What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[linayar]

That's incredibly subjective. A lot of the US is really lenient about it, but in most legal and ethical systems there's a concept of warranted self-defense or defense of others. If in preventing a crime you use excessive and unnecessary force, or cause collateral damage, then that's still a moral evil. Especially if it isn't an accident and you premeditate it, and especially especially if it's on a grand scale.

It is indeed subjective, especially when it comes to beings who literally made it their mission to direct the fate of the star. Beings who can just offer up prayer to have others be killed. What is "excessive and unnecessary force" in that case?

[Lurina]

It is indeed subjective, especially when it comes to beings who literally made it their mission to direct the fate of the star. Beings who can just offer up prayer to have others be killed. What is "excessive and unnecessary force" in that case?

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

[linayar]

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

We don't know what the collateral damage, if any, is. And collateral means they are unintended, so it has nothing to do with the morality of the perpetrator

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

I wasn't aware Hydaelyn planned for there to be a specific amount of parts. Where did you find this information?

[Lurina]

We don't know what the collateral damage, if any, is. And collateral means they are unintended, so it has nothing to do with the morality of the perpetrator

We know that the Sundering affected every living creature on the planet, regardless of whether they Ancients involved in the sacrifices, unrelated Ancients, or other creatures both sentient and otherwise, so there is implicit collateral damage.

And of course it does. If you perform an action knowing there will be collateral damage, or with recklessness in a manner that causes it, then you are morally responsible for the results. If see someone about to detonate a bomb on the other side of a crowded building, and the only way to stop them is to shoot through that crowd, you've still killed everyone hit by those stray bullets, regardless of your intent.

I wasn't aware Hydaelyn planned for there to be a specific amount of parts. Where did you find this information?

I didn't. Like I said, that's something you can pick at if you have a mind to, but it wasn't my original point.

[linayar]

We know that the Sundering affected every living creature on the planet, regardless of whether they Ancients involved in the sacrifices, unrelated Ancients, or other creatures both sentient and otherwise, so there is implicit collateral damage.

What we don't know is how it affected them. We do know that the Ancients planned on killing people.

And of course it does. If you perform an action knowing there will be collateral damage, or with recklessness in a manner that causes it, then you are morally responsible for the results. If see someone about to detonate a bomb on the other side of a crowded building, and the only way to stop them is to shoot through that crowd, you've still killed and are morally responsible for what happens to whoever is hit by those stray bullets, regardless of your intent.

Intent matters. Someone who intentionally commits a murder is morally worse than someone who commits a murder unintentionally.

I didn't. Like I said, that's something you can pick at if you have a mind to, but it wasn't my original point.

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

[Lurina]

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

Collateral damage makes an action morally complicated, regardless of the intent and presumed necessity of the action. Someone who is willing to shoot into that crowd to stop a worse tragedy is not a hero, even if they believe their intent to be heroic, because they have still brought pain and death to the innocent themselves. Whether or not it's even permissible is the controversy inherent to the trolley problem, which you're almost certainly familiar with if you've spent any time online.

We've circled in such a manner that the only way I can think to respond is my looping back my original opinion.

Personally, I will find a "necessary evil" on that kind of scale being framed as heroic in the way it was kinda creepy and offputting no matter what. Doing a bad thing to prevent a worse thing don't make you a morally better person, just a more pragmatic one.

[linayar]

Collateral damage makes an action morally complicated, regardless of the intent and presumed necessity of the action. Someone who is willing to shoot into that crowd to stop a worse tragedy is not a hero, even if they believe their intent to be heroic, because they have still brought pain and death to the innocent themselves.

We've circled in such a manner that the only way I can think to respond is my looping back my original opinion.

It's not morally complicated because you don't need to be morally perfect to be a hero.

[KizuyaKatogami]

What we don't know is how it affected them. We do know that the Ancients planned on killing people.

Intent matters. Someone who intentionally commits a murder is morally worse than someone who commits a murder unintentionally.

If there is no excessive and unnecessary force, then there is no need to argue about collateral damage. Venat did what she thought she had to do to stop the others from making that final sacrifice.

We can infer based on the shb shorty story that illness was a foreign concept to them, however we know illness exists in the sundered world, along with a lot of the aging down process. So we know illness and the short lifespans can be equated to the sundering which puts a lot of blood on Venat’s hands, more than the sacrifices ever would have caused if we count all the shards.

