In regards to something involving the main cast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

...the fact they created highly dangerous things more powerful than themselves is kind of scary.

---

It's no more scary than the present Sundered folks who can channel the Void and bring Voidsent and arrange Voidsent pacts in order to become nigh immortal vampires who feed on aether (or any of the other crazy Void stories we've had over the years). Also no more scary than summoning primals, really. Mankind ever looks to make things more powerful than any individual could ever hope to be. Just look to the real world and splitting the atom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

It's no more scary than the present Sundered folks who can channel the Void and bring Voidsent and arrange Voidsent pacts in order to become nigh immortal vampires who feed on aether (or any of the other crazy Void stories we've had over the years). Also no more scary than summoning primals, really. Mankind ever looks to make things more powerful than any individual could ever hope to be. Just look to the real world and splitting the atom.

---

slight difference- the sundered have to use outside means to do primal summoning and such, the ancients can create things from their own aether or as a group and these creations can warp reality (at a massive energy cost). its that slight difference that scares me a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

slight difference- the sundered have to use outside means to do primal summoning and such, the ancients can create things from their own aether or as a group and these creations can warp reality (at a massive energy cost). its that slight difference that scares me a bit.

---

Afforded the same powers, the Sundered would do the same thing, as in the end, they are a diluted version of the same people, same existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Why is it important that they meet your idea of morality? I think that's the real question here. What level of morality does a world need to have so that when they're wiped out you can feel comfortable that nothing of value was lost?

---

Well I do believe that morality is objective, so an unjust society necessarily must be changed. But once again we’re ignoring the fact that the choice wasn’t between letting an unjust society continue or destroying it, but either allowing an unjust society to destroy itself and all life, or destroy the society earlier and grant future generations the chance to live on. If the Ancients hadn’t turned all their power toward ensuring the world was exactly like it was before, and if they hadn’t built a god of immense power to facilitate that end, then I don't think the Sundering would be the necessary action.

Because of the level of difference. Ancients created fully sapient beings, where as shtola just made a couple of magical robots without souls or true intelligence

Only in some cases - in fact, aside from Meteion (Hermes's pet project he never submitted for proper approvals), I can't think of very many. It is rare that the star would stick a soul in a familiar/arcane construct. So they're mostly dealing with animals, plants and arcane constructs, which we're now being told are a non-issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Afforded the same powers, the Sundered would do the same thing, as in the end, they are a diluted version of the same people, same existence.

---

Case in point:

https://i.imgur.com/dLAC7EN.png

They can also reverse this. And we can look to the Allagan empire for far, far worse examples, and just about anywhere else for much more gratuitous use of any number of different life forms. Guess the sundered need to be sundered more and wiped out and we can cheer said genocide on as a Good Thing (tm) as Certifiably Good People (tm). But I'm sure it's fine and that the WoL said thanks to all those gorillas they wiped out, or the sentient mochi they put down without second thought, or the chimera brain... it's okay when we do it (tm).

We just can’t have any conversations without this level of bad faith can we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Only in some cases - in fact, aside from Meteion (Hermes's pet project he never submitted for proper approvals), I can't think of very many. It is rare that the star would stick a soul in a familiar/arcane construct. So they're mostly dealing with animals, plants and arcane constructs, which we're now being told are a non-issue.

---

I think something important to remember here is that Amaurot actually does have some level of study and understanding of the ensouling of beings; they don't have actual concrete explanations, but they're the ones that know 'yeah, sometimes our creations just get souls, we don't really know why' as an overall fact of life. In the present day such a question isn't really raised; it might be that they don't know that's going on, or (what I think is more likely) that the radically different state of affairs post-Sundering means that it's just not a thing and all creatures have souls anyway. Which might in its way also explain the Leatherworkers' respect for wildlife; they believe that each creature does have the inherent value of a soul and treat them as such, perhaps thanks to some teachings from the conjurers who would probably know that sort of thing better.

But then, the fact that the Ancients know that element of nature is going on means that their actions are a little wild with that context. We had the hypothetical a few pages ago of 'what if the nixie Y'shtola summoned got a soul right then', but even if that were possible, Y'shtola wouldn't necessarily know. Meanwhile, the researchers at Elpis actually do know that at any given creation they make might just suddenly have a soul, and they still do... everything we saw them do. I think that one of Meletos' creations actually getting a soul just in time for the FATE where we kick its ass would be a weirdly, pointlessly dark beat to add, just as it would if it happened to Y'shtola's nixie, but I think it does say something that Meletos and everyone around him knows that can happen and is still okay with what he's doing.

