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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisAstranagant

Why would you imagine being a familiar if you lived in ancient society but not a familiar, mammet or even animal when considering current Etheirys?

---

Because familiars can be people with souls, a Mammet or an animal not so.

Actually, now that I think about it being an auspice and hanging out with all the other auspices would be ideal, I'm changing my answer to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

In the Ancient society, I suppose I'd be a familiar. Which kind of turns how good existance is into a dice roll, maybe I'd be a familiar for someone who values me as an equal and research partner, which would be the best possible outcome. Or maybe I'd be a familiar for one of those ancients who thinks it would be fine if a creature in Elpis killed me, which would suck.

---

I'm not sure the Ancients really had a 'class' of genuinely sapient familiars. Having done all the quests in Elpis, many of the researchers seem shocked that you're capable of understanding complex ideas and especially that you have a soul. One of them even gets kind of uncomfortable about the implications.

The vibe I got was that cases like Meteion are still very fringe, and people didn't really know what to do with them. There was probably a cultural conversation to be hard there.

...also, yeah, it seems like FFXIV is kinda strange about how it treats sapient beings generally if you squint... Like, the Mammets in Island Sanctuary are for sure sentient. But it seems like they're basically slaves? Except we pay them? But then the Ancients also canonically pay us during Elpis, which comes up repeatedly? (What do the Ancients use money for? How does that even work?)

And then you have quests that establish random creatures like the Yeti are sapient... Even though there are multiple quests where we basically murder them to make fur coats...

I feel like we're not supposed to think too hard about this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denishia

Thank you for mentioning the mixed social tolerance for bipolar disorder, btw. I wasn't even going to mention my family, but some of the tone towards Hermes offended me out of silence.

---

Sorry, I have no pity whatsoever for the guy who was responsible for nearly destroying the universe. None. And Hermes is a crappy example for either depression or bipolar.

Oh, btw, the Ancient world encouraged people to be who they were and use whatever natural inborn gifts they may possess. Societal norms were aimed toward outward appearance rather than who you were as a person. And you weren't in danger of being lynched for being gay/trans/what have you. Ya know, unlike here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Sorry, I have no pity whatsoever for the guy who was responsible for nearly destroying the universe. None. And Hermes is a crappy example for either depression or bipolar.

Oh, btw, the Ancient world encouraged people to be who they were and use whatever natural inborn gifts they may possess. Societal norms were aimed toward outward appearance rather than who you were as a person. And you weren't in danger of being lynched for being gay/trans/what have you. Ya know, unlike here.

---

They're right. Venat was looked at as ever so slightly strange but was still heavily respected. There's a dude with pink spiky hair standing right bloody there in Elpis, and at least one example of a fantasy transgender person in Ancient society's narrative framing. It's ludicrous to me to see so many assume because Emet-Selch created Allag and Garlemald near 10,000 years after his people's demise (something that they excuse Amon, Hermes' reincarnation for when the guy ran the Syrcus; the root of all Allag's worst depravity) as meaning all Ancients were primordial proto-Adolfs. Also, Hermes' narrative framing is an atrocious example of one with mental health. He is practically suggestive that it is the norm for depressed people who are different to go on a glorified massacre, and people here applaud that. THAT'S what I take offense to. If you'd remove yourselves from your sea of headcanon for even one second, you'd see clearly just how welcome a society like Amaurot would be for you. Whoever you are, whatever you like to do they support it. That's more than you can say for any society I know.

I empathize a fair flipping bit with Hermes, I'll have you know. I merely disagree with the outcome, his chosen course of action. You think I haven't wanted to go and destroy everybody who in my delusions mistreated me? But when my head clears, I realize that form of violence and hate wasn't the answer I was looking for. Similarly, I don't hate Venat despite what most probably think. I just see her as misguided, and her chosen course as morally deficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Oh, btw, the Ancient world encouraged people to be who they were and use whatever natural inborn gifts they may possess. Societal norms were aimed toward outward appearance rather than who you were as a person. And you weren't in danger of being lynched for being gay/trans/what have you. Ya know, unlike here.

---

I think in order to claim that the Ancient world is more tolerant of lgbt people, we would need to see them be actually represented by the story. And since we barely see any confirmed repesentation of lgbt people, or examples of bigotry towards them anywhere in the sundered or unsundered world, I think there's just zero information to go on there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

And then you have quests that establish random creatures like the Yeti are sapient... Even though there are multiple quests where we basically murder them to make fur coats...

I feel like we're not supposed to think too hard about this stuff.

---

The huge presence of quests like this - there are also quests that establish trolls as sapient! - quests where you help bring forth creatures specifically to kill them for ritualistic purposes! - makes it all the more sort of mind-boggling and ill-thought-out, at best, that the writers chose to go the direction of "they cull creations and wildlife sometimes in a callous way" as some kind of stern moral check upon the Ancients. I realize this is my complexes and my fixations, in large part, but now every time I do one of those quests that involve "surprise, Yetis are sapient!" or "this Sharlayan researcher wants you to go massacre a bunch of creatures to make some cool cologne!", I partially get thrown out of the game. There is always that nagging voice in the back of my head jeering "ha ha, guess we also don't respect life and deserve to have our entire civilization destroyed - oh well, bicolored gemstones go." It's an unfortunate aspect of the broader damage Endwalker's approach did for me to the game's worldbuilding fabric as a whole.

