Let's play a game: Save the Ancients!

An appeal to ignorance cuts both ways, unfortunately.

While the writers have deliberately left the subject of Amaurot open-ended (good for engagement metrics, after all), you'd have to ask yourself in what form you're hoping to see this 'solution' come to fruition. I could see a theoretical retelling of the 'Defense of Amaurot' as an Ultimate Raid featuring 'Azem's plan'. You'd naturally face off against Hydaelyn, Zodiark, and the Convocation before feeding them all to Zenos in order to take on the Endsinger and Hermes.

But if you're talking about the main story, it's worth remembering that the existence of Amaurot itself is incompatible with the primary game setting, which is why the writing places so many barriers in the way. It's also worth remembering that the individuals who were principally invested in the resurrection of Amaurot twelve thousand years later are currently in the process of fizzing and dissolving into the lifestream. The writers could do it if they wanted to, but would there be anything left of the Convocation to care? Anything is possible, sure, but you might just be waiting a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

It is foolish to continue to argue this with me, my position is based on what is available to the writers at this given moment were they to create or continue any threads involving the Ancients as they have never shut the door. Your biases are clear and are not being completely removed despite your aforementioned claim.

---

Then what 'evidence' do you have that just confiscating the Meteia would have left everything honky-dory? You can't hold someone's position to a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

Why does this matter? The truth of an argument does not change whether it is an accredited person in a specific field or a layman.

---

And this does matter, because any evidence to your actual main would show some level of indication of who you even are, and any known biases or expertise. Because what you're putting forward actually says the opposite: if we take that your main is the one you're showing, then you haven't even played Endwalker. How can we trust that you're a trustworthy person who knows what they're talking about, when the only evidence to your playtime is a character you blatantly boosted?

I'm not interested in picking up Cilia's argument for them; they're doing a bang-up job themselves. But you need to show your work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I'm not interested in picking up Cilia's argument for them; they're doing a bang-up job themselves. But you need to show your work.

---

I have been playing since 3.5/late 2015. I am also an altoholic, I have multiple alts that not only have not completed endwalker, but are below level 80. It doesn't mean a damn thing. And even those who do have a job at cap generally have one or two jobs at most at cap because leveling secondary jobs is a pain in the rear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I have been playing since 3.5/late 2015. I am also an altoholic, I have multiple alts that not only have not completed endwalker, but are below level 80. It doesn't mean a damn thing. And even those who do have a job at cap generally have one or two jobs at most at cap because leveling secondary jobs is a pain in the rear.

---

You don't wear those as your only character, though. I can tell you completed Endwalker just by a brief glance at your 'lead' character (although I imagine they're not your main), and any level of research backs that up. As much as I disagree with what you took from playing Endwalker, nobody can deny that you did do the required reading.

Really, this is just asking for a base level of showing your work. If someone was talking about how Reaper is terrible and needs a rework, you wouldn't take them seriously without knowing they at least played the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I have been playing since 3.5/late 2015. I am also an altoholic, I have multiple alts that not only have not completed endwalker, but are below level 80. It doesn't mean a damn thing. And even those who do have a job at cap generally have one or two jobs at most at cap because leveling secondary jobs is a pain in the rear.

---

I am guilty of doing the same thing. I am a 2.0 player who has been subbed to the game for 10 years as my Total Days Subscribed is equal to 3,660 days. I do not think there is a need for me to prove I have played a specific part of the story, particularly when I am able to cite sources related to the material without too much effort. I have done this in multiple threads so far and will absolutely post sources as needed. With this topic, it is forgotten that this is more on the whims of the writers, thus there is no definitive yes or no answer.

The individual you are interacting with has failed to cite sources that could sway my opinion away from my original argument. I ask for these since there are a lot of headcanons on the lore forums, and as such I ask the arguments against my claim are met with the same level of respect, namely citing of sources, in order to counter the claim I make which relies on a lore Q&A session from 2022 where the writers do not explicitly state a definitive yes or no to the main question of this thread and instead use "probably" as the term of choice when regarding how the Ancients would end up. As such, there is no definitive answer.

With this in mind, it is likely the person either:

- Does not entirely know the lore of the game and/or does not know about the Q&A sessions from the writers, thus is unable to find citations that are capable of refuting my points.

OR

- Knows I am correct, but wishes to discredit me via using an appeal to accomplishment argument, which is a fallacious argument since the logic of the argument is not challenged and instead what I have or have not done is challenged which is largely irrelevant to proving whether something is true or false. This argument is also a type of appeal to authority, and as such this entire thing about whether or not I played the game can be wholly discarded and does not do anything for their argument.

