Tales from the Dawn #3: "A Question of Life" (Hermes)

[SannaR]

Can we please stop drawing battle lines? It's both extremes of the argument that make the Lore forum miserable, not just one side while the other is completely reasonable.

Exactly. As it often just needs a vague hint at the sundering or a thinly veild mentioning of how one feels about the otherside and how they view the sundering to cause such derailments. It doesn't matter which side does it as both do it. Of course it doesn't help that this story was about a person who starts us down the path to it. Hopefully the last one for now won't be from an Ancient's perspective. The crazy thing they could do us give us something from where we left Eric, Elidibus and Lahabrea at the end of the current Pandeamonium segment. As I'm sure all three would have somewhat interesting inner thoughts about what happened.

[KariTheFox]

This makes the message very muddled. My guess is that the original intent in Shadowbringers was that the player races were the new life, but they decided to change that in Endwalker to fit with the narrative about the Sundering's purpose being to force humanity to understand grief and loss. It's no longer a tale of people resisting passing the torch, but a tale of people refusing to accept loss and change and having it forced upon them, then collectively overcoming far in the future. In Shadowbringers Hydaelyn fights Zodiark to save the new life from her people, while in Endwalker Hydaelyn fights Zodiark to 'save her people from themselves'.

I don't think it's that muddled, every interaction we have with the ancients as far back as Shadowbringers has them treating us as thier children, even literally in Emet-Selch's recreation, or as a familiar as a proxy-child in Elpis (I'll put Pandemonium to the side now since I view it as post-EW materiel that represents us growing and starting to interact with our ancestors as adults.)

So if we know as far back as Shadowbringers that the ancients are our ancestors, and we all thought back then they planned to sacrifice us for the sake of bringing themselves back , I don't see how that fact being explicitly confirmed changes anything.

Nor do I see Venat's motivations as contradictory, she wants her people to grow beyond thier pain and loss by entrusting the world to future generations, because she believes in mankind's potential and all that.

Which does tie back to Hermes and what he was grappling with: did the Ancients have the right to dictate life into forms that their society approved of, and how did this presumption tie into what was expected of themselves?

Given that Venat had explicit future knowledget, allowing the ancients to cultivate livestock for the third sacrifice, if that is indeed what is going on, also means explicitly cutting off the future civilizations of the sundered world from ever existing if she doesn't have history play out in a way that can lead to thier coming into being. They're longer a hypothetical future possibility, but a confirmed fact that she feels compelled to protect.

[EaraGrace]

A couple thoughts. Firstly, if we choose to disregard other in-game conversations and take this one purely at face value, nothing in there indicates the sacrifices to be limited to sapient life. He appears to be speaking of all life, and any kind of assumption otherwise would indeed be mistaken on part of the Scions. However, this is decidedly not what the original Ancients had planned. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

What in game conversations am I disregarding? Fake Hyths statements, the Scions views, Emets speech, the supplemental materials, all fit within an understanding of the Ancients using sapient sacrifices. It's the assertion that they aren't using them that doesn't make sense, and requires ignoring multiple statements by several involved parties and the assumption that these selfsame characters are either incredibly stupid or acting in bad faith.

We are informed rather clearly their original plan was to cultivate life in the world, then sacrifice that life to bring back those sacrificed to Zodiark. The Ancients, and by extension Zodiark, were at no point shown capable of willfully creating sapient life -- or granting a new organism a soul, for that matter.

The clearest way to disprove this is to point to Meteion, who by any definition of sentience meets the threshold. And on the matter of souls, the Lykaons are plainly stated to possess souls. The Ancients may not be able to create souls, but they can create beings the star would give a soul.

Both of these things were dictated not by them but by the planet itself. Even the Meteia were produced only after an absurd amount of experimentation, with all involved acknowledging the one Meteion's full sapience as a fluke. If the Ancients were not able to create sapient life or grant souls, then that does rather limit their choices when it comes to intended sacrificial lambs.

It wasn't a fluke it was the whole point. Hermes at multiple points highlights that the goal was to create an entelechy with free will.

Now on to the second point: It isn't merely that they couldn't form words. They were quite literally incapable of any form of communication, even that facilitated by the Echo (or whatever you want to call the remaining power the unsundered had).

