Feedback: Feeling disappointed by 6.55's narrative, and thus unsure about Dawntrail

Scions are not putting anyone on the throne. The contest will decided that matter. Lets not jump to the conclusion that wuk lamat will even win the contest. Only one person can put Wuk Lamat on the throne 100%...her father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Scions are not putting anyone on the throne. The contest will decided that matter. Lets not jump to the conclusion that wuk lamat will even win the contest. Only one person can put Wuk Lamat on the throne 100%...her father.

---

True. For all we know it could be some "secret test of character" thing and it's not about who gets there first at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

True. For all we know it could be some "secret test of character" thing and it's not about who gets there first at all.

---

Could also end up as nothing but tough looking cheer leaders who cheer from the sidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Scions are not putting anyone on the throne. The contest will decided that matter. Lets not jump to the conclusion that wuk lamat will even win the contest. Only one person can put Wuk Lamat on the throne 100%...her father.

---

This a huge cope. You really think we can't go in there and kill everyone if we want to? Her other three brothers could combine forces and try to take us down and all the town would see is a massacre. The winner of the contest will be who we end up choosing, simple as that.

Make sure to pack your conquistador hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Scions are not putting anyone on the throne. The contest will decided that matter. Lets not jump to the conclusion that wuk lamat will even win the contest. Only one person can put Wuk Lamat on the throne 100%...her father.

---

Unless he is assassinated or dies of natural causes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

This a huge cope. You really think we can't go in there and kill everyone if we want to? Her other three brothers could combine forces and try to take us down and all the town would see is a massacre. The winner of the contest will be who we end up choosing, simple as that.

Make sure to pack your conquistador hat.

---

The last sentence managed to sold me this expansion far more than the trailer did :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

This a huge cope. You really think we can't go in there and kill everyone if we want to? Her other three brothers could combine forces and try to take us down and all the town would see is a massacre. The winner of the contest will be who we end up choosing, simple as that.

Make sure to pack your conquistador hat.

---

I'm assuming the contest will be like "first to find the gold McGuffin gets to rule" as I feel murdering the future queen's siblings and a former classmate of half the Scions would likely start that war we're supposedly supposed to be avoiding. Though that would be some grade A monkey's paw irony, "Sure, we'll put you on the throne, gonna have to murder your entire family though."

Wuk Lamat: BUT THIS IS A PIE EATING CONTEST?!

Crazy that so many of you guys have already played Dawntrail, wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Embran

Crazy that so many of you guys have already played Dawntrail, wow.

---

Well we either agreed to help Wuk Lamat or we lied into her face. Doesn't matter what Dawntrail is about to do, 6.55 already fucked up no matter how you slice it.

I actually don't have much of a problem with how things played out.

I mean, the WoL is not supposed to be one to rest on their laurels and our 'Adventurer' nature was elaborated on numerous times during Endwalker. Someone who seeks adventure is hardly going to sit around, and things are basically settled in Eoreza.

My head canon is that my character didn't overthink the whole thing since loitering around Eoreza waiting for something to happen Vs exploring Tural (with some added political nonsense) and trying to find the city of gold is no contest!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eisi

Well we either agreed to help Wuk Lamat or we lied into her face. Doesn't matter what Dawntrail is about to do, 6.55 already fucked up no matter how you slice it.

---

Yeah it's fucked up and it ruined the whole upcoming expansion and Final Fantasy XIV and every game that Yoshi P will ever make and Square Enix and every JRPG henceforth, it was catastrophic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

This a huge cope. You really think we can't go in there and kill everyone if we want to? Her other three brothers could combine forces and try to take us down and all the town would see is a massacre. The winner of the contest will be who we end up choosing, simple as that.

Make sure to pack your conquistador hat.

---

Lets not reach to the point our heads rips off and roll across the room please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Oh so that's what you call it when others don't share your opinion? Mighty learned of you. I feel like your statement is inflammatory and contrarian as well. But it's understandable if the concepts being presented here are too complicated for your simplistic world view.

If I were you, I would go around and keep repeating this to others you don't agree with, while not refuting any arguments with some of your own. That'll teach everyone you know best surely.

