Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

I chose Emet-Selch.
Ancients are kind of based, would gladly sacrifice all of the scions for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Fears of a "death by utopia" felt similarly absurd when they were founded off a single vague statement that one civilization supposedly eliminated sorrow only to drown in apathy...

---

I think a key thing here is the writer's outlook, because I'm not sure who it is originating from specifically, but the idea of a civilisation becoming too comfortable and grinding to a halt and decline comes up right back in the first lorebook describing the rise and decline of the Allagan empire.

So if this concept is something a core writer holds as a concept to be a natural course of civilisation, then they may not feel a need to foreshadow it heavily when they use it again.

Maybe it's Ishikawa, maybe it's someone else, maybe it's a pervasive idea among the dev/writing team. But the earlier mention of it makes me think it's something they saw as already inherently possible, not a scenario they invented for that one setting alone.

I find it really odd that anyone would only just now notice the commentary on utopia as it relates to the Amaurotians. It was the central theme of the Eden raid series, so this has been an active theme well before Endwalker.

If you'll recall, Mitron wanted to create a timeless utopia free from suffering in which he could be with Loghrif for all eternity, even if it meant destroying her memories against her will as well as the First in the process. Yoshi-p and the writing team were just being polite in their response. The Convocation already has a proven track record of choosing the Ra-la ending.

In fact, in the lead in to the E11S fight, Mitron reaches into Ryne's memories to try and turn her own hopes and fears against her, giving rise to the the Fatebreaker (which is essentially a combination of Ran'jit and Thancred). He does so with the expectation that it would break you, much like it did the Amaurotians during their Final Days. He is naturally enraged at being proven wrong:

Ascian Prime (Mitron + Loghrif): 'That fragmented souls should triumph over their fears while we succumbed to ours, thereby setting our star on a course to ruin... That inferior beings such as you should succeed while we failed! It defies all logic!'

And if you looked up the etymology of the term 'utopia', you'd know that the word itself is a contradiction in terms, intended as a critique of the concept (literal: 'no place'). Individuality and conflict go hand in hand. I just find it entertaining that some people are using the word unironically in support of the 'superiority' of the Amaurotians when when the literal expression is intended as a condemnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

It works for most folks, because most of XIV's playerbase weren't here for the nuance. They were here for the music, feels, pretty characters, colors, and WoW replacement. Endwalker does all of that gloriously, but it is also the first time that XIV's narrative has actually combatted its own logical progression. It suffers so much for that, but people do not care. They consume.

---

Here we go again. Just claim the people who like it have their brains turned off and that's that. And folks wonder why this discussion is a dumpster fire.

Between the attempts to portray those who defend Endwalker as low brow media consumers and the desperate attempts to paint over the Ancients flaws and portray the Sundering as wholly unjustified (as if that wouldn't make Hydaelyn a straight up villain :rolleyes:), its little wonder these discussions become so heated. Its clear folks have diametrically opposed viewpoints on the way the story should go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I think a key thing here is the writer's outlook, because I'm not sure who it is originating from specifically, but the idea of a civilisation becoming too comfortable and grinding to a halt and decline comes up right back in the first lorebook describing the rise and decline of the Allagan empire.

So if this concept is something a core writer holds as a concept to be a natural course of civilisation, then they may not feel a need to foreshadow it heavily when they use it again.

Maybe it's Ishikawa, maybe it's someone else, maybe it's a pervasive idea among the dev/writing team. But the earlier mention of it makes me think it's something they saw as already inherently possible, not a scenario they invented for that one setting alone.

---

Ishikawa wrote the Crystal Tower raids as well so I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

(as if that wouldn't make Hydaelyn a straight up villain :rolleyes:)

---

I'll probably regret asking, but I feel compelled to anyway. Are you trolling?

The point people are making is that her actions are already morally ambiguous. Asking the narrative to acknowledge that--as it already has in the questline under discussion--does not fundamentally change anything about Hydaelyn's motivations or what you like about her.

Unless the only thing you like about her is that the Scions are united in how much they like her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Like, I admit I was maybe being a little extreme in saying that it 'fixes' Endwalker's thematic and tonal problems, but it does feel like it at least legitimizes a negative response to it in-universe. It is now 'valid' for the WoL to think Venat was wrong; that ground has been conceded, even if it doesn't fix the sense of being railroaded into loving her in the original work. (And yeah, the codex entry does kinda contradict that, but it's worth remembering that it came out first and was probably written just after the release of the game, so...)

---

Let me preface this by saying I realize I'm in the unfortunate position of being told, "You could've just not gotten anything." Which is true. However, it doesn't change the fact that this is specifically for the WoL tucked away in a side quest. (Friends had to rush me through the Omega raid series so I could even do it. Were it not for the fact that I'm involved on the forums I never would've even known it existed. I think the fact that this 'concession' is so easily missed cannot be overstated.) It changes nothing for our permanent, immortal friends, the Scions. It changes nothing for the MSQ. Ideally, I would've liked the protagonist cast at large to reflect upon it, particularly because Venat does embody ideologies they have opposed in the past, as recently as ShB no less.

Quote:

---

There are definitely ways it could have been better, but I really do wonder what some people's expectations are here, you know? From the beginning, it's been obvious that the main scenario team isn't going to go back and literally rewrite a finished game, or turn around and directly contradict it by making Venat an explicit villain in the post-expac content.

---

Well, I feel like I have made my position clear about this ad nauseum. (Note: This isn't directed at you as much as the readers at large.) I never expected Venat to be the villain. (I feel like I need to hold a press conference. :P) What I did expect was the nuance of ShB to carry over to EW, for Venat to be the opposite side of the coin of Emet, a truly morally grey character who was still in ideological opposition to us and needed to be stopped. Instead, ironically, we almost got that except with the framing that "it's okay when she does it". All I wanted was consistency. It's not okay when she does it. Stop lauding this woman and stop 'othering' the Ancients.

Quote:

---

For all their flaws, this is the same writing team that created Shadowbringers, the success of which was the reason I was so let down by Endwalker to begin with. I do feel like I owe them a little good faith in response to a step in the right direction. It does kinda feel like an increasing amount of people in these threads are completely despondent about the future of the story and only really here for the catharsis of complaining about EW, and though I obviously do get it, it doesn't really feel productive for me personally at this point.

---

I saved this quote from you, because it echoed how I felt about it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between moral ambiguity as a narrative device, and moral ambiguity as experienced by the player. For me, many of my issues with Endwalker don't stem from the fact that Venat was a grey character - I'd have been fine with that - but that as many people on both sides have pointed out, we are clearly meant to view her unambiguously as right and good. A lot of keys have been tapped here about how no character given any credence really speaks against her and the framing during her scenes is relentlessly positive and affirming of her perspective, but a better example might be the description for her minion, which more or less just lavishes praise on her. Characters might be biased and framing can be argued, but when the narration of the game itself describes a character as a wonderful person, it's pretty clear you're meant to think of them as a wonderful person. When contrasted with her actions, this creates an uncomfortable dissonance that doesn't make the story more compelling, but less. Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

Even though Emet-Selch is also a mass murderer, I never got that sense from Shadowbringers. Characters call him out, and the narrative voice about him swings from negative to neutral to positive depending on the context. Even if it produces less discourse (though certainly no shortage), I'd say that's a better example of moral ambiguity.

