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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

1) We can assume the third sacrifice was sapient beings even if it's not explicitly stated because the story has a broader theme of letting go of the past to secure the future, and it's stated that Hydaelyn's faction wanted the new life to inherit the star in line with the idea of 'let those who walk before lead those who walk after' and of how one mustn't prioritize ones in-group at the expense of others, so it would feel out of place if they weren't sapient.

2) The player races, collectively 'mankind', have always been meant to be Sundered Ancients.

These are mutually incompatible ideas. If 2 has been true from the start, 1 cannot be a consistent application of the theme because, again, the 'new life' didn't inherit the star. We did. And whatever the third sacrifice was has disappeared from the story (or more accurately, been written out).

---

This brings to mind something I've been pondering for a while. Are the Sahagin, Kobolds, and Sylphs Sundered Ancients, or are they in fact part of the new life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

To reiterate, at the time of the third sacrifice, Sundered humans - the player races - did not exist because the Sundering had not yet happened, and so couldn't be sacrificed. The only form they existed in was as Unsundered Ancients.

Are you saying the Ancients were planning on sacrificing their own kids? That's completely unsubstantiated by the text. A distinction is repeatedly drawn between the 'new life' and the Ancients as beings.

---

I'm saying that they planned on sacrificing what new life that they could cultivate, and up until that point they had treated thier creations and the life they raised as children.

As self appointed stewards of the star, any life they raise would be in some sense thier children, whether or not we are the literal biological descedants of the ancients doesn't really change that for me.

(People in these threads have stressed, many times, the kindness and parent-like care the ancients show towards thier familiars and creations.

I really liked reading the discussion Kari and Lurina have been having, but it does bring me back to the big aspect of the Endwalker Sundering issue that I soured on after stewing on it for eight months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Like, I would have agreed with you back in the days of Shadowbringers, when the emphasis of the conflict was heavily on how the Ancients 'ought' to have stepped aside and let the new life thrive. (Though I can only recall one actual instance of the third sacrifice being framed as the successors to the Ancients as stewards, which is during the conversation with Hythlo in Amaurot - what else were you thinking of?) Back then, everyone kind of took it as a given that the third sacrifice was the player races. That made the story line up very nicely. The Amaurotines wanted to wipe 'us' out 12,000 years ago to bring their people back, but Hydaelyn stood in opposition to them, which led to us inheriting the world. However, Emet and the Ascians still want the same thing in the present: To kill us and save their own people and bring back their civilization as it was. Nice and clean, right?

...but in Endwalker, the framing shifted towards the player races being descendants of the Sundered Ancients instead, which was ultimately confirmed explicitly in an interview. So now everything is muddled. There's no obvious conclusion to draw about what the third sacrifice was, and despite what Hydaelyn's efforts, whatever they were didn't end up inheriting the star after all - we did. Or rather the Ancients kept it, just Sundered.

This makes the message very muddled. My guess is that the original intent in Shadowbringers was that the player races were the new life, but they decided to change that in Endwalker to fit with the narrative about the Sundering's purpose being to force humanity to understand grief and loss. It's no longer a tale of people resisting passing the torch, but a tale of people refusing to accept loss and change and having it forced upon them, then collectively overcoming far in the future. In Shadowbringers Hydaelyn fights Zodiark to save the new life from her people, while in Endwalker Hydaelyn fights Zodiark to 'save her people from themselves'.

---

These motives might be inconsistent, but the bigger thing for me is that while they're solid motivations for the character of Venat pre-Level 87 Endwalker MSQ, the time travel narrative somewhat invalidates them in a way that frustrates me, because basically every other part of Venat in Endwalker was (in my opinion) pretty good, and make me like her character. The Walk, too, totally great as a scene. But I really think the choice to not wipe her memory muddles all of the morals and the interesting dynamic between Hydaelyn and the Ascians-- throughout the whole story, the player is obligated to side with Hydaelyn, as our existence is dependent on her action. Alphinaud's point against Emet at the end of 5.0 are always true: no matter how disappointing or sad it is that the Ancient world no longer exists, their society/world is gone. Now as Lurina said, in Endwalker it's sort of retooled a bit so that "humanity" as a general umbrella for all the sapient life is more or less the same as the Ancients, at least in the respect that they have the same great moral issues to tackle (moving forward and accepting the inevitable pains of life to continue that progression in a way that doesn't stagnate society and lead to joylessness and self-prescribed ruin), but regardless, there are probably just more sundered people than ancients (both the ancients that were divided into 14 pieces and the new life that has arisen in the 12000 years since, ie. most of the Scions) so it's still "our" world and not the Ascians'.

Giving Venat the foreknowledge she has in the end muddles this dynamic, since it turns the pure ideological difference leading to the Sundering into what we have now, where Venat's apparent motivations to everyone--which would be consistent with her character, as she says in "A Friendship of Record:"

Quote:

---

"What we anticipate and what comes to pass need not be the same," she had once said. "'Tis best we work towards the greatest good without foreknowledge which might cloud our judgment."

