Tales from the Dawn

[Vyrerus]

As we know from the way XIV's metaphysics work, souls are a gift from the planet to creatures born in accordance with its natural law. It doesn't matter what form that life takes, and all souls are the same structurally. Souls are given to living things, live their lives as a given incarnation, and then return to the planet to be either reborn or broken down and melded with other aether to create new souls.]

Indeed, they are. However, there's the small matter of age and seniority. Is it not the prerogative of those who come first to do with life as they wish? There's no way to know just how old the oldest souls on Etheirys are. At least for those of us not possessing soul sight. If the souls were new, then they didn't know multiple lives as beast or man. Of course, it's fair to wonder how that might affect Zodiark's demeanor, unless he was never intended to give up Elidibus as his heart.

It seems to me that the Ancients respected the planet's natural law as much as possible, but in this instance of crisis they decided to exert their will over it. It appears bad from one point of view, but it's really not anymore of a perversion than Venat choosing not to die. In spite of Hyth saying that the ancients were mortal, it seems to me that with just a little initiative, they could functionally live forever. Generally by consuming others, body and/or soul.

Anyway, what seems to be conveniently forgotten is that the reason they wished to return the world to "paradise" was that their society had progressed beyond War, Famine, Disease, and even bereavement. It was the wish to deny all of the close calls and possible Armageddon of the past, before their peaceful society dominated the planet. I.E. Other Dead Ends. The fear that new life wouldn't be peaceful / do right.

Keep in mind that Hermes' sadness came from the fact that he didn't want to respect natural law as he didn't think his mentor should die. Even after an extremely long, fulfilling life. Even by choice. Then we view the fact that while sticklers disdained Venat's decision to not die, many others were all the more happy to continue suckling at her teat. It seems to me they were just like anyone else.

Live and let live, until push comes to shove, and it becomes, "You or me." "Them or us."

[Theodric]

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

It's a video game at the end of the day. He certainly isn't obligated to go along with the very selective takes deployed by some here. I believe he has stated many times that he is happy to agree to disagree only for certain posters to refuse to accept that and still try to force others to agree with their very specific interpretation of Venat.

Different people also have different preferences when it comes to the fictional characters in a make believe setting. Not everyone here is going to champion the 'mOmMy GoDdEsS' at every possible turn to the point of excusing genocide of all things. Certainly, if some of you wish to do just that then go ahead - just please don't expect or demand that everybody else does the very same thing.

[Lauront]

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

It's amusing that you'd bring that up. I could of course point to comments made by a certain poster here about some of us as to why I don't really take their protestations about bad faith argumentation all too seriously, but frankly, it's hardly worth it.

Big difference between killing for nourishment and killing for necromancy.

Both put the life form to a purely instrumental use. And it's not the sole example that could be offered here, but it is a rather big one if you're going to argue there is nothing special about some life forms over others because of assumptions about how souls work in the setting. Like, why would it be okay to murder an animal but not a human in the setting? After all, there is nothing special about one over the other. So-called necromancy is but an instance of an instrumental use - perhaps an 'extreme' depending on what it'd involve (albeit the extremity of it is coupled with the equally extreme circumstances the ancients found themselves in) - but that alone won't suffice to contain this problem once you grant the premise (which ties into the problem Veloran set out...)

The fact all things can be talked to through the Echo (be it our own, or Krile's own more beast specific ability) at least implies all souls are the same at their core. Whether it's incarnated as a dog, a person, or a behemoth, a soul is a soul. Leaving out the Sundering (which obviously influences aetheric density) Ancients' souls, or the souls of sentient / sapient things, are special because... why, exactly?

Seems like quite the leap to argue from the fact that they share structural similarities to the fact that the star will stick any soul into any being, i.e. it would put an ancient soul into the form of a dog, or a behemoth and the like, especially when their creations are more susceptible to the effects of dynamis from the outset, whether it be because their corporeal or soul aether (or both) is thinner; aether is closely tied to life and its vibrancy in this setting (a point repeated in the recent MSQ), even with the existence of dynamis as an energy that predominates in other regions of space. Equally a leap to argue from that, that the souls in question had the same potentialities. Vyrerus raises another interesting point about the soul age potentially being a(n) (additional) relevant differentiator, which is possibly the case as well - there is lore which supports the idea, including the fact that the souls to be used were "newly minted". Perhaps the post-Sundering star doesn't differentiate too much when it comes to the souls of sundered ancients as to what corporeal form it'll stick them into (and even then it is exceptional/rare that the WoL would be able to commune with such a being via the Echo) - we don't know, and yet you're trying to argue this from a position of certainty, when there is little.