Based on the amount of headcanoning, I am unable to rule out the first of these two cases, though it is more likely than not the second case is true. As stated before, the person can give me citations which back up their claims and I will look them over and see if there are any logical faults or issues with their reasoning. I do not believe this should be a difficult task and I am willing to hear out the argument, provided it has actual backing and not headcanon arguments which are absolutely meaningless to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

The individual you are interacting with has failed to cite sources that could sway my opinion away from my original argument.

---

Hey, guess who's still here. And who pulled this mainly to prove your real problem:

You ignored my actual argument put to you, in favor of fighting an entirely different one that doesn't actually matter, but was harder to defend on the point you decided was important. I asked you an extended interrogation of your own theory on how to save the Ancients, trying to drag us back to the central topic, asking you to use your own demanded metric to justify your own view; you're demanding an unequal burden of proof, demanding that Cilia's argument adhere to strict, citeable logic while yours (and all arguments that you aren't demanding this of) are allowed to exist unrefuted. I simply asked you to equalize this burden. Presumably you can answer that very easily.

But what you did instead says a lot more about you; you completely ignored it, and instead decided to get up in arms about something I said off-hand that cast doubt on you. Suddenly you're completely ignoring the argument you ostensibly came here to have, to instead try to beat up on me personally. You think calling out logical fallacies gives you the win, but I'm sorry to say you pulled the classic ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument. (It should be noted that asking for credentials or probing for bias is not a logical fallacy, that's actually a worthwhile ask to ensure someone can actually make their claims.) From what I can tell it's actually a favorite approach of yours: not to actually argue evidence, but to argue morals, to position that your view is the correct one and that your opponent is somehow bad or unfit, which is a lot easier to look like the winner with. 'Evidence' only exists as a bludgeon, and suddenly just isn't needed when someone asks it of you and you didn't already try to wield it.

This isn't the only time it's come up, you just ghost every time I've asked you for evidence. But you can prove me wrong right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I also see your response on the first page, and even without any bias of preference Cilia's argument is a lot more compelling than yours, largely because they admit that problems run deeper. Do you really think that just confiscating the Meteia leads to a happily-ever-after? That no more leaks may spring? Hell, you don't think Hermes is just gonna try to make more? Therapy's not a snap fix even when it works, especially when you're treating the subject poorly through means like suddenly stamping out their personal project.

---

If evidence is the be-all end-all, what's yours?

And here I thought the OP was asking us players if there was a way the Ancients could be saved via what we know from what we see in game. Last time I checked those types of questions were asking for speculation.

Speaking of another subject that's been brought up. The 8UC was 200 years after the rejoining happened by the time they pulled the trigger on something they didn't know would succeed let alone what the result would be for those who remained. There was still a lot of fighting happening and the land hadn't shown signs of recovery yet from the effects of Black Rose. The plan also hadn't gotten much popularity until its scope was to try and save the WoL. Even with Midgardsormr waking up you still had Elidibus, Emet-Selch and an obeying Fandaniel to contend with. The places we do know that probably weren't affected by Black Rose being Sharlyean, Thavnir, Meracydia, and Tural. One of those places has been described more than once as a literal hell hole.

Course these things aren't really meant to be looked at so closely. As problems like these equate to wondering how exactly there's so many dark friends at the start of WoT. Whose going around recruiting them and then keeping such a network running. Even with some of the Forsaken being able to influence the world from time to time the world is one inhabited by humans for the most part. Heck there's even somehow a dark friends that knew the series chosen one had been reborn and that people were looking for them months after the "foretelling" (it was more of a this event is happening right now) had only been heard by four people.

Though probably not as egregious of a problem as say finding Jet in a container that's in a game happening prior to its invention or in one that is in a place the player is told hasn't had anyone inside of it for over 200 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

You don't wear those as your only character, though. I can tell you completed Endwalker just by a brief glance at your 'lead' character (although I imagine they're not your main), and any level of research backs that up. As much as I disagree with what you took from playing Endwalker, nobody can deny that you did do the required reading.

Really, this is just asking for a base level of showing your work. If someone was talking about how Reaper is terrible and needs a rework, you wouldn't take them seriously without knowing they at least played the thing.

