Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[MikkoAkure]

Which poster? The person who has been using it for the past 8 months even after correction?

Hint: it's not Senti.

If you're posting just to point out that someone spelled "Amaurotine" wrong for 8 months then you truly have nothing more to say.

There is legitimately nothing the Ancients did wrong that we ourselves, as a human society, (correlated with the societies of the Sundered) are not also guilty of. This is much of the core of why the in-narrative and fandom arguments that it's acceptable and good that they were wiped out on the basis of their collective societal "sins" is rather mind-boggling at best - and that's without getting into posturing about how we're somehow "better" or "more resilient" or "not a Dead End" compared to them when the only reason we survived was due to massive amounts of intervention and direct assistance on their part.

Ultimately, my rationalization of everything is that the events of 12,000 years ago were a tragedy of a bunch of different ideas clashing together. What matters most in the plot of the game is the here and now. Regardless of their ideals, both sides loved the planet unconditionally and refused to compromise in their beliefs. But our character and the world we live in are protected by Hydaelyn whose interests laid in our character's continued existence while Emet-Selch and the Ascians have tried to kill us since day 1, so that ended up being the side we ended up on despite any sort of background of how it got to this point, and that's why the story is told from that point of view.

[Theodric]

There are things that I, myself, put value in - animal welfare, for instance - that becomes compromised when a situation arises that means those values and other values clash, such as "aversion to human cost and suffering [distinguished, subjectively, on my part, from human convenience.]" I know some people in the case of the Ancients like to jump on that as "see, they're hypocrites and betrayed their own values [and thus they can't complain at being annihilated by Venat]" but it's a natural part of being human and existing in the world, and negotiating with tragedy and complex situations. Ordinarily, I think most people would sympathize with an animal rights activist, or an environmentalist, making the choice to give up on a group of animals if it meant saving a group of humans without accusing them of hypocrisy - unless there's already a pre-established investment or material/emotional benefit in interpreting their choices in a universally negative way.

There is legitimately nothing the Ancients did wrong that we ourselves, as a human society, (correlated with the societies of the Sundered) are not also guilty of. This is much of the core of why the in-narrative and fandom arguments that it's acceptable and good that they were wiped out on the basis of their collective societal "sins" is rather mind-boggling at best - and that's without getting into posturing about how we're somehow "better" or "more resilient" or "not a Dead End" compared to them when the only reason we survived was due to massive amounts of intervention and direct assistance on their part.

Yeah, it's grim business but that's exactly why pest control exists. Even the animal lovers amongst us don't necessarily want to live in squalor letting rats, ants and spiders invade our homes.

It's also bizarre to try and claim that the Ancients deserved to be wiped out on the basis of engaging in such practices when the majority of side quests in the Sundered world involve sending adventurers to go and cull monsters and animals alike for encroaching on inhabited territory. As always, though, protagonist centred morality comes into play and absolutely everything is suddenly acceptable when 'we' do it.

[Brinne]

Ultimately, my rationalization of everything is that the events of 12,000 years ago were a tragedy of a bunch of different ideas clashing together. What matters most in the plot of the game is the here and now. Regardless of their ideals, both sides loved the planet unconditionally and refused to compromise in their beliefs. But our character and the world we live in are protected by Hydaelyn whose interests laid in our character's continued existence while Emet-Selch and the Ascians have tried to kill us since day 1, so that ended up being the side we ended up on despite any sort of background of how it got to this point, and that's why the story is told from that point of view.

As I've said before, we [as the Sundered] have every right in the world to want to protect ourselves, our world, and our continued existence. The cowardice comes from pretending that, in this situation, that's anything other than the arbitrary side of where and when we happened to be born, and that it actually comes down to a question of innate worth or moral (and racial/biological, unfortunately, as some wind up unironically arguing) superiority. Shadowbringers approached this in an even way, and asked us to see the reality of that situation for what it was, and not to look away from the tragedy and costs involved to other human beings who had just as much of a "right" to live, and just as much of a desire for a future for themselves, as we did. ("You have done a great and terrible thing.") Endwalker, unfortunately, gave into the temptation - or at least made succumbing to that temptation far easier for the playerbase - of making it easier on ourselves by disparaging and Othering the ones who need the same resources that we do, for the same reasons we do.

"Being told from our point of view" absolutely does not correlate to "arguing that the annihilation of the Ancients as a race, or creating the situation that made that a necessity for our own survival, was acceptable or correct" or "believing that we're better and more justified than them in some nebulous way." It means that we just happen to play from the perspective of one of multiple that all want to continue living.

