The Watcher's line saying that Venat sundered herself along with everything else seems like a lore error. If she is sundered then other Hydaelyns must exist independently in the shards, and unless they're planning to throw that at us as a weird plot twist later, it sounds improbable for that to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyth
Tales from the Dawn
Printable View
-
09-01-2022, 11:45 AMIscah
-
09-01-2022, 11:49 AMWellGramaryeIve been going through some cutscenes so here are the bits and receipts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
On the sundering:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...52/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...81/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...38/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...82/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...33/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...64/unknown.png
On being in Zodiark:
On Time Travel:
On why make Hydaelyn:
On why work alone:
-
09-01-2022, 11:56 AMLythIs it, though? We know that the Sundering required a tremendous amount of aether, and she was at the very epicentre of it along with Zodiark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
Also, for context:
If Hydaelyn left room for herself to escape like she did Emet, there would have been a risk that Zodiark did as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltenyne
As for what happened to the other reflections, it's worth remembering that during your conversation with the Watcher on the Moon, it becomes apparent that if the Source falls, so too do all the reflections. The same is likely true with both Hydaelyn and Zodiark, which is why none of their reflections remain. -
09-01-2022, 12:47 PMWellGramarye
Couldnt fit it in one post continuing on.
More on Sundering:
On Meteion destroying other stars:
Emet on everything that happened:
Emet Laying out the next 8 years:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...58/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...04/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...35/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...42/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...38/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...95/unknown.png
Emet hinting he is a former Azem as well:
-
09-01-2022, 03:38 PMEaraGraceNo? I never argued the first sacrifice was wrong, only that what follows is wrong. The third sacrifice is the core of the issue, as there isn’t a justifiable reasons beyond grief to justify it. It’s harvesting an organ from an innocent to try to save someone you personally care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
Where have I “violated” my beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
It’s not honestly, it’s stripping away context and complexity and trying to ground this in a categorical duty you find aesthetically pleasing. It all comes down to why we value life, which we’ll get into in the next response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
Without life one does not have virtue (good) and thus lacking any sort of life we lack any sort of good. That is why life is important. Others will disagree of course, but that’s my moral position. Notice how I can hold that life is precious and that sometimes people who use their lives to harm others shouldn’t not be suffered to do so. Because I’m not solely concerned with some vague moral duty, I’m worried about why a person kills another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing. As we should. You’re equivocating all ideals as equally bad, when in actuality the only good world is one that values these sorts of things. If I asked whether you would live in a society that values justice and equality and one that does not, you would of course choose the latter despite the fact that these are just abstract concepts. Which comes down to either hypocrisy or you just didn’t think it through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
And yknow, the reason why I wanted to avoid the abortion comparison is perfectly illustrated here. Comparing abortion to leaving a child to die ignores the complexity of the issue when it comes to how we consider personhood and bodily autonomy, aspects that clearly impact how we apply any moral principles we glean from the topic.
You’ve yet to explain how the distinction is imagined when I gave several examples of how valuing one leads to harming the other. By all means explain how I can believe in some “greater good” by harming life if there’s supposedly no distinction between the two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
Ok then we have moral disagreement going back to our core principles. That’s fine. I think you’re undercutting you’re own argument with that line however. After all, simply acting in self defense is in fact me forcing someone to die because the cause is just.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
You’ve never actually taken the time to explore my positions or consider what I’m saying beyond the strawman so of course you feel that way. I’m not a Kantian or Utilitarian. I don’t hold duties or maximizing happiness to be the ultimate good, others do and good for them but that’s not me. I’m a virtue ethicist. I’m more interested in the why than the what. What motivates actions than what the consequences are. What you claim is me obfuscating good is really just you never bothering to consider that what I consider to be good doesn’t follow your preconception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
-
09-01-2022, 03:56 PMSentioftheHoukai
I don't really think any of you are qualified to debate "justice" and its meaning to be perfectly honest. Not when so many of you refuse to "judge" Venat and Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three with equal, truly open eyes unclouded by bias. I have a very strong, overbearing but most importantly EQUAL understanding of justice and it makes me many enemies because people get petty and upset when justices applies to them and their people. For the record, I condemn the Ascians AND Venat. I think their actions have damned them both. But I can't take anyone seriously who uses ZENOS quality rationale to handwave shit because "muh abstract concepts". Nihilists always use that as an excuse to get away with their crimes.
