Quote Originally Posted by Alleluia View Post
I mean there are real world examples. The British Empire abolishing slavery while several of the African tribes and nations they and others colonized practiced enslavement of their neighbors, plus exporting them. To be fair, the Brits didn't start out with that position. But they did get better and reach it, even while those tribes did not in that same time period.

The Spaniards conquering the Aztecs was a case of it too if you consider live human sacrifice to be worse than the Spaniards, which I would argue it was. Then you have older examples of Rome conquering several neighboring nations, with some of them having way less egalitarian legal standards than the Romans did. And I'm sure you can argue Nobunaga in Japan was better than several neighboring warlords he conquered, though probably also worse than some. (I'm not super familiar with Japanese history.)

Examples exist, though what "better" is can often (but not always imo) be argued about and considered relative. In-game, yeah, the Garlean rule is mostly not a purely civilizing influence that made things better than they were before. They are typically shown as a case of new problems replacing old problems at best, with some exceptions.
That basically sums up the new position of the new Empress regarding the territories, was thinking that there could be some pretty backwards Druid/Viking regions somewhere in Ilsabard to fit the sort of warlords she refused to hand power back over to. Stable rule under a benevolent Empress is preferable to chaos. I should have thought given the trends I've seen of the posters here that they would jump at the chance to back a new female political leader who refuses to let herself be dominated by the powers around her.