---

your points are equivalent to "dr frankenstein did nothing wrong "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

your points are equivalent to "dr frankenstein did nothing wrong "

---

Incorrect. Everyone did a bunch of mistakes in the story. Even Alphinaud admitted as much when the crystal braves turned on him. Every being is flawed, and the game goes to great lengths to showcase everyone as human-like, with both good and bad in them. This theme was central to shadowbringers as we get to know Emet.

Even Zenos at the end. You could argue that without him the final days would have succeeded and therefore he was a net positive despite his blood thirsty nature. Although his motivations would put him in the evil category, as he wasn’t trying to save anyone, unlike the others. Regardless he was capable of good deeds.

What’s central to this theme and important to get is that so often we are quick to assume what’s right and wrong and become incredibly prejudiced against others based on the narrative we are told. However, things are always much more complex and nuanced in most cases. Everyone believes in what they are doing, and consider it good.

SE actually does a good job here, never letting their villains just be this mind numbing evil being that needs to be put down because he is just bad and irredeemable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Incorrect. Everyone did a bunch of mistakes in the story. Even Alphinaud admitted as much when the crystal braves turned on him. Every being is flawed, and the game goes to great lengths to showcase everyone as human, with both good and bad in them. This theme was central to shadowbringers as we get to know Emet.

---

emet is a empathetic figure, its easy to see his point of view. but ultimatly wrong as their plan causes literal planet sized genocides every time

his whole deal hanging out with you in shb is to see wether youre "enough" for his qualifications.

your first two points regarding "stopping the ascians :<" and "not letting the reincarnation of dickhead kingarthur take over the world" are especially assinine that if i didnt think you were abjectly wrong that you were taking the piss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

emet is a empathetic figure, its easy to see his point of view. but ultimatly wrong as their plan causes literal planet sized genocides every time

his whole deal hanging out with you in shb is to see wether youre "enough" for his qualifications.

your first two points regarding "stopping the ascians :<" and "not letting the reincarnation of dickhead kingarthur take over the world" are especially assinine that if i didnt think you were abjectly wrong that you were taking the piss.

---

Oh okay you didn’t read the whole thread. We touched on why Hydaelyn committed mass genocide on a scale not even Zodiark and the ascians did. Go back and read it and let me know when you’ve caught up so we can continue if you want.

See it’s hard I assumed since you were on the last page you had something new to add here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Oh okay you didn’t read the whole thread. We touched on why Hydaelyn committed mass genocide on a scale not even Zodiark and the ascians did. Go back and read it and let me know when you’ve caught up so we can continue if you want.

See it’s hard I assumed since you were on the last page you had something new to add here.

---

If most of the ancients had been sacrificed to zodiark, how did hydaelyn commit mass genocide and the ascians didn't?



Before even getting into the whole shard destruction thing, the ascians killed more of their own people than hydaelyn. There was also no guarantee they could fix things by killing even more of their own people. Hydaelyn had a solution that was known to work, as evidenced by our appearance.





Also, I'd like to point out that the emissary himself said that nothing we did while there could change the past. If it did, you'd have to deal with time loop bullshit where we cease to exist, hydaelyn doesn't find out about what happens, and reality implodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Oh okay you didn’t read the whole thread. We touched on why Hydaelyn committed mass genocide on a scale not even Zodiark and the ascians did. Go back and read it and let me know when you’ve caught up so we can continue if you want.

See it’s hard I assumed since you were on the last page you had something new to add here.

---

the original sundering did not "kill" people, it split them 14 ways, and each world has its own lifestream and reincarnation cycle.

if venat "killed" everyone who was left for sundering, by logic no one would be able to be born if everyone died. souls are important, but you still need flesh on flesh to make physical bodies.

saying venat commited genocide is a logical fallacy.

you could say it was "fucked up" as now no one had the power of creation as they did before. but thats a different issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

If most of the ancients had been sacrificed to zodiark, how did hydaelyn commit mass genocide and the ascians didn't?



Before even getting into the whole shard destruction thing, the ascians killed more of their own people than hydaelyn. There was also no guarantee they could fix things by killing even more of their own people. Hydaelyn had a solution that was known to work, as evidenced by our appearance.





Also, I'd like to point out that the emissary himself said that nothing we did while there could change the past. If it did, you'd have to deal with time loop bullshit where we cease to exist, hydaelyn doesn't find out about what happens, and reality implodes.

