When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[KariTheFox]

The cruelty inherent in Elpis is not just in the unmaking of creations - but in their creation too. These beings are designed the way they are by the ancients - and then put in an environment to be studied and observed for their suitability or continued existence. But they have no capacity to understand or comprehend that they are being studied, that their innate nature might lead to their destruction through a series of criteria that they have zero control over or knowledge. Creating life, only to destroy it if it doesn't live up to the standards of the ancients, this is the cruelty that Hermes sees. And with it, you can kind of see his reasoning for wanting to subject mankind to a similar test that they have no capacity to understand or comprehend. "Why does mankind deserve to live any more than our creations? Who is testing our suitability for survival?"

And frankly, does it really matter if the Lykaon's have souls? Was the Lykaon not fighting for its survival before it was killed, was it not suffering as it died? Is it not tragic that creature that was simply following the nature given to it had to die, through no fault of its own? Why does our empathy for life suddenly come to a halt if that life doesn't have a "soul"?

[Veloran]

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.

Again.

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.

The Ascians are vastly less of a threat to Etheirys than Meteion. 90% of the time they work through manipulation anyway, and aside from the three Unsundered (mostly just the two really) they're just high tier mages. The entire premise of everything Venat did was that the sundered would surpass the Ancients, so to use her godly powers to bail them out when things look too tough is far from a good showing.

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?

Hydaelyn's name is literally synonymous with the planet itself. The entire Encyclopedia Eorzea is framed with Hydaelyn being the source of all aether and life, and notes that reoccurring themes of "Hydaelyn's will" or the "will of Light" appear in the myths and folklore of seemingly unrelated civilizations the world over. The "true history" that Hydaelyn uses as her cover story is a direct derivative of the religion of the Twelve, where all existence propagated from a primordial essence which later divided into Light and Darkness - Venat characterizes herself as being this essence from which she split Zodiark, Darkness, from herself. In the conception of the faith of the Twelve Hydaelyn would then be the origin of all existence, which ties into her connection with Silvertear which is mythologized to be the source of all water and magic, and her existence as the Mothercrystal which begat all life. Basically every part of what she tells people leads them to believe in her as the "supreme goddess".

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

The fact that Etheirys still exists disproves that idea.

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.

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.

You yourself just explained why they conceptualized Zodiark as the "will of the star", because they conceptualized themselves as the star, meaning that if they were the star's blood, and Zodiark was made of them, then Zodiark was the star itself.

So unless there was a second subsequent Sundering that nobody mentioned, then the “final blow” Emet mentioned that Sundered Zodiark Sundered Etheirys as well.

Or, Hydaelyn simply unleashed such a massive blow that it sundered not just Zodiark, but the star itself. Or, she actually did strike more than once - When this is visualized to the player multiple blows are shown. And keep in mind that Emet was saying that Hydaelyn and Zodiark "fought and fought and fought" before she unleashed her "final blow" - But we know this was not true.

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

If you aren't aware that something exists, obviously you can't know that it exists. If something completely new appears and you have no knowledge of it, obviously it follows to say that it was unknown, especially if you're considered a very knowledgeable person in general.

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.

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?

They were unaware of the cause or mechanism of the Final Days. For example you suggest that if they were aware the Sundering potentially weakened the "barrier preventing the apocalypse", they would have acted or said differently. However, they didn't know the currents were a barrier holding something out. To them the currents were a symptom of the laws of reality coming unraveled.

In fact this conception of their situation, and their belief that Hydaelyn's existence and actions were threatening to restart it all again, is completely consistent with what Lahabrea tells us in 2.0. He explicitly describes Hydaelyn as a parasite, the root of a corruption that will worsen the growing instability until the laws of existence, aetheric and physical, will be warped beyond all recognition. In other words when you ask "well surely they would have thought themselves in a precarious position", the answer is "they did".

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.

Those desires were Elidibus' desires. That's exactly why he was chosen as Zodiark's heart, because it was his will to save everyone.

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

The analogy didn't change at all, only how you think about it did. The point I was making is that it's possible to justify anything in your own mind if you really believe it's doom otherwise, this very perception is what has led to unmitigated death throughout history.

