Tales from the Dawn

[Iscah]

Venat sundered herself and retained her sense of self for the next twelve thousand years.

The Watcher's line saying that Venat sundered herself along with everything else seems like a lore error. If she is sundered then other Hydaelyns must exist independently in the shards, and unless they're planning to throw that at us as a weird plot twist later, it sounds improbable for that to be the case.

[WellGramarye]

The Watcher's line saying that Venat sundered herself along with everything else seems like a lore error. If she is sundered then other Hydaelyns must exist independently in the shards, and unless they're planning to throw that at us as a weird plot twist later, it sounds improbable for that to be the case.

Ive been going through some cutscenes so here are the bits and receipts.

On the sundering:

On being in Zodiark:

On Time Travel:

On why make Hydaelyn:

On why work alone:

[Lyth]

The Watcher's line saying that Venat sundered herself along with everything else seems like a lore error. If she is sundered then other Hydaelyns must exist independently in the shards, and unless they're planning to throw that at us as a weird plot twist later, it sounds improbable for that to be the case.

Is it, though? We know that the Sundering required a tremendous amount of aether, and she was at the very epicentre of it along with Zodiark.

Also, for context:

In the end, Emet-Selch, with the help of Lahabrea (who happened to be nearby) and Elidibus (who had fallen from Zodiark’s core), was able to evade the attack by temporarily escaping to a rift between dimensions.

If Hydaelyn left room for herself to escape like she did Emet, there would have been a risk that Zodiark did as well.

As for what happened to the other reflections, it's worth remembering that during your conversation with the Watcher on the Moon, it becomes apparent that if the Source falls, so too do all the reflections. The same is likely true with both Hydaelyn and Zodiark, which is why none of their reflections remain.

[WellGramarye]

Couldnt fit it in one post continuing on.

More on Sundering:

On Meteion destroying other stars:

Emet on everything that happened:

Emet Laying out the next 8 years:

Emet hinting he is a former Azem as well:

-----

[EaraGrace]

Interesting argumentation, given you've just assumed a position that justifies everything the Ancients were doing on Elpis and their entire plan to sacrifice lives, something you've been so critical of in the past.

No? I never argued the first sacrifice was wrong, only that what follows is wrong. The third sacrifice is the core of the issue, as there isn’t a justifiable reasons beyond grief to justify it. It’s harvesting an organ from an innocent to try to save someone you personally care about.

But really, "we have to pragmatically violate our supposed ideals for the greater good"? You must know how completely faulty and self-defeating that is, it's logic that renders the original view and intent morally destitute and worthless.

Where have I “violated” my beliefs.

If they were actually acting in accordance with their ideals, yes that is precisely what they would do. But remember, we're talking about a level of values import where someone actually does believe that the bear's life is worth more than a human life and should be protected over a human life, not a case where it's just some half-hearted idea. That itself would still be hypocrisy, but we're talking about an absolutist position where one is willing to weigh the lives of other people and trade them in reality, not just some layman notion. And to be clear, I'm not saying it's morally wrong for that person to defend their own life. I'd just like some honesty about it.

It’s not honestly, it’s stripping away context and complexity and trying to ground this in a categorical duty you find aesthetically pleasing. It all comes down to why we value life, which we’ll get into in the next response.

You also sidestepped my first point in that response. Why exactly is an individual life of less uniqueness and import than the idea of all life?

Without life one does not have virtue (good) and thus lacking any sort of life we lack any sort of good. That is why life is important. Others will disagree of course, but that’s my moral position. Notice how I can hold that life is precious and that sometimes people who use their lives to harm others shouldn’t not be suffered to do so. Because I’m not solely concerned with some vague moral duty, I’m worried about why a person kills another.

A society where a conscripted soldier is forced to die for a child but a parent can leave their child to die doesn't sound very just at all to me, even if we just table the pregnancy part of it. It sounds to me like the ideals you're talking about are the exact foundations of an unjust society, a system where nebulous concepts are given priority over individuals, where the lives of people are treated as things to be traded for promises and ideas of a better future. In other words, something Endwalker, and XIV as a whole, has been criticizing for years. These are the foundations of dysfunction, hypocrisy, and tyranny, the constant excuse for brutality and murder, not justice.

Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing. As we should. You’re equivocating all ideals as equally bad, when in actuality the only good world is one that values these sorts of things. If I asked whether you would live in a society that values justice and equality and one that does not, you would of course choose the latter despite the fact that these are just abstract concepts. Which comes down to either hypocrisy or you just didn’t think it through.

And yknow, the reason why I wanted to avoid the abortion comparison is perfectly illustrated here. Comparing abortion to leaving a child to die ignores the complexity of the issue when it comes to how we consider personhood and bodily autonomy, aspects that clearly impact how we apply any moral principles we glean from the topic.

