When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[EaraGrace]

Your logic is inherently flawed. You continue bashing the ancients for creating creations that were doomed to die when we do the exact same thing time and time again. Either acknowledge that both sides are in the wrong for this, or neither lol. You can’t choose one over the other. Rest in peace to all the sentient mochi we’ve battered over the years.

I literally said in my post that you can recognize both are wrong.

The Ascians are vastly less of a threat to Etheirys than Meteion.

Yes, the Ascians wouldn’t completely destroy Etheirys like Meteion. They are still a grave threat to the Sundered, especially to those on the shards, and arguably killed more in their efforts than Meteion did. Meteion may have a been a more dire threat to all life, but to the Sundered both were mortal threats and only for one of them could they use their inherent gifts to resist.

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.

If you think her goal was to have the Sundered surpass them in all aspects then you missed the point. It’s not a pissing contest, it’s an attempt to get humanity to a point where it wouldn’t make the mistakes or follow the same paths as those other civilizations that perished to suffering and despair.

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.

I’m not aware of any of those statements being made “the world over.” The references that do occur either are simply using Hydaelyn as the name of the star, a being more like what the Ancients believed in and not as a physical goddess to be worshipped, or they’re borne from interactions between Hydaelyn and the Warriors She was aiding to counter the Ascians. Without them, many of those connections wouldn’t be made.

In both cases Her interactions were limited, and actual worship was nonexistent. No churches exist dedicated to Her, no holy texts or traditions, no evidence She acted to establish worship, nothing.

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…

Knowing the story of the Twelves creation, and knowing that the earliest reference to their worship is during the Third Astral Era, I’m going to argue this isn’t true. Perhaps the new 24 man changes things or gives context that will prove you right, we’ll see. No matter what, however, She wouldn’t be the source of creation.

That’d be the Whorl.

This is a stretch.

The fact that Etheirys still exists disproves that idea.

Why? Enervation doesn’t physically destroy or harm anything.

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.

In that case there would be no need to specify they desired to “imbue the star with its own will,” as any primal born of their souls would be the stars “will.”

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.

Why would that not be true?

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.

So, to you it’s easier to believe that Enervation flew under the radar, and Emet/the Unsundered just mistakenly believe it to be a new magick that also just happened to be perfect for Hydaelyns purpose.

I’ll take him at his word.

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.

They knew His magicks were what’s solving the issue, and they knew that his destruction would mean those magicks would dissipate and cause the return of the Final Days. If what you are saying is accurate, then they would recognize that weakening Zodiark means weakening their solution and thus they would worry right?

In fact this conception of their situation…

So which is it then?

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

So when he blindly and in a stupor wandered over to us in the Crystarium that was all him?

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.

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.

A lot of innocents have died due to those with the ability to intervene refusing to act. If you want to get into deontological ethics and how that applies to the Sundering then by all means we can. But this isn’t nearly open and shut like you believe.

[Theodric]

The Sundering is the equivalent of the 'euthanasia' plan in Attack on Titan for those who happen to be familiar with it. Something framed by the orchestrators as a 'kind' form of genocide, but still an act of genocide designed to eliminate a species against their will.

Forcibly isolating someone from their loved ones, stripping away their memories and sense of self in addition to warping their physical form to the point of being unrecognisable is not usually considered to be a positive act. Especially when it is enforced without consent.

[EaraGrace]

The Sundering is the equivalent of the 'euthanasia' plan in Attack on Titan for those who happen to be familiar with it. Something framed by the orchestrators as a 'kind' form of genocide, but still an act of genocide designed to eliminate a species against their will.

Forcibly isolating someone from their loved ones, stripping away their memories and sense of self in addition to warping their physical form to the point of being unrecognisable is not usually considered to be a positive act. Especially when it is enforced without consent.

I dont think anyone disagrees that the Sunderings effects were horrible, but measuring the moral weight of an action doesn’t begin and end with recognizing how much it sucks. War is horrific, but is there a possibility for a just war? Inequality blows, but are there cases where having inequality might be the less bad option?

There’s more at play in these things.

[KariTheFox]

I dont think anyone disagrees that the Sunderings effects were horrible, but measuring the moral weight of an action doesn’t begin and end with recognizing how much it sucks. War is horrific, but is there a possibility for a just war? Inequality blows, but are there cases where having inequality might be the less bad option?

There’s more at play in these things.

Context and intent also matter. There's a difference in framing between "he cuts people with open knives and takes thier organs" and "he is a surgeon who performs organ transplants". Both are literal descriptions of what is happening, but I think we'd all agree the latter is a more accurate framing.

[Theodric]

Some of the most horrific acts of mass death have been conducted throughout our own history under the pretence of resolving 'inequality'. Often accomplishing little more than replacing one set of out of touch 'leaders' with another and inflicting starvation, torment and worse upon the populace.

As for the 'least bad' option, I daresay sacrificing a portion of the 'New Life' to Zodiark would have qualified as such instead of subjecting every single man, woman and child amongst the Ancients to genocide and bizarre 'tests' that were enforced upon them without their knowledge and consent.