---

The Omega quest doesn't change this. Everything outside of it still frames Venat in exactly the same way as before and just because the writer(s) may have conceded the players who had issues with it have a point, it's not sufficient evidence yet to me that we're 'ethically on the same page' now, which is especially concerning going into a "conflict of values" arc.

I've spent months debating on whether or not I should quit. The main reason I haven't yet is because I do actually like the rest of the game. I only ever post regarding story and characters because I have no major gripes about anything else. Matter of fact, I really like future direction of the game. I can't with this story though. Some days I'm ready to pull the trigger, others I say, "Let's see what 6.2 brings (*copium*)."

Regardless, I didn't ask for or expect 6.0 to be rewritten, what's done is done. However, any reference to those events in the future ideally would be handled with the nuance they should've been handled with in EW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

My far greater issue with it was the way they attempted to legitimise the sundering. It had to happen for the story to take place as it did, which I accept. What I am far less fond of is the suggestion that, over and above this, it was either necessary (i.e. the ancients would not find a way to deal with it even if told the full truth; I don't think the story even managed to make this case) or the notion that it was the best possible outcome (the twaddle about "utopias", "perfection", strawmen to this effect, etc.), coupled with not really depicting what it entailed.

---

I admit, I never read it as that the Sundering was in and of itself a legitimate choice -- or even a particularly good one -- but rather a move largely of desperation (at least in the original timeline). My understanding is basically:

1. World is ending. Half of the population of Eitherys is sacrificed to create Zodiark.
2. Zodiark saves Eitherys by holding the Final Days at bay, but the planet is barren.
3. Half the remaining population of Eitherys is sacrificed to give Zodiark enough juice to make the world verdant and filled with life once more.
4. As part of this, new 'lesser' races come into being. (E.g., the races we now see: Hyur, miqo'te, etc.)
5. The Convocation -- and presumably others -- go "Cool! Sentient living things! That's a bunch of juicy aether; we can sacrifice all of them to bring back the folks we killed off to create and empower Zodiark. Everybody wins!"
6. Some Ancients point out that no, not everybody wins, because they are kind of opposed to sacrificing other races. Races who may lack the means to fight back against the power of the Ancients -- much less Zodiark -- but demonstrably would prefer to, y'know, not be wiped out as a mass sacrifice. Those serving Zodiark do not care and are prepared to do so regardless, because Tempering.
7. Hydaelyn suplexes Zodiark in a last-ditch effort to try to stop him and his followers from killing off all the new 'lesser' non-Ancient races. The resulting bodyslam Sunders everything: Zodiark, Hydaelyn herself, and the entirety of Eitherys. That said, the fragmentary bits of Zodiark continue to hold their seal against the Final Days.
8. The 'lesser' races, being aetherically 'smaller', slip through the cracks as it were; some survive the Sundering, albeit are scattered across the shards. The Ancients, being far more aether-dense, also get Sundered along with the world. (Though the Sundered pieces of their souls begin to reincarnate in the surviving "lesser" races across the various shards.)
9. The three surviving members of the Convocation hatch a plan to smash all the shards back together and resume where they left off.
10. Lots of stuff happens for tens of thousands of years (if not longer).
11. Eventually, a reincarnated and semi-congealed fragment of Venat's protege and successor travels back in time to before all of this, telling Venat what has happened/will happen and basically locking the events into place as a loop; now Hydaelyn seemingly does this because it's "what has to happen".

I admit that last one is the part that rings "off" to me; yes, you could assume that changing the past might obliterate the future and thus prevent the WoL from going back and giving the information necessary to change the approach to the Final Days, causing paradox. Except that we know from Shadowbringers that things and memories from one timeline can survive a shift to another; the Eighth Umbral Calamity has not happened and -- presumably -- now never will, but the timeline in the wake of that Calamity sure had an impact on the First and the Source via Shadowbringers.

(Though admittedly, changing the past so far back, and causing the world to never be Sundered -- and thus many people we care about to potentially never exist in the first place -- definitely brings its own set of thorny moral questions. So perhaps Venat/Hydaelyn felt obligated to see the timeline through on the original path specifically to preserve those lives...?)

That said, I certainly don't disagree that they probably could've found a better solution in theory, but I suspect it would've required the Convocation not to get themselves Tempered by trying to make a god in the first place; once that had happened, they probably weren't inclined to listen to reason any longer, if said 'reason' went against what Zodiark perceived as 'the will of the people'.

Had they presented tempering as an obstacle to that in any sense, I'd perhaps agree, but I don't think the story as written supports that at this point. She does not allude to it when discussing their motives, when addressing her followers in the Anamnesis scene, and her decision to not disclose the true origin of the crisis is made before the MC even leaves Elpis, both to prevent panic amongst the populace and, in the Convocation's case, to avoid alienating Hermes. Those are her reasons for not doing so. Zodiark's tempering (which comes down purely to his sheer power rather than flawed rites etc.) is such that Emet-Selch can even abandon his original cause/plan should he will it and, as noted, her reasons for not levelling with her people are separate to it. As such, my inclination is to discount it.

I would consult the 6.1 LL Q&A on the topic of the sundered races (the XIV Reddit discord contains more complete transcripts in its LL translation area) - they are the result of the newfound sundered state of the fragmented ancients resulting in environmental adaptations to their surroundings. The Q&A also elaborates upon her motives, which had little to do with the sacrifices in and of themselves, on which I made a previous post here which contains links further back to the source material on it. Instead, her rationale is framed in terms of her belief that they'd have no way to manipulate dynamis and would end up like the third Dead End, because she felt they were incapable of changing. The former is her stated concern in response to Y'shtola, the latter is at least implicit in a lot of the dialogue concerning articulation of her motives in-game and outright stated in the Q&A, which also touches on the question of the time loop. Worth a read! You may also find this interesting on the topic of timelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

It definitely feels like a contrivance that the problem is completely unsolvable to them - insofar as a single Ancient was the one who made Meteion in the first place - but I guess my point is that it seems silly to get bogged down in "but could the Ancients have stopped her, though?" discourse, when the issue isn't really that the writers failed to justify their scenario in an ironclad enough way, where the text convincingly conveyed that the Ancients would have been completely hopeless against her forever.

The issue, to me, is that they had that goal in the first place. That they chose to write a plot where a culture of millions/billions of people is basically exterminated wholesale, but for this to be presented as absolutely necessary and fine, and in fact a "cool moment" where a rock ballad plays in the background.

I remember saying the thing about needing a "really good reason" for it to sit well myself, but the truth is that I'm not sure there can be a solid reason for something like that, at least not with the way the Ancients had been presented up until that point. Maybe if it has made it clear they were doomed in an immediate sense rather than on the geological timescale it would have taken an Unsundered Zodiark to succumb to the Final Days on his own, it would have been reasonable for the Sundering to happen just to salvage something from the situation... But even then, 'reasonable civilization-level slaughter' is a tough sell when you're talking about human beings. The far easier path would have just been to alter the tone of how it was portrayed to something which embraced the controversy, like they eventually did in the Omega quest.

