Emet-Selch *Major Spoilers*

[SamRF]

I mean it depends how time travel works. If you're just reversing time (as in all the atoms and molecules are just moving backwards), your not destroying the previous world, it's just been altered. The previous consciousnesses will still be there, just altered.

It's still somewhat the same thing though, isn't it? As soon as you reverse time and start at a different point, a billion random butterfly effects will happen and you will never get back into the same state of conciousness as before the time travel, effectively killing that consciousness? Killing that reality?

[TeraRamis]

It's still somewhat the same thing though, isn't it? As soon as you reverse time and start at a different point, a billion random butterfly effects will happen and you will never get back into the same state of conciousness as before the time travel, effectively killing that consciousness? Killing that reality?

If modern (contemporary writing) time travel doesn't include a multiverse component, it's essentially bad lore.

The Exarch existed in a future where the eighth umbral calamity had happened. He travels back to the past to stop the calamity with no suggestion that he is entering some alternate reality in the process. By succeeding, he should therefore have no reason to travel to the past in the first place. Ergo, the calamity must happen.

I hate to go the Emmett Brown, route, but that right there...



... is a paradox.

Good time travel stories eliminate the element of destiny (the all-important question of: was Harry always in the past to summon the petronus to save himself? How did Harry get to the past to summon the petronus if he had never been saved by it in the first place? Destiny) by generating multiverse "ripples" whenever the time travel occurs - all actions, no matter how small, generate alternate realities, each of which can be dealt with individually without necessarily stomping like elephants on the bodies of the previous ones. The time travel in FFXIV doesn't deign to dally on those details, so the consequence is that it is fairly branded ludicrous storytelling.

[Avidria]

If modern (contemporary writing) time travel doesn't include a multiverse component, it's essentially bad lore.

The Exarch existed in a future where the eighth umbral calamity had happened. He travels back to the past to stop the calamity with no suggestion that he is entering some alternate reality in the process. By succeeding, he should therefore have no reason to travel to the past in the first place. Ergo, the calamity must happen.

I hate to go the Emmett Brown, route, but that right there...



... is a paradox.

Good time travel stories eliminate the element of destiny (the all-important question of: was Harry always in the past to summon the petronus to save himself? How did Harry get to the past to summon the petronus if he had never been saved by it in the first place? Destiny) by generating multiverse "ripples" whenever the time travel occurs - all actions, no matter how small, generate alternate realities, each of which can be dealt with individually without necessarily stomping like elephants on the bodies of the previous ones. The time travel in FFXIV doesn't deign to dally on those details, so the consequence is that it is fairly branded ludicrous storytelling.

Yeah I'm still kind of hoping it'll get explained at some point. I've kind of been operating on the assumption that G'raha effectively did create an alternate reality, meaning that world that saw the 8th umbral calamity still exists and will probably keep on doing so until it's eventually destroyed anyway. Otherwise we've got all sorts of head-hurting questions to deal with. Compounded by time apparently behaving differently on different shards. It's enough to give a headache trying to puzzle it out.

[Dawn_FF14]

Yeah I'm still kind of hoping it'll get explained at some point. I've kind of been operating on the assumption that G'raha effectively did create an alternate reality, meaning that world that saw the 8th umbral calamity still exists and will probably keep on doing so until it's eventually destroyed anyway. Otherwise we've got all sorts of head-hurting questions to deal with. Compounded by time apparently behaving differently on different shards. It's enough to give a headache trying to puzzle it out.

I think they did mention this could an alternative reality during the quest turn-in for Shadowbringer MSQ. Y'shtola asked the Exarch why he's still here and didn't disappear after they've changed history, the Exarch replied that he might step into a different timeline (not the exact words, but kind of what he meant).

[Edax]

It's still somewhat the same thing though, isn't it? As soon as you reverse time and start at a different point, a billion random butterfly effects will happen and you will never get back into the same state of conciousness as before the time travel, effectively killing that consciousness? Killing that reality?

Not exactly. If I woke up tomorrow and there never was a pandemic and I don't remember a pandemic, I wouldn't consider that death of my consciousness. If I woke up tomorrow and my Grandpa was alive again and I remember that always being the case, I would just consider that an altering of consciousness, not death. Heck, brain trauma can cause a person to lose memories or have their personality altered, but that doesn't mean their consciousness has died.

[Shougun]

Not exactly. If I woke up tomorrow and there never was a pandemic and I don't remember a pandemic, I wouldn't consider that death of my consciousness. If I woke up tomorrow and my Grandpa was alive again and I remember that always being the case, I would just consider that an altering of consciousness, not death. Heck, brain trauma can cause a person to lose memories or have their personality altered, but that doesn't mean their consciousness has died.