It seems to me the distinction is imagined. You're controlling someone's life to sacrifice them for the sake of another life. It's the same thing, no matter the labels you put on it.

You’ve yet to explain how the distinction is imagined when I gave several examples of how valuing one leads to harming the other. By all means explain how I can believe in some “greater good” by harming life if there’s supposedly no distinction between the two?

Again, these are just falsehoods and titles, used to rationalize something which is not morally justifiable. "A person forced to die for a defensible cause can be just and defensible"? No, absolutely not, I'm not going to invoke godwin's law but you must know exactly what follows that logic.

Ok then we have moral disagreement going back to our core principles. That’s fine. I think you’re undercutting you’re own argument with that line however. After all, simply acting in self defense is in fact me forcing someone to die because the cause is just.

Yes, forced conscription is wrong, no matter the enemy. For someone who proposes to be a moral absolutist, you really do seem intent on taking positions which completely erode concepts such as "good and evil" and render them nothing but empty moralization. Again, this logic your using is the exact line of thought that leads to atrocity. This is what I'm talking about when I'm asking people to use some critical thinking about the ideas they're raising.

You’ve never actually taken the time to explore my positions or consider what I’m saying beyond the strawman so of course you feel that way. I’m not a Kantian or Utilitarian. I don’t hold duties or maximizing happiness to be the ultimate good, others do and good for them but that’s not me. I’m a virtue ethicist. I’m more interested in the why than the what. What motivates actions than what the consequences are. What you claim is me obfuscating good is really just you never bothering to consider that what I consider to be good doesn’t follow your preconception.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I don't really think any of you are qualified to debate "justice" and its meaning to be perfectly honest. Not when so many of you refuse to "judge" Venat and Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three with equal, truly open eyes unclouded by bias. I have a very strong, overbearing but most importantly EQUAL understanding of justice and it makes me many enemies because people get petty and upset when justices applies to them and their people. For the record, I condemn the Ascians AND Venat. I think their actions have damned them both. But I can't take anyone seriously who uses ZENOS quality rationale to handwave shit because "muh abstract concepts". Nihilists always use that as an excuse to get away with their crimes.

Justice is an abstract principle, as is equality, kindness, mercy, or courage. They’re all “ideals” and “nebulous concepts” that we place as the foundations of our society, and oftentimes enforce over wellbeing. As we should. You’re equivocating all ideals as equally bad, when in actuality the only good world is one that values these sorts of things. If I asked whether you would live in a society that values justice and equality and one that does not, you would of course choose the latter despite the fact that these are just abstract concepts. Which comes down to either hypocrisy or you just didn’t think it through.

Yeah. This is so awfully similar to what Zenos said to Jullus, and he too was using that "none of this truly matters" tripe as an excuse to avoid facing justice. Also, the bolded part especially? About how we MUST enforce justice over the wellbeing of life? That is how tyrant monsters of men are made. History should have proven how dangerous this line of thinking is, alas humans continue to use it. So long as it's possible for someone to hold enough power to force someone to live how they will it, be it through twisting of the arm, or prohibitive laws, etc. etc. you can always count on SOMEONE abusing that power. "For their own good/greater good" are the philosophical building blocks of tyranny, and we see it in action in modern human history every day of our lives nearly no matter where we live.

[EaraGrace]

I think their actions have damned them both. But I can't take anyone seriously who uses ZENOS quality rationale to handwave shit because "muh abstract concepts". Nihilists always use that as an excuse to get away with their crimes.

Senti you’ve no idea what you’re talking about here. I’m not a nihilist or advocating for that position.

Yeah. This is so awfully similar to what Zenos said to Jullus, and he too was using that "none of this truly matters" tripe as an excuse to avoid facing justice.

No, no, no, no, and no. Zenos claim was that justice was a meaningless concept not an abstract one. I don’t claim good is non existent or inconsequential, but that it isn’t a material thing. It’s a concept, like math, that we can’t measure by itself.

Also, the bolded part especially? About how we MUST enforce justice over the wellbeing of life? That is how tyrant monsters of men are made. History should have proven how dangerous this line of thinking is, alas humans continue to use it.

And yet we do that everyday for good reason. We did it during Covid when we inflicted hardship on billions to contain the spread of a virus that killed those most vulnerable, we do that when try to prevent tyrannical regimes from conquering territory out imperial ambitions, we do this when we enforce laws and protect citizens from a body politic that holds bigoted and cruel beliefs. We do so when we drive fascists from the public discourse. We fight for justice when it’s hard and when it’s easy, not when it’s personally beneficial.

