Tales from the Dawn

[EaraGrace]

It's true, and you know it's true. You yourself have stated that you think the potentiality of life is worth sacrificing lives, even innocent lives, for. Don't get squeamish just because it's uncomfortable. Again this isn't an indictment (on the topic I broached in specific anyway), I'd just like people to be more thoughtful and, preferably, consistent with the ideas they're talking about here.

Alright fine let’s have this convo. To you, believing that you can be justified in reducing the well-being of those around today, in order to protect the potential for any life of any kind to continue on, is equivalent to forcing a mother to die in childbirth rather than have abortion. Let me just offer two of the reasons I disagree.

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation. One can hold the latter of these and not the former.

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity. A climate activist doesn’t haven’t to be pro-life in order to believe that taking drastic action against climate change is justified, despite the fact that such actions would have a demonstrable impact on industries and economic activities relied upon by numerous communities worldwide. Just look at former mining and industrial towns that rot away along with those left there, leading to substance abuse, mental health problems, worse health outcomes, and yes death. And for whose benefit? The next generation and those further on. Look at developing nations who often resort to cheaper and more environmentally damaging practices in order to try to improve living standards. Do you have to be pro life to think it may be necessary to adopt policies that lead to higher costs and less opportunity for those who want nothing more than a better life?

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

[Iscah]

this also brings me to another question as to why Emet and Hythlodaeus were clearly trained in combat - what purpose for fighting would they need? - Venat gets a pass by being formerly Azem whose hat that was, but the other two are meant to be more academic/bureacratic sorts usually stuck behind a desk or debating on the floor of a council chamber, and yet perfectly were able to fight.

On this particular point, it was at least implied that Hyth and Hades were Azem's go-to "summoned party members" when Azem needed help in the field.

[SentioftheHoukai]

The only special aspects of the Ancients was they were ageless (but not immortal, they could still die, just not from old age), and had the power of creation magic which, really, was simply due to having enormous natural reserves of aether in their bodies. That was the sum of their 'special' nature. They however still had a tendency to all too mortal human failings of pettiness, jealousy, depression and anger.

Also, their civilization was already showing the first cracks of turning into staid decadence even before Hermes had his emotional breakdown and created the Metia to send his cursed question to the cosmos - many of the researchers in Elpis lamented at a general waning of creativity in both the concepts they were testing and even their own ideas for things like concept names - leading to people just copying each other's ideas and passing it off as 'new' with little change, shown with the 'fad' for shark concepts that Hythlodaeus mentioned (even though it was done for a quick joke, it actually hinted at something far more rotten in Ancient society that led back to the core of the expansion's theme). And even Hermes himself stated outright that they were frustratingly reaching the limit of what could be achieved with aether manipulation and Creation Magic - which is why he studied Dynamis in the first place.

And there were hints that ancient Etheriys wasn't actually the paradise it was made out to be, that things like war and disease did exist, it was just shoved under the rug with the use of Creation Magic relied on to solve such problems. All Venat did was take mankind's blinders off, in the most harshest way, but I digress.

Ah, so when mankind or any society really gets too big for it's britches it should be violently ended. Every man, woman and child put to the crystal sword and made to learn their folly. I'll have to remember that next time one of the forum posters here strikes it rich, or gets a nice house, or marries a new wife or husband and is blessed with a beautiful baby boy or girl. I'll be sure to call Mother, and be assured she's bringing the Sundering with her.

..... It's laughable how none of you realize just how ludicrous, immoral, and dangerous the ideals and/or societal values you claim to champion are.

Endwalker encourages and/or enables the worst sort of people, I swear. Yoshida should have known better, but then I suspect he was in on it. shrugs

Alright fine let’s have this convo. To you, believing that you can be justified in reducing the well-being of those around today, in order to protect the potential for any life of any kind to continue on, is equivalent to forcing a mother to die in childbirth rather than have abortion. Let me just offer two of the reasons I disagree.

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation. One can hold the latter of these and not the former.