Yeah. This is so awfully similar to what Zenos said to Jullus, and he too was using that "none of this truly matters" tripe as an excuse to avoid facing justice. Also, the bolded part especially? About how we MUST enforce justice over the wellbeing of life? That is how tyrant monsters of men are made. History should have proven how dangerous this line of thinking is, alas humans continue to use it. So long as it's possible for someone to hold enough power to force someone to live how they will it, be it through twisting of the arm, or prohibitive laws, etc. etc. you can always count on SOMEONE abusing that power. "For their own good/greater good" are the philosophical building blocks of tyranny, and we see it in action in modern human history every day of our lives nearly no matter where we live.Quote:
Originally Posted by EaraGrace
-
09-01-2022, 05:02 PMEaraGraceSenti you’ve no idea what you’re talking about here. I’m not a nihilist or advocating for that position.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai
No, no, no, no, and no. Zenos claim was that justice was a meaningless concept not an abstract one. I don’t claim good is non existent or inconsequential, but that it isn’t a material thing. It’s a concept, like math, that we can’t measure by itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai
And yet we do that everyday for good reason. We did it during Covid when we inflicted hardship on billions to contain the spread of a virus that killed those most vulnerable, we do that when try to prevent tyrannical regimes from conquering territory out imperial ambitions, we do this when we enforce laws and protect citizens from a body politic that holds bigoted and cruel beliefs. We do so when we drive fascists from the public discourse. We fight for justice when it’s hard and when it’s easy, not when it’s personally beneficial.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai
Then go fight for your anarchy and see what happens to the most vulnerable. You aren’t eliminating power, you’re placing it in the hands of petty tyrants who happened to luck into it. I’ve lived long enough to know that people are capable of great things if left alone, and that they are capable of horrors beyond comprehension. We have to be careful in protecting one and not allowing the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai
-
09-01-2022, 08:08 PMIscahI'm sorry but I don't understand how any of this is relevant to my post that you quoted, besides one of them being the Watcher's line that I was talking about. And there's one from Hydaelyn herself that seems to contradict it, because she makes no mention of sundering herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...38/unknown.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...20/unknown.png
Hydaelyn was the instigator, which might mean she is immune from its effects. Everything we've seen up to this point suggests that she sits at the centre of all the worlds, at a sort of crossroads, and can reach into any of the shards if necessary - to send the Warriors and Minfilia to the First, and to bring Minfilia and Hades back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyth
If she is sundered, then we're in this weird situation where - particularly having travelled to the First, does that mean we weren't dealing with Hydaelyn there at all but a second Hydaelyn disconnected from the one we know? I'm quite sure that wasn't the intent, and the characters certainly talk as if Hydaelyn is a single entity across both worlds.
And I don't think we can assume a sundered Hydaelyn would simply dissipate across all worlds if one was destroyed. She's clearly a complete being when we face her, versus Zodiark being in physical pieces - so whatever is going on, their situations are not the same.
And I would take the statement that the shards will fall if the Source falls to be a consquence of them still being aetherially linked (as explained in Shadowbringers) so if the Source is "aetherially poisoned" by the Final Days then that will spread to the shards as well.
(Also, the whole "deliberately left a hole for Emet to escape through" thing sounds like hasty invention for the Q&A to resolve a detail they forgot about entirely when writing the story, while actually making the overall situation sound even worse because they didn't think the answer through.) -
09-01-2022, 08:20 PMIscahThe whole point of my post that you replied to was presenting an alternate scenario that kept continuity with what we were told in Shadowbringers. So it's irrelevant to say it couldn't have happened because of things we learned in Endwalker, because those things would be written differently in that hypothetical scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by jameseoakes
If there was a fight between Hydaelyn and Zodiark, as we were previously told, then Zodiark would not have been inert at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyuDragnier
Yes, and it was a bad retcon. They basically threw out everything they'd previously told us about Zodiark and Hydaelyn and the Sundering to invent this new sequence of events that didn't match what they wrote before.Quote:
Originally Posted by jameseoakes
Normally they are very good at keeping their continuity going, so changing it all so much is really disappointing, and makes it even more bizarre that they changed it to make Venat look like such a villain.
It's like they rewrote it at the last minute and didn't think about anything they'd written before or take the time to connect it back up to past facts. -
09-01-2022, 10:49 PMAlleoI never skip cutscenes and I still believe that he was threated quite nicely by the Scions. Not as a friend of course but for someone that killed planets, caused unknown numbers of death on the source and created the Garlean empire just to sow chaos, the scion were behaving quite friendly with him. If they can do that with an Ascian, why would they be different with Hydealyn? Especially since she was the reason that the sundered existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulakir
I mean Hydealyn herself told us as word of the mother that it took everything to take Zodiark down. And we have the cave painting where it shows how she attacked him. We also dont know that he was inactive without Elidibus. The situation on the moon was different since he was already in his prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by jameseoakes
-
09-01-2022, 11:03 PMWellGramaryeOnly some of it was a reply to that post, as well as the discussion on time travel. Due to post count and posting limitations, it was easier to just lump it all together, but was not all specifically targeted to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
Also those lines do not contradict each other. She sundered everything to diminish his power, so that she may bind him. Without sundering everything, he was too strong for her. Though I do agree the dialogue is odd, I wonder if the other languages contradict this. -
09-01-2022, 11:57 PMIscahThe lines contradict each other because one includes Hydaelyn in the list of sundered things, and the other does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
If she sundered everything including herself, sundering Zodiark gives her no benefit.
