A game for 4 year olds

[MikkoAkure]

Eorzean's crime is definitely the same as garlean's crime. Their number is lower than garlemalds? Perhaps. But killing 100 people or 1000 people, the sin is still the same.

Again, it's not the same and you're making a false equivalency. Garlemald was destroying lives and cultures on a global scale for no reason. Before now, Eorzea was a backwater fighting regional conflicts between multiple people groups with swords and arrows for 1500 years. Garlemald has been bombing cities from the sky for 60 years to get revenge for something that happened 600 years ago and then expanded beyond that to destroy countries that had nothing to do with them at all.

Your example Eorzea's second chance only happened because of WoL, and even then it was very recent. In arr we still have limsa in war with the sahagin because they broke the treaty.

The treaty was broken with the Kobolds, not the Sahagin. The Sahagin have been enemies since before 1.0, they and their Serpent Reaver allies have been pillaging for years and burned down the village the fishing guild lalafell woman came from.

If you don't remember, their crimes don't/didn't stop there either. Gridania still haven't addressed their racism against duskwight (and moon at iirc?), their wood wailers are r*ping poachers.

Going to need a source on this last bit because I don't remember that.

In any case, the recent Saints' Wake event had a Gridanian Elezen married to a Moon Keeper Miqo'te. In a world where inter-racial marriages are frowned upon, let alone one between a Wildwood and a Moon Keeper, that's a big deal. But the likely case is that the writers don't care about that plot thread anymore and we won't see racial tensions as much going forward anyway.

What I want to say is, they're not perfect right? The same as garlemald as of now. But if the game can gave them second chance, why not doing the same for garlean empire?

My point in my previous post when I brought up the Eorzean nations is that they had full-on arcs where they're shown to be really crappy, try to be better and end up slipping, but then overcome their issues and resolve their problems or at least get on the way towards doing so. It took a decade of this to get to where we are now. During all that time, Garlemald has been shown on screen and painted as the "well we may suck, but they're worse" crew. It would be extremely cheap to the majority of the playerbase who have been around since the very beginning, are deeply engaged with the story, and aren't edgy imperial fans to have Garlemald just say "oops, sorry", put another Galvus on the throne, and keep the empire around.

Hypothetical question; if in the future the game actually gave us garlemald expansion where they're to rebuild their empire and for some provinces agree to still be under them (let's say for example, because of their technological advantage and economic reason), in a well written and logical story, will you still against it?

If it was well-written, sure I'd still play it, but it would be a disappointment in that there's so much else to do for a whole expansion and I'd rather the game do something new with the close of the previous story instead of going back to the previous story again to give us more Garlean drama as if we haven't had enough. I'd support a side story where we help them since there's a lot left over to be done and I want to know more about the empire, but I don't see us getting anything more than a side-story arc devoted to it, if that, let alone a whole expansion about rebuilding.

The empire is gone. Provinces are in open rebellion and the military can't do anything about it. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 10th legions have surrendered in EW and the 10th was supposed to be the last hope for Garlemald so who knows what the state of the others is like. The threat of the military was the only thing that kept the whole engine running and now that's gone and the capital has been destroyed, it's only a matter of time before the rest collapses like dominoes.

Considering that not even Landis was considered a suitable location for the Garlean refugees in the role capstone quest, there's probably no place for them to go and the provinces are lost. The royal family has been wiped out and they've already been stated to be moving on away from that with Fourchenault going to find the surviving senators. The capital is under occupation and while they're still letting them decide their own fate and path forward, the matter of defense is currently handled by the occupation, which isn't exactly a strong point to maintain an empire from.

From a gameplay perspective, we already have a Garlemald zone and it's a wasteland filled with monsters and ruins as well as an occupying force that are all tied into the local sidequests so Garlemald won't end up being completely fixed ever anyway.

Another thing to remember is that the game is written by people who are pulling from their own cultural experiences. Japan was fully occupied for 7 years and its empire was dismantled and the parts returned to the original owners. The same will probably happen to Garlemald and the writers could be drawing from that time period.

