(06-07-2017, 09:41 PM)V Wrote: None of that really answer my question, though. I didn't ask "how can Garlemald be shown as anything more than morally pitch black" I asked what it would take for them to be given the moral high ground over the Eorzean nations.
I also think it's pretty disingenuous to consider Eorzea's actions at Baelsar's Wall to be "aggression". The Empire attacked Eorzea, has actively deployed raids and incursions into Eorzean territory, and has at no point (to my knowledge) formalized any peace accords with any of the nations of Eorzea. Wars don't end just because both sides decide to take a break; don't start what you can't finish.
I believe we've had a very similar discussion before in the past, though - and it was obvious back then that we wouldn't see eye to eye on the subject. Whether or not Garlemald is justified is open to personal interpretation. Much as it is the case with Ishgard and various other factions. So I imagine it's best to just agree to disagree rather than risk dragging the thread off course.
To answer your question, though? Garlemald lashed out because its people were attacked and forced to carve out a living in what is essentially a wasteland. When they finally ended up gaining the power to defend themselves they fought back expanded from there - now they're struggling to deal with Eorzea and pockets of resistance elsewhere.
As I said, a lot of their actions have been questionable and there's no excusing them but all the same it's not as if they're without purpose. They're not doing bad things for the sake of being evil (bar, perhaps, individuals such as Livia and Zenos who appear to take pleasure in violence). They're described as being very grim, serious and driven by efficiency.Â
I'm rambling though. As far as 'moral high ground' goes, I feel like any given nation doesn't necessarily need to focus on worrying about that if it's survival and prosperity is at sake. At least when it comes to fictional settings. I'd say Eorzea loses it, though, if it ends up causing Garlemald to collapse to the point where there is a massive loss of life across the board, the quality of life for the survivors declines rapidly and technological advancements are set back quite a bit for everybody involved. A lack of mercy and diplomacy would certainly factor into it, as would ignoring the simple fact that some people do not want to be 'liberated' and are content with the status quo. In the event that Eorzea seeks to match or surpass Garlemald in terms of might then that, too, would factor in due to hypocrisy.
Though as I said, agreeing to disagree is probably the best course of action.