If she sunders Zodiark while remaining whole herself, she can pit her full strength against a weakened foe.
And she only talks about sundering Zodiark – the version that make more sense. -
09-02-2022, 12:21 AMVeloranIn the context of the sundering debate, the "potentiality of life" is the more important point when talking about it's justifications. If we were to frame the discussion around autonomy instead, Venat comes off as even more unjustified, as she obviously denied the autonomy of all of her victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyth
When I mentioned "the sacrifices", the third was obviously included. But to your analogy, what is the difference between harvesting the organ from an innocent person to save someone you care about and harvesting the life of an innocent person to save a concept you care about? It's the same, only the sphere of what you're doing it for has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EaraGrace
I'm sure you don't think that protecting life by killing life is technically a "violation", but that's just the problem.Quote:
Where have I “violated” my beliefs.
To the contrary, I see the ideals you're talking about as nothing more than flexible rationalizations to meet whatever ends you happen to like the most. By creating convolution under the pretext of "context and complexity", you've formatted a set of ideals that justifies genocide for the sake of life.Quote:
It’s not honestly, it’s stripping away context and complexity and trying to ground this in a categorical duty you find aesthetically pleasing.
In giving this response you admit that ideas of good and virtue are things that are created by life, not an absolute. Despite saying your morality is founded on virtues, it really just seems like your position is that of a moral relativism where anything can be justified so long as the right sophistry is provided to support it.Quote:
Without life one does not have virtue (good) and thus lacking any sort of life we lack any sort of good. That is why life is important. Others will disagree of course, but that’s my moral position.
When I said "nebulous concepts", I meant it in just that way - Ideals that are being used vaguely, being applied disjointedly, being thrown around as part of an ever-changing context and being used to justify whatever atrocities seem suitable to the moment. As far as I can tell the ideals you've outlined to me would allow you to denigrate every single aspect of life however you want, from damaging someone's physical and mental health, removing their autonomy, oppressing or lying to them, killing them or forcing them to die for you, but because it's all done in the name of "life", it's completely morally righteous. As you've said, you don't even have any qualms about it, you're utterly self-assured.Quote:
Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing.
Again, a strange argument, considering that the crux of your entire justification is derived from protectionism in the name of life that does not exist at all. Why exactly should one differentiate the personhood of a fetus when you're willing to kill billions for the sake of life that won't be born for millions of years? To shift the argument a bit, let's say instead of unlocking immortality and creating Ra-La, the Plenty just unanimously decided to never reproduce again and allow themselves to die off. Should they be forced to reproduce, for the sake of the future lives that would be created from them having to bear that burden?Quote:
Comparing abortion to leaving a child to die ignores the complexity of the issue when it comes to how we consider personhood and bodily autonomy, aspects that clearly impact how we apply any moral principles we glean from the topic.
Frankly, I don't see how at all. You just want that end and have retroactively justified anything that leads to it.Quote:
By all means explain how I can believe in some “greater good” by harming life if there’s supposedly no distinction between the two?
Clearly we disagree on a very deep level. But where you misunderstand my position is the idea that I'm undermining my own argument. Because from my perspective, I don't believe that "the cause is just". The "justness of the cause" cannot and will not justify anything.Quote:
Ok then we have moral disagreement going back to our core principles. That’s fine. I think you’re undercutting you’re own argument with that line however. After all, simply acting in self defense is in fact me forcing someone to die because the cause is just.
So you've said, though given your prior arguments I'm not entirely convinced you're all that interested in the motivation for an action more than it's consequences, since for years you argued the Convocation was wrong for acting out of love to return those sacrificed to Zodiark back to life, despite practically zero evidence of any negative consequences (more than what we routinely engage in and what you've since justified in other contexts) resulting from this.Quote:
I’m a virtue ethicist. I’m more interested in the why than the what. What motivates actions than what the consequences are. What you claim is me obfuscating good is really just you never bothering to consider that what I consider to be good doesn’t follow your preconception.