As far as LGBT things go, I think a friend put it well that the extremely on-the-down-low acknowledgment - if any exists at all - probably best seen as a reflection of the limitations of both the writers and the audience. But again, there are at least the Strong Implications present with Artemis in terms of both sexuality and gender. The Sundered also have that one minor sidequest NPC couple as well, though, too. But it's hard for me to believe that the Ancients put a lot of stock in gender and appearance, given it was known and accepted they could alter their bodies at will, and their understanding of the fluid nature of souls within the reincarnation cycle.

Honestly, one of the things I personally found "comforting" about the Ancient world, from that "both physically and mentally chronically ill/neurodivergent" angle, was the sense of how eager they seemed - even if sometimes it was a bit overbearing and misguided - to reach out and help those who were struggling or who might be deficient or lacking in aether manipulation. (I would presume that, given their abilities, most physical disabilities we know of were a non-issue.) Hythlodaeus, terrible at aether manipulation, was the front-running candidate for one of the highest seats in government. The researchers in Elpis who recognized your thin aether and promptly panicked in their rush to make you an aether smoothie to help. In Pandaemonium, Erichotonios has a complex about his lack of talent in most magicks, due to his complicated relationship with Lahabrea - however, from what we see, he has good, supportive relationships with all the other Keywards, and another highest-ranking-government-official figure rather vehemently stands up for him exactly as he is when Hesperos does try to disparage him for it. In Amaurot, when there was no judgment about your inability to use creation magicks on your own, but instead pretty even-toned support and proffered and prepared assistance, I thought, "oh, they have disability accommodations! How wonderful."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I think in order to claim that the Ancient world is more tolerant of lgbt people, we would need to see them be actually represented by the story. And since we barely see any confirmed repesentation of lgbt people, or examples of bigotry towards them anywhere in the sundered or unsundered world, I think there's just zero information to go on there.

---

Why then, given the lack of any evidence, can so few on here see the Unsundered World as anything but this uber-fascist superiority bigot utopia based on what Emet-Selch did in the modern-day, Sundered era then? Why is everyone on here so incapable of applying the defense you just gave, the one so many here are so fond of equally?

You cannot condemn or praise a society for a set of virtues or flaws, then turn right around and do the polar opposite to another based on the same or similar premises. Not logically, and not if you wanna be taken seriously in any forme of legitimate debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Sorry, where is this dialogue you're talking about, exactly?

---

Sadly I dont remember. I think its just two NPCs standing somewhere having speech bubbles when you pass them. Might be near some building since they just got accepted? Of course there might be different dialogue in languages other than Germany.

They just stuck to me in my playthrough because they were just another small hint the devs dropped that it was not all just paradise. Of course it could have also been a hint at their fate. That they would become part of the sacrifice.

Edit:
Since this topic is now so much about where we would live, I honestly would say that I do not want to live in FF14 at all. I would just end up death a few weeks after getting there. (And I would miss modern technology way too much)

If I am forced here and have at least some connection I would choose Il Mheg. I absolutely love the look of it and if the Pixies like me, nothing bad will happen there. (Add the bonus that there are not many people to interact either) I would move into Uriangers old house and read and relax all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I can't help but wonder how long history stretched prior to the time of the Ancients, because it's mentioned that they created their paradise and things were not always as they were.

Perhaps they used to behave more like the sundered folk in some time still further past, and some manner of unpleasantry caused a large scale societal/cultural reform into their present state.

---

You know after all this talk of the Ancients that is something I have wondered a fair bit. Just how did they become this near-utopia society we hear about? Few civilisations grow without blood on their hands, so I would not be surprised at all if they did match the more ‘Sundered’ cultures before they where elevated. Another reason why the Ascians are repulsed by them, perhaps. I doubt we will ever really get a answer in-game as we move away from that chapter, but this is where I think it would be neat if FFXIV and its writers expanded their storytelling into different mediums. WoW lore may be trash in-game, but I used to read the novels that accompanied them and there where some really good ones. I would totally read a story or encyclopedia showing the Ancient history.

