Tales from the Dawn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Okay, but again: Vibe-based mass murder. This is the story asking us to accept the Hydaelyn faction (assuming she did tell them what the Sundering was going to do) was okay with identity-deathing everyone on the planet and condemning the lives which would follow to millenia of hardship over what was essentially a cultural problem that is not explicitly defined as harming anyone. This makes them come across as bonkers ideologues, not heroes.

---

Listen, Lurina, if my personal belief in a hypothetical about human behavior that hasn't come to pass yet, but I think probably will, isn't enough to warrant the unilateral eradication of an entire race of people, then what is, huh?

Quote:

---

"What we anticipate and what comes to pass need not be the same," she had once said. "'Tis best we work towards the greatest good without foreknowledge which might cloud our judgment."

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqiUrjpBbI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I think an important thing to take into account, and something that really adds a lot of context to the Ancients is that the big thing Venat became known for discovering is that the Ancients are the same as everything else.

---

An interesting conclusion. To begin, I'd sure like to know what irrefutable, indisputable argument of Truth Venat had written in that thesis. Considering that in order to argue the universe's natural laws made life inevitable, she would need to know about things like the existence and effects of Dynamis, the nature of how stars are formed, the "greater flow" of the universal Lifestream, the inner workings of their own star's Lifestream and how souls are created, and much more besides. She would also need to explain the seeming absence of other lifeforms in the universe, as up to Elpis the Ancients had only theorized the existence of alien life. So that must be quite the paper.

But more to the point, what you and the Watcher seem to be getting at is the fact that everything in existence is made up of the same building blocks. So somehow, this means that everything is equivalent, and the Ancients were wrong for (if the translation is correct, which maybe it isn't?) trying to exchange future souls for the souls of their fellows. The problem is, this is a two-way street. If the Ancients aren't more important than anything else, then nothing else is more important than the Ancients either. If so, then what is the problem for sacrificing potential future souls for the souls that already existed trapped in Zodiark? If they're supposed to be equivalent, then why is greater value placed on the future souls than those in the present?

Here's a wildly controversial and white-hot take - If you believe that Venat's argument is right and that the potentiality of future life supersedes the survival of existing life, you must also believe that preventing abortion, even in the case where the mother's life would be forfeit if it wasn't done, is morally correct. Now maybe that's wrong or maybe that's right, but either way that's an argument and line of thinking that practically nobody, regardless of their stance, is willing to seriously consider. So at the very least I'd like people to actually think more deeply about the values that they're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Like, the story, regardless of the fact that it doesn't try to say anyone is objectively right, obviously does want you to sympathize with Venat's faction based on the tone. But the writers refusing to elaborate on circumstances which formed the moral basis for their decision to destroy the original world makes it hard to do so. All they're presented is an abstracted ideology of not living in the past, and a sort of militantly applied vegan viewpoint that you spell out here.

---

So, here's the thing about this: there is, in this game, literally no such thing as an impartial arbiter on this subject. Or, honestly, on anything this game has ever brought up. The writers are abundantly aware of this, and honestly, it's probably why Emet-Selch was given so much screentime in Shadowbringers; there's not a whole lot of other people who were going to speak on Zodiark's behalf that aren't... you know, completely insane. So he's given a lot more room to say his case, and a lot more credibility in what he's saying, than I honestly still think the Scions would've given him if written more consistently; because otherwise, Zodiark's side is never said.

However, remember that with the exception of one single zone, the entire game is populated by, broadly, people that benefited from Hydaelyn's choices and are, in various forms, proof positive of her beliefs that, while life may have suffering, life on the whole is pretty worthwhile and that lives should not be considered lesser by arbitrary distinction. Remember, as we learned, that the playable races are indistinguishable from the lesser creatures; we are living in a world populated by the people Hydaelyn performed the Sundering for.

It's not that the story wants you to sympathize with Venat. It's that the entire planet around you for most of the game has benefited from her, and so they are naturally pro-Hydaelyn in much the same way that, say, Jews are broadly pro-Yahweh; sure, he's not perfect, but on the whole they're pretty glad he went to bat for 'em.

And I wouldn't say the angle I gather from this is 'militantly vegan'; I certainly know vegetarians and vegans who feel that way, but Venat appeared to put forward something more on the base sceintific angle: 'we're not special, we're made of the same meats, aether and feelings as everyone else'. That doesn't require a complete 100% perfect knowledge of all scientific concepts at play, that basically just means she's made scientific connections that we, as modern humans, can also recognize as true. You know that there's not some fundamental difference in matter and composition between you and a dog; I assume that doesn't change a whole lot of your outlook, but 'we're not special' is a big thing for plenty of others, and Venat is someone who took that seriously and fairly strongly.

I'm not turbo-staunchly pro-Hydaelyn, but I do broadly think she made the right choices even if it wasn't an easy or unarguable one. I think some people want the game to come out and say that one of the sides involved was objectively right, just so it stops being complicated, and those people are always going to be disappointed in any further content about it, because the game just isn't going to do that. The closest we'll get is that we're in a world made by Hydaelyn's choice, and whether or not that choice was good or bad at the time, everyone around us generally benefitted from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Here's a wildly controversial and white-hot take - If you believe that Venat's argument is right and that the potentiality of future life supersedes the survival of existing life, you must also believe that preventing abortion, even in the case where the mother's life would be forfeit if it wasn't done, is morally correct. Now maybe that's wrong or maybe that's right, but either way that's an argument and line of thinking that practically nobody, regardless of their stance, is willing to seriously consider. So at the very least I'd like people to actually think more deeply about the values that they're talking about.

---

With all due respect, I’m going to say we should drop this direction for the topic right now. It is unhelpful and given the current real life connections it does nothing but raise the conversations temperature. Lets not do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

It's not that the story wants you to sympathize with Venat. It's that the entire planet around you for most of the game has benefited from her, and so they are naturally pro-Hydaelyn in much the same way that, say, Jews are broadly pro-Yahweh; sure, he's not perfect, but on the whole they're pretty glad he went to bat for 'em.

