A thing or two about Werlyt

[EliTheGunbreaker]

I mean... His rule of Ala Mhigo certainly was bad. Also violence towards beast tribes. Mass murder and conquest? These are not exactly the makings of a good person. And he was a bad dad.

[Veloran]

I mean... His rule of Ala Mhigo certainly was bad. Also violence towards beast tribes. Mass murder and conquest? These are not exactly the makings of a good person. And he was a bad dad.

His rule in Ala Mhigo is generally considered far better than his contemporaries, especially since he took the country without bloodshed. It was Nael and Zenos that completely ruined the territory, though I'm not saying there weren't issues like some of his men being willing to just look the other way instead of take action against a mob. As far as the Beast Tribes go, the entire idea of the Ultima Weapon was to absorb their Primals so they wouldn't have to constantly go to war against them.

Yes, because Gaius is a murderer and warmonger.

Who exactly did Gaius murder? I think it was stated he was ordered to kill various heirs to the imperial throne, but I'm pretty sure you're talking about killing people in imperial invasions here. The Waking Sands maybe? But that was Livia, we don't know what orders he gave her in that regard.

[EliTheGunbreaker]

Just because something was better than the other things following it doesn't mean it was good. Lots of people still had shitty lives back then, as shown in Stormblood. And... Livia did that on his orders, ya know. Just as others did things on his orders. Just because something isn't done by someone's direct hand doesn't mean one is not complicit. Besides... I am certain he did his share of fighting and killing in his younger years, because nobody instantly rises in ranks from nothing.

[Kesey]

Does Gaius even need "redemption"? I struggle to think of anything he's actually done that even warrants that sort of arc. He's consistently been portrayed as a good man working in a flawed system, you can say his subordinates or colleagues have done things that are morally reprehensible but I've never really gotten the sense that he would condone their actions had he been there as witness. At most you can say his vaguely "might makes right" philosophy was wrong, but even then he was more in the vein of "the mighty have the responsibility to justly govern the weak."

If Gaius has any issues with his character it's only that he still has a sense of duty and patriotism towards his homeland, which has increasingly spawned a ton of psychos into the story for quite some time. On that front I'd blame the overall direction taken with Garlemald by the writers rather than Gaius. I mean when you have Zenos explicitly trying to make life in the provinces he governed as bad as humanly possible to incite rebellion, and the cursed VIIth legion which seems to only end up with complete psychopaths as legatus', it really overshadows any sympathy you might have for the nation. I mean there are tons of examples of individual Garleans being normal or good people, from people across the chain of command, but personalities like that really just leave you thinking that everybody at every level must be crazy to have let them anywhere near a position of power.

Yes, because Gaius is a murderer and warmonger. Even if he is a good person in a flawed system. But as said above, its whether you as the audience are willing to forgive him or not, but the story is going to go down that path regardless.

[Veloran]

And... Livia did that on his orders, ya know.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure we don't know what specific orders he gave her.

Just because something was better than the other things following it doesn't mean it was good. Lots of people still had shitty lives back then, as shown in Stormblood.

It seems like that isn't so relevant when considering other characters and situations. I'll also note that I don't think we know the exact timeline of when Nael took over.

Besides... I am certain he did his share of fighting and killing in his younger years, because nobody instantly rises in ranks from nothing.

So does WoL. I don't see why Gaius in particular needs a "redemption arc" when he himself really hasn't done anything that we know of that deserves one. It seems as though people are just taking the excesses of the Garlean Empire as a whole and putting that on him because he's supported them in the past. It's not like we know that much of his prior history, or really recent world history relating to Garlemald and how many of their conquests were handled, so it seems kind of premature to say he needs some big redemption when he's already spent quite a bit of time working against the Empire's twisted designs.

[Cilia]

"To be good, it is not enough to be better than the worst."

Gaius may have been better than (most of) his peers during his time as legatus, but that doesn't mean he was good. He was still an ambitious, power-hungry conqueror who had no issue with crushing anyone who resisted under the Empire's boot. Gaius' attacks on Eorzea date back to pre-Legacy, for those unaware.

Yes, he has standards and practices what the Empire preaches, but brutal conquest through subversion and open aggression does not a "good person" make.

[Veloran]

He was still an ambitious, power-hungry conqueror who had no issue with crushing anyone who resisted under the Empire's boot. Gaius' attacks on Eorzea date back to pre-Legacy, for those unaware.

What's wrong with ambition? More to the point, what are you actually basing this on? If anything his history shows he's against simply crushing people underfoot, and rather than doing it for the sake of power he's always been an idealist for the empire's stated tenets. If he had just wanted to crush Eorzea he had plenty of opportunities to do so, but instead he intended to bring them into the fold. At the point in the story Gaius is at now, there isn't really much left to make up for, especially since he's been opposing the empire for almost two expansions.

[Cilia]

What's wrong with ambition? More to the point, what are you actually basing this on? If anything his history shows he's against simply crushing people underfoot, and rather than doing it for the sake of power he's always been an idealist for the empire's stated tenets. If he had just wanted to crush Eorzea he had plenty of opportunities to do so, but instead he intended to bring them into the fold. At the point in the story Gaius is at now, there isn't really much left to make up for, especially since he's been opposing the empire for almost two expansions.

