Tales from the Dawn #3: "A Question of Life" (Hermes)

To be clear, the way the setting defines living beings is ones which possess souls:

Quote:

---

Through their mastery of creation magicks, men could weave anything into existence. Anything they could imagine, they could bring forth─anything, that is, except a soul. As Hades well knew, souls spontaneously manifested within creatures that were born in accordance with the laws of nature. It was a gift from the star itself, long held to be impossible to recreate. No artificial being, no matter how subtly sculpted in the image of nature, could come to possess a soul. Such creations occupied a separate classification known as arcane entities.

---

Hermes expands on this:

Quote:

---

Hermes: Tell me─do you know the difference between living beings and arcane entities?
Hermes: It is the presence of a soul. Yet the soul isn't something you can choose to have at will.
Hermes: No, it manifests only in those beings whose forms adhere to the laws of creation. That can endure on their own.
Hermes: Beings that do not fulfill this requirement, such as those spontaneously born of magic or natural phenomena, do not have souls.
Hermes: No matter how much it might resemble flora or fauna, if it lacks a soul, then it is considered an arcane entity.
Hermes: So you see, it is not for mankind to decide what is living. That domain lies beyond our manipulation, and it is hubris to assume otherwise.

---

What this means in practice is that the bar for possessing a soul is lower, not higher, and is more straightforwardly the case with beings such as animals or plant beings than it is with more sophisticated familiars (familiars generally are remarked upon as not usually having souls in Touring Anagnorisis Pt 1), in relation to which the Elpis side-quests comment on the WoL as being a most uncharacteristic specimen (they attribute this uniqueness to the backstory you give them, i.e. being a familiar of Azem, because it doesn't make much sense to them otherwise I guess... given what we know of the ancients' customs, it's also why I imagine most don't really probe much further, although some do raise eyebrows behind those masks.) Then there's arcane entities, which flat out don't have one. All of which means, both animal and plant life are ensouled beings, and thus perfectly viable (and I will add, in my view, likely) candidates for the third sacrifice.

This puts it well in my view:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Lyth, you know what I'm saying. Grass is life, and it sure as heck doesn't think. FFXIV follows Shinto rules where everything alive that isn't artificial has some kind of soul, but regardless, not all of it is conscious. And in spite of some of the fantastical creatures in-setting, a non-thinking being is what I meant by 'plant', as I'm sure you were well aware already.

Please stop being disingenuous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The above aside, I would note the Ancients were not capable of willfully creating sapient life. The few examples we saw of them having done so are expressly noted to have come at the end of many failed attempts and are regarded as something that in all probability cannot be replicated.

Similarly, they are completely without the ability grant souls to their creations. We're lead to believe Zodiark's ability to create has the same limitations as theirs.

---

Where are these things stated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

So, while some of those intended for sacrifice to Zodiark could potentially have had souls, it would be rather odd for them to be planning to sacrifice only ensouled beings when they're such a rarity. It seems far more likely for the plan to be general sacrifice.

---

Then why did Emet say the plan was to offer up the souls of the inhabitants of the Source if that were the case. Why did the Tales from the Dawn describe the plan as using a “bounty of souls.”

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

---

As I have stated a million times over, and will continue to state a million times more if proven necessary (it will, naturally) so long as Venat's actions (and the Sundered who benefited from them and proved no better, in the end) can be argued to be equally immoral this line of debate will eternally persist in falling flat on it's face despite itself.

No comment on Hermes, of course. Who's motive and actions speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

UThere is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore.

---

OK I now want Zodiark to be a very rare animal you can find on the Island Sanctuary so I can stuff them with hay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

---

Lyth, the problem we have in literally almost every thread that touches this topic is that, no matter what the context, you conceptualize every remark people make about how the Sundering scenario is messily-written and ambiguous as being about defending Emet and Ascians.

