Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Cilia]

The only point that's really being made through these examples is that all things come to an end, no matter how 'well designed' they are. Which is not a controversial point at all. It just seems strange to me to try to argue that the Amaurotines are somehow the exception to this rule, where all these other more advanced civilizations have failed. It's not an indictment. And if our emotions - things like anger, fear, sorrow, and despair - are a part of us, then perhaps the solution is not to redesign the environment such that we never have to experience them. Perhaps the solution is to change ourselves, and learn to live with and adapt to them. It's almost like some defense mechanisms are just better choices than others. Again, not a radically controversial idea.

The second half is generally what I've been trying to say, though to go further it's better to strive for true happiness than accept hollow pleasure.

That said the fall of the Plenty is documented in the two readable objects in their segment of the Dead Ends, outright stating that they lived in blissful ignorance until Meteion arrived and posed her question. Unable to come up with an answer, they concluded they had no reason to live and thus started offing themselves.

P.S. I don't like these verbose "arguments by essay." I used to do the same and got nowhere with it, so if you can't be succinct I'm just going to skim through it. No offense intended. (Psssh... nothin personnel... kid...)

[Lurina]

Sorry about that.

Breaking bad is a very character driven show, yet at its core it holds there to be a universal constant. To quote Vince Gilligan:

This aspect of Breaking Bad is interesting, because it's a very different sort of argument to the ones we've been talking about so far. Endwalker's arguments are mostly asserting things about reality (suffering is inescapable, life is worthwhile despite suffering, ennui leads inevitably to loss of luster of life etc) while Breaking Bad is self-admittedly aspirational; it's not using what it depicts to argue what the world is, but more how the creator feels it ought to be. In a way it has a lot in common with heroic fantasy, albeit played in a much more high brow fashion.

I think probably most stories depict a mix of what we're supposed to understand as true and what we're supposed to understand as aspirational. FFXIV is obviously no exception to that, but I don't think it applies to the depiction of ennui and paradise.

...Though maybe the line there is fuzzier than I think, in some ways? I suppose you could say that the Plenty is a depiction of what the writers hope is true more than what they know to be true, even if it's definitely muddied up with the lesson of the story. After all, it would be bad for us to think of an existence of eternal pleasure as which would be wonderful when obviously we will almost certainly never experience it in our lifetimes, barring some sort of singularity-mind uploading scenario.

It's pure speculation, but I think a lot of Endwalker might actually be the writers working backwards from that sort of thinking. We have no choice but to accept our mundane, everyday suffering, so it's useful for us to conceptualize the hypothetical alternative as bad in its own, or else we have no choice but to carry the purposeless regret of being born into the wrong circumstances.

Now I’m going to be honest, I think you are completely utterly wrong in stating that only a few works breaks the rule. Nier pre-supposes that a life is without inherent meaning, and that without meaning or purpose life is inherently negative or painful. At no point does it justify this, it simply shows the reaction to it and the attempt to grapple with it. Persona 5 presupposes that people granted their every desire would wish for increasingly selfish things, and as a collective desire wish to be ruled. Novels like Crime and Punishment presuppose much about the nature of the world, what constitutes good, what traits humanity as a whole embodies, etc. Without these the premises for these stories would fall apart. That is where I believe your mistake is. The kinds of inferences Endwalker is criticized for are accepted in other media, baked into the very fabric of the stories themselves and yet no one questions them, until they feel so strongly about those assumptions that they can’t accept the premise.

Well, I've already talked about how Nier has many of the same problems too, but I'll hold my ground on saying that Persona 5 isn't absolutist in the same sense. Like I said in my quick post earlier, it generalizes but doesn't universalize; it focuses on individuals, and it's a fact that the human race writ large has psychological vulnerabilities to authoritarianism. But obviously exceptions are depicted, namely in, well, the protagonists.

I feel like I must've fumbled at some point, and given the impression that I think it's bad to use trends as premises, when that's not really what I mean. What I mean is that it's disingenuous to present an argument with a premise that treats a trend as absolute. A story that presents murder as broadly harmful is obviously reasonable; a story that pre-supposes (not asserts, pre-supposes) that any instance, no matter how extreme the circumstance, of a human killing another human is undeniably evil on an indisputable metaphysical level is bonkers.

I guess an obvious counter to this is that Endwalker hasn't actually meant to do that, and has just come across that way to a lot of people through trying to fit too many concepts into its script. It already walked a bit with the Omega quest, and it's possible I'll look like a doofus in a few days when the Omicron stuff comes out. We'll see.

I don't really follow what your collective expectations for the writers are and what you believe that they are and aren't allowed to write about.

