[SPOILERS] Minfillia' Fate in 3.2

[CyrilLucifer]

Oh boy, Dragon's Dogma.

The game where you walk around with a mindless servant at your side that is such a blank slate and so heavily influenced by your actions that it literally becomes you when you die and that's somehow viewed as something to celebrate, as if they're gaining some sort of individuality when they're really just taking on someone else's traits.

Somehow I find it a strange topic to bring up in a thread where we've previously argued about choice and individuality.
(in case it isn't obvious, I found Dragon's Dogma pretty unpleasant in general. But I think that's the point - it's not supposed to be a happy game. Love the nighttime in it, though.)

Though you've hit the crackpot harder than I have with that theory, Fenral. I approve. It then brings up the question of what exactly Elidibus intended when he visited Minfilia if he knew he was fated to become Zodiark and she Hydaelyn. Because 'as it once was, as it ever should have remained' sounds rather, ah, romantic in that sense. Is that just me? Am I crazy? Too much Altana/Promathia coolaid?

[Berethos]

Devoting one's life to a cause does not imply that one is willing (or ready) to give their life for it. It just means they wish to spend their life pursuing a cause.

Something like that is contextual. Devoting one's life to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? Doesn't carry the implication that one is willing to give their life for that cause. Heading into life threatening battle on a frequent basis for a cause, on the other hand? That does carry the implication that said person is willing to die for that cause.

Yet the contextual distinction in types of devotion to a cause and types of causes is actually a separate debate to what I was talking about, which is that for those who are willing to die for a cause that it does not necessarily mean they are seeking death, and the distinction between those.

Also, I really don't think those we've lost along the way in various forms were consciously trying to fulfill their ultimate purpose. Case in point - Haurchefant. He didn't jump in the way and raise his shield with the intent to die, he did it to protect us. He was almost certainly aware that the action could kill him, but the risk of that was outweighed by a desire to protect a dear friend (and in some headcanon cases, more than a friend). It's "I don't want to see you hurt, so I did this completely irrational thing" rather than "I must fulfill my purpose in life by dying for you here."

As for the why and for what purpose my main reason (again) for saying what I did is that we keep getting stuck on those questions as they relate to the idea that Minfilia was asked to sacrifice herself (and seemingly assuming that it's exactly what happened, despite the current thin evidence), instead of also considering other possibilities for what happened and asking why and for what purpose for those.

To try and kick that off again...I find the silence once Minfilia reached the Aetherial Sea to be interesting. Possible, certainly, that it was part of Hydaelyn being manipulative...but what if that isn't the case? She already has in Minfilia someone who listens to her, and is willing to run back into the spell to be sent to that location...why would she need to resort to tricking Minfilia like that? It leads me to believe that the merger wasn't her original purpose in bringing Minfilia into the Aetherial Sea. If she was being manipulative, then that series of events is exactly how she'd get Minfilia to the point of the merger and even make her think it was her idea...but if not, then it's really just a series of circumstances.

Which then has me wondering just how willing (or reluctant) Hydaelyn was to the merger, assuming (as it currently appears to be) it was Minfilia's idea.

Too often, though, they can get confused. Believing that the presence of an option that demands your death (either literally or symbolically, like a certain Allagan mancat) makes that choice the only viable option is not the same as exhausting every alternative and fighting on. It's a distinction that I believe Alphinaud is going to make in the coming storyline.


Considering it's from Dark Arisen, and the trigger for that dialogue is clearing the game twice and defeating True Daimon, I always thought of it as a metafictional saving throw, meant to clean up any potential misunderstandings about the suicide required to trigger the true ending.

For the first, it's not about the presence of an option that demands your death and choosing that over other options. That is seeking death. That doesn't happen often in this story.Knowing that you are engaged in a profession or working for a cause that has the potential to lead to your death, yet continuing to work toward that cause or in that profession with the intent of continuing to do so? That's the kind of willing to die for friends or a cause that we routinely see...again, see Haurchefant, a knight who fights dragons and leads men and women in battle and who jumped in front of what he certainly knew was a potentially lethal attack and did his damn best to keep it from getting to you, because protecting someone else was what was important to him in that moment.


