Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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.

[Lurina]

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.

Every other post in you've made in this thread for the past week has ended with some variation of the sentiment that it's good the Amaurotines are gone, that people should stop talking about them, and that you hope they're written out of the story permanently (wishful thinking, and I say that as someone who half wants it to happen myself; Venat, Hyltho, and Emet are easily the most popular NPCs according to most polls, and based on how the FFXIV writers generally treat characters with large fandoms - even ones widely disliked like Zenos and Asahi - they're going to milk them posthumously so badly over the next few years that just the sight of Emet's rat-like features will make even those of us who like him physically sick) and it's kinda taking on a carthago delenda est energy.

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.

You're misusing the idea of positive utilitarianism here - to put it crudely, positive utilitarianism is the belief that the foremost moral imperative is to maximize happiness, while negative utilitarianism is the belief that the foremost moral imperative is to reduce suffering. As far as I know, there's no school of utilitarian thought that advocates preserving and spreading life for its own sake, rather than out of utility to those who are currently alive. (edit to correct myself slightly in relation to my next post: there are some utilitarians who advocate population growth is a good thing insofar as it increases the amount of people who can experience a high level of happiness, but only if no one's individual suffering increases from this transaction)

Rawls was also talking about the duty to the next generation, not whether the idea of a next generation was good or bad. He was a realist; the fact that there would be a next generation was taken as a given, with the ethical calculus progressing from there. (Though that's not to say, per-se, that he wouldn't have agreed with you - he was also a deontologist, which is the ethical framework Endwalker is obviously coming from.)

[EaraGrace]

You're misusing the idea of positive utilitarianism here - to put it crudely, positive utilitarianism is the belief that the foremost moral imperative is to maximize happiness, while negative utilitarianism is the belief that the foremost moral imperative is to reduce suffering. As far as I know, there's no school of utilitarian thought that advocates preserving and spreading life for its own sake, rather than out of utility to those who are currently alive.

Yet for happiness to exist, beings must live on that are capable of being happy. Hell, the repugnant conclusion is the utilitarian argument for the Sundering all wrapped up in a bow is it not?



One can easily draw a comparison between the Unsundered in the A column and the Sundered shards in B.

[SilverArrow20XX]

The term "man" is used in our own day in-game as a general name for the people of Hydaelyn as a whole too.

The poster I quoted seemed to be under the impression that "Amaurotine" wasn't a term that existed when it very clearly does and is used. The people of the ancient times with the powers of creation seem to all be centered around Amaurot. They themselves refer to their people as "Amaurotine". The people in Elpis all have the same clothing and are under the Convocation's jurisdiction so it may be assumed that it's the same deal and Elpis is an integral part of Amaurotine culture and society.

What we don't quite know for sure is how the rest of the ancient world is like outside the city of Amaurot and if they're all the same. It may be inferred through Venat and Azem's travels and snippets about helping people around the world that outside of the main cultural center of Amaurot, people may at least be living differently and have different ideas than the city-folk. We know at least that there are actual farmers living in villages, but we don't know if they're also philosophical god-beings or if they are just mundane farmers.

"Amaurotine" describing a specific group of people beyond just their culture or place of origin isn't without precedence either since the race of people with a third eye and inability to control aether are called Garleans and their city is called Garlemald.

Regardless, it's a term used in-game so I don't know why people would have a problem with it.

It's used in-game, in Amaurot, to describe people living in Amaurot.
I don't recall the term being used in Elpis other than when specifically referring to the city either.
I don't see any evidence that it's a term like "Garleans" which refers to both the race, and the citizens. It's more like "Ul'dahns".
Furthermore, while "Man" is used to describe the races of Hydaelyn as a whole, I don't recall the term "Mankind" ever being used before Elpis. I'm curious what word was used in other languages.

[Lurina]

Yet for happiness to exist, beings must live on that are capable of being happy. Hell, the repugnant conclusion is the utilitarian argument for the Sundering all wrapped up in a bow is it not?



One can easily draw a comparison between the Unsundered in the A column and the Sundered shards in B.