Personally speaking, I can see why people would say they want to live in that society most out of all the ones in the game, though I do not think we really know enough about the Ancients or Amaurot to really say objectively that they are the perfect utopia some hold them to be. I admit I have not done the Elpis side quests so that could form a better picture, but for me at least it still feels like we only know a fraction of who they are. We are seeing their society through a small lens, and often through the gaze of Convocation members who hold a privileged rank, and Ascians who have endured centuries of pain, suffering and hate. Plus one persons idea of a Utopia may not match anyone else. Like, what do they do with criminals or those who decide they want to do something that does not ‘serve the Star’? How do they react to the different people and civilisations? Are they isolationists or do they open their borders to others? What type of social hierarchies outside the Convocation exist? Personally speaking I find a ‘perfect’ society free of any flaws or criticisms to be rather boring in a storytelling sense. Slight tangent, buts its one of the reasons why Star Trek: DS9 is my second favourite show of all time. I adore the utopia idea of the Federation and Starfleet, but DS9 is not afraid to show how that system is not immune to hijacking, fear or free from flaws. As one of the best characters says, ‘Its a easy to be a saint in paradise.’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Edit:
Since this topic is now so much about where we would live, I honestly would say that I do not want to live in FF14 at all. I would just end up death a few weeks after getting there. (And I would miss modern technology way too much)

If I am forced here and have at least some connection I would choose Il Mheg. I absolutely love the look of it and if the Pixies like me, nothing bad will happen there. (Add the bonus that there are not many people to interact either) I would move into Uriangers old house and read and relax all day.

---

I 100% agree. Even in the most civilized places of Eorzea I doubt I would survive long for multiple reasons, and Il Mheg is mny favorite zone. Let me go live with the Nu mou! I think I would get on better with them then the Pixies haha.

Honestly, at this point in the narrative, the question of "was Amaurot really perfect/a utopia?" seems both functionally useless and sort of disingenuous to me. I think it's very clear at this point that no, they weren't perfect. They had problems, they had struggles, they had flaws. They had strained family relationships. They had conflict. Their society was still one capable of producing malicious individuals like Athena.

But again, at this point: so what? It's a self-defeating question, one meant to set up the Ancients to unavoidably fail to pass muster. And now that we've expanded so much upon the texture and details of Amaurot proper, and them not being perfect lends itself to that - of course not, of course they couldn't be, because they were people, who were generally doing their best - which is far more affecting. With the "perfect? y/n" framework, the conversation basically ends at "no," and to be honest, it sometimes seems based around a motivation of "spiting Emet-Selch, the individual, who did harm out of love for them [so we must denigrate all that he loves]" than an actual consideration of the Ancients as a race and a culture as a whole. (I mean, if you hate Emet-Selch - totally fair, he's an asshole who has done plenty of incredibly horrible things. But I think it's less fair to take your resentment of one displaced member of a culture and extend that distaste to the entirety of all the people and practices within it, so to speak.)

But if we can put aside the question of "were they perfect" we can start asking other things, with more capacity for nuance - were they good? Was their society one designed to reduce harm as much as possible, in good faith and benevolence? And in that regard, we get to Lurina's question - is it even possible or desireable for a society to "optimize" to the point that individuals like Hermes and Athena would become complete impossibilities? Is it even possible for a society to eliminate people on the margins altogether and suit everyone's needs to accommodate their happiness? And on the narrative level, going back to the choices of Endwalker regarding the Sundering and their destruction - was their loss a tragedy, one worthy of unambiguous mourning, or are we supposed to take it as a "cautionary tale," and how does that work in the context of the rest of FFXIV?

And even putting aside the question of "perfect" (doubly useless because "perfect" is a subjective term that will vary from individual to individual to begin with), are they an affecting demonstration for some of us that, while not perfect, perhaps better things as a society may in fact be possible? (Obviously, for me, the answer is yes - and their destruction does amount to meaningless tragedy we're left to grapple with the reality of, because I strongly reject the just-world fallacy or the associated rationalizations of "well, they were no angels, and surely brought it on themselves.")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm not sure the Ancients really had a 'class' of genuinely sapient familiars. Having done all the quests in Elpis, many of the researchers seem shocked that you're capable of understanding complex ideas and especially that you have a soul. One of them even gets kind of uncomfortable about the implications.

The vibe I got was that cases like Meteion are still very fringe, and people didn't really know what to do with them. There was probably a cultural conversation to be hard there.

---

See I actually have to hard disagree. The example of the Lyssa in Ktisis suggests they played fast and loose with sentience.

Let me use an example because I'm playing through Mass Effect again atm. Long story short, a group called the Quarians created synthetic helpers to handle their labor needs and gave them a very limited level of intelligence that was nowhere near sentience. Unintentionally however, they eventually did develop sentience. The Quarians, realizing what happened, went "oh no, we basically have slaves now," and quickly panicked thinking the Geth would rise up. This led to them trying to destroy the Geth and losing their homeworld.

Now the game rightfully points out how badly the Quarians fucked up, but I think the initial reaction is interesting to compare. The Quarians overreact and believe their slaves would destroy them because of their sentience, the Ancients go "wow neat! we should remake it with vocal cords for more experiments!" It kind of highlights what makes me squick at the Ancients handling of these things. They have the knowledge to know what is sentient and what isn't, the power to protect and coexist with that sentience without much cost, and yet they don't seem to care. I compare that to the Sundered, who yes struggle with this as well and deserve to be called out when aren't in the right, but still have many who try their best like with city states and the Allied tribes. In the Ancient world its just really Hermes who seems to care.