---

I echo the sentiment on what you draw out as the issue. Trying to tighten up the reasoning for it here wouldn't have made a difference me with all else remaining much the same. Especially since quite often such avenues proposed involve introducing dystopian elements to Amaurot (i.e. trying to turn it into a scenario where these "hubristic" immortals had it coming), which was not a route I was keen to see them take as - to be blunt - I simply don't care for that theme. I am not its target market, and I preferred SHB's theme of the ancients' story being the tragic end of a truly great and noble people, without an implication of it being self-caused; with this resulting in an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of those remnants of their own who fought on their behalf both out of duty to them and nostalgia for the world/people they lost on the one hand, and the sundered on the other, and a compromise in defeat through honouring their memory. In a sense, although I don't agree with the themes they ran with to warrant their end, I'm glad they were as feebly implemented as they were, as arguably it left them some wriggle room to attribute it all to her beliefs in the Q&A and open up the debate about the character's views on it all via the Omega quest.

With the Rejoinings (leaving aside that these are part and parcel of any attempt to commit to the current timeline and become predictable through sparing a certain someone), they're at best presented as an acceptable/justifiable cost to the Ascians within the context of their aims (still taking a significant mental toll on someone like Emet), and it is in that sense you have some of the protagonists saying they'd do the same in those circumstances; it does not stop the Scions from fiercely opposing them, though, out of their desire to protect their own world. As Vyrerus pointed out, particularly if we accept the spin that is often put on the UT scene, here we are asked to believe that even the last remnants of the ancients, having suffered as much as they did over the past 12k years due to the Sundering, are just fine with the conclusion and could not conceive of a better way (???), whilst very little is said by the protagonists about the very substantial costs and actual necessity of it all, and options to even question this are non-existent prior to the Omega quest. Everyone's happy! Cloaking it in a time loop does not wither away this problem, and in fact given the answers provided at the Q&A, worsens it in some respects.

I think if they wanted to avoid a controversy on this level, they could've had it be accidental in nature and Venat trying to salvage the remains of that, and in that there would be room for reconciliation in dealing with the true cause of the original crisis. Alternatively, embrace the controversy, as you say, and run with something closer to the encounter with Yunalesca, or at the very least which embeds the treatment Omega brought into the base MSQ.

Anyway, at this point my plan is to merely check in to see what direction they take it in and whether the Omega quest represents a change in direction or was a one-off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

In fact, in the lead in to the E11S fight, Mitron reaches into Ryne's memories to try and turn her own hopes and fears against her, giving rise to the the Fatebreaker (which is essentially a combination of Ran'jit and Thancred). He does so with the expectation that it would break you, much like it did the Amaurotians during their Final Days. He is naturally enraged at being proven wrong:

Ascian Prime (Mitron + Loghrif): 'That fragmented souls should triumph over their fears while we succumbed to ours, thereby setting our star on a course to ruin... That inferior beings such as you should succeed while we failed! It defies all logic!'

And if you looked up the etymology of the term 'utopia', you'd know that the word itself is a contradiction in terms, intended as a critique of the concept (literal: 'no place'). Individuality and conflict go hand in hand. I just find it entertaining that some people are using the word unironically in support of the 'superiority' of the Amaurotians when when the literal expression is intended as a condemnation.

---

As with some lines pertaining to the Scions in Endwalker, that quote kind of bugged me because it's framing the sundered as being "better" then the Ancients when the individuals being tested were really not representative of mankind as a whole.

Both sundered and unsundered alike had droves of people who succumbed to the effects of dynamis, yet both also had those who managed to persevere and survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

...

---

Mitron's quote isn't even from Endwalker. It's from the Eden raid series in Shadowbringers, which seems to have faded from memory around here. It's a commentary specifically about the Amaurotian Final Days.

Conflict arises from individuality and diversity. We all have different wants and needs. But diversity also confers a survival advantage. Omega's analysis of the Final Days was that there was no single unique trait that defined all the survivors. But because we don't all think the same way, our individual experiences with it were all different.

That's the central paradox with utopias. It's not that they're decadent and hedonistic; you can have that without an utopia. It's that the elimination of conflict requires you to stifle individuality. That's the common thread that you see in several of the fallen societies we encounter, be it the Ea, the Omicrons, and even the Amaurotians. A single stumbling block affected them universally.

Whether you agree with these themes is a personal choice, of course, but this entire concept has already been explored at length in Shadowbringers, right down to Mitron trying to create a timeless paradise free from suffering at the expense of the world's destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

I've always had an incredible amount of time for my favorite pastime, video games, and in general I play the game almost everyday (though this has waned this summer between Elden Ring and patch lull). Forum perusal only takes a couple of hours. /shrug I often replay the story, sometimes for extra swag!

---

That wasn't aimed at anyone specific, you know, just like... people make such lengthy arguments over minutiae and cite single sentences as pivotal bits of evidence for a given interpretation, drag around interviews with Yoshi-P for easy citation, etc. I'm just not sure where some people find the time to play, considering. Keep it succinct, y'know? (I gots ta get my Archfiend Attire before season's end in a few weeks, one rank a day oughta do it. Right?)

Anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Re: It wasn't portrayed as a noble act etc.

Like hell it wasn't! It was given an entire damn metaphor scene which dodged all of its immediate specifics, complete with rousing demagoguery. By a literal demagogue. Which went on to try and impart more of an importance on her suffering than those she assaulted. Which was then followed up by a literal Y'shtola quote being, "Far be it from me to refute Hydaelyn's own words... Yet even if her actions were neither kind nor just, we can give them a nobler meaning."

There isn't any speculation to be had in the contrary. Within story specifics(the, to get our current narrative, duh), sure, but the issue arises with the setting we were given for the Ancients. We were given a race of people who could create anything with a snap of their fingers. To think that another intellect the equal of Hermes could not arise from it to create an Anti-Meteion is like believing Einstein is the only intellect of note in our own history.

---

Even within that selfsame cutscene we have Venat talking about how horrible what she's done is ("I breathe fire and torment. I birth a world of suffering to mire and plague."), and ultimately what Y'shtola is saying there is that they should make her suffering and sacrifices (which include her innocence, life, and soul, as well as ~12,500 years of physical and emotional agony in solitude) meaningful. Once the truth is out nobody is under illusions that Venat's hands aren't stained with blood and sin, but it happened, they wouldn't exist otherwise, and all they can do is make the best of it.

Dynamis was a largely unknown force in the universe even amongst Hermes' closest colleagues. Even Venat, likely the most worldy of the Ancients, had heard little about it. Yes, theoretically they could have had some other supergenius researcher create an Anti-Meteion... somehow... I don't know how, given what we know about her, but sure let's go with that. It's just as conceivable they wouldn't though, particularly given no small number of them were offing themselves in Zodiark's name out of regressive nostalgia after the Final Days.

And not all of the Ancients were as powerful or talented as Emet-Selch, or the Convocation, etc. Erichthonios shows us that not all of the Ancients could "create anything with a snap of their fingers," and they still worked on equivalent exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

In other words, FFXIV had pretty cut and dry villains up until SHB. They then dipped their toe in the nuance water. People were like hell yeah, good story good! Then, came Endwalker. From how they wrote this narrative and its cast, it's clear they wanted to go back to cut and dry. Of course, there's no way for them to do that now, because they've soaked their narrative with nuance. In short, they committed to backpedaling to try and avoid a common trope with Hydaelyn(Great Good was Evil all along). As well as get their narrative back to villains are villains, heroes are heroes.