---

They are my primary raider [since the friend who got me into raiding also has an Ascian/Ancient alt, I just felt it was appropriate.] My oldest rolled no longer exists [he was on Tonberry] and my main [That I rolled in mid 2016] is on Leviathan. My current main is on Jenova -shrug-

As to the question, G'raha has proven alt timelines exist, all we have to do is #1 leave notice of the threat in a memory crystal in a place Emet or Hyth is certain to find it [their office that people generally don't go into while it's empty comes to mind] or #2 telling Elidibus and Lahabrea after the congruence has finished during the raids [sharing it in an echo vision being the most likely method.] They can then handle it from there with all information in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

If evidence is the be-all end-all, what's yours?

---

The original question asked was as follows: Is it possible for the Ancients to survive?

There are two sides to this particular argument, that being yes and no. We will first examine what both of these sides have to do in order to prove their arguments as true:

If someone is arguing for yes, they would have to show there exists a case where the Ancients do indeed survive everything. Upon seeing the words "there exists", you should know this is an existential statement that has to be proven and for these statements, all it takes is for one singular case of this happening for them to be vindicated.

If someone is arguing no, they would have to show for all cases, the Ancients do not survive under any circumstance. Upon seeing the words "for all", you should know this is a universal statement and proving a universal statement means you must be able to prove the argument remains true for all cases.

With both of these arguments laid out in this manner, it should be extremely clear there is no way to prove either side of the argument as true. The yeses obviously have yet to have a case shown in game, no matter where it is, where the Ancients survive. The noes, on the other hand, cannot prove their statement because the writers intentionally left the door open:

Quote:

---

If you look at the dungeon, “The Dead Ends”, at the very end there’s a boss called Ra-la, and that’s sort of our vision for what probably would have happened to the Ancients if we just let them continue as they were.

Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII

---

These words are spoken on behalf of the writing team by Yoshi-P. The noes cannot overcome this statement unless it is clarified later, as the word "probably" cannot be used when verifying a universal statement. As such, the evidence I provided, which is a statement from Yoshi-P on behalf of the writing team, makes it impossible to fully argue the no position unless you are willing to go against the direct phasing used by the writing team, which creates a contradiction as the writing team has absolute say over what is true or not true regarding the plot/lore of FFXIV.

It is why it is pointless to argue because the writers can do whatever they want really, thus it is better off letting people have their fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

You think calling out logical fallacies gives you the win, but I'm sorry to say you pulled the classic ad hominem, attacking the person instead of the argument.

---

Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I am incorrect with my argument. This is referred to as the fallacy fallacy, where someone is entirely dismissive of an argument due to poor reasoning despite the presence of the correct argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

It should be noted that asking for credentials or probing for bias is not a logical fallacy, that's actually a worthwhile ask to ensure someone can actually make their claims.

---

see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

NOPE

---

What you have stated is a logical fallacy: The Credentials Fallacy. As for probing for bias: The Genetic Fallacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

You ignored my actual argument

---

Your "argument" uses poor logical reasoning coupled with no elements of the truth, it is perfectly fine to ignore because it is completely irrelevant to what is being argued. Were you arguing from a position such as Lyth was here, I would be less inclined to be as dismissive since there are kernels of truth present inside of the argument. So far, you have only provided non-sequiturs paired with various forms of faulty logic, in other words nothing of value to this conversation. Alternatively, you could provide citations yourself and bring your own evidence to the table, something you have yet to do and probably will not do for one reason or another.

If you ask me, this conversation you and I are having is rather tiresome since I do not think it will go anywhere meaningful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

As to the question, G'raha has proven alt timelines exist, all we have to do is #1 leave notice of the threat in a memory crystal in a place Emet or Hyth is certain to find it [their office that people generally don't go into while it's empty comes to mind] or #2 telling Elidibus and Lahabrea after the congruence has finished during the raids [sharing it in an echo vision being the most likely method.] They can then handle it from there with all information in hand.

---

I wrote about this aspect back in my initial post. From the characters' perspective, G'raha has not proven that multiple timelines can co-exist, only that he can travel from the future and change the past to create a new future entirely unlike the one he came from. He does not know and has no way of knowing whether that first future still exists or whether changing the past has obliterated it.

From that initial state of understanding, any effort to change the Ancients' fate is a 50/50 gamble on wiping out the current timeline to give the Ancients a chance – no guarantees – of surviving, and I see no reason why the characters should be willing to take such a risk with their own existence and the world they've been fighting to save.

And yes, it is an unfortunate mismatch of themes that this gamble is exactly what G'raha was doing with the 8UE, which has always seemed like bad writing – again it seems like the writers were wanting to have it multiple ways at once at the small scale without stepping back to observe the contradictions. They pulled their punches on just how bad things were, when things needed to be irreversibly dire to justify what they were doing.