Did the Ancient Amaurotians... (minor spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Well pretty much. There is definitely an underlying sense of Hubris and hypocrisy among the Amaurotians. A false sense of modesty.

---

I expressed this before in the lore board, at least, but I'm of the opinion that the fate of Aumarot is less Cosmic Horror and more like an anti-hubrus tale with cosmic horror dressings. Less Yog-Sogoth, more...well there are several Greek stories where pride is a ruler or civilization's undoing.

I'd say it's more a combination of the blame laying squarely at the feet of a third party entity - which caused the initial chaos - and Hydaelyn's actions leading to the Sundering and attempts to completely wipe the Ancients from history's pages entirely. There isn't anything at present that suggests that the Ancients caused their own downfall due to 'hubris'.

Once the Ascian and Garlemald portions of the story are completed, the writers will need some other big threat in the background for our character to deal with. A Jenova or Lavos type entity that already brought about the destruction of at least one world would fit rather well for that. The Ancients were shown to be polite, civil and peaceful - solving issues through debate. Pride and arrogance didn't really manifest until much later on after their civilisation had been destroyed and attempts to work with mortals had been exhausted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I'd say it's more a combination of the blame laying squarely at the feet of a third party entity - which caused the initial chaos - and Hydaelyn's actions leading to the Sundering and attempts to completely wipe the Ancients from history's pages entirely. There isn't anything at present that suggests that the Ancients caused their own downfall due to 'hubris'.

Once the Ascian and Garlemald portions of the story are completed, the writers will need some other big threat in the background for our character to deal with. A Jenova or Lavos type entity that already brought about the destruction of at least one world would fit rather well for that. The Ancients were shown to be polite, civil and peaceful - solving issues through debate. Pride and arrogance didn't really manifest until much later on after their civilisation had been destroyed and attempts to work with mortals had been exhausted.

---

Except we know that is just a vision of Amaurot as Emet sees it, not exactly the most unbiased source. I also don’t believe Hydaelyn did anything to the Ancients civilization, she did it to Zodiark. The Ascians, with repeated Calamities, are why the Ancients got wiped off the map ruins wise. Though given it’s currently at the bottom of the ocean on the First maybe that’s where it is on the Source.

As far as working with mortals, pretty sure that never happened. Post Sundering Ascians wanted to kill them all, pre Sundering the Ancients were split but certainly all of them didn’t want to commit genocide. It’s why Hydaelyn exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Hydaelyn's actions leading to the Sundering and attempts to completely wipe the Ancients from history's pages entirely.

---

I'm increasingly convinced that Hydaelyn is a net negative force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MirronTulaxia

As far as working with mortals, pretty sure that never happened. Post Sundering Ascians wanted to kill them all, pre Sundering the Ancients were split but certainly all of them didn’t want to commit genocide. It’s why Hydaelyn exists.

---

I would just like to point out, with current evidence, that 'mortals' as we know them in the current time of the game, did NOT exist Pre-Sundering. The true nature of the 'new life' that Zodiark allowed to be born is still an unknown at this point. Yes, Emet-Selch's self-aware memory-based recreation of Hythlodaeus may have told us that the dissidents summoned Hydaelyn to protect the 'new life', which would imply they had some sense of sentience, but you yourself have pointed out that Emet's recreation would be heavily biased to his point of view, and subsequently limited to what he thought was the facts. We find out at the end of Anamnesis Anyder that the dissidents did NOT in fact summon Hydaelyn for the sole purpose of protecting the 'new life', but more as a safeguard because they believed Zodiark's laws would eventually unravel and result in the return of the Final Days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrThinker

I would just like to point out, with current evidence, that 'mortals' as we know them in the current time of the game, did NOT exist Pre-Sundering. The true nature of the 'new life' that Zodiark allowed to be born is still an unknown at this point. Yes, Emet-Selch's self-aware memory-based recreation of Hythlodaeus may have told us that the dissidents summoned Hydaelyn to protect the 'new life', which would imply they had some sense of sentience, but you yourself have pointed out that Emet's recreation would be heavily biased to his point of view, and subsequently limited to what he thought was the facts. We find out at the end of Anamnesis Anyder that the dissidents did NOT in fact summon Hydaelyn for the sole purpose of protecting the 'new life', but more as a safeguard because they believed Zodiark's laws would eventually unravel and result in the return of the Final Days.

---

Mortals as we know it may not have existed, but something existed. And regardless of that we know from Emet that the second they can they’re going to sacrifice the current life. To say nothing of the fact they’ve been doing it since then.

And doing it for the sole purpose wasn’t something I ever said. It doesn’t change what I said either really. The Ascians did not, at any point, attempt diplomacy with “mortals”. It’s not mortals at fault for the Ascians trying to wipe them out, which is how the comment I replied to reads to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MirronTulaxia

Mortals as we know it may not have existed, but something existed.