I really wish you would not vaguepost like this. Since I'm the only one who's been talking about the Plenty, it seems like it must be my argument that you're calling silly, and the bulk of your post isn't that unreasonable in that context. But then at the end, you're suddenly levelling weird accusations about the aforementioned objections being disingenuous and not actually 'thematic' (none of what I've argued in this part of the conversation has even been about the themes) and once again throwing out accusations about this really just being pro-Amaurot bias (for posterity, I do not think Amaurotine society is perfect; it has several visible problems).

Again, quit pretending the people who disagree with you are a hivemind. Say what you mean to who you mean to.

P.S. I don't like these verbose "arguments by essay." I used to do the same and got nowhere with it, so if you can't be succinct I'm just going to skim through it. No offense intended. (Psssh... nothin personnel... kid...)

Personally, I like arguing by essay! Being inspecific means you can never really learn anything meaningful from disagreements. You just kinda trade vibes until you're sick of it.

It's fine if you don't, but I hope you can understand why it might be a little annoying to see someone drop in to criticize your argument while not reading what it even is.

[EaraGrace]

This aspect of Breaking Bad is interesting, because it's a very different sort of argument to the ones we've been talking about so far. Endwalker's arguments are mostly asserting things about reality (suffering is inescapable, life is worthwhile despite suffering, ennui leads inevitably to loss of luster of life etc) while Breaking Bad is self-admittedly aspirational; it's not using what it depicts to argue what the world is, but more how the creator feels it ought to be. In a way it has a lot in common with heroic fantasy, albeit played in a much more high brow fashion.

But even if it’s aspirational it’s still ultimately advocating for a universal rule. Maybe not the same as depicting reality as it is, but still deserving critique no?

Well, I've already talked about how Nier has many of the same problems too, but I'll hold my ground on saying that Persona 5 isn't absolutist in the same sense. Like I said in my quick post earlier, it generalizes but doesn't universalize; it focuses on individuals, and it's a fact that the human race writ large has psychological vulnerabilities to authoritarianism. But obviously exceptions are depicted, namely in, well, the protagonists.

But Persona kind of invalidates it’s own message and creates a contradiction if that’s all the game is arguing against.

(Spoilers for Persona 5 Royal)

When the gang confronts Maruki and discovers the truth about Sumire and Kasumi, Sumire chooses to believe the lie and go back to living without the memory of what happened to her sister. Rather than accept her choice, the Akechi and the protagonist insist it’s wrong, not because it would violate her ability to choose but because the choice she made is “wrong.” Now obviously I personally fall onto the side of agreeing with that, but when one considers how our argument against the antagonists rests on resistance to authoritarianism, I think it only right to call out the hypocrisy. After all why would it be bad if Sumire choose not to face her grief? Many people don’t overcome grief and sorrow and are broken by it, a point that is often argued when it comes to Venats decisions. Marukis reality brought back dead characters, undid horrific trauma, and saved people from permanently more difficult lives. Many desired to be spared their suffering, and Maruki/Yaldabaoth answered them.

So what right do the Phantom Thieves have in coming in a overriding the will of those who wish to be ruled? The Holy Grails heal is called the “Will of the People” for a reason. That’s kind of why I think the game is asserting more, it’s the only way to reconcile the contradiction. Especially when it depicts every major character all finding their pain beneficial, and the reason they’ve grown.

[Lurina]

But even if it’s aspirational it’s still ultimately advocating for a universal rule. Maybe not the same as depicting reality as it is, but still deserving critique no?

Again, advocating for something is fine. What I have a problem with is an argument on a false premise. Universalism isn't bad unto itself, it's bad in that specific context because it leads to that happening.

So imagine I serve you a glass of milk, and you observe the color seems a little off and question if it's spoiled. I point out that the use-by date isn't for a week, so statistically it's probably fine, but you're not convinced. I give you one of a few potential arguments for why you should drink it.

1) The milk isn't spoiled because it smells normal, and rotten milk always stinks.
2) The milk isn't spoiled because I drink milk that color all the time, and it's always fine.
3) The milk might be spoiled, but it's fine because all milk is delicious in its own way, even if it's rotten.
4) I think it would be wonderful if we lived in a world where milk didn't spoil.
5) The milk isn't spoiled because milk never spoils before the use-by date.

All of these arguments have an element of universalism (declaring something as universally true at some point) and some are quite dumb, but only 5 is dishonest.

1 is an argument with true premises and a logical universalist thesis. It's fine because the universality is objectively true; rotten milk does, without exception, always stink. (Don't @ me if that's not true; it's just an illustration.)

