Zodiark: Good or evil? thoughts

[Theodric]

“Unnatural” is so incredibly loaded, I will never agree with such a description of human life.

Whether you agree with it or not the discussion is in regards to Emet-Selch's views on the Sundered.

Hell, even by their own definition of personhood they were more than happy to sacrifice untold innocent people to bring back their friends.

Alisae speculates during the MSQ's that she would probably seek to do the same thing were she in Emet-Selch's position.

He tried to DESTROY her sense of self to allow her other memories dominance. He didn’t offer her choice like the WoL or Ryne did.

As was pointed out in a prior post...

Gaia was irrelevant to Mitron's goals. His concern was Lohgrif, who he had made a promise to reunite with and she had accepted. Gaia is not Lohgrif, thus an obstacle he sought to overcome. You're correct in that he didn't ask her permission or try to reason with her. Yet the same can be said of the countless lives that the Scions and Warrior of Darkness have ended for mere differences in opinion/political alignment.

Ultimately, it was framed as a tragic love story. Gaia survived, Mitron and Lohgrif did not.

And the game also takes effort to show that the sundered have and will surpass the unsundered in various ways, because like all living beings the sundered and unsundered are flawed and virtuous in their own ways.

None of the victories against the Unsundered are without convenient tools to gain an edge. Against Lahabrea, not only had he been weakened by body hopping but Hydaelyn expended energy to protect against Ultima.

Against Emet-Selch, the battle was framed as exceptionally hard fought. Even the usual trick of white auracite did not work and G'raha summoned combatants to aid in the fight. In addition, Ardbert had to merge with the Warrior of Darkness to provide yet another edge.

As for Elidibus, it was once again a hard fought victory and the power of the Crystal Tower was expended in order to effectively seal him away.

I believe this is a good opportunity to remind you of this post on a previous page, as it deals with the subject of the Unsundered and how they may very well still be around in some form:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5566422

That’s you taking the position of a character the devs have written. Nowhere have they said that that is objectively true and have repeatedly written characters to argue against that point. Stop trying to dismiss this as a settled matter, it’s not.

The development team have stated repeatedly in a number of interviews that it is a matter of perspective. Individual characters argue in favour of what benefits their respective causes but that...should be a given.

I personally think that it is indeed a settled matter in the context of the game's story, which many of us are here to discuss rather than matters of morality.

Speaking of the game's story, here's a snippet of the journal entry for the battle against Emet-Selch:

You wage a titanic battle not only against Hades, but the hopes and dreams of Ascian-kind, of which he is the keeper. In the end, however, your own unwavering conviction brings the ancient being low. You have done a great and terrible thing. Pen the conclusion to this momentous chapter of history, and make your return to the Ocular.

Source: https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/S...ingers#Journal

It is quite clearly framed as a good thing for the Scions and Warrior of Darkness but a bad thing for Emet-Selch and his people. Which...makes sense, given that each were heroes with opposing causes and a firm desire to do whatever it took to protect their loved ones.

[EaraGrace]

Whether you agree with it or not the discussion is in regards to Emet-Selch's views on the Sundered.

That isn’t the context that I was responding to, which was Kizuya Katogami arguing that point themselves. I was disagreeing with their argument and the idea that that is objectively proven.

Alisae speculates during the MSQ's that she would probably seek to do the same thing were she in Emet-Selch's position.

Would need to see the exact quote. I know Y’shtola said it was logical, before disagreeing and stating it would kill millions. For Alisae, if my memory is correct I believe her point was that it was understandable to want to bring back ones loved ones. She ultimately doesn’t agree however, and stands to fight for those with her. She notices the parallels, a point I never disagreed with and wouldn’t have a problem pointing out. What is important however is not whether it is understandable, but justified and right.

And I have to repeatedly point out, this is not the same as believing the sundered are better off dead and rejoined, nor that killing a sundered is not murder, which is what I was clearly responding too.

Yet the same can be said of the countless lives that the Scions and Warrior of Darkness have ended for mere differences in opinion/political alignment.

I struggle to find a single moment where we killed someone over purely a political disagreement or opinion. Nor did we strip anyone of their memories because they dared not allow their life to be supplanted.

None of the victories against the Unsundered are without convenient tools to gain an edge.

We’re not talking exclusively fights. The value of a living being is not determined with how good they kill. The point of my quote was to demonstrate a moment where the unsundered failed to overcome something the sundered did. The embodiment of their fears in this case.

And this

The development team have stated repeatedly in a number of interviews that it is a matter of perspective. Individual characters argue in favour of what benefits their respective causes but that...should be a given.

Contradicts this

I personally think that it is indeed a settled matter in the context of the game's story, which many of us are here to discuss rather than matters of morality.

Either it’s a matter of perspective as the devs describe it, or it is a settled matter that the sundered are malformed, unnatural creatures that Kizuya Katogami describes them as. My point is that I disagree with their description and their conclusions. And to deny that morality does play a role in this discussion is to deny how this thread is playing out. It’s dripping with moral disagreements.