---

I'm not really understanding the angle you're going for in implying that because the Sundered 'benefitted' from her choices, it would be weird or out of turn to take issue with what she's done. People are more than capable of recognizing that awful deeds from the past served to put them where they are now. Acknowledging that this person is responsible for creating the 'you' that exists now, arguably gives more of a reason to take issue with her, as her methods resulted in an unbelievably lower average quality of life for everything. Handwaving her actions by comparing her to a religious god who just 'giveth and taketh away' does nothing because WE, both the playerbase and central characters, know that she was not a god, she was just another person. That is a fact that is used to great effect when we're to feel bad for her, of course, and conveniently ignored when her decisions are questioned. We are absolutely meant to sympathize with Venat, they're just not doing a good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpectrePhantasia

Handwaving her actions by comparing her to a religious god who just 'giveth and taketh away' does nothing because WE, both the playerbase and central characters, know that she was not a god, she was just another person.

---

I'm comparing her to a religious god because no other scale is particularly functional as a comparison. I actually went through some others; comparing her to the sun doesn't work because the sun doesn't have agency, and comparing her to a politician who shaped a nation doesn't work because people in-story definitely don't look at her the same way people look at, say, Lincoln. Technically speaking the closest example would've been to go for a Greek god like Zeus, because those myths were very formed by the notion of gods being temperamental and human, but we don't really have reliable and close-at-hand knowledge of how regular-ass ancient Greeks considered them. I finally landed on Judaism specifically because a level of adversity towards their god is actually a fairly commonplace part of their belief system; rather than how Christianity broadly does go 'god giveth and god taketh', Judaism actually does believe that their god is a complex figure that, while he may broadly be on their side, doesn't mean he's perfect or that they shouldn't take umbrage with him sometimes.

The thing about saying 'her methods resulted in a lower average quality of life' isn't broadly true, though, because the main people who were put out of place by it were the Ancients. You might go and say 'but those are people so all people were hurt', but we have a funny piece of evidence there: not every spoken person in the sundered world would have been an Ancient, because that's what the Echo is a mark of. Someone like the WoL might have very specifically lived better, but most people don't have that despite having the chance to awaken it; none of the 'A-tier Scions' would have been, Nidhana wouldn't have been, Raubahn wouldn't have been, Aymeric wouldn't have been... I don't know who your favorite characters are, but unless you very specifically only like Emet, Hyth, Ysayle, Krile and Arenvald, very few of your favorite characters would have actually had that guarantee that life would've been better without her. In fact, the argument is pretty clear that most of those lives wouldn't have existed at all without her, especially given the specter of Zodiark's sacrifices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I'm comparing her to a religious god because no other scale is particularly functional as a comparison.

---

Okay, you've made your case for there being lacking human comparisons, but forgive me for saying I'm failing to even see the purpose of this? Does marking her with some human title do anything to alleviate or put in better perspective what she's done? She is a person, as any other in their society, who grew in physical power due to the nature of their fictional world, of course there isn't a human basis for comparison, that isn't really a thing in our world on an individual level. That being the case, her rise to power certainly does not deify her to the extent that she is exempt from consequence, and even if she were a god in full, Final Fantasy is no stranger to, as you say with Greek gods, having deities with no better judgement than humanity. These classifications accomplish decidedly little in the way of making a framework to judge her on.

I also believe you're misunderstanding what people having the Echo means in the Sundered world. It is not just some inborne trait that select people have, that marks them as an Ancient in their previous life, and I don't believe that was ever used as an indicator of such. Do you not recall when Elidibus just casually gave the entire single-shard Crystarium the Echo by showing them a glimpse of a Starshower, prompting him to only then explain that this was a power within them all along? The people who have the Echo in the Source, have it as a result of Hydaelyn doing the exact same thing that he did, that is why they are so often called 'Her chosen,' and the like. The Ancient lives who make up the now-Sundered count for far FAR more than you posit. Just because Hydaelyn or the Ascians haven't awakened their old power, it doesn't mean they don't have the potential.

Hydaelyn also didn't just Sunder the Ancients, she sundered everything. The animals, the 'lesser lives' in whatever vague form that takes; everything. In addition, she, rather painfully from the looks of it, reduced everything to bumbling masses that couldn't speak, sent back to the Stone Age. This is all to say nothing of the fact that the actual societies that formed as a result of this act are more susceptible to the elements and disease than ever before, alongside that, from what we've seen of the Ancient World and Emet's account (which is the crux of his argument,) they are also prone to much larger and more frequent bouts of violence and death for baser reasons. To call this a lower average quality of life is not only more than fair, it should be obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

not every spoken person in the sundered world would have been an Ancient, because that's what the Echo is a mark of. Someone like the WoL might have very specifically lived better, but most people don't have that despite having the chance to awaken it; none of the 'A-tier Scions' would have been

---

Alisaie: "The starshower didn't awaken me to Hydaelyn's voice. But that vision of the Final Days, of Amaurot burning... It filled me with sadness to the very pit of my being. Things I once knew, people I once loved, promises I once made... It felt as though long-forgotten memories were dancing at the edges of my mind. But when I try to focus on them, they simply fade away. An effect of having a fractured soul, I shouldn't doubt."

Many people who don't have the Echo are still sundered Ancients, this was made clear in the ShB patches after Elidibus started conjuring star showers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I'm comparing her to a religious god because no other scale is particularly functional as a comparison.

---

She's literally just Ozymandias from Watchmen, but please, do go on prostrating yourself before her.

