Disappointed in one Endwalker Aspect [SPOILERS]

[Vyrerus]

That my friend

You've assumed that you've made good arguments. You haven't. If you had, I'd have to stop and think. I haven't yet. Simple as that. I could list the people who've made me have to stop and think during other discussions, if that'd relax you. After all, this is about the umpteenth time these ideas have been argued for.

Yiankutku
Anonymoose
Theodric
RyuDragnier
EaraGrace
Cilia
Iscah
Cleretic

Along with some others. Make a good argument, and I will generally fail to respond or respond far more slowly. Though in some cases, I've either hit the posting limit or run out of time for the forum for the day.

[Kordarion]

Make a good argument, and I will generally fail to respond or respond far more slowly.

I've yet to see you respond to the fact that multiple people are telling you that there is no concrete proof that the ancients had an indefinite lifespan, in fact I've seen you ignoring that multiple times to instead focus on weaker parts of the argument. I've at least tried to provide evidence based reasoning for why they would have limited lifespans and yet you have simply said they have indefinite lifespans and provided no examples of where this belief might come from. You have also failed to respond to the multiple rebuttals of your assertion that Venat and Emet-Selch's respectively long lives have non-ancient sources. To be fair that could be that you've hit the posting limit especially with the Venat and Emet-Selch lifespans.

[Cleretic]

I've yet to see you respond to the fact that multiple people are telling you that there is no concrete proof that the ancients had an indefinite lifespan, in fact I've seen you ignoring that multiple times to instead focus on weaker parts of the argument. I've at least tried to provide evidence based reasoning for why they would have limited lifespans and yet you have simply said they have indefinite lifespans and provided no examples of where this belief might come from. You have also failed to respond to the multiple rebuttals of your assertion that Venat and Emet-Selch's respectively long lives have non-ancient sources. To be fair that could be that you've hit the posting limit especially with the Venat and Emet-Selch lifespans.

The question of the Ancients' lifespan is a difficult one, because we don't know that they could live forever, all we know is that they died voluntarily. You're absolutely right that the longest-lived Ancients were very clearly shirking their natural rules anyway; Venat and Elidibus by becoming primals, Emet-Selch and Lahabrea by just constantly possessing new bodies. So nobody can really say that a normal Ancient could have lived forever if they wanted to.

But what we can say is that while we don't know if their deaths are biologically natural, we do know that their deaths are societally natural. The event of an Ancient's death is so inevitable that it's treated almost like how we'd treat someone leaving their job; which is why Hermes was seen as so odd for instead mourning the previous Fandaniel. So if an Ancient could live forever, people would look down on someone who actually was, either as something pitiful ('wow, you still aren't done?') or possibly something loathsome ('you're supposed to be GONE').

So Venat can't be vilified for the Sundered having finite natural lifespans. Because not only do we not have proof that the Ancients didn't have an indefinite lifespan, but Ancient society itself valued the concept of a finite life.

[Vyrerus]

So Venat can't be vilified for the Sundered having finite natural lifespans. Because not only do we not have proof that the Ancients didn't have an indefinite lifespan, but Ancient society itself valued the concept of a finite life.

She can be, and is, because she shortened them to such a degree that most of the life has to focus on survival rather than fulfillment and purpose. Because most of the life has to focus on issues that did not used to be problems(or were problems that had been solved long ago), such as the creation of medicine and other such similar things.

It's important to note that the Ancients valued finite life, because they valued the Star's life. Their lives are referred to as the planet's lifeblood by Hythlodaeus, but clearly they valued finding true fulfillment and purpose more.

[Lauront]

She can be, and is, because she shortened them to such a degree that most of the life has to focus on survival rather than fulfillment and purpose. Because most of the life has to focus on issues that did not used to be problems(or were problems that had been solved long ago), such as the creation of medicine and other such similar things.

It's important to note that the Ancients valued finite life, because they valued the Star's life. Their lives are referred to as the planet's lifeblood by Hythlodaeus, but clearly they valued finding true fulfillment and purpose more.

I think that is probably a better way of framing it.

We can surmise the ancients did not live forever but Emet-Selch (in the Ladder encounter) describes them as living for an age, or in the FR version, as being practically immortal. So I'd consider it to be of little relevance whether infinite lifespans were reduced to rather short ones, or whether ones we'd consider exceedingly long were cut in such a fashion. It is still a drastic reduction.

I'd actually argue that to some degree we do have proof that the ancients had an upper age limit. During Meteion's report to Hermes at the top of Ktisis Hyperborea, we hear her talk of a species that tried to find a scientific way to cheat both death and ageing and that said civilization discovered that death and time were both immutable constants that could not be avoided and were inevitable. So while it doesn't directly state that the ancients weren't immortal, for me at least it does tell us that no species in FF14 can be immortal and I can't see them writing this and then turning around and saying the ancients were the exception to this rule.

She is very likely to be referring to the Ea there. Their discovery of the eventual heat death of the universe, resulting in nihilistic tendencies, no doubt factored into death being an "inevitability".

We have no idea when the Qitana Ravel paintings were created, only that it was before Ronka. It could be they were painted by someone with the Echo, or even that one of the Ascians aided in creating them (Emet is a "patron of the arts" and shows up there right on cue for example).

They sketched out something of an answer to this here.

14. It's been observed by players that in the Chrysalis, the meteor phase of the fight has a crystal formation very similar to the Crystal Tower, as well as a figure that looks a lot like Hydaelyn's portrayal in the caves. Could you please elaborate on what the Chrysalis is and why the Ascians chose to portray scenes of both gods?