What would you do?

The better answer to the trolley problem is not to flip the switch. The point of the exercise is to illustrate the illegitimacy of making that choice for other people.

We live and we move on, unlike this thread.

I kind of get the sense that you're just completely ignoring any point I'm raising and everything I'm saying to you given that every idea you raise in this post is just a repeat of your previous one with no consideration of my response at all. I can see why you would avoid actually showing specific quotes given everything you're saying has already been addressed, but I guess for the sake of completeness -

the lecture contradicts your viewpoint

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.

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.

If Zodiark snaps His fingers and solves everything for no significant cost, it trivializes the Final Days. Deus Ex Machina. If you go back in time and undo the Final Days, you also trivialize the conflict. That's why big plot altering powers have limitations placed on them out of storytelling necessity.

The conversation wasn't, "Is the Ancients being able to undo their sacrifices narratively satisfying?", it was "Can they do it?"

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?"

[Lauront]

The cruelty inherent in Elpis is not just in the unmaking of creations - but in their creation too. These beings are designed the way they are by the ancients - and then put in an environment to be studied and observed for their suitability or continued existence. But they have no capacity to understand or comprehend that they are being studied, that their innate nature might lead to their destruction through a series of criteria that they have zero control over or knowledge. Creating life, only to destroy it if it doesn't live up to the standards of the ancients, this is the cruelty that Hermes sees. And with it, you can kind of see his reasoning for wanting to subject mankind to a similar test that they have no capacity to understand or comprehend. "Why does mankind deserve to live any more than our creations? Who is testing our suitability for survival?"

And frankly, does it really matter if the Lykaon's have souls? Was the Lykaon not fighting for its survival before it was killed, was it not suffering as it died? Is it not tragic that creature that was simply following the nature given to it had to die, through no fault of its own? Why does our empathy for life suddenly come to a halt if that life doesn't have a "soul"?

If you want to open up the tear works for all the sprites, egis, primals etc. we've seen to death over the past few years, feel free. Maybe throw in a few for the cows in the G'raha burgers too - I wonder if we can call them soul food?

[KizuyaKatogami]

The cruelty inherent in Elpis is not just in the unmaking of creations - but in their creation too. These beings are designed the way they are by the ancients - and then put in an environment to be studied and observed for their suitability or continued existence. But they have no capacity to understand or comprehend that they are being studied, that their innate nature might lead to their destruction through a series of criteria that they have zero control over or knowledge. Creating life, only to destroy it if it doesn't live up to the standards of the ancients, this is the cruelty that Hermes sees. And with it, you can kind of see his reasoning for wanting to subject mankind to a similar test that they have no capacity to understand or comprehend. "Why does mankind deserve to live any more than our creations? Who is testing our suitability for survival?"

And frankly, does it really matter if the Lykaon's have souls? Was the Lykaon not fighting for its survival before it was killed, was it not suffering as it died? Is it not tragic that creature that was simply following the nature given to it had to die, through no fault of its own? Why does our empathy for life suddenly come to a halt if that life doesn't have a "soul"?

Again, please acknowledge then, the countless familiars primals, egi’s the WoL has summoned only for their purpose to be to die. The animals that are raised in the uldah colosseum only for them to be slaughtered FOR AMUSEMENT.

[tokinokanatae]

I mean, this is something we do in real life as human beings. We change plants and animals through selective breeding not even for the good of the ecosystem around us, but to benefit us alone. Is enjoying a good cob of corn a cruelty? What about petting your loyal pupper? Did you know an entire species of banana has been totally lost due to human interference? And, ecologically speaking, we do cull invasive species all the time. Yes, the feral pig did "nothing wrong" by simply living and breeding, but it's still important for the sake of the native plants and animals that we do our best to kill as many of them as we can.

I feel like going on about the cruelty of the Ancients misses the fact that they are literally nearly as kind as they can possibly be under the circumstances. Impossibly kind. Much kinder than the people in the in-game Labyrinthos, who have us kill dozens of creatures for skincare products.