The biggest change to life that Hydaelyn wrought was splitting the Lifestream. Each shard has its own, as evidenced by her having to go retrieve Emet-selch and Minfilia (which she actually cut Minfilia out of Ryne, but ya know, whatever). This fundamentally changed life, because while the planet still imparts souls into the living, the cycle was sped up tremendously and in addition to that, each Shard and The Source have less aether to forge into souls.

So it's true yeah, obvious even without that observation that no modern characters would exist without that act. But it's also true that without Zodiark, everyone would have drowned in Dynamis.

The rub lies in that other lives would have come to exist. The potential for all non-3rd sacrificial beings to bear offspring, to thrive, to live, know, and die was cut off. You're essentially trying to claim that every innocent in the age of the Ancients has no value, as well as every potential Ancient. The appeal to emotion that we do not know them does not work when set against morality.

It's important to note that nothing from the Sundering directly improved mankind's ability to live. Its only benefit was rendering the possibility that mankind would be able to interact with Dynamis. With complete foreknowledge that it wouldn't kill them and they would grow into the Sundered, it was done.

Seeing no other solid rationale, and knowing that the 3rd Sacrifice schtick was a lie for her followers, all we can say for sure is that Venat chose the WoL's people over her own. It means she made no meaningful connections, saw no one as equals, and really possessed zero love for mankind. And that's zero love in all senses of the word love.

No Eros. No Philia. No Storge. And absolutely no Agape.

There was no faith in her "decision." There was only prophetic fulfillment. And it derives from her selfish, conceited motivation to obey the love letter from her future self (the WoL). The letter that informs her, not only will she become a goddess to the Sundered, but she will also be able to cast down her own people's god and civilization.

It turns out she has the same personality flaw as Zenos. An all encompassing superiority complex. Although, it is expressed in a different way, they are the same.

Monsters by another name.

I didn't see it as the Watcher being in love with Venat. But more of someone who enjoys the things they do. Similar to how one could not be in love with Stradivarius the man but still love his craftsmanship when it came to his Violin making. I liked the story. It doesn't give us a whole lot that we here didn't already know. Except I'd say that it seems like she wasn't going to heavily lean on what we told her as the only thing when making the decision to sunder. If the "What we anticipate and what comes to pass need not be the same," she had once said. "'Tis best we work towards the greatest good without foreknowledge which might cloud our judgment." is to be taken into account. At least that's how it came across to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I think an important thing to take into account, and something that really adds a lot of context to the Ancients is that the big thing Venat became known for discovering is that the Ancients are the same as everything else. This makes the whole Zodiark/Hydaelyn conflict make a lot more sense, because it defines how each side is seeing it all; the notion that the Ancients aren't somehow different is clearly new, at least on an Ancient scale.

---

Which we don't as humans, generally speaking. The sundered, likewise, don't. The fact that all life shares the same building blocks does not thereby mean all life is equal, and the more sophisticated a certain organism is, the more distance there is going to be between it and less sophisticated organisms. We hold to this even with creatures as proximate to us as chimps - how great is the difference between, say, an elder dragon, or an ancient, and such a being?

Quote:

---

But she is the one in the right if you're someone who believes in the right of all lives to live.

---

Are you trying to claim that her motivation was some notion of the "right" of all lives to live? You keep trying to insinuate this argument into her faction's motives, but that doesn't seem to be the point being extracted from her "epiphany"; rather, it is the inevitability of the "miracle" of life. Not an assertion that all life is thereby equal (which is patently false) and thus that it all is endowed with some "right" to live. A principle no species in the setting adheres to, least of all the sundered - but the same goes for the likes of the dragons. That is more closely aligned to Hermes's reasoning, which she discards in favour of setting her own 'test', as he himself continues to condemn both ancients and sundered for their perceived "sins". If anything, she appears to have concealed her knowledge of the future (probably also of the fact that she would be doing more than just "shackling" Zodiark) and convinced her faction that Zodiark could be anathema to the further growth of mankind, which she pitched as necessary to avoid their plight repeating. That is the basis on which the sacrifices are opposed whenever we hear from the mouth of her own faction. What we are witnessing here is a faction of ideologues forcing upon their own people a "growth" that ultimately led to their genocide. She appears to fetishise existence for its own sake, whatever the form accomplishes that goal.

The story is verging very closely on trying to make an argument from authority when it comes to Venat and her decision, as it repeatedly tries to remind of us her brilliance and "unique" perspective. Sorry, I am not buying it.

Quote:

---

Of course, this forum's never been great at grasping this part of the story.

---

Oh then do enlighten us, great sage Cleretic. Please correct those of us who are "bad at morals" with the knowledge you were bestowed upon your personal Mt Sinai.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

With all due respect, I’m going to say we should drop this direction for the topic right now. It is unhelpful and given the current real life connections it does nothing but raise the conversations temperature. Lets not do this.

---

Why? Cleretic wanted us to "chew the fat" on the type of moral arguments implied here. This is one such associated argument. Why is it off limits? You and others here routinely go directly to very controversial lines of argumentation, and yet when it touches a little too closely to your personal beliefs, it's off limits? His line of inquiry is valid and fitting.

The central conceit of the Ancients is that they were special. They were not.

As we know from the way XIV's metaphysics work, souls are a gift from the planet to creatures born in accordance with its natural law. It doesn't matter what form that life takes, and all souls are the same structurally. Souls are given to living things, live their lives as a given incarnation, and then return to the planet to be either reborn or broken down and melded with other aether to create new souls.

What that means is, cultivating life to feed souls to Zodiark for the Ancients' is the perversion of a gift even the Ancients did not command. Nobody knows what the souls they were going to feed Zodiark had been previously and it's very likely they were previously incarnated as Ancients themselves, in whole or in part. Just as the Ancients that sacrificed themselves to create and empower Zodiark didn't die, the same would be true of the things sacrificed to liberate those Ancients' souls - you'd just be condemning souls of equal value to the same unenviable fate. The only difference is the subjective value placed on those souls.

