Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverbane

That's not true. The idea of innate human rights predates any democracy that embraced the notion. In fact, pure democracy is contrary to the idea of innate human rights, per J.S. Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority."

---

Basic, loose ideas of innate human rights existed prior to democratic states, but were usually superceded by the fact that the ruling class (especially any sitting tyrant) could literally just snap their fingers and override them. On that note, tyranny of the majority still requires giving voting and/or vetoing rights to a majority of people on a specific motion, which a dictatorship is antithetical to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverbane

And that's why the group of people that penned the US Declaration of Independence, one of the earliest declarations that people have "inalienable rights" and perhaps the first that wound up a foundational document of a nation, didn't even attempt to create a democracy.

Instead, they created (eventually) a democratic republic, in the hope that the worst features of pure democracy (oppression of minorities by the majority. a.k.a. mob rule) would be forestalled by the intermediation of representatives who would hopefully be a little wiser and little less viscerally motivated than the electorate. And then they created an unelected and insulated judicial branch -- hoping they'd be the next-best-thing to the ideal of the benevolent philosopher-king -- just in case the elected representatives didn't live up to that expectation.

---

A democratic republic is still, ultimately, a "democratic system" of government -- as per the name. Yes, not an absolutely democracy, and the right to vote has never been completely universal, but the system of government still allows for some measure of democratic power, which rises and falls depending on how conservative or progressive the current era may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silverbane

I think they might be a bit disappointed by how it all turned out, but to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's still "the worst form of government, except for all the others."

---

A good number of the Founding Fathers wanted commonfolk, women and certain ethnicities to be completely without any input into the democratic system, so what they would or wouldn't be disappointed with is rather "meh". However, I'm pretty sure that, say, a Black woman who is able to vote for or hold public office has a muted appreciation for how that system has expanded, even if imperfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

So really there is little seperating an Ancient from a sundered mortal other than the immense aether levels and having a limitless lifespan, and especially from a psychological perspective, the Ancients had a lot of suppresed emotional baggage they were barely containing (their society being so conformist with anything that did not fit that ideal, was shoved under the rug) - I mean, look at Pandaemonium, it's very architecture and design clearly states that it was not the work of a sane man - as if we didn't need further proof Lahabrea was short a few candles in the chandelier).

---

The actual proof that the Ancients were an admirable people here is in what is left unsaid: in spite of the massive potential for destruction that was in every Ancient due to their physiology, their society flourished. Every single one of them with the potential to throw a baby tantrum like Hermes and conjure a universe-ending threat. And until Hermes, they hadn't. They lived in peace as far as we can see. The Elpis flowers only ever pick up the employees' ambient happiness when Sadboi Edgelord isn't around. Though of course the fact that Ancient society had so many laws, rules and processes, customs about sharing individual ideas (how conformist!) rather than keeping ideas to oneself, their emphasis on togetherness... may hint at their history not being as peaceful as it now is. And yet, in spite of it all, they haven't reduced Etheirys to a dry lifeless husk; on the contrary, all we're shown points to them attempting to use their natural powers in the most responsible ways possible for the planet to flourish. I would say that takes exceptional strength of character, and I have zero doubt the Sundered, if given the exact same powers, would blow themselves and the whole planet up in a hot minute by unleashing concepts of mass destruction, driven by selfishness, individuality and fear of their fellow men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

the Convocation, which is to say the Ascians

---

Not really, though. Never mind that only 3 members out of 13 are technically the same persons, equating the two ignores the massive context shift brought upon them by Venat's actions. The extreme and cruel decisions they have ended up taking for the sake of saving their civilisation and loved ones, as sole survivors of a planet wide genocide as well as world leaders who would naturally feel a responsibility to do their best for their people, are most likely not representative to how the actual Convocation of Fourteen conducted politics in normal times. The comparison feels disingenuous at best... much like comparing Ancients to an alien civilisation from a distant planet with fundamentally different physiology we have incredibly little context on.

But I suppose disingenuity is the name of the game when you keep using "Amaurotian" in spite of multiple corrections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

That's not why they did the rejoinings, but I mean...

they kinda ARE superior to the sundered in every way.

---

And yet we sundered beat them and invented time travel. If they are so much better than us why are they all dead now and could not invent such a thing which basically would have given them the power to go back in time and stop the sundering from happening? It could have saved them thousands of years of having to do all these planet destroying plans.

The Amaurotians are people from Amaurot. It doesn't make any sense for them to refer to themselves as 'Ancients'.

The sundered Ascians were still altered, if you will, by the memories that they absorbed from the Convocation soulstones. That's why, as you see in E12S, as Mitron forcibly enters into Ascian Prime form with Gaia against her will and starts systematically destroying all her memories, she becomes less like herself and more like Loghrif. And in the Savage version, you have to fight Loghrif in her true Amaurotian form as a result. You can't really discard Emet's pawns as easily as he did.

