Revelations from SHADOWBRINGERS

[Edax]

Would the ancient ones that summoned Hydealyn really be against sacrificing something that has no soul? Would Zodiark even be fueled by something that has no soul, especially if its a exchange for an ancient soul which is powerful? We know from the short story that their creations lacked a soul and was not really considered a living being. (Which now makes sense that we would grind a certain monster into a crystal without any remorse)

It's possible. Mankind slaughter animals for their meat. For some this is fine, for others this is barbaric. Mankind destroys entire ecosystems (forests, jungles, rivers, Detroit, ect.) for resources. For some this is fine, for others it is not. A forest need not have a soul to have it's loss be lemented. Perhaps for Hydaelyn, rendering the planet barren again to remake the dead Amaurotine after so much work recreating life was too much.

Would Zodiark even be fueled by something that has no soul, especially if its a exchange for an ancient soul which is powerful? We know from the short story that their creations lacked a soul and was not really considered a living being. (Which now makes sense that we would grind a certain monster into a crystal without any remorse)

Primals are fueled by aether and crystals. We can grind flowers into crystals in this game but few would dispute that flowers have no "soul".

[Alleo]

It's possible. Mankind slaughter animals for their meat. For some this is fine, for others this is barbaric. Mankind destroys entire ecosystems (forests, jungles, rivers, Detroit, ect.) for resources. For some this is fine, for others it is not. A forest need not have a soul to have it's loss be lemented. Perhaps for Hydaelyn, rendering the planet barren again to remake the dead Amaurotine after so much work recreating life was too much.



Primals are fueled by aether and crystals. We can grind flowers into crystals in this game but few would dispute that flowers have no "soul".

How do we know that flowers truly have a soul? Just because they are made out of aether does not mean that they have one. Also it was not Hydealyn that decided on stuff but her summoners. Hythlo even mentions that these people wanted to leave the planet in the hands of the new life and later on Emet comments how he does not see us spoken races as good enough to be the stewards of this planet. All of this together paints the picture for me that we are talking about the sacrifice of living people. Not plants, not animals but sentient and sapient beings.

I would also argue that there is a difference in killing something to eat it which is natural for a lot of animals on the planet and going through whole genocide. Also not sure what our own rl problems with the destruction of our planet has to do with the topic?

In the end I really doubt that any of the ones that summoned Hydealyn would have done this huge change just because the Ascians decided to plant some trees and later chop them down to sacrifice to Zodiark..and I somehow doubt that these trees would have a soul anyway.

[YianKutku]

How do we know that flowers truly have a soul? Just because they are made out of aether does not mean that they have one.

According to FFXIV, there is apparently a clear and understandable way to tell if a being has a soul: whether that being can be understood by someone with the Echo.

Hence the big reaction when we could suddenly understand Alpha at the end of the Omega raid questline.

In any case, I'm fine with assuming that the "life" that the Zodiark-aligned Amaurotines wanted to sacrifice did have souls and sapience. Because if they didn't, that would kind of be a huge thing that I would assume Hythlodaeus would have mentioned, given that he (and Emet-Selch) could see souls, and Hythlodaeus apparently more clearly than Hades.

[Scintilla]

Emet comments how he does not see us spoken races as good enough to be the stewards of this planet. All of this together paints the picture for me that we are talking about the sacrifice of living people. Not plants, not animals but sentient and sapient beings.

I would also argue that there is a difference in killing something to eat it which is natural for a lot of animals on the planet and going through whole genocide. Also not sure what our own rl problems with the destruction of our planet has to do with the topic?

Whilst it doesn't have too much relevance to many aspects of the discussion, it does apply to one: Sentience and Sapience being where many feel the line is drawn between whether a death is considered murder or not.