It's hubris to the extreme, the belief that they are worthy of the gift of life above all others and that the planet exists to serve their desires.

Not that this is going to really convince anyone of anything...

Burgers come from living beings too, i.e. creatures with souls. Someone better alert the authorities. BTW I'd like a source on your comment that all souls are the same structurally.

Quote:

---

Not that this is going to really convince anyone of anything...

---

Quite so, it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Burgers come from living beings too, i.e. creatures with souls. Someone better alert the authorities. BTW I'd like a source on your comment that all souls are the same structurally.



Quite so, it's not.

---

You gonna... you gonna be constructive, or just take sarcastic shots at people? Friend? Coz if it's the latter I don't see why you're here.

Big difference between killing for nourishment and killing for necromancy.

The fact all things can be talked to through the Echo (be it our own, or Krile's own more beast specific ability) at least implies all souls are the same at their core. Whether it's incarnated as a dog, a person, or a behemoth, a soul is a soul. Leaving out the Sundering (which obviously influences aetheric density) Ancients' souls, or the souls of sentient / sapient things, are special because... why, exactly?

The simple fact that this forum is host to posters from all over the world from many different countries, cultures and belief systems is proof enough that Venat cannot be 'right'.

If the Scions are opposed to something happening to their loved ones then there's no acceptable reason for anybody else to bend over and allow for it to happen to them. I don't see that as an unreasonable point of view.

The feigned concern over the idea that all beings are equal strikes me as rather strange, too. I'm pretty confident suggesting that most reasonable people would prioritise their loved ones over a bunch of chickens. To say nothing of the fact that many of us posting here likely consume meat and use products made from animal parts.

I suppose this is another good opportunity to point out that whatever belief systems some here subscribe to are by no means universal.

Then, of course, there's the simple fact that it isn't reasonable for people to be fine with their loved ones being stuck inside Zodiark for thousands of years or even all of eternity. Especially not when a viable method existed to draw them out and they were only inside Zodiark in the first place due to Venat standing by idly and allowing the Final Days to happen. Somehow I doubt someone allowing Limsa Lominsa to be destroyed would be viewed by the game's protagonists as a 'herois' regardless of their reasons for letting a bunch of innocent men, women and children perish horribly.

I think if someone stands by and allows a disaster to happen purposefully then they have no business criticising the methods used to return to normality. Let alone inflicting genocide upon the traumatised survivors so they can masquerade as a goddess.

Really, with how insistent certain posters were over the years around these parts that there was never an acceptable reason for genocide I'm surprised that they're suddenly fine with the idea just because it isn't directed at the game's protagonists.

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm sure is probably correct but I think what Eara objects to being discussed is that of abortion. Which is a VERY touchy subject and should probably not be talked about here. A forum about a game let alone this section or this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SannaR

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm sure is probably correct but I think what Eara objects to being discussed is that of abortion. Which is a VERY touchy subject and should probably not be talked about here. A forum about a game let alone this section or this thread.

---

Even controversial subjects can be discussed in a civil manner and if someone feels that they cannot discuss a particular subject without getting heated then it's probably best that they don't partake of the discussion.

That aside, many of us aren't even American but I've seen no such hesitation to bring up heavy issues that happen to involve Europeans.

So long as people recognise that this is a forum devoted to a video game story and not a platform to preach about their real world beliefs then it should be fine, I think.

The story gives some welcome insight into what a public servant who isn't part of the Convocation thinks about, well, the Convocation. Not a personal close friend of one (as Hythlodaeus was), but rather an unnamed and "regular" archivist. Someone of some competence and skill, given he was promoted to chief archivist, but not a famous person.

Tangentially, I had read the Sherlock Holmes short stories pastiche collection "Observations By Gaslight" recently, and the archivist reminds me of the chapter about Arthur Lomax, the sublibrarian who was mentioned in like a single line in the original stories, but fleshed out quite well in that short story. The archivist here seems to fit into the same personality as Lomax, in that he's quietly intelligent (ie notices things, but doesn't bother mentioning it unless necessary, even in the narrative), happiest when surrounded by a vast range of information, and willing to go very far when it comes to what he believes in.

There's also confirmation that the Convocation is not exactly democratically elected. The successors of the Convocation members are chosen by the current seat-holders, and approval of their appointment seems to be mostly a formality. We saw this in the aftermath of Elpis, where Emet-Selch claimed he was there to investigate how Hermes ran Elpis, but got the memories of that investigation completely wiped out, returned to Amaurot with as little information as he arrived with, and Hermes became Fandaniel anyway. Similarly, Venat chose "us" as Azem, and the seat of Azem continued to give headaches to the rest of the Convocation, up to and including being condemned as a traitor during the Final Days. Thus the implication is each seat of the Convocation chooses the person they, personally, think is suited, and the rest of the Convocation cannot argue against this save for particularly grievous offenses.

Something I might be reading too much into is that between this story and the dialogue in-game of Endwalker and Pandemonium, there is the impression that the Ancients don't appear to have a lot of experience with strong emotions. They're almost like Star Trek Vulcans: they try to maintain and present a rational, logical front that focuses on careful reasoning and calm discussion, but when they start feeling emotions too strong to be reasoned away, they go all the way to the point of obsession and excess. Elpis-era Lahabrea even tried to rip out that emotional part of himself to maintain his rational side, which seems like overkill for a situation that would probably be solvable through talking it out and perhaps therapy (whether professional or just confiding in others). The archivist here feels fierce loyalty and common mindset to Venat, and appears to be unfamiliar with this feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Quite so, it's not.

---

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

It's not that the story wants you to sympathize with Venat. It's that the entire planet around you for most of the game has benefited from her, and so they are naturally pro-Hydaelyn in much the same way that, say, Jews are broadly pro-Yahweh; sure, he's not perfect, but on the whole they're pretty glad he went to bat for 'em.