This isn't to say that Amaurot is somehow uniquely terrible and questionable, I'd put them on the level of perhaps Hingashi in knowing their problems but doing little to nothing about them (as opposed to the 'doing their best' Limsa and Ishgard, the 'basically gave up' Ul'Dah or the 'refusing to admit the problem' Gridania). I think it just takes a different form because Amaurot's story frames them more as a collection of individuals rather than an extant, structured society, so if you raise an issue it feels more like calling out personal failures rather than structural or societal shortfalls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

This isn't to say that Amaurot is somehow uniquely terrible and questionable, I'd put them on the level of perhaps Hingashi in knowing their problems but doing little to nothing about them (as opposed to the 'doing their best' Limsa and Ishgard, the 'basically gave up' Ul'Dah or the 'refusing to admit the problem' Gridania). I think it just takes a different form because Amaurot's story frames them more as a collection of individuals rather than an extant, structured society, so if you raise an issue it feels more like calling out personal failures rather than structural or societal shortfalls.

---

I think Amaurots uniqueness stems from its inherent status at the “top.” It’s Olympus, towering over all on high, while the Sundered nations lie far below, warring, scheming, trading, innovating, growing, and then dying. Amaurot needs little of those things, it is denied nothing and in turn wants for nothing. When a city state rises to prominence on Hydaelyn, it is inevitable that it will fall and it’s approach to the world goes with it. For Etheirys though, that doesn’t happen. It’s the “peak” and one must either be ok with falling back down the mountain and accepting it’s now out of reach, or clinging to it and putting everything back in its place. I mean why wouldn’t you, it’s Amaurot? What can be better?

That’s a least my very romanticized answer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Well I do believe that morality is objective, so an unjust society necessarily must be changed.

---

Okay, so we don't even agree on the fundamentals of the argument. I don't believe morality is objective and I don't believe anyone capable of acting as moral arbiter to decide whether or not a society is unjust or how to change it. All of that sounds tyrannical to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Case in point:

---

I always felt bad for Saro Roggo.

https://i.imgur.com/xQoMS0u.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TjzGSs4.jpg

Every time you speak to him he's in a panic to prove himself to Matoya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Meanwhile, the researchers at Elpis actually do know that at any given creation they make might just suddenly have a soul, and they still do... everything we saw them do. I think that one of Meletos' creations actually getting a soul just in time for the FATE where we kick its ass would be a weirdly, pointlessly dark beat to add, just as it would if it happened to Y'shtola's nixie, but I think it does say something that Meletos and everyone around him knows that can happen and is still okay with what he's doing.

---

I'd like to just add to your point two things. First, this bit of dialogue from the game:

HERMES:

"Tell me─do you know the difference between living beings and arcane entities?

It is the presence of a soul. Yet the soul isn't something you can choose to have at will.

No, it manifests only in those beings whose forms adhere to the laws of creation. That can endure on their own.

Beings that do not fulfill this requirement, such as those spontaneously born of magic or natural phenomena, do not have souls.

No matter how much it might resemble flora or fauna, if it lacks a soul, then it is considered an arcane entity.

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."

Second, this line from the Through His Eyes sidestory from ShB:

"A soul... How?"

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.

Not that I don't agree with your points here, but I'd like to just clarify that unless I'm missing something else that contradicts what we're told here, creations don't spontaneously gain a soul sometimes. In fact, it sounds like it's quite the opposite, that even creatures born of "natural phenomena" sometimes don't have souls (the lightning sprites/pneuma that we see just shortly after Hermes says that, for example).

Which to me, that explains a lot of why the researchers at Elpis seem adamant about testing whether their creations can survive on their own or not, because if your creation can endure on its own and have offspring, those offspring may have a chance of gaining a soul and being considered to be living.

(continuing this) Hermes does go on to say this:

HERMES:

See how they gather to feed. How they express themselves through their actions despite their lack of words.

Speech is not the sole defining characteristic of a thinking, feeling creature. Nor is silence an indication that they do not possess these qualities.

Be it a soulless arcane entity such as the pneuma, or an ephemeral life-form such as the petalouda, all seek to perpetuate their existence. To survive.

