*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[KizuyaKatogami]

I wouldn't go so far to say it was "idiotic", the convocation might have seen it as thier only option. Though it is interesting to note that Hermes as Fanadaniel appears to be the one who designed the concept that became Zodiark. Is it any suprise that so much death was required for Zodiark to function, knowing what we know about Hermes' subconconcious desires for oblivion.

If Hermes really did want everyone and himself to die, then getting half thier population to sacrifice themselves was a good start.

Well...Hydaelyn required sacrifices as well so theres that, although i thought we had already crossed this bridge a long time ago and surmised the reason Zodiark needed so many sacrifices was because he required a vast amount of aether to perform his feats. Forming a giant aether dome last minute while the planet is decaying isnt exactly easy to do.I highly doubt sacrifices were their first option, merely a last resort Could you give a citation btw on hermes being the one behind Zodiark's creation btw? I dont remember seeing that, i always thought it was hinted Lahabrea did it what with the statues in akadaemia and him being the top master in creation magicks.

[Nilroreo]

Well...Hydaelyn required sacrifices as well so theres that, although i thought we had already crossed this bridge a long time ago and surmised the reason Zodiark needed so many sacrifices was because he required a vast amount of aether to perform his feats. Forming a giant aether dome last minute while the planet is decaying isnt exactly easy to do.I highly doubt sacrifices were their first option, merely a last resort Could you give a citation btw on hermes being the one behind Zodiark's creation btw? I dont remember seeing that, i always thought it was hinted Lahabrea did it what with the statues in akadaemia and him being the top master in creation magicks.

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

Wellt hats what i thought i mean....they literally have the Zodiark statues in the Words of Lahabrea in Akadaemia and that combined with his supreme prowess for creation magicks, i just cant see Hermes being the one who did it. Especially because iirc it was stated in ShB Zodiark itself was already in the works pre final days.

[Lyth]

The original decision to summon Zodiark was a reasonable one. If you're moving celestial currents on a global scale, then you likely need a suitably powerful entity with adequate energy reserves to be able to do it. The soul cost seems to correlate with the scale of the action being performed. The problem comes after, when the Amaurotians find themselves in control of an all-powerful being who is able to make their wishes come true in exchange for souls.

While the Ancients saw themselves as 'stewards of the star', we only have our own civilization and their nationalistic ideals taken at face value as a basis for this judgement. We know that there's at least one other advanced nation 'across the pond' that dates back to the same time period as the Ancients. The only surefire way to know is to travel to other places, see what's actually happening on other continents, and learn about their history. Perhaps Amaurot is merely Dollet to the New World's Esthar, and this is just Disc 1. The world is too big to simply assume that Amaurot is the beginning and end of it.

[KariTheFox]

It's possible I'm misremembering wrt to Hermes and Zodiark, though I feel like I at least remember it being mentioned he was indispensable when it comes to combatting the final days. I might have taken that as meaning he deisgned Zodiark, since that was his speciality.

Though if Zodiark as a concept was already around pre-final days, that makes me wonder what the hell Lahabrea was up to.

[Lurina]

On the question of moral ambiguity, I much preferred Endwalker to Shadowbringers. As human as Emet felt to me, as understandable as his desires were, at no point did I feel his actions engendered or deserved ambiguity. He was evil, his actions only defensible by denying the very humanity of those he was acting upon. There was no ambiguity to me, his desires were for his own benefit, at the cost of others, and thus at the end did I not feel sad for the man he became, only what he was and for the love he clearly had for his people. When I compare that to Venat, an altruistic hero acting for the right reasons, on a path limited only to horror and pain and suffering, I cannot help but find myself moved more by the latter. And, I mean, just look at this thread. I’ve argued up and down that Venat made the right choice, a position I believe in, but nearly 100 pages of discussion shows the issue is not one sided. Even if I hate to admit it this is indeed what moral ambiguity looks like. Strong feelings, diametrically opposed, with either side saying full throatedly that they are right. Despite my strong stance I still look for other options, try to consider what others are saying in finding another way, and yet my own, totally subjective viewpoint is that she was right. And many disagree. And that’s honestly amazing! Even as someone that thinks it was the right choice, I still don’t like that a character that I sobbed at meeting and getting to spar with was the one who had to do it. That to me is the moral ambiguity Endwalker brings. Painful, ugly, yet necessary decisions born from the best desire to love all.