It works for most folks, because most of XIV's playerbase weren't here for the nuance. They were here for the music, feels, pretty characters, colors, and WoW replacement. Endwalker does all of that gloriously, but it is also the first time that XIV's narrative has actually combatted its own logical progression. It suffers so much for that, but people do not care. They consume.

---

Um... after A Realm Reborn, all of the villains have been given sympathetic backstories (except Thordan, maybe), even if it was acknowledged they ultimately needed to be put down. Conversely even before Legacy ended the protagonists were doing questionable things, like Louisoix summoning demi-primal incarnations of the Twelve in a desperate gamble to stop the Calamity. The antagonists having "good" reasons for their actions and the protagonists doing shady things is... absolutely not something new in Shadowbringers or Endwalker. At least not by my reckoning.

Also are you seriously saying people who liked Endwalker are braindead? That's kind of funny, because I've seen arguments that go in the complete opposite direction suggesting they're overthinking things (i.e. the philosophical underpinnings). So which is it? Cuz if it's the former just let me enjoy my mindless entertainment; if it's the latter I'll gladly elucidate the existentialist philosophy behind the story. Maybe even throw in character analysis of Moxxi's Heist of the Handsome Jackpot, the only piece of Borderlands 3 content worth a damn story-wise, just for fun.

Lemme know, ayy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Mitron's quote isn't even from Endwalker. It's from the Eden raid series in Shadowbringers, which seems to have faded from memory around here. It's a commentary specifically about the Amaurotian Final Days.

Conflict arises from individuality and diversity. We all have different wants and needs. But diversity also confers a survival advantage. Omega's analysis of the Final Days was that there was no single unique trait that defined all the survivors. But because we don't all think the same way, our individual experiences with it were all different.

That's the central paradox with utopias. It's not that they're decadent and hedonistic; you can have that without an utopia. It's that the elimination of conflict requires you to stifle individuality. That's the common thread that you see in several of the fallen societies we encounter, be it the Ea, the Omicrons, and even the Amaurotians. A single stumbling block affected them universally.

Whether you agree with these themes is a personal choice, of course, but this entire concept has already been explored at length in Shadowbringers, right down to Mitron trying to create a timeless paradise free from suffering at the expense of the world's destruction.

---

That's kind of the issue. A "paradise" or "utopia" can have two different, paradoxical meanings.

Meaning 1: The best civilization that the specific society is capable of, regardless of any remaining "flaws".

Meaning 2: A truly perfect society, with no flaws.

The problem I have with Endwalker's take on "utopia" is that it argues that both of these things are the same, but that makes no sense, because the latter automatically disqualifies the former. Perfection, or lack of flaws, is inherently a value extrapolated to infinity. It means that no matter what resistance is brought against it, the value of "perfection" cannot be reduced or removed. But the story also argues that perfection itself is flawed, which means we're back to Meaning 1, and Meaning 2 is null. If the infinite value is impossible, then calling it imperfect is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

That's kind of the issue. A "paradise" or "utopia" can have two different, paradoxical meanings.

---

I was under the impression that all the way back in Shadowbringers, they evoked the original use of the word “Utopia”, by pulling “Amaurot”, “Anyder”, and “Hythlodeus” from the 16th century book called “Utopia”, where that word was invented. The book was a satire on society and the author wrote about a people in a culture centered around the capital, Amaurot, that was logical to the extreme and all wore the same simple clothes. All of this is explained to the reader by a man name Hytholdeus. Sound familiar?

Funny enough, even to this day scholars debate whether or not the author was in support of such a society or was against it. It was a super idyllic society with democracy, equality (ish, get to that later), easy divorce, and logic and heaps of socialism, but it also had slaves, no lawyers, punished simple crimes with slavery, and had pagan beliefs. The writer was a devout Catholic who hated divorce and was a lawyer. He has since been made the patron saint of politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I'll probably regret asking, but I feel compelled to anyway. Are you trolling?

The point people are making is that her actions are already morally ambiguous. Asking the narrative to acknowledge that--as it already has in the questline under discussion--does not fundamentally change anything about Hydaelyn's motivations or what you like about her.

Unless the only thing you like about her is that the Scions are united in how much they like her.

---

What your asking for is different from what I was responding to and what many are arguing for in this thread. The problem is changing the narrative, not offering more perspectives on it. Making the Sundering anything but necessary makes it morally unjustifiable in every way. Changing the circumstances of the single most consequential act she ever committed would fundsmanetally change her place in the narrative you have to recognize that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

. Yes, theoretically they could have had some other supergenius researcher create an Anti-Meteion... somehow... I don't know how, given what we know about her, but sure let's go with that. It's just as conceivable they wouldn't though, particularly given no small number of them were offing themselves in Zodiark's name out of regressive nostalgia after the Final Days.

---

It’s honestly an even less likely possibility when you consider you wouldn’t be making an Anti-Meteion, but an Anti-Every-Civilization-Meteion-Found. The being the Ancients would need to create would have to be able to manipulate Dynamis, be able to resist and overcome the feelings and emotions of innumerable dead worlds, all while not giving to despair themselves as they find out the truth of existence. Its a bar no other species met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

As with some lines pertaining to the Scions in Endwalker, that quote kind of bugged me because it's framing the sundered as being "better" then the Ancients when the individuals being tested were really not representative of mankind as a whole.

Both sundered and unsundered alike had droves of people who succumbed to the effects of dynamis, yet both also had those who managed to persevere and survive.

---

Which was, incidentally, Venats point. She had faith humanity could overcome despair, given they faced it. The problem is who the hell would want to? What parent wouldn’t surrender everything to bring back a child? What empathetic person would reject the chance to right a wrong? Unlike the Sundered, the Unsundered had the power to simply choose not to face those things. With Zodiark around you almost certainly never have to worry about losing a family member again. Or suffering from some horrific injury. He was made to answer their calls for salvation, and both the end scene of Elpis and the 5.3 story show he would respond to those desires.

So she forced the trial. “From that temptation, I sunder us.” And humanity found a way forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

(I gots ta get my Archfiend Attire before season's end in a few weeks, one rank a day oughta do it. Right?)

Lemme know, ayy!

---

(I'm not sure. I've never been invested in seasonal PVP for glams. I only occasionally PVP for standard Wolf Marks stuff that looks good in the moment. Godspeed, Cilia!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Even within that selfsame cutscene we have Venat talking about

---

They had to give her some commentary of the truth of what she did, but it's all after her glorious speech to nameless Ancients. It would have been far better if they'd showed us everything as it actually happened, since you know, The Echo usually does just that, and up until then none of those Rift Memory crystals had shown metaphorical summarizations rather than actuality. I would have liked to see Hydaelyn's followers offer up their lives to imbue her with the power to contest Zodiark. I want to see it all. Not platitudes and half-hearted admittances of guilt.


As far as nobody being under illusions... it would have been so, so very nice if the cast had commented on her actions at all, ya know, to demonstrate what you said. They largely don't. Not after the WoL giving them the skinny on the Elpis arc, nor after the battle to the death with Hydaelyn. Just Y'shtola's scriptwriter driven stuff, almost as if it's an obligation rather than the most pivotal moment of the epic's history.

