What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

The sundering was certainly a means to prevent Zodiark to be used to restore their society, and I believe that is their main objective. But that doesn't mean that is their only reason, because their group's objection to the sacrifice was also pointed out in the story. If the sacrifice itself was irrelevant, the focus would simply be on their objection to the restoration of the society.

Even Venat herself didn't simply say to restore their society is wrong, but to sacrifice more/others to restore their society is bad. (I don't remember the exact wording here, but I'm pretty sure she mentioned the sacrifice.)

---

The objection only comes up initially with Hythlodaeus's shade, and it's not until Anamnesis Anyder that we get the underlying motivation behind their position. Her arguments are clearly articulated with sacrifices with a specific aim in mind and which she labels bad for a specific reason, i.e. because they are (according to her) a sign of weakness (again, she even grants that the Convocation in enacting this wish is doing so out of a desire to safeguard the star's future well-being...), and why? Because she sees it as them not accepting their tragedy. This is all with Meteion's report on the fate that met a society which did away with suffering in mind. I wouldn't say she is on board with restoring their society. She is exhorting them to incorporate their lessons from the tragedy and to accept suffering as a constant companion.

The dialogue bears this out:

Quote:

---

Bitter Ancient: This is all wrong... Why must we suffer so?
Fervent Ancient: It needn't be like this. No, there must be a way to restore things to the way they were. To reclaim the perfect paradise we once had.
Venat: No, my friends. Suffering exists, and we cannot pretend otherwise.
Venat: No civilization, however great, could eliminate it. If we would live, we must accept it as our constant companion.
Venat: Let us not seek to forget this tragedy. Let us carry it in our hearts, that we may grow stronger and know true happiness.
Bitter Ancient: We can't accept it! We won't accept it! It will be ours again─a world free of sorrow!
Venat: No, it will not, for there has ever been sorrow. Mankind was but spared its biting sting for a time.
Venat: So please, open your eyes. To try and reclaim those lives we lost by sacrificing yet more isn't wisdom. It is weakness.
Venat: No paradise is without its shadows. If we cannot accept this truth and learn from our pain, then our plight shall be repeated.

---

While I don't see an issue with people speculating that they may have had some moral reasoning attached to this (I certainly don't see it and I don't think we can even arrive at such a conclusion without knowing what was being sacrificed), all the texts where her or her group outline their motives do so with recourse to this ultimate aim, i.e. avoid their eventual doom. She even confirms this when asked by Y'shtola as to why she chose to sunder her people - it was to deal with Meteion (and I'd add to that the fate which met the Plenty.)

Quote:

---

I believe the reason why we possess their souls is simply due to reincarnation via the lifestream. That is why I'm not certain that the sundering actually killed anyone, but rather split off part of their aether into the reflections, with those on the source still remaining as the source or the original/main copy. Then, due to the loss of aether, the Ancients either die off eventually, mutated/evolved as a race, or even mate with some of the new life to get the existing races.

---

It may not have killed them then and there, but at that point we're talking about an instant death versus a delayed one, like a poison or disease would inflict. And to a being that is virtually immortal, that "delay" may not take long at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

No, all of the cultures she found did this on their own, without outside influence. That's what drove her insane to begin with

---

The notes within the Dead Ends say otherwise. Meteion is credited with both triggering the world war that decimated world #2 as well as her incessant pestering having caused the existential crisis of world #3 leading to the creation of Ra-la.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

The objection only comes up initially with Hythlodaeus's shade, and it's not until Anamnesis Anyder that we get the underlying motivation behind their position. Her arguments are clearly articulated with sacrifices with a specific aim in mind and which she labels bad for a specific reason, i.e. because they are (according to her) a sign of weakness (again, she even grants that the Convocation in enacting this wish is doing so out of a desire to safeguard the star's future well-being...), and why? Because she sees it as them not accepting their tragedy. This is all with Meteion's report on the fate that met a society which did away with suffering in mind. I wouldn't say she is on board with restoring their society. She is exhorting them to incorporate their lessons from the tragedy and to accept suffering as a constant companion.

The dialogue bears this out:



While I don't see an issue with people speculating that they may have had some moral reasoning attached to this (I certainly don't see it and I don't think we can even arrive at such a conclusion without knowing what was being sacrificed), all the texts where her or her group outline their motives do so with recourse to this ultimate aim, i.e. avoid their eventual doom.

---

i think it's also good to point out that while ancients may have temporarily not suffered that suffering still existed on the star. the (sq)grapes azem supposedly saved was actually done to save the people living on the island which implies both sentient and sapient non-ancients clearly existed on the star at that point. it's isn't far fetched to then postulate that the lack of suffering the ancients claim to have experienced was no more than just them off-loading their own personal suffering on those they viewed as lesser beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

i'm aware of this and i'm aware that emet-selch indicates he's enthralled in the ENG ver. of shadowbringers and tries to plant a seed of doubt in you that you yourself have been enthralled by the milf crystal which Ardbert even mentions (and then dismisses). generally when i say something like that it's not because i have reason to believe otherwise but because people get -really- upset when you take imply their waifus/husbandos are acting a particular way only because they've been enthralled by zodiark. (emet-selch becomes more jack-sparrow-y, elidibus becomes cold and uncaring, lahabrea is... well. lahabrea. etc.)

