Auri and Ishgard, can we truly be allies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

"Lay" is the past tense of "lie" (though not when telling lies; then it's "lied"). Most English speakers even mess this up, because "lay" is also its own word meaning to put something down. So, yeah, "lay with" is the past tense of "lie with" which is an archaic way of saying have sex with.

---

noted. Always good to learn something new ^^

I'll concede to that, but only if people stop claiming Shiva is the birth mother of all Au Ra, as that (in my opinion) is incredibly stupid to me...

Especially when Ishgardian's are more than happy to assist Yugiri.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

I'll concede to that, but only if people stop claiming Shiva is the birth mother of all Au Ra, as that (in my opinion) is incredibly stupid to me...

Especially when Ishgardian's are more than happy to assist Yugiri.

---

I totally agree (for now, anyway) that Shiva's not the mother of the Au Ra. I'm hesitant to even say she was definitely a real person in Ishgard.

Didn't really read though the entire topic, so I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I thought Au Ra were supposed to be part-demon, not part-dragon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bayohne

Q1: Could you please tell us the naming conventions for the Au Ra?

A1: There are two clans: Au Ra Raen and Au Ra Xaela. Au Ra Raen have been closely related to the Domans for long time, so their names are somewhat Japanese-like. The Xaela on the other hand have led a nomadic lifestyle for some time, and they have a unique naming convention.

---

Well, at least we got a bit of a tease from the Live Letter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reinhart

Well, at least we got a bit of a tease from the Live Letter.

---

Yeah. We have two clan names. Also they are apparently completely unrelated to Shiva. Of course they can still be related to one of Midgardsormr's children

so the Heavenswad's site has been updated, and as expected the Au Ra have no connection at all with the dragons. Sorry for the "Shiva x dragon" story lovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadane

Didn't really read though the entire topic, so I'm sure it's been mentioned, but I thought Au Ra were supposed to be part-demon, not part-dragon.

---

Actually, it was never implied that they were part demon - just that there would be facial options available to make the Au Ra females look "demonic" or "succubus-like". This was SE's attempt to mollify folks who were complaining that Au Ra females didn't look fierce enough compared to their male counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuwagami

so the Heavenswad's site has been updated, and as expected the Au Ra have no connection at all with the dragons. Sorry for the "Shiva x dragon" story lovers

---

The lore on the website merely says that the claim has "long been disputed". It doesn't outright deny the possibility. I'm skeptical of the Shiva/dragon connection myself, but the lore still leaves wiggle room.

Considering the Au Ra have ancient myths to their origins and Shiva is recent enough to actually be a historical figure in Ishgard's past, I'd say shiva having anything to do with the Au Ra is extremely unlikely. Also she doesn't really seem to match the 'Dusk Mother' role from what we have learned of Shiva.

I still don't think we can outright say they have no relation to dragons in their origins but the physiological difference would imply that the relation is distant at the very least. Its curious that their horns are infact sensory organs that seem to act as their ears.

Regardless of if they do have draconic ancestors, I have to admit I am quite curious on their racial origins now. The Dawn Father and Dusk Mother mythos is an interesting one particularly considering the traits they associate with each.

When Au Ra sprout wings and start breathing fire I'm sure the Ishgardians will be out for blood. Until that day comes however, I believe they have more pressing matters to attend to.

Considering Ishgardians would be experts in Draconic anatomy having studied their capabilities and how best to kill them, I wouldn't be surprised if the apparent biological traits wouldn't carry some weight with the Ishgardian leaders if nothing else. Ishgard is desperate for help.

Doesn't mean the average Ishgardian won't be distrustful of them but then again they are distrustful of all outsiders.

New lore actually states Au Ra are unrelated to dragons. So I see no problem once the Ishgardians get past superficial similarities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

New lore actually states Au Ra are unrelated to dragons. So I see no problem once the Ishgardians get past superficial similarities.

---

They have to DO that first. and Overcoming racism is a huge thing, especially when the prejudice is set in with religious zealotry over centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LycorisSelunis

They have to DO that first. and Overcoming racism is a huge thing, especially when the prejudice is set in with religious zealotry over centuries.

---

Never said it'd be easy or fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

New lore actually states Au Ra are unrelated to dragons. So I see no problem once the Ishgardians get past superficial similarities.

---

They'd first have to be convinced of the truth of that. What lore we've seen says "horns and ... scales that characterize the Au Ra oft give rise to speculation that [they] are, in fact, the progeny of dragons. This, however, has long been disputed, with scholars citing ..."