Though we keep coming back to this point as if it's central to why Venat did what she did - when it's not. She isn't Hermes and she's not ending them because she objected to the act in question on the sole basis that it involved sacrifice of life. She is doing so because she considered it 'necessary' for survival against Meteion and for their civilisation not to reach a point where she believed it'd self-terminate, i.e. she's opposed to the consequences that she believed the sacrifices would result in. That's it. Even setting aside all the discussion about the nature of souls (and how many question marks remain there), if we're going to argue that presuming themselves as "special" is a conceit worthy of genocide, then the sundered are scarcely exempt from that much, especially seeing how they were willing to risk the erasure of an entire timeline to ensure their persistence even if in another timeline, or that they defend their right to stand against Emet-Selch on the basis of these being 'our worlds'. Nevermind what we could say it'd imply about our own species. Of course a species will prioritise its own well-being, and even do so at the expense of beings it is habituated in using instrumentally. If Venat ever happened upon any notion that all souls are the same, she never seems to have shared it with her people, much like she never shared the knowledge that could've avoided this whole unpleasant situation from the outset...

The idea that supposed "hubris" (or alternative formulations: that they lacked the "right" emotional states/responses when compared to humans etc.) warrants a comeuppance in the form of a genocide/erasure of a civilisation isn't convincing to me, no. Especially when we're meant to take it that the flaws of the sundered, such as they are, do not suffice as a good reason to deny them their asserted right to exist.

Keep in mind that Hermes' sadness came from the fact that he didn't want to respect natural law as he didn't think his mentor should die. Even after an extremely long, fulfilling life. Even by choice. Then we view the fact that while sticklers disdained Venat's decision to not die, many others were all the more happy to continue suckling at her teat. It seems to me they were just like anyone else.

Also a good point. The very notion of death appears to be at the core of what bothered him and against what he rebelled, as he could not grasp how the notion of purpose could with stand scrutiny against it. It's not like the lykaones were timid little sheep (quite the opposite), and we can guess/surmise that the star itself had in motion a "cycle of life" with predator and prey, a natural order which the ancients saw as their duty to enrich.

[YianKutku]

It's amusing that you'd bring that up. I could of course point to comments made by a certain poster here about some of us as to why I don't really take their protestations about bad faith argumentation all too seriously, but frankly, it's hardly worth it.

In your words:

/shrug

10c

[Theodric]

Feign indifference all you like though that just makes it all the stranger to even bring it up in the first place.

[Lauront]

In your words:

Been waiting a few months for that? Poor thing.

[TheSuperior]

I really wish people on this forum would actually talk directly to the people they disagree with instead of passive-aggressively vagueposting, and I wish you specifically would stop doing this kind of thing, Cleretic. Just because someone doesn't think a part of the story came together well doesn't mean they don't get it..

The problem is that the people who bark can't handle a bite. As SOON as you are openly critical, they will absolutely report you. So one has to be passive aggressive and indirect because apparently that's how they do things in Japan and that's what the rules are centered around. If I said, "People who like X minion have poor taste" that's fine. But if I said, "You, sir or madam who has this minion, has poor taste" that's an instant ban.

[SannaR]

@Yiankutku that is also how I've read how the Ancients to be when it comes to strong emotions. They don't deal with them. If they do they seem to deal with them in an unhealthy fashion. I have thought this ever since meeting Hermes. I feel that part of the reason they do such is because of the sociality pressures on everyone to be the same. To not stand out as standing out in the wrong ways could be seen as bad. As a way to show some form of individualism. The Ancients remind me of the governments in a Clockwork Orange or in how everyone acts towards individuality in the game We happy few. Where even the slightest deviation from what is perceived as what is normal or socially acceptable gets treated with a lot of contempt and in need of fixing. It's why at least what I think is why Lahabreha warns Elidibus not to spend too much time around or get too close to Azem. As our past self, Venat and probably all other Azems are the ones that allowed to be different to an extent. And that different-ness is what makes them so "corruptible" of others.

[Iscah]

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

[sidurgu-12]

(Note to all: if the following Tales are on less controversial aspects of Endwalker then can we please start a different thread for them instead of throwing them into this one?)

i hope so.