And on the question of queer representation, if were going to have Artemis as an example we would be remiss to not include Ryne and Gaia, who have a lot of evidence pointing to a queer reading of their relationship.

I also just love my gay daughters and wish them happiness so I will take every opportunity to mention them like a mom who constantly shows family photos.

Really, asking if the Ancient society was perfect is doubly useless because for one, even if it was perfect, that doesn't justify the acts of genocide the ascians enacted in order to try and restore it.

And two, by the time of the sundering, the collapse of thier society was already a foregone conclusion. Even if the third sacrifice had restored everyone who intially sacrificed themselves to Zodiark, there would still be some form of ensouled life stuck in Zodiark now.

In that sense, Venat and her followers were not only Walking Away From Omelas, but making the city uninhabitable on thier way out too.

I mean, that goes both ways. How we place Amaurot on the "perfection" spectrum doesn't matter when it comes to either justifying acts of violence on masses of innocent people on their behalf, or justifying acts of violence against them - along with the weird victim-blamey suggestions that they had it coming, brought it on themselves, and aren't worth mourning and trying to save if possible, either.

The Ancients were people. Generally well-intentioned people who yes, were sometimes flawed and made mistakes, but well-intentioned overall - with a well-intentioned society that seems to have done its best to accommodate as many people as possible while working for the greater good, in a way that I personally found touching and affecting. The fundamental conflict in Shadowbringers is that both groups of people, Sundered and Unsundered, were people worthy of being saved, but the situation was such that only one was going to be able to be.

I'm pretty sure I've made it obvious at this point that I fundamentally disagree with it being a "foregone conclusion" that they were doomed, and furthermore reject the premise that "if they are walking a path that will end in doom at some point, annihilating them immediately is acceptable", but that's ground that's been tread a million times over, and I don't really want to derail from the much more interesting points of discussion Lurina has been bringing up. Fundamentally, I'm happy to accept the general reading that the Rejoinings and the Sundering were roughly as morally terrible and unacceptable to inflict upon their mass amounts of respective victims, equally worthy living people, as each other - with an individual's mileage varying as far as further nuance into it goes.

I mean, the only violence we commit against the ascians are that of self-defense. I don't think the ascians can say the same.

And I say it was a foregone conclusion because by the time of the sundering and the third sacrifice, the final days and creation of Zodiark had already occured, fundamentally changing the society of the ancients into one with blood sacrifice at the center of it.

And if Venat had say, done something to alter the future that she knew was to pass, that would just be abadoning our future and lives to our fate, since our existance is contigent on at least one timeline going the way we described to Venat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I mean, the only violence we commit against the ascians are that of self-defense. I don't think the ascians can say the same.

---

You'll notice I'm talking wholly about the Ancients/Amaurot, not the Ascians.

The funny thing about this discussion is that regardless of which viewpoint you support around the fall of Amaurot, you're going to find yourself at odds with at least one former Convocation member. A nation will always be a reflection of its leadership, and Venat, Emet, and Hermes all had their turn as the pinnacle of their society. If you want to live inside that glass house, you can ill afford to throw stones at any of them, as they're all products of it. Of course, if you live outside of it, you needn't have any such reservations.

Out of the last set of Convocation members, Loghrif seems to be the only one that we've met who wasn't deeply twisted on a personal level, and she ended up choosing to live out her life as a sundered, for what it's worth. The rest of them were just all talk and no dynamis.

And still, y'all don't get it. Oh well, let nobody say I didn't try. Just more of the usual, blaming a people one knows nothing concrete of of nebulous flaws and using it to condemn then wholesale. Ignoring the individual, I was under the impression this is the kind of behaviour we as a people were supposed to oppose, not continue to propagate. But 'tis fine, I've fought my fight and did my part.

I feel like the thing is that, for us, the Sundering isn't even a foregone conclusion (ie. a future event assumed to be inevitable) but simply the known outcome. We can feel sad about it but we can't undo it, and changing the past was never really compatible with what we were trying to achieve in Elpis – that is, seeing what happened in the past of our timeline to bring new information back to the present. If it was even possible to alter things and set it on a new path, we might not learn anything useful out of it, and would be saving an unfamiliar world at the expense of leaving our own to burn, or at best returning empty-handed.

We were warned before we went there that we must not change things and can only steel our hearts against what we would witness there, because it was already history for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

And if Venat had say, done something to alter the future that she knew was to pass, that would just be abadoning our future and lives to our fate, since our existance is contigent on at least one timeline going the way we described to Venat.

---

I do keep coming back to speculating on how split timelines would work, but if it perhaps comes down to a key moment of chance or decision – because somehow time needs to both go in its new path and the old one as well, with a copy of everything in each. So even if Venat did change her future based on our warning, by necessity a version of her still has to end up in our timeline carrying out the tragedy we warned her she would fulfil.

If she succeeded, then we would never know, any more than G'raha's friends from the other future will know he succeeded. (Short of upgrading Alexander to jump timelines, anyway.)