I'm not sure why you're using the idea of the repugnant conclusion (assuming you're quoting Derek Parfit here) when total utilitarianism, the idea he's tearing down, is generally rejected by philosophers in favor of variations on average utilitarianism. Even Henry Sidgwick, who's known for raising the question in the first place and did agree with ideas like it being a net good to create more humans so long as it wasn't at the expense of average happiness, still had that qualifier; he wouldn't have approved of something that massively expanded the population at the expense of everyone who existed beforehand, let alone the mean quality of life. To quote his book, The Methods of Ethics:

Assuming, then, that the average happiness of human beings is a positive quantity, it seems clear that utilitarianism directs us to make the number of happy people as large as we can without lowering the average level of happiness. But if we foresee as possible that an increase in numbers will be accompanied by a decrease in average happiness, or vice versa, a point arises that hasn’t ever been explicitly discussed and seems to have been substantially overlooked by many utilitarians—·i.e. seems not to have had even a subliminal influence on their thinking·. Utilitarianism prescribes as the ultimate end of action, happiness on the whole, not any individual’s happiness except considered as a part of the whole.

It follows that if the additional population enjoy on the whole positive happiness, we ought to weigh the amount of happiness gained by the extra number against the amount lost by the remainder. So that the point up to which population ought to be encouraged to increase is not that at which average happiness is the greatest possible, as is often assumed by political economists of the school of Malthus, but that at which the product formed by multiplying the number of persons living by the amount of average happiness reaches its maximum.

The founding principle of utilitarianism as outlined by Jeremy Bentham is the greatest-happiness principle, which is the assertion that all ethics must be grounded in the imperative to create the most happiness and the least suffering for all sentient beings. Abundance of sentient life, either laterally or vertically (through time) is not valuable unless it serves that pursuit. Happiness is not a master to be served, but an emergent goal that comes with the existence of each new person, and the priority must always be on those who are extant as happy and free from suffering as possible. William Shaw puts it concisely: "Utilitarianism values the happiness of people, not the production of units of happiness".

It's not really compatible with Endwalker's value system.

[WellGramarye]

Perhaps adding fuel to the fire, but I wanted to point out a few things.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/special/tales_from_the_shadows/sidestory_07/#sidestory_07

The island had one village upon it, and a wealth of fertile farmland─all of which would soon be lost. But that was simply the way of the world. As in many such cases, our role was merely to acknowledge the fact. The islanders would do the same, and those who deemed it prudent had likely already begun to move elsewhere. While it was true that the Convocation intended to discuss the matter, the conclusion would be no less inevitable.

This was soon after Zodiark became the will of the star, and our Final Days were averted. The people were divided, unable to decide what to do with the future that now stretched out before them. Many wished to trade the new life which had sprung forth to reclaim those lost in sacrifice to Zodiark. No small number, however, insisted that the fate of our world should be entrusted to those selfsame freshly minted souls. All were at our wits' end.

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/69959

MEMNON
Ah, a newly arrived familiar, is she? Very well, I should be glad to introduce our fair facility to her.
As you know, it is mankind's duty to make the star a better place. As part of this duty, we employ creation magicks to bring forth new life.
However, we cannot simply release our works into the world, for it would lead to chaos.
No, any and all life-forms must undergo extensive testing to determine their fitness to exist. Testing which is conducted here in Elpis.
Every candidate is subjected to rigorous study, in which we identify their properties, surmise what habitats might be suitable, and speculate as to the effects they may have on the environment and other species.
Should it be judged a beneficial addition to the star, it will be allowed to take its place in the world.
The two of you, too, were created with the hope of making the star a better place. So heed your masters well and be good, do you hear?

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/69960

HERMES
This here is a new species of petalouda we recently set loose.
It has been doing very well, managing to maintain a stable existence thus far. If it can see its observation period to the end without issue, we shall release it unto the world.
Tell me─do you know the difference between living beings and arcane entities?
It is the presence of a soul. Yet the soul isn't something you can choose to have at will.
No, it manifests only in those beings whose forms adhere to the laws of creation. That can endure on their own.
Beings that do not fulfill this requirement, such as those spontaneously born of magic or natural phenomena, do not have souls.
No matter how much it might resemble flora or fauna, if it lacks a soul, then it is considered an arcane entity.
So you see, it is not for mankind to decide what is living. That domain lies beyond our manipulation, and it is hubris to assume otherwise.
But come, let us head to the nearby beacon. I've received a report that arcane entities have gathered there.