---

I'd like to read this as her resolving to do what she would have done in this situation regardless of her knowledge of the future, the fully Venat choice to move forward because she loves the star.

But that's not exactly great, because we know that her choice is based on a) what she would have done and also b) the fact that she knows what the source of the current Final Days issue is, and how the societal and physical change she could bring about in the worst-case scenario could fix this, as she knows from us that it has happened at least once before in our timeline. The writers also now have to do the jumping-through-hoops that is justifying Venat's inability to do anything except what she always would have done.

So if she was going to have these motives anyway, why add this extra layer that gives people the ability to turn her justifiable motives into "justifiable except not really except here's all the loopholes why she's sort of still justified in the way she would have been anyway."

I think the alternative would have been fine: she loses her memories like the rest, but still maybe retains the moral lessons learned from Elpis (or not, she still has her character traits). Now she's free to have the Sundering come from her, and not from her AND this other knowledge she doesn't tell anyone about. The Walk can literally play out in the exact same way--just with her speaking from the perspective of current Hydaelyn/Venat who knows who the Warrior of Light is and has been Etheirys' Will for 12,000 years. 12,000 years is a long time, so the writers can still have her figure out the sound is coming from somewhere in space, since she would still have the Meteion tracker. She can also still remember us before/during/after the 89 trial, through aetherial sea/memory technobabble. Suddenly Venat is more or less consistent with both Shadowbringers and her established character traits in Endwalker up until she suddenly has to become secretive and cowardly for story reasons, and the player and Scions can still venerate her as the side of the debate who paved the way for the future, without the moral murkiness of "but she withheld information."

I read a lot of posts on the forum and I don't often agree with Lauront's opinions, but I think he said it in a pretty clear way:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Her faction's main goal is to get her people to stop the third sacrifice out of the fear that restoration of their civilisation would result in their stagnation, or worse (and of course, her own direct fear is the Plenty and Meteion.) Using such a narrative to stall and buy time until she was ready to summon Hydaelyn is the most logical way of parsing the event to me. My take on it is her answer is to preserve the timeline as is required and provide her followers an adequately persuasive narrative to stall towards that end.

---

Turning Venat into a strict timeline-preserver instead of having her motives fully and naturally come out of her love for the star and ideals about progressing society really just sours what is an otherwise satisfying plotline--I mean it's literally out of character with who she is not one quest before.

Sorry for adding more to what is already a beaten-to-death, bloated, endless discussion about this plotline that's been going on since December, but I think this is my final opinion on it--one very clumsy, hasty writing choice at the end that makes the rest disappointing. Honestly I really hope we just avoid any more Sundering stuff in the game, in the short stories, etc. as we move on to the other super interesting parts of the game, although who knows if the 6.2 stinger is suggesting we're getting more about it. This post is also off-topic for this thread more or less, but I did see some more productive/new discussion of the same topic (from Kari, Lurina, and Lauront) that piqued my interest to write a forum post, which I haven't really done before.

As for the Tales from the Dawn, I've enjoyed all three so far even if they mostly cover events we've already seen. Doubt tomorrow's is Ancient-focused, would wager Garlemald/Thavnair/maybe Ultima Thule. I'm hoping it'll be Garlemald, which hasn't had much of a presence in 6.x apart from the role quest capstone, and I could see Dawn #4 being a Jullus story. Thavnair has been used a lot in MSQ and they might be saving UT stories for the Omicron Quests. Whatever it is, I do hope it covers an event/events we haven't already seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

This brings to mind something I've been pondering for a while. Are the Sahagin, Kobolds, and Sylphs Sundered Ancients, or are they in fact part of the new life?

---

I think the only member of any of the tribes to have the Echo was the Sahagin priest from ARR, but that was via Ascian shenanigans. iirc, the Ixal were outright confirmed to be of Allag creation in the Fractal Continuum. Not sure about the rest...I really have to play through the MSQ again. I think there were hints in Elpis of some of the other tribes having started as creations of the Ancients, but I don't think anything was definite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

This brings to mind something I've been pondering for a while. Are the Sahagin, Kobolds, and Sylphs Sundered Ancients, or are they in fact part of the new life?

---

It's ambiguous, though we know at least the Lupin were (probably) made in Elpis and not part of the new life since there's a log that seems to be describing them in Ktesis.

Though it's impossible to confirm either way, I think the least awkward fanon to make with the narrative the developers ended up painting is that the 'beast tribes' are broadly the new sapient life created by Zodiark. However, this opens its own can of worms insofar as it creates a hard separation between the human and beastmen races that the developers seem to have been trying to move away from.

You can't really say 'there's no actual difference between the player and beastmen races, it's all just a cultural construct invented by Ul'dahn merchants' and 'the beastmen races were literally created by the ancestors of the player races' at the same time without it being extremely dissonant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I'm saying that they planned on sacrificing what new life that they could cultivate, and up until that point they had treated thier creations and the life they raised as children.