[Lauront]

We go a good deal further than that through genetic engineering these days, too. As have the sundered at various points. Merely influencing the trait selection within a species and then breeding it for purposes that fit our uses (or those of the sundered) is in essence propagating life for our (or the sundered's) benefit. The Sharlayans even emulate the creation practices of the ancients to some extent by elevating objects and animals to a degree of intelligence and then employing them as servitors. Arcane entities like egis and arcanima, as well as (albeit from a position of reverence), primals, are employed for utilitarian (including defensive) purposes. I will repeat: nothing in the "test" Hermes is administering is going to change that one iota. Nothing in how Venat prepares the sundered for said "test" is going to change anything one iota, either. If he genuinely cared so much, he could've used his position in the Convocation to try persuade his people of his mindset. Instead, he chose to doom the entire universe. He does not care. He is merely acting out of spite. His "test" can be put in the dustbin of history alongside him.

[KariTheFox]

Okay, yes. There is cruelty inherent in slaughtering life. Both in real life and in sundered Ethyris. Acknowledged. Was that supposed to be a gotcha?

Though I would make a distinction between animals killed for surival, such as game that is being hunted and livestock - a neccesary utilitarian function for survival - especially in a society like Ehthyris which have many cultures that could not possible economically support a meat-free diet - And animals being killed for purely entertainment reasons - like those involved in bloodsports.

One real life comparison to Elpis that comes to mind are vanity dog breeds - there are a lot of breeds of dog who are bred a certain way simply for thier appearance - this leads to severe health problems like stunted limbs or breathing issues, and sometimes those dogs have to be euthanized because they are simply incapable of surviving with the way they have been bred. It is incredibly tragic and cruel on the part of the breeders.

Also, I'm not sure why we're supposed to acknowledge that a fictional race of god-men are morally superior to us? Yes, sure. They are. The ancients try very hard and were all very good boys and girls trying thier best to help.

[Veloran]

The ancients try very hard and were all very good boys and girls trying thier best to help.

You look at him and tell me who the good boy is.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Okay, yes. There is cruelty inherent in slaughtering life. Both in real life and in sundered Ethyris. Acknowledged. Was that supposed to be a gotcha?

Though I would make a distinction between animals killed for surival, such as game that is being hunted and livestock - a neccesary utilitarian function for survival - especially in a society like Ehthyris which have many cultures that could not possible economically support a meat-free diet - And animals being killed for purely entertainment reasons - like those involved in bloodsports.

One real life comparison to Elpis that comes to mind are vanity dog breeds - there are a lot of breeds of dog who are bred a certain way simply for thier appearance - this leads to severe health problems like stunted limbs or breathing issues, and sometimes those dogs have to be euthanized because they are simply incapable of surviving with the way they have been bred. It is incredibly tragic and cruel on the part of the breeders.

Also, I'm not sure why we're supposed to acknowledge that a fictional race of god-men are morally superior to us? Yes, sure. They are. The ancients try very hard and were all very good boys and girls trying thier best to help.

My point is though, people are bashing the ancients for the same things the sundered have done but worse in some ways. I’m not exactly critiquing either side, but my stance is if you’re going to bash the ancients for this, then you need to do it for both sides and not play favorites or bias. It’s the same way that people seem to push the fact we need to acknowledge venat was right or acknowledge and cater to hermes’ test. Nobody has the obligation to need to do any of that. The fact people continue to lean into a condescending attitude about people defending the ancients though is interesting.

[KariTheFox]

Maybe throw in a few for the cows in the G'raha burgers too - I wonder if we can call them soul food?

You're probably joking but there are in fact a few cultures that give an offering of prayer or thanks to an animal as they slaughter it. Some Native American cultures, Scottish Highlanders, some interpetaions of Jewish and Muslim practices of Kosher and Halal slaughter say that it is about maintaining a respectful relationship to god and to life.

So, some people would in fact do that.

Edit: I'm not terribly interested in "bashing" or defending the ancients. It strikes me as bizzare that so many people have sorted themselves into two sides of a debate about the goodness or lack of goodness of a race of fictional godlike beings. I'm much more interested in what we can learn from the ancients and what in thier society might be reflected in ours.