When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Cilia]

What then, when you've been everywhere? Peregrinate endlessly? The entire point of journeys is to get to a destination. You don't start journeys without wanting to go somewhere. When you do reach journey's end, then you can embark on another if there's something else you desire.

...

And though the characters say they refrain from judging these societies, they do still lay out each society's flaw with their rebuttals to the individuals that Meteion speaks through. The goal is to break the party's spirits so that they give into despair.

Every situation is the representative of a collective vs. individuals. What the story is really saying, more or less, is society be damned. The passions and persuasions of an individual are enough to cast aside any amount of dread for any number of people.

It's impossible to see and do everything in a mortal lifespan. You could spend your whole life wandering and still never see all there is to see, do all there is to do. Some people go on journeys, wander, for its own sake. The PC didn't come to Eorzea intending to save it from an Imperial invasion, expose the lies behind its wayward brother nation and save it from a millennium of conflict, liberate two city-states (one on the other side of the ocean) from Imperial rule, save both it and another world from catastrophe, and then save all creation from a wayward experiment from 12,000 years ago. Things just happen.

Sticking with the herd isn't necessarily right. But I guess if you do that, you can just blame the collective when things don't work out instead of accepting responsibility for your choice, right?

... the ultimate message of the story is that "Even if it's full of pain and suffering and can end without your consent, life is still worth living." That's what the argument of the Ancients boiled down to - a life where you have to accept pain and suffering, and that your life can end for reasons beyond your control, isn't worth living.

[KizuyaKatogami]

It's impossible to see and do everything in a mortal lifespan. You could spend your whole life wandering and still never see all there is to see, do all there is to do. Some people go on journeys, wander, for its own sake. The PC didn't come to Eorzea intending to save it from an Imperial invasion, expose the lies behind its wayward brother nation and save it from a millennium of conflict, liberate two city-states (one on the other side of the ocean) from Imperial rule, save both it and another world from catastrophe, and then save all creation from a wayward experiment from 12,000 years ago. Things just happen.

Sticking with the herd isn't necessarily right. But I guess if you do that, you can just blame the collective when things don't work out instead of accepting responsibility for your choice, right?

... the ultimate message of the story is that "Even if it's full of pain and suffering and can end without your consent, life is still worth living." That's what the argument of the Ancients boiled down to - a life where you have to accept pain and suffering, and that your life can end for reasons beyond your control, isn't worth living.

Why should they accept that though is my question. Were they just supposed to lie down and die? That’s never what the protagonists have done. Ironworks didn’t just say, welp, black rose decimated the land. Everyone give up. They chose to potentially sacrifice their entire timeline to undo the damage. The Ancients knew of pain and suffering before the final days even hit, we’ve been shown this. But the story has never portrayed something as just don’t fight against something you can’t control. It’s always been about defying fate, even the series as a whole has been about this. They really did kind of fumble with the themes here, because they’re either contradicted numerous times or just don’t really apply to the things they’re meaning for them to.

[Vyrerus]

Some people go on journeys, wander, for its own sake.

And that makes journey into destination.

Re: Responsibility and The Collective. A lot of FFXIV falls back on the Great Man Theory. Harken back to ARR and Gaius van Baelsar's lift speech. Paraphrasing:

"Something something they lack the strength to do otherwise! Something something, the weak elevate the frail, and the frail lead the people astray!"

What's the real difference between Etheirys and all of those other stars? There was a great and mighty woman who used strength of arms to cow her own civilization, and transform them, causing them to take a "better" path.

Why do I bring this up? Well, the idea that the story flirts with is that the individual supersedes society. It loses its merit instantly though, because we're operating through the, "Great Man" framework constantly and consistently. In ARR and every expansion we have forced change and decision onto societies via getting in bed with their leadership, without the consent of the governed. The ordinary folks in the setting struggle to remain relevant at every turn, so much so that Alisaie even has a line in early Endwalker that goes something to the effect of, "Is that what the common person is destined for? An obscure, cold death?!"