Given how xenophobic Ishgardians seem to be, and especially their paranoia regarding possible dravanian connections, I'm guessing a lot of this speculation regarding that connection is coming from them. (Well, within the world lore it would be coming from them at any rate. That reference is probably just SE playing off how much we as players have been speculating about it.) Scholars are disputing it, and with enough reasons that they're probably right, but that doesn't mean that the Ishgardians have been convinced.

We've got rational scientific arguments pitted against xenophobic paranoia that's reinforced with religious zealotry.

I hope there is an actual play on this, I would love if some npc interactions changed based on race.

The Lore about Au Ra physiology is ambiguous and will probably remain as such. Reminds me of the miqo'te being descendants of cats lore debate.

Hopefully, there'll be npcs talking about the au ra.

I believe that with the ascion influence over the holy see that with the quelling of the thousand year war at the end of 3.0 the ishgardians hatred towards dragon kin will also fall to the way side and they will eventually grow to be more open minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by myahele

It's a shame how Yugiri's reveal was. I thought there'd be more reaction to it.

Anyway, it'll probably be explained off-screened. Although if there's somehow more Auri npcs than there are male Miqo'te I'll be angry

---

I won't be. Honestly, we've more than enough Miqo'te in the game as is. Players and NPCs. Diversity is key!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alberel

For the record though we have had multiple clues already that the Au'Ra are indeed half Dravanian; the most obvious being the story of Shiva sleeping with a dragon at the same time we're introduced to a half-draconic race. Whilst it has still not been outright confirmed, saying 'nothing so far has indicated that' is completely false.

---

No. Wind-up Odin doll debunks Shiva as being the mother of the Au'ra completely.

Well, let me ask this: if you play as a Duiskwight Elezen, do any NPCs around Gridiania act differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zohar_Lahar

Well, let me ask this: if you play as a Duiskwight Elezen, do any NPCs around Gridiania act differently?

---

No, but honestly there should be more duskwight interaction, since they routinely poo all over Keepers in quests. The only times I can recall anybody mentioning Grey hate is at the end of the lancer quest, and those two Wildwoods ganging up on the duskwight thief in Grid.

It would be just weird not to see Ishgard citizens regard au ra with suspicion at the very least.

To be honest, Ishgardians being Ishgardians, they are likely to treat us all with suspicion. Outsiders and all that. They won't go too far cause they don't want players hating on Ishgard. After all by the time we walk the streets of Ishgard we would have done a lot to earn the trust of its people including saving the city, wining back the Stone Vigil, uncovering a heretic plot and befriending high ranking members of 3 of the major houses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belhi

To be honest, Ishgardians being Ishgardians, they are likely to treat us all with suspicion. Outsiders and all that. They won't go too far cause they don't want players hating on Ishgard. After all by the time we walk the streets of Ishgard we would have done a lot to earn the trust of its people including saving the city, wining back the Stone Vigil, uncovering a heretic plot and befriending high ranking members of 3 of the major houses.

---

I think that's the one thing the adventurers have going for them over most they do have some standing and good will and they have no love for our enemies. I'm sure there will be people against us and politics in the story. Those houses not in favor with our allies and with something way bigger going on in Ishgard I'm sure all adventurers will have to deal with some problems and prejudice from a nation who doesn't really trust anyone in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MXMoondoggie

I think that's the one thing the adventurers have going for them over most they do have some standing and good will and they have no love for our enemies.

---

Well... That's not entirely true. They do seem to have some love for at least one of our enemies. The higher ups seem to be in cahoots with the Ascians. I have a feeling that's going to be a big component of the Heavensward storyline.

Since the Ascians have the ear of the Holy See, and they're letting us into Ishgard anyway, you can rest assured that it's All According to Plan.

Just in case someone missed it: during the Nico Super FATE Day 1 Q&A, link to a translation posted on reddit. In the last point below "Draconian Cloud Sea" it says <<Aura are not related to Dragons. Their motif are demons.>>

That said, having way more differentiated speech to different races/jobs/sexes would be just amazing!

It's always a possibility that this race of humanoids aren't unknown to the people of Eorzea, the need to mention them to us adventurers beforehand just never arose. The same can be applied to any future races or species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treuhavik

It's always a possibility that this race of humanoids aren't unknown to the people of Eorzea, the need to mention them to us adventurers beforehand just never arose. The same can be applied to any future races or species.