He also says that it's ultimately up to the Bureau of the Architect to pass judgement whether Meteion is an arcane entity or truly alive. To me, Hermes is interesting in this way: in one breath he will recite to us what is considered "right" by Ancient standards, and in the next breath he will contradict that and say something much more alike to what we as Sundered folk might feel about the topic. Contradiction seem to be the theme for the Ancients.

But in that, I do kind of get why the Ancients may come off as insensitive when it comes to this, because (at least to me) it seems that for them, until a creation is perfected enough to survive on its own and gain a soul, it's in a sort of "prototype" phase and isn't really considered to be alive. Which... that felt to me like the whole point of this part of the story, that it's a way of looking at life that doesn't necessarily give respect to their creations and that's why Hermes disagreeing with it all is a thing. If it were perfectly good and moral and right, there'd be no reason for us to have a character who disagrees with the ideals held by his society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h-alpha

(continuing this) But in that, I do kind of get why the Ancients may come off as insensitive when it comes to this, because (at least to me) it seems that for them, until a creation is perfected enough to survive on its own and gain a soul, it's in a sort of "prototype" phase and isn't really considered to be alive. Which... that felt to me like the whole point of this part of the story, that it's a way of looking at life that doesn't necessarily give respect to their creations and that's why Hermes disagreeing with it all is a thing. If it were perfectly good and moral and right, there'd be no reason for us to have a character who disagrees with the ideals held by his society.

---

It’s also important to note that some of those creatures being tested in Elpis are known to have souls, not all are arcane entities. The Lykaons and I presume other animals we see likely are possessed of a soul.

So allow me to speculate something. We all know that Elpis and the Ancients are Greek as can be. The names, architecture, and creatures all scream it. But what if it was also the way viewing the world that’s also Greek?

There’s a school of ethical thought called Virtue Ethics that dates back to Plato and Aristotle. In Aristotles conception, there’s an idea called telos which basically means purpose or goal. The idea is that all beings have a telos and it’s what decides whether they are living and acting as they should. A shipbuilders telos, for example, is to build ships and to build them well. They shouldn’t sink, they shouldn’t fall apart, they should be functional, etc. Playing through Elpis one only has to look around to the Ancients discussing Telos. Their creations are all judged by their telos and ability to see it out. Does it fulfill a role in the environment, does it add anything to a habitat, does it do those things well? The Ancients even view themselves with a very Aristotelian lens, talking about their role as stewards of the star, how one lives only long enough to see the completion of their duty and then returns to the star, how horrible it is to have their role ended before it is complete, etc. etc. Now Aristotle I don’t think would agree them, he has a whole thing about the virtues and all, but breaking everything down to a single purpose does track I think.

With this I also think we begin to see another dimension to Hermes objection. Having played the role of judge for so long, Hermes comes to doubt the actual value of telos as a way of viewing living beings. He watches as creatures are made, fail, and die raging and screaming against their end, all the while this process is called a moral good by his fellow Ancients. He realizes that if all life is is about fulfilling a specified purpose then Ancients as well have an end point, and will have no telos. And so he becomes disillusioned, and seeks other answers, other reasons for living. Then Meteions report comes. So he decides to make a final judgement. If mankind cannot find a reason for living that can survive the Final Days, then they are doomed no matter what. They would die either in the fires of calamity, or in the slow release of returning to the star.

Suddenly, a lot of worldviews start clicking for me when I view it that way. But I can’t point to an in text example of that term being used so for now it remains just a theory :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I always felt bad for Saro Roggo.

https://i.imgur.com/xQoMS0u.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TjzGSs4.jpg

Every time you speak to him he's in a panic to prove himself to Matoya.

---

It should be pointed out that it's only what he thinks Matoya will do when she realises he "isn't useful", but when he finally gets up the courage to actually speak about those fears, she has no intention of doing so.

From the beginning she has tasked him with something she could do herself, and now asks him to do a further important-but-simple thing which assures him that she will never disenchant him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

It should be pointed out that it's only what he thinks Matoya will do when she realises he "isn't useful", but when he finally gets up the courage to actually speak about those fears, she has no intention of doing so.

From the beginning she has tasked him with something she could do herself, and now asks him to do a further important-but-simple thing which assures him that she will never disenchant him.

---

as grumpy as matoya is she cares a lot for her student and creations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

as grumpy as matoya is she cares a lot for her student and creations.

