When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Ransu]

The whole point of Endwalker is that humanity needs adversity to thrive. Its not that they have to fight and that there can never be peace. Peace can be obtained with adversity in day to day trials of life still existing. The problem was that other civilizations strived for perfection and their actions in doing so lead to destruction of each other or their own world or created complete idleness with nothing to strive for.

[vehere]

So how do the dragons fit into this? They're the only ones who did not achieve 'perfection'. In fact, they had basically been driven into extinction by another group attacking them, and the battle had been so terrible it had essentially made their home a toxic wasteland that either sterilized them or mutated their offspring into short lived monstrosities. If anything it seems like they are being punished for falling into despair, which doesn't feel entirely fair to them. It's not like they attacked the Omnicrons.

[Cilia]

"To live is to suffer. To struggle and be tested, ever and always."

Less poetic answer... this is an RPG, and like most RPGs Final Fantasy owes a great deal to Dungeons and Dragons (I's bestiary is lifted almost wholesale from D&D). Dungeons and Dragons is an evolution of an older tabletop war game Chainmail; obviously it's going to be combat oriented.

Of course, you could just "retire" your character by sticking to crafting and the Island Sanctuary when it's released (supposedly in 6.1).

So how do the dragons fit into this? They're the only ones who did not achieve 'perfection'. In fact, they had basically been driven into extinction by another group attacking them, and the battle had been so terrible it had essentially made their home a toxic wasteland that either sterilized them or mutated their offspring into short lived monstrosities. If anything it seems like they are being punished for falling into despair, which doesn't feel entirely fair to them. It's not like they attacked the Omnicrons.

If we assume this is referencing the dragons...

One race had renounced war and devoted itself to the enrichment of its people. They were conquered. Though they destroyed the enemy in reprisal, they could not regain their former glory.

The issue is that they were complacent in their power, and so renounced conflict; then war on the Omicrons' terms came along, and because they weren't able to adapt (having known peace for so long) that's why they lost. In other words, their defeat and humiliation is indirectly their fault for their complacency. (Not blaming them, just... Saiyan.)

[Vyrerus]

I agree with Iscah. Endwalker really tried to deliver a high minded tale and it fell flat.


Thing is, is if we compare Endwalker to Buddhism we only get undertones of it. Buddhism eschews violence in all forms. Buddhism forbids using violence to resolve disagreements. Combine that with the fact that primary motive for a lot of the cast, major and minor, reflects itself from worldly desires like love. On top of that the goal of Buddhism is to attain Nirvana, which is a state where you no longer experience suffering and as a consequence can no longer be reborn into the world.

It's really only linked to Buddhism if you really latch super hard onto the idea that Endwalker supposes that suffering is inherent in life. While that is one of the, "Three Marks of Existence" purported in Buddhism, Buddhism has it as one of its goals that you end suffering by ending Taṇhā(craving/desire).

If that's what the story was going for, it fell extra special flat.

If anything, I'd say that Endwalker's message wound up being, "Survival is worth doing anything, because life is worthwhile." We see a lot of grandiose supposition and action and things in Endwalker, but it's all actually high minded malarkey excusing awful actions deemed necessary for survival. It likely falls flat because it condemns so much life at the same time, because it is endorsing a specific standard of living as the best by demonizing all the rest.

As far as condemning perfection goes... the writer pretty much has to condemn perfection. There's no way to actually write a perfect race, because we as humans have never experienced perfection. It's something that cannot really exist, because we'd each have a different idea for what it would entail. They have to double down on it, because they have to keep the Ancient and other societies demonized/undesirable, so that we can focus on adventures in present day Etheirys from here on out.

As an individual, all the WoL is master over is fighting. Even their crafts all relate to doing the crafts better to make better tools of war. Food for war. Potions for war. We're left with a world at the end of Endwalker that has a lot going for it, but is still sure to have conflict. There is a vacuum for both malevolence and benevolence in the story now, so we'll see what they have up their sleeves next.

It won't ever be a story not centered around conflict. That's where the interest comes from. Even if the shift focuses to travel, the travels will include conflicts of varying scale. Think Grandia.

[Lyth]

'We are the stories we tell ourselves. The brave hero, the tortured soul, the altruist, the pragmatist.
They will tell you who you see, but you and you alone know who you are. For I speak only for myself.
If you find comfort in my words, they are yours for the taking, but that is your choice.
Now and ever after, as it has always been.'