Imagine the following situation -
Humans are on the brink of extinction; almost totally wiped out by an unexplained cause, with the death toll that continues to rise drastically daily. In desperation, many of the survivors sacrifice themselves in the hope of saving their remaining friends, family and the species. Men and women sacrifice themselves to secure a future for the next generation. Mothers and fathers sacrifice themselves to enable their children to live as they once did.
As wished, the spread of death eventually stops - but too late. The loss being so great that the population can't be recovered by any other means except one. Unfortunately, this means comes at a cost: the extinction of all of the other Great Apes and countless deaths of various other creatures. But it would not only restore your own family and friends, but all Humans who were lost to those events.

Would you do it?


Whilst a few may say No, I feel many would accept without hesitation - despite much evidence showing such animals to be both sentient and sapient beings. Surely, if we were to follow our own definitions of what constitutes a life worth saving, we would all refuse? Yet we already cause the deaths of these animals, purely for our own convenience/comfort.

In this case, the Ascians are the Humans: arguably superior in many respects (Intelligence, lifespan etc.). The populations of the Source/Shards are the Apes: less able, perhaps, but sentient and sapient nonetheless.
Would it be wrong? Yes. But, in all honesty, would most of us do any different?

[YianKutku]

Whilst it doesn't have too much relevance to many aspects of the discussion, it does apply to one: Sentience and Sapience being where many feel the line is drawn between whether a death is considered murder or not.

Imagine the following situation -
Humans are on the brink of extinction; almost totally wiped out by an unexplained cause, with the death toll that continues to rise drastically daily. In desperation, many of the survivors sacrifice themselves in the hope of saving their remaining friends, family and the species. Men and women sacrifice themselves to secure a future for the next generation. Mothers and fathers sacrifice themselves to enable their children to live as they once did.
As wished, the spread of death eventually stops - but too late. The loss being so great that the population can't be recovered by any other means except one. Unfortunately, this means comes at a cost: the extinction of all of the other Great Apes and countless deaths of various other creatures. But it would not only restore your own family and friends, but all Humans who were lost to those events.

Would you do it?

Taking that question by itself, the answer would be a definite and immediate "no, I would not". I know Alisaie does pose the same question, but this is the same character who was kind of unhealthily obsessed with her grandfather's death back in ARR and Coils, so I think we can consider that just Alisaie's character, rather than authorial hinting that we're supposed to agree with her.

However, I don't think this somehow makes me morally superior or anything, since it is, again, only a matter of degree. I would not genocide macroscopic species to bring back loved ones, but I would absolutely take antibiotics to cure a cold.

In this case, the Ascians are the Humans: arguably superior in many respects (Intelligence, lifespan etc.). The populations of the Source/Shards are the Apes: less able, perhaps, but sentient and sapient nonetheless.
Would it be wrong? Yes. But, in all honesty, would most of us do any different?

That's kind of the difference, though: you (and presumably players in general) would acknowledge that whether we would do it or not, we would still accept that it is wrong, and the only questions are whether it is worth it, and whether it is necessary.

Emet-Selch doesn't do that. He treats the genocide as a matter of course, and he rushes straight into wiping out every life on the shards, not because it will directly help resurrect the Ancients, but simply as a precursor to prepare for the actual genocide to resurrect the Ancients. He holds no regrets and no compunctions, and he gleefully mocks us for it, which is even far beyond the mere apathy that most people have when, say, they eat meat or take antibiotics.

Emet-Selch doesn't see killing mortals as murder, but he also doesn't see it as unfortunate either.

[Alleo]

Whilst it doesn't have too much relevance to many aspects of the discussion, it does apply to one: Sentience and Sapience being where many feel the line is drawn between whether a death is considered murder or not.

Imagine the following situation -
Humans are on the brink of extinction; almost totally wiped out by an unexplained cause, with the death toll that continues to rise drastically daily. In desperation, many of the survivors sacrifice themselves in the hope of saving their remaining friends, family and the species. Men and women sacrifice themselves to secure a future for the next generation. Mothers and fathers sacrifice themselves to enable their children to live as they once did.
As wished, the spread of death eventually stops - but too late. The loss being so great that the population can't be recovered by any other means except one. Unfortunately, this means comes at a cost: the extinction of all of the other Great Apes and countless deaths of various other creatures. But it would not only restore your own family and friends, but all Humans who were lost to those events.

