Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Oh I know that it was affecting others too. We did get a side quest where two people discuss if they want to help these outside of Amaurot or if those should bascially solve the problem themselves. Its not 100% clear to me if the Amaurotines just waited until it was knocking on their doors to find a solution or if the solution simply took so long that they could not do anything for the other regions.

Its also still open if these other regions also had Ancients like the ones in Amaurotines living there or if maybe other races already existed.

And yes we had to kill these creations for the researchers. Some of them wanted to observe how we handle it (they are taking our possible death into account) and others simply are not good enough. I do kinder wonder why Ancients are allowed to summon creatures though that they cant handle.

Anyway most of my questions will probably remain unanswered. I am not even sure if we will ever know what Azem was up at the time of the Final Days.

---

That's the whole premise of Pandemonium. Creatures too dangerous to let live, but too useful to outright destroy. Themis outright says so.

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/70011

Quote:

---

THEMIS
It houses those creations that are highly valued as research subjects...and highly dangerous to the star. Naturally, it is strictly guarded, and under constant surveillance.

---

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/70012

Quote:

---

STAFF04476
Generally, creations that pose a threat to the safety of the star must be undone. However, the Words of Lahabrea has deemed certain such creations as worthy of further study, interring them within the facility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WellGramarye

That's the whole premise of Pandemonium. Creatures too dangerous to let live, but too useful to outright destroy. Themis outright says so.

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/70011


https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/70012

---

Yes and yet Behemoth and other huge dangerous creatures were seemingly fine enough to be released into the wilderness of the world. They really have a different view on what counts as too dangerous or not.

The behemoth thing seemed to be an example of Ancients wanting to create apex predators that sit at the top of the food chain in their environment, rather than taking some kind of perverse pleasure out of creating monsterous beings (the original attempt turned out to have horns and a shaggy mane that made it impossible to see it's prey, so the WoL was asked for advice to make "improvements", so really I guess you could say it was really the WoL's fault for making it like that - yet another hint that the WoL likes to seek bigger and better prey to fight).

There was a reference incidentally that some of the creations in Elpis were specifically designed to be security guards for restricted or sensitive facilities (specifically, the minotaurs), which begs the question: why do they even need security guards in a supposedly 'perfect' world where hardship like war doesn't appear to exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm not sure why you're using the idea of the repugnant conclusion (assuming you're quoting Derek Parfit here) when total utilitarianism, the idea he's tearing down, is generally rejected by philosophers in favor of variations on average utilitarianism.

---

I mostly meant it as a response to total utilitarianism and how one could justify the Sundering through that lens. For average you’d be right, but I think that comes with its own issues. One for example couldn’t justify fighting against the Rejoinings if that is indeed what we’re following, which might be a feature rather than bug to some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

The founding principle of utilitarianism as outlined by Jeremy Bentham is the greatest-happiness principle, which is the assertion that all ethics must be grounded in the imperative to create the most happiness and the least suffering for all sentient beings. Abundance of sentient life, either laterally or vertically (through time) is not valuable unless it serves that pursuit. Happiness is not a master to be served, but an emergent goal that comes with the existence of each new person, and the priority must always be on those who are extant as happy and free from suffering as possible. William Shaw puts it concisely: "Utilitarianism values the happiness of people, not the production of units of happiness".

It's not really compatible with Endwalker's value system.

---

Benthams flavor of hedonistic utilitarianism is probably the furthest you can get from Endwalkers, and 14 in general, moral view I can agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

There was a reference incidentally that some of the creations in Elpis were specifically designed to be security guards for restricted or sensitive facilities (specifically, the minotaurs), which begs the question: why do they even need security guards in a supposedly 'perfect' world where hardship like war doesn't appear to exist?

---

I’d honestly love to know what exactly the Amaroutine security apparatus looks like. On one hand it’s suggested they don’t need guards, the need for creations to both guard Elpis and to counter the spreading Final Days, and on the other you have the seat of Pashtarot and it’s job to maintain order. Gets the noggin joggin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Its also still open if these other regions also had Ancients like the ones in Amaurotines living there or if maybe other races already existed.