---

Yes, something existed, just not mortals, as far as we can be certain.

Quote:

---

And regardless of that we know from Emet that the second they can they’re going to sacrifice the current life. To say nothing of the fact they’ve been doing it since then.

---

Yes, if they somehow manage to successfully complete all the Rejoinings, then by their own standards the life that would exist then would be of equal worth to the souls of the Ancients sacrificed to Zodiark, and sort of speaks out to the hypocrisy of the Ascians' plan.

Quote:

---

And doing it for the sole purpose wasn’t something I ever said.

---

Quote:

---

As far as working with mortals, pretty sure that never happened. Post Sundering Ascians wanted to kill them all, pre Sundering the Ancients were split but certainly all of them didn’t want to commit genocide. It’s why Hydaelyn exists.

---

My apologies, reading this at first glance, and the finality of that last sentence, gave me the impression that is what you believed, so please forgive me for the assumption. At the same time, the dissidents' reason for summoning Hydaelyn did not seem to consider the 'new life' at all, contrary to Emet's Hythlodaeus.

Quote:

---

It doesn’t change what I said either really. The Ascians did not, at any point, attempt diplomacy with “mortals”. It’s not mortals at fault for the Ascians trying to wipe them out, which is how the comment I replied to reads to me.

---

I wasn't trying to contradict you on what you were saying, just correcting an incorrect part of your statement, which a lot of other people also seem to be espousing as 100% truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrThinker

I would just like to point out, with current evidence, that 'mortals' as we know them in the current time of the game, did NOT exist Pre-Sundering. The true nature of the 'new life' that Zodiark allowed to be born is still an unknown at this point.

---

I always thought it was weird that so many people insist the Convocation's plan was to commit genocide against a hoard of mortal men created by Zodiark when the story doesn't specify what the "new life" is anywhere that I can remember. But maybe I just like the Amaurotines too much to believe they'd do that lol

But IIRC, Emet-Selch does say somewhere very early on in Shadowbringers that the Ancients were the only sentient life back in their day; that all men were once functionally immortal, etc. Coupling that with his habit of hating mortals specifically because he sees them as fractured, incomplete beings, I always assumed it was the Sundering itself that created mortality, and I'm still confused at where people got the idea that Zodiark produced a whole bunch of fully formed non-Amaurotine people to repopulate the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sarehptar

But IIRC, Emet-Selch does say somewhere very early on in Shadowbringers that the Ancients were the only sentient life back in their day; that all men were once functionally immortal, etc. Coupling that with his habit of hating mortals specifically because he sees them as fractured, incomplete beings, I always assumed it was the Sundering itself that created mortality.

---

Most of this specific info comes from Emet's talk on the effects of the Sundering just before the party returns to Kholusia to confront Vauthry. The idea of there being only one race pre-sundering comes from Varis revealing what he was told by the Ascians at the end of Stormblood, and everything the Ascians have revealed after has, so far, corroborated this.

As for the 'new life' being the current mortal races, it was originally speculation that people just accepted as truth, because they did not believe that the Ancients would so willingly sacrifice the new life unless it was 'inferior' in some aspect to the old.

My personal opinion is that new life were the first "beastmen" (that term being as inaccurate as it is), i.e the ancient ancestors of the Kobolds, Amal'jaa, etc, because we know that they had to have existed before the Sundering in order for them to exist on the Shards, but I find it hard to reconcile their origins in the Ancients themselves as far as the story has presented them.

Eh, I don't see the Beastmen as being different from the Spoken. Visiting another Shard really shows how meaningless the terms are. I don't think you can point at one unifying trait for either group, it's an arbitrary definition based on how "civilized" the Spoken see the other as.

The Ascians, long story short, are not reasonable in any way. While we can debate to what extent the Hydaelyn convocation had in mind for summoning her (I don't really agree that just because a brief ten second clip fails to mention it that it wasn't a reason, especially as with Emet's bias it would make more sense to not attribute a more benign reason to Hydaelyn's summoning) and what life prior to the Sundering was like it's really all kinds of moot. They're monsters who will actively kill anything and everything because that's what they need to do to accomplish their goal, and it's not a goal that in any way, shape, or form is justified by those actions. It's sad what happened to the Ancients, but given it's entirely possible it was caused by their overuse of Creation Magic (ancient civilization uses magic for too much and causes problems is pretty common after all) it's likely a tragedy of their own making (and if it is likely one they could have prevented/had knowledge of in advance if that is the case). None of it really justifies sacrificing other unwilling humans for the sake of bringing back people who willingly gave their life to begin with.