Source for this? I believe the Nier event simply stated they couldn't form words, and Emet once again stresses the Sundering doesn't ones body.

I felt compelled to revisit this briefly. Curious that Emet-Selch's words should be taken at face value at certain times yet handily dismissed at others even when context should indicate he's being truthful at a given time. We're to immediately accept everything he says about the Ascians' grand plan and him willingly going along with it as fact, yet his descriptions of the state the sundered are in directly after the act are inherently suspect.

And I am compelled to point out that either reading of Emets reliability works in my arguments favor. Either he is not reliable, in which case we can't trust him at all and thus we can dismiss the Nier event and his assertions about the nature of the Sundered, or we do believe him and he disproves the theory that the Sundering physically changed the Sundered to such an extent as to make them mindless husks.

My opinion? He can be trusted to tell us what he intended to do and facts about what occurred, but he can't be trusted to make value judgements given his clear bias against the Sundered. In other words, I think he's reliable in descriptive statements, but not prescriptive ones.

The Scions are qualifying clearly in that conversation that they're working on assumptions and speculations, because they're operating primarily from context of the Ascians' current behavior, which obviously has no problem doing harm to other human beings in the name of their mission. They don't know for certain what Hythlo's words mean in the present - the Scions are also clearly speaking purely in context of the Ascians in the present ("their plan doesn't stop with just the Rejoinings...") until Emet-Selch confirms his intentions directly later on in Amaurot. And even then, their initial speculation involves the additional assumption that the Ascians would be able to make distinctions, logistically and specifically, of who and what would be sacrificed and what wouldn't.

So once again this would mean the writers wrote the protagonists to be incorrect, and then from incorrect premises stumble on the right conclusion about Emet and the Ascians plan. If you want to hold that ShB's climax is founded on this idea then sure, but I don't think this is logical to presume. If however that's ok with others then I think thats a perfectly consistent position to take and have nothing to say but "agree to disagree" for now. But again I hope its understandable why I'm more skeptical of this position.

I know you have asked in the past: "so, were the Ascians then planning on sacrificing the sapient beings of the Source out of spite?" And I actually have little problem saying that yes, probably, in largely part. Emet-Selch is lashing out and saying and doing a lot of things out of raw spite and resentment in that sequence already, and using the Scions' speculation that you've quoted, already put forth that people who would continue to doggedly oppose them and refuse to cooperate with them were on the chopping block in the post-Innocence cutscene.

But those wouldn't be the ones Emets sacrificing. The calamities and the natural lifespan of the Sundered would ensure that, a fact he was aware of and used as an argument to convince us to join him. He'd be being spiteful against random people. I have a sour opinion of the Ascians for sure, but this defies even the logic that I as a foremost member of the anti-Ascian squad (I couldn't resist I'm so sorry) disagree with.

Overall, this is what I would say/speculate/interpret: I think the most likely situation for the Ancients is, again, the contents of the third sacrifice is forever unknowable because the plan didn't proceed far enough for them to even come into existence. The Ancients were not able to "nurture the planet until it was bursting with vitality" to be able to evaluate what that vitality looked like and refine their plans from there.

I refuse to believe the Ancients were willing to shove random souls into their ultimate creation. We know those souls would have some sway over the heart, per Elidibus, and I don't believe they would play fast and loose with their savior.

[Brinne]

So once again this would mean the writers wrote the protagonists to be incorrect, and then from incorrect premises stumble on the right conclusion about Emet and the Ascians plan. If you want to hold that ShB's climax is founded on this idea then sure, but I don't think this is logical to presume. If however that's ok with others then I think thats a perfectly consistent position to take and have nothing to say but "agree to disagree" for now. But again I hope its understandable why I'm more skeptical of this position.

No, because the protagonists never make any comment or speculation upon the original, non-Ascian plan to begin with. They only speculate on the implications this has to the current, Ascian plan, as that's the only one that has any relevance to them. They say absolutely nothing about "oh, the Ascians/Ancients were Like This, even before the Final Days and Zodiark!" All they say is, "this probably implies the Ascians won't stop even after the Rejoinings."

