When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Lyth]

...

It would be simplest if you went back and properly watched the lecture that you yourself linked for us. You're actually arguing against Sanderson's points, which he does an excellent job of explaining.

As a quick summary for those who haven't seen it, the audience needs to understand what the problem is, what the rules and restrictions are around solving it, and then the solution. You can solve problems with magic, but the audience needs to understand what the conditions are around its use for it to be a satisfying solution.

Deus Ex Machina sidesteps the primary conflict. If the story is 'I am hungry,' and the solution is 'I go to the nearby shop and buy some food', then there's never really was a conflict to begin with. I've introduced a plot element that trivializes the problem. But if I also add in the restrictions that 'I left my money at home and my phone is out of batteries,' now we have something to write a story around.

Sanderson argues that the misstep with Pelennor Fields was that there was no constraints around the ghosts' arrival. The instant that Aragorn recruited the ghosts earlier in the story, the good guys had a more powerful army. The ghosts could have showed up at the very start of the fight, killed all the bad guys, and then you wouldn't even have a battle to watch. Now if we added in the constraint that Aragorn needs to first perform a lengthy summoning ritual to bring them to the field during which time he needs to be protected, then you can create all sorts of dramatic tension around that. This leads into Sanderson's second principle in the lecture, that "Weaknesses are more interesting than powers."

You can absolutely have soft magic systems in which the magic remains mysterious. But you still need to outline what the limitations are of said magic as they apply to solving a particular problem. With the Ancients, creation magic is very much a soft system, and there's always a real danger of snapping your fingers to make your problems go away. Zodiark is very much an example of this. If there is no meaningful price to be paid or limitation attached to the wishes that He fulfills, then you're solving problems with Deus Ex Machina in the most literal sense. It's the cost imposed which actually makes the problem meaningful in the first place.

I think that if we're going to see more frequent demonstrations of Creation magic, we're also going to see a lot more restrictions introduced on its use.

[Veloran]

All to counter explicitly the plans of the Ascians. And if such widespread worship was present we would see Her everywhere.

You bring up the Ascians as though that's relevant to the principle behind her actions. The entire core of her motivation is her belief that mankind can overcome a hopelessly overwhelming threat that the Ancients stood no chance against while being able to withstand loss, suffering, and despair. So yes, empowering and shielding her chosen few against much lesser dangers and suffering is very hypocritical. And once more, we see that even people thousands of years ago revered Hydaelyn - Again she goes so far as to refer to herself as a "supreme goddess" and pass herself off as mother to all mankind.

That’s actually not what the evidence points too. While the Sundering did have positive benefits for the fight against Meteion and yes played into the decision, dialogue and other sources make clear it wasn’t the biggest reason.

That's exactly what the evidence points to. Yes Venat wanted to sunder and bind Zodiark, but that wasn't the only thing she wanted to do, her intent was to sunder the star and mankind as well.

Hydaelyn chose to unleash a blow which sundered not only Zodiark but the star itself

Zodiark was conceived as the very will of the star, And thus when you sunder Zodiark, you sunder the world.

Aside from the fact that the Ascians were clearly under some misapprehensions about the entire situation, no, Zodiark absolutely was not the star itself or it's will. Firstly, because Zodiark has no will of it's own, it's just a Primal with someone wearing it like a suit, made up of all the aether and faith of the people who summoned him and those sacrificed to him. Secondly, because when Zodiark is destroyed in Endwalker, the star isn't destroyed in turn. Clearly Zodiark's existence and the star's existence are in fact not intrinsically connected.

We do know that it was an ability unique to Hydaelyn and never seen before Her.

Emet also knew nothing of Dynamis. He's not omniscient, and isn't aware of every single line of Ancient research. If Venat had showed up as a vampire for example, I would expect him to be just as baffled.

This is ultimately speculation though. Exactly what impact the Sundering had on the shield is unknown to us. The Ascians certainly didn’t seem to think they were on the clock now were they?