Just wait for 11.0 where a time portal opens up and Biggs III, Mide and Dayan come barging through on Super Alexander, making a surprise stop on their way back to 100 years ago to found the Hotgo tribe. Turns out a world full of umbrally charged aether is great for powering up your umbrally aspected time machine and Alexander's presence is now helping to restore aetherial balance rather than disrupt it, so they're off on a temporal joyride to use up some battery. Please look forward to it.

I think the idea that the Sundering is an inevitable, indelible part of the past would work better if we hadn't actually visited (and continue to visit) the world prior to the Sundering. Part of the reason Amaurot was so powerful was the fact that it was an illusion created by someone who loved it--a love and memory that had lasted far beyond our human limits of recollection and life. As the narration in the Shadowbringers ending states, eventually that illusion will fade now that Emet-Selch is no longer around to maintain it.

Elpis, on the other hand, is the world as it literally was. We are interacting with people that don't know they're doomed. It feels terrible to me to make friends with Themis, to get involved with Erichthonios and Lahabrea's complicated family situation, while certain death is hanging above their heads like the sword of Damocles.

For me it would be similar to people getting upset that others aren't upset about the Titanic sinking at the end of watching any movie or mini series about the boat. We know it has to happen or it becomes an AU. Just because we accept that the boat needing to sink doesn’t mean we aren't capable of being sad that it sunk. It just means we can't do anything about it.

Even if we did entertain the idea of going full gung-ho on trying to change the fate of the Unsundered world a world is still getting screwed over. You the player might be fine with sacrificing the world the WoL came from, but that doesn't mean the WoL would be.

I am interested in what happens at the end of Pandeamonium as Elidibus did mention a few times a promise they made to someone about something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

See I actually have to hard disagree. The example of the Lyssa in Ktisis suggests they played fast and loose with sentience.

Let me use an example because I'm playing through Mass Effect again atm. Long story short, a group called the Quarians created synthetic helpers to handle their labor needs and gave them a very limited level of intelligence that was nowhere near sentience. Unintentionally however, they eventually did develop sentience. The Quarians, realizing what happened, went "oh no, we basically have slaves now," and quickly panicked thinking the Geth would rise up. This led to them trying to destroy the Geth and losing their homeworld.

Now the game rightfully points out how badly the Quarians fucked up, but I think the initial reaction is interesting to compare. The Quarians overreact and believe their slaves would destroy them because of their sentience, the Ancients go "wow neat! we should remake it with vocal cords for more experiments!" It kind of highlights what makes me squick at the Ancients handling of these things. They have the knowledge to know what is sentient and what isn't, the power to protect and coexist with that sentience without much cost, and yet they don't seem to care. I compare that to the Sundered, who yes struggle with this as well and deserve to be called out when aren't in the right, but still have many who try their best like with city states and the Allied tribes. In the Ancient world its just really Hermes who seems to care.

---

We don't see any apparently-sapient creatures out and about in Elpis (although, again, we keep getting quests in the Sundered world that establish whatever random species we've been murdering to make hair regrowth tonic has actually been sapient all along, with the game not seeming to regard this as particularly weird, which suggests some awkward double standards on the part of the writers), just Meteion and the Lyssa, which we hear about second-hand. Meteion is a personal project of Hermes that only a handful of people know anything about, while the sapience of the Lyssa is clearly an accident - like you said, the note we find describes the Ancients as being delighted and surprised. Even when it comes to Familars, all the other ones we encounter in game are just animals. Even Venat's proto-Loporitt doesn't speak.

I don't think there's any basis to think they had some kind of broader servant class of sapient creations in the same way as the Quarians. Again, there's a whole quest chain where the researchers are fascinated (and occasionally a little worried) by your apparent intelligence as a special case, and seem a little taken aback when you do things like express discomfort with their creation-testing process; as soon as you speak to them 'on their level', they start questioning themselves. While the Ancients seem sort of flippant about the issue, it seems more like they're naive than exploitative. They haven't fully considered the implications of co-existing with other life capable of advanced thought because it's so uncommon.

You're not wrong about it being kinda irresponsible, but it's not institutional slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

In that sense, Venat and her followers were not only Walking Away From Omelas, but making the city uninhabitable on thier way out too.

---

I mean, Venat and her followers left Zodiark intact with all the Ancient souls inside who seemed to have been operating under the assumption they'd eventually be freed. You can wade through the tangled and messy writing of the Sundering scenario in general and say that it was necessary for Venat's plan to keep Zodiark alive regardless of the morals of the issue, but it's still less walking away from Omelas and more taking issue with which baby is being tortured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I mean, Venat and her followers left Zodiark intact with all the Ancient souls inside who seemed to have been operating under the assumption they'd eventually be freed. You can wade through the tangled and messy writing of the Sundering scenario in general and say that it was necessary for Venat's plan to keep Zodiark alive regardless of the morals of the issue, but it's still less walking away from Omelas and more taking issue with which baby is being tortured.