---

You're not wrong about why the present-day population would be sympathetic to Hydaelyn, but I'm not talking about the story encouraging you to take her side. You've misunderstood what I meant by "sympathetic". I don't mean the story wants you to agree with the Hydaelyn faction, I mean that it wants you to have sympathy for their position - to understand where they're coming from on an intellectual and emotional level. You are meant to see them as having a good point that, depending on your perspective, potentially justifies their actions.

But I'm saying that a vague gesturing towards the ideas of "all life deserves a chance" and "we can't get stuck in the past" does not do this. The Sundering is presented as an effectively genocidal act; it order to feel even remotely reasonable as a solution, it needs to have some kind of concrete basis showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no alternative, otherwise the people behind it come across as having lizard morality and are therefore impossible to sympathize with.

Like, because of her foreknowledge, Venat's actions can make sense to at least a degree, even if the whole scenario is kind of flippant anime writing. But reading this story, if we discount my stupid joke about him just being horny, it is impossible for me to understand what recognizable human thought could be going through the Watcher's mind in supporting her actions. "Hmmm, it really does vibe like the general culture of the planet is going to be more flippant about sacrificing non-human life going forward and is becoming obsessed with capturing a romanticized past, I guess we better destroy civilization"? It's not human. Like, can you ever in a million years imagine that train of thought being reasonable when applied to our own world by anyone who isn't completely insane?

You're always talking about how the Ascians were genocidal monsters, but at least ("at least") their genocides were working towards a materially definable goal. As far as we've been informed, this is genocide for pure ideology. It makes them look like utter monsters, even though we're obviously not meant to see them that way.

I don't want this! It makes the story dumber! This is why people in these discussions who liked the story always infer some concrete basis for the Sundering in the immediate sense to resolve this moral dissonance. But the writers keep slamming those doors shut with every addition to the story. Maybe the Sundering wasn't actually that bad? Nope, they were identity-deathed so hard they lost the ability to speak. Maybe Venat told them the whole story? Nah, she didn't. Maybe the sacrifices were sentient, or would kill the planet, or the Ancients were otherwise in some explicit way creating a society based on eternal mass-murder? <silence>

Sorry for repeating myself, but I just don't understand what they're thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

It's hubris to the extreme, the belief that they are worthy of the gift of life above all others and that the planet exists to serve their desires.

---

The problem isn't that the Ancients weren't doing something misguided, it's the scope of the punishment. Modern society is constantly doing awful and hypocritical things that should be held to account. But only a crazy person who advocate for it being burned to the ground with everyone in it.

Quote:

---

Something I might be reading too much into is that between this story and the dialogue in-game of Endwalker and Pandemonium, there is the impression that the Ancients don't appear to have a lot of experience with strong emotions. They're almost like Star Trek Vulcans: they try to maintain and present a rational, logical front that focuses on careful reasoning and calm discussion, but when they start feeling emotions too strong to be reasoned away, they go all the way to the point of obsession and excess. Elpis-era Lahabrea even tried to rip out that emotional part of himself to maintain his rational side, which seems like overkill for a situation that would probably be solvable through talking it out and perhaps therapy (whether professional or just confiding in others). The archivist here feels fierce loyalty and common mindset to Venat, and appears to be unfamiliar with this feeling.

---

i think i said this elsewhere but this extreme restraint on individuality and the bonds they form despite this made me care a lot for the ancients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

As we know from the way XIV's metaphysics work, souls are a gift from the planet to creatures born in accordance with its natural law. It doesn't matter what form that life takes, and all souls are the same structurally. Souls are given to living things, live their lives as a given incarnation, and then return to the planet to be either reborn or broken down and melded with other aether to create new souls.]

---

Indeed, they are. However, there's the small matter of age and seniority. Is it not the prerogative of those who come first to do with life as they wish? There's no way to know just how old the oldest souls on Etheirys are. At least for those of us not possessing soul sight. If the souls were new, then they didn't know multiple lives as beast or man. Of course, it's fair to wonder how that might affect Zodiark's demeanor, unless he was never intended to give up Elidibus as his heart.

It seems to me that the Ancients respected the planet's natural law as much as possible, but in this instance of crisis they decided to exert their will over it. It appears bad from one point of view, but it's really not anymore of a perversion than Venat choosing not to die. In spite of Hyth saying that the ancients were mortal, it seems to me that with just a little initiative, they could functionally live forever. Generally by consuming others, body and/or soul.

Anyway, what seems to be conveniently forgotten is that the reason they wished to return the world to "paradise" was that their society had progressed beyond War, Famine, Disease, and even bereavement. It was the wish to deny all of the close calls and possible Armageddon of the past, before their peaceful society dominated the planet. I.E. Other Dead Ends. The fear that new life wouldn't be peaceful / do right.

Keep in mind that Hermes' sadness came from the fact that he didn't want to respect natural law as he didn't think his mentor should die. Even after an extremely long, fulfilling life. Even by choice. Then we view the fact that while sticklers disdained Venat's decision to not die, many others were all the more happy to continue suckling at her teat. It seems to me they were just like anyone else.

Live and let live, until push comes to shove, and it becomes, "You or me." "Them or us."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

---

It's a video game at the end of the day. He certainly isn't obligated to go along with the very selective takes deployed by some here. I believe he has stated many times that he is happy to agree to disagree only for certain posters to refuse to accept that and still try to force others to agree with their very specific interpretation of Venat.

Different people also have different preferences when it comes to the fictional characters in a make believe setting. Not everyone here is going to champion the 'mOmMy GoDdEsS' at every possible turn to the point of excusing genocide of all things. Certainly, if some of you wish to do just that then go ahead - just please don't expect or demand that everybody else does the very same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

---

It's amusing that you'd bring that up. I could of course point to comments made by a certain poster here about some of us as to why I don't really take their protestations about bad faith argumentation all too seriously, but frankly, it's hardly worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

Big difference between killing for nourishment and killing for necromancy.