Oda: The cave painting was not done by Ascians, but by someone who had a memory of the world before the Sundering. Perhaps he saw it in a dream or something, and then made a mural. The reason why there’s a often crystal-shaped motif when it comes to the Ascians is that Zodiark's crystal is sort of the antithesis to the Mothercrystal of Hydaelyn.

Of course, this sort of thing could end up changing when put down in the next EE or whatever, but it will have to do for now. So it is indeed very difficult to pin it down, and they're attributing it to surviving in memory, and as we know from how the Echo is triggered, said memory can persist very, very long depending on what it is. It is worth noting that we do have some account of the earlier periods of history in the game, to which the below is relevant:

The First Umbral Era was a prehistoric era that followed the First Umbral Calamity.

Drawing from the songs and writings of countless civilizations, theologians believe prehistory to be a tempestuous time of uncontrolled creation overseen by a mercurial god or gods—creation which abruptly ends with the destruction of all that exists, ultimately allowing for the rise of mankind from the wreckage.

Historians and scholars of biological fields, on the other hand, claim that mankind could not have simply "appeared" and suggest an evolution of the species in the thousand thousand years preceding the first calamity. What the two groups do, however, agree upon is that modern history begins with the First Umbral Era.

We can surmise that it was a near total reset:

It is during the First Astral Era that mankind is believed to have learned the essentials for survival—the ability to carve stone tools and the ability to make fire. Tools allowed for the rise of agriculture and a departure from hunting and gathering, which eventually resulted in the abandonment of nomadic lifestyles and saw the establishment of villages and towns. Within these towns, civilization thrived and basic sciences such as animal husbandry and simple metallurgy were discovered and refined.

As the towns grew, so did the hegemonies that oversaw the towns until finally kingdoms were born. However, kings, as is their wont, are rarely content with what they have, and soon the leaders of the newly formed countries abandoned the creation of tools for the forging of weapons, and the era descended into bloodstained madness.

While the 1UE is preceded by a calamity of wind, only the target shard would be consumed wholesale, and I believe had these tools already been developed and in memory and use of them understood, they'd be in use. Seems far likelier given how the sundering operated that man had to start back at step 1. One could quibble about how accurate the source is and make of it what one wishes, but it's all we have for now - a 14 times divided star of an Etheirys that was still itself in the process of rebuilding once Zodiark revitalised the star, with ruins of arcane buildings of little practical use without the know how to operate them dotted about, would fit the bill.

[Kordarion]

The question of the Ancients' lifespan is a difficult one, because we don't know that they could live forever, all we know is that they died voluntarily. You're absolutely right that the longest-lived Ancients were very clearly shirking their natural rules anyway; Venat and Elidibus by becoming primals, Emet-Selch and Lahabrea by just constantly possessing new bodies. So nobody can really say that a normal Ancient could have lived forever if they wanted to.

But what we can say is that while we don't know if their deaths are biologically natural, we do know that their deaths are societally natural. The event of an Ancient's death is so inevitable that it's treated almost like how we'd treat someone leaving their job; which is why Hermes was seen as so odd for instead mourning the previous Fandaniel. So if an Ancient could live forever, people would look down on someone who actually was, either as something pitiful ('wow, you still aren't done?') or possibly something loathsome ('you're supposed to be GONE').

So Venat can't be vilified for the Sundered having finite natural lifespans. Because not only do we not have proof that the Ancients didn't have an indefinite lifespan, but Ancient society itself valued the concept of a finite life.

I'd actually argue that to some degree we do have proof that the ancients had an upper age limit. During Meteion's report to Hermes at the top of Ktisis Hyperborea, we hear her talk of a species that tried to find a scientific way to cheat both death and ageing and that said civilization discovered that death and time were both immutable constants that could not be avoided and were inevitable. So while it doesn't directly state that the ancients weren't immortal, for me at least it does tell us that no species in FF14 can be immortal and I can't see them writing this and then turning around and saying the ancients were the exception to this rule.

I'd also argue that the reason we don't know the age limit of the ancients is because of their habit of choosing to die, which means that they are rarely if ever able to reach that upper limit on their age.

[Alleo]

You've assumed that you've made good arguments. You haven't. If you had, I'd have to stop and think. I haven't yet. Simple as that. I could list the people who've made me have to stop and think during other discussions, if that'd relax you. After all, this is about the umpteenth time these ideas have been argued for.

I'm the only one with a real argument in our little "tête-à-tête." You are desperate to deny Venat did a great wrong. You ignore that the principle is the same. The shortening of someone else's lifespan.

Think harder.

I honestly find it sad that you need to put the other poster down by saying that they are not using real arguments and things like that while you were the one opening that thread about arguing in good or bad faith.

The topic about sundering is not clear cut because we simply have no idea what exactly happened to the people. Kordarion just argued that the sundering itself is not killing, because the people stayed alive, while you argue that it is killing because of the reduction in lifespan and other parts thus they die faster and easier. Both of these are imo right. And the game even tell us that the act itself was not kind and that it birthed a cruel world. People can still like Venat and see her as a great character.

Some of the unknown stuff about the sundering:

- We have no idea how old the Ancients normally get before they choose to return to the star. It could be over thousand years or just a few hundreds.
- We have no idea how much of their memories the sundered lost.
- We have no idea how the new lifespan came to be. The people of the first are basically just 1/14 of the original yet they do seemingly have similiar lifespans than we do. They also dont seem to be much more frail or way less powerful than us. Maybe their own lifespan was not even reduced at all and the only reason why they die so fast now, is because they are reborn into the new races. After all if the lifespan was decreased by the sundering, why is it so different between the races? Why can the Viera for example live so much more longer?