He was willing to die to protect some one. It got him killed. He was not seeking death.

The only one that really straddles the line is Ysale. On one hand, she seemed to know and acknowledge that her actions were likely suicidal. On the other hand, in that moment with our ship being fired upon, what alternatives could she take the time to exhaust? Something worth considering, I think.

That's kinda the thing - often the times where you are presented with a life or death choice, you usually don't have the luxury of taking the time to think about it or explore alternatives. It's do or let someone else die, and hope that you don't die in the process.

For the second, that was admittedly tongue in cheek a bit on my part, as out of context the snippet seemed to be staunchly anti-dying-for-a-cause-seeking-death yet in context is a helluva lot more nuanced, and I wanted to point out that in context it (in my opinion) doesn't read to be quite as anti-dying.

Oh boy, Dragon's Dogma.

The game where you walk around with a mindless servant at your side that is such a blank slate and so heavily influenced by your actions that it literally becomes you when you die and that's somehow viewed as something to celebrate, as if they're gaining some sort of individuality when they're really just taking on someone else's traits.
[/SIZE]

Not exactly. Their physical appearance is yours...their soul is their own (if Selene is your beloved, she notes that the Arisen who wakes up on the beach after the "true ending" is not quite her beloved, having been a pawn that gained a soul of her own if you follow through with her quests she is apparently sensitive to these things). It's a weird middle line of sorts, and that still probably isn't an accurate way to describe it.

[Fenral]

Case in point - Haurchefant..

Haurchefant is the only one (out of himself, Louisoix, Moenbryda, G'raha, Ysayle, and Minfilia) that isn't that much of an issue, so congratulations.

Devoting one's life to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? Doesn't carry the implication that one is willing to give their life for that cause. Heading into life threatening battle on a frequent basis for a cause, on the other hand? That does carry the implication that said person is willing to die for that cause.

Yet the contextual distinction in types of devotion to a cause and types of causes is actually a separate debate to what I was talking about, which is that for those who are willing to die for a cause that it does not necessarily mean they are seeking death, and the distinction between those.

There's also such a thing as fighting for a cause that you trust to not sacrifice you like a disposable pawn. There's a difference between a battle plan that carefully utilizes the strengths of available units to maximize survivability, and a plan that puts unit safety secondary, or even sacrifices one or more units, simply because the units understood the risk when they took the job. There's no such thing as a good plan that requires someone to die. (The Person of Interest season 4 episode "If-Then-Else" is a perfect illustration of this debate.)

Historically, it's the glorification of death for the cause that allows the latter to masquerade as the former. Ishgard is a pretty strong example of the classical "death is glorious" military, so it's no accident that we're cleaning stuff up there alongside the current stage of the overarching plot. With a series of (un)helpful pushes from Louisoix, Moenbryda, and now Minfilia, the Scions are switching gears from the former to the latter. That is what's going on at this stage of the MSQ. Matoya thinks they're all crazy, but that just means Y'shtola is going to stubbornly insist she's right.

The game where you walk around with a mindless servant at your side that is such a blank slate and so heavily influenced by your actions that it literally becomes you when you die and that's somehow viewed as something to celebrate, as if they're gaining some sort of individuality when they're really just taking on someone else's traits.

It's a metaphor for (and a subtle stab at) child-rearing. You live on after death by shaping someone to be just like you! The "best" endings acknowledge that your Pawn isn't you (because children are not their parents), but it is still a very strange ending. It's a game that chose to be thought-provoking knowing that it would have no control over what sort of thoughts it provoked.

Though you've hit the crackpot harder than I have with that theory, Fenral. I approve. It then brings up the question of what exactly Elidibus intended when he visited Minfilia if he knew he was fated to become Zodiark and she Hydaelyn. Because 'as it once was, as it ever should have remained' sounds rather, ah, romantic in that sense. Is that just me? Am I crazy? Too much Altana/Promathia coolaid?