---

IIRC, it's a minor plot point in Endwalker that the Ancients weren't aware that the Final Days could cause a transformation instead of a forced summoning in beings with low dynamis, which suggests that everyone experiencing the Final Days back then could also use creation magic. Maybe? I dunno, it often doesn't feel like the FFXIV writers fully think these things through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I mostly meant it as a response to total utilitarianism and how one could justify the Sundering through that lens. For average you’d be right, but I think that comes with its own issues. One for example couldn’t justify fighting against the Rejoinings if that is indeed what we’re following, which might be a feature rather than bug to some.

---

You could certainly argue against the Rejoinings on a utilitarian basis insofar as they cause tremendous present-day suffering in pursuit of hypothetical future happiness. If it was as simple as snapping your fingers and reaffixing everyone's souls to original counterpart, not so much, but.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Benthams flavor of hedonistic utilitarianism is probably the furthest you can get from Endwalkers, and 14 in general, moral view I can agree.

---

I think it's pretty obvious that FFXIV has a bone to pick with hedonism in general, but what's frustrating about it to me isn't that it has this opinion - there's nothing wrong with a piece of art expressing a moral philosophy I don't agree with - but rather that it treats it as something self-evidently bad rather than really engaging with the question seriously. It deontologically regards the abundance of life as the utmost good for its own sake, but only really makes emotional arguments in justifying this premise, like Venat's "lands that stretched on forever" speech. And it caricatures its ethical opposition rather than actually countering their points substantially; for the Plenty civilization, which pursued optimal happiness over all else, the author simply invents a fantastical basis for why this is bad which ends up making them all kill themselves... Or in the other direction, Meteion, the closest thing to an anti-natalist counterargument to the perspective, is framed as a depressed victim who doesn't even really mean the ideology she espouses. (That's not to say I dislike Meteion as a villain; I was actually reasonably fond of her, but she obviously isn't intended as represent any kind of substantial antithesis.)

But despite that lack of substance, anything other than deference to its perspective is presented as a kind of immaturity. Despite the fact that the Ancients clamoring for their civilization to be restored at the potential long-term expense of future life emerging in the universe being pretty reasonable from a lot of moral perspectives, this is conceptualized as a kind of original sin; self-evidently bad.

This is one of the ways Endwalker frustrated me the most. I felt like I was being talked down to because it prosthelytized rather than argued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

There was a reference incidentally that some of the creations in Elpis were specifically designed to be security guards for restricted or sensitive facilities (specifically, the minotaurs), which begs the question: why do they even need security guards in a supposedly 'perfect' world where hardship like war doesn't appear to exist?

---

While the world is ideal, there is really no such thing as "perfect". The nature of people can lead down to dangerous events no matter it is good, neutral, or evil intentions.

Not to mention to achieve such ideal world will have resulted in some questionable actions in the past that their society will want to keep a secret to maintain the peace and how ideal their society is compared to other options.

Then there is the existence of pandaemonium as another example why security is required due to the dangerous experiments done down there that if gotten out to the public will put their society into question. Pandaemonium's experiments are all classified as highly illegal and top secret due to how dangerous they are. All the public knows the most dangerous creations are put down there but what experiments and research are done are restricted to the public due to their nature.

Not to mention the countless issues outside of their main city Amaurot.

Wild life attacking those living in those regions, public disturbance, and etc. As ideal this society may appear, there are still flaws they needed security to help maintain this society.

This also goes back to a bit of Azem's lore being Azem was disliked by most Convocation because he/she had a tendency to just jump right into these issues instead of following protocol for filling out paperwork so the convocation can determine how to handle the situation and who to send which most of them will require security to be sent to resolve them due to the dangers of these events or minor issues that just need a police officer there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

You could certainly argue against the Rejoinings on a utilitarian basis insofar as they cause tremendous present-day suffering in pursuit of hypothetical future happiness. If it was as simple as snapping your fingers and reaffixing everyone's souls to original counterpart, not so much, but.

---

That seems pretty unconvincing, given the hypothetical happiness actual existed. Besides, any suggested change to the status quo that causes short term hardship for long term gain would be that same deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I think it's pretty obvious that FFXIV has a bone to pick with hedonism in general, but what's frustrating about it to me isn't that it has this opinion - there's nothing wrong with a piece of art expressing a moral philosophy I don't agree with - but rather that it treats it as something self-evidently bad rather than really engaging with the question seriously. It deontologically regards the abundance of life as the utmost good for its own sake, but only really makes emotional arguments in justifying this premise, like Venat's "lands that stretched on forever" speech. And it caricatures its ethical opposition rather than actually countering their points substantially; for the Plenty civilization, which pursued optimal happiness over all else, the author simply invents a fantastical basis for why this is bad which ends up making them all kill themselves...