And even if you want to just focus on the Unsundered Ascians, their actions were monstrous on account of orchestrating the deaths of millions. Elidibus deceived the survivors of broken worlds with false hope and used them as his pawns. He tried to use chemical warfare to kill the people of Eorzea. Not only was he stopped by an oddly ethical Zenos, of all people, but he fled his borrowed body in the height of cowardice, quivering in terror, despite having the upper hand. Emet oversaw the destruction of seven worlds. He abandoned his own ally, Mitron, in a semi-comatose state for one hundred years because he was 'replaceable'. He turned a baby, still in womb into a sin eater in order to destroy the nation of Eulmore. He watched, laughing, expecting our own transformation into a sin eater to grant him a rejoining of the First. And it's only the fact that that self-same light impaled him with prejudice that finally put the matter to rest. And Lahabrea... well, let's just leave this one for now until 6.2 tells us his sob story.

They're charismatic, sure. Antisocial personality types often are. But anyone can understand full well why Gaius hunted the last of them from the face of the planet offscreen, for the sake of everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

And yet we sundered beat them and invented time travel. If they are so much better than us why are they all dead now and could not invent such a thing which basically would have given them the power to go back in time and stop the sundering from happening? It could have saved them thousands of years of having to do all these planet destroying plans.

---

Which points to the fact Elidibus at least didn't keep a closer eye on us. Since Emet was trying to take a nap and float around the rift while also not getting eaten by one of those "will undo anything" bubbles. To me Elidibus seemingly doing nothing but rousing Emet from his slumber after Lahabreha and Igthorm got dead comes off as a mis step. How none of them knew of what happened with Alexander or Omega is beyond me. Since we fully know that even if we don't see them they're fully capable of watching us from off screen. Elidibus when Lahabreha wasn't constantly spying on us seemed to know what we had been doing at least during the MSQ bits.

Yet they both seem to not be able to think of what you would have to do inorder to maneuver the Crystal Tower from a different time to the "present" on the first. It's not like they didn't know about Omega. The Allags had a golden era from adapting some of its technology. Elidibus even had the answer when he stole the Exarch's soul crystal. Yet it comes off as though he either ignored that part, didn't care about it or didn't understand it until his soul got slapped into the tower. It's not as though they didn't know about time manipulation powers if what Gia can do was also what she was capable of as an Ancient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

And yet we sundered beat them and invented time travel. If they are so much better than us why are they all dead now and could not invent such a thing which basically would have given them the power to go back in time and stop the sundering from happening? It could have saved them thousands of years of having to do all these planet destroying plans.

---

Not to be pedantic, but he Sundered didn't exactly develop time travel. You learn in the Twinning that the future Ironworks in the 8th Umbral timeline used a copy of Alexander to make it happen, which itself was created through a combination of Ascian instruction and the Enigma Codex, which in turn contained knowledge from a time paradox (ie: nowhere).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai

Why would veering off into a tangent about Dragon Ball Z with a single sentence about FFXIV suddenly make things make more sense? Magic doesn't even translate well in Dragon Ball, and power levels are bullshit.

---

Sorry my brain at the time wasn't recalling the Slave Crown and Tera from FFVI. As an example of a person wearing something that inhibited/restricted a person from accessing/using their full abilities that included magic. While wearing it she could still function as a spell casting fighter for the Ghestal Empire while unknowingly at the time unable to cast bigger magics or use her Esper form. When trying to explain how I felt the Convocation sigils worked. I still think they do in a way since either Venat is that much stronger then Emet or she wasn't restricted via the sigil when she fairly easily broke from Herme's chains. While Emet broke free after having his light up iirc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Not to be pedantic, but he Sundered didn't exactly develop time travel. You learn in the Twinning that the future Ironworks in the 8th Umbral timeline used a copy of Alexander to make it happen, which itself was created through a combination of Ascian instruction and the Enigma Codex, which in turn contained knowledge from a time paradox (ie: nowhere).

---

But they did. Mide and her boyfriend ended up Grandfather Paradoxing themselves. They're the ones that started the whole myth about Alexander that they then learned of after a long enough time forgot the names of those who started the tale. So they knew about Alexander and how they thought he'd work once summoned. The only named, muddied history, ranking and non convocation member who was a dangling plot thread; that also happened to have a highly aether soaked horn (which was also a dangling plot thread) gave them it so they'd have enough power to summon Alexander. Who might have gone back to being a dangling plot thread as I don't remember him dying. Not that any of the Unsundered seemed to care if he had survived the 7th Umbral calamity or not since again black masked and sundered were seen as replaceable. Present day Mide didn't know about Alexander being able to do manipulate time until the story got to that point. The actual physical travel part comes from Omega's ability to travel the rift. Why you get parts of Escape playing in the dungeon and how some of the memories when fighting the Tycoon shows scenes from the Omega storyline instead of just Alexander and Gobbie fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SentioftheHoukai

You can't label a group of people an entirely separate race just because of the CITY THEy LIVE IN, are you kidding me?! The "Ancients" refer to the race of immortals that predated the Sundering of the Star Eitherys. This "Amaurotia" never existed, Lyth. No matter how much easier it may be to hate the Ancients by Othering them, it isn't right to do so and it isn't done in story so let's not do such things here shall we? There's truly no such thing as a race called "Amaurotians" upon the face of Eitherys, and there never was.

---

The game itself has characters named "Amaurotine"...