If you go back in time some people will not be born anymore and new actions will alter their timelines entirely (some for the worse some for the better, depending on what it could obviously be "a lot more for the better"). For you personally perhaps you've lost nothing or actually gained ("eeeh I got my grandpa back!"), but some will have lost something even if they don't remember it (or not existed, and due to new changes in the timeline may never exist again- so a full stop end to their story). So by going back some will have gone and stayed gone (and some will have been brought back/be born that would not have been born otherwise). Not selling it as a pure negative but to me traveling back within a singular timeline (vs cross infinite dimensions) is at least like using a mass destruction bomb to end a war, the war may have cost a trillion times the bomb and so some groups may argue "worth it" but the bomb still cost something too. Might understand why you used the bomb but not sure I'd want to dance around and high five for it.

That's also ignoring talking about all those what ifs, paradoxes, why doesn't y do x sort of stuff time topics raise and just that focusing on reverting time can revert conscious states to pre-existence and may mean they'll never exist again depending on new events which would mean a termination of existence or death if we view the timeline as a whole. Of course if there are infinite dimensions and he traveled cross that and not time then he only helped out one dimension and left another, which changes the discussion quite a bit over just changing the timeline.

[Edax]

But it is nonsense to argue that G'raha is a good guy, he does exactly the same thing as Emet Selch; he destroys entire world/s to save the people in the past who are already dead and gone.

If you go back in time some people will not be born anymore and new actions will alter their timelines entirely (some for the worse some for the better, depending on what it could obviously be "a lot more for the better"). For you personally perhaps you've lost nothing or actually gained ("eeeh I got my grandpa back!"), but some will have lost something even if they don't remember it (or not existed, and due to new changes in the timeline may never exist again- so a full stop end to their story). So by going back some will have gone and stayed gone (and some will have been brought back/be born that would not have been born otherwise). Not selling it as a pure negative but to me traveling back within a singular timeline (vs cross infinite dimensions) is at least like using a mass destruction bomb to end a war, the war may have cost a trillion times the bomb and so "worth it" but the bomb still cost something too. Might understand why you used the bomb but not sure I'd want to dance around and high five for it.

My point being I wouldn't equate G'raha's actions with Emet's on the morality scale. If I'm alive in both timelines, I've not really been "destroyed" because I don't consider the world having been destroyed just because it's been altered. G'raha is not only trying to save dead people, he could be trying to save the living people in this timeline as well. For all we know, the Eighth Calamity was an extinction level event, one that would last centuries.

[Shougun]

My point being I wouldn't equate G'raha's actions with Emet's on the morality scale.

It helps that G'raha is trying to save as many as possible, he's playing the train cart game of which lever to pull based on total lives, and Emet is more like "your race sucks, mine is best" lol and playing the train cart game based on quality of lives (to his own opinion of course). That gives it quite a different vibe. I was mostly just arguing they've both pulled/are attempting to pull levers of value and both pulls come at a cost.

If I'm alive in both timelines, I've not really been "destroyed" because I don't consider the world having been destroyed just because it's been altered. G'raha is not only trying to save dead people, he could be trying to save the living people in this timeline as well. For all we know, the Eighth Calamity was an extinction level event, one that would last centuries.

If you're alive in both yeah, but would everyone be alive in both? I don't think it's fair to say the exact same people will be alive in both- ideally, and to G'rah's point, more will be alive in his desired timeline but, if time changes significantly like that there will be different people due to different circumstances. Say due to the hardship of the calamity I go to a certain town and meet a certain woman who I then leads to the birth of boco coco the choco. Boco roco the choco may very well not exist if I've no calamity to worry about. Boco's existence is in jeopardy, maybe they'll come around some other way- in some sort of fate of life thing.. or maybe they'll never be because of said changes in time (lost).

The person who lived in comfort vs the one who left and lived hardship would be entirely different, leading to different lives and people who'd not recognize themselves (potentially). That side reason why I generally dislike time manipulation like this, since it's a theft of achievements and potential (looking onto yourselves and your potential outcomes you may be filled with pride that you came out strong and had the opportunity to face challenges, and then someone is like "yeah no redo, and I'm taking all those moments away- all that effort is yoink"). I get why some might view events that look like end of the world and be like "the cost is worth it, sorry boco roco" but if in one you had boco and one you didn't because of that change then boco is a lost entity and even if somehow you argue their essence came around again they're clearly going to be very different (and using essence is around so "still alive" concept would be very dangerous since you could do that with Emet's desires too then, as he just wants to make everything whole again).

[Edax]

That side reason why I generally dislike time manipulation like this, since it's a theft of achievements and potential (looking onto yourselves and your potential outcomes you may be filled with pride that you came out strong and had the opportunity to face challenges, and then someone is like "yeah no redo, and I'm taking all those moments away- all that effort is yoink").

Again, I don't see theft of achievement and potential on the same moral level as Emet's genocides and desire for racial purity. Given that AAR through Stormblood has been dealing with an endless war with the Empire, it is not so different to kill Imperials to save the world as it is to travel back in time. You are still robbing people of their future achievements and potential when you kill them in war. "It's a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away all hes got, and all hes ever gonna have." - Unforgiven