Purpose of the Convocation:
https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/69961

EMETSELCH
Hmmm... If you would accompany us, I suppose you should at least know that much.
The Convocation of Fourteen is a governing body that determines myriad policies. Our goal is to ensure that all is right in creation, that our star may know a brighter future.
As the name suggests, the council is comprised of fourteen offices, each of which is held by an individual chosen for their surpassing abilities.
Depending on the office, one is required to either be an authority in a certain field, or possess skills that would facilitate the performance of their stipulated duties.
The former category includes Mitron, specialist in aquatic life; Loghrif, specialist in terrestrial life and husbandry...
Halmarut, specialist in fungal and plant life; Emmerololth, specialist in medicine and healing...
And Lahabrea, specialist in creation magicks, who has brought forth phantom beings of the highest complexity.
As for the latter category, there is Altima, advocate of the arts; Igeyorhm, champion of enlightenment and rhetoric; Pashtarot, preserver of discipline and order...
Emet-Selch, keeper of the aetherial realm─or “Underworld” in the vernacular; Fandaniel, pursuer of extant phenomena...
And Azem, traveler of the world and counselor to the people.

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/69962

DOROS
(-Doros-)Come now, Chief, let's not be so melodramatic! What was born of aether is simply being reduced to its original state.
(-Doros-)I know the distinctions concern you, but we mustn't lose sight of the bigger picture─making rational choices for the sake of a more prosperous star.
(-Doros-)If a creation cannot be properly studied even with the aid of Kairos, we remake it. If a creation is deemed a detrimental existence, we unmake it. 'Tis all for the greater good, and none question the necessity of such routine processes.

METEION
To man, other beings are just things. To be used and controlled. Like magic.
That's what Hermes told me once...

https://garlandtools.org/db/#quest/69129

AMAUROTPEOPLED03593
I see you found my friend! Thank you, little one. Then without further ado, let us commence the promised debate!
As to the matter of what subject we shall debate today, I propose the recent calamity which has befallen our friends across the pond. What say you?
The singular point of contention is, of course, whether or not Amaurot should intervene on their behalf.
I believe we should. The scale of the disaster which threatens that distant metropolis is of a scale heretofore unseen, and so equally considerable resources must be committed to counteracting its effects.
AMAUROTPEOPLEE03593
I disagree. The scale concerns me less than the nature of the proposition itself. Who are we to unilaterally intervene in the affairs of those half a world away? Are we to be the saviors of one and all? Such arrogance may well lead to our own downfall.
AMAUROTPEOPLED03593
Hm. While I understand your concerns from a philosophical standpoint, I fear you are too quick to dismiss practical considerations out of a desire to maintain an unassailable moral authority.
But let us you and I hold here for the present and offer the floor to our young student. You have heard our opening salvos in this debate concerning the fate of our neighbors across the sea. What is your opinion on the matter?

AMAUROTPEOPLED03593
Indeed, indeed. The same can be said regardless of one's opinion on the morality of intervention. There is a clear and undeniable benefit to Amaurot in using this situation as a test bed for our newest creations, that we might develop and refine our defenses against a potential threat to our own fair city.
AMAUROTPEOPLEE03593
How readily you cede the moral high ground! Was not our young friend's point that we have an ethical obligation to aid those in need? Yet not only do you instead elect to focus on the benefit to Amaurot alone, but you also deprive our distant neighbors of the agency to determine their own fate!
AMAUROTPEOPLED03593
You misunderstand me. What benefits Amaurot benefits all creation, I firmly believe, for the knowledge and wisdom we stand to gain from intervention can then be shared with others, empowering everyone to more effectively surmount similar trials in the future...
AMAUROTPEOPLEE03593
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings, the unvarnished truth and purest wisdom! One must first look to one's own welfare before that of others, and the same must be said of our distant neighbors. To save them would be to deprive them of the agency to determine their own fate!
AMAUROTPEOPLED03593
If self-interest is to take precedence, then consider the lost benefit to Amaurot. There is clear and undeniable value in using this situation as a test bed for our newest creations, that we might develop and refine our defenses against a potential threat to our own fair city.
AMAUROTPEOPLEE03593
A plea to practicality, I see─and one which you doubtless believe I have given you ample cause to invoke. But you misrepresent my arguments as enlightened self-interest, when in truth it is a rather more nuanced position...

