's much better to phrase things as "I thought..." or to ask questions than to state things like facts if you aren't able to reference them. Those of us who do have a good memory for script details are happy to clarify things or say whether your understanding is correct or not - and it makes for a far more pleasant atmosphere than having to query your statements at every turn.

[Absimiliard]

To be perfectly blunt here, it is my belief that a lot of the "questioning of facts" that goes on is specifically due to the fact that some of what is being said by the less-than-silent minority paints a picture that what many wish to perceive as nothing beyond "the bad guys" may actually have motivations and feelings of their own. There have been just as many instances of people continually insisting that the Alliance, Hydaelyn, whatever "good" faction can do no wrong without even being asked to cite anything despite the fact that many of those claims clearly go against the lore books.

If you want to demand citations for every assertion, do so from everyone. Do not single out only those with dissenting opinions. It is bad form. Besides, I and others have cited our sources on quite a few different things at this point, and it generally seems to get ignored anyway to preserve the desired narrative. I do not believe it unreasonable of me to feel that this has become more than a bit tiresome at this point. There is little fun in a debate where all participants are not held to the same standard. Case in point, there are a few instances in the last few days alone where individuals quoted the lore books word for word to no avail. With this in mind, I have decided to stop bothering entirely. It was an amusing little diversion, but the double standard has really been slowly sucking the fun out of it. I have also observed a rather unhealthy "the majority is always right" mentality amongst some of the posters here. That sort of thing is poison to any sort of logical debate.

I would also note that assuming someone is mistaken simply because they cannot tell you the exact when and where of a specific line of text they clearly recall reading is a bit unfair - well, perhaps less unfair than slightly disrespectful. Fairness is highly subjective, after all. Even in professional debates there is a certain amount of benefit of the doubt you give your opposition when it comes to them making assertions that do not actually conflict with known fact. In the case of this thread, I don't believe any of the information myself or the few others attempting to at least point people toward one potential reason for the (admittedly flawed) rational behind Garlean actions conflicts with anything present in lore books, in-game, etc. It would be a different story if someone was saying something that just made no sense.

Anywho, just to say something still on topic before I depart - and this part is aimed specifically at Ardox:
I am being vague on purpose to avoid stepping on any toes. My referencing of some age old grudges in Europe and the Middle East that are still playing out to this day is already risky enough considering current events. So please, just on this, take my word for it. People, and especially groups of people, can hold grudges for an extremely long time. Some demographics that still fight to this day probably don't even remember what their original reason for fighting was. On this one I would encourage you to do a little searching if you absolutely must have some specifics. It won't take much, I promise. Some pretty awful things are happening to this day that stem from grudges begotten long, long ago.

All I've been saying this whole time is that the Garleans have crappy leaders, may still be holding a grudge, and are most likely being played like fiddles by whoever controls their tabloids. That's it. Nothing else. Their wrongdoings haven't been justified, their point of view is not being vindicated (as it is definitely flawed), and no one is saying Eorzea actually poses a real threat to them at this time. The entire point being made is that someone with a silver tongue (*cough Emet-Selch cough*) probably did more than a little bit of twisting of their views during and after his rise to power. Based on what we saw of him in game, he is an excellent orator. He may be gone but that propaganda machine keeps chugging right along.

[Edax]

There have been just as many instances of people continually insisting that the Alliance, Hydaelyn, whatever "good" faction can do no wrong without even being asked to cite anything despite the fact that many of those claims clearly go against the lore books.

Please quote the people who have said this in this thread, otherwise I'll consider your entire argumentation made in bad faith.

[Theodric]

As I have stated many times in the past, there's absolutely no reason as to why any of you cannot simply agree to disagree. The game has players from numerous different countries, cultures, belief systems and backgrounds. A lot of people also read into situations differently than others. It is very dubious to me how some of you insist that everything has to be debated in a certain way. It doesn't. The only rules that are applicable are the forum's terms of service.

Which, incidentally, were updated recently to make it against the rules to stamp out or ridicule others for different opinions or ways of thinking. I'm not bringing that up as a veiled threat, either - I'm bringing it up because the attempts at controlling the narrative based on a group of vocal regulars banding together is becoming genuinely unsettling.

[Scintilla]

Of course there might be more aspects (and I was ready to read what he had to say about the real bad stuff that they did in recent years that come close to Garlemald) but I just wrote of those that came to my mind that were on the forefront of the story. Which in case of Limsa is their old pirate lifes, in Uldah its mostly the problem with the rich people doing their selfish things and the situation of the refugees and Gridania with its stance of not helping or even shunning outsiders out of fear. That there are more problems that I can see, but we also have to remember that these problems probably happen in a lot of states, maybe even in Garlemald so I wanted to concentrate on those more specific to a state.

Whilst true that Garlemald has many flaws and an ever growing list of wrongdoings that become increasingly difficult to excuse, as said before, the Alliance do have their own fair share of inexcusable wrongdoings. Ul'dah's slavery being just one example.
Whilst our relationships with each of the Alliance leaders and our considerable past work with each of the communities does give us a general idea as to the existing problems, a 'general idea' isn't necessarily enough to make an informed judgement in either way. We can't say with certainty that we know exactly what each issue entails and the full details of it.
To use the Ul'dah example again:
Basic Knowledge: We already knew that there was an existing problem with a considerable divide within the community between the wealthy and the poor and that they have a questionable leadership in the form of the Syndicate. These could be argued to be relatively common issues.
Additional Details: Among the issues caused by this divide and leadership is a practice of slavery, in which debtors, their family or any other 'suspect' individuals are imprisoned and beaten, including children. This same depraved system also included forcing the able prisoners to fight to the death before an audience for mere 'sport'.