[EaraGrace]

Some of the most horrific acts of mass death have been conducted throughout our own history under the pretence of resolving 'inequality'. Often accomplishing little more than replacing one set of out of touch 'leaders' with another and inflicting starvation, torment and worse upon the populace.

As for the 'least bad' option, I daresay sacrificing a portion of the 'New Life' to Zodiark would have qualified as such instead of subjecting every single man, woman and child amongst the Ancients to genocide and bizarre 'tests' that were enforced upon them without their knowledge and consent.

In your view sure. I could also say that the Ancients fundamental beliefs endangered themselves and all life, and horrific though the consequences may be, needed to be separated from their self appointed god if they were or anyone else were to live on.

And thus we disagree.

[tokinokanatae]

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?

I didn't mean it as a gotcha, exactly. I was trying to point out that even the fictional societies in FFXIV aren't as kind to animals as the researchers in Elpis are--say nothing of the people that play the game--so it's an odd argument to make that such "cruelty" is therefore symbolic of insurmountable flaw in their society that inevitably led to their doom. I'm not trying to argue that the Ancient society had no issues or couldn't be improved, rather--as others have pointed out--it doesn't seem like "improvement" was the end goal of either Hermes or Venat.

[KizuyaKatogami]

In your view sure. I could also say that the Ancients fundamental beliefs endangered themselves and all life, and horrific though the consequences may be, needed to be separated from their self appointed god if they were or anyone else were to live on.

And thus we disagree.

The same way we worship and assist a self appointed supreme deity who also endangered all life.. Interesting…

[Lyth]

...

Many people mistakenly believe that 'line-by-line' quotes followed by clever responses make their arguments look more convincing. I don't, and the formatting just makes me not want to waste my time trying to go through it, even as a third party observer to a discussion. If someone wants to have a look at what I'm responding to, they just click on the little double arrow icon next to your name in the quote to get a direct link. Try it yourself. You've already written your post, and I trust that you won't rewrite it after the fact. I'm happy to put out a line or paragraph quote when necessary if there's something in particular I need to zero in on. But if there are multiple people that I'm responding to, I really prefer to just put out an open post on my overall take rather than dumping out a string of quotes.

It's also a waste of time for me to try and address everything that you put out, especially when there are four or five of you all trying to talk over each other at once in circular statements. Your interpretation of the Sanderson lectures was wrong and given that not everyone has had the chance to go through them for themselves, I am glad that I was able to at least set the record straight in that regard.

I think that it's pointless to get into a feasibility discussion on time travel, because the writers can take this in any direction that they want. Up until now, most instances of time travel have had enormous limitations and costs attached. Alexander's time jumps cost an enormous amount of aether and would have drained the planet dry had it not sealed itself off into a single instant in time. G'raha's excursion to alter the past took centuries of collaborative work from everyone in the Eight Umbral Calamity timeline, and even then they got it wrong by a few centuries. And at the end of it, not only did he never return to his original timeline, but he also turned to stone to resolve the paradox of having two G'raha's in the same timeline. Elidibus' conduit to Elpis melted away the last remnants of his massive aether reserves and soul, and even as he fades into nothingness, he specifically warns you that you cannot change the Final Days through time travel, despite dedicating his life to try to bring back Amaurot. And he has nothing to lose and everything to gain in letting you try.

But do you know what? None of this matters at all. If the writers turn around and decide that they want to let you undo the Final Days, then you can. Perhaps Elidibus, despite being the most powerful Amaurotian, god of his people, and having a genius level understanding of magic, simply missed something. He didn't know that by using Dynamis, along with a newly discovered MacGuffin powered by the force of your Mogstation Paypal account, you could go back and alter whatever events in the storyline that you like. Want Haurchefant back? No problem. Swipe your card, go back in time, save his life, and now he's an unlockable Trust character who freeloads in your house with multiple purchasable skins. It's not about whether you're 'allowed' to do it by the writers. It's about the implication that it has for future storytelling.

I'm generally wary of time travel in stories. When it's meant to be the central plot element, writers usually set a lot of restrictions upfront, be it in the form of energy costs (one point twenty one gigawatts), knowledge (nobody else is allowed to know that you're from the future), unpredictability (accidentally changing events for the worse), and so on. I didn't really mind it too much in Shadowbringers because it was mostly hidden in the background (you learn about it entirely after the fact) and was set up as a near impossible task, but even still it seemed superfluous. Or maybe it was just there to set up the conjunction Venat talked about, who knows. I liked Elpis because it was a cute idea executed in a playful manner and it allowed you to explore history in a slightly more interactive format than watching Elidibus' life in Sepia tones using the power of the Echo. But I'm also aware that this is dangerous ground, and the writers need to tread carefully with it. Would I prefer that they had never had opened Pandora's Box in the first place? Absolutely. But since we're here anyways, it's worth remembering that 'Limitations are always more interesting than powers.'

[EaraGrace]

The same way we worship and assist a self appointed supreme deity who also endangered all life.. Interesting…

That’s a weird way to say saved all life. And once again whose worshipping Her rn exactly?