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

[Lauront]

It's also entirely consistent with descriptions we have of the earlier eras, e.g.:

https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/First_Umbral_Era
https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/First_Astral_Era

It does seem like he's abstracting the explanation a bit to focus on its aetheric effect.

I can speculate as to reasons why this was not just shown in game and instead was shoved into a crossover...

[Iscah]

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.

Scientific detour – if we're actually physically taking all the atoms in a person and arranging it into two "scale models" of the person (half the volume), they're going to be more around 80% of the height of the original. (Edit to be clear: 80% as opposed to 50% height suggested by Brinne, which would be an eighth of the volume.)

(Or perhaps the same size but extremely un-dense, and then they evolve and collapse down over a few generations or something.)

Incidentally, a 14x increase in volume would make someone about 2.5 times the height.

On the other hand, people of the Source aren't any bigger than those from the shards, just more dense.

[Lyth]

This is a bit of a nomenclature issue, but the numbered calamity always precedes the associated era. As an example, the Seventh Umbral Calamity precedes the Seventh Umbral Era, which is then followed by the Seventh Astral Era (patch 2.1 onwards).

The First Umbral Calamity (of Wind) was linked to the rejoining of the Fifth Shard. But that wasn't the first world that the Ascians destroyed, because Igeyorhm's destruction of the Thirteenth served as the inspiration for this.

So the period of time that Emet recalls post-Sundering isn't the First Umbral Era, as Emet and his minions had already murdered two worlds filled with people by then. Every time the Ascians cause a calamity it brings about widespread destruction to the Source, which more often than not results in a complete 'reset' to civilization's progress and a subsequent 'umbral' period in which society recovers.

[Denishia]

And the people on the Shards- Cylva, Zero, Unukalhai from the 13th and the huge cast from the First - none are written with a large gap in intelligence or cultural advancement, nor a huge gap in power discounting the density required to contain the Light Wardens -which was also reliant on the Traveller's Blessing from Hydaelyn or else any of the Scions or G'raha himself coming from the Source would have been enough. The difficulty of opening Voidgates that the Black Mage equivalents on the First had were because of the distance between the First and Thirteenth Shard and the aetheric alignments at odds. And Allag itself as the hyper-advanced magical and technical civilization was peopled by those with less than half Rejoinings that the current day Source people have.

[KariTheFox]

Scientific detour – if we're actually physically taking all the atoms in a person and arranging it into two "scale models" of the person (half the volume), they're going to be more around 80% of the height of the original.

(Or perhaps the same size but extremely un-dense, and then they evolve and collapse down over a few generations or something.)

Incidentally, a 14x increase in volume would make someone about 2.5 times the height.

On the other hand, people of the Source aren't any bigger than those from the shards, just more dense.

That's even assuming that aether-based physics maps onto our atomic understanding of physics.

Density might work in weird ways because of aether (or rather, it just works the way that characters describe it working, because that is what is necessary for the story.)

In other words, Emet-Selch accurately depcited Ryne beong sundered because there is no reason in the plot for him to be inaccurate.

[Lurina]

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.

Feel like you're not really acknowledging the contradiction here. Like, you've made two assertions in your last couple of posts:

1) We can assume the third sacrifice was sapient beings even if it's not explicitly stated because the story has a broader theme of letting go of the past to secure the future, and it's stated that Hydaelyn's faction wanted the new life to inherit the star in line with the idea of 'let those who walk before lead those who walk after' and of how one mustn't prioritize ones in-group at the expense of others, so it would feel out of place if they weren't sapient.

2) The player races, collectively 'mankind', have always been meant to be Sundered Ancients.

These are mutually incompatible ideas. If 2 has been true from the start, 1 cannot be a consistent application of the theme because, again, the 'new life' didn't inherit the star. We did. And whatever the third sacrifice was has disappeared from the story (or more accurately, been written out).

If the theme is not being applied consistently, it cannot be used as a basis to make an inference of writer intent. We cannot use the thematic resonance of the new life succeeding the Ancients as stewards of the star to presume their sapience when they didn't.

[KariTheFox]

1) We can assume the third sacrifice was sapient beings even if it's not explicitly stated because the story has a broader theme of letting go of the past to secure the future, and it's stated that Hydaelyn's faction wanted the new life to inherit the star in line with the idea of 'let those who walk before lead those who walk after', so it would feel out of place if they weren't sapient.

2) The player races, collectively 'mankind', have always been meant to be Sundered Ancients.

These are mutually incompatible ideas. If 2 has been true from the start, 1 cannot be a consistent application of the theme because, again, the 'new life' didn't inherit the star. We did. And whatever the third sacrifice was has disappeared from the story.

If the theme is not being applied consistently, it cannot be used as a basis to make an inference of writer intent. We cannot use the thematic resonance of the new life succeeding the Ancients as stewards of the star to presume their sapience when they didn't.

Children, or rather future generations can be understood as "new life" in the world.

They are also our descendants, and we are the ancestors of future generations.

Future generations are new life, they descendants of those who came before. I don't see the contradiction.

The potential third sacrifice didn't vanish from the story, we grew up.

[Lurina]

Children, or rather future generations can be understood as "new life" in the world.

They are also our descendants, and we are the ancestors of future generations.

Future generations are new life, they descendants of those who came before. I don't see the contradiction.

The potential third sacrifice didn't vanish from the story, we grew up.

To reiterate, at the time of the third sacrifice, Sundered humans - the player races - did not exist because the Sundering had not yet happened, and so couldn't be sacrificed. The only form they existed in was as Unsundered Ancients.

Are you saying the Ancients were planning on sacrificing their own kids? That's completely unsubstantiated by the text. A distinction is repeatedly drawn between the 'new life' and the Ancients as beings.

[Iscah]

2) The player races, collectively 'mankind', have always been meant to be Sundered Ancients.

Where does this come from? At the point of Shadowbringers, that question was one of the big confusing ones that wouldn't get addressed at Q&A events – whether we were descendants or creations of the ancients, or even simply co-inhabitants of the planet alongside the Amaurotine race.

I don't recall having gotten a definite statement on it before Endwalker, so unless I've missed something, how can we be certain it was their intent all the way from Shadowbringers?

[Lurina]

Where does this come from? At the point of Shadowbringers, that question was one of the big confusing ones that wouldn't get addressed at Q&A events – whether we were descendants or creations of the ancients, or even simply co-inhabitants of the planet alongside the Amaurotine race.

I don't recall having gotten a definite statement on it before Endwalker, so unless I've missed something, how can we be certain it was their intent all the way from Shadowbringers?

You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that KariTheFox seemed to be making that assertion, which I was saying was mutually exclusive with their other assertion.

Like I blabbered on about a couple pages ago, I personally believe that the third sacrifices were originally meant to be the player races, conjured into existence for the first time by Zodiark, but then they soft-retconned it to make way for their new storyline without really thinking through the repercussions it would have on the story.