Confusion (of the highest order) about Venat and Sundering

[Kordarion]

Emet explicitly says, "No one could remember it (the original Ethirys). Just fleeting recollections of an all-too-familiar world."

"Fleeting" means "momentary" or "almost nonexistent". As in, the memories of their previous lives were almost completely gone.

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

[Lurina]

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

[Lyth]

Primal summoning is a derivative form of Creation Magic. Zodiark and Hydaelyn are essentially still Creations powered by Aether, except merged with an Ancient at their hearts. I wonder if this isn't all that different on principle from Hesperos' experiment as a hemitheos in Pandaemonium.

I think if you wanted to make a powerful Creation as a base for a primal, you shouldn't need to rely on a large number of individuals as long as you had an appropriately large stockpile of Aether, much like the Beast Tribes did. Perhaps someplace where there's a massive repository of concept crystals would do, such as, I don't know, the institute for creation magic, perhaps?

[Kordarion]

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

[Lurina]

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

If you want to define death in FFXIV as "the total destruction of the physical body and the returning of the soul to the Aetherial sea", instead of "the loss of ones memory", then the Rejoinings, which the story repeatedly frames as acts of mass-murder, fail to meet that definition. In an interview, Yoshi-P clarified that when a Rejoining takes place, the aetherial energies of the body and the soul are directly re-fused with their counterpart of the Source. It's just a reversal of what happened in the Sundering - nothing is destroyed or banished to the afterlife, and the essential self of both versions of the person is undamaged because it's identical in both. As shown with Ardbert, traces of the rejoined person are even retained in the process, much like in the Sundering.

So my argument would change from "you must accept that either both Sundering and normal death is death, or that neither are, to be logically consistent" to "you must accept that either both Sundering and Rejoining is death, or neither are, to be logically consistent", I suppose.

[Kordarion]

If you want to define death in FFXIV as "the total destruction of the physical body and the returning of the soul to the Aetherial sea", instead of "the loss of ones memory", then the Rejoinings, which the story repeatedly frames as acts of mass-murder, fail to meet that definition. In an interview, Yoshi-P clarified that when a Rejoining takes place, the aetherial energies of the body and the soul are directly re-fused with their counterpart of the Source. It's just a reversal of what happened in the Sundering - nothing is destroyed or banished to the afterlife.

So my argument would change from "you must accept that either both Sundering and normal death is death, or that neither are, to be logically consistent" to "you must accept that either both Sundering and Rejoining is death, or neither are, to be logically consistent", I suppose.

That's interesting, I didn't know about the Yoshi-P quote on the rejoinings. You've given me something to think about here so I'll have to get back to you latter about this.

[Lurina]

That's interesting, I didn't know about the Yoshi-P quote on the rejoinings. You've given me something to think about here so I'll have to get back to you latter about this.

No problem. Here's a link to the interview if you'd like it. (I guess it was actually a mix of him and Banri Oda, but same difference.)

I also added a little bit more to the argument in my last post, if you care.

[Lersayil]

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

That might make a technical difference, but I'd argue not a moral one. Depends on where you draw the line on what constitutes an individual I guess?

In the lore we only really have one direct example where memories were wiped but not the physical form: Yotsuyu. The story didn't make explicit judgment (she regained her memories before it could), but it was leaning in the direction of Tsuyu and Yotsuyu not being the same individual (and as such, there would be no meaning in punishing her).

Even if we don't categorize the sundering as death, I would argue it very much did wipe out the individuals involved on a level, where morality most of our moralities wouldn't really differentiate between the two.

[Lyth]

According to the interview, all living things have their souls rejoined. Living being the operative word. Otherwise, why wouldn't the Ascians not have simply repeated what they did to the 13th on every reflection by trying to kill off Lv.1 Azem, turning those respective reflections into a barren Void? Recall that they must needs only bring about 'a chaotic confluence of untold proportions' to cause said rejoining. That's not necessarily an unethical aim in itself, but the methods employed to achieve this, such as dispensing a deadly alchemical toxin to wipe out entire an entire continent, are what most people find reprehensible.

The means by which people inherit memories from past lives is unclear. Amon and Hermes are presumably different people, even if Amon retains Hermes' memories and influence. I suspect that the soul crystals have something to do with this, but I'll wait and see what comes of that plot thread.

[Veloran]

whereas the people planning to sacrifice "some portion of life on the planet" may have been trying to sacrifice sentient life without their agreement.

In what way is that any different from Venat sacrificing every living thing X14*12,000 years without their consent?