The Ascians didn't even know the mechanics of the Final Days. They recognized the stagnation of the aether currents correlated to their problems, but didn't know why. We know that this is because the current's stagnation left the aether there thin, and thus allowed for Dynamis to penetrate to the planet. But in the sundered world the currents were still stimulated and active, yet the core issue - the thinning of the aether - was still a factor due to the reduction of aetherial density. In other words they only had part of the picture, whereas we can look at it and recognize that this is an extremely precarious position.

If you wish to know my moral system it’d be easier to just ask. More to the point the analogy is wrong. Bombing innocent people would not be justified as they aren’t the ones largely polluting the planet, they are innocent and thus it would be nothing but terrorism, an abhorrent act. Bombing oil pipelines, denying organizations the chance to cut forests or mine the Earth, active armed resistance against major fossil fuel companies, I’ll just say I have no opinion so I don’t get banned.

I doubt that would get you banned. But to your point - Isn't it the case that the Ancients in general were not the ones in change of Zodiark and his actions? In effect they are as innocent as those you describe there. Moreover it's often believed that there is culpability in participating in and relying on an unjust system. How can they be innocent if they're utilizing the selfsame pipelines, logged forests, and fossil fuel companies, who are all acting because they have incentive to do so from the population? Are the workers at these companies, those who would be caught in bombings, not simply normal people trying to make their own way? If armed resistance was successful, would not the billions of people living in the modern world, reliant on those resources for their survival, then die and greatly suffer anyway?

The analogy is not wrong. If the perspective is "the world is doomed if we don't take extreme action", then anything can be justified, including the death of innocents.

It would be simplest

It would be simplest if you actually responded to my points quoted rather than arguing against nothing, for a start.

Deus Ex Machina sidesteps the primary conflict. If the story is 'I am hungry,' and the solution is 'I go to the nearby shop and buy some food', then there's never really was a conflict to begin with.

I should not have to explain to you why that is obviously not a Deus Ex Machina. Rather it is instead just an extremely simplistic conflict solved straightforwardly with the elements of the setting.

Now if we added in the constraint that Aragorn needs to first perform a lengthy summoning ritual to bring them to the field during which time he needs to be protected, then you can create all sorts of dramatic tension around that.

By that token, the conflict was in fact not what was occurring on the field. Rather the conflict was Aragorn's acceptance of the responsibility of his kingship and his calling upon the betrayed oaths of the dead within the mountain. The dramatic payoff was the fulfillment of Aragorn's character arc, indeed the entire battle at Pelennor was not itself the central problem of the story but instead a mechanism to see several character's (Merry, Eowyn, Theoden, Pippin, Denethor) arcs completed. In the context of Aragorn and the ghosts the dramatic tension lingers from the cut away from him in the caves - The viewer, from that point until he arrives later, doesn't know what became of his situation. In that way when he does show up, it's not an elevation of dramatic tension, but rather a release, a moment of triumph revealing his success, with the ghosts serving as a tide to wash clean the detritus of a fight that was narratively over the moment the Witch King was killed. In contrast to all of this the battle at Helm's Deep is not so character focused, instead the tension entirely revolves around the battle itself.

You'll also note that none of this specific example he brings up really has anything to do with FFXIV. The circumstances are so totally different that I'm not sure why you brought it up to begin with. It's very possible to agree with the idea behind Sanderson's argument but disagree with one example he raises or debate it's applicability across various contexts.

You can absolutely have soft magic systems in which the magic remains mysterious. But you still need to outline what the limitations are of said magic as they apply to solving a particular problem. With the Ancients, creation magic is very much a soft system, and there's always a real danger of snapping your fingers to make your problems go away. Zodiark is very much an example of this. If there is no meaningful price to be paid or limitation attached to the wishes that He fulfills, then you're solving problems with Deus Ex Machina in the most literal sense. It's the cost imposed which actually makes the problem meaningful in the first place.

A story where the magic system is cleverly utilized to provide an option out of a seemingly-hopeless catch-22 can be very narratively satisfying.

This is why addressing specific points can be useful in an argument, so we don't run around the same things for multiple pages.

