Tales from the Dawn

[WellGramarye]

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.

Only some of it was a reply to that post, as well as the discussion on time travel. Due to post count and posting limitations, it was easier to just lump it all together, but was not all specifically targeted to you.

Also those lines do not contradict each other. She sundered everything to diminish his power, so that she may bind him. Without sundering everything, he was too strong for her. Though I do agree the dialogue is odd, I wonder if the other languages contradict this.

[Iscah]

Also those lines do not contradict each other. She sundered everything to diminish his power, so that she may bind him. Without sundering everything, he was too strong for her. Though I do agree the dialogue is odd, I wonder if the other languages contradict this.

The lines contradict each other because one includes Hydaelyn in the list of sundered things, and the other does not.

If she sundered everything including herself, sundering Zodiark gives her no benefit.

If she sunders Zodiark while remaining whole herself, she can pit her full strength against a weakened foe.

And she only talks about sundering Zodiark – the version that make more sense.

[Veloran]

It's always interesting to see how an individual's framing of a topic reflects their political views. Especially when someone discusses that particular topic in terms of the so called 'potentiality of life' and not 'autonomy'.

In the context of the sundering debate, the "potentiality of life" is the more important point when talking about it's justifications. If we were to frame the discussion around autonomy instead, Venat comes off as even more unjustified, as she obviously denied the autonomy of all of her victims.

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.

When I mentioned "the sacrifices", the third was obviously included. But to your analogy, what is the difference between harvesting the organ from an innocent person to save someone you care about and harvesting the life of an innocent person to save a concept you care about? It's the same, only the sphere of what you're doing it for has changed.

Where have I “violated” my beliefs.

I'm sure you don't think that protecting life by killing life is technically a "violation", but that's just the problem.

It’s not honestly, it’s stripping away context and complexity and trying to ground this in a categorical duty you find aesthetically pleasing.

To the contrary, I see the ideals you're talking about as nothing more than flexible rationalizations to meet whatever ends you happen to like the most. By creating convolution under the pretext of "context and complexity", you've formatted a set of ideals that justifies genocide for the sake of 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.

In giving this response you admit that ideas of good and virtue are things that are created by life, not an absolute. Despite saying your morality is founded on virtues, it really just seems like your position is that of a moral relativism where anything can be justified so long as the right sophistry is provided to support it.

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.

When I said "nebulous concepts", I meant it in just that way - Ideals that are being used vaguely, being applied disjointedly, being thrown around as part of an ever-changing context and being used to justify whatever atrocities seem suitable to the moment. As far as I can tell the ideals you've outlined to me would allow you to denigrate every single aspect of life however you want, from damaging someone's physical and mental health, removing their autonomy, oppressing or lying to them, killing them or forcing them to die for you, but because it's all done in the name of "life", it's completely morally righteous. As you've said, you don't even have any qualms about it, you're utterly self-assured.

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.

Again, a strange argument, considering that the crux of your entire justification is derived from protectionism in the name of life that does not exist at all. Why exactly should one differentiate the personhood of a fetus when you're willing to kill billions for the sake of life that won't be born for millions of years? To shift the argument a bit, let's say instead of unlocking immortality and creating Ra-La, the Plenty just unanimously decided to never reproduce again and allow themselves to die off. Should they be forced to reproduce, for the sake of the future lives that would be created from them having to bear that burden?

By all means explain how I can believe in some “greater good” by harming life if there’s supposedly no distinction between the two?

Frankly, I don't see how at all. You just want that end and have retroactively justified anything that leads to it.

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.

Clearly we disagree on a very deep level. But where you misunderstand my position is the idea that I'm undermining my own argument. Because from my perspective, I don't believe that "the cause is just". The "justness of the cause" cannot and will not justify anything.

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.

So you've said, though given your prior arguments I'm not entirely convinced you're all that interested in the motivation for an action more than it's consequences, since for years you argued the Convocation was wrong for acting out of love to return those sacrificed to Zodiark back to life, despite practically zero evidence of any negative consequences (more than what we routinely engage in and what you've since justified in other contexts) resulting from this.

What do you think my preconception of good, or of your idea of good, is supposed to be?

[WellGramarye]

The lines contradict each other because one includes Hydaelyn in the list of sundered things, and the other does not.

If she sundered everything including herself, sundering Zodiark gives her no benefit.

If she sunders Zodiark while remaining whole herself, she can pit her full strength against a weakened foe.

And she only talks about sundering Zodiark – the version that make more sense.

By sundering Zodiark and the planet, it weakens his amount of aether in one place, spreading it out to 14 different reflections.
By sundering the planet there are now 14 versions of the planet, that Zodiark has to try to manipulate the laws of nature on, thus weakening him further.
By sundering herself, she is thus on all 14 versions to watch over him, but she only needs to bind him on the source.
If she did not sunder herself, then there are no Warriors of Light possible on the reflections.

[Veloran]

If she did not sunder herself, then there are no Warriors of Light possible on the reflections.

Why? We know from Minfilia and Elidibus' actions on the First and the events of Endwalker that Hydaelyn can reach across to other shards from the Source.

[WellGramarye]

Why? We know from Minfilia and Elidibus' actions on the First and the events of Endwalker that Hydaelyn can reach across to other shards from the Source.

Yes because she exists there as well. Quite easy to manipulate things on other shards, if you are already there.

[Veloran]

Yes because she exists there as well. Quite easy to manipulate things on other shards, if you are already there.

In at least the cases of Minfilia and Endwalker, it was explicitly Hydaelyn from the Source acting, not some hidden Hydaelyn on the First.

[Iscah]

By sundering herself, she is thus on all 14 versions to watch over him, but she only needs to bind him on the source.
If she did not sunder herself, then there are no Warriors of Light possible on the reflections.

As I wrote in my previous post, it seems that she sits in the centre of all the worlds, able to reach into any one of them and communicate with her chosen Warriors of Light in each one.

Independent Hydaelyns on each world would be narratively weird and the concept has never been raised, even when we were in the First.

[WellGramarye]

As I wrote in my previous post, it seems that she sits in the centre of all the worlds, able to reach into any one of them and communicate with her chosen Warriors of Light in each one.

Independent Hydaelyns on each world would be narratively weird and the concept has never been raised, even when we were in the First.

This is assuming that each one is mentally different and not just a part of the greater whole, like Zodiark is. There is only one Zodiark, his parts just diminish his power. Each part does not have a will of its own. The same would hold true for Hydaelyn.


I'm going to add this and its not aimed at you directly Iscah in particular.

"But the dialogue is wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooong"

It can only be considered a mistake if it contradicts every other language, of the same line across all versions of the game. Otherwise you have to take it at face value as information that is adding to the story and narrative, else I can just go and say any line in the entirety of the game is just as wrong, and you see where that starts to lead us. As it stands, the line is there, and does make narrative sense. While the concept has never been raised before, remember there were dozens of concepts raised in each expansion that weren't raised before. That's the point of expansion.

[Iscah]

It can only be considered a mistake if it contradicts every other language

No, it can be a mistake if it says something the writer didn't intend and isn't actually accurate to the lore.

I've been meaning to post it in the localisation forum and see what they make of it.