---

Not far off from how the ancients are then! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

If it needs a justification, Hyth says a few times that he struggles with magic, so maybe he needs to draw the extra aether from the butterflies while Emet could conjure it spontaneously (but wants nothing to do with us at that point).

If you read through the dialogue for the relevant quest, there isn't really any concern for the lives of the butterflies. Our two reactions are an ambiguous "you can turn them into clothing just like that?" which might be read as being concerned for them but also sheer surprise at being able to create something from an unrelated substance. The other response is "won't someone be angry with us for taking them?" which suggests we view the act on par with ripping plants out of the garden or, at worst, taking animals from a zoo. The concern is for the people who might "own" the butterflies rather than the creatures themselves.

---

Why did this thread go on for ten more pages after this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

...In Aristotles conception, there’s an idea called telos which basically means purpose or goal. The idea is that all beings have a telos and it’s what decides whether they are living and acting as they should ... Playing through Elpis one only has to look around to the Ancients discussing Telos. Their creations are all judged by their telos and ability to see it out. Does it fulfill a role in the environment, does it add anything to a habitat, does it do those things well? The Ancients even view themselves with a very Aristotelian lens, talking about their role as stewards of the star, how one lives only long enough to see the completion of their duty and then returns to the star, how horrible it is to have their role ended before it is complete, etc. etc. Now Aristotle I don’t think would agree them, he has a whole thing about the virtues and all, but breaking everything down to a single purpose does track I think.

With this I also think we begin to see another dimension to Hermes objection. Having played the role of judge for so long, Hermes comes to doubt the actual value of telos as a way of viewing living beings.

---

I think that emphasis on telos, on intrinsic reason for being tied to an absolute and singular purpose (why Venat is a rebel because not dying after stepping down from the Seat of Azem is saying one can complete one's telos and then still find new purpose and explore beyond that role), is at the core of one of the reasons I found the Ancients' society so distasteful.
Hermes sends the Meteia in search of an alternative philosophy to live one's life because the Ancients only had one answer, and like their one-size-fits-all but puddles-awkwardly-doesn't-fit robes, that answer doesn't work for everyone. He sent Meteia into the stars looking for a new definitive answer, but the very act of searching, accepting that there is no perfect answer, appeals to me philosophically. And is probably one of the reasons why I liked Endwalker's message and scenes like with the Ea. (Though having to teach middle-schoolers about space, more than once soothing, children about such concepts as the heat death of the universe made it amusing).

If we do want to talk about fandom double standards, then people's complaints about Hermes sending the Meteia into space is a clearer parallel/contrast to Y'shtola and the nixies than the butterflies.

The actual lore question I would have is do you think they will return to the Void Quests with Beq Legg sending the porkies into the Void? because those pigs came back without visible corruption, and they're aether siphons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denishia

The actual lore question I would have is do you think they will return to the Void Quests with Beq Legg sending the porkies into the Void? because those pigs came back without visible corruption, and they're aether siphons.

---

Could maybe make it a time thing. More time you spend the more it corrupts. There was a cut after the nixies went in so they could try to handwave it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denishia

He sent Meteia into the stars looking for a new definitive answer, but the very act of searching, accepting that there is no perfect answer, appeals to me philosophically.

---

I agree with the message that there is no one clear answer. You may have a purpose in life, while others may not. You may live for others, while others may live for themselves. These are all valid choices. Purposes are adaptive afterall. That being said, I disagree with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denishia

on intrinsic reason for being tied to an absolute and singular purpose (why Venat is a rebel because not dying after stepping down from the Seat of Azem is saying one can complete one's telos and then still find new purpose and explore beyond that role)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denishia

Hermes sends the Meteia in search of an alternative philosophy to live one's life because the Ancients only had one answer, and like their one-size-fits-all but puddles-awkwardly-doesn't-fit robes, that answer doesn't work for everyone.

---

The way I see it, “for the betterment of the Star”, isn’t an “absolute and singular purpose”. It’s a vague thing with a lot of leeway. It’s like how we in the real world say “you shouldn’t hurt others”. More like a general guide than absolute rule of life. Take Hyth’s “purpose” for example; his purpose is “help my friends achieve their dream”. It’s not directly “for betterment of the Star”. Another example would be the mentor and mentee pairing in Elpis.The mentor's last purpose before they “retired” is to make the mentee to become senior researcher or something (I don’t really remember the exact details, might be wrong).