2 is an argument with true premises and a pseudo-logical, anecdotal universalist thesis. Regardless, it's fine because the universality is confined to the thesis.

3 is an argument with true premises and opinion-based universalist thesis. Again, it's fine because the universality is confined to the thesis.

4 is not an argument at all, but just an aspirational universalist thesis. It's fine because... Well, you get the idea.

5 is an argument with untrue premises and a universalist thesis. It's not fine because the universality is neither objectively true nor confined to the thesis.

See what I mean?

So what right do the Phantom Thieves have in coming in a overriding the will of those who wish to be ruled? The Holy Grails heal is called the “Will of the People” for a reason. That’s kind of why I think the game is asserting more, it’s the only way to reconcile the contradiction.

You actually made this argument really well - you did a great job illustrating how a work can present a complicated situation while still confidently and unambiguously arguing for what it believes to be true and valuable, and how it isn't hypocrisy to do so. I absolutely agree with you that Persona 5 tacking this tack made it a more compelling game.

...but, uh, I kinda feel like you're playing into my hands in this case. This is milk argument 3 - an opinion-based universalist thesis. I don't think it's wrong for a story to strongly believe something to be true so long as it doesn't universalize or otherwise tell lies in presenting the context around that belief. If the game had had found some way to all but look me in the face and tell me "everyone will be, objectively, happier in the long term as a result of beating these guys" it would have made the message about why they should be beaten so much weaker. An unambiguously asserted thesis burns brighter amidst a setting that feels messy, complicated, and genuine in a manner that reflects reality.

Parts of Endwalker are like this, just not all of it.

[EaraGrace]

Again, advocating for something is fine. What I have a problem with is an argument on a false premise. Universalism isn't bad unto itself, it's bad in that specific context because it leads to that happening.

Let me rephrase the issue I’m raising with Persona 5. Persona 5 advocates for rebelling, of asserting one’s autonomy in resistance to the status quo. That’s it’s moral, it’s theme. But that is just as much a false premise as any other! Sometimes it’s not good to rebel, and in fact sometimes it’s objectively evil to do so. But the game really grapple with that for reasons I’ll get into.

You actually made this argument really well - you did a great job illustrating how a work can present a complicated situation while still confidently and unambiguously arguing for what it believes to be true and valuable, and how it isn't hypocrisy to do so. I absolutely agree with you that Persona 5 tacking this tack made it a more compelling game.

But it is hypocrisy to do so. Persona 5 absolutely is hypocritical when it comes to themes and ideas.

And this is actually what makes me appreciate Endwalker. Endwalker looks at a similar dilemma with the Ancients, and commits. It outright says that this will cause pain and hardship in order to force humanity to grapple with the question of life and death, and it goes for it. Even with the newfound justifications for it in Endwalker, the act is still morally questionable and stated as such by the game itself. Persona doesn’t actually do this, it instead asserts its universal good, creates scenarios where it says it has problems, and then eliminates those problems leaving only the good. Thats everything people dislike Emdwalker for.

...but, uh, I kinda feel like you're playing into my hands in this case. This is milk argument 3 - an opinion-based universalist thesis. I don't think it's wrong for a story to strongly believe something to be true so long as it doesn't universalize or otherwise tell lies in presenting the context around that belief. If the game had had found some way to all but look me in the face and tell me "everyone will be, objectively, happier in the long term as a result of beating these guys" it would have made the message about why they should be beaten so much weaker. An unambiguously asserted thesis burns brighter amidst a setting that feels messy, complicated, and genuine in a manner that reflects reality.

But Royal does just that! It presupposes that rebellion is beneficial, and then writes its own universe to justify that in the way that Endwalker is criticized for. It doesn’t introduce moral questions to add ambiguity or point out the problems with its own thesis. It speeds right past them, with the protagonists being saved by morally lucky occurrences that just happen to paint over their actions. The solution to Marukis offer? Not the world rejecting his offer, or the gang deciding that even if they can’t be objectively right they’ll stay true to their principles, but the world itself introducing a contradiction that made it objectively correct to fight with a dash of “this world is fake and thus bad.” The reason for fighting rests on the belief that the reality Maruki created is “wrong.”

You can obviously see the problem I’m gonna raise here right?

The solution to Sumires choice? Not grappling with what is right, but having her immediately turn around and somehow gather the strength for a choice she flat out stated she couldn’t moments before while insisting it’s wrong to “run”. The problem of the peoples will? Just have Yaldabaoth start randomly killing people and then have everyone get so scared they rediscover their Phantom Thieves love. How is it an opinion based thesis when the will of rebellion is held as objectively good and justified again and again by the very fabric of the world in Persona? I’m especially skeptical of this when Lavenza describes what happened as a

false deity that the masses deludedly clung to.