So long as it's possible for someone to hold enough power to force someone to live how they will it, be it through twisting of the arm, or prohibitive laws, etc. etc. you can always count on SOMEONE abusing that power.

Then go fight for your anarchy and see what happens to the most vulnerable. You aren’t eliminating power, you’re placing it in the hands of petty tyrants who happened to luck into it. I’ve lived long enough to know that people are capable of great things if left alone, and that they are capable of horrors beyond comprehension. We have to be careful in protecting one and not allowing the other.

[Iscah]

Ive been going through some cutscenes so here are the bits and receipts.

I'm sorry but I don't understand how any of this is relevant to my post that you quoted, besides one of them being the Watcher's line that I was talking about. And there's one from Hydaelyn herself that seems to contradict it, because she makes no mention of sundering herself.

Is it, though? We know that the Sundering required a tremendous amount of aether, and she was at the very epicentre of it along with Zodiark.

Also, for context:
If Hydaelyn left room for herself to escape like she did Emet, there would have been a risk that Zodiark did as well.

As for what happened to the other reflections, it's worth remembering that during your conversation with the Watcher on the Moon, it becomes apparent that if the Source falls, so too do all the reflections. The same is likely true with both Hydaelyn and Zodiark, which is why none of their reflections remain.

Hydaelyn was the instigator, which might mean she is immune from its effects. Everything we've seen up to this point suggests that she sits at the centre of all the worlds, at a sort of crossroads, and can reach into any of the shards if necessary - to send the Warriors and Minfilia to the First, and to bring Minfilia and Hades back.

If she is sundered, then we're in this weird situation where - particularly having travelled to the First, does that mean we weren't dealing with Hydaelyn there at all but a second Hydaelyn disconnected from the one we know? I'm quite sure that wasn't the intent, and the characters certainly talk as if Hydaelyn is a single entity across both worlds.

And I don't think we can assume a sundered Hydaelyn would simply dissipate across all worlds if one was destroyed. She's clearly a complete being when we face her, versus Zodiark being in physical pieces - so whatever is going on, their situations are not the same.

And I would take the statement that the shards will fall if the Source falls to be a consquence of them still being aetherially linked (as explained in Shadowbringers) so if the Source is "aetherially poisoned" by the Final Days then that will spread to the shards as well.

(Also, the whole "deliberately left a hole for Emet to escape through" thing sounds like hasty invention for the Q&A to resolve a detail they forgot about entirely when writing the story, while actually making the overall situation sound even worse because they didn't think the answer through.)

[Iscah]

There wasn't even a clash Elidibus had detached by that point so Zodiark was inert. The sundering has nothing to do with Zodiark anymore Venats target was the ancients.

The whole point of my post that you replied to was presenting an alternate scenario that kept continuity with what we were told in Shadowbringers. So it's irrelevant to say it couldn't have happened because of things we learned in Endwalker, because those things would be written differently in that hypothetical scenario.

If there was a fight between Hydaelyn and Zodiark, as we were previously told, then Zodiark would not have been inert at the time.

The problem is that runs counter with the crossover story from Nier: Reincarnation.

Meaning there was a long drawn out fight between the two, before Hydaelyn became the victor.

Which doesn't at all match what we are show in Endwalker which is another retcon they made for endwalker. Zodiark was inert with out it's heart so inactive like we see on the moon

Yes, and it was a bad retcon. They basically threw out everything they'd previously told us about Zodiark and Hydaelyn and the Sundering to invent this new sequence of events that didn't match what they wrote before.

Normally they are very good at keeping their continuity going, so changing it all so much is really disappointing, and makes it even more bizarre that they changed it to make Venat look like such a villain.

It's like they rewrote it at the last minute and didn't think about anything they'd written before or take the time to connect it back up to past facts.

[Alleo]

Y'all need to replay ShB and not skip cutscenes this time. Anyone who thinks Emet was treated as amicably as Venat was clearly not paying attention.

I never skip cutscenes and I still believe that he was threated quite nicely by the Scions. Not as a friend of course but for someone that killed planets, caused unknown numbers of death on the source and created the Garlean empire just to sow chaos, the scion were behaving quite friendly with him. If they can do that with an Ascian, why would they be different with Hydealyn? Especially since she was the reason that the sundered existed.

Which doesn't at all match what we are show in Endwalker which is another retcon they made for endwalker. Zodiark was inert with out it's heart so inactive like we see on the moon

I mean Hydealyn herself told us as word of the mother that it took everything to take Zodiark down. And we have the cave painting where it shows how she attacked him. We also dont know that he was inactive without Elidibus. The situation on the moon was different since he was already in his prison.