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity. A climate activist doesn’t haven’t to be pro-life in order to believe that taking drastic action against climate change is justified, despite the fact that such actions would have a demonstrable impact on industries and economic activities relied upon by numerous communities worldwide. Just look at former mining and industrial towns that rot away along with those left there, leading to substance abuse, mental health problems, worse health outcomes, and yes death. And for whose benefit? The next generation and those further on. Look at developing nations who often resort to cheaper and more environmentally damaging practices in order to try to improve living standards. Do you have to be pro life to think it may be necessary to adopt policies that lead to higher costs and less opportunity for those who want nothing more than a better life?

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Oh, right it's Venat. It's Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three of course as well, but let's not do us all an intellectual disservice and count her out. I don't even honestly see why this line of inquiry is even relevant, personally. You're just proving his point by entertaining it, when you openly support someone who's ended as many lives however virtual as she has. You've openly stated if she was real you'd help her kill them all.

shrugs

[WellGramarye]

Ah, so when mankind or any society really gets too big for it's britches it should be violently ended. Every man, woman and child put to the crystal sword and made to learn their folly. I'll have to remember that next time one of the forum posters here strikes it rich, or gets a nice house, or marries a new wife or husband and is blessed with a beautiful baby boy or girl. I'll be sure to call Mother, and be assured she's bringing the Sundering with her.

..... It's laughable how none of you realize just how ludicrous, immoral, and dangerous the ideals and/or societal values you claim to champion are.

Endwalker encourages and/or enables the worst sort of people, I swear. Yoshida should have known better, but then I suspect he was in on it. shrugs

You should take a step outside, take a deep breath and ask yourself if you understand the difference between real life and fiction. How some one feels about fictional video game characters and how they feel ethically and morally are not equivalent.

[SentioftheHoukai]

You should take a step outside, take a deep breath and ask yourself if you understand the difference between real life and fiction. How some one feels about fictional video game characters and how they feel ethically and morally are not equivalent.

Tends to make a difference when someone openly admits they'd assist a character with their dastardly deeds if they happened to be real. Obviously, it's never gonna happen. However, I didn't open this particular metaphorical support ticket and have the receipts to prove it.

[Veloran]

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation.

I don't really see how you can hold the value in the general and not the specific. The general view is nothing but an infinite set of specific cases, but when it comes to the specific case, suddenly the imperative shifts?

I recognize this may sound odd, but for what reason is the idea of the potential of life somehow more important than the actual potential of an actual life? The existence of a single life is as unique and special to the universe as the existence of life itself. Is it just a utilitarian numbers game? If so, surely the math in both cases adds up the same - There is more potential life in the universe than the potential life of the Ancients, and there is more potential life in a child than the remaining life of a mother. Does the scale, the gulf of the difference, just feel more appropriate for you to make that choice?

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity.

Following this, you outline scenarios where suffering is forcibly incurred in order to bear the burden of propagating life. So yes, a person certainly doesn't need to be pro-life in order to believe that drastic action inducing suffering and burden for the purposes of protecting life - But in the same way, I fail to see how this is actually a logically or morally consistent position. You may say it's a pragmatic position in certain regards, but that doesn't make it morally sound.

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

Frankly, yes. Again, the general is just a set of the specific. To force someone to effectively be a human shield to allow life to continue but not do the same in the case of a birth is completely inconsistent. Why should the obligation, forced, to give up one's life for another be incurred differentially? I assume that in asking the question you already have your own response for the comparison, so what do you think?

[NotReallyMistral]

Damn, I didn't realize this whole thing with Venat is still a point of contention even now. I'm not getting in between that argument when both sides are slowly getting too personal in their arguments.

That said, I just want to say that I liked the new short story. I found it funny that the whole time, it's like the watcher was falling head over heels in love with Venat but then it got a bit sad when we got to near the end when it hinted at things to come in that story. I really do like that we got a confirmation about Venat's co-conspirators not knowing about what really was happening with meteion and all that (though it seems like they knew that she had a glimpse of the future- interesting none of them pressed her for information) and that they're really more focused at stopping the sacrifices because they believe using zodiark power would essentially halt their progress as a civilisation. Another point I got from it is that chances are, we're gonna see what's in that crystal the watcher held at the end. I do want to know what that "last chapter of cosmological wisdom Venat had sought"...unless it's really just some stuff we've already seen like the celestial leyline thing- sorry, I can't remember the name- and that I'm just overthinking this.