---

They both did. Thats the point, who was right is subjective. Where you are dead wrong is that Hydaelyn had a solution she knew would work, unless you plan to ignore the fact she left the moon and loporrits as an escape plan should her solution fail. She was just as in the dark about whether the planet could be saved or not as the ascians, and they both had plans in place to fix the situation and buy more time. They just disagreed on the how, and both of them committed genocide leaving who was right up to interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

the original sundering did not "kill" people, it split them 14 ways, and each world has its own lifestream and reincarnation cycle.

if venat "killed" everyone who was left for sundering, by logic no one would be able to be born if everyone died. souls are important, but you still need flesh on flesh to make physical bodies.

saying venat commited genocide is a logical fallacy.

you could say it was "fucked up" as now no one had the power of creation as they did before. but thats a different issue.

---

We already touched on that, did you go back to reading the whole thread like I asked you to? If you don't answer yes I won't reply to you anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

We already touched on that, did you go back to reading the whole thread like I asked you to? If you don't answer yes I won't reply to you anymore.

---

i did, and what you and user known as Denji had to say about it i still find assinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

i did, and what you and user known as Denji had to say about it i still find assinine.

---

Then you would know on page 3 the following was said:

"And reincarnation is a new life, not the same as before, your old life died.

Is it living when all your loved ones and memories are erased. If I wiped your brain to nothing and you were born again it's not really you, someone else just grew up in your stead. This is also a cloning argument, just because someone has the same source material doesn't mean a clone isn't a separate entity because of their experiences and recollections.

Emet Selch sure thought everyone was dead too. So they didn't think they were living TBH."

accompanied by a bunch of conversation of what constitutes killing.

I wouldn't say I am annoyed by any of the 6.55 MSQ but I do sort of agree with most of the points raised by the OP, albeit on a more "wait n see" level rather than throwing Dawntrail under the bus. IMO the WoL, after all that has happened would be EXTREMELY leery of coming down on one side of a political matchup, they might act modest but are quite aware of how heavily their steps fall, I definitely picked the "I don't want to get involved in politics" conversation option. The Thancred/Urianger thing was weird, I have always hated Urianger as a character, I've always hated the "I lied to you for your own benefit" or "I don't have time to explain" tropes and characters in any game. For him to just jump back in on the secrets would make me never trust him again. If we actually could control the party makeup a la single-player RPGs I'd ditch him from the Scions.

(Some of the other takes in this thread are a bit weird and extremist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

Yes exactly, the solution was, hey we can't keep killing people if we kill everyone at once... nice.. All this to buy time for the sundered races to figure out Meteon???? And it was luck that they did, its not like there wasnt a moonship planned in case it failed?? like couldn't they just stay with zodiark to buy time until they figured out what the hell was causing the final days instead of sundering the world and letting other races figure it out?

It took us way longer to figure out dynamis than they would;ve taken, and BTW we only learned about dynamis because we traveled back in time to learn it from who? THEM. Just because they didn't have a solution at the beginning doesn't mean that they wouldn't have found one. Just like we didn't have a solution and found one.

Truly, its nonsensical.

---

This argument hinges on too many assumptions:

1. That Venat didn't tell them about Meteion.
2. That telling them about Meteion would have certainly altered fate.
3. That anyone, including Venat, had the potential to alter fate regardless, given Elidibus established we can't.

Also Venat critics don't seem to understand that Sundering is theoretically the superior option because the goal was to preserve consciousness. Without that, nothing matters. Even if Zodiark only tempers and devours at a rate of 0.1% per day, the idea is that it would have outpaced consciousness. The idea the Ancients would have caught up to Meteion in however many hours, days, or weeks is just a guess and the story does not explore that. Once Zodiark dies, the Final Days come nearly immediately. The Lopporit situation has nothing to do with the Sundering not working. It is yet another contetingency plan for consciousness so that the chance to get to Meteion continues.

I'd also point out that if you actually read and believe the dialogue in this case, that this form of travel cannot change the flow of time (which is what Elidibus says, it's a law invoked so we can return to our timeline, too great of change would necessitate a divergence or alternate timeline situation) it actually does make sense. It's just fanservice.

As for right and wrong, how the story frames it, etc. I do not see how someone can be sober and conscious and play through 5.0 and 6.0 and leave with the idea what happened was the best possible outcome and not a tragic situation where neither side had the best time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

This argument hinges on too many assumptions:

1. That Venat didn't tell them about Meteion.
2. That telling them about Meteion would have certainly altered fate.
3. That anyone, including Venat, had the potential to alter fate regardless, given Elidibus established we can't.