And a lot of physics were unknown to Einstein, but others improved upon his ideas or expanded them not too shortly after. It's also precisely because we know everything about Meteion that formulation of an anti-Meteion could be done. They even, at that point, had an "almighty" Zodiark who could help with the solution.

In the realm of concepts and ideas, one need not the power. They merely need provide the idea to those with the means. Mind over matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Um... after A Realm Reborn, all of the villains have been given sympathetic backstories

---

Mmmm, no.

Thordan in Heavensward is the stereotypical JRPG evil religious figurehead. His backstory is that he violated his vow of celibacy and had Aymeric with another unsighted mom(SHOW US THE MOMS SE!). Other than that he prolonged a war he could have actually ended at anytime in a bid for everlasting godhood and power. (SHOW US THE MOMS SE!) Behind him were the Ascians, who at the time were still moustache twirling Saturday morning cartoons.

Zenos in Stormblood doesn't have his backstory in game. And you can only be sympathetic to him in game if you're like him on some level, depressed thrillseeker/raider. Very largely an unsympathetic character. Some major characters hoping to be the ones who kill him(Hien, Raubahn). Literally a psychopath who butchered his own soldiers. Registered as much in Yotsuyu's mental trauma as her crappy family.

1.0 was a different beast altogether.

Ah, I'm reminded of that interviewing tactic, "So you're saying?" "But you're saying." "So you mean" While inserting something not said, only inferred. It's that people who enjoy Endwalker's story whole heartedly are invincibly ignorant (of course everyone in audience of our discussions are vincibly ignorant). Even if they did want to know the full gravity of the story, they would choose to shy away from the effort because it spoils their fun and good vibes.

If you wanna wax philosophical about the story, dive right in. I'm not sure you'll come up with any take I haven't already seen or thought of, but I'm game to have FFXIV compared to Borderlands 3. Or learn anything about Borderlands 3...

Ante up!

Damn I knew I was braindead already. Didn't have to go pointing it out geeze. Let alone to so many other people. Like everything else just because someone says they liked X doesn't mean they liked all of it. Just that they're not going to stay hung up on it for months on end and come off as highly bitter that it didn't go in a direction they'd like or whatnot. For me even though I was enjoying myself and the story there were two parts which had pacing issues that were strong enough for me to try and vaguely complain about them to my FC. In a oh man I like this part, but I can definitely see how others might feel it drag on too long. Heck didn't even let my own agitation ruin my enjoyment when I felt the sorry but mom and baby are in another castle er swamp bit was starting to drag on. Only to get to them and have my heart ripped out. Guess I should start making threads complaining about it and derailing others just to go Oh but her ema.... the pacing.... if only the pacing in two spots didn't ruin my entire enjoyment.

Hammerlock's wedding was pretty good as a story. Well for a Hammerlock story. Isn't as great as the Heist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikkoAkure

I was under the impression that all the way back in Shadowbringers, they evoked the original use of the word “Utopia”, by pulling “Amaurot”, “Anyder”, and “Hythlodeus” from the 16th century book called “Utopia”, where that word was invented. The book was a satire on society and the author wrote about a people in a culture centered around the capital, Amaurot, that was logical to the extreme and all wore the same simple clothes. All of this is explained to the reader by a man name Hytholdeus. Sound familiar?

Funny enough, even to this day scholars debate whether or not the author was in support of such a society or was against it. It was a super idyllic society with democracy, equality (ish, get to that later), easy divorce, and logic and heaps of socialism, but it also had slaves, no lawyers, punished simple crimes with slavery, and had pagan beliefs. The writer was a devout Catholic who hated divorce and was a lawyer. He has since been made the patron saint of politicians.

---

I was moreso talking about the abstract concept of "perfection", which is a recurring theme in Endwalker. I'll admitting to being only passingly familiar with "Utopia" (the book), so I don't comment much on those references. However, what draws my attention more (as someone who has put a lot of hours into studying Asian culture and religion) is the story's idea of "perfection" or "paradise", which is represented in three places: the Loporritz, the Ea, and Deka-hepta (aka "The Plenty"), all of which have themes which conclude that A) perfection is impossible and B) perfection is also hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

...

---

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming the very thing that you've set out to prove. Sure, every one of these civilizations viewed themselves as having attained their own personal standards of perfection prior to their untimely collapse. But every historical empire invariably claims to be the greatest civilization that ever was. Who is to say that any of these are actually 'objectively perfect'? I certainly wouldn't want to live in any of them.

Different people have different values and ideas on what their 'ideal' society would look like. The paradox lies in achieving that consensus. That's why all these 'utopias' attain their 'perfection' at the expense of individuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The flaw in your reasoning is that you're assuming the very thing that you've set out to prove. Sure, every one of these civilizations viewed themselves as having attained their own personal standards of perfection prior to their untimely collapse. But every historical empire invariably claims to be the greatest civilization that ever was. Who is to say that any of these are actually 'objectively perfect'? I certainly wouldn't want to live in any of them.

---

If each of these civilizations were isolated cases, then you would be valid. However, they are not The greater context of Endwalker posits that these civilizations (in particular, the Ea and the Plenty) were "perfect". When Meteion describes Deka-Hepta in both her report, and within The Plenty portion of The Dead Ends, she confirms that this race did indeed eliminate all forms of strife and sorrow. This is presented as being objectively true. The reason they killed themselves is because they had no sorrow or strife, which -- it's posited -- means that they can have no joy as well. But this very conclusion ignores that the elimination of joy is, itself, a form of strife and sorrow. Thus, we cannot be talking about Meaning 2.

The same is true of Cookingway within Labyrinthos, who concludes that perfection (not perfection in any specific definition, but the very concept of it) was inherently bad. Which means we're talking about a "non-infinite" form of "perfection", because an infinite form of it would perpetually eliminate flaws. Again, "no known way to improve" and "impossible to improve" are not the same thing. We can further tell this by what Cookingway himself says:

Quote:

---

They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves.
Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection.
And therein lies its folly...and its downfall.
For perfection is an unattainable ideal. 'Tis the paradox of the immaculate carrot.
Yet civilizations since time immemorial have deemed the pursuit of perfection as “progress.” They pay no heed to the costs incurred in their futile quest, and all too often become the architects of their own demise, their dreams forever unfulfilled.
What, then, is the alternative? The answer lies in knowing that our existence can never be perfect. To be content with what we have and make the most of it.

---

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing.

---

More or less, though I think the problem is more that instead of taking the straightforward route of "perfection is impossible (but we should still try to make things as good as we can)" they went for the confusing logic of "perfection IS possible, or at least people can believe they've reached it, and that inherently results in disaster so we mustn't try to reach it".

^ Exactly that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

---

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

---

I mean, we do have Hydaelyn belting out Answers to the CG of the Seventh Umbral Calamity setting the world on fire, so...

Each to their own, I guess, though if someone figured out how to reliably cure cancer and prevent it from ever killing anyone ever again then I would readily consider that to be a good thing and a step forward for all of humanity. It wouldn't be without consequences - since a healthy population is going to grow over time - but that can be mitigated by looking at new ways to sustain the ever growing population such as improving the yield of planted crops and looking at space travel to begin the process of settling on other planets.