In short, it's better to not be part of a society in FFXIV, because if you are, even if you're a leader, then you're a wimpy stripling playing second fiddle to the Scions and the WoL. You couldn't take responsibility for yourself or your people if you tried, because the Great Man already did.

The wholesome life is worthwhile no matter what message is not lost on me, but in its twisted skein Endwalker wound up highlighting that with far more negative means than positive ones. It made Venat operate along the same moral lines as Gaius pre-redemption Baelsar.

The Great Woman's argument boils down to, "You are weak, so you don't deserve your lives."

Some might think to say, "But she said she believed in mankind's ability to find a way forward no matter what happens to them." But sadly, she immediately contradicts that stated belief with her actions, otherwise why take them?

[EaraGrace]

We’ve entered the Venat is “literally the devil” phase of this argument.

And that makes journey into destination.

Then the word destination is meaningless.

What's the real difference between Etheirys and all of those other stars? There was a great and mighty woman who used strength of arms to cow her own civilization, and transform them, causing them to take a "better" path.

More accurately, a group of dissenters led by a woman argued against the path being taken by broader society, and when they didn’t listen sought to ensure the future wouldn’t be doomed by their decision. They then dedicated their lives to protecting and fostering this life.

Why do I bring this up? Well, the idea that the story flirts with is that the individual supersedes society. It loses its merit instantly though, because we're operating through the, "Great Man" framework constantly and consistently. In ARR and every expansion we have forced change and decision onto societies via getting in bed with their leadership, without the consent of the governed. The ordinary folks in the setting struggle to remain relevant at every turn, so much so that Alisaie even has a line in early Endwalker that goes something to the effect of, "Is that what the common person is destined for? An obscure, cold death?!"

And yet it’s those selfsame common people that we continuously fight beside at their own peril.

Who was it that we supported in Ishgard?

Who did we lend our strength too in Ala Mhigo and Doma?

And who was it robbing the free will of the survivors in Norvrandt? Wasn’t the Scions I don’t believe.

Say what will, but the Scions and WoL repeatedly respected the right of self governance, only intervening to prevent an imminent harm or to free a populace from a oppression. Even the Garleans came to recognize that.

In short, it's better to not be part of a society in FFXIV, because if you are, even if you're a leader, then you're a wimpy stripling playing second fiddle to the Scions and the WoL. You couldn't take responsibility for yourself or your people if you tried, because the Great Man already did.

If the moral of the story you got from playing 14 is to wait for a hero then I’m not sure we’re playing the same game.

The wholesome life is worthwhile no matter what message is not lost on me, but in its twisted skein Endwalker wound up highlighting that with far more negative means than positive ones. It made Venat operate along the same moral lines as Gaius pre-redemption Baelsar.

The Great Woman's argument boils down to, "You are weak, so you don't deserve your lives."

Some might think to say, "But she said she believed in mankind's ability to find a way forward no matter what happens to them." But sadly, she immediately contradicts that stated belief with her actions, otherwise why take them?

Believing humanity shouldn’t choose for all life to walk off a cliff doesn’t mean you don’t believe they should have a choice. If you want to say there’s conflict between respecting the individual and protecting the collective then sure, but that’s evidence that Venats human, not that she’s the “Great Woman.”

[Vyrerus]

We’ve entered the Venat is “literally the devil” phase of this argument.


Then the word destination is meaningless.

No, the word journey becomes meaningless, because you take from it, its purpose.

More accurately, a group of dissenters led by a woman argued against the path being taken by broader society, and when they didn’t listen sought to ensure the future wouldn’t be doomed by their decision. They then dedicated their lives to protecting and fostering this life.

That's a weird way to say formed a rebellion and lead a coup by creating a second god, which then destroyed their world and way of life, but whatever helps you remove all moral complexity from your crystal mommy.

And yet it’s those selfsame common people that we continuously fight beside at their own peril.

Who was it that we supported in Ishgard?

Who did we lend our strength too in Ala Mhigo and Doma?

And who was it robbing the free will of the survivors in Norvrandt? Wasn’t the Scions I don’t believe.

Say what will, but the Scions and WoL repeatedly respected the right of self governance, only intervening to prevent an imminent harm or to free a populace from a oppression. Even the Garleans came to recognize that.