---

I mean, the ancients inside Zodiark volunteered to be there, which makes the moral consideration of whether it's "okay" to leave them there different compared to the targets of the third sacrifice, which would have no say in the matter or understanding of why they they were being sacrificed.

If the child in Omelas was instead an adult who had volunteered to be there, I think the moral considerations change a bit. Part of what makes it so horrible is that they have no capacity to understand why they are suffering.

Also, Venat was operating with future knowledge that Zodiark would eventually die and the souls inside him freed, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

You'll notice I'm talking wholly about the Ancients/Amaurot, not the Ascians.

---

We commit even less violence against them, though. Limited only to Hermes and the people in Pandemonium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

We commit even less violence against them, though. Limited only to Hermes and the people in Pandemonium.

---

And once again, you'll notice I said "justifying acts of violence" in general, not "our personal acts of violence." These discussions usually take place in context of arguing whether Hermes and Venat's actions in lashing out against Ancient culture and ultimately committing violence against them were justified, reasonable, or understandable, not necessarily anything specifically involving the Warrior of Light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I mean, the ancients inside Zodiark volunteered to be there, which makes the moral consideration of whether it's "okay" to leave them there different compared to the targets of the third sacrifice, which would have no say in the matter or understanding of why they they were being sacrificed.

---

They 'volunteered' under the imminent threat of everyone dying anyway. I'm pretty sure that counts as under duress. When you talk to someone of them on the moon, it's clear that at least a fair number are not at all happy about what happened.

And again, it's suggested that everyone went into the plan understanding the intent was to find a way to free their souls once the crisis had been resolved. The Ancients in Zodiark gave up their lives conditionally to protect their own civilization and loved ones in the medium term. They did not agree to their immortal souls becoming batteries for a shield to protect a completely different group of races and civilizations for 12,000 years. Hydaelyn's plan was predicated on their non-consensual exploitation just as much as the Convocation's plan was predicated on the non-consensual exploitation of the third wave of sacrifices.

...that is, assuming they were sapient, which as always is not really made clear for some reason.

Honestly, I feel like the Ancients who sacrificed themselves are never really centered enough in these conversations. They gave up everything to save the world, only for Hydaelyn to treat them as tools in her gambit (which wasn't even guaranteed to work, based on G'raha's timeline), deciding that they were to bare the burden for the safety of her 'children' indefinitely. But despite them being their perpetual protectors, taking 100% of the burden that would otherwise have destroyed the planet at a moment's notice, she literally erased them from history; swept them under the rug.

If that's not an Omelas situation, I don't know what is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

...that is, assuming they were sapient, which as always is not really made clear for some reason.

---

I assume the devs thought that if it was outright said that the 3rd sacrifices were sapient, there would be no morally grey area anymore and Venat would be easily declared the heroine and the Convocation the villains, I guess?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

And again, it's suggested that everyone went into the plan understanding the intent was to find a way to free their souls once the crisis had been resolved. The Ancients in Zodiark gave up their lives conditionally to protect their own civilization and loved ones in the medium term.

---

I dunno, Emet-Selch's line about whether half of the sundered would sacrifice their lives for the other kind of loses its weight if what he actually meant was "would half of you agree to be temporarily inconvienced until the other half figures out how to fix it?"

It kind of cheapens the first and second sacrifice if the ancients going into it always knew it was a temporary affair. I always figured that the third sacrifice was something that the remaining ancients came up with after being incapable of accepting the loss of the ones that died to bring about Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

And once again, you'll notice I said "justifying acts of violence" in general, not "our personal acts of violence." These discussions usually take place in context of arguing whether Hermes and Venat's actions in lashing out against Ancient culture and ultimately committing violence against them were justified, reasonable, or understandable, not necessarily anything specifically involving the Warrior of Light.

---

It's arguable if Venat did commit acts of violence at all, in Venat's case, her "violence" can be seen as the same kind of violence that a surgeon commits when he has to amputate an infected limb.

And Hermes, I don't think anyone has ever said his actions are justifable. Understandable maybe, but you can understand someone without agreeing with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I dunno, Emet-Selch's line about whether half of the sundered would sacrifice their lives for the other kind of loses its weight if what he actually meant was "would half of you agree to be temporarily inconvienced until the other half figures out how to fix it?"

---

They died. It's like saying Papalymo didn't really sacrifice himself, he's just taking a temporary dip in the Aetherial Sea. Or what Ysayle did for us was no biggie because it's not like she gave up the possibility of reincarnation. Why bother getting upset over Haurchefant? Sure, his life was cut short, but his aether still exists, so no problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

They died. It's like saying Papalymo didn't really sacrifice himself, he's just taking a temporary dip in the Aetherial Sea. Or what Ysayle did for us was no biggie because it's not like she gave up the possibility of reincarnation. Why bother getting upset over Haurchefant? Sure, his life was cut short, but his aether still exists, so no problem.

