6.0 Predictions: Will it be Garlemald, Sharlayan, or Meracydia?

[MikkoAkure]

Garlemald as a nation is a villain but they weren't originally, they were molded into one, through repeated abuse by other civilisations and Ascian machinations. The people of Ilsabard are not innocent little saplings that must be protected at all cost, their ancestors help create what Garlemald became and at this point I'd say just go redo HW to see why I say this and why i view Ilsabard more harshly.

Do the people of Ilsabard believe they are innocent of not causing Garlemald to be formed? Can't rightly say, we can go to one town at the moment and they may have done nothing to the Garlean people, too little information at this point.

But the fact is the people of Ilsabard caused the Garleans people to go further north to a harsher environment to suit their own needs at the time. The people of Ilsabard are partly responsible (emphasis on partly, as most was Ascian involvement) for the reason Garlemald is the way it is, and I'd like if we ever go to Ilsabard to see some acknowledgement on that fact because if we get we're all innocent of any wrong doing because evil empire will just be disappointing.

That was over at least 600 years ago, buddy. The average farmer in Ilsabard isn’t going to know or care about events that happened more than 20 generations ago at the beginning of the previous era. Any sort of sins Ilsabardians may have aren’t going to be inherited that far down and they’re not responsible for what happened to the proto-Garleans.

Anything that happened that far in the past may as well not even matter at this point and the Garleans aren’t some soft uwu nation that needs to be sympathized with because of those events, regardless as to whether or not ascians are involved or if they stopped at the conquest of Ilsabard. It’s not even their homeland, they came from further south before their city exploded and they made their way north over time as refugees. They weren’t conquered and slaughtered and kicked out.

And besides, this is all backstory for the villain nation who to now have not been shown in any sort of sympathetic light at all. Ascians didn't make the remaining Garlean generals do all the bad stuff they're currently still doing, or ask Zenos to crush the rebellions in Doma and Ala Mhigo with no mercy. There's no grey with them. It's really not that deep.

[Kesey]

You all give far too much credit to Emet. All he did after cerulem was discovered was propose a military application for it. The garlean people themselves wanted payback and they did so simple as that. Once they were fully hooked mean Garlean supremacy. All Emet really had to do was say "Hey we should take over the world we are superior after all."

I feel like you're minimizing what has really happened. Most of the things the Empire has done is the result of Ascian manipulation. This also doesn't absolve them of their crimes, but on some level if you don't feel bad for people forced and manipulated to do bad things, who had no means of knowing they were being manipulated and can't see the forest for the trees that they deserve redemption. Furthermore, their punishment won't be metered out by the WOL, we will just defeat Zenos. The city-states, Ishgard, Doma and Ala Mhigo leaders will decide the punishment of the Empire.

And to continue this thought and address Gaius. He is in the process of Redemption. He is the Empire's ideal leader. Strong military ties, independent thinking, and yeah willing to change in the face of the truth. You don't have to like a Gaius leading a reformed Empire and you definitely don't have to forgive him, but you also don't have a heart if you can't see that he is the best thing for them when they are ultimately defeated and discover the truth of their conquests and wars and history manipulation from what essentially boils down to overpowered cry-baby Ancients.

[Crushnight]

That was over at least 600 years ago, buddy. The average farmer in Ilsabard isn’t going to know or care about events that happened more than 20 generations ago at the beginning of the previous era. Any sort of sins Ilsabardians may have aren’t going to be inherited that far down and they’re not responsible for what happened to the proto-Garleans.

Anything that happened that far in the past may as well not even matter at this point and the Garleans aren’t some soft uwu nation that needs to be sympathized with because of those events, regardless as to whether or not ascians are involved or if they stopped at the conquest of Ilsabard. It’s not even their homeland, they came from further south before their city exploded and they made their way north over time as refugees. They weren’t conquered and slaughtered and kicked out.

And besides, this is all backstory for the villain nation who to now have not been shown in any sort of sympathetic light at all. Ascians didn't make the remaining Garlean generals do all the bad stuff they're currently still doing, or ask Zenos to crush the rebellions in Doma and Ala Mhigo with no mercy. There's no grey with them. It's really not that deep.

