A Dark Thought on Amaurot

[SentioftheHoukai]

My personal theory on Amaurot's fall is that their "creation magicks" were never truly theirs to play with and in their so called expertise (read: fumbling) they awoke something they very much so should not have. Something something, dug too deep, something something. The ability to create something from nothing, hence "the aether" is the domain of divinity and the Amaurotians, for all their power were very much not divinities. No matter how "utopian" their society may have been according to Emet-Selch and others.

[EirolOcarrol]

My personal theory on Amaurot's fall is that their "creation magicks" were never truly theirs to play with and in their so called expertise (read: fumbling) they awoke something they very much so should not have. Something something, dug too deep, something something. The ability to create something from nothing, hence "the aether" is the domain of divinity and the Amaurotians, for all their power were very much not divinities. No matter how "utopian" their society may have been according to Emet-Selch and others.

I favor ideas and theories like these, because I really don't like taking the ideas of Ascian/Amaurotine supremacy and perfection at the face value that Emet-Selch has presented it.

I have my own biases for wanting this. I grew very attached to Hydaelyn and her voice was one of comfort since 1.0. And these pro-Zodiark-Ascian theories undermine that entirely. Many people who think the opposite of me probably have their own biases, as well. Some many not want a simple morality tale of good and evil played fairly straight in the "Heroes vs. forces of Morgoth" traditional fashion. Some may like the plot twist of "what once was our greatest ally was actually not good" plot twist. Some people really like "the good people were actually the evil people" plot twists. Or some just really like Emet-Selch to the point that anything which would bend the story in his favor is seen as a good thing. I really liked Hydaelyn in 1.0. I liked Minfilia. And I like the Lady of Light(most likely Venat). I don't want what was built up as this maternal Goddess who I found comforting and a motivating force to play the game and "be a brave heroine" to be undermined by such a plot twist. I do recognize that's a part of my bias as a 1.0 player and something that stuck with me and motivated me to play XIV.

But I think it would be just as reasonable to suspect a perfect "utopian society" to indeed be perfect, and have nothing to do with their own downfall. It just seems a bit idealistic to be true. Wouldn't it be just as suspicious that a "perfect society that must be returned to" and "was only stopped from some unimaginably powerful and unstoppable mystery force". That we're apparently going to defeat in Endwalker while being sundered, something that the unsundered could not defeat in their 'peak society'. Does the writing team really want to play the idea of "a glorious superior people from a glorious superior nation that they must take back from the decadent sundered, modern world" completely straight? Especially since the book it was based off of, Thomas More's Utopia, is considered a criticism or satire?

We've only seen bits and pieces, and an idealized image of Amaurot from a Zodiark Tempered Ascian. And while we don't have confirmation that "The Ascian's Creation Magicks were their undoing", it could certainly be a factor among others. I think it a likely hypothesis that they were doing something wrong that we simply don't know the details of until Endwalker. I think by the end of Endwalker, Amaurot society will be seen as far less perfect than Emet-Selch portrayed it. And not blameless for their own downfall, at the very least. And I think that's far, far more likely than the proposed hypothesis I see a lot here of "Hydaelyn/Venat/Lady of Light was actually evil all along! Plot twist!".

[Nekaru_Infitima]

Have you any thoughts on what the Ancients' may have been doing that may have lead them to the Final Days? What other possible costs could have come for them to maintain their paradise nation? I mean, if it even truly was one.

Taking this from what I put on Discord the other day.

Right, so Amaurot (sorry I had to take time to actually organize my thoughts before continuing this.)

I'm starting to believe it's not as hunky dory as Emet would have led us to believe. 1. It's based off Amaurot of Utopia. Utopia has the literal meaning of 'nowhere' and impossibility. Paradise that cannot be obtained. Yet we're to believe Amaurot was paradise before the end-days or so Emet remarks every time he compares us to them.