---

I actually don’t think hedonism is the games ethical antithesis. Negative utilitarianism/Anti-Natalism fits that role to me. Hedonism is proffered as an alternative, but ultimately fails due to the universal constants the game establishes, and I would argue the game says is true for our world as well. It’s sort of like how Nier is existentialism, and uses theism as a possible alternative, which is then shown to be false. I’m sure people who found religion to be their answer felt similarly playing through Nier, that their beliefs were caricatured or misrepresented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Or in the other direction, Meteion, the closest thing to an anti-natalist counterargument to the perspective, is framed as a depressed victim who doesn't even really mean the ideology she espouses. (That's not to say I dislike Meteion as a villain; I was actually reasonably fond of her, but she obviously isn't intended as represent any kind of substantial antithesis.)

---

I think Meteion is not the source of despair, but the vehicle for the despair felt by the other civilizations. She’s not really meant to be the true representation of antinatalism, but the mechanism by which the story may prove it false. The scene at the end where we offer our answer was just that, us offering a new answer to countering the ones the Dead Ends offers. In this way, the game allows for Meteion to have doubts, but the Endsinger is as certain as ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

That seems pretty unconvincing, given the hypothetical happiness actual existed. Besides, any suggested change to the status quo that causes short term hardship for long term gain would be that same deal.

---

Most forms of utilitarian ethics are act or rule-oriented to a degree to offset this kind of reasoning - rather than always moving directly to maximize mean happiness in the long term, one must either prioritize the immediate consequences in the former case, or follow a set of rules designed around utilitarian ends in the latter. The Rejoinings were also not a sure-fire way to restore the Unsundered World, as the Ascians obviously had no idea how to fix the Void, and could be (and were) killed on the way to their goal, rendering the suffering they caused in its pursuit pointless. To paraphrase Sidgwick again, a risk is only ethical when the chance of benefit outweighs the cost and chance of loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I actually don’t think hedonism is the games ethical antithesis. Negative utilitarianism/Anti-Natalism fits that role to me. Hedonism is proffered as an alternative, but ultimately fails due to the universal constants the game establishes, and I would argue the game says is true for our world as well. It’s sort of like how Nier is existentialism, and uses theism as a possible alternative, which is then shown to be false. I’m sure people who found religion to be their answer felt similarly playing through Nier, that their beliefs were caricatured or misrepresented.

---

While I think it would be perfectly reasonable to dislike Nier Automata (I'm assuming we're talking about Automata here) for not representing religion - or really any belief system - in total good faith, I think this is taking things out of context a bit. The plot of Automata basically consists of presenting a series of answers to existentialism, pointing out their weakness in a fairly superficial way, and finally coming to the conclusion that there is no fundamental answer and that meaning is something personal that emerges through the act of living itself. It doesn't really try to preach an ideology itself much, it just tears a bunch of other stuff down; theism only gets about 20 minutes of direct attention.

However, the criticism it levies at religion, though shallow, is grounded in observable reality. If you base your life about the existence of a benevolent higher power that loves its believers, only for senseless bad things to happen to them, then the only obvious conclusion that doesn't compromise the whole ideology ("that bad thing must have been good for some reason! his grace has become a god!") can very quickly become antithetical to ones own well being. Of course, in reality, religions have developed very complex answers to these contradictions, but it works as a superficial rebuttal.

In contrast, there's not much of a rational basis for the idea that trying to eliminate suffering and maximize pleasure will eventually lead to an outcome like the Plenty. It's author fiat; a moral propped up only by the invented "universal constants" of the fiction.

I agree with the stuff you said about Meteion not really being a representation of anti-natalism herself, but I didn't feel the story really countered that perspective meaningfully either, instead just presupposing living as good and chanting "forge ahead". But my feelings about that aren't as strong since I'm not an anti-natalist, so it's probably not worth arguing about unless you specifically want to know my hot take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Most forms of utilitarian ethics are act or rule-oriented to a degree to offset this kind of reasoning - rather than always moving directly to maximize mean happiness in the long term, one must either prioritize the immediate consequences in the former case, or follow a set of rules designed around utilitarian ends in the latter.