The 1000 year war started with a single murder, Ishgardians have 0 recollection except you know the people who were in charge the entire time until we bust into the scene, once the truth was known, Aerymeric repeatedly apologises every time he starts talking to the dragons, he has no recollection but he does have knowledge of it. That is all that is needed for a grudge to be past down, people with enough power to say what happened and the common folk are likely to believe especially when the common folk is downtrodden on harsh land. 600 year old grudge is nothing compared to other hatreds shown in the game that has been passed on for far far longer.

Of course they ain't a soft uwu(can't believe you got me to type this urgh) nation I straight up label them as a villain nation just like you do but they ain't pure evil either, a lot of their commanding officers are but then you got people like Maxima and the populares who are a lot more open to others than most commanding officers.

The nation of Garlemald is not grey it is jet black, it is the people of Garlemald that are grey, the people who were repeatedly pushed out from original homeland to subsequent homelands they settled in which would not be a clean affair at all rising up via Emet-Selch's guidance (Ceruleum was 'discovered' by Solus) , to become the war mongering nation it is. A emperor can massively influence the mindset of their entire nation, and Ascians are very good manipulators, doesn't take much to start instilling a revenge mindset and subsequent superiority mindset on a downtrodden people. They were manipulated but there is also a point they are responsible for their own actions and Garlemald and most of its military higher ups is very much villains.

[YianKutku]

And to continue this thought and address Gaius. He is in the process of Redemption. He is the Empire's ideal leader. Strong military ties, independent thinking, and yeah willing to change in the face of the truth. You don't have to like a Gaius leading a reformed Empire and you definitely don't have to forgive him, but you also don't have a heart if you can't see that he is the best thing for them when they are ultimately defeated and discover the truth of their conquests and wars and history manipulation from what essentially boils down to overpowered cry-baby Ancients.

Gaius is terrible for a hypothetical reformed Garlemald because of his "strong military ties". Gaius's ranting in the Praetorium about strength being the primary criteria for ruling a nation is textbook fascism (as famously described by Umberto Eco, among others), and I'm pretty sure intentionally so, given how it's supposed to be a "this is what the villain believes" monologue.

So Garlemald needs someone as far removed from the military as possible to lead them. A negotiator who advocates peace and reconciliation, including all the people who had been kicked out of Garlemald for advocating peace and reconciliation (Cid, Maxima, the cast of the Prima Vista; probably Lucia as well, although her circumstances are different). This is clearly not Gaius, given he had initially been declared a traitor and rogue not because of his actions in ShB, but back in ARR, when he directly disobeyed imperial orders, and attempted to take over Eorzea by force with his XIVth Legion. In other words, the opposite of peace and reconciliation.

And then later, after he realized the "truth" that should have been very obvious (ie just because you're strong doesn't give you the right to rule, especially if you borrow the strength of creepy Ascians), he didn't decide to renounce Garlean oppression and work towards making amends for his actions as Legatus of the XIVth. Instead, he went on a one-person crusade against Ascians, and recruited his travelling companions with that justification. In other words, he continues to try to use violence to solve the immediate problem in front of him. Even in the sidequests he's in, his primary motivation is about his adopted children, which is kind of laughable considering how terribly he treated his other adopted daughter Livia.

I'm not saying Gaius is beyond redemption. I'm saying he's a bad choice for potential leader of Garlemald. He simply has not displayed the skills and temperament needed to bring Garlemald out of the darkness of the Ascians. Give him some military leadership, fine, as long as a tight rein is kept on him so he doesn't go off on another conquering spree "for the good of Garlemald" like he did in ARR.