As self appointed stewards of the star, any life they raise would be in some sense thier children, whether or not we are the literal biological descedants of the ancients doesn't really change that for me.

(People in these threads have stressed, many times, the kindness and parent-like care the ancients show towards thier familiars and creations.

---

I'm sorry to be rude, but you're fudging.

The Ancients might have treated their creations like children, but they weren't their literal children, and they obviously held that distinction to be a significant one when they decided to start sacrificing them to Zodiark to bring back their actual families.

So I think the point I am trying to make is still pretty clear. The 'children' of the Ancients Hydaelyn was fighting to preserve did not inherit the world. Their literal biological next generation - Sundered humanity - did. Thus, the developers did not follow through on their theme in that instance. The 'new life' did not become the new stewards of the star, despite Hydaelyn's stated motive, and seemingly vanished from the story altogether.

So we cannot reasonably infer anything about them.

This is one of the big instances of the Sundering plot working well in terms of vibe, but falling apart mechanically once you examine it closely. Even if the general thrust remains intact, what the developers intend different aspects to suggest both literally and thematically is not consistent across 5.0>6.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

they soft-retconned it to make way for their new storyline without really thinking through the repercussions it would have on the story.

---

Endwalker's problems in a nutshell.

Any plans pertaining to the creation or usage of Zodiark came into being after all but the barest thread of the Ancient population remained. The Final Days did most of them in, and Zodiark wound up requiring a rather substantial chunk of the handful that remained just to prevent the planet's death. Another fairly large portion of Ancients willingly sacrificed themselves afterward so the primal would have the power it needed to restore the world to a life-sustaining state and subsequently seed it with new life.

Bearing the above in mind, how were the Ancients supposed to shepherd anything? The plan, as I understood it, was to give this new life the time to propagate itself. I've no doubt the Ancients would've helped as much as they could, but the only way their plan would've worked is if the lion's share of work was done by nature simply running its course.

Using life seeded by Zodiark as fodder to restore the sacrificed Ancients is rather far removed from some dude rolling up in a field and giving his own beloved creation the Old Yeller treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

It's ambiguous, though we know at least the Lupin were (probably) made in Elpis and not part of the new life since there's a log that seems to be describing them in Ktesis.

Though it's impossible to confirm either way, I think the least awkward fanon to make with the narrative the developers ended up painting is that the 'beast tribes' are broadly the new sapient life created by Zodiark. However, this opens its own can of worms insofar as it creates a hard separation between the human and beastmen races that the developers seem to have been trying to move away from.

You can't really say 'there's no actual difference between the player and beastmen races, it's all just a cultural construct invented by Ul'dahn merchants' and 'the beastmen races were literally created by the ancestors of the player races' at the same time without it being extremely dissonant.

---

The only way around it IMO would be that while the tribes themselves were in fact the new life, the souls in them are not (at least in the current times). Since we know the power the Ancients had were linked to the soul and how long it has remained before returning to the planet (as proven with auspices in a sense), and that most (if not all) souls are constantly being reincarnated upon death, we can likely surmise that whatever advantages the Sundered Ancients had have long since eroded. It's an equal playing field at this point, and that's not taking into account the likely possibility that Sundered Ancient souls can also be born into the bodies of members of the tribes.

I feel like the questions of where souls come from and precisely how/why Ancient souls differed from ordinary ones are something that could still end up being a major factor in the future, especially considering the implications of some Lifestream-related weirdness going on...which might already be manifesting to some extent with the present Pandaemonium shenanigans.

Hmm and what about the Ancients who were killed during the final days and before the final days(maybe not exactly killed before the final days but the ones who had died and were actually part of the underworld and lifestream when it happened).... do we know if the bird sisters were able to harvest them before zodiark was made?

On an off note this could be a viable reason as to why the Echo doesn't awake in everyone and yet they still feel sadness and such *shrugs* atleast the ones who returned to the star prior to the incident

Since we're operating in a universe where reincarnation is confirmed to be phenomenon that the ancients not only believed in, but could track and observe as souls were reincarnated into new lives, I think the distinction between literal biological descendants and other new life forms that emerged on the star.

As a kind of side point, what exactly does it mean for an ancient to have children? It doesn't seem likely that they would reproduce the traditional way, given they already have the capacity to create new ensouled life in the form of familiars,

But they must have children, since characters are the children of other characters and they yknow, understand what a child is. Probably not something we're supposed to think too hard about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

As a kind of side point, what exactly does it mean for an ancient to have children? It doesn't seem likely that they would reproduce the traditional way, given they already have the capacity to create new ensouled life in the form of familiars,

---

No, they don't. Multiple NPCs in Elpis say that you're the first familiar with a soul they've ever seen.

The Ancients did not have the ability to create ensouled life of any sort. What receives a soul and what does not is entirely up to the planet.

At any rate, we've got in-game confirmation of their ability to reproduce the "natural" way. It's one characteristic they most definitely share with their sundered counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

No, they don't. Multiple NPCs in Elpis say that you're the first familiar with a soul they've ever seen.

