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

[KariTheFox]

Since we're operating in a universe where reincarnation is confirmed to be phenomenon that the ancients not only believed in, but could track and observe as souls were reincarnated into new lives, I think the distinction between literal biological descendants and other new life forms that emerged on the star.

As a kind of side point, what exactly does it mean for an ancient to have children? It doesn't seem likely that they would reproduce the traditional way, given they already have the capacity to create new ensouled life in the form of familiars,

But they must have children, since characters are the children of other characters and they yknow, understand what a child is. Probably not something we're supposed to think too hard about.

[Lurina]

As a kind of side point, what exactly does it mean for an ancient to have children? It doesn't seem likely that they would reproduce the traditional way, given they already have the capacity to create new ensouled life in the form of familiars,

No, they don't. Multiple NPCs in Elpis say that you're the first familiar with a soul they've ever seen.

[Absimiliard]

The Ancients did not have the ability to create ensouled life of any sort. What receives a soul and what does not is entirely up to the planet.

At any rate, we've got in-game confirmation of their ability to reproduce the "natural" way. It's one characteristic they most definitely share with their sundered counterparts.

[KariTheFox]

No, they don't. Multiple NPCs in Elpis say that you're the first familiar with a soul they've ever seen.

It seems to be a oddity, but not completely impossible. I didn't mean that the ancients were capable of doing it intentionally just it is a thing that is possible.

At any rate, we've got in-game confirmation of their ability to reproduce the "natural" way. It's one characteristic they most definitely share with their sundered counterparts.

Was it? I know that Lahabrea and Athena have thier son, but I don't remember anything about how the actual mechanism of reproduction works. Unless you just mean that they reproduce in some capacity by merging the essential traits of two parents and a child being the result of that, which yeah, fair.

Incidentally the way the actual mythological Athena gave "birth" to Erichthonios is anything but traditional, but I don't think I can talk about that on these forums.

[Lyth]

It's worth noting that the term 'sapient life' has the exact same connotation as 'intelligent life'. Sapient just means 'wise' (same etymology as our species name sapiens, meaning 'wise human'). When you claim that the souls in question were 'non-sapient', the justification being used is that the souls being sacrificed are somehow 'less than human', and thus intrinsically have less value.

But you can see why people find this terminology uncomfortable, along with phrases like 'beast tribes'. People build these judgements into language, which propagates the false belief that one group of people are somehow intrinsically superior to another and normalizes it. Dehumanizing others comes up as a recurring theme in racism, as a justification for vile and malicious behavior. And it's unsurprising that Emet uses that exact same line of 'reasoning' to defend his slaughter of countless civilizations across the reflections. We're less 'human' than he is. We're less 'alive' than he is. It's just really problematic rhetoric.

[Lurina]

It's worth noting that the term 'sapient life' has the exact same connotation as 'intelligent life'. Sapient just means 'wise' (same etymology as our species name sapiens, meaning 'wise human'). When you claim that the souls in question were 'non-sapient', the justification being used is that the souls being sacrificed are somehow 'less than human', and thus intrinsically have less value.

But you can see why people find this terminology uncomfortable, along with phrases like 'beast tribes'. People build these judgements into language, which propagates the false belief that one group of people are somehow intrinsically superior to another and normalizes it. Dehumanizing others comes up as a recurring theme in racism, as a justification for vile and malicious behavior. And it's unsurprising that Emet uses that exact same line of 'reasoning' to defend his slaughter of countless civilizations across the reflections. We're less 'human' than he is. We're less 'alive' than he is. It's just really problematic rhetoric.

I'm gonna quote myself from a few pages ago.

Lyth, this is a bonkers thing to say, and you know it. This is not a diagetic conversation. People unsure if the sacrifices were sapient or not aren't unsure because they're indulging in in-universe moral relativity about issue in line with the Ascians, they're unsure because Natsuko Ishikawa, the real-world human being, literally hasn't written it down.

We have no explicit textual information on the content of the third sacrifice other than that it was "life". We can make guesses based on the tone of the story, but for all we know in terms of hard canon, it could have been plants. When I say that I am unsure whether or not they were sapient, I'm not downplaying their intelligence or humanity in an in-setting fashion - I would be the first to say their lives were of equal value to the Ancients if it was established they did have cognition - I am saying it has not been made clear by the writers if they even had brains.

Please stop being disingenuous.

[Brinne]

Was it? I know that Lahabrea and Athena have thier son, but I don't remember anything about how the actual mechanism of reproduction works. Unless you just mean that they reproduce in some capacity by merging the essential traits of two parents and a child being the result of that, which yeah, fair.

Given that the existence of parents and families are unremarkable to Ancients, whereas ensouled familiars and creations are, I think it's safe to say this is a rather silly reach, at best.

[Lyth]

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

[Brinne]

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

If I did not murder them for a dead Amaurotine, I would absolutely murder them for fourteen bicolored gemstones?

[Lurina]

We do know for a fact that Amaurot's proposed sacrifices had souls. But let's deconstruct this a bit further. The reverse process is personification, in which we attribute human characteristics to non-human species. It makes us more sympathetic to them, because there's that common ground that lets us see ourselves in them.

Let's take a closer look at these 'plants' that you just sneered at. Etheirys's seedkin are particularly interesting in that it becomes much harder to draw that hard distinction between humanlike and not. You have the tall humanoid Leshy that walk the earth, and you have the Yukinko who make their own clothes out of grass in cold weather, a behavior known as 'wintering'. And let's not forget the Sabotenders and their dances. Any one of them could potentially be a 'tribe' with its own culture, friendships, love, and way of life (imagine a city of morbols). What if they too had souls? Would you be equally willing to murder them just for the sake of a dead Amaurotine? If so, your actions would be no better than Emet's.

Lyth, you know what I'm saying. Grass is life, and it sure as heck doesn't think. FFXIV follows Shinto rules where everything alive that isn't artificial has some kind of soul, but regardless, not all of it is conscious. And in spite of some of the fantastical creatures in-setting, a non-thinking being is what I meant by 'plant', as I'm sure you were well aware already.

Please stop being disingenuous.