[linayar]

We can infer based on the shb shorty story that illness was a foreign concept to them, however we know illness exists in the sundered world, along with a lot of the aging down process. So we know illness and the short lifespans can be equated to the sundering which puts a lot of blood on Venat’s hands, more than the sacrifices ever would have caused if we count all the shards.

So you're saying it's better to not have existed in the first place than to exist in a less than ideal form.

I can see the logic in that, but I don't personally agree with it. My life, however bad it may be, is my life.

[Lauront]

It is indeed subjective, especially when it comes to beings who literally made it their mission to direct the fate of the star. Beings who can just offer up prayer to have others be killed. What is "excessive and unnecessary force" in that case?

There is nothing in the sources that specifies what it was they were going to sacrifice, or if they were even "people". Again, the sources on the matter state new life (presumably what was seeded by Zodiark as per this.) Things that can have souls span from animals to some rarer familiars to ancients. It is a very broad spectrum. Is it things that could potentially be guided to inherit the star but would take a lot of handholding? E.g. familiars? Maybe ancients? Neither? We can't say, because the sources don't tell. If you're referring to the cutscene in EW, that stylised scene takes place when the star is still on fire, and so presumably refers to the self-sacrifices that were made to restore it, i.e. the second set. It's too vague to infer much else from. The textual sources on the other hand are emphatic on it being "new life" for the final phase and not specifying beyond that.

Moreover, even if I were to grant that they were sacrificing "people", they were initially divided on this (see the sources here - yes, it includes the Convocation as per FR Elidibus dialogue.) Had she been more forthcoming about what her concerns were, they may have been persuaded not to.

To add to this: her faction does not premise this in moralistic terms. They even grant that the Convocation is trying to act in the best interest of the star. See here:



All premised on pragmatic terms about avoiding their "doom". We know from EW she heard the report of the Plenty, and her real beef in the EW cutscene is that she thought, based on the chit-chat with the strawman ancients, that they weren't willing to put up with yet more suffering (I'll put aside how unreasonable she comes across in that scene), and that is why she believes they'd eventually doom themselves. Plus, the issue of Meteion. The sacrifices are ancillary to this because their role is to alleviate suffering by restoring their civilisation. She is not at any point chastising them for the morality of it.

I think at this point people are trying to invent crimes (or at least read known sources in ways that go beyond what they say) to try justify the genocide of the ancients. It is the eradication of their species, and yes, it is excessive. Not materially different to the Ascian view of the sundered, IMO, although they at least had the excuse that the Sundering was sprung on them out of the blue and that they saw it as their role to undo what she had done. Something she knew full well that they'd do when committing to her course of action, and after choosing not to inform them on what motivated her actions. A lot of this is driven by the fact that we're dealing with a closed time loop, but I for one am not going to pretend that if what the Ascians did is genocide, that what she did isn't. Nah.

Regarding intent, if she did not know what this novel power she was wielding did, she should've tested it. I am quite certain she did know, though, because she alludes in the EW cutscene to man no longer flying but walking. So I think she had an inkling of what it'd so. It only makes the difference between negligent and intentional manslaughter in the end...

You literally rejoin with Ardbert, and Emet saw a vision of your whole soul. The Rejoining itself is what they were doing to bring back all of the ancients, which means they weren't gone...

On this logic, what's the objection to it? If we're going to overlook the fact that the ancient would have had to physically die to become sundered (implied by the reduction in their lifespans alone - really, the differences in life forms are drastic but for some reason this is being ignored), and that the sundered will physically die to be rejoined, then surely neither act is a problem?

The story in Endwalker is lackluster if you have taken any Philosophy 101 class or read any philosophical books. I do not understand why some people are so obsessed with Friedrich Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Existentialism. It almost feels like Deus Ex Machina in terms of another villain coming out of nowhere invalidating the previous plot too.

I like the parts where they tried to make you care about the other Scions, the artistic setting, and what emotional formula they were trying to convey to the player. The logical part of my brain just cannot accept the plot holes and lack of rationale thought by the character's actions and belief systems. The story and plot just became melodramatic fluff to me.

Same for me.

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

The worst thing about it is that it means that singular solution, sundering, could've been implemented more selectively (i.e. on a subset of the population) if other solutions were not found, with the agreement of her people if they had been given the full story. Really, the reason she had to sunder the entire world is she wasn't being forthcoming with her goals, so naturally Zodiark got in her way and he was so much more powerful that she couldn't defeat him without dragging the entire star into it, as per her own admission. I get the impression that this is why she concedes the sundering was neither kind nor just.