Ishgard: Two of four aristocratic houses and the papacy at first, until we killed Nidhogg. Then the same aristocratic houses, one branch of the military, and the commoners with Hilda to dismantle the papacy. We fought beside largely the ruling class, and did not actually elevate commoners to equality or rulership posititions.

Ala Mhigo: The Ala Mhigan resistance movement comprised of any Ala Mhigans willing to fight. Which was a leadership movement going against Garlean rule. While comprised of anyone, it's what constituted formal rule for our purposes, and would later give leadership based on bloodline and prior importance ala Lyse and Raubahn. It is the best example you can provide against my PoV though. And my favorite nation, as such.

Doma: Lord Hien and the royalist freedom fighters awaiting his return. Yes, we roused bodies to serve him, but we served literal royalty there too, not first but foremost once he was found.

Norvrandt: I'll answer your question after I ask some. Who made the Crystarium? Who used strength of spell to change fate? What could any of the common people done for themselves without that great man?
Vauthry eventually robbed people of their free will through meol distribution implanting bits of Sin Eater in them, but until that point in the story, the common folk themselves flocked to Eulmore for want of a strong ruler with a safe place to live. Much as those who flocked to the Crystarium did.

If the moral of the story you got from playing 14 is to wait for a hero then I’m not sure we’re playing the same game.



Believing humanity shouldn’t choose for all life to walk off a cliff doesn’t mean you don’t believe they should have a choice. If you want to say there’s conflict between respecting the individual and protecting the collective then sure, but that’s evidence that Venats human, not that she’s the “Great Woman.”

We're not looking at it the same way. That's been abundantly clear for weeks. It is the same game. The difference between us is that I am willing to extend my perception to its fullest. You are not.

Funny, though, you know. Waiting for a hero is exactly what the savior goddess did. For 12,000 years.

There's a difference in fully informing people so they can make an actual choice, and them still making the wrong one than giving them vague platitudes in a time of crisis, and then literally conquering them through strength of arms to take their will from them. Because they literally couldn't give you the answer you wanted with the knowledge they had in their moment of weakness.

[EaraGrace]

No, the word journey becomes meaningless, because you take from it, its purpose.

When Bilbo yelled out “I’m going on an adventure” do you think he was making the term meaningless?

No That's a weird way to say formed a rebellion and lead a coup by creating a second god, which then destroyed their world and way of life, but whatever helps you remove all moral complexity from your crystal mommy.

God can we have one conversation on Venat without it turning into a group of people turning into snobs. Pull it back mister good faith. And yes, all those things were the right call. Was it good, was it kind, was it fun? No. Was it the only way? Yes.

No Ishgard: Two of four aristocratic houses and the papacy at first, until we killed Nidhogg. Then the same aristocratic houses, one branch of the military, and the commoners with Hilda to dismantle the papacy. We fought beside largely the ruling class, and did not actually elevate commoners to equality or rulership posititions.

The leaders of the Brume disagree. Ask Hilda if she wasn’t happy we came or if she wouldn’t fight with us again. Ask the House of Commons. Ask the Lords that repeatedly sought our deaths.

No Ala Mhigo: The Ala Mhigan resistance movement comprised of any Ala Mhigans willing to fight. Which was a leadership movement going against Garlean rule. While comprised of anyone, it's what constituted formal rule for our purposes, and would later give leadership based on bloodline and prior importance ala Lyse and Raubahn. It is the best example you can provide against my PoV though. And my favorite nation, as such.

I’m glad we agree.

No Doma: Lord Hien and the royalist freedom fighters awaiting his return. Yes, we roused bodies to serve him, but we served literal royalty there too, not first but foremost once he was found.

A royalty supported by the common people. Doma answered Hiens call.

No Norvrandt: I'll answer your question after I ask some. Who made the Crystarium? Who used strength of spell to change fate? What could any of the common people done for themselves without that great man?