But let's look at Amaurot.
[9:48 PM]
1. Individualism. You can't wear what you want, or you can, but it's just not 'nice' to others or so the quest we did showed. You have to register any concept you create, before you create it. You wear a mask, because like the outfit, it makes you stand out less. And I don't know if it's just the Convocation with titles or the rest of the people, but even your true name is hidden (though that could go more with the fictional reference of true names, knowing ones true name holds power over them.) (edited)
[9:51 PM]
2. As you said above, Aetheric Wastes, they were very wasteful and god playing with their creation abilities you could somewhat compare it to climate change theory IRL, not taking sides, just the whole debate To the point they very could well have been harming the planet of its resources, this is more headcannon cannon so far. But greatly hinted, such as the beasts in Akademia.
[9:53 PM]
3. Complacency. Phantom Amaurot (which is a double name since Amaurot means Phantom) was a snapshot taken before the final days. But NPCs around town are shown in one area to be saying things are progressing worse, to another part of town talking about 'rumors.' In Akademia again, the writings you collect to read talk about how things were happening outside Amaurot but getting closer, and that they were looking into ways of stopping it, but if Amaurot is right before the final days, they waited a very long while to look into it.
[9:54 PM]
4. Religion. Whil we know they summoned Zodiark as their will of the star. Zodiark had to have been some form of deity they respected or looked up to in some fashion before the summoning. There are statues at the end of Akademia of Zodiark (edited)
[9:54 PM]
But there are none in the city. A sect apart from the rest? Like IRL different beliefs? That would mean division and split before the summoning groups though. Which Emet said they had none and worked together for each other BEFORE the end of days issues.
[9:55 PM]
Putting all this together and what Gaius in Prae said about subjects of a weak ruler (who rules Amaurot? Just the convocation or is there things we don't know? Or is there no ruler?) look to a higher power (Zodiark) and the people suffer.
[9:56 PM]
I'm starting to think the final days might be orchestrated by a rebel faction in Amaurot, possibly Venat's group, to make Amaurot stop being a false utopia. Maybe the sundering was a thing they wanted before the final days, and used the days to bring it forth.
----------
Hikaru (Nekaru Infitima) — 11/17/2021
Actually listening to Gaius again for once, got me thinking about all of this and how Square foreshadows things well in advance as I'm finding around the world
Hikaru (Nekaru Infitima) — 11/17/2021
Another thing about if it was a rebel faction that brought it forth to destroy a false utopia.
[10:06 PM]
Everything we're seeing of Sharlaya's attitude
[10:06 PM]
Is that same complacency and thought of 'well we're fine'
[10:06 PM]
And now the end days are happening again
[10:07 PM]
Like history repeating itself, which leads me to believe that's some part of it
[10:08 PM]
Which now I bring in another part of something possibly missed.
[10:08 PM]
ASTROLOGIAN questline, and how Sharlaya does not want to share its astrology
[10:08 PM]
So much so they send assassins
[10:08 PM]
If the Amaurotines were anything like that with their creation magics and other races outside Amaurot back then
[10:09 PM]
That'd be another reason to end them through rebels

[dreamfisher]

I'm starting to think the final days might be orchestrated by a rebel faction in Amaurot, possibly Venat's group, to make Amaurot stop being a false utopia. Maybe the sundering was a thing they wanted before the final days, and used the days to bring it forth.

While I've personally been of the opinion that if Venat's crew did create the final days, it was probably not intentional (or intended to go as far as it did), I do appreciate how this idea sort of sidles up parallel to the theory I've seen floating around speculating that Fandaniel is attempting to emulate the final days with the ulterior motive of bringing back popular demand for the star's saviour, Zodiark.

[GoldStarz]

The Final Days didn't start at Amaurot though, it started in another far-off country and eventually worked its way there. The problem I have with "the Final Days was actually caused by Amaurot" is that it's still basically centering the Amaurotines at the center of the conflict and feels like it ignores that it's something that happened to the world at large.

It's the same thing as having to come up with some secret hidden filth for why Amaurot isn't actually a utopia when most of that is actually pretty plain on the surface if you do the side quests and really think about what it would be like to live in the society. The Amaurotines are hardcore conformists and everything seems to be regulated and catalogued by the government; just living your life there essentially requires a uniform. If you agree with all their ideals or are able to easily go with the flow you're pushed, then it probably is a perfect utopia, but if you're someone on the fringes of society, you're probably gonna get hammered down upon.