What do you think my preconception of good, or of your idea of good, is supposed to be? -
09-02-2022, 12:21 AMWellGramaryeBy sundering Zodiark and the planet, it weakens his amount of aether in one place, spreading it out to 14 different reflections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
By sundering the planet there are now 14 versions of the planet, that Zodiark has to try to manipulate the laws of nature on, thus weakening him further.
By sundering herself, she is thus on all 14 versions to watch over him, but she only needs to bind him on the source.
If she did not sunder herself, then there are no Warriors of Light possible on the reflections. -
09-02-2022, 12:27 AMVeloranWhy? We know from Minfilia and Elidibus' actions on the First and the events of Endwalker that Hydaelyn can reach across to other shards from the Source.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
-
09-02-2022, 12:30 AMWellGramaryeYes because she exists there as well. Quite easy to manipulate things on other shards, if you are already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veloran
-
09-02-2022, 12:38 AMVeloranIn at least the cases of Minfilia and Endwalker, it was explicitly Hydaelyn from the Source acting, not some hidden Hydaelyn on the First.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
-
09-02-2022, 12:48 AMIscahAs I wrote in my previous post, it seems that she sits in the centre of all the worlds, able to reach into any one of them and communicate with her chosen Warriors of Light in each one.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
Independent Hydaelyns on each world would be narratively weird and the concept has never been raised, even when we were in the First. -
09-02-2022, 01:05 AMWellGramaryeThis is assuming that each one is mentally different and not just a part of the greater whole, like Zodiark is. There is only one Zodiark, his parts just diminish his power. Each part does not have a will of its own. The same would hold true for Hydaelyn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
I'm going to add this and its not aimed at you directly Iscah in particular.
"But the dialogue is wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooong"
It can only be considered a mistake if it contradicts every other language, of the same line across all versions of the game. Otherwise you have to take it at face value as information that is adding to the story and narrative, else I can just go and say any line in the entirety of the game is just as wrong, and you see where that starts to lead us. As it stands, the line is there, and does make narrative sense. While the concept has never been raised before, remember there were dozens of concepts raised in each expansion that weren't raised before. That's the point of expansion. -
09-02-2022, 01:43 AMIscahNo, it can be a mistake if it says something the writer didn't intend and isn't actually accurate to the lore.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
I've been meaning to post it in the localisation forum and see what they make of it. -
09-02-2022, 01:56 AMWellGramaryeNone of work for SE nor are we are on the writing team despite how some visitors of this forum act. We can't confirm what they intend unless they outright say so or the line differs between versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
-
09-02-2022, 02:01 AMIscahWe can't, but the localisation forum is for giving the devs feedback specifically regarding text errors. They even occasionally reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
-
09-02-2022, 05:39 PMZero-ELEC
Oooh, new tale, starring Erenville!
https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes...d71436b7b75008
It's cute. -
09-02-2022, 05:52 PMIscahThanks for the alert. As I previously suggested, I started a separate thread because it will be quite lost in this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero-ELEC
https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...54#post6068854 -
09-02-2022, 08:02 PMSentioftheHoukai
New story just makes me sad, to be perfectly honest. How can I be glad when all the characters I cared about are dead and gone? Erenville is as a cardboard cutout that can relocate itself autonomously for all he catches my notice.
Not to be a pessimist, but you speak as if the same argument that sparked the destruction of this thread's purpose won't be matchlit over there. It always migrates, you know this to be interminable fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
-
09-02-2022, 08:10 PMIscahI live in hope that we can have different discussions in different forum threads one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai
-
09-02-2022, 08:36 PMSentioftheHoukaiWell, I guess you can go ahead and consider me of the Meteia then because any such hopes have burned out in me a fair while back. Simply can't help it, everyone has their limits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
-
09-06-2022, 12:54 PMNayukhuutI think this is one of the things that bothers me be most, honestly. Not the only thing, but it's definitely up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by tokinokanatae
When Venat sundered the world, she basically hit the reset button on everything. All that people were, all their joys, memories, pain, love, everything was taken away and they were made into what she thought needed to happen. It would have still been awful, but much easier to stomach, if she had sundered the world and just given everyone a power decrease (letting them keep their memories and personalities). Even if that ended with the newly diminished Ancients not accepting their fate originally, and collapsing before having to build society up again. That would have been awful, but it's better than what happened. She literally decided the fate of an entire planet, deleting all that they were beforehand. That does not sit well with me.
People talk about how awful the actions of the Ascians were after the Sundering (and they were, to be clear), but at least they were reacting to a great pain thrust upon them. They were trying to fix their world from a person who had destroyed everything. Venat has just as much blood on her hands. More actually, since she not only destroyed the world originally, she did it with full knowledge that all those reflections would be rejoined and all the people on them would die too.