Would you do it?

No I would not simply because I dont believe that the human race has a right to live over those. But that kind of situation would not happen in our world anyway and most huge events are either out of our hands or done by us (which in turn gives us even less right to just kill more to get us back). Also again there is difference between the "circle of life" and outright pure genocide.

And I mean if we argue that then go a bit further. There are quite a few horrible people in our history that saw certain races as lower beings. We could go round and round with this and someone will probably always find a way to justify their reasons.

In the end this divided the race. If it was just plants and some animals I doubt it would have divided the people that much. So for me it makes the most sense that we are talking about sapient beings or at least those with a soul. Otherwise it makes no sense because why would he even exchange their souls for something worth less and how would they ever get enough plants and animals to make up for that loss of souls? These ancient beings were unbelievable powerful. There is nothing in the game that indicates that animals or plants came even near that.

[Scintilla]

No I would not simply because I dont believe that the human race has a right to live over those.

Taking that question by itself, the answer would be a definite and immediate "no, I would not".

I would admire that choice. Though, I couldn't blame those who may disagree, nor would I consider them to be evil people - simply a differing viewpoint built upon our own mechanism of survival.

We kill many animals for meat, despite evidence suggesting varying levels of sentience and our ability to survive on a meat-free diet. True, many of such animals are well-treated beforehand, but it's still a premature death of sentient beings nonetheless.
We indirectly lead to a range of animal deaths through other actions, including habitat destruction, pollution etc.

Emet-Selch doesn't do that. He treats the genocide as a matter of course, and he rushes straight into wiping out every life on the shards ... He holds no regrets and no compunctions, and he gleefully mocks us for it, which is even far beyond the mere apathy that most people have when, say, they eat meat or take antibiotics. Emet-Selch doesn't see killing mortals as murder, but he also doesn't see it as unfortunate either.

Whilst we have an general idea of how events unfolded, we don't yet know the exact time-frame this occurred within. From what we know right now, it would be an assumption to say they rushed straight into it. We've no information on exactly how much time passed between the sundering and the beginning of the Ascian's work. There may have been very little time. Or maybe they waited, perhaps to better understand what actually happened. Maybe spent time amongst the sundered to better learn to what extent it had affected them.


I can see your point here. He doesn't appear to view the deaths caused by rejoinings as unfortunate. Not only this, he's also highly disrespectful towards the inhabitants of the Source and Shards, being very arrogant and condescending towards them.

Also again there is difference between the "circle of life" and outright pure genocide. And I mean if we argue that then go a bit further. There are quite a few horrible people in our history that saw certain races as lower beings. We could go round and round with this and someone will probably always find a way to justify their reasons.

The Ascian's appear to have little to no respect for the sundered beings. But are they looking to cause rejoinings for no other reason than to kill all sundered beings (Genocide)? Or is their motivation the restoration of lives ended by Hydaelyn during the Sundering, with the loss of sundered life being a consequence of that?
It's unforgivable either way (which is why I also question the WoLs choice to change events in ShB to avoid an unfavourable future) but motive can matter.

I don't mean to justify them. On the contrary, as I said in my previous post, I very much disagree with their chosen course of action. It's wrong and the Scions couldn't have let them continue. But I also found myself sympathising with the Ascian's situation and I don't think the WoL have much of a moral high ground.

[MrThinker]

/snip
It's unforgivable either way (which is why I also question the WoLs choice to change events in ShB to avoid an unfavourable future) but motive can matter. /snip

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you here, but it's not like the WoL is actively advocating genocide to restore their friends. For them, that 8th Calamity was/is a future that hasn't happened yet, and is thus something they would (rightly, I believe) want to avoid. Your statement would work better if it was directed to G'raha and the future Ironworks, who were the actual ones who made the choice to change events.