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between moral ambiguity as a narrative device, and moral ambiguity as experienced by the player. For me, many of my issues with Endwalker don't stem from the fact that Venat was a grey character - I'd have been fine with that - but that as many people on both sides have pointed out, we are clearly meant to view her unambiguously as right and good. A lot of keys have been tapped here about how no character given any credence really speaks against her and the framing during her scenes is relentlessly positive and affirming of her perspective, but a better example might be the description for her minion, which more or less just lavishes praise on her. Characters might be biased and framing can be argued, but when the narration of the game itself describes a character as a wonderful person, it's pretty clear you're meant to think of them as a wonderful person. When contrasted with her actions, this creates an uncomfortable dissonance that doesn't make the story more compelling, but less. Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

Even though Emet-Selch is also a mass murderer, I never got that sense from Shadowbringers. Characters call him out, and the narrative voice about him swings from negative to neutral to positive depending on the context. Even if it produces less discourse (though certainly no shortage), I'd say that's a better example of moral ambiguity.

While the Ancients saw themselves as 'stewards of the star', we only have our own civilization and their nationalistic ideals taken at face value as a basis for this judgement. We know that there's at least one other advanced nation 'across the pond' that dates back to the same time period as the Ancients. The only surefire way to know is to travel to other places, see what's actually happening on other continents, and learn about their history. Perhaps Amaurot is merely Dollet to the New World's Esthar, and this is just Disc 1. The world is too big to simply assume that Amaurot is the beginning and end of it.

Honestly, the existence of other nations and cultures in the ancient world is one of the biggest bugbears I have about the Sundering. It's one thing to pass judgement on your own culture, and quite another to pass judgement on all cultures, or at least consider them reasonable collateral damage.

[Lyth]

It also means that Amaurot had their sights set on sacrificing more than lovable dolphins. But who knows, perhaps the level 150 dynamis ancients living over in the New World are having a chuckle to themselves even now over Amaurot's short-sighted grievances.

...

There are two passages that reference Hermes' contribution that I can remember off hand, the first occurs during your discussion with the Watcher after obliterating Zodiark, and the second is your conversation with Elidibus just before he sends you back to Elpis. His main contribution that we know of was in identifying that the corruption occurred where the celestial currents were the weakest (i.e. stagnant). Elidibus goes on to say that he subsequently dedicated himself to finding a countermeasure, but it's unclear how exactly Zodiark was conceptualized. I'm sure that Lahabrea would have played a part, given that this is fundamentally Creation magic on a large scale.

[Lurina]

It also means that Amaurot had their sights set on sacrificing more than lovable dolphins.

I'm unsure what you mean by this. You're told in Amaurot that they intend to sacrifice the "new life" specifically, not any members of their species or pre-existing creatures.

[Lyth]

'New life' could mean many things in a society where mentioning death without euphemism is met with raised eyebrows. I don't recall seeing that second clause come up as part of the in-game text, though, unless you'd like to provide a quote for that part.

[Lurina]

'New life' could mean many things in a society where mentioning death without euphemism is met with raised eyebrows. I don't recall seeing that second clause come up as part of the in-game text, though, unless you'd like to provide a quote for that part.

The English script is slightly vague, since the translators opted the frame the lines around the life of the planet itself rather than actual creatures, but the Japanese script goes:

ヒュトロダエウス : そこで、さらにまた半数がゾディアークに命を捧げ……星を清め、木々や小さな命たちを芽吹かせたのさ。

Thus did a further half of the remaining people offer up their lives to Zodiark, that he might cleanse the planet and seed new life on it.

ヒュトロダエウス : そうして、再び命が巡りだしたとき……人類は、いかにしてこの星を護り続けるかを再考した。

Time would pass, and eventually life would flourish again. They reconsidered the best way for humanity to continue their guardianship of this star once that time came.

ヒュトロダエウス : 十四人委員会の出した結論は、こうだ。

The Council of Fourteen presented this conclusion.

世界を育み、それが再び十分に満ち足りたときに、いくらかの生命をゾディアークに捧げる……。

That when the time was ripe, and the world bountiful with life, they would sacrifice a portion of it to Zodiark...

ヒュトロダエウス : それによって、ゾディアークの中に力として取り込まれた同胞たちを、地上に復活させ……皆でまた、世界を管理する。

Such that he might revive those whose aether he had consumed for power, and everyone would once again oversee the world together.

ヒュトロダエウス : ……だが、それを良しとしない人々がいた。

But there were those who did not agree.

彼らは、ゾディアークに命を捧げるのをやめ、新しい世界を、生まれ来る命たちに任せるべきだと言うんだ。

They believed that it was time for the sacrifices to come to an end, and for them to hand the new world over to the new lives living upon it.

This draws a fairly clear distinction between the new life, which the Ancients want to cultivate and sacrifice and the followers of Hydaelyn wish to hand the world over to, and themselves. Unless you specifically meant the 'pre-existing creatures' part - it is vague if we're talking about just new members of older species which are now flourishing, or new ones outright.