---

Both put the life form to a purely instrumental use. And it's not the sole example that could be offered here, but it is a rather big one if you're going to argue there is nothing special about some life forms over others because of assumptions about how souls work in the setting. Like, why would it be okay to murder an animal but not a human in the setting? After all, there is nothing special about one over the other. So-called necromancy is but an instance of an instrumental use - perhaps an 'extreme' depending on what it'd involve (albeit the extremity of it is coupled with the equally extreme circumstances the ancients found themselves in) - but that alone won't suffice to contain this problem once you grant the premise (which ties into the problem Veloran set out...)

Quote:

---

The fact all things can be talked to through the Echo (be it our own, or Krile's own more beast specific ability) at least implies all souls are the same at their core. Whether it's incarnated as a dog, a person, or a behemoth, a soul is a soul. Leaving out the Sundering (which obviously influences aetheric density) Ancients' souls, or the souls of sentient / sapient things, are special because... why, exactly?

---

Seems like quite the leap to argue from the fact that they share structural similarities to the fact that the star will stick any soul into any being, i.e. it would put an ancient soul into the form of a dog, or a behemoth and the like, especially when their creations are more susceptible to the effects of dynamis from the outset, whether it be because their corporeal or soul aether (or both) is thinner; aether is closely tied to life and its vibrancy in this setting (a point repeated in the recent MSQ), even with the existence of dynamis as an energy that predominates in other regions of space. Equally a leap to argue from that, that the souls in question had the same potentialities. Vyrerus raises another interesting point about the soul age potentially being a(n) (additional) relevant differentiator, which is possibly the case as well - there is lore which supports the idea, including the fact that the souls to be used were "newly minted". Perhaps the post-Sundering star doesn't differentiate too much when it comes to the souls of sundered ancients as to what corporeal form it'll stick them into (and even then it is exceptional/rare that the WoL would be able to commune with such a being via the Echo) - we don't know, and yet you're trying to argue this from a position of certainty, when there is little.

Though we keep coming back to this point as if it's central to why Venat did what she did - when it's not. She isn't Hermes and she's not ending them because she objected to the act in question on the sole basis that it involved sacrifice of life. She is doing so because she considered it 'necessary' for survival against Meteion and for their civilisation not to reach a point where she believed it'd self-terminate, i.e. she's opposed to the consequences that she believed the sacrifices would result in. That's it. Even setting aside all the discussion about the nature of souls (and how many question marks remain there), if we're going to argue that presuming themselves as "special" is a conceit worthy of genocide, then the sundered are scarcely exempt from that much, especially seeing how they were willing to risk the erasure of an entire timeline to ensure their persistence even if in another timeline, or that they defend their right to stand against Emet-Selch on the basis of these being 'our worlds'. Nevermind what we could say it'd imply about our own species. Of course a species will prioritise its own well-being, and even do so at the expense of beings it is habituated in using instrumentally. If Venat ever happened upon any notion that all souls are the same, she never seems to have shared it with her people, much like she never shared the knowledge that could've avoided this whole unpleasant situation from the outset...

The idea that supposed "hubris" (or alternative formulations: that they lacked the "right" emotional states/responses when compared to humans etc.) warrants a comeuppance in the form of a genocide/erasure of a civilisation isn't convincing to me, no. Especially when we're meant to take it that the flaws of the sundered, such as they are, do not suffice as a good reason to deny them their asserted right to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Keep in mind that Hermes' sadness came from the fact that he didn't want to respect natural law as he didn't think his mentor should die. Even after an extremely long, fulfilling life. Even by choice. Then we view the fact that while sticklers disdained Venat's decision to not die, many others were all the more happy to continue suckling at her teat. It seems to me they were just like anyone else.

---

Also a good point. The very notion of death appears to be at the core of what bothered him and against what he rebelled, as he could not grasp how the notion of purpose could with stand scrutiny against it. It's not like the lykaones were timid little sheep (quite the opposite), and we can guess/surmise that the star itself had in motion a "cycle of life" with predator and prey, a natural order which the ancients saw as their duty to enrich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

It's amusing that you'd bring that up. I could of course point to comments made by a certain poster here about some of us as to why I don't really take their protestations about bad faith argumentation all too seriously, but frankly, it's hardly worth it.

---

In your words:

Quote:

---

/shrug

10c

---

Feign indifference all you like though that just makes it all the stranger to even bring it up in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

In your words:

---

Been waiting a few months for that? Poor thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I really wish people on this forum would actually talk directly to the people they disagree with instead of passive-aggressively vagueposting, and I wish you specifically would stop doing this kind of thing, Cleretic. Just because someone doesn't think a part of the story came together well doesn't mean they don't get it..

---

The problem is that the people who bark can't handle a bite. As SOON as you are openly critical, they will absolutely report you. So one has to be passive aggressive and indirect because apparently that's how they do things in Japan and that's what the rules are centered around. If I said, "People who like X minion have poor taste" that's fine. But if I said, "You, sir or madam who has this minion, has poor taste" that's an instant ban.

@Yiankutku that is also how I've read how the Ancients to be when it comes to strong emotions. They don't deal with them. If they do they seem to deal with them in an unhealthy fashion. I have thought this ever since meeting Hermes. I feel that part of the reason they do such is because of the sociality pressures on everyone to be the same. To not stand out as standing out in the wrong ways could be seen as bad. As a way to show some form of individualism. The Ancients remind me of the governments in a Clockwork Orange or in how everyone acts towards individuality in the game We happy few. Where even the slightest deviation from what is perceived as what is normal or socially acceptable gets treated with a lot of contempt and in need of fixing. It's why at least what I think is why Lahabreha warns Elidibus not to spend too much time around or get too close to Azem. As our past self, Venat and probably all other Azems are the ones that allowed to be different to an extent. And that different-ness is what makes them so "corruptible" of others.