[Rulakir]

Perhaps adding fuel to the fire, but I wanted to point out a few things.

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../#sidestory_07

Likewise, I will point out that the EN version of the story is the only one that mentions souls. This is the problem with dissecting lore when localizers add or omit things from the original text. As I recall, this was the only 'evidence' the new life had souls. It would seem that even the mighty Zodiark was incapable of creating them.

[Alleo]

Likewise, I will point out that the EN version of the story is the only one that mentions souls. This is the problem with dissecting lore when localizers add or omit things from the original text. As I recall, this was the only 'evidence' the new life had souls. It would seem that even the mighty Zodiark was incapable of creating them.

Yes in the short story in german there is no mention of souls but Hermes still tells us in the quests that they subdivide beings between living beings and magical beings. Living beings have souls that the body gets if its fitting for a soul while magcial beings are soulless. Nature itselfs seemingly creates these souls, while Ancients cant.

It makes imo perfectly sense that a lot of these new lifes would have souls since we know that a lot of the beings the ancients created still exist on our planet today. This could only happen if they got reborn since most of the world was destroyed by the final days.

Its also a bit funny that in the english version of the short story Emet talks about the islanders while in german he calls them "mortals that will hide in primitive shelters".
So should we now believe the english version or is the german the right one and gives us the first hint that not every person was a Ancient with creation power?

Honestly for me the mortal part even makes sense since if every single person on the planet had creation power why was Azem even needed? Why would first Venat and then our Azem travel around the world to help, sometimes even needing someone like Emet as support? Why would the people of the island not simply use their aether to solve the problem itself?

Maybe Amaurot really was just the place with the strongest ancients and a lot of other people living on the planet where much weaker. (Which would make it even more horrifiying that they somehow created so many huge dangerous beasts on Elpis..)

(Just a bit of a rambling at the end)

[Lurina]

Honestly for me the mortal part even makes sense since if every single person on the planet had creation power why was Azem even needed? Why would first Venat and then our Azem travel around the world to help, sometimes even needing someone like Emet as support? Why would the people of the island not simply use their aether to solve the problem itself?

Maybe Amaurot really was just the place with the strongest ancients and a lot of other people living on the planet where much weaker. (Which would make it even more horrifiying that they somehow created so many huge dangerous beasts on Elpis..)

In the Tempest, they talk several times about the Final Days phenomenon with creation magic gone awry affecting other, unrelated civilizations, so it's pretty clear that it wasn't something exclusive to Amaurot.

Anyway, if you do all of the random side-quests in Elpis, it becomes pretty clear that just having creation magic doesn't make you powerful in terms of combat. A few of the researchers openly say they're conscripting you to go murder stuff because they're afraid they'd get hurt if they tried themselves.

There's also that line about the Amaurotines having "tamed the wilderness", which seems to imply there's something dangerous out there which they didn't create themselves. Presumably, if the Unsundered World evolved humans with incredibly strong magic powers, there could also have been some incredibly powerful natural monsters causing problems. We know they at least had unwanted fauna because of the Cubus.

[Cilia]

Just gonna hop back on the stage for a quick sec...

Likewise, I will point out that the EN version of the story is the only one that mentions souls. This is the problem with dissecting lore when localizers add or omit things from the original text. As I recall, this was the only 'evidence' the new life had souls. It would seem that even the mighty Zodiark was incapable of creating them.

Now you're just being obtuse.

By the Ancients' own nomenclature, in order for something to qualify as "alive" it must necessarily have a soul. Further, while it's stated that it's impossible to forcefully manifest a soul, that doesn't mean it's impossible to create things with souls; they just have to coincide with the laws of nature, something the Ancients seemingly have figured out and quantified. Considering there are creatures similar if not identical to ones on Elpis still extant on modern Etheirys, you'd have a hard time arguing they weren't capable of making living things. Heck, even the Allagans were capable of making living things - the Ixal are descendants of their Iksalion, after all, and demonstrably have souls.

The question then becomes whether Zodiark created these new lives or they came into existence naturally (and there's zero evidence for the former), but ultimately that's irrelevant; the point is the future should belong to those living in the here and now, not ghosts of the past.