All of which is even easier in a fantasy setting than it would be in the real world - and even then it's hard to buy into the game's desperate caricatures of fallen civilisations when we know full well that even the likes of the Allagan Empire had people pushing against the stagnation and decadence even during its collapse.

The story doesn't treat everyone in Limsa as a pirate. It doesn't portray everyone in Gridania as a zealot devoted utterly to the Elementals. It doesn't portray everyone in Ala Mhigo as rabidly devoted to Rhalgr.

It doesn't take these nations and state that some exaggerated element of their society is going to cause their demise and so they all need to die. What problems exist are dealt with one way or another - but never at the expense of their entire society. So it certainly is strange that the game decided to do a complete turnaround and decide that, actually, sometimes there is a 'good reason' for genocide and that there was 'no other way'.

(Other than the numerous easily identified 'other ways' established elsewhere in the narrative or by, y'know, simply having Venat speak of her concerns instead of immediately writing off the Ancients in their entirety!)

If nothing else, I think the story needed to have the stones to more clearly outline that the choice made was to sacrifice the Unsundered in favour of the Sundered. Not because they deserved it or had it coming. The game desperately tries to disguise that fact through fluffy language and epic music but it cannot hide the reality that is the consequences.

It's a shame, too, since I'd have found Venat to be one of the most compelling characters in a Final Fantasy game to date if not for the weird attempts to excuse what she did as a 'necessity'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

---

It’s a very common reaction for people of any given era to think “Society isn’t going in the direction I want, so it’s better to burn it all to the ground and start over.” One of the reasons I can’t get with dharmic philosophies is because that mindset is often codified and preached whereas constant cycles of progress and collapse are “natural” and thus a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

---

That's what the Xaela have been trying to tell those foolish Raen all along! Leave so you can escape the constant state of brutal, bloody and, above all else, glorious tribal warfare and hopefully advance as a civilisation? Nope, that way lies death, by suicide, possibly assisted by a supreme deity. Maybe not any time soon, but it'll happen, eventually! The luminosity setting of a brighter tomorrow only goes so far, though we won't tell you where the cut-off point lies triggering the sundering alarm bell.

(Let's just hope the Xaela don't end up forging ahead a bit too much, to Dead End 2...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Plus, if that's the case, then the calamities were a good thing. Mankind apparently needs to be periodically set back every time they reach a certain level of advancement to ensure the species continues, apparently.

---

It was strange that the Omega quest didn't make a point of this, since they can be viewed through such a lens given the plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

if someone figured out how to reliably cure cancer and prevent it from ever killing anyone ever again then I would readily consider that to be a good thing and a step forward for all of humanity.

---

This is the normal human being response to someone curing cancer or preventing people from killing each other. Anyone who unironically glorifies suffering and thinks that the mitigation of said suffering is bad is probably a psychopath or a sociopath. Meaning Venat is probably at least one of those lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

This is the normal human being response to someone curing cancer or preventing people from killing each other. Anyone who unironically glorifies suffering and thinks that the mitigation of said suffering is bad is probably a psychopath or a sociopath. Meaning Venat is probably at least one of those lol

---

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad. The argument usually goes "A real X is strong, and anyone who isn't is just a [p-word]" or "People from [x group] are just lazy because of Y progress and don't know what real work/struggle is like" or "I suffered from X back in my day, and I turned out fine and/or became better for it!".

Again, you can mad lib whatever specific group/philosophy you like, but I'm betting that everybody here has heard at least one line from that from a perfectly "normal', functioning member of society.

The point is, it's an easy thing to convince yourself of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

You know, I've always wondered where Endwalker draws the line in terms of "when do we make life too good and when is it bad to keep trying to make things better, necessitating a Great Reset and inflicting widespread suffering" but I guess Cookingway outlines it right there! Continuing to seek to eliminate negativity after "fulfilling the basic requirements for survival" is folly. Message understood, returning to caves.

---

It’s bad when the choice you have is between killing yourself or letting go of paradise.. Which is what happens when there’s nothing left to build, nothing new to experience and nowhere that brings you joy. Live long enough and everything will lose its luster. What does a dog do when it’s caught the car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Cookingway equates "progress" with "pursuit of perfection" and concludes that the solution is to "be content with what we have".

Again, the problem with Endwalker is that it wants to conclude that both Meaning 1 "Perfection is impossible" and Meaning 2 "Perfection is inherently bad" are the same thing. The theme of the game is a massive Perfect Solution Fallacy: "perfection is impossible, so don't bother".

---

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Sadly, you don't have to be a psychopath or a sociopath to glorify or celebrate the suffering of yourself or others. For example, there's a lot of mainstream worldviews which readily see forcing oneself or others to struggle, suffer or even die as being good and any attempt to lessen or stop them as being inherently bad.

---

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

I thought "perfection is impossible so why bother?" was Meteion's schtick, not Venat's. Like, that's Nihilism 101. The point isn't to not try at all, but to carry on even if cosmic oblivion in some form is always the eventual outcome.

I know it's been a few months, but have we really forgotten Y'shtola's response to the Ea? Or are we just ignoring it because it doesn't fit the narrative we want to push about the narrative being pushed?

To anyone still lost as to Venat's specific idealogy, here, have some Cicero: (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of reprobating pleasure and extolling pain arose. To do so, I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure? On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammeled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.

---

It's really basic stuff, but apparently also not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

You’re misrepresenting their statement. They don’t equate perfection with progress, they say that living beings incorrectly associate perfection with progress, and in so doing create their own demise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Once again, Endwalkers message is only contradictory if you believe that a group of civilizations that killed themselves because of the worlds they made can be called “perfect.”

---

Except that Cookingway also states: "Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection."

Cookingway describes post-scarcity > progress > desiring perfection as an inevitable slippery slope. Furthermore, his solution to this is to "be content with what we have and to make the most of it". At best, this argument is extremely reductive as it deemphasizes progress as the ideal middle ground between "scarcity" and "perfection". At worst, it's a total Perfect Solution Fallacy where the answer is to not try at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Further, Cookingway then immediately states that perfection is impossible, ala the “immaculate carrot.” How is it logical to interpret Cookingways message as saying perfection is possible and bad, when he directly states that perfection is a paradox?

---

Because Cookingway's argument still sets up the Ancients as achieving part of the infinite perfection.

Cookingway: "They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves."

Cookingway uses the exact same argument that the rest of the story uses for Ea and Deka-hepta ("The Plenty"): that they achieved some sort of "infinite". The Ancients apparently "learned all there is to know", the Ea created a society and form that was timeless, and the Plenty eliminated all forms of sorrow and strife. These are absolute, infinite statements that even those critical of said civilizations agree to -- so for all intents and purposes, we have to assume that these are objectively true. Especially for the Plenty, because their infinite achievement (that all sorrow and strife were gone) is literally the basis for why they died.

I predict that the next argument is going to be "Okay, they may have achieved perfection in ONE area, but that doesn't mean all-around perfection", which is exactly the problem. If you say that civilization has learned or eliminated ALL of something abstract (like knowledge or "sorrow"), that is still an infinite value (aka perfection). An abstract, by definition, is something which avoid strict definition because it can change or radically shift based on understanding. But if you learned or eliminated "all" of it, then those changes or shifts don't matter, because those changes and shifts are either part of the "all" or they aren't. It doesn't matter what other areas they didn't understand or perfect -- even if that is simply a "tiny" amount, one one-billionth of infinity is still infinity.