But those wouldn't be the ones Emets sacrificing. The calamities and the natural lifespan of the Sundered would ensure that, a fact he was aware of and used as an argument to convince us to join him. He'd be being spiteful against random people. I have a sour opinion of the Ascians for sure, but this defies even the logic that I as a "hater" disagree with.

See, and I'm an Ascian lover, and I have no problem believing this given the psychological and emotional state the Ascians are in in the present day. All of Sundered life, to the Ascian perspective--Emet-Selch's perspective that he's fervently trying to persuade himself of--are "perverted distortions" of the authentic life unjustly stolen, who have lived on the erased corpses, sacrifices, and history of what he himself refers to as "the first people," and ones furthermore embraced by Hydaelyn as "her children." I, as someone who is sometimes capable of a fair amount of Spite myself (shocking, I know!) don't find it a large leap at all to see someone in Emet's position going "Hydaelyn's children? Hahaha, more like Zodiark's dinner, losers!"

Obviously, this is not morally right or fair by any stretch of the imagination. But in terms of raw human emotion? Yeah, I don't have difficulty "getting it," so to speak.

I refuse to believe the Ancients were willing to shove random souls into their ultimate creation. We know those souls would have some sway over the heart, per Elidibus, and I don't believe they would play fast and loose with their savior.

They wouldn't be "shoving random souls" in. Under this idea, they'd evaluate more closely once those souls had properly developed over a period of generations, being nurtured by the survivors, when the planet was bursting with vitality. They're not arbitrarily throwing darts at a board or anything. It's just that, now that we have more understanding of the workings and limitations of the Ancients' magic, they probably literally had no way of knowing exactly how those sprouts of life would develop until they were done developing. I would presume that there would be less trouble "controlling" the souls within Zodiark as the heart were they less intelligent and sapient.

[Absimiliard]

Just gonna make a quick note here, since it's fairly evident some of the posters have not actually played NieR Re[in]carnation:

While the story there is about Emet-Selch, he is not the narrator and it is not colored by his own views. The story gives a neutral account of his perceptions and a handful of the events he experienced/witnessed before, during, and after the fall while also noting how he feels about these things. A clear distinction is made between narrator and Emet-Selch's own views. It should be kept in mind that NieR Re[in]carnation does not utilize the unreliable narrator in its stories, and anything presented there as a result of the crossover with Final Fantasy XIV is considered canon.

Included with the above is artwork, some of which depicts the differing states of the sundered along their path to getting it together. Those developers do not tend to choose their art accidentally, and they're not overfond of employing vague symbolism for instances such as the one spoken of here. It's generally a safe bet to take what the game hands you at face value. Between the artwork and narration it's very easy to see the sundered were in much worse shape right after the act than they would be later on.

The English version of the game does in fact only say they were incapable of forming words, but it also provides the example of "unnngh... aaah.." with regards to what came out of them. Other localizations make it more apparent they simply couldn't communicate at all. Should we disregard these and only look at the English, we can still piece this together based on the fact the Unsundered are inherently able to communicate with basically anything capable of it via the Echo. What else are we to think when a group of people capable of universal communication is unable to discern or convey anything?

[Lauront]

The EN version may be worded a bit poorly, I'm not sure, but it is clear both from the FR version and from the answer Yoshi gives at the Q&A regarding how the sundered came to be, that their bodies were affected, if not in appearance as such, at the aetheric level. It is also implicit in other plot points, like the fact that the sundered are tiny compared to the ancients.

Q: If you look at the Source and it’s reflection today, they are inhabited by various races such as Miqo’te, Au Ra, Lalafell and so on. However, all the Ancients seem to be human-like races so is there a lore regarding how mankind came to have such a varied amount of races?
A: When the world was Sundered all living beings became incomplete. But that said incompleteness allowed them to develop strengths and weaknesses and that overtime compounded into racial traits. That sort of thing like strengths and weaknesses over time, with elements of little bit more or little bit less increases or be stronger in certain tribes and in turn developed into distinctive features. I don’t know about the official lore for this but people are asking things like “Ok why are Miqo’te’s ears are so big?” and I was like “I don’t know maybe they couldn’t hear that well and tried super hard to hear and maybe that…was what led them to develop those big ears. So why are the Lalafell so tiny…like I don’t know, maybe they are under a lot of pressure, or maybe they were really…intense?