Amaurotine Firebrand
Anxious Amaurotine
Approachable Amaurotine
Eloquent Amaurotine
Gentle Amaurotine
Kindly Amaurotine
Loquacious Amaurotine
Optimistic Amaurotine
Patronizing Amaurotine
Passionate Amaurotine
Pragmatic Amaurotine

They even refer to themselves in the script as Amaurotines.

Quote:

---

An Amaurotine of character shares their creations with the community─they do not hoard them for their use alone.

---

Items in game from earrings to walls are called "Amaurotine" as having to do with the city of Amaurot.

We are made aware that there are other cities and even villages out there during the ancient days, but we have no input from them and do not know if they too referred to themselves as Amaurotine, but at least one of those villages was under the purview of the Convocation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

No, if we wanted a "closer analogy", then we'd have to basically assume that somewhere, at some time, some human MAY ensure nuclear armageddon or some other type of apocalypse. And frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about in regards to to the "many humans" argument -- again, the Ancients didn't destroy themselves. They were murdered.

---

The “many humans” argument comes from Venats concern that allowing knowledge of Meteions become commonly known would lead to the situation “spiraling out of our control” and that she would “carefully consider who can be trusted, and bring them into the fold.” If you have another interpretation of what that was meant to convey I’d happily hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

No.

Because the difference still remains that there are a number of massive steps that need to be undergone before any of those persons in democratic countries could actually start nuclear annihilation. Your belief still makes the assumption that a President or Prime Minister with the ability to launch nuclear weapons could do so just as easy as a literal dictator. That argument is defeated by the existence of America's previous president who, according to the ex-Defense Secretary, mentioned that said President wanted to launch missile strikes against a particular country, but was stopped and talked down from that action by other people in his administration. Imagine, if you will, that said leader was a dictator who never need to tell anyone anything before he just pressed the button.

---

And you’ve completely misunderstood the danger of that particular exchange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-expert-says/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ority-do-this/

The President holds unilateral authority to order a nuclear exchange, with all other subject to the two man rule. What you are referring to was a discussion of its use, not an order, a discussion that convinced the former President not to use them (thank god). If an actual order was given, all who would have to obey or be considered mutinous. If a President would order a launch and his staff refused, legally they would be committing treason and subject to the punishments therein. That is unilateral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Their reason for why believing was meaningless was because they had nothing left to achieve. Therefore, boredom.

---

Ennui is the term we are looking for, and while similar to boredom it’s not the same. Boredom sucks. Ennui kills. It’s a quibble I know but I think it important to distinguish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Only if you assume Meteion's conclusion was correct -- which even the PLOT of Endwalker doesn't do.

---

Meteion comes to two conclusions actually, of different levels of truthfulness.

1. To Live is to Suffer
2. Thus it is better to be dead

Venat believes the first true, and the second wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Again, the story actually tries to muddle the argument to make it seem like BOTH meanings.

---

I don’t agree. Characters repeatedly state that perfection is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Nope.

---

That sounds like a failure to me. A society losing its will to live would be in an “unhappy state” no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

That sounds like a Fallacy of the Beard, to me.

---

Do you think subjective morals means there’s no way to ascertain true moral value, or saying it’s on a continuum? Fallacy of the beard applies to the latter, not the former. If I said that morality exists on a continuum and thus right and wrong is arbitrary, then I would be committing that fallacy. Moral subjectivity, which I was disagreeing with, holds that morals have no objective truth value and thus every subjective view of morality is equally true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Whether or not you seethe is on you. For the record, I was perfectly willing to call it something other than a dictatorship if you had suggested anything, but now I'm forced to question exactly WHY it upsets you.

---

…because it’s an obviously extreme descriptor that conjures up visions of real life figures that committed acts of violence that wouldn’t abide by my moral system, acts that I would violently oppose. Unilateral decision making or benevolent despotism or something similar would be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

...Unilateral power is literally a corruption of democratic system. I have NO IDEA what you're talking about here.

---

No democratic system exists without some sort of unilateral power. The only question is who gets to use it and for how long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Again, there's a real life precedent for this: slavery. The reason why overt slavery was capable of being abolished in most democratic socities was because democratic systems literally INVENTED the concept of a "human right" to begin with.

The idea that people fundamentally have inherent rights is actually relatively new to humankind; absolute authoritarian societies like dictatorships usually don't bother, because whatever the ruler says is law. It was democracy, in general, which created the Rule of Law rather than absolute law.

---

Do you think human rights exists independent of democracy or do you think that one gains human rights through democracy? This actually gets to the core of the disagreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

So your question is literally mooted by the fact that human rights as we understand and know them today, would not even EXIST without the establishment of democratic systems. No doubt -- as the existence of slavery and similar systems into 20th century North America proves, you can definitely still have people denied equal or even basic rights...but there would be no rights to give them under a system where one person has ALL the power. Under a dictatorship, everybody is literally the slave of the dictator.

---

And it took unilateral decision making to change those systems. I’m not saying all unilateral decisions are better than democratic ones, or that centrazlied power structures are superior to decentralized ones, but that there are times when a unilateral decision can be just.