---

It seems to be a oddity, but not completely impossible. I didn't mean that the ancients were capable of doing it intentionally just it is a thing that is possible.

Quote:

---

At any rate, we've got in-game confirmation of their ability to reproduce the "natural" way. It's one characteristic they most definitely share with their sundered counterparts.

---

Was it? I know that Lahabrea and Athena have thier son, but I don't remember anything about how the actual mechanism of reproduction works. Unless you just mean that they reproduce in some capacity by merging the essential traits of two parents and a child being the result of that, which yeah, fair.

Incidentally the way the actual mythological Athena gave "birth" to Erichthonios is anything but traditional, but I don't think I can talk about that on these forums.

It's worth noting that the term 'sapient life' has the exact same connotation as 'intelligent life'. Sapient just means 'wise' (same etymology as our species name sapiens, meaning 'wise human'). When you claim that the souls in question were 'non-sapient', the justification being used is that the souls being sacrificed are somehow 'less than human', and thus intrinsically have less value.

But you can see why people find this terminology uncomfortable, along with phrases like 'beast tribes'. People build these judgements into language, which propagates the false belief that one group of people are somehow intrinsically superior to another and normalizes it. Dehumanizing others comes up as a recurring theme in racism, as a justification for vile and malicious behavior. And it's unsurprising that Emet uses that exact same line of 'reasoning' to defend his slaughter of countless civilizations across the reflections. We're less 'human' than he is. We're less 'alive' than he is. It's just really problematic rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It's worth noting that the term 'sapient life' has the exact same connotation as 'intelligent life'. Sapient just means 'wise' (same etymology as our species name sapiens, meaning 'wise human'). When you claim that the souls in question were 'non-sapient', the justification being used is that the souls being sacrificed are somehow 'less than human', and thus intrinsically have less value.

But you can see why people find this terminology uncomfortable, along with phrases like 'beast tribes'. People build these judgements into language, which propagates the false belief that one group of people are somehow intrinsically superior to another and normalizes it. Dehumanizing others comes up as a recurring theme in racism, as a justification for vile and malicious behavior. And it's unsurprising that Emet uses that exact same line of 'reasoning' to defend his slaughter of countless civilizations across the reflections. We're less 'human' than he is. We're less 'alive' than he is. It's just really problematic rhetoric.

---

I'm gonna quote myself from a few pages ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Lyth, this is a bonkers thing to say, and you know it. This is not a diagetic conversation. People unsure if the sacrifices were sapient or not aren't unsure because they're indulging in in-universe moral relativity about issue in line with the Ascians, they're unsure because Natsuko Ishikawa, the real-world human being, literally hasn't written it down.

---

We have no explicit textual information on the content of the third sacrifice other than that it was "life". We can make guesses based on the tone of the story, but for all we know in terms of hard canon, it could have been plants. When I say that I am unsure whether or not they were sapient, I'm not downplaying their intelligence or humanity in an in-setting fashion - I would be the first to say their lives were of equal value to the Ancients if it was established they did have cognition - I am saying it has not been made clear by the writers if they even had brains.

Please stop being disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

Was it? I know that Lahabrea and Athena have thier son, but I don't remember anything about how the actual mechanism of reproduction works. Unless you just mean that they reproduce in some capacity by merging the essential traits of two parents and a child being the result of that, which yeah, fair.

---

Given that the existence of parents and families are unremarkable to Ancients, whereas ensouled familiars and creations are, I think it's safe to say this is a rather silly reach, at best.

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

---

If I did not murder them for a dead Amaurotine, I would absolutely murder them for fourteen bicolored gemstones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

---

Lyth, you know what I'm saying. Grass is life, and it sure as heck doesn't think. FFXIV follows Shinto rules where everything alive that isn't artificial has some kind of soul, but regardless, not all of it is conscious. And in spite of some of the fantastical creatures in-setting, a non-thinking being is what I meant by 'plant', as I'm sure you were well aware already.

Please stop being disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

---

Are you kidding me? I would smash every single one of those cacti for a single Ancient. I'd do it on live television. I would power-bomb every Yukinko and not have any regrets. I would look at their disfigured faces as I was doing it, and just be thinking about the Ancient's weenwoons the whole time. The WoL does it for NO reason, so what's their excuse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

If I did not murder them for a dead Amaurotine, I would absolutely murder them for fourteen bicolored gemstones?

---

Aisara, Queen of the Elpis Black Market, smiles upon you.

Imagine selling Bird of Elpis meat and eggs right under the nose of her unhinged ornithologist boss just because she wants to feed her stupid creation. I can only imagine she goes out of her Anagnorisis apartment at night with a big honking machete to keep her supply fresh. Best NPC in the zone, along with the researchers whose occupation is literally watching grass grow. My calling... what a beautiful world and society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

No, because the protagonists never make any comment or speculation upon the original, non-Ascian plan to begin with. They only speculate on the implications this has to the current, Ascian plan, as that's the only one that has any relevance to them. They say absolutely nothing about "oh, the Ascians/Ancients were Like This, even before the Final Days and Zodiark!" All they say is, "this probably implies the Ascians won't stop even after the Rejoinings."