---

The intention of the third sacrifice is to bring them back from the dead. Not reincarnate them or let them return to the aetheric sea, but fully and completely restore and revive them.

If that had been successful, then the finality of thier deaths would no longer have any sting. If they had sacrificed themselves assuming they would be brought back to life later, then thier sacrifices would be less meaningful than Ysayle or Papalymo's, who understood they were going to die and there was no coming back.

Edit: And just to be clear, I don't think the people of the first two sacrifices knew about any plans to try to revive them, because I do think those sacrifices are particularly meaningful and show the deep love and dedication the ancients had towards each other and thier star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I dunno, Emet-Selch's line about whether half of the sundered would sacrifice their lives for the other kind of loses its weight if what he actually meant was "would half of you agree to be temporarily inconvienced until the other half figures out how to fix it?"

It kind of cheapens the first and second sacrifice if the ancients going into it always knew it was a temporary affair. I always figured that the third sacrifice was something that the remaining ancients came up with after being incapable of accepting the loss of the ones that died to bring about Zodiark.

---

IIRC, the text is ambiguous as to whether they accepted being sacrificed under the premise they'd try to bring them back to life, or just that their souls would be freed to return to the star so they wouldn't spend forever in Zodiark purgatory - I'd personally lean towards the latter interpretation, since it does make Emet's speech less weird and generally vibes more akin to the writers intent. Some of the dialogue from the moon definitely makes it clear that being trapped within him for literally millenia was not the plan, at least.

Though, I think it bears mentioning that, even if they had gone into it with the assumption/hope that they'd be saved, giving up your body and staking your literal soul on a plan to save the world that may or may not even work is still a pretty heroic act. I really think people don't appreciate the magnitude of what the sacrifices to Zodiark actually did.

I edited my last post to kinda sharpen the point I was making a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

The intention of the third sacrifice is to bring them back from the dead. Not reincarnate them or let them return to the aetheric sea, but fully and completely restore and revive them.

If that had been successful, then the finality of thier deaths would no longer have any sting. If they had sacrificed themselves assuming they would be brought back to life later, then thier sacrifices would be less meaningful than Ysayle or Papalymo's, who understood they were going to die and there was no coming back.

Edit: And just to be clear, I don't think the people of the first two sacrifices knew about any plans to try to revive them, because I do think those sacrifices are particularly meaningful and show the deep love and dedication the ancients had towards each other and thier star.

---

I don’t agree with this characterization and can’t think of a place in the text where anyone says anything about restoring the bodies of those that sacrificed themselves—if you know of one I’m missing, please do point it out, seriously—but even taking putting forth your idea as absolutely correct, Hien is still brave and laudable when he faces off against Zenos to buy time until we arrive to take up the fight.

This idea that only the Ancients have to be 100% okay with being forever cut off from the cycle of life and rebirth—to be denied their chance to be the lifeblood of the Star, as is so important to them culturally—in order for their actions to be noble has never made sense to me, admittedly.

At the end of the day, any argument that you offer up to justify Amaurot's decision start sacrificing non-Amaurotian souls to Zodiark will hinge on the belief that those living individuals have less value than a bunch of dead Amaurotian souls. Which is very similar to Emet's reasoning when he slaughtered the people of seven worlds to have his rejoinings. He justifies it as not being murder because those races, those people, are somehow less than human in his eyes. And it's incredibly hard not to see the problem with that.

I don't see why that last set of sacrifices needed to happen, either. If releasing the souls was all that important, then just destroy Zodiark to release them. That is, if the Amaurotians truly believed that they had solved the problem. If they genuinely planned on keeping Zodiark around forever, then it shows that they willfully ignored the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

It's arguable if Venat did commit acts of violence at all, in Venat's case, her "violence" can be seen as the same kind of violence that a surgeon commits when he has to amputate an infected limb.

---

Conversation is moving faster than my comfortable speed of posting here, but this is a little screwed up. Whether or not you agree it was justified, the Sundering killed (or at least identity-deathed) everyone on the planet, many of whom were probably not even involved in the the sacrifice issue at all. It was unambiguously a violent act, and I assume even the writers accept that - there's a reason that Venat is depicted wielding a sword in the abstracted post-Elpis cutscene.

Describing the extermination of a culture or group in medical terms (amputating a gangrenous limb, cutting out a cancer, taking bitter medicine, etc) is a dehumanizing rhetorical tool to whitewash violence that has often been employed in the justification of real world instances of genocide. It's silly to say since we're talking about a video game, but you should probably be careful with that sort of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

At the end of the day, any argument that you offer up to justify Amaurot's decision start sacrificing non-Amaurotian souls to Zodiark will hinge on the belief that those living individuals have less value than a bunch of dead Amaurotian souls.

---

I don't think anyone is arguing the third sacrifice would have been ethical if it actually involved intelligent beings. I assume most people would take Azem's tack and say that Zodiark was probably not a great solution in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I don’t agree with this characterization and can’t think of a place in the text where anyone says anything about restoring the bodies of those that sacrificed themselves—.