For the umpteenth time, it's not (necessarily - obviously I can't speak for other people's motives) about the damn Ascians. I said just a few pages ago that my headcanon would be that the sacrifices were sapient because that would make the story less dumb and incoherent even if it makes Amaurot look worse. But the issue that this is just a headcanon, and the nature of the sacrifices are one of the many pieces of awkward writing around the original Final Days that make it impossible to form a good-faith interpretation of the text.

I will say this explicitly just so there is no room for misunderstandings: I would much prefer a cohesively-written scenario where the Ancients were definitively in the wrong than what we have now, which is a mess where it feels like the writers changed their plans half way down the line, and even then couldn't agree on the tone they wanted to set.

This really has nothing to do with the 'quality' of the story writing. Anyone who has visited this forum over the past ten months or so knows that there's a small group of people here who have dedicated themselves to hurling vitriol at the writing team and the game just because they didn't give the Convocation and Amaurot the outcome that they wanted. It became so bad in here that many older members of this community spoke out against it and ultimately opted to bow out of here so that they could continue to enjoy a game that they are incredibly passionate about without the hearing constant negativity directed at it. And you can't blame them really, because most of us are here because we love the story and want to be able to discuss our predictions and theories in good faith.

The worst thing the writers can do when they have legions of adoring fans is to listen to a couple of attention-seeking hecklers in the back. And I think the solution going forward is to simply let Amaurot, like these complaints, wash away from memory.

Amaurot, at its core, is just an Ascian backstory. But you cannot retrospectively justify the Ascians' actions. Emet slaughtered all the people on seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. His comrades destroyed civilization after civilization on the Source and reset our progress time and time again. They used cowardly tactics like chemical weaponry to kill friend and foe alike. We come in to the story of Amaurot knowing full well that the majority of their leadership were a group of murderous psychopaths who looked down on non-Amaurotine societies with delusions of racial supremacy. You should not require any additional help from the writers to spell out for you that these are not lawful good exemplars of virtue or to be able to grasp the fact that they always were going to be written as a fallen civilization.

That doesn't mean that you can't enjoy them, as villains. When you deliberately choose to support them, it's never been out of 'ethics' or 'higher principles'. Put away the soapbox. It's because they're fun, and fiction lets you explore these boundaries. If you would only do that from the start, I would be 100% supportive.

It's also not the responsibility of the writer to ensure that you interpret the story in good faith, or to dummy-proof the story so that it cannot be distorted into bizarre interpretations. You always have the power to deliberately twist facts into a bad faith interpretation, like was done in that earlier conversation about a vegan-friendly Zodiark. If you want to have that conversation about Island Sanctuary Zodiark just for a bit of light-hearted debate, I'm more than happy to indulge you, as long as you can do it without resorting to the usual unpleasantness. But I don't see how you can make those claims about Zodiark eating grass as being 'author intent' with a straight face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It's also not the responsibility of the writer to ensure that you interpret the story in good faith, or to dummy-proof the story so that it cannot be distorted into bizarre interpretations.

---

I remember all the talk about how Zenos could still be alive and come back later in the game even though the scene shows him to stop breathing. Wasnt it Yoshida who was like: maybe we should have also put a "he is death" over this scene because people still asked them if he will come back.

I guess if you want to, one can always just ignore any slight hint (or big hint) in the game if it does not fit your own view. Of course there are also situations where we dont get a clear answer. But for me the game gave hints that I believe that the third sacrifice was not just some plants and animals. Maybe I am wrong who knows, but for me the hints are enough, including the decision that the last sacrifice after all the rejoinings would include the now unsundered people.


But for the sake of looking at it from both sides, lets just assume that somehow they had intended to exchange Ancients for plants and some cattle. Of course for one ancient soul you would need a huuuge amount of that. Still having the whole race split about that so much that Elidibus came back and its only because of plants and chickens? That would make the side against the Ascians look a bit unreasonable (of course Venat has the additional information about Meteion but the others may not).