[Theodric]

Another thing that I'd like to point out is that just because the Ancients are gone that does not mean that they cannot receive additional attention over time. Variety is the spice of life and contrary to what some here seem to believe, their personal aversion to the Ancients is not shared by the majority of players. We do not need to necessarily bring back the Ancients in order for fans of them to learn more about them. I'd point to the Ayleid and Dwemer civilisations in the Elder Scrolls games. In each new entry despite both civilisations being long gone we not only see ruins of their civilisations to explore but we get new insights over time into what their respective societies were like.

Much like how in the real world a civilisation being long gone does not mean that archaeologists and scholars decide to not bother learning as much as humanly possible. Now if only our main cast were scholars then we could -

Oh, wait. That's exactly what they are! Perfect!

[Teraq]

If you're posting just to point out that someone spelled "Amaurotine" wrong for 8 months then you truly have nothing more to say.

Just like there is nothing to say to the person I called out for disingenuity replying with an even more disingenuous response, cementing herself as a person not worth engaging for all to see.

Nice headcanon about the Ancients and Amaurot, btw. Endwalker presents all the immortal people clad in black robes and masks we meet as "Ancients" rather than "Amaurotines", and I am going to keep addressing them as such. We have no indication that the world and people outside this one city were different to all the ones we've met, and the game never once bothers to even imply a difference, which I trust it would have if such a difference was relevant at all.

Because the intent in the underlying narrative here is pretty clear: people want to paint Amaurot, and by extension, the Convocation minus Azem, as aloof, nepotistic dictators of some sort of ruling intellectual class in the omg obviously total dystopia that was the Ancient world, as a contrast to the wise and enlightened Azems who knew the little people not living in Amaurot and were, therefore, right. It's just an offshoot of the now mercifully disproven headcanon that only Amaurotines were the super-powered immortal people and that the rest of the world were the oppressed modern humans (who were totally going to be fed to Zodiark!!!). This way, we don't have to feel so bad about what Genocide Barbie did to this very human people, because they deserved it and they were very bad and wrong anyway! Hurray! I'm so glad I can now sleep at night.

My god this is so boring.

But none of this was never my point, anyway. Disingenuous derail successful, right?

[MikkoAkure]

Nice headcanon about the Ancients and Amaurot, btw. Endwalker presents all the immortal people clad in black robes and masks we meet as "Ancients" rather than "Amaurotines", and I am going to keep addressing them as such. We have no indication that the world and people outside this one city were different to all the ones we've met, and the game never once bothers to even imply a difference, which I trust it would have if such a difference was relevant at all.

One of the Amaurotines mentions other cities and implies Amaurot as being a cut above:

Oh, do you hail from another city originally? Even so, surely you must know you stand in Amaurot, the intellectual utopia that flourishes at the heart of our world. From the Capitol where our preeminent minds gather to carry out the duties of governance, to the Akadaemia Anyder where devotees of knowledge strive to solve the greatest unsolved mysteries of our era, to the smaller but no less valuable institutions─Amaurot has all that you will ever need and so very much more.

Another specifically targets the robe wearing as being "Amaurotine" and chides us:

I must say, little one…those garments you’re wearing. They are your own original concepts, I take it? Clearly they must be, given their rather…singular flamboyance. I would never dream of stifling a fledgling creator’s creativity, but to parade about in your cultivated individuality is hardly praiseworthy. An Amaurotine of character shares their creations with the community─they do not hoard them for their use alone.

To delight in disparity is a mark of the morally deficient. Disparity engenders feelings of want and resentment, which degrade the bonds of fellowship. Thus do we encourage creators to share and share alike, else we risk kindling the embers of covetousness and violence that ever smolder in the hearts of all. Therefore I must implore you, little one, to cast aside your original trappings and don the communal robes, that you might acquit yourself as an equal among many. In so doing, you will be afforded greater respect and autonomy.

The whole world could be "Amaurotine" just like how in our own ancient times, a large chunk of the world was Roman, centered around the city of Rome. My point is, is that the term "Amaurotine" exists in the game and is a term used to describe a people. We just simply don't know what exists outside of Amaurot and its satellite institutions such as Elpis. I'm not saying that there's a downtrodden underclass here. I'm just pointing out terminology being used in the game.

[SannaR]

I mean a few posters have hounded, belittled and picked fights with someone who's misspelt Gridania so the same having a problem with said other word's spelling isn't something new.

[Lurina]

In Elpis, the Ancients specifically describe their society as being for the betterment of the star, so they themselves put value into it whether or not it is conscious.