I would also like to question - For what purpose did you raise the Sandersonian concept to begin with? The conversation wasn't, "Is the Ancients being able to undo their sacrifices narratively satisfying?", it was "Can they do it?" The topic was the choices and strategies being used in-universe and their comparative validity. I'm not saying questioning such a narrative direction has no import, I'm just saying this is a massive tangent. I'll also relink something Lurina posted previously which is relevant here,

I think the cause of a lot of these problems comes down to the fact that Shadowbringers was written as a realist narrative ("things happen based on the choices and competing needs of the characters"), while Enwalker is very much an idealist ("things happen for bigger picture, thematically-driven reasons") one. They're fine in isolation, but they go together like oil and water, which is not great since they're so inter-dependent.

Basically, I understand your line of thinking from the idealist perspective. "What is the point of the conflict and themes if it could all be undone?" But from the realist perspective the question is "Are these characters really making rational decisions according to what we know is possible by the rules of the setting?"

[EaraGrace]

You bring up the Ascians as though that's relevant to the principle behind her actions. The entire core of her motivation is her belief that mankind can overcome a hopelessly overwhelming threat that the Ancients stood no chance against while being able to withstand loss, suffering, and despair. So yes, empowering and shieling her chosen few against much lesser dangers and suffering is very hypocritical.

It’s only a “lesser danger” from the perspective of the Ancients. To the Sundered, despite their resilience and improved ability to interact with dynamis, the Ascians were arguably just as great a threat. Life on Etheirys is rooted in aether, and thus beings with greater command of it will have an insurmountable advantage.

And having faith people would overcome despair does not mean believing that everything will turn out perfectly fine every single time without action. It’s strawmanning Venats perspective to describe her as someone who thinks “good vibes” alone would be enough.

And once more, we see that even people thousands of years ago revered Hydaelyn - Again she goes so far as to refer to herself as a "supreme goddess" and pass herself off as mother to all mankind.

And once more most people don’t think She existed, and theorized Her existence based on vague images of a crystal and random visions by a handful of heroes over the millennia. Meanwhile the Twelve have been around for several eras, Far East religions thrived and multiplied without any indication She’s there, and we don’t see anyone actually worship Her. If it’s so self evident, then you should be able to show evidence of Her being actively worshipped en masse right?

That's exactly what the evidence points to. Yes Venat wanted to sunder and bind Zodiark, but that wasn't the only thing she wanted to do, her intent was to sunder the star and mankind as well.

I did indeed acknowledge their were benefits to Sundering humanity, the point remains that Sunderign Zodiark would mean Sundering Etheirys.

Aside from the fact that the Ascians were clearly under some misapprehensions about the entire situation, no, Zodiark absolutely was not the star itself or it's will.

I’m just gonna keep posting the screenshot of Emet saying He is then.



The misapprehensions were regarding Dynamis and Meteion. Nowhere is it ever stated that they didn’t understand what Zodiark was at a fundamental level, especially those who summoned him. If the Ancients were so blind as to believe that Zodiark was intrinsically tied to the star when he wasn’t, then there’s bigger problems afoot.

Firstly, because Zodiark has no will of it's own, it's just a Primal with someone wearing it like a suit, made up of all the aether and faith of the people who summoned him and those sacrificed to him.

Where does that preclude being conceived as the will of the star though? The Ancients thought of their souls as the stars very lifeblood, so imbuing the star with a will using that selfsame “blood” seems perfectly connected.

Secondly, because when Zodiark is destroyed in Endwalker, the star isn't destroyed in turn. Clearly Zodiark's existence and the star's existence are in fact not intrinsically connected.