It also opens up the possibility that Eldibus is lying to his fellow Ascians about his devotion to Zodiark.

[Berethos]

Plans don't survive first contact with the enemy, and usually the reason someone has to make the call to make the ultimate sacrifice is because the plan went haywire somewhere along the line. Don't be so naive as to think things will go according to plan every time, nor that you will always have the time to retreat with everyone alive and come back to try again.

Being aware of that such a thing can happen, despite your best efforts, and still being willing to go out and carry out those plans despite the risk of it going haywire is the kind of thing that has been on display, and the situations surrounding characters like Louisoux, Moenbryda, and Haurchefant (we, as I've said before, don't know enough about Minfilia's events to accurately judge it like you're so fond of doing) fall into that category. I don't know how many times I have to type that out before you realize that I'm not saying they should expect or be required to die, simply to be prepared for it and not go through character assassination when they do.

But yeah, I get it - any form of sacrifice to you is a complete waste, and from other comments individualism is preferable to existence.

I'm done debating this, because again you all drag it back to "sacrifice is always wrong" instead of what I tried to do in starting a discussion about what else might have happened to Minfilia and the repercussions of those interpretations. You're not interested in that, you just want a soapbox to complain about your mancat pet again.

[CyrilLucifer]

The more I think on why, the less I understand it. While I'm not trying to marginalize Minilia's fate, she's one person. What can one mortal's power - and not even a particularly strong mortal at that - give to the Mothercrystal?

Her gift was (as far as we know) given by Hydaelyn initially. Maybe it's precisely because she did have the Echo for so long that it made her an ideal candidate for the strange merging? That's a bit of a creepy thought.

If I was required to venture a crackpot guess, I would say Minfilia's intended to be a last ditch effort to keep Hydaelyn entirely separate from Zodiark, so that Minfilia's shared will can help Her resist Zodiark's attempts at overcoming Hydaelyn. You can't have 'as it once was' when you have a pesky third wheel buffering Hydaelyn's mindspace - or whatever it's called for the Mothercrystal.

My evidence? I have none, hence it being crackpot, but my logic follows below:

The reflections are a lost cause by virtue of narration. It's a safe assumption that soon the remaining ones are going to shatter. We can say this because so far only half of them have fallen - it's not going to take another 7 expansions filled with world-ending dangers and potential Calamities for us reach the conclusion of the Zodiark storyline.

Edit: Er, oh, didn't see the above. Oops. Well, I suppose I should read threads entirely before I reply to them. I've been up for 30 hours, I have an excuse this time!

[Fenral]

But yeah, I get it - any form of sacrifice to you is a complete waste, and from other comments individualism is preferable to existence.

You don't really understand fatalism, do you? Basically, if you decide your death is a foregone conclusion, it becomes a lot easier to sacrifice yourself in vain. Sure, sometimes, one death can save lives, but it's hardly so simple as "if I die here, success is guaranteed." By that logic, the side with greater losses in a war would always win. Though the value of even one life is infinite, you have very little say over what you can buy with your death. That is also one of the cold truths of reality, and one far too often ignored when the greater good calls its banners.

The downward slide in certain main characters' arcs is a canon fact, one that conveniently happens to be echoed in the circumstances of our ongoing conflict in Ishgard. We are all prepared to die for the cause, and die we must, for our enemies are beyond reasoning! Sounds so familiar it's almost as if the director planned it that way. And yet one is a story of reconciliation, and the other is a cause simply too great to be questioned? That's odd, isn't it?

The question is not so much whether or not people should die if you fight a war, but if we are or should be fighting a war at all. We operate on the faith that we're fighting to save the world, but we're still clueless to the larger stakes, or what winning and losing mean in the bigger picture. Hydaelyn just says "banish the darkness," and we keep at it because the Ascians (at least Lahabrea's group) weren't giving us much choice, but aside from one little bit of sparring with the Warrior of Darkness (in his own words he was testing us, not going for the kill), they've left us pretty much alone since Azys Lla. This is actually the perfect time to figure out what's going on in the bigger picture, and Alphinaud knows this, but everyone else is too busy steeling themselves to a grim purpose that may or may not actually exist.