The common people fought and fought and fought. It was the common soldiers that gave Ardbert hope and helped us drive back the sin eaters from Lakeland. It was a the common people of the 8th Umbral Era who gave Graha the chance to make a change. It was Lyna and the people of the Crystarium, Nuzz and the people of Eulmore, the miners and engineers in Twine, the Nights Blessed and the Viis, the fae and the dwarves who time and time again fought alongside us. Without them the First would’ve fallen.

No Vauthry eventually robbed people of their free will through meol distribution implanting bits of Sin Eater in them, but until that point in the story, the common folk themselves flocked to Eulmore for want of a strong ruler with a safe place to live. Much as those who flocked to the Crystarium did.

The people of Eulmore and Kholusia suffered for it. Now both peoples lead their own fates and flourish.

No We're not looking at it the same way. That's been abundantly clear for weeks. It is the same game. The difference between us is that I am willing to extend my perception to its fullest. You are not.

How easy it must be to think that our difference of opinion is rooted in my “limited perception.” We are both seeing the same things Vyrerus, accept that.

No Funny, though, you know. Waiting for a hero is exactly what the savior goddess did. For 12,000 years.

Funny. That doesn’t sound like something a “Great Woman” would do.

No There's a difference in fully informing people so they can make an actual choice, and them still making the wrong one than giving them vague platitudes in a time of crisis, and then literally conquering them through strength of arms to take their will from them. Because they literally couldn't give you the answer you wanted with the knowledge they had in their moment of weakness.

A moment of weakness made eternal. Zodiark would prevent any and all from choosing the hard way, and in so doing doom life.

[Vyrerus]

How easy it must be to think that our difference of opinion is rooted in my “limited perception.” We are both seeing the same things Vyrerus, accept that.

Confounding and difficult, actually. I did not say that your perception is limited, only that you choose to limit it. Perhaps, choose to express a limited portion of it would be a better way to put it. It's confounding, because I know most everyone here is bright. Some more than me. I know we have different eyes and hearts, so the story makes us feel different things. Different things catch our differing eyes first, too.

But I don't think anyone has bad vision, in terms of looking at the story. I do think you, and others, do not care to look beyond what pleases you with regards to characters and their stories. I don't understand why or how.

I don't focus on the rosy parts of the story when I post, because the story already focused on them. Hoping I wouldn't think too hard about all of it. Sometimes, I wish I ruminated less over it, but that's not me.

[Pofruin]

Confounding and difficult, actually. I did not say that your perception is limited, only that you choose to limit it. Perhaps, choose to express a limited portion of it would be a better way to put it. It's confounding, because I know most everyone here is bright. Some more than me. I know we have different eyes and hearts, so the story makes us feel different things. Different things catch our differing eyes first, too.

But I don't think anyone has bad vision, in terms of looking at the story. I do think you, and others, do not care to look beyond what pleases you with regards to characters and their stories. I don't understand why or how.

I don't focus on the rosy parts of the story when I post, because the story already focused on them. Hoping I wouldn't think too hard about all of it. Sometimes, I wish I ruminated less over it, but that's not me.

Why did you start "bad faith argument" Thread if you also post posts like this?

[TaleraRistain]

We're not looking at it the same way. That's been abundantly clear for weeks. It is the same game. The difference between us is that I am willing to extend my perception to its fullest. You are not..

Vryreus, I really don't think you can make this claim. You only espouse one interpretation of Venat's actions, that what she did destroyed and ruined things. You do not acknowledge the possibility that her actions brought about something essential that was missing. You can't fault someone for their viewpoint and look down your nose at them that they don't have your depth of perception when you don't show it yourself.

[Vyrerus]

Well, this is going to be some sorta backread. Whooo boy.

you don't show it yourself.

I see why you might think that, but I'm not one of the people just rallying behind what's already explicit in the game. I.E. In plain sight. I'm also not condescending to anyone. I believe most people on this forum have just as much and more to their perception than I do. But I also know that they aren't making use of it.

But even if I were, I've been looked down on plenty here. In order for your riff on me to have any meaning, the people you think I'm looking down on would have had to have not looked down on me for the past month and more. There are many responses to my past posts that I did not bother to respond to, because there was no way to do so without giving into anger.