As we are now, we simply don’t know how the Ancients came up with their purposes or even if they have multiple ones or can change it midway. Or when were they expected to have a purpose? If we only look at Amaurotine and people at Elpis, it’s very clear to see the realization of that “betterment of the Star”; which is by creating creatures. But what about people outside of Amaurot? The civilians who don't create creatures? How will they fulfill their purposes if creating creatures is the only way to make the Star better? Hence why I said that to make the Star better is just a general guide, not necessarily a rule that binds them.

(1/2) because I can't edit post on mobile

For Venat’s case, convocation members are held to a different standard than the rest of the Ancients. Their office are considered as their life (people may hold their seat for a very long time too), so it is unusual for someone to not retire after it. Calling Venat a “rebel” isn’t technically wrong. That being said, while her choice raised an eyebrow, she’s also not treated differently (except wearing white robes). She is still treated respectfully, people still love her and generally have a positive view of her. They are being awfully tolerant of a person who went against their custom.

Another thing I may note, the Ancients are immortal beings. Having a purpose to fill before they retire is, in my opinion, a way to pass peacefully without regrets. Maybe even help them to estimate how much time they had left, since it’s clear that they don’t want to live forever.

(2/2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

It should be pointed out that it's only what he thinks Matoya will do when she realises he "isn't useful", but when he finally gets up the courage to actually speak about those fears, she has no intention of doing so.

---

Thanks for alerting me to this. I was sure I'd done all his quests, so I flew back out to her cave. I didn't realize he had more after the brooms. (Having started playing late last year I mostly went straight through the MSQ without doing much in the way of side quests.) Turned out to be a sweet quest chain I had missed. I'm glad he got a happy ending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by h-alpha

Not that I don't agree with your points here, but I'd like to just clarify that unless I'm missing something else that contradicts what we're told here, creations don't spontaneously gain a soul sometimes. In fact, it sounds like it's quite the opposite, that even creatures born of "natural phenomena" sometimes don't have souls (the lightning sprites/pneuma that we see just shortly after Hermes says that, for example).

Which to me, that explains a lot of why the researchers at Elpis seem adamant about testing whether their creations can survive on their own or not, because if your creation can endure on its own and have offspring, those offspring may have a chance of gaining a soul and being considered to be living.

---

Thinks for bringing this one up, because it actually brings up something interesting. Not only does it confirm that yeah, sometimes ensouled creations just happen albeit rarely (hello, Phoinix), but it raises an important case study that I'm surprised nobody has mentioned in regards to this, that is pretty closely paired with what Denishia raised:

Meteion.

Meteion wasn't made by natural phenomena; Hermes made her as part of an extensive project. That means that to the best of my recollection, no Meteion has a soul--and certainly, the way that Emet-Selch treats her compared to the confirmably ensouled non-Ancient creature we actually do see him interact with (the charybdis) suggests that even if she does have a soul, he isn't acting like they expect her to. But I think we all agree that Meteion is a cool person with feelings that's worthy of care and love, even if she doesn't have a soul that persists beyond her death.

So what makes her different from the other non-ensouled creatures in Elpis, like the ones that Meleton considers basically disposable prototypes? Are we so reliant on human traits for empathy that we're only basing this on the fact she has a human face? Is it just the fact that we know Meteion getting badfeels causes the apocalypse? As I've said multiple times, Y'shtola treats the nixie she puts in harm's way with a lot of empathy and respect; does the fact the nixie is ultimately an extension of her aether make it different? If it is effectively no different, is the respect Y'shtola gives enough to make up for what happened?

A lot of this definitely comes down to personal and subjective feelings on the level of 'how much do you care about the cow that meat came from', and I don't think there's anyone on Earth who enjoys those kinds of conversations. But if we're going to be talking about the inherent value of lives that are being snuffed out by people in this entirely fictional story, then I think we need to chew on the fact that the differences between Meteion and the butterflies Hythlodaeus asks you to kill for clothes are ultimately superficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Not only does it confirm that yeah, sometimes ensouled creations just happen albeit rarely (hello, Phoinix)...