---

That goes both ways, and Elidibus was not perfect so just because he assumes it cannot be altered doesn't make it true. You could also say we in-game altered our very own fate in game by what happened in the twinning.

"Based on the data logs we can conclude that Ironworks from the doomed timeline made use of Omega (traveling space), Alexander (traveling time), Allagan (crystal tower power source), and their own tech in order to build the Tycoon and get back to the past."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

Also Venat critics don't seem to understand that Sundering is theoretically the superior option because the goal was to preserve consciousness. Without that, nothing matters. Even if Zodiark only tempers and devours at a rate of 0.1% per day, the idea is that it would have outpaced consciousness. The idea the Ancients would have caught up to Meteion in however many hours, days, or weeks is just a guess and the story does not explore that.

---

You do know what it does explore? The idea that we (not the ancients) would have caught up to Meteion in however many hours, days, or weeks despite spending centuries dying and being reborn over and over until someone figured it out from scratch, whereas the ancients already had more advanced intelligence and technology than we had, we had to develop all that and consult them in Elpis as to what Dynamis was. So they could've saved a whole lot of time by skipping the sundering and just work to find out how to permanently solve this while Zodiark held the world together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

That goes both ways, and Elidibus was not perfect so just because he assumes it cannot be altered doesn't make it true. You could also say we in-game altered our very own fate in game by what happened in the twinning.

"Based on the data logs we can conclude that Ironworks from the doomed timeline made use of Omega (traveling space), Alexander (traveling time), Allagan (crystal tower power source), and their own tech in order to build the Tycoon and get back to the past."

---

I'm not saying there aren't instances where it doesn't happen. I'm saying in this case, the writers purposely laid down a rule for this exact reason. Without it, you have to make the massive assumption that Venat and WoL are total morons who preserved the timeline for no reason. Moreover with the other instances you mention, you're looking at divergences and alternate timelines that don't occur with this case. They're working with a single timeline, a past that must lead up to the current present.

For example, in your scenario with no time rules:

- Venat tells them about Meteion and the star is saved.
-Our future changes.
-We arrived back in MSQ and everything is fine, there's no more conflict to solve.
-That's assuming it doesn't break our timeline entirely and doom it to nonexistence.

While this makes sense, it doesn't work because this is an MMORPG. The things you are saying, that the Ancients were smart and maybe could have done it, are valid but they are indeed assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I'm not saying there aren't instances where it doesn't happen. I'm saying in this case, the writers purposely laid down a rule for this exact reason. Without it, you have to make the massive assumption that Venat and WoL are total morons who preserved the timeline for no reason. Moreover with the other instances you mention, you're looking at divergences and alternate timelines that don't occur with this case. They're working with a single timeline, a past that must lead up to the current present.

For example, in your scenario with no time rules:

- Venat tells them about Meteion and the star is saved.
-Our future changes.
-We arrived back in MSQ and everything is fine, there's no more conflict to solve.

While this makes sense, it doesn't work because this is an MMORPG. The things you are saying, that the Ancients were smart and maybe could have done it, are valid but they are indeed assumptions.

---

And there you go, giving rise to the moral ambiguity of it all. Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsman

Yep, perfect example of the old saying: "Might makes right."

"Descriptively, it asserts that a society's view of right and wrong is determined by those in power, with a meaning similar to "History is written by the victors." That is, although all people have their personal ideas of the good, only those strong enough to overcome obstacles and enemies can put their ideas into effect, and spread their own standards to society at large."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_...e%20victors%22.

---

btw, I have no idea why I spent the last 15 pages defending your point lmao. But I'm done. LOL. People will believe whatever they want to. And this applies to us as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ath192

And there you go, giving rise to the moral ambiguity of it all. Case closed.

---

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with sales and metacritic scores. Making the story about undoing the present by giving agency to Venat in the past is a story about Venat, not the WoL. They would need to use a branching timeline where Venat is operating independently in the past and creates an entirely new future. Our timeline would either need to splinter off into its own future where Meteion still exists, or collapse entirely.

The story even slaps you with this, twice, by telling you that the Elpis past is now joined with your present, ie what happens in it affects the flow of the time in the MSQ specifically.