---

We did know about them, if the Odin minion's text is to be taken as evidence. We may not have known how they looked like in specific, but we knew there was another race out there in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyrahFhurrst

We did know about them, if the Odin minion's text is to be taken as evidence. We may not have known how they looked like in specific, but we knew there was another race out there in the world.

---

While true, I'm using this logic to explain the lack of shock on the face of the Ishgardians.

Basically, just because we didn't know about something, doesn't mean the NPCs didn't know about that something.

Time will tell, maybe there'll be Auri NPC quests that talk about the discrimination they face? Or the general reaction of the public?

Maybe have something like "Little Ala Mhigo"

Ultimately, the Heavensward takes place a week/ month after 2.55, so there should not be that many.

Then again it's possible that alot of them remained hidden:
http://images.akamai.steamuserconten...3955AA1DA9A1C/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

"Lay" is the past tense of "lie" (though not when telling lies; then it's "lied"). Most English speakers even mess this up, because "lay" is also its own word meaning to put something down. So, yeah, "lay with" is the past tense of "lie with" which is an archaic way of saying have sex with.

---

No it's not. As niether is the phrase "sleeping with the enemy" to mean you literally jump in the same bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

No it's not. As niether is the phrase "sleeping with the enemy" to mean you literally jump in the same bed.

---

Are you trying to tell me that "lay" is not the past tense of "lie," even though it is (for lying down, but not for lying about your age)? Or are you trying to tell me that "lie with" is not an archaic way of saying "have sex with," even though it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Are you trying to tell me that "lay" is not the past tense of "lie," even though it is (for lying down, but not for lying about your age)? Or are you trying to tell me that "lie with" is not an archaic way of saying "have sex with," even though it is?

---

That is exactly what I am saying, a phrase of that context you do not break it down to the meaning of each individual word, but the whole phrase.

Here you go:

In everyday speech, a phrase may be any group of words, often carrying a special idiomatic meaning; in this sense it is roughly synonymous with expression.

I bolded the important part.

Layaing with the enemy is another way of saying sleeping with the enemy. Definition below.

The phrase “sleeping with the enemy” is often used to describe a situation involving a non-adversarial relationship between two individuals or entities that would normally be unfriendly or adversarial. This frequently includes business deals between competitors, joint projects tackled by enemies, and political maneuverings that require the cooperation of competing parties. Sometimes, sleeping with the enemy involves cooperating just for the purpose of gaining inside information or the upper hand in a competitive situation. In other situations, however, opposing parties may actually work together for the good of a common goal.

Bolded the important part, conjecture here, but the common goal for Shiva may have been the ending of hostilities between Ishgard and Dravania.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Layaing with the enemy is another way of saying sleeping with the enemy. Definition below.

---

No, lie with is literally an archaic way of saying "have sexual intercourse with."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies+with Definition 22.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

No, lie with is literally an archaic way of saying "have sexual intercourse with."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lies+with Definition 22.

---

You are still breaking the phrase into smaller parts, phrases do not work like that, You take the WHOLE phrase, returning back to "Sleeping with the enemy" If you read the dfefinition, you wouldn't use the word sleeping from the phrase as closing your eyes and sleeping. It is contextual as a whole phrase, not as singular words of a sentance.

Also with your definition you are using only one of the definitions (taken from your link) to fit your conceived notion of the meaning behind the phrase.

You forgot to also add the first definition: to be the duty or function of: So taking the first definition could translate the phrase to lie with the enemy, as to work with them or for them which would fit more in line with the phrases lie with the enemy and sleeping with the enemy.

Some other phrases that make no sense if you break them down to a word by word definition.

An arm and a leg (meaning something was expensive cost wise).
A piece of cake (meaning: something was easy)

Taking one from inside FFXIVs auto translator

Chewing the fat. Which means chatting and/or gossiping. Where is the "chewing" in chatting? or the fat? neither of those words singularly have any contextual meaning to what the whole phrase is saying, so you cannot in the context of a phrase use the definitions of those words to state the correct meaning behind the phrase. The same with To lie with the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

You are still breaking the phrase into smaller parts

---

No, I'm not. I'm looking at the definition for the phrase "lie with". The definition of the phrase as a whole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

You forgot to also add the first definition: to be the duty or function of: So taking the first definition could translate the phrase to lie with the enemy, as to work with them or for them which would fit more in line with the phrases lie with the enemy and sleeping with the enemy.