The problem with trying to name a good leader for a reformed Garlemald is we haven't met many named Garleans who would potentially want the job, so our pool of candidates is quite small. I strongly suspect we'll be introduced to a brand new character that happens to fit the slot of "good sympathetic ruler". But if I had to give a name out of the ones we know, I would say Maxima quo Priscus. His upbringing was described as "progressive", and he spent his career advocating and fighting for the rights of the annexed population of the nations conquered by Garlemald. He's clearly a negotiator of some sort, given he was part of the ambassadorial entourage to Doma, and was obviously not privy to Asahi's personal schemes. And he has the trust and respect of the Populares, since he was appointed de facto spokesman when the Populares fled into Eorzea from Varis's purge.

Maxima is a significantly better choice for a potential leader of Garlemald than Gaius.

[Vyrerus]

Gaius, in his present state, would be a bad leader for Garlemald

Ahh, but you've mischaracterized the elevator speech that Gaius gives in the Praetorium. While it is a villain's speech, remember that it is in the context of having a leader strong enough so that the masses don't seek divine intervention to solve their problems. He directly confronts you with the fact that The Twelve aren't real gods, just primals, and when the speech was current, obviously it seemed to just be an atheist making light of the possibility of the divine. With what we know now though, the speech carries a lot more weight and has other story related ties ins. While obviously part of retroactive and the ever evolving nature of the story, it stands nonetheless. It's most interesting when setup against our most current expansion. With what the Convocation did in creating a God, rather than address the problem and lead. Rather than work with the rest of the world, just build god and rely on that.

As for his crusade, well, it's known to be a worthwhile and necessary one. And you might be a little less disingenuous about him too, considering he puts it on hold to go about specifically targeting and destroying Black Rose manufacturing plants. The sidequests he's in are more about stopping more WMDs, mainly the Weapons, whose pilots' identities he was unaware of until the WoL puts down the first one. Clearly he was an inspiring and loving father-figure, since his adopted charges take to calling him father of their own volition. As far as Livia goes, yeah it's kind of screwed up by our standards, but it's mildly irrelevant to his current motivations as she was a different person with different circumstances, none of which we've been shown.

I think if they do intend to have Garlemald rebuilt into an anti-hero style nation, then Gaius would be a good choice. He's charismatic, has ties to Cid and Nero, the Scions, and he has loads of leadership experience. Maxima is too much of a bit player, and will in all likelihood die to Fandaniel's scheming, along with all of the rest of the Populares (as most have). If anyone gets to lead a new Garlemald, it's basically going to be what's left, and none of it is going to be ideal.

Personally though, I think that Garlemald will be ground into the dust by 6.0. There won't be anything for anyone to lead and rule.

[Kesey]

snip.

Gaius just can not catch a break with you. You can feel he is beyond redemption, but lets see him for what he is.

He wants the people of the Empire to live in a world free of Ascians, free of Black Rose, free of the Weapon project, free of primals. I know he had a murderous past, so do the people of the Empire. He's seen the truth about Ascian manipulation and when the people of the Empire find out too (hopefully not too late) they will identify with him more than anyone else. I know that in "our" eyes Gaius has a long way to go to redemption, but he can do that when he is leader of the Empire. And the Umberto Eco reference only applies to Gaius before he is defeated in the Praetorium.

And the pool of possible leaders is small, idk because Ascians and Zenos keep killing them. They also need a leader who can stop those manipulations.

Also, Maxima is the second fiddle to Gaius. Maxima is like the Empire's Alphinaud. He's important to the story but can't carry the main plot. And since you want to go all literary critic, Maxima is probably one of the flattest characters in the whole game.

Within context, Gaius is the kind of leader the Empire needs.

[Rosenstrauch]

A funny thing to note about all this hypothetical "who should rule Garlemald" stuff: In the quest The Queen of Blades, the legatus of the IIIrd Legion—Nerva—is stated to be the son of Titus. Titus being Varis's uncle and the man he fought with to claim the throne way back in A Realm Reborn. We know next to nothing about him, sadly, save for the fact that Lyon considers him "weak and a coward, just like his father". But considering that Titus initiated a civil war to claim the throne when Varis was the one in line for it, and his lack of standing in the military back during Doma's rebellion, this strikes me as Lyon being biased against the two men.