Yet all of that changes in the present because now the Ascians want to use real unsundered people instead of plants. Why? What would that say about them? So even if the plan at the start was just that, it would not show them in a good light now because we have it confirmed by Emet Selch himself, that people would have become part of the sacrifice, even if plants and animals would have been enough.

In the other version, where they always intended to sacrifice people they at least stuck to their view and could at least argue that it was necessary to get their people back. (As in nothing below a person has enough aether) In the case of plants and animals being enough they bascially just murder innocent people for the "fun" of it. They would not need them and still do it. That is imo way worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

This really has nothing to do with the 'quality' of the story writing. Anyone who has visited this forum over the past ten months or so knows that there's a small group of people here who have dedicated themselves to hurling vitriol at the writing team and the game just because they didn't give the Convocation and Amaurot the outcome that they wanted. It became so bad in here that many older members of this community spoke out against it and ultimately opted to bow out of here so that they could continue to enjoy a game that they are incredibly passionate about without the hearing constant negativity directed at it. And you can't blame them really, because most of us are here because we love the story and want to be able to discuss our predictions and theories in good faith.

---

It is absolutely wild to me that you can read a post where I explicitly say that my preferred interpretation of the third sacrifice is the same as yours, that I wanted the Ancients to be explicitly less sympathetic, respond by basically accusing me of lying to you and actually being mad about how the writers treated the Convocation and Amaurot, and then start talking about other people not posting in 'good faith'.

It's fine if you think people being fussy about the ambiguity of the writing are being obtuse and should go with it based on the vibe, but you should criticize me on that basis. Your insistence that everyone who has some kinda bone to pick with the plot of Endwalker is part of some kind of unified pro-Ascian bloc and then being constantly presumptive and passive-aggressive based on that assumption is continuously frustrating and, to be blunt, kinda creepy.

Like, back in the thread about the Venat story, something that stuck out to me in a reply you made to me was when you suddenly started talking about how my 'friends' hypocritically view the Sundered. My friends. I don't know these people, Lyth. Based on some other threads outside of the lore forum, there are probably several anti-Venat people on this forum who I would think are jerks if I got to know them meaningfully-- And hell, there's a ton of criticism of Endwalker on this forum I outright think is dumb. But it seems like you dislike the Ancients so much that it's distorting your perceptions of what people are actually saying, and then using that as a basis to put them in a box. Like, every time you talk about them your tone is dripping with contempt in a manner that seems completely over the top for a video game.

I like the Ancients, but I don't think to an exceptional degree - they're kinda a popular group among the playerbase, according to polls. But putting aside the more abstract issues I have with its ethical messaging, the reason I'm hung up on Endwalker's plot isn't because they died, it's because it's harder for me to care about the setting when its foundational event is so messy and ill-defined. Since I guess you didn't read me saying it the last two times, I do not genuinely think that it was the writers intent that the Ancients were planning to sacrifice grass. But the absence of clarity, or rather the sense that we are looking at a post-retcon hole, is still annoying and an issue in terms of conceptualizing the scenario.

There are obviously several people on the forum who are openly expressing the kind of takes you're talking about. But if you want to criticize them, please do so specifically, and stop generalizing everyone who disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Yet all of that changes in the present because now the Ascians want to use real unsundered people instead of plants. Why? What would that say about them? So even if the plan at the start was just that, it would not show them in a good light now because we have it confirmed by Emet Selch himself, that people would have become part of the sacrifice, even if plants and animals would have been enough.

In the other version, where they always intended to sacrifice people they at least stuck to their view and could at least argue that it was necessary to get their people back. (As in nothing below a person has enough aether) In the case of plants and animals being enough they bascially just murder innocent people for the "fun" of it. They would not need them and still do it. That is imo way worse.

---

I took their decision to use the formerly sundered as sacrifices as a cleansing of sorts because they'd inevitably become an obstacle to the Ancients asserting their "rightful" claim to the star and it's unlikely they'd be willing to just submit to living by their strict standards even if given the chance.

Cultural and societal differences would be liable to have made them inherently incompatible with one another.