And for what? To demonstrate some potentiality that the Ancients could have done it? This is just making XIV a story about what you want.

Regarding might vs right: I already addressed this. I do not see how you can be sober and conscious, play through 5.0 and 6.0, and leave with the idea that it was about Venat being "right". It was about the fact that what happened was tragic (5.0), and humanity got to a point where they could walk on their own, without gods (6.0),. That tends to be what FF is about in general. It's not just Zodiark that's dead but, Hydaelyn as well. The arc is over and it wasn't pleasant for either side. Yes, humanity is still alive but calling for alive == good /right and dead == bad/ evil is highly problematic. I don't think we should be interpreting the story as "humans won because they're alive" and I don't think 6.0 pushes that idea. 6.0 is just about having potential because you are alive, in general. If the story was cosmetically reversed and the Ancients were the main characters, the theme would be exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

I'm assuming the contest will be like "first to find the gold McGuffin gets to rule" as I feel murdering the future queen's siblings and a former classmate of half the Scions would likely start that war we're supposedly supposed to be avoiding. Though that would be some grade A monkey's paw irony, "Sure, we'll put you on the throne, gonna have to murder your entire family though."

Wuk Lamat: BUT THIS IS A PIE EATING CONTEST?!

---

Only one of the scions, not including ourselves, isn't from Sharlaya, which is another point of contention for me. There is next to no diversity among this cast, the people who were from outside of this city have all been sidelined or killed. It's also unlikely it will be outright murder, more like the dreaded "trial by combat" trope they've worn out where you will just have to beat the opponents.

In the end I think this whole contest for the throne thing will become irrelevant pretty early in the expansion so we are wasting our time speculating on what could easily become a minor plot point. I suspect that just a few hours in we will find some bigger bad that will immediately sweep aside this competition and the scions will of course unite to stop it and that will be the plot of the expansion. Any promised conflict between scions where we might see "more of their personality" although I don't know how much more we could see after ten years will be minimal and resolved within moments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsman

Hahaha, that's the forums for ya. Making false assumptions, jumping to conclusions - you learn to just ignore it.

---

*curls up in a corner mumbles* I am trying ignore it..trying to ignore it. The voices wont stop...aaaaaaahh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SieyaM

Only one of the scions, not including ourselves, isn't from Sharlaya, which is another point of contention for me. There is next to no diversity among this cast, the people who were from outside of this city have all been sidelined or killed. It's also unlikely it will be outright murder, more like the dreaded "trial by combat" trope they've worn out where you will just have to beat the opponents.

---

Moenbryda was from Sharlayan and lasted a whole patch before being killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valkyrie_Lenneth

Moenbryda was from Sharlayan and lasted a whole patch before being killed.

---

And still has more of an impact on fans than some of these scions that have been with us for the last ten years. I was mostly thinking of Lyse though who is the only scions I can remember from ARR that is both still alive and not from Sharlaya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

saying venat commited genocide is a logical fallacy.

---

Your argument is a fallacy in and of itself. The 'fallacy' fallacy is one where someone argues another's is wrong on the basis of a poor argument or by the use of a logical fallacy. In addition, you are making the assumption that the term 'genocide' implies the killing of a particular peoples in all cases, which is not true per its formal definition. In addition, as I have seen a lot of this as of late, the concept of genocide as we know it IRL is known to both life after the Sundering via Alphinaud using the term when arguing with Varis in SB, but is also used as part of the French translation when Erichthonius is arguing with Athena about her objectives and what they would be during the last Pandaemonium wing.

With all of that said. This is what genocide's formal definition is. Note the bolded sections are the ones directly applying to Venat herself in the context of the sundering:

Quote:

---

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-Genocide Convention, Article 2

---

This is the justification for why these bolded terms apply to Venat:

Article 2 sections c and d should be relatively straightforward to understand. By sundering the Ancients, and with it the world, the physical destruction of the group is assured via completely altering their constitution, thus making them a physically unique race that is distinct from the race we know as Ancients. In addition, this was done in a calculated fashion, as it has been previously indicated in Q&A sessions Venat purposely allowed for Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, and Elidibus the ability to avoid the sundering attack. This meets the criteria to satisfy section C as the action lead to the destruction of the Ancient race at large, but left a couple sole survivors.