---

It's less a matter of being "upset" in this case. He says he is tempered in the EN version, yes, but not specifically enthralled. In FR he uses the word "subjugated" (presented as that - in quotations), and explains that tempering has made them into energy transmission belts of Zodiark. Up to that point, we might surmise they could still have been acting under his direction. Where it begins to fall apart is the fact that 1) he lacks a will when not being controlled, other than apparently acting on some self-defence instincts; 2) his tempering was due to his great power rather than rites intended to induce slavish obedience and 3) Emet-Selch actively deviates from his original plan by devising for the WoL a test. He even states at the end (with Zodiark gone and presumably "cleansed" through the Aetherial Sea) that his principles remain invincible and that he clashed with the WoL due to their goals being different. He honours the test he set. As for Lahabrea and Elidibus? In their case, yes, tempering did appear to degrade the mind, because they didn't take efforts to preserve their memories (Elidibus) or identity (Lahabrea), unlike Emet-Selch.

It's not that they're tempered which people are disputing, but rather the idea that from this, it follows that they were acting on Zodiark's direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denji

i think it's also good to point out that while ancients may have temporarily not suffered that suffering still existed on the star. the (sq)grapes azem supposedly saved was actually done to save the people living on the island which implies both sentient and sapient non-ancients clearly existed on the star at that point.

---

The source in question gives no reason to believe this.

Quote:

---

it's isn't far fetched to then postulate that the lack of suffering the ancients claim to have experienced was no more than just them off-loading their own personal suffering on those they viewed as lesser beings.

---

I don't get that impression TBH - you might be able to make that argument with Hermes, where he did do just that, but with the rest they appeared to take genuine contentment in working towards betterment of their star and/or for each others' sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

It's less a matter of being "upset" in this case. He says he is tempered in the EN version, yes, but not specifically enthralled. In FR he uses the word "subjugated" (presented as that - in quotations), and explains that tempering has made them into energy transmission belts of Zodiark. Up to that point, we might surmise they could still have been acting under his direction. Where it begins to fall apart is the fact that 1) he lacks a will when not being controlled, other than apparently acting on some self-defence instincts; 2) his tempering was due to his great power rather than rites intended to induce slavish obedience and 3) Emet-Selch actively deviates from his original plan by devising for the WoL a test. He even states at the end (with Zodiark gone and presumably "cleansed" through the Aetherial Sea) that his principles remain invincible and that he clashed with the WoL due to their goals being different. He honours the test he set. As for Lahabrea and Elidibus? In their case, yes, tempering did appear to degrade the mind, because they didn't take efforts to preserve their memories (Elidibus) or identity (Lahabrea), unlike Emet-Selch.

It's not that they're tempered which people are disputing, but rather the idea that from this, it follows that they were acting on Zodiark's direction.

---

which isn't what i'm saying either. i'm just saying whether or not they're tempered is a matter open for debate and it's a debate i don't want to be a part of because of/one of the reasons i gave. that's all.

Fair enough. Personally I wouldn't dispute that they are. It's more down to what that entails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The notes within the Dead Ends say otherwise. Meteion is credited with both triggering the world war that decimated world #2 as well as her incessant pestering having caused the existential crisis of world #3 leading to the creation of Ra-la.

---

If only someone had dropped a gaming console in that world. They'd soon find themselves with too little time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rinhi

on the topic of meteion earlier in the thread, why was what the last race of the dead ends dungeon did considered bad again? they willingly let themselves be erased because they've lived perfect lives and that's... wrong? I don't know how to really explain it but if I had to try I'd say that EW trying really, really hard to hammer that 'perfect is bad' (as someone called it) point down was really off-putting for me, and even seemed pretty childish with their message that you must experience suffering or bad things or you're, well, bad

---

They came to a point where they said "this is perfection" and then stopped changing, growing, or maturing. They stagnated. I don't think the message in EW is so much "perfect is bad" as much as "you should never stop trying to do better".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

They came to a point where they said "this is perfection" and then stopped changing, growing, or maturing. They stagnated. I don't think the message in EW is so much "perfect is bad" as much as "you should never stop trying to do better".

---

https://media.giphy.com/media/26FLgG...GAbm/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TaleraRistain

They came to a point where they said "this is perfection" and then stopped changing, growing, or maturing. They stagnated. I don't think the message in EW is so much "perfect is bad" as much as "you should never stop trying to do better".

---

And this is the weird thing. The Ancients didn’t stop striving to do better. They got essentially detoured, but it’s as Hythlodaeus says. After all was said and done they planned to go back to their duties of being the stewards of the star and bettering it. So i’m curious what the message with them is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

And this is the weird thing. The Ancients didn’t stop striving to do better. They got essentially detoured, but it’s as Hythlodaeus says. After all was said and done they planned to go back to their duties of being the stewards of the star and bettering it. So i’m curious what the message with them is.

---

"Curiosity killed the cat" probably. lol