---

Rule and Act utilitarians don’t simply look at the immediate consequences from my understanding, they can make distinctions between consequences that could be expected and ones that can’t, but ultimately it comes down to utility which isn’t time specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

The Rejoinings were also not a sure-fire way to restore the Unsundered World, as the Ascians obviously had no idea how to fix the Void, and could be (and were) killed on the way to their goal, rendering the suffering they caused in its pursuit pointless. To paraphrase Sidgwick again, a risk is only ethical when the chance of benefit outweighs the cost and chance of loss.

---

The Unsundered obviously felt it worth the risk, as did apparently some Sundered as well, and found success. Zodiark was nearly freed, and seven shards had been rejoined. On whether that is still enough to justify the risk, we’d be getting into trying to quantify the happiness and suffering on Etheirys vs Hydaelyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

While I think it would be perfectly reasonable to dislike Nier Automata (I'm assuming we're talking about Automata here) for not representing religion - or really any belief system - in total good faith, I think this is taking things out of context a bit. The plot of Automata basically consists of presenting a series of answers to existentialism, pointing out their weakness in a fairly superficial way, and finally coming to the conclusion that there is no fundamental answer and that meaning is something personal that emerges through the act of living itself. It doesn't really try to preach an ideology itself much, it just tears a bunch of other stuff down; theism only gets about 20 minutes of direct attention.

---

But it’s tearing down of other belief systems was in service to its overall message. The game doesn’t just say nothing, it actively pushes an existentialist message regarding meaning and purpose. The Ending E is pretty preachy though I love it for that. And then there’s Weight of the World.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

However, the criticism it levies at religion, though shallow, is grounded in observable reality. If you base your life about the existence of a benevolent higher power that loves its believers, only for senseless bad things to happen to them, then the only obvious conclusion that doesn't compromise the whole ideology ("that bad thing must have been good for some reason! his grace has become a god!") can very quickly become antithetical to ones own well being. Of course, in reality, religions have developed very complex answers to these contradictions, but it works as a superficial rebuttal.

---

I’m not sure about that. One could easily say that Endwalker also works as a superficial rebuttal, not needing to go quite as deep as some believe it needed and failed to do. And given the real life rise in antinatalism, loss of global hope and optimism, and the increasing recognition of deaths by despair, I feel also connects to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

In contrast, there's not much of a rational basis for the idea that trying to eliminate suffering and maximize pleasure will eventually lead to an outcome like the Plenty. It's author fiat; a moral propped up only by the invented "universal constants" of the fiction.

---

Heavily disagree. Nozick discussed the experience machine and the Matrix directly talks about this in its own world building. The idea isn’t novel to Endwalker.

Gonna focus on the main thing I was talking about since we've kinda strayed off-topic and I'm not sure it'd be useful to argue about the preachiness of Automata's ending or to basically rehash the existing vs. potential life part of the anti-Sundering argument in the opposite direction in trying to prove the Rejoinings are unethical. I think I've pretty much laid all my cards on the table there. I'm not saying it's impossible to argue the Rejoinings are justified from a utilitarian framework, just that most schools of thought have qualifiers to their thinking that would prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Heavily disagree. Nozick discussed the experience machine and the Matrix directly talks about this in its own world building. The idea isn’t novel to Endwalker.

---

I'm not really sure I follow how Nozick's thought experiment is comparable to the Plenty other than the fact that they're both anti-hedonist arguments. Nozick's argument is based in material fact, which is that an existence of pure pleasure and no suffering in an artificial reality implicitly limits self-actualization, which subjectively may have equal or greater importance. By plugging ourselves into the utopia machine, we will attain an existence of eternal happiness, but we will only ever be hedons, unable to assume any other role we might find meaningful. There are some counters to this (mostly around the idea of 'meaningful' itself being subject to status quo bias), but it's a solid argument.

On the other hand, Endwalker's argument is based on a presumed end, but doesn't 'show its work' in how it got there. What's interesting is that Nozick pre-supposes what Endwalker actively denies - he admits that an existence of optimized happiness is both possible and in some regards desirable, but ultimately attacks it on the basis of being limiting. Endwalker rejects the entire premise, saying that an attempt to optimize happiness will lead to people becoming so miserable they crave death.

In both cases the scenario is fantastical, but one is a logical argument based on the parameters, while the other is rooted in an invented outcome. That's what I mean when I say author fiat.