Section d is also relatively straightforward as well since the measure she took, which was sundering the world, would ensure no more births could occur from the population and, in the case of Emet, his children also would be sundered despite the obvious ancient lineage, and as such, the Ancient's ability to have children belonging to their same racial group via their constitution has been disrupted permanently.

Article 2 section b is a bit more complicated but is shown inside of the Nier ReIncarnation crossover event where previous life was unable to understand language and had to relearn how to speak. In addition, upon sundering the world, Venat introduced to the new life suffering which the Ancients had not suffered prior, which would include decreased resistances to the elements as well as other agents related to illness and pestilence, both can only occur if there is a change in the constitution to the Ancients that made them weaker as a species significantly and the reduction of their lifespans from countless millennia to, at best, 500 years in the case of Viera, but somewhere near normal human lifespans for all other races. These would constitute significant harm both mentally and physically, and I only need one of these to have the basis for the argument.

Finally, there is the intent issue. Genocidal intent can be determined either directly, which would be someone admitting to it or evidence to directly prove the elements described, or through circumstantial evidence, which has been used to determine intent involving genocide IRL multiple times. Venat outright says she is going to sunder the ancients and has the forethought to also be careful to not sunder very specific ancients as to avoid causing issues related to a perceived timeline that she was told, as such I would not need to go much further beyond that. Were circumstantial evidence be needed, she unleashed untold amounts of suffering onto the lifeforms created after the sundering occurred, and would these individuals be treated as shards of the original ancients, would also constitute the ancients as well. This callousness would be great enough to also fulfill that requirement were it needed.

From the definition, Sections B-E DO NOT DEFINE KILLING TO BE PART OF THIER DEFINITIONS, and as it takes only one of these conditions to be true for the term genocide to stick, it would be painfully obvious the sundering counts as a genocidal act, thus Venat did indeed commit an act of genocide.

Note this applies to a whole range of characters through the game, and none of them are excused. All of them would also have committed an act of genocide as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4clubbedace

And reincarnation is a new life, not the same as before, your old life died.

---

The cycle of how things live and die has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Genocide deals with the partial or entire destruction of a race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It has nothing to do with whatever the 'stuff' that makes a specific race of people a specific race of people, be it the very atoms constituting the body to the soul inhabiting the body in FFXIV terms. Any of these things can be recycled between different races in FFXIV's universe, what matters is if the original race in question still exists in an unaltered state and if the action taken resulting in the destruction of the original race was designed to do this to the race from the very start, which in the case of the sundering it was an original goal of the sundering.

As such I pose to you a question: Do you accept Venat committed an act of genocide, which would mean all other acts of genocide can be called as such, or are you able to forgive not just Venat's actions, but also the actions of the Ascians? Forgiving her but not the Ascians would be hypocritical and illogical as it would be a contradiction. The choice is yours for you to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swordsman

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_...e%20victors%22.

---

I don't know why I have to explain this to what I presume to be adults, but history is written by the victors, insofar as it relates to post-conflict information retention. This isn't a hard and fast rule as its highly dependent on key witnesses and evidence in general. Additionally, it becomes less and less true over time with the rise of technology. You may be the victor now, but the entire world can know your crimes. Your interpretation of the game, and the world, are reductive and fairly useless. The developers are not pushing this idea and at all.

The more all of you talk the more it sounds like a. you are in denial and b. you have some other ethical hangup that has nothing to do with the playerbase or Yoshi P and are looking for moral grandstanding wherever you can find it. Any time the conversation breaks down to point out that you don't actually understand what happened or what the story was even about, you "give up".

This is why you should not jump to just players' morality based on your interpretation of a story, especially when you are not equipped to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

---

The Genocide Convention is a human rights treaty, not a fictional humanoid treaty.

And if the French localizer used it, that just tells us they're comfortable applying extremely insensitive real world classifications to a video game about Ancient perfect beings.

SE also has a well documented historical issue with localizations. This is an extreme case where it would be appropriate to look at the original source and decide if that's the best term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volgia

Yeah it's fucked up and it ruined the whole upcoming expansion and Final Fantasy XIV and every game that Yoshi P will ever make and Square Enix and every JRPG henceforth, it was catastrophic.

---

What's with this weird hyperbole? You can just come out and admit that you agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carin-Eri

My head canon is that my character didn't overthink the whole thing since loitering around Eoreza waiting for something to happen Vs exploring Tural (with some added political nonsense) and trying to find the city of gold is no contest!