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

---

i hope so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

---

That would be for the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SannaR

@Yiankutku that is also how I've read how the Ancients to be when it comes to strong emotions. They don't deal with them. If they do they seem to deal with them in an unhealthy fashion. I have thought this ever since meeting Hermes. I feel that part of the reason they do such is because of the sociality pressures on everyone to be the same. To not stand out as standing out in the wrong ways could be seen as bad. As a way to show some form of individualism. The Ancients remind me of the governments in a Clockwork Orange or in how everyone acts towards individuality in the game We happy few. Where even the slightest deviation from what is perceived as what is normal or socially acceptable gets treated with a lot of contempt and in need of fixing. It's why at least what I think is why Lahabreha warns Elidibus not to spend too much time around or get too close to Azem. As our past self, Venat and probably all other Azems are the ones that allowed to be different to an extent. And that different-ness is what makes them so "corruptible" of others.

---

Hermes was an interesting case, because while it was clear he was depressed (and acting like a textbook example of mild depression), he didn't know what he was feeling, and could not put it into concrete descriptions. Which is kind of realistic for many cases of RL depression, so I didn't really think much of it at the time.

Also back during the Eden raids, Mitron was being way too clingy to what he believed Loghrif "should be", but again that's a (unfortunately) common thing in RL, so again I didn't think it was especially Ancient-specific.

But Pandemonium made me think further, because how Erichthonios acted, like he was guilty for having emotions about how his father Lahabrea had been treating him. And then there was Hesperos, who went way further with his envy and jealousy than was in any way reasonable. Erichthonios wondered if this was how Hesperos was actually like, and Hesperos confirmed it, but at the time of the Asphodelos raids I thought Hesperos was being influenced to be crazy.

And then the Abyssos raids happened, and Lahabrea literally ripped out his emotions to avoid having to deal with them. And Lahabrea also criticized Erichthonios for being angry at his father, like the anger itself was a weakness. At that point, suddenly I recalled all the previous examples, and while they are not definitive evidence, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

Ancients can be cheerful. They can be inquisitive. They can be playful. They can be irritated. They can be melancholy. But they apparently cannot be too much of any of those emotions, into exuberant joy or obsessive curiosity or chaotic rebellion or furious anger or despairing sorrow, because either they will be censured and criticized by their fellows (as we saw in Amaurot with the Ancient shade who scolds us for our individualized clothing), or they will end up hyperfocusing on that emotion to the point where they cannot return to reason on their own. I strongly suspect these two possible reactions are related; there may be a culture among the Ancients to expect the suppression of strong emotions, because it might be actually dangerous.

Given the Creation Magics of the Ancients, and what happened during the Final Days, and now what we see mentioned in this short story (Venat having to stop an out-of-control creation from a child), this cultural suppression of emotion may be justified, since it's obviously more dangerous than any loss of control that a Star Trek Vulcan might undergo.

The speculation then follows that because the Ancients had been suppressing their stronger emotions for so long, they have lost the institutional and societal knowledge of how to handle those strong emotions. Which led to the Dynamis Final Days, through Hermes not being able to find therapy (or more precisely, had friends around him who recognized what was happening and could then point him towards help), and now the whole mess with Pandemonium.

Even further speculation: this sheer outpouring of emotion was what led to Elidibus being spat back out of Zodiark, since it looked on the surface like another usual disagreement, but in this case strong emotions were being involved, and so the "Emissary" whose role was to resolve disputes could not succeed.

Wild linking speculation: the Ancients had to be careful with their emotions, or they could end up being Ara-Mitama-ed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

---

It's NA, of course there'll be a new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

snips due to posting limitations that are dumb.

---

That makes a lot of sense really. That at one time or another might have known how to deal with said emotions. Yet felt that as a society they needed to repress said emotions due to their ability to use creation magics and how even the smallest things such as a stray thought or feeling could alter anything they created. To the point that over time they forgot how to deal with such strong emotions that some felt the very idea of seeking any kind of help or even dealing with them could in a way get "Big Brother" to crack down on you. Or if you were an Edwardian woman in need of a fainting chair at best. At worst sent to a sanitarium and most likely lobotomized. Or how many a generation of men got told that it's not manly to show certain emotions and that the best thing to do is to shove em down and hope they go away. The wild linking speculation also makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YianKutku

Hermes was an interesting case

---

He knew what he was feeling. He was just so sure that none of his peers felt the same way, due to the Elpis Flowers. As if he'd brought the whole of society to them, to see.

Lahabrea wasn't just ripping out his emotions. He was ripping out Athena's tendrils, too. For it was his love for her that swayed him into attempting the soul merge in the first place, in an effort to redeem his abuser.

It's obvious that emotions are dangerous for the Ancients, but why you use the qualifier, "Actually" for said danger is strange. Emotions to real people and to the Sunder are just as actually dangerous. In the real world, strong emotions lead to crimes of passion, namely murder. In game, in the Sundered world, the same thing goes. It was emotion that lead Ilberd to summon Shinryu. It was emotion that lead Severian to try and resurrect his lover in the Alchemist questline. There are many other examples both negative and positive.

There don't seem to be any institutions in the modern era for dealing with any of that, either.

With great power comes great responsibility.

I want to point out that the Amourat citizens whom all these narratives revolve around, were NOT the only intelligent thinking soul filled being in the world. We have proof of this many many times through the game and greater body of lore. The Convocation, Venat and her group, and all these people whom keep being referred to as "Ancients" were only ONE group that inhabited the planet. They lived in a capital city, and decided unilaterally that they were SUPERIOR to everyone and everything else that existed on that planet, and that THEIR view was the correct one. They were all sympathetic, but ultimately selfish god-like beings who changed the world at their whim.

