Revelations from SHADOWBRINGERS

[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...

[Edax]

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.

Do you consider yourself a murderer every time you walk on a bed of flowers?

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?

The point is that different people have different standards. For some, the act of eating an animal is too much. For other, committing genocide to resurrect the dead is just fine.

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...

The summoner's of Hydaelyn could have spent years, decades, perhaps centuries in recreating the life on the planet and became more attached to that new life then to those who died long ago. After Zodiark consumes all that life as fuel, the planet would be barren again, it would be as if the Calamity had reoccurred. After the sundering, "Mankind" was immediately able to fend for itself so it implies that the Amaurotine were the stewards of the races that exist "today" in FFXIV. How "alive" the Miqo'te were pre-sundering is unknown to me but I can see the reluctance of destroying that life to save those whom never asked to be saved. Imagine a rancher starting with nothing, raising a bunch of horses for years and then commit to slaughtering them all one day. Even rl humans would be hesitant and reluctant.

[RenewalXVII]

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...

It's also apparently the first real conflict in the history of Amaurot, according to Emet-Selch. It's a divide that broke Amaurot's society in a way literally nothing before had. For something so momentous to occur, it just fits a lot more naturally to the audience's perspective that the Dissenters were fighting for something substantial like the right of lesser but still sapient beings to exist, not just super-eco-terrorism as you dub it.

[Alleo]

Do you consider yourself a murderer every time you walk on a bed of flowers?



The point is that different people have different standards. For some, the act of eating an animal is too much. For other, committing genocide to resurrect the dead is just fine.

No (also the term murder has a certain meaning created by the society) and nothing in the game indicates that anyone sees flowers as sapient or even just sentient life. Hythlo also made it clear that those against Zodiark wanted to give their job as stewards to the new life. Would you give a flower this kind of job? Or a dog? So I do believe that its quite clear that we talk about life with at least a soul. (A soul for a soul, or in that case many souls for one)

Yes different standards exist but the most important part is, that, after the calamity and finally being save, the Ascians decided that the death counter was seemingly not enough and needed to be raised in the hopes of getting old life back while another group of people with the same knowledge they had (but without the tempering part) thought this act as such horrible that they summoned another primal to stop the first one and probably gave her the ability to split the world on purpose.

In the end society is the one that decides what is right and wrong at that time and seemingly enough of the survivors saw this as wrong.

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.

Good point about the echo. I mean it could be that some animals gain souls over time like our friends in the ruby sea did (or as you said Alpha). Heck even the Ancients ones werent so sure why something gets a soul. But imo nothing indicates ingame that plants or most of the animals have souls or that the ancient ones saw them as living beings.

And even if every animal still had a soul then there is still a difference between keeping oneself alive and doing genocide. I mean if a tiger would go into a human village and kill the people because its hungry we would surely not call it a murderer. It was following its basic instinct of getting something to eat. If that tiger suddenly got intelligent and decided to just kill all humans just for fun then we would be talking about murder and in that case genocide.

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!

Or maybe we are resistant to that idea because the game had made sure to comment on how these new lifes would be the new protectors of the planet and that the time of the ancient was over. (Man those plants will be doing a great job with that ) Also Hythlo who was seemingly a friend to the old WoL and Emet never comments negatively on the 14th.

If the Ascians had never planned to stomp onto the sacrifices of their people then none of this would have probably happened. There was no outright conflict when Zodiark was summoned, there was no outright conflict when more sacrificed themselves to change the planet back. It only started when the Ascians planned on sacrificing who knows how many of the new life to maybe get old life back. I think that its quite telling about what they were about to do. Also the ancient did not really go extinct, they migh just have simply lived on in a different way. Heck maybe we will find out later that this was truly just the only way to stop any futher calamity like that to happen without everyone being tempered under Zodiark.

I am just not sure where the evidence is that the people who summoned Hydealyn (we dont even know for sure if the 14th took part in that) are some mean eco-terrorists who would doom sapient life while saving a flower...there are imo more smaller hints in the game and the short story that shows that its about beings with at least a soul. So I am a bit interested in seeing the evidence that points to the Ascians being the good ones that would just have wanted to chop down some trees to get impossible powerful beings with souls back and the summoners of Hydealyn stopped them because of that.

[Deusteele]

Emet-Selch's short story brought an interesting twist to light. Soul transference/capture. Rethinking theories, new supposition following:

After the second set of Sacrifices to restore the Planet's Lifestream, the remaining Amaurotines set about tending to the recovered world. This "gardening" of sorts would require intensive labor on a massive scale. While they may have been immortal or nearly so, having all the time in world doesn't do much on the micro-scale. They would have needed assistants to help with their labors. After a brief period of discussion, the Bureau could have set forth a template or templates regarding how these assistants would be designed. Symmetrical Bipeds, one set of matching forearms, single headed with forward facing optical cavity. And perhaps the ability to procreate naturally? Within these guidelines freedom was allowed, thus creating what we now call the Spoken races and Beast tribes. Over time as the new assistants flourished some of the souls of the second Sacrifices began to inhabit new born assistants. Then either during the preparation for the first "culling?" or even afterward, the Dissenters summoned Hydaelyn as a counter weight to Zodiark. Eventually the disagreement between the remaining members led by Emet-Selch and the Dissenters led by the Fourteenth resulted in the Sundering.

My current headcanon at least.

[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.

[Rannie]

When is enough, enough? How long will the cycle of sacrifice go on if it is not stopped? Where do you draw the line? Think about that.

[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.