The Ancients (according to Cookingway) had attained perfect ("all") knowledge in their areas, and the Plenty (according to Meteion) achieved perfect elimination of sorrow and strife. How specific these are is irrelevant, because I remind you that "all" and "perfect" are infinite. They either did this or they didn't. If you place hard limits on "perfection", then it ceases to BE perfection. If perfection is impossible, then saying they "learned all" or "eliminated all" of an abstract (even if it's a specific abstract) is nonsense.

"But they only achieved perfection in what they knew". Then the terms "all' and "perfection" are useless. By this logic, ALL progress of any kind is "perfection". The iPhone X was "perfection", until it got replaced by the next model. Medical science was "perfect" when people used bloodletting and leeches, and now it's "perfect" again in 2022. I repeat: the story wants to conflate and blur the concept of perfection to both Meaning 1 (The best we're capable of right now) and Meaning 2 (The best anyone will ever be capable of, without flaw, forever.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I don’t have to see struggle as a good thing and still believe it necessary for good to flourish. Winning at a competition only feels good if you know you could’ve lost. Is losing a bad thing? I’d say so.

---

This argument only works if you think everything is a competition. I don't want to have to win a foot race to get insulin for my beloved family member to live. Sure, I'd feel great if I won, and feel bad if I lost, but that kinda feels like an unhealthy quality of life to strive for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenral

I know it's been a few months, but have we really forgotten Y'shtola's response to the Ea? Or are we just ignoring it because it doesn't fit the narrative we want to push about the narrative being pushed?

---

What ABOUT her response to the Ea?

Quote:

---

As you yourself said, the subject matter is beyond my comprehension. And that, I accept, is true. I do not possess the knowledge to prove or disprove your conclusion. In my mortal years, I doubt that I could even approach the wisdom of the Ea. But of one thing I am absolutely certain: I would not be happier in ignorance.

The most important lesson I've learned... is that learning isn't simply passing one's eyes over words. Nay... 'tis when understood for oneself that knowledge attains its true value. And that is what has sustained me. Driven me onward in joy and wonder, in anger and sorrow. The universe may end, and may all be for naught. But I will live as I always have.

I will always seek out new knowledge. And no conclusion of yours, no matter how grim, can dampen my desire.

---

She flat out states that she doesn't think they're wrong. Her response of "I don't care" at best sidesteps the real fallacy of the Ea's argument.

That part with Y'shtola, and her answer being framed as valid and heroic, always seemed hilarious to me in context of everything else. I just imagine the equivalent scene with the Ancients, with Venat outright saying to them, "Listen to me, I can confirm this through hearing reports from other stars! Continuing to pursue perfection will only lead to our destruction and ruin! It happened to them and it will happen to you!" and getting the answer "We don't care, lmao." And Venat immediately melts, defeated.

Endwalker really feels like it has no idea what it's even trying to say no small amount of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

That part with Y'shtola, and her answer being framed as valid and heroic, always seemed hilarious to me in context of everything else. I just imagine the equivalent scene with the Ancients, with Venat outright saying to them, "Listen to me, I can confirm this through hearing reports from other stars! Continuing to pursue perfection will only lead to our destruction and ruin! It happened to them and it will happen to you!" and getting the answer "We don't care, lmao." And Venat immediately melts, defeated.

Endwalker really feels like it has no idea what it's even trying to say no small amount of the time.

---

Just to play devil's advocate...

I think the argument the game was making was that "knowledge for one's own self-satisfaction is fine, but desiring 'perfect, eternal knowledge' is self-destructive".

But, of course, this leads to the same question: where is the magical line between the two?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

...

---

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Like I said earlier, none of the societies portrayed appeals to me personally as 'ideal', so I'd take issue with calling them 'perfect'. I would not wish to live in any of them, Amaurot included, simply because being part of a hivemind does not appeal to me. You might have a different viewpoint, but that's just your viewpoint.

The tangential discussion about societal progress is irrelevant. People will always seek to improve their lives in accordance with their own personal ideals. But to claim that those ideals are identical and uniform for all human beings is ignorant. That's why a 'utopia' is a contradiction in terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenral

I thought "perfection is impossible so why bother?" was Meteion's schtick, not Venat's. Like, that's Nihilism 101. The point isn't to not try at all, but to carry on even if cosmic oblivion in some form is always the eventual outcome.

I know it's been a few months, but have we really forgotten Y'shtola's response to the Ea? Or are we just ignoring it because it doesn't fit the narrative we want to push about the narrative being pushed?

To anyone still lost as to Venat's specific idealogy, here, have some Cicero: (emphasis mine)
It's really basic stuff, but apparently also not.

---

I'll see your Cicero... and raise you some Nietzsche.

Quote:

---

If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things; and if our soul has trembled with happiness and sounded like a harp string just once, all eternity was needed to produce this one event—and in this single moment of affirmation all eternity was called good, redeemed, justified, and affirmed.

---

All the terrible things that happened throughout the universe's history were needed to produce just one moment - one single moment - when you were happy. Is your own happiness not worth fighting for because your existence is predicated on your forebears staining their hands with blood and sin?

Raise ya Camus as well:

Quote:

---

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

---

Sisyphus was a man from Greek myth cursed to try rolling a boulder up a hill for all eternity for cheating death twice, but Camus reimagined him as being happy because he never stopped trying. The world is cruel, unfair, and will devour you whole - so all you can do is find happiness and pride in the little things you can control. You can always start over, even if you fall. (But the Ancients did not want to start over; they wanted to go back to the way things were, even though nothing could turn back the clock and no amount of sacrifices could return everyone to life. In essence, they gave up the forging ahead, taking risks, and sought only security and comfort in Zodiark's arms. What future could such a civilization possibly create?)

And as bonus, it may not be from an existentialist philosopher but Bleach's Mayuri Kurotsuchi gives a pretty scathing condemnation on the concept of perfection that I like to think is relevant given Emet-Selch's touting Amaurotine civilization as "perfect:"

Quote:

---

The 'perfect being' you said...? Well... I have to tell you the honest truth as I see it. In this world nothing perfect exists. It may be a cliché after all, but it's the way things are. That's precisely why ordinary men pursue to concept of perfection, it's infatuation... But ultimately I have to ask myself "What is the true meaning of being perfect?" And the answer I came up with was: nothing. Not one thing. The truth of the matter is I despise perfection. If something is truly perfect, that's it. The bottom line becomes there is no room for imagination, no space for intelligence or ability or improvement. Do you understand? To men of science like us perfection is a dead end, a condition of hopelessness. Always strive to be better than anything that came before you, but not perfect. Scientists agonize over the attempt to achieve perfection. That's the kind of creatures we are. We take joy in trying to exceed our grasp, in trying to reach for something that in the end we have to admit may in fact be unreachable. In other words, you may think the we operate on the same level, but you're wrong. The moment you started talking about perfection you embraced an impossible concept and you already lost to me. That is of course if you are indeed a scientist at all.