In the event that Garlemald wants for a new ruler, Nerva might be an option. Or he could be dead already, what with Zenos having assumed the throne in an appropriately bloody fashion. Or he could be a plot hole—Titus was said to have no ready heirs, after all, and a son who went on to become the legatus of the IIIrd Legion strikes me as heir material in a military-minded nation like Garlemald.

[YianKutku]

Ahh, but you've mischaracterized the elevator speech that Gaius gives in the Praetorium. While it is a villain's speech, remember that it is in the context of having a leader strong enough so that the masses don't seek divine intervention to solve their problems. He directly confronts you with the fact that The Twelve aren't real gods, just primals, and when the speech was current, obviously it seemed to just be an atheist making light of the possibility of the divine. With what we know now though, the speech carries a lot more weight and has other story related ties ins. While obviously part of retroactive and the ever evolving nature of the story, it stands nonetheless. It's most interesting when setup against our most current expansion. With what the Convocation did in creating a God, rather than address the problem and lead. Rather than work with the rest of the world, just build god and rely on that.

As for his crusade, well, it's known to be a worthwhile and necessary one. And you might be a little less disingenuous about him too, considering he puts it on hold to go about specifically targeting and destroying Black Rose manufacturing plants. The sidequests he's in are more about stopping more WMDs, mainly the Weapons, whose pilots' identities he was unaware of until the WoL puts down the first one. Clearly he was an inspiring and loving father-figure, since his adopted charges take to calling him father of their own volition. As far as Livia goes, yeah it's kind of screwed up by our standards, but it's mildly irrelevant to his current motivations as she was a different person with different circumstances, none of which we've been shown.

I think if they do intend to have Garlemald rebuilt into an anti-hero style nation, then Gaius would be a good choice. He's charismatic, has ties to Cid and Nero, the Scions, and he has loads of leadership experience. Maxima is too much of a bit player, and will in all likelihood die to Fandaniel's scheming, along with all of the rest of the Populares (as most have). If anyone gets to lead a new Garlemald, it's basically going to be what's left, and none of it is going to be ideal.

Personally though, I think that Garlemald will be ground into the dust by 6.0. There won't be anything for anyone to lead and rule.

I don't think I've mischaracterized the elevator pitch Gaius gave us in Praetorium, although I suspect that's because I'm focusing more on his proposed solution than the problem he allegedly addresses.

Whether or not the Twelve are Primals, or whether or not all gods are Primals, it is still rather alarming that Gaius's solution is to "have strong leaders". Not strength of character or virtue, but military and personal strength. As mentioned, that's a textbook fascist point. He could have gone for any other solution (including education and research, which the Scions are attempting), but instead he went straight for "the strong must rule".

As for his crusade against the Ascians, it's what he states immediately upon emerging from the wreckage of the Praetorium. Not that he needs to make amends or that he wants to save lives to atone for those he took, but that he sees the Ascians as a threat, and wants to kill them. Which may indeed be necessary, but we're not talking about whether killing Ascians is necessary: we're talking about Gaius's character. He had all these other options open to him, and he chose this one. Which I feel illustrates that he still believes in the primacy of strength and violence.

Again, that's not actually something horrible and monstrous. It just makes him unsuited to rule Garlemald, if we want a "reformed" Garlemald. If we want a Garlemald that we can still fight due to their imperialism, then Gaius would certainly fit, but that's not what was claimed.

And Gaius going against Black Rose was mostly because it was used against him, or at least his allies that he wanted to keep using to help kill Ascians. I grant that he has personal reasons to hate Black Rose, but even in the presence of Alphinaud, while looking upon the corpses of his allies, he states that it's because Black Rose is inefficient for the purposes of conquest. Once again, not a monster simply because of that, but still not the sort of person I'd believe to be a good person to rule Garlemald.