For me personally, after completing Amaurot's side quests and listening to everything about them, I was left with one impression over everything else: Wow, would I not want to live here.

[Nekaru_Infitima]

The Final Days didn't start at Amaurot though, it started in another far-off country and eventually worked its way there. The problem I have with "the Final Days was actually caused by Amaurot" is that it's still basically centering the Amaurotines at the center of the conflict and feels like it ignores that it's something that happened to the world at large.

It's the same thing as having to come up with some secret hidden filth for why Amaurot isn't actually a utopia when most of that is actually pretty plain on the surface if you do the side quests and really think about what it would be like to live in the society. The Amaurotines are hardcore conformists and everything seems to be regulated and catalogued by the government; just living your life there essentially requires a uniform. If you agree with all their ideals or are able to easily go with the flow you're pushed, then it probably is a perfect utopia, but if you're someone on the fringes of society, you're probably gonna get hammered down upon.

For me personally, after completing Amaurot's side quests and listening to everything about them, I was left with one impression over everything else: Wow, would I not want to live here.

That's what I said above, when naming out the reasons, individualism and whatnot. Aside from the rebel theory. But they weren't a Utopia. They were ... dare I even say it, but a bit communist.

[redheadturk]

I favor ideas and theories like these, because I really don't like taking the ideas of Ascian/Amaurotine supremacy and perfection at the face value that Emet-Selch has presented it.

I have my own biases for wanting this. I grew very attached to Hydaelyn and her voice was one of comfort since 1.0. And these pro-Zodiark-Ascian theories undermine that entirely. Many people who think the opposite of me probably have their own biases, as well. Some many not want a simple morality tale of good and evil played fairly straight in the "Heroes vs. forces of Morgoth" traditional fashion. Some may like the plot twist of "what once was our greatest ally was actually not good" plot twist. Some people really like "the good people were actually the evil people" plot twists. Or some just really like Emet-Selch to the point that anything which would bend the story in his favor is seen as a good thing. I really liked Hydaelyn in 1.0. I liked Minfilia. And I like the Lady of Light(most likely Venat). I don't want what was built up as this maternal Goddess who I found comforting and a motivating force to play the game and "be a brave heroine" to be undermined by such a plot twist. I do recognize that's a part of my bias as a 1.0 player and something that stuck with me and motivated me to play XIV.

But I think it would be just as reasonable to suspect a perfect "utopian society" to indeed be perfect, and have nothing to do with their own downfall. It just seems a bit idealistic to be true. Wouldn't it be just as suspicious that a "perfect society that must be returned to" and "was only stopped from some unimaginably powerful and unstoppable mystery force". That we're apparently going to defeat in Endwalker while being sundered, something that the unsundered could not defeat in their 'peak society'. Does the writing team really want to play the idea of "a glorious superior people from a glorious superior nation that they must take back from the decadent sundered, modern world" completely straight? Especially since the book it was based off of, Thomas More's Utopia, is considered a criticism or satire?

Or some of us just like the depiction of a realistic world where there is nuance and shades of gray and nothing and no one is completely good or evil.

[Nekaru_Infitima]

Or some of us just like the depiction of a realistic world where there is nuance and shades of gray and nothing and no one is completely good or evil.

*cough*StarWarsBeforeAnakinChangedIt*cough*

[KageTokage]

Emet Selch mentioning it was their "sins stacked to the heavens, corrupting its very halls" that brought one of the three dooms of the Final Days does imply that they had done something very wrong.

With how little the Ancients seemed to want for anything aside from knowledge and the betterment of their society, I feel most inclined to think they went too far in the pursuit of the former; namely research into the cycle of life and death and the underworld/Lifestream. Of all the myriad things their creation magicks were capable of, creating souls was one of the few things that they couldn't do, so perhaps someone got the not-so bright idea of tampering with departed souls to gain a deeper understanding and in the process disturbed the very natural order of things.

[EirolOcarrol]

Or some of us just like the depiction of a realistic world where there is nuance and shades of gray and nothing and no one is completely good or evil.