---

Once you set something as a perfect ideal, if you reach it you will have nothing to work toward even though there is always room for improvement. (Why couldn't Lahabrea have made his phoenixes smarter, or something?) Amaurotine civilization's focus on duty and conformity led to someone who pondered whether there was more life had to offer than fulfilling his duty and then dying as nothing more than a cog in the system; for all of Emet-Selch's posturing Amaurot was far from perfect, but most of its people believed it to be so and were unwilling or unable to see and improve upon those flaws thanks to their easy lives (which, incidentally, is exactly why they had little to no resilience in the face of tragedy and decided abandoning their guiding principles as stewards of the star to turn it into an aether farm for their selfish wants was the better path).

---

Meh... you know, uhh, "If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?"; no amount of argument or reasoning will convince folk what think the Sundering was unjustified and unnecessary to the contrary, so I'm just going to bow out at this juncture. Not every storyline is gonna gel with every player, an' that's ok.

I'm seeing a lot of parallels going on in these threads with how subjective "perfection" is to different people. Thanks for reminding me that no two views are the same especially with how people feel on what something should be to them.

"One man's Hell is another Man's Heaven."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Except that Cookingway also states: "Once a civilization has fulfilled the basic requirements for survival, it will inevitably seek to eliminate all forms of negativity and achieve perfection."

Cookingway describes post-scarcity > progress > desiring perfection as an inevitable slippery slope. Furthermore, his solution to this is to "be content with what we have and to make the most of it". At best, this argument is extremely reductive as it deemphasizes progress as the ideal middle ground between "scarcity" and "perfection". At worst, it's a total Perfect Solution Fallacy where the answer is to not try at all.

---

But once again I think you’re unfairly focusing too much in the beginning of Cookingways statement and not the whole! “Making the most of it” contains more than enough room to encapsulate efforts to improve the world around you, so long as you do so knowing it will never be perfect.

It’s a theme that is further reinforced by Hydaelyns discussion with the Scions, where she specifically highlights how, despite some of their dreams being impossible they still carry on regardless knowing it will never be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Because Cookingway's argument still sets up the Ancients as achieving part of the infinite perfection.

Cookingway: "They learned all there is to learn about the nature of sentient life and the fates of the stars themselves."

Cookingway uses the exact same argument that the rest of the story uses for Ea and Deka-hepta ("The Plenty"): that they achieved some sort of "infinite". The Ancients apparently "learned all there is to know", the Ea created a society and form that was timeless, and the Plenty eliminated all forms of sorrow and strife. These are absolute, infinite statements that even those critical of said civilizations agree to -- so for all intents and purposes, we have to assume that these are objectively true. Especially for the Plenty, because their infinite achievement (that all sorrow and strife were gone) is literally the basis for why they died.

---

But none of those things are objective statements of perfection. Knowing all there is to know doesn’t make your society perfect, nor does eliminating sorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

I predict that the next argument is going to be "Okay, they may have achieved perfection in ONE area, but that doesn't mean all-around perfection", which is exactly the problem. If you say that civilization has learned or eliminated ALL of something abstract (like knowledge or "sorrow"), that is still an infinite value (aka perfection). An abstract, by definition, is something which avoid strict definition because it can change or radically shift based on understanding. But if you learned or eliminated "all" of it, then those changes or shifts don't matter, because those changes and shifts are either part of the "all" or they aren't. It doesn't matter what other areas they didn't understand or perfect -- even if that is simply a "tiny" amount, one one-billionth of infinity is still infinity.

---

That’s not my point though. Once again the paradox that is perfection means that any physical manifestation of it in an imperfect reality is flawed. Congrats you eliminated “all” of your grief and sorrow. And now you wanna kill yourself. If that’s what seeking perfection means then why seek it? That is the core of dilemma with the Dead Ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

The Ancients (according to Cookingway) had attained perfect ("all") knowledge in their areas, and the Plenty (according to Meteion) achieved perfect elimination of sorrow and strife. How specific these are is irrelevant, because I remind you that "all" and "perfect" are infinite. They either did this or they didn't. If you place hard limits on "perfection", then it ceases to BE perfection. If perfection is impossible, then saying they "learned all" or "eliminated all" of an abstract (even if it's a specific abstract) is nonsense.

---

Is it possible to draw a perfect circle? Or calculate all digits of pi? Is the very concept of doing such nonsense too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

"But they only achieved perfection in what they knew". Then the terms "all' and "perfection" are useless. By this logic, ALL progress of any kind is "perfection". The iPhone X was "perfection", until it got replaced by the next model. Medical science was "perfect" when people used bloodletting and leeches, and now it's "perfect" again in 2022. I repeat: the story wants to conflate and blur the concept of perfection to both Meaning 1 (The best we're capable of right now) and Meaning 2 (The best anyone will ever be capable of, without flaw, forever.).

---

Or the game is saying meaning 2 and holding that what we are capable of is limited by the imperfect existence we inhabit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

This argument only works if you think everything is a competition. I don't want to have to win a foot race to get insulin for my beloved family member to live. Sure, I'd feel great if I won, and feel bad if I lost, but that kinda feels like an unhealthy quality of life to strive for.

---

I’m using the competition metaphor to show that suffering in some form can beneficial. As a hypothetical, if you could choose between a world with no inequality or a world with some, but everyone is better off than those in the first world, which would you choose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

What ABOUT her response to the Ea?

She flat out states that she doesn't think they're wrong. Her response of "I don't care" at best sidesteps the real fallacy of the Ea's argument.

---

What fallacy? The Ea are the dog that caught the car and didn’t know what to do with themselves. Y’shtola basically just “yeah I’ll find another car ti chase then.”

Relevant to my thoughts:

https://i.imgur.com/9uglMir.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/Hs9EqF6.jpg

Sometimes characters do stand to benefit immensely from acts of genocide and it is very much the easier and safest route to take. Though generally speaking it's considered a red line in the sand, one so horrific that it cannot be crossed easily.

FFXIV doesn't really treat the concept of genocide with respect or weight. As witnessed by awkwardly trying to justify it through a series of increasingly bizarre and childish caricatures. Simply repeating 'she loves u there wuz no other way' doesn't do it for many of us, I'm afraid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

But once again I think you’re unfairly focusing too much in the beginning of Cookingways statement and not the whole! “Making the most of it” contains more than enough room to encapsulate efforts to improve the world around you, so long as you do so knowing it will never be perfect.

It’s a theme that is further reinforced by Hydaelyns discussion with the Scions, where she specifically highlights how, despite some of their dreams being impossible they still carry on regardless knowing it will never be.

---

That's ultimately the problem here. On its own, the philosophy of "we can never get to perfection but we should keep striving for the best outcome we can" is fine, and it's what the story has been running on up to this point.

The problem here is when they also try to have this story element of "look at these people who kept striving until they did reach what they believe to be perfection! It invariably turned out to be their undoing and their whole society collapsed!"

So where is the dividing line? Where should we keep trying, and where should we stop because our idea of creating a good world for people might actually be just as flawed and lead to similar disaster?

It's a proposal that undermines the positive affirmation that the other half of the story is trying to tell. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the narrative sabotages itself.

I enjoyed Endwalker for the immediate things it did with the Scions and main cast, but the philosophical aspects are a complete mess at a base concept level before you even start to untangle the morality of characters like Venat.