[Cleretic]

Kozh is basically just doing the thing Varis did in that one roundtable scene, of attacking the Alliance for the sole purpose of shallow point-scoring and trying to pull attention away from the fact he wants something worse.

I'm curious what he thinks about Bozja, though, which is the closest thing the game will ever get to what he wants: an admission that life under Gabranth (it should be noted not the Empire itself, just Gabranth who took a more egalitarian approach) was better for some citizens and they should probably borrow those policies, while still striving to be a self-governing independent nation.

[KageTokage]

I feel like we could end up going to Ilsabard for reasons other then the Garleans due to this "great change" looming on the horizon.

There certainly seems to be some precedent due to Thancred mentioning the continent was in "varying stages of chaos", and he's apparently due to play an important role at some point in 6.x despite being a total no-show for the void storyline.

[Kozh]

I feel like we could end up going to Ilsabard for reasons other then the Garleans due to this "great change" looming on the horizon.

There certainly seems to be some precedent due to Thancred mentioning the continent was in "varying stages of chaos", and he's apparently due to play an important role at some point in 6.x despite being a total no-show for the void storyline.

True. I hope there will be some sort of internal conflicts there given the common enemy is gone. That said, I wonder which one will we do first, ilsabard or new world/meracydia?

They tease new world and meracydia, plus there's this new adventure theme too. But honestly I don't want to wait until 8.0 for ilsabard content.

(And of course more thancred is always welcomed. He's my favourite scion after all)

[KariTheFox]

You mean real life implications that sometimes, the colonized nations were worse than the colonizer? Because that happened.

I'd really like to know which real life examples you are referring to, since historically no, it has not been the that colonized people were somehow "worse" than the people colonizing them.

Anyway, the Garlean Empire rebuilding seems rather unlikely with the Eorzean Alliance as the world's dominant economic and military power, and the number of rebelling provinces that all have a vested interest in not letting the Garlean war machine rev back up.

You talk about Garlemald rebuilding thier empire as if that's some kind of neutral, nation-building excercise, but that would involve reannexing pronvinces that just rebelled because they did not want to be under imperial rule. An empire by definition requires imperialism and subjugation of imperial subjects.

There's no need to restore the Garlean Empire to rebuild Garlemald as a nation. I'm sure the Garlean way of life can go o just fine without imported slaves to mine thier cerulean and dress thier nobles.

[Cleretic]

There's no need to restore the Garlean Empire to rebuild Garlemald as a nation. I'm sure the Garlean way of life can go o just fine without imported slaves to mine thier cerulean and dress thier nobles.

See, this is why we needed to be around that group of escaped mining slaves in the south of Garlemald for more than one mandatory quest.

[Alleluia]

I'd really like to know which real life examples you are referring to, since historically no, it has not been the that colonized people were somehow "worse" than the people colonizing them.

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.

[aveyond-dreams]

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.

[DPZ2]

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.

So, the entirety of Ilsabard belongs to the Garlean Empire forever and ever, despite the backlash against the Empire in most of the conquered provinces. That certainly seems like something a benevolent Absolute Ruler could pull off. Perhaps it is the benevolence of first putting a velvet glove on the iron fist.

[Cleretic]

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.

It should be noted for sake of clarity that this was by no means the intention of the Spaniards. They just turned up doing their conquering thing and by sheer chance happened to stumble into a situation where there was already a highly unpopular empire that neighboring nations wanted gone.

And being better than the Aztecs is less a credit to the Spaniards and more an underlining of how stunningly bad the Aztecs were. It wasn't exactly 'bringing civility to the new world' like the Spaniards thought, and was more lopping off the existing bad empire and then being their own brand of terrible. It was basically the Ala Mhigan situation of 'overthrow the bad monarchy and then the also-bad Garleans took over', only with a few more political players and... I'm not gonna say less active malevolence, but different active malevolence.

The Roman Empire is probably not the overall pitch that's survived in popularly-understood history, either; what we know from that is mostly stuff penned by the Romans, after all.