On the subject of morally grey, Amaurot people and their society being as perfect and superior as they claim to be, would not be nuanced or shades of grey at all.

So in that regard, I agree.

If by that, you mean making Hydaelyn, Venat, the Lady of Light, and by exension, Minfilia, morally grey rather than just kind characters. I disagree on that, I think there's a place for both morally grey, and that morally grey can also exist and be realistic without being against just portraying very empathetic and kind characters.
Very empathic and kind people exist. And they can certainly exist in an unrealistic world with Gods and aether. Lord of the Rings isn't badly written for making Melkor evil. And I think that diminishing what has been set up about Hydaelyn since 1.0, and carried over to Minfilia, and now Ryne and Venat, would be undermining what they have built up thematically.

I hope that people can get their "realistic and morally grey characters", without undermining one of my favourite characters in Final Fantasy XIV. I don't like what that would do thematically. Hydaelyn was meant to be like a voice of the developers. And a voice calling out for heroism and "Warriors of Light". Which is important to the series, not just Final Fantasy XIV.
Hydaelyn has been built up thematically to be symbolic in a morally good way from early on. And sometimes it's good to have symbolic characters. Or even just kind and empathetic characters.

I'm glad that people are moving away from one dimensional good versus evil storytelling, to more political and nuanced plotlines that show the complexity of the human condition. That cruel people are made and not born that way. And that evil people don't necessarily think their decisions are evil.
But I think it's gone too far in the other direction to act like morally good isn't a thing, or that acting out of empathy and kindness doesn't mean something or that it's cheesy to feel warmth and good feelings at empathic and wholesome characters. People and characters can be good.

It's also not without precedent for the Final Fantasy series to have simply good or evil characters. Exdeath is a prime example of a character who is evil incarnate. Personally, I think more nuanced villains like the typical Tales of series villain, where they simply have a different perspective than the heroes, is interesting. It's one thing I like about Namco's Tales of video game series. Almost every villain has some understandable motivation. But that doesn't make them morally good, either. A hero can still be a hero and a villain can still be a villain with shades of grey. It wouldn't be bad writing to leave the Ascians we've fought as still villains by the end of Endwalker. It's good that they've given them more dimension to their motivation, and allowed people to empathize with them. But it's also okay for them to stay villains with motives that we can understand on some level, while still being morally wrong. Kefka is still a good villain, even though his actions are all cruel, not morally grey.

There's certainly nothing morally grey, about playing the idea totally straight of a racially and culturally superior ancient nation that wants to return to their past glory. That says something, and it's not anything good. I would be disappointed if, by the conclusion of Endwalker, the message basically still was, "why, yes, the Ancients really were racially and culturally superior to these sundered incomplete subhumans that you play as when you create a character, and %99 of the characters you interact with. And you're only better than most NPCs because of your relation to this ancient Master Race anyway. But you defeated another one because you're morally grey, might not have been the right decision. By the way, Hydaelyn/Venat actually made the wrong decision. Zodiark good, actually!"

Empathizing with Emet-Selch and the whole of Amourite is an understandable and good thing. But no matter how you spin it, the Convocation, such as Emet-Selch, are a people, who will happily kill entire worlds of people, because they view them as subhuman. And see themselves as a glorious nation that must be restored, because they are racially and culturally superior to all other beings. Forgive me if the real life analogue to that idea doesn't sound terrifying and also morally wrong. Not morally grey, but morally wrong. They also just happened to create the two biggest and most genocidal expansionist empires in the history of the Star, the Allagan Empire and the Garlean Empire.

We already have plenty of morally grey without the Hydealyn Zodiark conflict coming down to just "a difference of opinion" or even "Hydaelyn/Venat were actually in the wrong". Eorzea is far from perfect. Ul'dah exploits the poor. Gridania is racist, especially to Duskwights and Coeurlclaws. Limsa has exploitative pirates who colonized and mistreated Kobolds. Doma has a sex slavery problem. The nations we have fought for and liberated have been far from perfect. There is so much morally grey stuff outside of the Hydealyn and Zodiark conflict. Do we have to make Hydaelyn and Zodiark morally equivalent? How is making the Convocation and perfect as they claim to be morally grey?