---

True, although the phoenix gaining a soul seemed to be, at least from the perspective of Hades and Hythlodaeus in the sidestory, a freak accident caused by a drifting soul merging with the phoenix. So it seems as though yes it can happen, but it's a rare enough occurrence that Hades seemed surprised by it. Rare enough that no researcher in Elpis could realistically operate under the assumption that it can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

A lot of this definitely comes down to personal and subjective feelings on the level of 'how much do you care about the cow that meat came from', and I don't think there's anyone on Earth who enjoys those kinds of conversations. But if we're going to be talking about the inherent value of lives that are being snuffed out by people in this entirely fictional story, then I think we need to chew on the fact that the differences between Meteion and the butterflies Hythlodaeus asks you to kill for clothes are ultimately superficial.

---

It's the kind of philosophical questioning that I don't really care for sometimes, but this is essentially the issue. And the core of the story in Elpis: the Ancients did not see it as killing, they saw it as altering a concept, perfecting it, or reverting it back into its base components so it could be made better or made into something else. They saw death as a nonissue, so much so that Hythlodaeus is taken aback when Meteion uses the word at one point. And if their view of their own deaths was that it was an honorable, noble thing to return to the star after fulfilling one's purpose, of course that would be the same for the things they created.

I have to wonder, if the Final Days never happened, would there have been more people like Hermes down the road? People who disagreed with the status quo? What about Hermes made him see things differently from the rest of his people (outside of because the writers said so)? Were there already others out there that felt like he did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Meteion wasn't made by natural phenomena; Hermes made her as part of an extensive project. That means that to the best of my recollection, no Meteion has a soul--and certainly, the way that Emet-Selch treats her compared to the confirmably ensouled non-Ancient creature we actually do see him interact with (the charybdis) suggests that even if she does have a soul, he isn't acting like they expect her to. But I think we all agree that Meteion is a cool person with feelings that's worthy of care and love, even if she doesn't have a soul that persists beyond her death.

---

Hermes is actually really coy about whether she was made to have one or not. He leaves it up to interpretation, saying it doesn’t matter to him. And I’m not sure if we should read into Emets interactions with the Charybdis as an example. Hyth seemed quite taken with her, and while we can say that’s just out of novelty I think the same could apply to Emet.

This could be a interesting angle for the Omega quests though! Of all the beings we’ve met Omega and Alpha are the closest to embodying the “grown a soul” concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kozh

For Venat’s case, convocation members are held to a different standard than the rest of the Ancients. Their office are considered as their life (people may hold their seat for a very long time too), so it is unusual for someone to not retire after it. Calling Venat a “rebel” isn’t technically wrong. That being said, while her choice raised an eyebrow, she’s also not treated differently (except wearing white robes). She is still treated respectfully, people still love her and generally have a positive view of her. They are being awfully tolerant of a person who went against their custom.

Another thing I may note, the Ancients are immortal beings. Having a purpose to fill before they retire is, in my opinion, a way to pass peacefully without regrets. Maybe even help them to estimate how much time they had left, since it’s clear that they don’t want to live forever.

(2/2)

---

It should be noted that the story implies that Venat views other Ancients' constant questions about when she will "finally return to the star" with the same weariness of a middle-aged career woman being asked "When are you gonna settle down and have a baby?". The people asking don't intend to be impolite or invasive, but the person being asked is obviously tired of having to justify their life choices and putting up with people treating them as weird. Venat states that she'll probably never return to the star, because there's always more to do and more people to help. But she tells only you this in complete confidence.

The entire situation, and the fact that Venat is reluctant to share this with anyone else, leaves speculation for whether the Ancients would have gotten more hostile toward Venat for breaking tradition once they realized her true intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Now i’m curious, why is this the case, and why is our character shown to be so adamant and shocked over this, and people are quick to bash the Ancients for being “reckless” with creations etc, meanwhile in this very patch Yshtola summons some familiars to send to the void that will be killed. Yet afaik our character says nothing, expresses no shock or concern. Is this yet another example of it’s okay when “we” do it but not anyone else? What does everyone else thing about this?

---

We may be shocked by the butterflies because unlike us who need to kill other creatues to get something to eat and clothes the ancients should be able to create them out of thin air. I mean we have a couple of fates in this region showing us exactly that. Also the other option was to ask, if its okay to just take these out because we are just visitors in this facility. Which imo makes sense to ask.

So bascially we have the Ancients on one side that do like to create and destroy living beings on a whim without the need to do that. While on the other side we have us split beings that are so weak in aether manipulation that we have to take our ressources from the beasts and animals by killing them. At the same time we are part of that circle of life because unlike the godlike ancients we are in danger of being eaten too.