---

What would imply that? Thats the core of the question I'm asking. The Scions conclude this because of something we told them. What was it and why do the writers believe it to be enough for the Scions conclude the Ascians would sacrifice the Source. The writers had them conclude that for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

See, and I'm an Ascian lover, and I have no problem believing this given the psychological and emotional state the Ascians are in in the present day. All of Sundered life, to the Ascian perspective--Emet-Selch's perspective that he's fervently trying to persuade himself of--are "perverted distortions" of the authentic life unjustly stolen, who have lived on the erased corpses, sacrifices, and history of what he himself refers to as "the first people," and ones furthermore embraced by Hydaelyn as "her children." I, as someone who is sometimes capable of a fair amount of Spite myself (shocking, I know!) don't find it a large leap at all to see someone in Emet's position going "Hydaelyn's children? Hahaha, more like Zodiark's dinner, losers!"

---

They wouldn't be her children anymore though. They would be Ancients, full and true. Every justification Emet used for what he did against the Sundered would be moot. Even he would not do so out of spite, when he's already clearly struggling to justify his actions so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

They wouldn't be "shoving random souls" in. Under this idea, they'd evaluate more closely once those souls had properly developed over a period of generations, being nurtured by the survivors, when the planet was bursting with vitality. They're not arbitrarily throwing darts at a board or anything. It's just that, now that we have more understanding of the workings and limitations of the Ancients' magic, they probably literally had no way of knowing exactly how those sprouts of life would develop until they were done developing. I would presume that there would be less trouble "controlling" the souls within Zodiark as the heart were they less intelligent and sapient.

---

Yet we see in Pandaemonium that merging animals to Ancients has consequences. Pretty much every boss in that place merged with a random creation, and was irrevocably changed from it. I can't imagine Zodiark not being changed by having Lykaon or Behemoth souls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

We have no explicit textual information on the content of the third sacrifice other than that it was "life". We can make guesses based on the tone of the story, but for all we know in terms of hard canon, it could have been plants. When I say that I am unsure whether or not they were sapient, I'm not downplaying their intelligence or humanity in an in-setting fashion - I would be the first to say their lives were of equal value to the Ancients if it was established they did have cognition - I am saying it has not been made clear by the writers if they even had brains.

Please stop being disingenuous.

---

And yet we have the hard confirmation that the surviving people of the Source would be used as the sacrifice to bring the Ancients back. Told by Emet himself. People that would have been unsundered at that point in time thus even Emet could not use the "you are not really alive" argument there.

So why would they suddenly use people, people that are whole (and could have been a reborn Ancient too) and not plants or cows? Why change it there?

On top of that we know from both sides that the third sacrifice bascially split the Ancient society apart. For the first time according to the Ascians, they could not see eye to eye with this. So much was going on that even Zodiarks Heart Elidibus came back to try to find a solution. Now we should believe that this was just because of plants? With the Ancients who had no problems turning living beings back into aether?

As we have found out through the watcher Venat might not even have told them the whole truth. So most of the people on her side still seemingly did it because they disagreed with the other side (and even told us that they failed to even reach them, Zodiark tempered them after all.) And all because of some plants and a few chickens?

That just does not feel right for me, especially not when the Ascians are more than ready to sacrifice people in the future.

Zodiark wasn't an Ancient. Zodiark was simply a creation that required an investment of aether so vast it couldn't be done without many Ancients giving up their lives. It was filled to the brim with Ancient souls, yet it could do nothing of its own accord once Elidibus pulled himself away. Why would trading out one set of souls for another fundamentally change Zodiark when they're basically just its batteries anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Zodiark wasn't an Ancient. Zodiark was simply a creation that required an investment of aether so vast it couldn't be done without many Ancients giving up their lives. It was filled to the brim with Ancient souls, yet it could do nothing of its own accord once Elidibus pulled himself away. Why would trading out one set of souls for another for another fundamentally change Zodiark when they're basically just its batteries anyway?

---

Are they though? Fandaniel was more than able to take controll of Zodiark after its heart was gone. He was able to overpower all those Ancients. (And who were able to think and talk inside him too) For me it would not be surprising if a huge amount of tormented, angry souls could bascially start to control Zodiark and turn it against the Ancients in their rage.

Fandaniel took control by becoming Zodiark's new heart. The other Ancients in there actually tried to stop him, but they were simply unable to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

And yet we have the hard confirmation that the surviving people of the Source would be used as the sacrifice to bring the Ancients back. Told by Emet himself. People that would have been unsundered at that point in time thus even Emet could not use the "you are not really alive" argument there.

So why would they suddenly use people, people that are whole (and could have been a reborn Ancient too) and not plants or cows? Why change it there?

On top of that we know from both sides that the third sacrifice bascially split the Ancient society apart. For the first time according to the Ascians, they could not see eye to eye with this. So much was going on that even Zodiarks Heart Elidibus came back to try to find a solution. Now we should believe that this was just because of plants? With the Ancients who had no problems turning living beings back into aether?