---

https://tinypic.host/images/2022/09/...00_YouTube.jpg
https://tinypic.host/images/2022/09/...18_YouTube.jpg

And from A Friendship of Record

Quote:

---

His devotees then resolved to sow new life─a bounty of souls to take the place of their sacrificed brethren. In time would they reap this crop, and by rendering it unto their god would the lost be returned, and the world restored to the paradise it was and ever should have been.

---

Honestly, if the third sacrifice was just to put the Ancient souls back into the lifestream I'd probably consider it even worse. At least bringing back all the sacrifices as they were is generally in-keeping with the emotional thrust and flaw of the second sacrifice; it's a different facet of 'put everything back the way it was', sacrificing the new to sustain the old. 'sacrifice new souls to put the old ones back in the cycle of rebirth' doesn't even make any emotional sense, you still don't get back what you lost, and it doesn't really result in anything different because it's just replacing souls with souls. Basically all it would be is a sacrifice for sacrifice's sake.

But yeah, it's mentioned multiple times that it's essentially 'bring back the people we lost as-is'. Emet doesn't want Hythlodaeus' soul back in the Lifestream, he wants Hythlodaeus back as Hythlodaeus.

I had a whole reply typed out and then lost it, but in short I think genocide comparisons are always going to falls short for me because genocide is a modern, industrialized act of violence commited by nation states against peoples, not acts of individualized supermurder.

I have trouble viewing either the sundering or the rejoinings as genocidal for the same reason - that they are so abstracted from anything that could ever happen in real life, and in no way resemble any kind of real life genocide. (But I can see the actions of say, Garlemald, the Allagan Empire or Limsa Lominsa as genocidal,)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I had a whole reply typed out and then lost it, but in short I think genocide comparisons are always going to falls short for me because genocide is a modern, industrialized act of violence commited by nation states against peoples, not acts of individualized supermurder.

I have trouble viewing either the sundering or the rejoinings as genocidal for the same reason - that they are so abstracted from anything that could ever happen in real life, and in no way resemble any kind of real life genocide. (But I can see the actions of say, Garlemald, the Allagan Empire or Limsa Lominsa as genocidal,)

---

Genocide is by no means modern. The Achaemenid Empire was institutionally exterminating conquered cultures when western civilization was nothing but a glint in Alexander the Great's eye.

That being said, even if you don't want to call it that, fantastical supermurder is still murder. It's violent, and I don't think you should gloss over it with flourishes of language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

Really, asking if the Ancient society was perfect is doubly useless because for one, even if it was perfect, that doesn't justify the acts of genocide the ascians enacted in order to try and restore it.

---

Really, asking if the Ancient society was perfect is doubly useless because for one, even if it wasn’t perfect, that doesn't justify the act of genocide that Venat enacted in order to try and “save” it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Genocide is by no means modern. The Achaemenid Empire was institutionally exterminating conquered cultures when western civilization was nothing but a glint in Alexander the Great's eye.

That being said, even if you don't want to call it that, fantastical supermurder is still murder. It's violent, and I don't think you should gloss over it with flourishes of language.

---

The focus i had was less on the academic question of whether or not the actions of pre-modern societies can be characterized as genocide, but more that genocide itself is something that societies to do classes of people in a large, collaborative sense, regardless of the era it happens in.

Taking away someone's godhood, or destroying universes to smoosh fractured souls together exist in a completely different realm of abstraction to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I have trouble viewing either the sundering or the rejoinings as genocidal for the same reason - that they are so abstracted from anything that could ever happen in real life, and in no way resemble any kind of real life genocide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

Really, asking if the Ancient society was perfect is doubly useless because for one, even if it was perfect, that doesn't justify the acts of genocide the ascians enacted in order to try and restore it.

---

I mean. Okay.

It's weird to me to say you can't take the eradication of a race and culture seriously as 'genocide' simply because the methodology is fantastical, in what has always been a fantasy story. Regardless of how you want to phrase it or handwave it as "taking away godhood", Venat's actions deliberately resulted in the extremely premature destruction of the Ancients both physically and mentally, and she then continued to go on deliberately attempting to erase them from history altogether. This is not something fantastical to me - the latter part in particular is very harrowing in terms of real world atrocities and parallels.

To me, I don't see much distinction between saying "Venat's actions can't be described as genocide because they're too fantastical" and "the Allagan Empire's actions can't be described as genocide because they're too fantastical" because we don't have alien dragons or primals or Tempering or the capacity to create artificial moons with a combination of all of the above to use as a battery. Murder is murder, the forceful ending of one's life is the forceful ending of one's life, regardless of if you're using weird magic as the means to carry it out. And in-game, the Ancients are portrayed as being equally human, full of quirks and idiosyncrasies and emotions and textured relationships and hopes and dreams and frustrations and aspirations, as any other NPC group we interact with. The thematic final word on them in Ultima Thule (from G'raha, if I'm recalling correctly) once again reinforces that they were simply people. And as a people, they were snuffed out wholesale in an act of violence.