About Ysthola and her familiars: I think the biggest difference is that the Ancients were able to create beings that either already got a soul or that might get one in later generations. Yet a lot of them still threated those beings like magical constructs. As far as we know Ystholas creations have no souls. We dont even know if they have any sort of real emotions. Bascially they are more like carbuncles and other summoned things. For me they are more like robots while the beings the ancient created were alive and had emotions. So yes there is imo a difference between that.
(And even though they are not alive, Ysthola still talked kindly to them afterwards and showed great care for them. She did not need to touch and speak to them like that, she could have just vanished them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

We may be shocked by the butterflies because unlike us who need to kill other creatues to get something to eat and clothes the ancients should be able to create them out of thin air. I mean we have a couple of fates in this region showing us exactly that. Also the other option was to ask, if its okay to just take these out because we are just visitors in this facility. Which imo makes sense to ask.

So bascially we have the Ancients on one side that do like to create and destroy living beings on a whim without the need to do that. While on the other side we have us split beings that are so weak in aether manipulation that we have to take our ressources from the beasts and animals by killing them. At the same time we are part of that circle of life because unlike the godlike ancients we are in danger of being eaten too.

About Ysthola and her familiars: I think the biggest difference is that the Ancients were able to create beings that either already got a soul or that might get one in later generations. Yet a lot of them still threated those beings like magical constructs. As far as we know Ystholas creations have no souls. We dont even know if they have any sort of real emotions. Bascially they are more like carbuncles and other summoned things. For me they are more like robots while the beings the ancient created were alive and had emotions. So yes there is imo a difference between that.
(And even though they are not alive, Ysthola still talked kindly to them afterwards and showed great care for them. She did not need to touch and speak to them like that, she could have just vanished them)

---

So if taking care and being kind to them makes it okay…then what makes the ancients wrong for what they do? They have literal funeral rites for them. Also….then can you try and explain the colosseum where people rip animals apart for sport and entertainment? Not even just for survival? Or what about the Eden primals. They were very much alive and had emotions and we created them just to kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

We may be shocked by the butterflies because unlike us who need to kill other creatues to get something to eat and clothes the ancients should be able to create them out of thin air.

---

They do. This was pointed out both in ShB side quests and in Elpis. The whole reason we have to kill the butterflies is because Emet refuses to conjure a robe for us and we can't make one ourselves. Otherwise, no butterflies would've been harmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

So if taking care and being kind to them makes it okay…then what makes the ancients wrong for what they do? They have literal funeral rites for them. Also….then can you try and explain the colosseum where people rip animals apart for sport and entertainment? Not even just for survival? Or what about the Eden primals. They were very much alive and had emotions and we created them just to kill them.

---

taking eden raid completely out of context there. like way out of context. theyre at best flanderized versions of the originals who were summoned to help heal the world. by gathering specified aspected aether and dispersing it with their defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

taking eden raid completely out of context there. like way out of context. theyre at best flanderized versions of the originals who were summoned to help heal the world. by gathering specified aspected aether and dispersing it with their defeat.

---

How is it out of context. Yes they were summoned to heal the word and to do that we need to kill then. They clearly didn’t want to be killed as Garuda even exclaims “you dare defy me?” They’re still primals in their own right, creations in a way. The same way the ancients created beings in hopes of developing the world and doing their duties as it’s stewards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

How is it out of context. Yes they were summoned to heal the word and to do that we need to kill then. They clearly didn’t want to be killed as Garuda even exclaims “you dare defy me?” They’re still primals in their own right, creations in a way. The same way the ancients created beings in hopes of developing the world and doing their duties as it’s stewards.

---

their entire personality and appearance is based on the wols hazy memories of them. hence two headed leviathan, atv titan, fusing garuda and ifrit and centaur ramuh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

So if taking care and being kind to them makes it okay…then what makes the ancients wrong for what they do? They have literal funeral rites for them. Also….then can you try and explain the colosseum where people rip animals apart for sport and entertainment? Not even just for survival? Or what about the Eden primals. They were very much alive and had emotions and we created them just to kill them.