I can’t buy into it.

And Royals “bad” ending kind of contradicts the “everyone will be happier” justification too. The true ending is objectively more bittersweet, and leaves more lingering pain than the bad one. Shion will forever grapple with the sexual abuse she experienced, Sumire forever remembers her trauma, Futabas mom is dead, Ryuji never runs again, Makoto remains fatherless, etc. etc. They aren’t happier at all.

Edit: Ok so after chewing on it a bit I think I got lost in the weeds (which I myself grew xD). To try to connect to my overall point here, my issue is when I look at games like Persona, I see similar leaps and assumptions built into the premise. Assertions like “in their subconscious, mankind desires to be ruled” or “those with strong wills do so because their desires are distorted” are built into the world of Persona itself, and are core to the overall story and themes. Without them, the whole thing starts to become unstable and the game doesn't really explain the why. Yet can I say they are any different in nature to assertions like “a world without suffering would inevitably devolve to ennui” or “to live is to suffer?”

That’s what I’m hung up on I think, and I know we’ve already gone back and forth on it but I just don’t think I’m understanding how you’re distinguishing them.

[SentioftheHoukai]

More than one person has said a complete Rejoining would be morally correct, on the grounds that by achieving this state the amount of death due to disease and old age would virtually disappear. I disagree and would point out that ignores the step where everyone still alive on the Source is used as a blood sacrifice.

The idea that without novel experiences all people would succumb to ennui can be neither proven nor disproven, since people are not immortal and every day offers new experiences. That said a significant amount of media proposes that people will succumb to ennui, even such things as SpongeBob Squarepants. Secondarily, the problem with that sort of existence isn't the endless pleasure itself, but that the lack of hardship leaves nothing to strive for, meaning existence in such a world is ultimately hollow - this idea is explored in Persona 5: Royal and in a kind of inverted way in the 1998 film Pleasantville.

The ideas presented in Endwalker are nothing new. I just figured the story expected us to understand them already.

Okay, you proved me wrong. Yay! ..... but so what?

Multiple people have repeatedly stated that the Sundering was this great and/or inevitable thing while simultaneously denouncing the Rejoinings as mass murder and genocide. Then they go on to defend the Sundering by saying it's just "dividing the Ancients' souls" somehow not realizing this same logical coda backwards describes the Rejoinings to a tee. The real moral issue here is the "rules for me, but not for thee" philosophy that both the MSQ devs and most of this game's fandom seems to have, and frankly I personally find it all rather revolting.

I don't really follow what your collective expectations for the writers are and what you believe that they are and aren't allowed to write about.

The circumstances around why the civilization of the Plenty ended are open to interpretation. Was it the ennui of the lives that they created for themselves? Was it the fact that eliminating interpersonal conflict comes at the cost of individuality and diversity? That the first external entity (Meteion) that their civilization encountered raised an existential crisis that their singular hivemind couldn't handle? Either way, the exact mechanism is left to you, the player, to interpret.

'Though worlds apart, these peoples shared a belief. The belief that they had tried their best. That they had tried to achieve their potential, with every step and success. In the course of which they learned the truth. That they would never be free of anger and sorrow, of fear and despair - as long as they yet lived.'

The only point that's really being made through these examples is that all things come to an end, no matter how 'well designed' they are. Which is not a controversial point at all. It just seems strange to me to try to argue that the Amaurotines are somehow the exception to this rule, where all these other more advanced civilizations have failed. It's not an indictment. And if our emotions - things like anger, fear, sorrow, and despair - are a part of us, then perhaps the solution is not to redesign the environment such that we never have to experience them. Perhaps the solution is to change ourselves, and learn to live with and adapt to them. It's almost like some defense mechanisms are just better choices than others. Again, not a radically controversial idea.

I don't think any of these objections that we're seeing are actually 'thematic', though. There'd be an equally loud outcry to anything suggesting that the Amaurotine society wasn't as 'perfect' as they pretended that it was.

Except, it WAS an indictment. It's the primary basis on which the Ancients are narratively condemned, rather flimsily I might add. The Ancients similarity to the Plenty, regardless of "player interpretation" is nearly entirely superficial. Besides this, the first two Dead Ends seemed perfectly plausible as possible ends to the Sundered, if you ask me. Hells, multiple civilizations have ALREADY ended these ways. Nym, Sil'dih? Plague. Dead End #1. Mhach, Amdapor? Warfare and inter/intrapersonal strife. Dead End #2.