I'm not going to belabour the point of "but what about Livia", because "maybe there's something we don't know" isn't really anything to argue against. Maybe there's something we don't know, maybe we already know everything, we can't know which. It goes too far into the realm of speculation. The history is that in ARR, Gaius treated Livia in a rather weird way (and heavily implied to be creepy), then when she died fighting us when we stormed Castrum Meridianum, Gaius said not one word about Livia's death while he spent a very long time giving his monologue about The Strong Must Rule. Honestly, I put this down to simple poor writing, but it's still a plot hole that hasn't been covered, and I certainly can't prove it's just poor writing.

Gaius just can not catch a break with you. You can feel he is beyond redemption, but lets see him for what he is.

He wants the people of the Empire to live in a world free of Ascians, free of Black Rose, free of the Weapon project, free of primals. I know he had a murderous past, so do the people of the Empire. He's seen the truth about Ascian manipulation and when the people of the Empire find out too (hopefully not too late) they will identify with him more than anyone else. I know that in "our" eyes Gaius has a long way to go to redemption, but he can do that when he is leader of the Empire. And the Umberto Eco reference only applies to Gaius before he is defeated in the Praetorium.

And the pool of possible leaders is small, idk because Ascians and Zenos keep killing them. They also need a leader who can stop those manipulations.

Also, Maxima is the second fiddle to Gaius. Maxima is like the Empire's Alphinaud. He's important to the story but can't carry the main plot. And since you want to go all literary critic, Maxima is probably one of the flattest characters in the whole game.

Within context, Gaius is the kind of leader the Empire needs.

This is kind of like pushing a Kickstarter game with "maybe it'll be good once it reaches its goal". It's based on the hope and speculation of what could happen, in the best case scenario. And since literally anything can happen with the writing (I've complained enough about the damp letdown twist of Ramza's personality change in the Ivalice raids), this might even be the case.

But we don't know. Which also applies to the accusation that Maxima is a "flat character": Elidibus was a "flat character" until 5.x, and arguably all the way until 5.3. All it takes is for the writers to focus on him for a patch or so.

If we limit ourselves only to what has already been written and known, then Maxima is still a better choice to lead Garlemald than Gaius, if we stick to the characters we know. However, as mentioned, I think a far more likely outcome is that the writers will introduce a brand new character (or maybe re-use a barely-present one, like Nerva) that will be the best leader for Garlemald.

Gaius fails the "only choice" test when we account for Maxima, and also fails the "what the future could be" test when we account for potential new characters. It's like trying to accept a "lesser evil" when we don't have to accept any evil in the first place.

Of course, as I said earlier, all this depends on the assumption that we're looking for a leader for a reformed Garlemald, that will join the other nations in friendship and mutual cooperation. If we're looking for a leader for a Garlemald that will remain an antagonist and hostile rival, albeit freed from Ascian influence, then sure, Gaius is a good fit. I would argue that this is not the "best choice" for Garlemald in-universe, however.

[RyuDragnier]

In the event that Garlemald wants for a new ruler, Nerva might be an option. Or he could be dead already, what with Zenos having assumed the throne in an appropriately bloody fashion. Or he could be a plot hole—Titus was said to have no ready heirs, after all, and a son who went on to become the legatus of the IIIrd Legion strikes me as heir material in a military-minded nation like Garlemald.

I can picture a reason why he wouldn't be considered a ready heir. Assume that he didn't like the military-minded notions, and wanted to tone them down and try to play peaceful politics like the Populares. To those who bit full down into the military mindset, he WOULDN'T be worthy of being an heir, he'd outright be bad for the military complex. Which...would make for an interesting expansion if we had to help him get into power.

[thegreatonemal]

Gauis isn't a good ruler he's everything you don't want in a new Garlemald. Him opposing the Meteor project and Black rose? Pragmatic. He's a conqueror first and foremost you can't conscript copses into your army. You can't plunder a land for resources of it's been reduced to a crater. The weapons project? You do realize he's the reason they are orphans in the first place right. He took them in and raised them to so they'd be loyal subjects of the Empire. The skulls Program was basically him doing this on a larger scale. Sure he want's the Ascains out of control in his country and he wants to stop the weapons program for the reasons above. The man has not shown any regret for all the things his conquests have led to.