---

The Ancient who summons up his creations for you in a chain of FATEs because he's having a dry spell and wants to watch them die doesn't perform funeral rites as he asks us to keep killing his creatures and then he thanks us at the end after summoning something that expects to kill us and expresses his surprise that we're a "strong familiar".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

So if taking care and being kind to them makes it okay…then what makes the ancients wrong for what they do? They have literal funeral rites for them. Also….then can you try and explain the colosseum where people rip animals apart for sport and entertainment? Not even just for survival? Or what about the Eden primals. They were very much alive and had emotions and we created them just to kill them.

---

No they didn't. They came up with the idea to give them rites for the first time after the WOL specifically suggested it. Before that they just asked specific people to magic the bodies back into the planet.

They literally got the idea from a Sundered being. Which has been brought up before but you keep ignoring it.

Which is bizarre because the entire quest chain is all about the Wol surprising the researches and finally helping them articulate a feeling they had about the casual disposal of there creations that they hadn't been able to name before.

Its a nice way to show how similar they are at there core, not an example of innate superiority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

No they didn't. They came up with the idea to give them rites for the first time after the WOL specifically suggested it. Before that they just asked specific people to magic the bodies back into the planet.

They literally got the idea from a Sundered being. Which has been brought up before but you keep ignoring it.

Which is bizarre because the entire quest chain is all about the Wol surprising the researches and finally helping them articulate a feeling they had about the casual disposal of there creations that they hadn't been able to name before.

Its a nice way to show how similar they are at there core, not an example of innate superiority

---

I’m not ignoring it, someone already gave you in game evidence that you’re wrong. The only thing we contributed is the flower thing. Everything else was their own rite.

Alkaios
Vessels within which life once flowed; cheated of purpose, stilled and cold. Unto the land you now return, the fuel 'pon which new life shall burn.
Maira
That was a beautiful service. I like to think it brought some joy to their departed souls, much as one feels when receiving a thoughtful gift.
Charmion
Yes, the flowers were the perfect addition. How fortunate we are to have this knowledgeable familiar in our midst!
Note: addition
Sokles
We must return and commit this event to parchment while it remains fresh in our minds─a potential shift in our traditions is a historical moment worth recording.

Thank you again, Alkaios. We are ever grateful for your calming presence.

And our thanks to you, Maira and Forename─not only for attending, but also elevating the proceedings.

Alkaios
That was a different kind of service. I think...yes, we might consider some changes.

A link to the source, for those curious:

https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/M...rning#Dialogue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A link to the source, for those curious:

https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/M...rning#Dialogue

---

That quest dialogue brings up another thing though. The Ancients' creations leave behind remains and are made of flesh, blood, and bone. Familiars like nixies and carbuncles, as well as the primals are all made of aether and do not leave anything behind.

I think that alone puts the use of familiars in a different category. The Ancients probably feel the same as well, especially considering that FATE chain I mentioned previously where we're expected to die and the Ancient is cheering his creation along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

A link to the source, for those curious:

https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/M...rning#Dialogue

---

reading through the quest it reads like the wol introduced the mourning aspect to the ritual while before it was simply a way to return dead creations back to the world faster.
for example

Quote:

---

A physical reminder of the life that was? An interesting sentiment, but if we practiced such a custom in Elpis, we would eventually run out of places to put them.

---

Quote:

---

We must return and commit this event to parchment while it remains fresh in our minds─a potential shift in our traditions is a historical moment worth recording.

Thank you again, Alkaios. We are ever grateful for your calming presence.

And our thanks to you, Maira and Forename─not only for attending, but also elevating the proceedings.

---

im not calling them heartless, the quest proves otherwise, im just saying i don't think its a mourning ritual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

reading through the quest it reads like the wol introduced the mourning aspect to the ritual while before it was simply a way to return dead creations back to the world faster.
for example



im not calling them heartless, the quest proves otherwise, im just saying i don't think its a mourning ritual.

---

It also confirms that this is a new concept, and so can't be pulled out as evidence for 'see, the Ancients treat their creations' lives with respect'. Amaurot existed for an unclear but significant amount of time, and they needed help from a time traveler to come up with the concept of funerals.

Like you said, not heartless, but their hearts clearly aren't with those lives.

I haven't done that quest yet so it's my first time reading through the dialog. Am I missing something? The only thing I see the WoL added were flowers. They already had rites they performed and said that the WoL's addition 'elevated' it.

I've often wondered if we played the same game and maybe this is my answer. Even reading the same quest text we arrive at different conclusions.