[Iscah]

Damn, I didn't realize this whole thing with Venat is still a point of contention even now. I'm not getting in between that argument when both sides are slowly getting too personal in their arguments.

Yeah I'm really over it and (admittedly using your comment as a bit of a springboard to what I was already drafting in my head) the whole base of it comes down to the fact that the Sundering had to happen at a storywriting level, because they'd already established that it happened, despite not having a clear plan for how or why or what sort of light it cast on the insigators. Character motivations and actions got bent around to fit the necessity of this event happening, even though they didn't have a really good idea that stands up to scrutiny.

The logic falls apart and I would rather lay the blame for that at the writers than the characters, move on with only the broad-strokes intention of the narrative in mind, and hope they don't do it again.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Yeah I'm really over it and (admittedly using your comment as a bit of a springboard to what I was already drafting in my head) the whole base of it comes down to the fact that the Sundering had to happen at a storywriting level, because they'd already established that it happened, despite not having a clear plan for how or why or what sort of light it cast on the insigators. Character motivations and actions got bent around to fit the necessity of this event happening, even though they didn't have a really good idea that stands up to scrutiny.

The logic falls apart and I would rather lay the blame for that at the writers than the characters, move on with only the broad-strokes intention of the narrative in mind, and hope they don't do it again.

That's a hell of a lot easier to say when it's your favored characters that get to live, over the lives of those whose memories they trample upon with every blundering, bumbling, clodding step they make. But, what the hell I'll allow you that.

After all, I too hope to Zodiark they don't make such a colossal fuckup such as Endwalker ever again. Glad to see we're finally on the same page, say it with me now: GENOCIDE JUSTIFICATION AS THE CORE ETHOS OF YOUR NARRATIVE IS BAD. ;3

Turns out, if they had simply kept the characterization of the Scions, the moral nuance, and the black and grey plot they so carefully cultivated in Shadowbringers chances are keen none of this endless Venat vs. Emet or whichever else Ascian of the day debates on this forum wouldn't be happening. And wouldn't that have been nice, every party satisfied!

[Iscah]

That's a hell of a lot easier to say when it's your favored characters that get to live, over the lives of those whose memories they trample upon with every blundering, bumbling, clodding step they make. But, what the hell I'll allow you that.

I don't "take sides". I liked all of the characters I met who were not trying to kill me at the time. (I particularly like Hyth. He's one of my favourite characters in Endwalker.)

But at the same time, I went into Elpis knowing that the whole point of that arc was going to be meeting people who were doomed to a calamity I could not prevent, only observe.

For the sake of the narrative, the Sundering has to happen. This has been fated since Heavensward. They could do it while showing us the Ancients were awful people or nice people, and they went with nice, but their fate has been locked in since before the characters were written.

Their sole purpose in the narrative is to be "the people who suffered the Final Days and the Sundering".

Would you have preferred them to be written as awful people?

After all, I too hope to Zodiark they don't make such a colossal fuckup such as Endwalker ever again. Glad to see we're finally on the same page, say it with me now: GENOCIDE JUSTIFICATION AS THE CORE ETHOS OF YOUR NARRATIVE IS BAD. ;3

I have never not been on that page. I am really unhappy with how Venat behaved post-Elpis. It seems utterly at odds with everything that came before and after it.

At the same time, the conclusion I come to here is that the writers did a poor job of writing Venat as a good person forced to do a dreadful thing, and accidentally wrote her into being a horrible person. If the rest of the narrative is built around her being a good person, then the logical course for me is to ignore the badly written parts and pretend it was something that better reflected the author's intent.

Turns out, if they had simply kept the characterization of the Scions, the moral nuance, and the black and grey plot they so carefully cultivated in Shadowbringers chances are keen none of this endless Venat vs. Emet or whichever else Ascian of the day debates on this forum wouldn't be happening. And wouldn't that have been nice, every party satisfied!

How would that have helped? Venat's actions in the Sundering are the most morally grey part of the whole resolution.

What are you actually envisaging we would have gotten instead? What characterisation has changed in your view?