As we have found out through the watcher Venat might not even have told them the whole truth. So most of the people on her side still seemingly did it because they disagreed with the other side (and even told us that they failed to even reach them, Zodiark tempered them after all.) And all because of some plants and a few chickens?

That just does not feel right for me, especially not when the Ascians are more than ready to sacrifice people in the future.

---

I must say, I find it hard to believe that the third sacrifice would have been non-sentient life. I feel if it had been the intent of the writers, it would have been made more clear. Sacrificing plants and even animals could be ‘defensible’ if it brought back the life of Ancients (Though I would defend the cows, because they are one of my favourite animals and are awesome!) but the narrative and way its talked about very much convinced me, at the time at least, that what would have been taken where actual sentient lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

I must say, I find it hard to believe that the third sacrifice would have been non-sentient life. I feel if it had been the intent of the writers, it would have been made more clear. Sacrificing plants and even animals could be ‘defensible’ if it brought back the life of Ancients (Though I would defend the cows, because they are one of my favourite animals and are awesome!) but the narrative and way its talked about very much convinced me, at the time at least, that what would have been taken where actual sentient lives.

---

Just as a quick note: many animals *are* sentient. Dogs, for example, are recognized as sentient beings. You may be looking for the word sapient. Sapient creatures would be things like people, dolphins, and whales. These animals possess cognitive abilities far beyond the majority.

The above aside, I would note the Ancients were not capable of willfully creating sapient life. The few examples we saw of them having done so are expressly noted to have come at the end of many failed attempts and are regarded as something that in all probability cannot be replicated. Similarly, they are completely without the ability grant souls to their creations. We're lead to believe Zodiark's ability to create has the same limitations as theirs.

So, while some of those intended for sacrifice to Zodiark could potentially have had souls, it would be rather odd for them to be planning to sacrifice only ensouled beings when they're such a rarity. It seems far more likely for the plan to be general sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Lyth, you know what I'm saying. Grass is life, and it sure as heck doesn't think. FFXIV follows Shinto rules where everything alive that isn't artificial has some kind of soul, but regardless, not all of it is conscious. And in spite of some of the fantastical creatures in-setting, a non-thinking being is what I meant by 'plant', as I'm sure you were well aware already.

Please stop being disingenuous.

---

Lyth? Not being disingenuous? Please, this is the same person who accused two posters of being the same person because they both played Midlanders. I think you're asking for the impossible here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

I feel if it had been the intent of the writers, it would have been made more clear.

---

There are a lot of things that are later revealed to be the 'intent of the writers' that weren't clear at all. Sometimes I swear this story is written after the fact through Live Letters...

To be clear, the way the setting defines living beings is ones which possess souls:

Quote:

---

Through their mastery of creation magicks, men could weave anything into existence. Anything they could imagine, they could bring forth─anything, that is, except a soul. As Hades well knew, souls spontaneously manifested within creatures that were born in accordance with the laws of nature. It was a gift from the star itself, long held to be impossible to recreate. No artificial being, no matter how subtly sculpted in the image of nature, could come to possess a soul. Such creations occupied a separate classification known as arcane entities.

---

Hermes expands on this:

Quote:

---

Hermes: Tell me─do you know the difference between living beings and arcane entities?
Hermes: It is the presence of a soul. Yet the soul isn't something you can choose to have at will.
Hermes: No, it manifests only in those beings whose forms adhere to the laws of creation. That can endure on their own.
Hermes: Beings that do not fulfill this requirement, such as those spontaneously born of magic or natural phenomena, do not have souls.
Hermes: No matter how much it might resemble flora or fauna, if it lacks a soul, then it is considered an arcane entity.
Hermes: So you see, it is not for mankind to decide what is living. That domain lies beyond our manipulation, and it is hubris to assume otherwise.

---

What this means in practice is that the bar for possessing a soul is lower, not higher, and is more straightforwardly the case with beings such as animals or plant beings than it is with more sophisticated familiars (familiars generally are remarked upon as not usually having souls in Touring Anagnorisis Pt 1), in relation to which the Elpis side-quests comment on the WoL as being a most uncharacteristic specimen (they attribute this uniqueness to the backstory you give them, i.e. being a familiar of Azem, because it doesn't make much sense to them otherwise I guess... given what we know of the ancients' customs, it's also why I imagine most don't really probe much further, although some do raise eyebrows behind those masks.) Then there's arcane entities, which flat out don't have one. All of which means, both animal and plant life are ensouled beings, and thus perfectly viable (and I will add, in my view, likely) candidates for the third sacrifice.

This puts it well in my view:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Lyth, you know what I'm saying. Grass is life, and it sure as heck doesn't think. FFXIV follows Shinto rules where everything alive that isn't artificial has some kind of soul, but regardless, not all of it is conscious. And in spite of some of the fantastical creatures in-setting, a non-thinking being is what I meant by 'plant', as I'm sure you were well aware already.