[Alleo]

The Ascian's appear to have little to no respect for the sundered beings. But are they looking to cause rejoinings for no other reason than to kill all sundered beings (Genocide)? Or is their motivation the restoration of lives ended by Hydaelyn during the Sundering, with the loss of sundered life being a consequence of that?

The problem is that their plan is the same as it was at their time. And before Hydealyn came up and split the souls everyone had a complete soul. So all his talk about us being not alive is bad anyway because they were ready to kill living beings with complete souls too.

In the end no matter what they decided to sacrifice, a bigger part of their surviving people were against it. You see it in the cave image and Hythlo also said it divided their race for the first time. Would that really count if it was only a handful ancients against it and the majority for it? And on top of that the Ascians were tempered to Zodiark.

About the extinction of the race part: Was this ever stated ingame that their race would cease to exist? Because as far as I can remember they just talked about leaving the planet in the hands of the new life. Of course this could hint that their race was at end but for me it may have simply been the argument that the death should stay death and that the new souls born after the calamity will decide on the fate of the planet now. I mean before the calamity the ancients were the only race living there and now after the calamity they for the first time might have had to live next to other races. Thus they might not believe to have the right to "rule" over them. I mean there was enough ancient ones left to divide the race and for one part to summon Hydealyn. Unlike the spoken races now they also got very old. I dont see a reason on why they would not be able to reproduce again and over time get the numbers up again.

Forgive me if I am misinterpreting you here, but it's not like the WoL is actively advocating genocide to restore their friends. For them, that 8th Calamity was/is a future that hasn't happened yet, and is thus something they would (rightly, I believe) want to avoid. Your statement would work better if it was directed to G'raha and the future Ironworks, who were the actual ones who made the choice to change events.

Yes it was not the WoLs decision it was the one from the future. And as we know their world seems to be beyond saving and it was not even the future Ironworks that did this. It was a lot of people still living there who had big respect for the WoL and decided that our life was worth theirs. In a way you could say that their sacrifice was similiar to the ones the ancient did. The ancients sacrificed themselves to give some of their people a chance at a future and the people 200 years in the future sacrificed theirs to give us and in turn many more people a future. (Its made quite clear that the black rose was too destructive to the world and even killed the soil) And we only knew about this bad future when we were already on the first thus change already started.

[LineageRazor]

It's possible. Mankind slaughter animals for their meat. For some this is fine, for others this is barbaric. Mankind destroys entire ecosystems (forests, jungles, rivers, Detroit, ect.) for resources. For some this is fine, for others it is not. A forest need not have a soul to have it's loss be lemented. Perhaps for Hydaelyn, rendering the planet barren again to remake the dead Amaurotine after so much work recreating life was too much.

I think that folks are resistant to the the idea that the Dissenters did what they did to protect a bunch of shrubs and squirrels because it then portrays the Dissenters as particularly demented eco-terrorists. Worse than eco-terrorists, really - after all, eco-terrorists wish to preserve the natural world from the depredations of mankind, but what THESE guys would be protecting isn't even the natural world!

I think folks want to sympathize with the Dissenters (possibly in part because it's looking like our past self may have been among them, or even their leader), but that's hard to do if they took the drastic actions that they did to save some janitor's (Zodiark's) mop (tool for restoring vitality to the planet). Remember that when the Dissenters did what they did, they did it knowing that it would doom their own race into extinction. That's a few orders of magnitude heavier than setting fire to a logging camp, or sabotaging a water pumping station! If real-life eco-terrorists were to enact a plan that would wipe out the human race in order to protect the environment (and I don't doubt there are likely a few eco terrorists misanthropic enough to think this would be a decent idea), there would be VERY few individuals sympathetic to their cause...