Right, the star existed before and after Zodiark, this is true. But, as I’m sure you’re aware, the dialogue and the screenshots I posted state explicitly that the act of Sundering Zodiark also split Etheirys. So unless there was a second subsequent Sundering that nobody mentioned, then the “final blow” Emet mentioned that Sundered Zodiark Sundered Etheirys as well. As the quote I used says, “Hydaelyn chose to unleash a blow which sundered not only Zodiark but the star itself, a desperate act which allowed Her to imprison His shattered essence upon the moon.” Now maybes its just me but when I read that second part it seems pretty clear that imprisoning Zodiark required Sundering the star as well. Hydaelyn as well states this was her “only recourse” to weaken Him for a time, a motivation that notably doesn’t include any of the other benefits of Sundering the star. This plus the statements describing him as the “will of the star” and the fact that he was before his death the core of the moon makes it pretty straightforward what is being said.

Emet also knew nothing of Dynamis. He's not omniscient, and isn't aware of every single line of Ancient research. If Venat had showed up as a vampire for example, I would expect him to be just as baffled.

Then why did he say “it was never seen before” and not “I’d never seen it before.”

The Ascians didn't even know the mechanics of the Final Days. They recognized the stagnation of the aether currents correlated to their problems, but didn't know why. We know that this is because the current's stagnation left the aether there thin, and thus allowed for Dynamis to penetrate to the planet. But in the sundered world the currents were still stimulated and active, yet the core issue - the thinning of the aether - was still a factor due to the reduction of aetherial density. In other words they only had part of the picture, whereas we can look at it and recognize that this is an extremely precarious position.

They understood his existence was needed as they never tried to break the seal themselves. They understood His destruction would mean the Final Days would return, unknown though the cause may be. If you know this, and you were aware the Sundering potentially weakened the barrier preventing the apocalypse, you wouldn’t act as if you weren’t in a precarious position no?

But to your point - Isn't it the case that the Ancients in general were not the ones in change of Zodiark and his actions? In effect they are as innocent as those you describe there.

That’s not the case actually. Zodiark was summoned with the express desire to answer the prays and desires of the Ancients for salvation, an overwhelming desire that remained with Elidibus for millennia. Any Ancient willing to sacrifice to Him, pray to him, or ask for help from Him would be in “in charge” so to speak.

Moreover it's often believed that there is culpability in participating in and relying on an unjust system. How can they be innocent if they're utilizing the selfsame pipelines, logged forests, and fossil fuel companies, who are all acting because they have incentive to do so from the population? Are the workers at these companies, those who would be caught in bombings, not simply normal people trying to make their own way? If armed resistance was successful, would not the billions of people living in the modern world, reliant on those resources for their survival, then die and greatly suffer anyway?

See we approach the analogy that I think would be best here.

The analogy is not wrong. If the perspective is "the world is doomed if we don't take extreme action", then anything can be justified, including the death of innocents.

Let me adjust the hypothetical. Let’s say I had the power, with a snap of a finger, to make all fossil fuels incapable of being used. I also knew that if drastic action wasn’t taken immediately, all life would be doomed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday the consequences would be felt. On top of this, I know that by depriving the world of fuels I would essentially be pushing humanity in a dark age where potentially millions or billions could die in the ensuing effects.

Would I snap my fingers?

Yes, regretfully, but I would indeed. What would you do?

[Lauront]

That's exactly what the evidence points to. Yes Venat wanted to sunder and bind Zodiark, but that wasn't the only thing she wanted to do, her intent was to sunder the star and mankind as well.

The star is the more debatable part, but since she must've been told of how the star came to be divided into reflections, we can only assume she considered this to be an acceptable risk/cost of her fight with Zodiark. Sundering mankind, though, is absolutely the end goal, and she affirms this both in the hazy fast-forward cutscene (as below), but also when Y'shtola questions her on the point, here. The wording of the Watcher does indeed make sundering the star sound like it was taken as an accepted or "necessary" cost for her to achieve her end goal of binding him (we know they understood they'd need to do this for their plan to work from the Anamnesis Anyder scene) and sundering mankind. Mankind is the ultimate target, but Zodiark would strive to protect it, and so she sundered everything. A very messy plan, indeed.

Venat: So let there be no way back. From that temptation I sunder us.
Venat: No more shall man have wings to bear him to paradise.
Venat: Henceforth, he shall walk.