Please stop being disingenuous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The above aside, I would note the Ancients were not capable of willfully creating sapient life. The few examples we saw of them having done so are expressly noted to have come at the end of many failed attempts and are regarded as something that in all probability cannot be replicated.

Similarly, they are completely without the ability grant souls to their creations. We're lead to believe Zodiark's ability to create has the same limitations as theirs.

---

Where are these things stated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

So, while some of those intended for sacrifice to Zodiark could potentially have had souls, it would be rather odd for them to be planning to sacrifice only ensouled beings when they're such a rarity. It seems far more likely for the plan to be general sacrifice.

---

Then why did Emet say the plan was to offer up the souls of the inhabitants of the Source if that were the case. Why did the Tales from the Dawn describe the plan as using a “bounty of souls.”

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

---

As I have stated a million times over, and will continue to state a million times more if proven necessary (it will, naturally) so long as Venat's actions (and the Sundered who benefited from them and proved no better, in the end) can be argued to be equally immoral this line of debate will eternally persist in falling flat on it's face despite itself.

No comment on Hermes, of course. Who's motive and actions speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

UThere is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore.

---

OK I now want Zodiark to be a very rare animal you can find on the Island Sanctuary so I can stuff them with hay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Ultimately, the entire argument in defense of the Convocation hinges on the belief that the souls being sacrificed to Zodiark are less valuable than the dead Amaurotines. There is no mention of feeding Zodiark bales of hay anywhere in the game lore. And at the end it wouldn't have mattered what the sacrifices were, because we've already seen Emet destroy entire worlds in the name of his dead civilization.

I have no idea why you would want to reframe this as an 'ethical' debate when the Ascians had no pretenses of taking whatever they wanted in the first place.

---

Lyth, the problem we have in literally almost every thread that touches this topic is that, no matter what the context, you conceptualize every remark people make about how the Sundering scenario is messily-written and ambiguous as being about defending Emet and Ascians.

For the umpteenth time, it's not (necessarily - obviously I can't speak for other people's motives) about the damn Ascians. I said just a few pages ago that my headcanon would be that the sacrifices were sapient because that would make the story less dumb and incoherent even if it makes Amaurot look worse. But the issue that this is just a headcanon, and the nature of the sacrifices are one of the many pieces of awkward writing around the original Final Days that make it impossible to form a good-faith interpretation of the text.

I will say this explicitly just so there is no room for misunderstandings: I would much prefer a cohesively-written scenario where the Ancients were definitively in the wrong than what we have now, which is a mess where it feels like the writers changed their plans half way down the line, and even then couldn't agree on the tone they wanted to set.

This really has nothing to do with the 'quality' of the story writing. Anyone who has visited this forum over the past ten months or so knows that there's a small group of people here who have dedicated themselves to hurling vitriol at the writing team and the game just because they didn't give the Convocation and Amaurot the outcome that they wanted. It became so bad in here that many older members of this community spoke out against it and ultimately opted to bow out of here so that they could continue to enjoy a game that they are incredibly passionate about without the hearing constant negativity directed at it. And you can't blame them really, because most of us are here because we love the story and want to be able to discuss our predictions and theories in good faith.

The worst thing the writers can do when they have legions of adoring fans is to listen to a couple of attention-seeking hecklers in the back. And I think the solution going forward is to simply let Amaurot, like these complaints, wash away from memory.

Amaurot, at its core, is just an Ascian backstory. But you cannot retrospectively justify the Ascians' actions. Emet slaughtered all the people on seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. His comrades destroyed civilization after civilization on the Source and reset our progress time and time again. They used cowardly tactics like chemical weaponry to kill friend and foe alike. We come in to the story of Amaurot knowing full well that the majority of their leadership were a group of murderous psychopaths who looked down on non-Amaurotine societies with delusions of racial supremacy. You should not require any additional help from the writers to spell out for you that these are not lawful good exemplars of virtue or to be able to grasp the fact that they always were going to be written as a fallen civilization.

That doesn't mean that you can't enjoy them, as villains. When you deliberately choose to support them, it's never been out of 'ethics' or 'higher principles'. Put away the soapbox. It's because they're fun, and fiction lets you explore these boundaries. If you would only do that from the start, I would be 100% supportive.

It's also not the responsibility of the writer to ensure that you interpret the story in good faith, or to dummy-proof the story so that it cannot be distorted into bizarre interpretations. You always have the power to deliberately twist facts into a bad faith interpretation, like was done in that earlier conversation about a vegan-friendly Zodiark. If you want to have that conversation about Island Sanctuary Zodiark just for a bit of light-hearted debate, I'm more than happy to indulge you, as long as you can do it without resorting to the usual unpleasantness. But I don't see how you can make those claims about Zodiark eating grass as being 'author intent' with a straight face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It's also not the responsibility of the writer to ensure that you interpret the story in good faith, or to dummy-proof the story so that it cannot be distorted into bizarre interpretations.