I'm done debating this, because again you all drag it back to "sacrifice is always wrong" instead of what I tried to do in starting a discussion about what else might have happened to Minfilia and the repercussions of those interpretations. You're not interested in that, you just want a soapbox to complain about your mancat pet again.

Ad hominem. Cute.

Mine is a particular reverence for life you will probably never understand, and born of something far stronger than the idealism you mock in your oh-so-enlightened cynicism. Sacrifice is always wrong, but while I refuse to waver on that I do acknowledge that sometimes, very rarely, there simply isn't a right. Rather than simply accept the inevitability of death and sacrifice as you press on, though, I believe the way to ensure that a sacrifice is not in vain is to keep the same thing from happening again.

Haurchefant was traditionally heroic, but also continues to be a key motivator even in death. Louisoix was downright messianic, but Final Coil was all the Louisoix closure anyone could ever ask for. I actually have very little to complain about for either of them as part of the story, except that I'd like to think my character has vowed to fight to ensure circumstances like that are never allowed to arise again.

Moenbryda's was a special kind of waste, and a product of her tragically aggressive nature. The rest are of a nature that is difficult to categorize simply because they were motivated by the words of higher powers spoken off-screen, and, aside from Minfilia's, are mainly considered a waste out-of-universe, because in-universe they are barely mentioned at all.

If you want other angles, I had suggested the possibility that Minfilia's actions were actually directly against the will of Hydaelyn, but that She was too weak to stop her. This would actually completely mesh with the image of her as a benevolent and all-loving mother figure. It would also mean that the fatalistic bent the Scions are on right now is entirely contrary to Her will. She doesn't want Her children to die for Her, but we are, because that's all we know.

*pause, deep breath*

But really, if you want to take discussion in a different direction, just do it. There are many better ways to do it than attacking the regular contributors for their beliefs, and the most effective is to simply post a theory of your own. I guarantee I have something crazier stowed away, so you needn't be shy if that's what's keeping you from it.

[Kallera]

I think a lot of it depends on how Estinien plays out, but count me on the side that doesn't endorse the Scion's new(ish) outlook. Fenral is right, it seems like after all that's transpired, it would be going backward on the character to just go along with continual sacrifices and even more ruthlessness in "banishing the darkness". A sacrificed and sullied Estinien used to unite Eorzea may sound glorious, but is that the sort of thing we want to stand for, having seen the effect and pain wrought from building a nation on a series of lies? Building another with lies established from our efforts with him at our side as our comrade?

imo, That would sound quite demeaning.

[SaitoHikari]

I think a lot of it depends on how Estinien plays out, but count me on the side that doesn't endorse the Scion's new(ish) outlook. Fenral is right, it seems like after all that's transpired, it would be going backward on the character to just go along with continual sacrifices and even more ruthlessness in "banishing the darkness". A sacrificed and sullied Estinien used to unite Eorzea may sound glorious, but is that the sort of thing we want to stand for, having seen the effect and pain wrought from building a nation on a series of lies? Lies established from our efforts with him at our side as our comrade?

imo, That would sound quite demeaning.

Very much so. I expect us to suffer a MAJOR defeat in the future because victory would have meant sacrificing one of our friends, and the Scions/WoL decide to accept the loss for that battle as a result.

[Frederick22]

I really dont see another cliffhanger like on 2.55

[CyrilLucifer]

Without seeing how 3.4 goes (I think most of us can venture a guess on 3.3 at least), it's really hard to make any solid predictions on how 3.X will end.

I agree that the Scions are probably going to be taking a different path soon. Y'shtola is pretty much guaranteed to be by our side no matter, what, though, so while we may have disagreements on methods, it'll be more like internal factions.

My belief is that 3.X will end with some reflections shattering, due to Hydaelyn's weakness. Unless 4.0 surprises us all and is that moon expansion Yoshi wanted, in which case most/all of them will shatter. I'm not a gambler, but I'd probably bet on that being 5.0, though.