---

Yeah that's my headcanon as well. My WoL is cute, talented and strong, but she doesn't really think a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carin-Eri

My head canon is that my character didn't overthink the whole thing since loitering around Eoreza waiting for something to happen Vs exploring Tural (with some added political nonsense) and trying to find the city of gold is no contest!

---

I tend to agree. my character would let all the random "what ifs" say in the forums. she would agree that one person who wants to lead that wants wars of conquest is bad.. and would figure the rest out when she saw the lay of the land. all the blithering about genocide and the rest before we have a firm idea of things by some just seems like wetting yourself in dark pants. maybe they just enjoy the warm feeling....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

The Genocide Convention is a human rights treaty, not a fictional humanoid treaty.

And if the French localizer used it, that just tells us they're comfortable applying extremely insensitive real world classifications to a video game about Ancient perfect beings.

---

You're preaching to me about insensitivities while simultaneously denying the humanity of the Ancients. Dehumanization is considered to be the 4th stage inside of the stages of genocide. Being unable to see the actions Venat took as genocide leads me to believe you have poor media literacy skills or you are ok with genocidal actions so long as they are done with a good reason.

In addition, the French localization of the game is as valid as all of the other versions of the game according to the writers as they all go through a review process. For you to deny one means you deny them all and, as such, proves you are not arguing in good faith. If you take issue with the French version of the game, take that issue up with SE and not me.

As far as genocide is concerned as a term, I have already explained once before but its core definition is what I have shown you. Since you seem insistent that using the definition I am using is not correct, I will now use the definition as it is seen in multiple dictionaries instead:

Quote:

---

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. -Dictionary.com

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group -Merriam-Webster

The crime of intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, by killing people or by other methods -Cambridge

---

In short, your arguments are incomplete or do not address the arguments I have raised. In addition, you are proving to me you are arguing from a point where you are invested in the correctness of the argument, and as a result must resort to dehumanization of the Ancients to convince yourself they are not a form of humanity or mankind as the game refers to it as. It would be best to retreat inside your shell and review the story before trying to argue again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

You're preaching to me about insensitivities while simultaneously denying the humanity of the Ancients. Dehumanization is considered to be the 4th stage inside of the stages of genocide. Being unable to see the actions Venat took as genocide leads me to believe you have poor media literacy skills or you are ok with genocidal actions so long as they are done with a good reason.

In addition, the French localization of the game is as valid as all of the other versions of the game according to the writers as they all go through a review process. For you to deny one means you deny them all and, as such, proves you are not arguing in good faith. If you take issue with the French version of the game, take that issue up with SE and not me.

As far as genocide is concerned as a term, I have already explained once before but its core definition is what I have shown you. Since you seem insistent that using the definition I am using is not correct, I will now use the definition as it is seen in multiple dictionaries instead:



In short, your arguments are incomplete or do not address the arguments I have raised. In addition, you are proving to me you are arguing from a point where you are invested in the correctness of the argument, and as a result must resort to dehumanization of the Ancients to convince yourself they are not a form of humanity or mankind as the game refers to it as. It would be best to retreat inside your shell and review the story before trying to argue again.

---

If you want to look up a definition, then look up the one for humanoid. They aren't human. They're also not real. Your invoking of the Convention is inappropriate and childish.

Also, divorcing it from the legal definition isn't something I've ever heard of-- there's not some general version of it. The general terms, and in fact even the French word, are rooted in the legal definition. Nonetheless, XIV is a fantasy world with souls, Lifestream, reincarnations and rejoinings (ie death can just be undone anyway, EVEN IF it requires more death to occur). So a Sundering is not the same as general extermination. Aetherial density btw is a. not a human trait b. doesn't have a human comparable aspect IRL c. isn't real and d. even in the context of XIV, is something common to the whole planet and whatever lives on it. So a global lowering of aetheric density is not comparable to ethnic or racial targeting. Using genocide over aetheric density, even if you regard it 1:1 with something IRL, is less like targeting someone for eye color and more like lowering all of reality's iron levels (because of a global threat that thrives off of iron and not WHO or WHAT they are).

And I do not have to follow the French translation. I already explained that localisations are not the law, and historically have been proven to be inaccurate. That doesn't mean you can't follow them in general, it does mean they are occasionally inaccurate. Given no other translation uses the term, this may be one such case.