[tokinokanatae]

But those wouldn't be the ones Emets sacrificing. The calamities and the natural lifespan of the Sundered would ensure that, a fact he was aware of and used as an argument to convince us to join him. He'd be being spiteful against random people. I have a sour opinion of the Ascians for sure, but this defies even the logic that I as a foremost member of the anti-Ascian squad (I couldn't resist I'm so sorry) disagree with.

This actually brings up an interesting point that we see through both Emet-Selch and Hermes--how connected do they consider these people's incarnations to be? While Emet-Selch doesn't come out and call us "Azem" or the name of whoever we were as an Ancient, there are times when we're alone that he absolutely treats us as though we're the literal same as the person he knew, to the point of acting personally put out at our "amnesia", as he sees it.

Same with Hermes. When he speaks to the lykaons, there's this unspoken assumption that they will remember what was done to them and can hold grudges even through the cycle. Most people in Elpis treat reincarnation as a rejuvenation of sorts, like a particularly refreshing dip in the Aetherial Sea. And, in the process, it means that they might never see one another again, but the overall idea isn't that someone will become someone else through choosing to go back to the Star.

While I see this as a fascinating quality of the Ancient perspective, it's also not hard to see how that could be twisted by the Ascians to a horrifying end. Emet-Selch really didn't like Alphinaud's speech to him? Well, he has both the longevity and ability to see that specific soul throughout any incarnation and (mentally) mark it accordingly. To an Ascian, these grudges they might have would not seem arbitrary, because that soul would still be "Alphinaud" to them, regardless of what that weird little Sundered is calling themselves now.

[Lyth]

Mitron actually clarifies this point during the Eden storyline. When Ardbert killed Mitron and Loghrif in their Ascian Prime form, he transformed into Eden, the first sin eater. He was also trapped in his altered form for the next one hundred years, only capable of feeble whispering, and unable to move.

'Emet-Selch - couldn't he have saved you?'

'Perhaps he could have, if such had been his wish. Far easier, however, to simply find another piece of my fractured soul to replace me. From his perspective, there was no need to intervene and potentially disturb with the balance of aether. And so here I remained.'

In short, the Unsundered Ascians didn't really care about individual soul fragments, and considered them to be expendable. If they wanted a new Mitron or a new Azem, all they would need to do is find one of many fragments on the shards and override their current memories with the corresponding memory crystal. That's also why Emet's more than happy to turn the Warrior of Light into a sin eater to destroy the First.

[Iscah]

I felt compelled to revisit this briefly. Curious that Emet-Selch's words should be taken at face value at certain times yet handily dismissed at others even when context should indicate he's being truthful at a given time. We're to immediately accept everything he says about the Ascians' grand plan and him willingly going along with it as fact, yet his descriptions of the state the sundered are in directly after the act are inherently suspect.

I am suspect about the description given in NieR, not because Emet is inherently untrustworthy in describing past events but because it contradicts things he says in the game.

When he describes and demonstrates the idea of sundering to us, it's simply splitting a being into identical copies with weakened attributes. If sundering truly reduced its victims to primitive incoherence, why not say so there? Why not drive home the full horror of what he witnessed his people reduced to?

[Brinne]

I am suspect about the description given in NieR, not because Emet is inherently untrustworthy in describing past events but because it contradicts things he says in the game.

When he describes and demonstrates the idea of sundering to us, it's simply splitting a being into identical copies with weakened attributes. If sundering truly reduced its victims to primitive incoherence, why not say so there? Why not drive home the full horror of what he witnessed his people reduced to?

Well, we know they couldn't actually have been simply made into identical copies, because it's since been confirmed - not just in NieR - that the Sundered races are the reincarnated copies of the Ancients, but aren't identical to them and had to evolve into their current forms. And from the beginning, all Sundered are tiny, size-wise, compared to the Ancients, to reflect their 'reduced' state. You can chalk it up to a partial retcon or Emet-Selch simplifying the explanation for whatever reason - for expedience or to make sure we understood the basic concept, or both - speculate however you want - but even given what we knew back in Shadowbringers, if he was actually showing the true effects of the Sundering, the Ryne copies he made as an example should have been half the height of the original Ryne, at the very least.