Through our working with the Alliance Leaders we do have a basic knowledge of the current problems but, unfortunately, we can't be completely certain that we know everything that these problems entail. Just learning a few more details, like above, can turn an outwardly simple, commonly experienced issue into something far more sinister.

So I have just a hard time seeing them doing some atrocies especially after seeing how they were dealing with Fordola.

True, Fordola was given another chance. Though my own memory of that section of the MSQ is still tainted somewhat negatively. Whilst Fordola was imprisoned, rather than killed for vengeance, I still somewhat struggle to see it as being purely motivated by goodwill. Lyse was probably the exception to this, given her being so adamant that Fordola be given another chance. In contrast, the majority of the public were calling for her execution. Just a few quests later, Raubahn also shows that he's more than willing to execute the opposition if it came down to it:

Raubahn asks the WoL what they feel is the right course of action for Yuyuhase and Laurentius

Option 1: 'Their lives would be forfeit'
Option 2: 'Execution is not the answer'

Raubahn's Answer 1: Hear, Hear. There is no more fitting sentence for the perpetrators of such a massacre. And that is but one of their crimes.
Raubahn's Answer 2: You would spare these animals? Yours is a more merciful brand of justice than mine.

Considering Fordola was also responsible for the loss of countless lives and the suffering of many, I would assume that Raubahn's speech in defence of Lyse's choice was more in respect of Lyse's decision and leadership than it reflecting his own true opinion on how the matter should be handled. Though this is just how I interpreted it.

[Iscah]

To be perfectly blunt here, it is my belief that a lot of the "questioning of facts" that goes on is specifically due to the fact that some of what is being said by the less-than-silent minority paints a picture that what many wish to perceive as nothing beyond "the bad guys" may actually have motivations and feelings of their own.

I think something gets lost in this repeated argument: those of us who consider "Garlemald is bad" (not an unfair view to have of the country deliberately presented as the villains of the game) do not think every Garlean is bad. Garlemald-the-country is bad. If it were a person, it would be a warmonger taking advice from, if not outright possessed by, an Ascian.

Beyond that, I - and I would like to think most other people here - will take every Garlean character as an individual. There isn't a single character I dislike "because they're Garlean", but because of their individual actions. (And even then, there are few I actively dislike - the only one I can think of is Livia, for the horror that was the massacre at the Waking Sands. If we were supposed to feel sympathetic for her in the end, she needed a lot more screen time and development than she got.)

And that goes for the good guys too, but I'm rarely given reasons why I should dislike them, and often given reasons why they are good people who are trying their best to make a difference. I don't believe they or their countries "can do no wrong" but I know they want to do right.

If you want to demand citations for every assertion, do so from everyone. Do not single out only those with dissenting opinions. It is bad form.

I query things that I don't think sound right. I'll do my own research if I can, and come back with quotes if I find them.

If I have the same incorrect view as someone else, I'm not going to notice that it's wrong.

And in general, I don't assume everyone is wrong until they've provided quotes, but then a lot of the time that would be because we are discussing the same facts from the same script. It's only when people state something as fact (and I recognise it as 'not fact') that I'm going to ask for proof.


Also - you said before that you have an excellent memory for the text, but I think that goes for the majority of people here, or at least those who regularly join the discussion. That doesn't remove the need to check back against it, it just means you should have a good idea of where to find that information again. Or if you don't, say "I think I remember them saying X" and if that's correct, someone else should be able to confirm it.

I would also note that assuming someone is mistaken simply because they cannot tell you the exact when and where of a specific line of text they clearly recall reading is a bit unfair - well, perhaps less unfair than slightly disrespectful.

Again I think it depends on how you presented it (certain fact or just going on memory) but it also depends on the fact itself.

If you state something, and I query it, but then other people in the discussion agree that it's correct... I'm probably wrong.

On the other hand, the reason I'm asking in the first place is because it doesn't line up with what I understood the facts to be. If I'm incorrect, I want to see how and where, and that means seeing the correct quote that refutes my interpretation.

[Iscah]

The only rules that are applicable are the forum's terms of service.

Which, incidentally, were updated recently to make it against the rules to stamp out or ridicule others for different opinions or ways of thinking.

I'm sorry... you make sweeping statements about how people on this board think and discuss things in a way you disprove of, and then you bring up how the ToS disallows people from ridiculing opinions or ways of thinking?

Does this not look like a disconnect between how you say others should behave, and how you behave to others?

Or do you see it as acceptable because you're not telling a specific poster to their virtual face that you think they are "moral grandstanding" or "uptight and preachy"?

I just prefer bringing the facts to the table as they are established from the perspectives of the appropriate characters/factions to better counter the one sided arguments, manipulation of facts and moral grandstanding that goes on here.

Most of my posts are over on the general discussion board, since there's less uptight and preachy folk over there. Not nearly as much tone policing, either I've noticed.