People are not in thrall to their stated values. If I say that I love my cactus and then decide to throw it out to make room for a new chair, I haven't betrayed it, because the cactus is an unthinking object; it's only value came from my professed love in the first place. Circumstances changed and made the Ancients value the preservation of their loved ones over the star, and from a utilitarian perspective, this is fine so long as this act didn't directly engender future suffering. Considering we now know that the original sacrifices were conscious and trapped within Zodiark, it's arguably even the more moral action, EW's anti-escapism message aside.

Now, if I were talking about, say, throwing out an intelligent pet like a cat instead, this would become a bit more of an ambiguous situation. In turn, so is the Amaurot scenario itself complicated by the ambiguity of the third sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Sundering ended up de-facto obliterating all currently-extant sapient beings regardless, so in no regard can it be viewed as a lesser evil. It is - again, from a strictly utilitarian perspective - an objectively unethical act.

Though it's obvious EW isn't utilitarian and does hold convictions about the inherent worth of life for its own sake, rather than measuring its worth on the happiness and well-being it brings to conscious intelligence. Convictions which, to be clear, I think are dumb and barely challenged within the text despite being delivered pretty sanctimoniously.

The whole world could be "Amaurotine" just like how in our own ancient times, a large chunk of the world was Roman, centered around the city of Rome. My point is, is that the term "Amaurotine" exists in the game and is a term used to describe a people. We just simply don't know what exists outside of Amaurot and its satellite institutions such as Elpis. I'm not saying that there's a downtrodden underclass here. I'm just pointing out terminology being used in the game.

We do know there were nations independent of Amaurot because there was a whole quest (Debate and Discourse) about whether Amaurot should intervene in the Final Days affecting them or not. Though, you're right that we don't learn anything about them.

[Lyth]

Singular, actually. He acts rather predictably when cross, if you've been observing.

The game itself has characters named "Amaurotine"...

I stand corrected, thanks for that. Although I will say, however, that the term 'Amaurotain' does get used instead...

...

...in the French version of the script.

***

Humor aside, I've always found it strange that anyone would view a character's claims of being 'superior' unironically. Generally it points to a touch of narcissism and a dollop of hubris. So whenever you see an Amaurotine or Ascian sneering down at other 'inferior' races, I wouldn't have expected anyone to seriously buy into that at face value and kowtow to them because of it.

It's actually interesting how much contrast the Amaurotines have with FFVII's Cetra, who are referred to by others as 'Ancients', who are referred to (by others, not themselves) as caretakers of the planet, and yet you actually get the sense that they genuinely lived in harmony with the planet rather than it being something that they claimed ownership of (and the nature vs. industrialism theme of that story probably helps their portrayal as well). A little bit of humility goes a long way.

I don't mind learning about other 'Ancient' societies, personally, especially if they're completely unaffiliated with the ones we've been dealing with in the past five expansions. I think that there's a good opportunity, as we travel to other continents, to write about other such societies that bring the Amautorines and their narrow viewpoints of the world into sharp contrast. The world's a bigger place than we know.

For good or for ill, however, I think that we've seen that pretty much any mention of the Amaurotines to date have been consistently (and unnecessarily) controversial. And rather than offering up more opportunities to be heckled over, it probably makes sense for the writers to finish up the existing plotlines and quietly write them out of the story. Sensible thing to do in response, really.

[EaraGrace]

People are not in thrall to their stated values. If I say that I love my cactus and then decide to throw it out to make room for a new chair, I haven't betrayed it, because the cactus is an unthinking object; it's only value came from my professed love in the first place. Circumstances changed and made the Ancients value the preservation of their loved ones over the star, and from a utilitarian perspective, this is fine so long as this act didn't directly engender future suffering. Considering we now know that the original sacrifices were conscious and trapped within Zodiark, it's arguably even the more moral action, EW's anti-escapism message aside.

Now, if I were talking about, say, throwing out an intelligent pet like a cat instead, this would become a bit more of an ambiguous situation. In turn, so is the Amaurot scenario itself complicated by the ambiguity of the third sacrifice. Nevertheless, the Sundering ended up de-facto obliterating all currently-extant sapient beings regardless, so in no regard can it be viewed as a lesser evil. It is - again, from a strictly utilitarian perspective - an objectively unethical act.

And yet a utilitarian perspective isn’t the only ethical view we can apply here, nor do all flavors of utilitarianism agree. If one is a positive forms of utilitarianism for example, then the preservation of life and its spread through existence would be a wholly good thing outweighing the moral negative of the Sundering.

Personally however, I find the Rawlsian just savings principle to be much more compelling. One can’t meet the sufficient threshold for a basic system of justice if everyone’s dead after all.