---

I remember all the talk about how Zenos could still be alive and come back later in the game even though the scene shows him to stop breathing. Wasnt it Yoshida who was like: maybe we should have also put a "he is death" over this scene because people still asked them if he will come back.

I guess if you want to, one can always just ignore any slight hint (or big hint) in the game if it does not fit your own view. Of course there are also situations where we dont get a clear answer. But for me the game gave hints that I believe that the third sacrifice was not just some plants and animals. Maybe I am wrong who knows, but for me the hints are enough, including the decision that the last sacrifice after all the rejoinings would include the now unsundered people.


But for the sake of looking at it from both sides, lets just assume that somehow they had intended to exchange Ancients for plants and some cattle. Of course for one ancient soul you would need a huuuge amount of that. Still having the whole race split about that so much that Elidibus came back and its only because of plants and chickens? That would make the side against the Ascians look a bit unreasonable (of course Venat has the additional information about Meteion but the others may not).

Yet all of that changes in the present because now the Ascians want to use real unsundered people instead of plants. Why? What would that say about them? So even if the plan at the start was just that, it would not show them in a good light now because we have it confirmed by Emet Selch himself, that people would have become part of the sacrifice, even if plants and animals would have been enough.

In the other version, where they always intended to sacrifice people they at least stuck to their view and could at least argue that it was necessary to get their people back. (As in nothing below a person has enough aether) In the case of plants and animals being enough they bascially just murder innocent people for the "fun" of it. They would not need them and still do it. That is imo way worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

This really has nothing to do with the 'quality' of the story writing. Anyone who has visited this forum over the past ten months or so knows that there's a small group of people here who have dedicated themselves to hurling vitriol at the writing team and the game just because they didn't give the Convocation and Amaurot the outcome that they wanted. It became so bad in here that many older members of this community spoke out against it and ultimately opted to bow out of here so that they could continue to enjoy a game that they are incredibly passionate about without the hearing constant negativity directed at it. And you can't blame them really, because most of us are here because we love the story and want to be able to discuss our predictions and theories in good faith.

---

It is absolutely wild to me that you can read a post where I explicitly say that my preferred interpretation of the third sacrifice is the same as yours, that I wanted the Ancients to be explicitly less sympathetic, respond by basically accusing me of lying to you and actually being mad about how the writers treated the Convocation and Amaurot, and then start talking about other people not posting in 'good faith'.

It's fine if you think people being fussy about the ambiguity of the writing are being obtuse and should go with it based on the vibe, but you should criticize me on that basis. Your insistence that everyone who has some kinda bone to pick with the plot of Endwalker is part of some kind of unified pro-Ascian bloc and then being constantly presumptive and passive-aggressive based on that assumption is continuously frustrating and, to be blunt, kinda creepy.

Like, back in the thread about the Venat story, something that stuck out to me in a reply you made to me was when you suddenly started talking about how my 'friends' hypocritically view the Sundered. My friends. I don't know these people, Lyth. Based on some other threads outside of the lore forum, there are probably several anti-Venat people on this forum who I would think are jerks if I got to know them meaningfully-- And hell, there's a ton of criticism of Endwalker on this forum I outright think is dumb. But it seems like you dislike the Ancients so much that it's distorting your perceptions of what people are actually saying, and then using that as a basis to put them in a box. Like, every time you talk about them your tone is dripping with contempt in a manner that seems completely over the top for a video game.

I like the Ancients, but I don't think to an exceptional degree - they're kinda a popular group among the playerbase, according to polls. But putting aside the more abstract issues I have with its ethical messaging, the reason I'm hung up on Endwalker's plot isn't because they died, it's because it's harder for me to care about the setting when its foundational event is so messy and ill-defined. Since I guess you didn't read me saying it the last two times, I do not genuinely think that it was the writers intent that the Ancients were planning to sacrifice grass. But the absence of clarity, or rather the sense that we are looking at a post-retcon hole, is still annoying and an issue in terms of conceptualizing the scenario.

There are obviously several people on the forum who are openly expressing the kind of takes you're talking about. But if you want to criticize them, please do so specifically, and stop generalizing everyone who disagrees with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Yet all of that changes in the present because now the Ascians want to use real unsundered people instead of plants. Why? What would that say about them? So even if the plan at the start was just that, it would not show them in a good light now because we have it confirmed by Emet Selch himself, that people would have become part of the sacrifice, even if plants and animals would have been enough.

In the other version, where they always intended to sacrifice people they at least stuck to their view and could at least argue that it was necessary to get their people back. (As in nothing below a person has enough aether) In the case of plants and animals being enough they bascially just murder innocent people for the "fun" of it. They would not need them and still do it. That is imo way worse.

---

I took their decision to use the formerly sundered as sacrifices as a cleansing of sorts because they'd inevitably become an obstacle to the Ancients asserting their "rightful" claim to the star and it's unlikely they'd be willing to just submit to living by their strict standards even if given the chance.

Cultural and societal differences would be liable to have made them inherently incompatible with one another.