This is one of the reasons, that the writers used the names of the Greek pantheon for their true names, and that the city is named Amourat in the first place. All the stories about the pre-sundered world are about Hubris.

Hermes hubris that he had the right to test everyone.
Emet-Selch's hubris that he knew everything.
Venat's hubris that she knew what was best for the greater good.
Lahabrea's hubris that he could live without emotions, as well as what was best for Eric.

The only person who has the moral high ground in this society was Azem, our Azem, because they were the only one whom wanted to just help people for the sake of helping people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WellGramarye

I want to point out that the Amourat citizens whom all these narratives revolve around, were NOT the only intelligent thinking soul filled being in the world. We have proof of this many many times through the game and greater body of lore. The Convocation, Venat and her group, and all these people whom keep being referred to as "Ancients" were only ONE group that inhabited the planet.

---

This is wrong. Other civilizations besides Amaurot existed, but they were comprised of the same species. We know this because we learn in The Tempest that they were also experiencing their creation magic going haywire before the phenomenon spread there.

Hell, in Elpis, it's made clear they don't even have a concept of sapient non-creations aside from themselves on multiple occasions with how they treat the player character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WellGramarye

I want to point out [a lot of mostly good points]...

---

While you're broadly right, I should say that it's difficult to figure out how far 'Amaurot' goes. And by 'Amaurot' I mean the civilization that the city was a capital of, for clarification. All evidence does seem to suggest that the species we know of as the 'Ancients'--thirty feet tall, effectively immortal, creation magic--were the dominant species across the planet, because everything seems to suggest that there weren't meaningful differences--and the Ancient's overall self-image of superiority can be evidence of that, because they probably would've spoken of 'lesser people' had those people existed.

It's very hard to tell if the nation of Amaurot was a one-world government, or just the only one we heard about--basically, 'one relevant world government'. We do hear about other, smaller settlements in both the Azem and Venat short stories, as well as the places that already fell to the End of Days as of the Fake Amaurot snapshot, but there's never enough context to tell if they're another civilization entirely or if it's just a fair distance away. In real-world terms (because I think they're extremely useful metaphors to understand and contextualize this stuff, for people who wonder why I do throw those down), if Amaurot is modern Washington DC, we don't know if the volcano island Azem saved was Hawaii or New Zealand.

But what we DO know is that when the End of Days finally hit the city of Amaurot's shores, they decreed 'let's sacrifice half the planet to create a god'. That suggests one of three things:

1. That Amaurot genuinely was the major governing seat of the world,
2. that at that point there wasn't much left so they assumed control over what was, or
3. that there were other governments and societies around, but Amaurot doesn't care about their autonomy.

All three of those suggest the city of Amaurot had VERY big heads, although possibility 2 I could at least swallow if it were put to me in an actual story.

The underlining point of the Amaurot story has always been 'hubris', though, and we really shouldn't forget or neglect that. Amaurot was full of people making understandable human mistakes with dire consequences.

I feel people on both side of these arguments do sometimes forget that we are free to interpret fiction and themes however we wish. Its one of the most fascinating things about storytelling. A game or story will likely lead us in one direction in regards to who or what is more right or wrong, but we are still free to choose how we react to whatever concepts the author has inscribed into their work (I am very much an advocate for the idea that nothing is apolitical, every story takes a stance against its subject matter, no matter how much they may deny it). Someone who may disagree with the characters and actions is not automatically wrong. There have been some fascinating viewpoints that have come about from taking an opposition to Venant… but someone who does like what they did with her should also not be labelled as incapable of critical thinking, a mindless simp or Twelve forbid a genocide supporter.

It seems to be something that is getting a little more common in media critiquing nowadays, narrow viewpoints which damage such debates. You will find people who detest the idea of ‘simping’ or showing any interest in a character who is flawed or not immediately shown to be perfect. A piece of fiction needs to be ether a masterpiece or else it has failed and has no worth. There is no middle ground where something can be bad/not great but still interesting. Anything that dares to speak out on modern day issues is automatically declared worthless because ‘politics should not be in entertainment’ despite the fact that almost every story on Earth, from the first fables of mankind to someones erotic Cid X Nero fanfic, will have been molded by their experiences and views. The list goes on. I suppose its just an aspect of younger voices having more outlets to express their views on, and sure there is an ‘echo chamber’ element to it all but before anyone says different, forums are not the exception to that. I spent most of my Internet years on obscure sci-fi forums like this one, and they can get just as cliche and one-sided as Reddit or anywhere else.

Anyway, what was the point of this? Oh yeah. In the end its a video game story, and we are the very small amount of player who actually seek out an detail such things in detail. So write with passion and express your viewpoints on this story as best you can, but lets just try to be nice to each other and realise that we may not be as benevolent in our viewpoints as we think? That make sense? I dunno. I am gonna go play on my island whilst I try and work out just how that Shoehorn, specifically the one on the First, connects to Emet personally. Who do I contact to try and get a Tales from the Dawn story from its perspective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

It's very hard to tell if the nation of Amaurot was a one-world government, or just the only one we heard about--basically, 'one relevant world government'. We do hear about other, smaller settlements in both the Azem and Venat short stories, as well as the places that already fell to the End of Days as of the Fake Amaurot snapshot, but there's never enough context to tell if they're another civilization entirely or if it's just a fair distance away.

---

It's unambiguous that there were other countries. The whole crux of the Debate and Discourse quest is the Amaurotines worrying about whether they have the right (/obligation) to intervene in the autonomy of another polity - a 'distant metropolis' 'across the pond' which the Final Days have struck first. They specifically draw a distinction between their societies. Go on Garland Tools and check out the text again.

By the way, I replied to your response from earlier, but it was after I'd slept and ended up at the bottom of a page.