Way I see it, the only thing separating the Sundered races is that they've not collapsed under their own weight as a species YET. However, they were also given a fair shake. One their still giving a go. The Ancients, by contrast were NOT afforded this fair chance. 'Tis what happens when you prop up the Sundered narratively as those who can do (nearly) no wrong, whilst simultaneously condemning those who came before for flaws the Sundered share.

Honestly, though? Square Enix has proven to me that moral nuance is beyond their storytelling ability at this point. Like so many others in this modern age, all they seem to be capable of are preaching THEIR PERSONAL IDEALS AND MORALS at me and I'm not really keen to be proselytized at by hypocrites and those who write massively hypocritical main characters.

[Lyth]

Our present society could easily meet any of those ends, as history has shown. But you can't really frame the Amaurotines as a different 'species' when we're simply their direct descendants. Cultures are never static, even when we can't perceive the changes as they're happening. Current day Japan would look unrecognizable to someone from the 1200s. Imagine what a difference twelve thousand years makes!

This was essentially the point discussed between Sir and G'raha. The Omicrons transformed themselves through augmentation until they were completely unrecognizable versions of their former, biological selves. But we do that too, through our experiences. You aren't the same person that you were yesterday, even if the differences seem imperceptible at first. Individual nations like Amaurot, Amdapor, Nym, and Mhach may fall and rise up in new forms, but yet Etheirys keeps on turning. We're more than capable of falling prey to our own pride and avarice, which is why we need to learn from society's past mistakes. Acknowledging that we can go down that exact same path ourselves is the very first step.

I will say that for all of Amaurot's problems, I do like FFXIV's take on the traditional creation myth. Even if our 'gods' have now left, there's still an element of the divine in all of us.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Our present society could easily meet any of those ends, as history has shown. But you can't really frame the Amaurotines as a different 'species' when we're simply their direct descendants. Cultures are never static, even when we can't perceive the changes as they're happening. Current day Japan would look unrecognizable to someone from the 1200s. Imagine what a difference twelve thousand years makes!

This was essentially the point discussed between Sir and G'raha. The Omicrons transformed themselves through augmentation until they were completely unrecognizable versions of their former, biological selves. But we do that too, through our experiences. You aren't the same person that you were yesterday, even if the differences seem imperceptible at first. Individual nations like Amaurot, Amdapor, Nym, and Mhach may fall and rise up in new forms, but yet Etheirys keeps on turning. We're more than capable of falling prey to our own pride and avarice, which is why we need to learn from society's past mistakes. Acknowledging that we can go down that exact same path ourselves is the very first step.

I will say that for all of Amaurot's problems, I do like FFXIV's take on the traditional creation myth. Even if our 'gods' have now left, there's still an element of the divine in all of us.

As I said, the game's own narrative doesn't support this. If it did, the Ancients wouldn't be incapable, defanged gelded caricatures and the Sundering wouldn't be necessary. The issue lies in the differences in how each civilization is portrayed. The Scions and the Sundered are the only ones allowed to not just "Forge Ahead" and stop grasping for the past, as our current efforts to rescue Vrtra's sister Azdaja prove. If Endwalker was consistent, I'd fully expect to be able to tell the poor sadge dragon to stuff it. His sister is in the distant past, and he ought to let her go like the Ancients had to.

[EaraGrace]

As I said, the game's own narrative doesn't support this. If it did, the Ancients wouldn't be incapable, defanged gelded caricatures and the Sundering wouldn't be necessary. The issue lies in the differences in how each civilization is portrayed. The Scions and the Sundered are the only ones allowed to not just "Forge Ahead" and stop grasping for the past, as our current efforts to rescue Vrtra's sister Azdaja prove. If Endwalker was consistent, I'd fully expect to be able to tell the poor sadge dragon to stuff it. His sister is in the distant past, and he ought to let her go like the Ancients had to.

So Vrtra being convinced to at least look for his sister whose possibly still alive after living happily for centuries with his newfound family, is the same as sacrificing half a planets worth of people because you’ve never faced death before? Really? You don’t see any nuances that distinguish these cases?

[ReynTime]

For the first time I'm also gonna disagree with Houkai here.

Like the previous post says. Vrtra's sister might be alive. He also took extra care not to endanger anyone not directly involved in the quest.

Furthermore Endwalker's MSQ ended in 6.0. They shouldn't hang so tightly at the same message anymore. This is a MMO. It's been 8 years of trying to write a story based around the same theme. It's time to turn the page because it would be exponentially difficult to come up with more ideas while imposing that kind of thematic limitation.