---

No, you're ignoring the examples given by that definition.

The power to declare war lies with Congress.
The fault in this matter lies with him.

Those are examples of the first archaic meaning given.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind.

That's an example of the second definition (regardless if it's a message we should agree with). I mean, if you want to go tell all the right-wing Christians in the US that they're reading their bibles wrong and that the verse they've been using for the past 400 years to condemn homosexuality is actually condemning two men working together, more power to you, but you'll be wrong (about what the verse says, anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Some other phrases that make no sense if you break them down to a word by word definition.

---

Yes. I know this. Convincing you that I know what I'm talking about might be a picture of rice cake, though.

Instead of arguing; why not consider the following? Shiva both had sexual intercourse with and was allied to (a) dragon(s). Because it can go both ways after all.

The way I see it: They're wording it in such a way that we are expected to believe that Shiva actually had sexual intercourse with a dragon. That said; it's still posible that she did not. It might have just been slander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

No, I'm not. I'm looking at the definition for the phrase "lie with". The definition of the phrase as a whole.

---

Yert you admit in that sentqance you are breaking the phrase into seperate words and using one definition of that word without the whole phrase. We are not talking about the definition of to lie, we are talking about the whole phrase. To lie with the enemy. You CANNOT split phrases into its seperate components, use the definition of each word and dictate that that is what the phrase means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

Yes. I know this. Convincing you that I know what I'm talking about might be a picture of rice cake, though.

---

I know the feeling. As you avoid every argument outside of your own conceived notion, with evidence that you also ignore proving you cannot break phrases down into single word definitions and arrive at the meaning behind the phrase, which is why I gave you examples of other phrases to hold context to my argument. Something you have failed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viridiana

The power to declare war lies with Congress.
The fault in this matter lies with him.

---

Those are NOT phrases thus hold no meaning in this discussion.

Definition of Phrase that applies to this:
a characteristic, current, or proverbial expression:

Heres another example.
To let the cat out of the bag. It's used in a context that there is not bag and that there is no cat. But using your argument to define the phrase it would mean there IS a cat and a bag.

With the "darker" tone Heavensward will have. Perhaps we'll have a quest dealing with the mysterious disappearances of some Auri refugees/ adventurers in Ishgard?

Only to find out some country folk and clergy kidnapped and killed some of them via the "Witches Drop" trial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphic

Yert you admit in that sentqance you are breaking the phrase into seperate words and using one definition of that word without the whole phrase. We are not talking about the definition of to lie, we are talking about the whole phrase. To lie with the enemy. You CANNOT split phrases into its seperate components, use the definition of each word and dictate that that is what the phrase means.

---

You keep using the word phrase when you clearly mean idiom. You can't even use the word you actually mean, and you want to give me a lesson in English? Here, let me make it easy for you:

"Lie" is an individual word. As an individual word, it means "to recline." I'm not using this definition.
"Lie with" is a phrase. As a phrase, it carries an archaic meaning of "to have sex with." I am using this definition.
"Lie with the enemy" is a phrase. It's not, however, an idiom.
"Idiom" is an individual word. As a word, it means "a fixed phrase whose meaning cannot be derived from the individual words comprising the phrase."
"Sleep with the enemy" is an idiom. As an idiom, it means "to ally with the enemy."
"Lie with a dragon" again, is not an idiom. Therefore, it does not have the idiomatic meaning of "to ally with the enemy."

The thing about idioms is, you can't just go changing words at random and expect the meaning to stay the same. "Pulling my leg" and "yanking my chain" are idioms for the same thing, but "pulling my hair" is not. To make "lie with a dragon" into an idiom meaning "ally with the enemy," you have to make all of the following steps:

1) Lie with -> Have sex with
2) Have sex with -> Sleep with
3) dragon -> the enemy
4) Sleep with the enemy -> Ally with the enemy

You can't just take a phrase and assert that it's an idiom. Especially when that interpretation is not at all supported by the context. You're completely ignoring the further context, where Minfilia goes on to say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Minfilia

How such a thing could even be possible is quite another question.

---

You don't get people asking how it's possible to ally with the enemy. You get people asking how it's possible for a normal Elezen woman to have sex with a huge dragon.

In short, you're ignoring English and ignoring the game in order to for some reason claim that the game is not saying she had sex with a dragon. Why are you so determined for this to not be the case?