Gaius offers ultimatums: submit or be crushed. This is what he offered the Eorzean Alliance back in 2.0, remember? It wasn't "If you wanna join the Empire, that's cool and all," it was "Submit or I'll start attacking / blowing up your cities with the Ultima Weapon."

Gaius had opportunities to conquer Eorzea, and in an unusual turn of events for the Empire he failed. Ala Mhigo was not taken through bloodless conquest; that is a myth, it was weakened through subterfuge and then attacked in a blitz while the people were still desperate and confused following Theodoric's death. From there he attempted to invade Silvertear to gain control of the region's aether, only to be rebuffed by Midgardsormr's unexpected intervention. Then he retreated to Ala Mhigo until Legacy, at the tail end of which he covertly opposed the Meteor Project for pragmatic reasons. Then 2.0 happened, during which he consorted with Lahabrea to be given the Ultima Weapon to make sure he couldn't lose this time. (Spoiler alert: he still did.)

Gaius is against mass slaughter and destruction, but his reasons for thus are pragmatic ("can't exploit resources from annihilated territories"), and he still has no problem employing military force to coerce those who refuse to submit into doing so. He tried to crush Eorzea two or three times and failed; he had plenty of successful conquests beforehand (at least Werlyt and Ala Mhigo).

I'm able to see Gaius Baelsar the "Shadowhunter" is not Gaius van Baelsar, Black Wolf of the Empire, but I do not forget the things he did / tried to do as legatus.

[EliTheGunbreaker]

What's wrong with ambition? More to the point, what are you actually basing this on? If anything his history shows he's against simply crushing people underfoot, and rather than doing it for the sake of power he's always been an idealist for the empire's stated tenets. If he had just wanted to crush Eorzea he had plenty of opportunities to do so, but instead he intended to bring them into the fold. At the point in the story Gaius is at now, there isn't really much left to make up for, especially since he's been opposing the empire for almost two expansions.

Ideals do not necessarily make one a good person. One's intentions may have noble roots, but the methods and conclusions drawn from it may be messed up( see Emet, Cylva, Warriors of Darkness and some smaller villains in this game). Gaius may have had good intentions about riddinf the world of the eikons and bringing peace, but the fact that he thinks conquering the world and waging war is the way to do it does not make him a good person.

As well as many other reasons me and Cilia brought up. So yes, he is indeed a viable candidate for a redemption arc because he is not a good person to begin with, for aforementioned reasons.

So does WoL.

Actually, concerning WoL, they have the DRK quest dealing with their repressed guilt of killing innocents and less-than-heroic tendencies. Wouldn't call it a redemption arc... But it does tackle that.

[Veloran]

Gaius offers ultimatums: submit or be crushed. This is what he offered the Eorzean Alliance back in 2.0, remember?

Yes, and then he didn't make good on that threat. The city-states besieged practically all of his castrums and his main base, and he still didn't break out the Ultima Weapon until WoL was literally at the doors to it's hanger. Considering he actively sold out another legion to help stop Eorzea from getting decimated, it should come as no surprise that he was unwilling to follow through on his bluff and use the Weapon to attack Eorzea.

Ala Mhigo was not taken through bloodless conquest; that is a myth, it was weakened through subterfuge and then attacked in a blitz while the people were still desperate and confused following Theodoric's death.

Gaius took advantage of the rebellion against Theodoric and perhaps even supported the rebels from behind the scenes, but all in all the revolution against him was entirely the fault of Theodoric's rampant paranoia and outright tyranny. Gaius didn't even come close to forcing him to start chopping people's heads off or tearing down their thousand-year-old religion, and when he stepped in to the power vacuum and occupied the territory we're told outright that it was practically bloodless.

From there he attempted to invade Silvertear to gain control of the region's aether, only to be rebuffed by Midgardsormr's unexpected intervention.

Yes, and it's notable that when he moved on Eorzea, he made not to invade any of the city-states in force, but instead to occupy a location that for all intents and purposes the Garleans could not utilize themselves. If he had simply taken his legion and marched on the populated areas of the continent, he would undoubtedly have taken them by force, at great expense to the natives.

Gaius is against mass slaughter and destruction, but his reasons for thus are pragmatic

Considering that he A, shut down the development of a weapon that had the capability to wipe out the population of an area while leaving all of it's resources, industry, and infrastructure untouched and ready for use and B, had a habit of adopting orphans and using the empire's resources to give them better lives, I think we can say for certain that he isn't only against mass inhumane tactics because he wants peons to work the mines. He was a true believer in the empire's stated goals of uplifting the world through unity, and is opposed to taking nations by force because his desire was to improve the lives of incorporated peoples, not just leave them subjects of the empire.

Actually, concerning WoL, they have the DRK quest dealing with their repressed guilt of killing innocents and less-than-heroic tendencies.

Do you think Gaius doesn't also feel guilt about some of the things he's done?