There's no message in the text. Only the answer that you yourself write in it.

The societies that Meteion visits were not perfect, even by their own standards of the word.

Ea:
Point: 'Why strive for anything when desolation is assured? When our wealth of wisdom, accumulated since the dawning of our kind, would be forever lost? No civilization would rise from our ashes. No scholar recover our knowledge. In silence unbroken, naught would stir. Intellect was once our pride. Overnight, it became our shame. Our works monuments to futility.'
Counterpoint: 'In my mortal years, I doubt I could even approach the wisdom of the Ea. But of one thing I am absolutely certain: I would not be happier in ignorance. The most important lesson I've learned... is that learning isn't simply passing one's eyes over words. Nay, 'tis when understood for oneself that knowledge attains its true value.'

Omicrons:
Point: 'In the beginning, we had a higher purpose than our pursuit of power. But we lost sight of it when we so irrevocably altered our fundamental forms. When we cast aside our flesh, so too did we cast aside all that defined us. Nothing remains of who we once were.'
Counterpoint: 'Who we were need not prescribe what we now hold in our hearts. Whatever came before, what matters most is the present.'

Dragons:
Point: 'It mattereth not whither we fly. Ever will a sanguine ocean await us. Ever will retribution's wheel turn. And so, on the last of my pride as a dragon, I break free of this wheel. I renounce conflict! Exile myself from the other, never again to be touched by the flames of hatred!'
Counterpoint: 'Yet lasting peace does not come to those who simply retreat from conflict. No, you must be willing to confront it. To stare into the face of your foe... and see yourself in him.'

Each one of these societies started out with an ideal, and then lost sight of their reason for seeking it in the first place. It doesn't matter if 'perfection', however you wish to define it, is attainable. You can apply whatever values, philosophy, or belief system that you like. To the traveler, it's the journey that matters.

I'd love to hear Ishikawa discuss philosophy in an interview.

[Vyrerus]

It's not the destination, it's the journey.

But the paradox in that way of thinking is that it makes the act of undertaking a journey into a destination. 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.

Journeys may also change what you desire, and that is why this saying is seen as wisdom. It's supposed to mean that the journey shows you who you really are, because many people can desire the same end, so the methods you take to get there determine you. As well as what happens to you along the way.

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.

You might think it's the representatives of mankind speaking on our behalf, but it can't be, since the world we're from is not a united collective.

[EaraGrace]

But the paradox in that way of thinking is that it makes the act of undertaking a journey into a destination. What then, when you've been everywhere? Peregrinate endlessly? The entire point of journeys is to get to a destination.

I think the narrative says that you should go on the next journey, go to places you haven’t seen yet, look forward to meeting people or beings that haven’t even been born. Embrace tomorrow when you can and accept the inevitability of your end, it’s up to you to decide.

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.

A destination could just be the justification. We play a game that repeatedly gives us new areas and challenges and stories without end, without an overall destination. Each time we jump in, experience the journey, find the end, and then look onward to the next.

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.

Ultimately meaning rests in the individual. No matter how all encompassing the system, how perfect the ideology, how beautiful the faith. what will make people believe rests in that selfsame person. Y’shtolas answer to the Ea was enough because it’s hers and she believes it even if they dismissed her. Thancred, Urianger, G’raha, Alphinaud and Alisaie, all gave reasons that are imperfect and limited to the collective, but are perfect for them as individuals.

There is one thing harmonizing their voices, one connecting motif, hope.

[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.

[Lyth]

The people of the Eighth Umbral Calamity timeline were saved by Azem. They have the strength and resilience to carry on despite being pushed to the brink, and they will continue to do so without us, as was laid down in 'An Unpromised Tomorrow.'

'The Warrior of Light's tale is one of unyielding bravery. To tell it was to feel courage; to hear it was to feel hope. It was a breath of inspiration in an age of suffocating shadow. In the history of a fallen nation was our hero hailed as its greatest ally. In the timeworn pages of a noble's memoires were their deeds joyously retold. For many years, these stories were the flame which warmed them through the coldest of nights. And so it should come as little surprise that the plan found no shortage of volunteers, concerning as it did the Warrior of Light. It was their chance to add their own verse to the hero's saga. He/she was the lodestar that brought them all together, to send their final message back through time and space... to him/her.'

"The light of your legacy was our torch in the darkness. Burn bright again... and live."

They didn't change their past. They changed our future.