Tales from the Dawn

[Lyth]

The stories that we write and read are always about us, in some capacity.

Emotions and expectations are very much a part of our existence. You can't design society into a protective bubble that personally shields you from all the negative feelings and failed expectations in the universe. You have to roll with the punches. That's why approaches like anticipation are classified as 'mature' defense mechanisms, while ones like denial are classified as 'narcissistic' or 'immature' defense mechanisms.

Zodiark was never the solution to all of society's problems. You can't erase suffering, because human beings always have expectations. You can't erase conflict, because human beings always have their differences. Whether the Plenty's failure was a function of the fact that erasing conflict comes at the cost of diversity, or whether it was simply ennui over the lack of said conflict and diversity is entirely up to your interpretation. But it should be enough to know that it's not a workable solution. It was never about changing our surroundings and everyone else, but about changing ourselves to meet life's challenges. And if that thought upsets you, then I guess this story just wasn't written for you.

[TheSuperior]

The stories that we write and read are always about us, in some capacity.

No it's about a fantasy race in a fantasy game and the point of the thread is about a fantasy person madly in love with a fantasy woman.

[Lyth]

That's not explicitly stated, nor does it discredit the viewpoint of said character were it true.

[TheSuperior]

That's not explicitly stated, nor does it discredit the viewpoint of said character were it true.

What. Are. You. Talking. About. All your posts appear to fly off in incoherent directions, then go into random hyperbole and strawman takes without directly addressing the content you're replying to.

[EaraGrace]

You've misunderstood what I mean by fanatic. I mean an ideologue. Someone who will take extreme and violent actions not for a concrete material aim, but to impose their ideology for its own sake. My point is that this is a much more difficult position to sympathize with, and they've done nothing to deter this interpretation of his character.

I think that’s fine. It’s not meant to personally convince you of anything, just to offer characterization where there wasn’t and leave it to the reader to decide what they feel. I can understand being frustrated that it isn’t trying to do that, especially because I do understand and believe that many are interested in resolution in this topic, but I also can’t blame the writers for not focusing on it.

Anyway, I take your point about it not really being relevant to the short story, but I still don't really think it would have been hard to offhandedly clarify his motives if they weren't just ideological and he knew about the dynamis junk. Especially since they already devote a couple paragraphs to explaining the situation and the Hydaelyn faction's motive. For months people have been asserting that of course Venat told her followers everything, and we now have explicit confirmation that isn't true, it's hard to keep taking what seems like the more sensible reading of the story as a given.

I don’t think the information that was withheld was the info people were accusing her of being for hiding. The existence of the Loporrits, Amons killing of Zodiark and Emet recreating the Final Days aren’t the kinds of things people focused on. If someone wants to hold her to task for that then sure, by all means, but I don’t consider that enough to change my position that she let others in the know nor does that invalidate those who argued such in the past.

And if I may, it was also argued for months that Venat was solely dedicated to maintaining the timeline and believed our words on the future to be gospel truth. We now have another piece of evidence that’s not the case, that Venats thoughts and feelings run counter to that plan, yet few have brought that up. In the context of what Venat feels is best to tell others, doesn’t that consideration also deserve some discussion? After all if she is right that future events don’t need to happen, then wouldn’t sharing that information not close off other solutions?

[Lurina]

The stories that we write and read are always about us, in some capacity.

Emotions and expectations are very much a part of our existence. You can't design society into a protective bubble that personally shields you from all the negative feelings and failed expectations in the universe. You have to roll with the punches. That's why approaches like anticipation are classified as 'mature' defense mechanisms, while ones like denial are classified as 'narcissistic' or 'immature' defense mechanisms.

Zodiark was never the solution to all of society's problems. You can't erase suffering, because human beings always have expectations. You can't erase conflict, because human beings always have their differences. Whether the Plenty's failure was a function of the fact that erasing conflict comes at the cost of diversity, or whether it was simply ennui over the lack of said conflict and diversity is entirely up to your interpretation. But it should be enough to know that it's not a workable solution. It was never about changing our surroundings and everyone else, but about changing ourselves to meet life's challenges. And if that thought upsets you, then I guess this story just wasn't written for you.

Again, this is not what you were saying just a few days ago. Even if you're broadening the scope by suggesting that it's subjective what specific symptom did them in (and avoiding the third possibility you raised that destruction was caused entirely by Meteion, since that's completely outside-context and can't be brought under the umbrella of your current argument), you're still saying that there was a fundamental problem with the Plenty - that it tried to erase suffering by changing its surroundings instead of the people changing themselves, whatever such an abstract moral actually means in practice - which was meant to connect to Amaurot's situation and affirm the theme that this behavior leads to ruin.

But back then, you said:

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.

So which is it? Is the point of the Plenty to say that trying to eliminate suffering instead of accepting it leads to ruin? Or is it just that all things come to an end?

And to be clear, I agree with the majority of what Endwalker has to say at its core. In practice, trying to pursue the total eradication of strife in lieu of accepting the reality that it was always exist is, obviously, a bad idea. I just think the way it says this is a confusing mess of bizarrely applied morals and contrived scenarios that the writers seem intent on making more confusing with each update to the story.

[Lyth]

There's a distinction between who you are and what you choose to do. You could theoretically be a wonderful individual on a personal level, and yet make some very bad life decisions. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Plenty or Amaurot for that matter. Their leadership just happened to make some pretty terrible decisions. One of the reasons for studying history is so that you don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

[Kozh]

Not really sure what you're on about. It's beyond folly to repeat the exact same mistake that you've seen someone else make, regardless of mechanism.

Who see someone's mistake, in this case?

[Lurina]

There's a distinction between who you are and what you choose to do. You could theoretically be a wonderful individual on a personal level, and yet make some very bad life decisions. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the Plenty or Amaurot for that matter. Their leadership just happened to make some pretty terrible decisions. One of the reasons for studying history is so that you don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

Forgive me, but I can't parse how this is related to what I was saying. Could you spell it out?

[EaraGrace]

Forgive me, but I can't parse how this is related to what I was saying. Could you spell it out?

Forgive me Lyth if I get this wrong but I think what they’re saying is it’s possible to be a kind person and still do harm. That the worlds that ended in Dead Ends could be motivated and lead by good people who tried their best and still led others to their doom. The Convocation were motivated by a good impulse, reduce the suffering of their people, but in so doing created a situation that further damns them in the future. Of course it’s not as simple as that given the nature of the third sacrifice, but still as Venat put it

I shall not speak I’ll of the Convocation - they too seek only to secure the future of our star.

Yet Meteions report showed that that path, if they could not be swayed from it, would lead to destruction. Thus the importance of learning from past mistakes and being willing to embrace the struggle that comes from change, because it would require hard choices. The post MSQ Ultima Thule quests revolve around this idea.