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

[thegreatonemal]

The only time i can think of is the group in venats walk demanding to have their paradise back rather than rebuilding and moving forward but thats still a bit of a stretch since they were about to commit an atrocity to get it back.

There were massive debates about what to do beforehand. That is a bit of a stretch to assume what Venat's faction did was out of malice because they disagreed.

[sidurgu-12]

There were massive debates about what to do beforehand. That is a bit of a stretch to assume what Venat's faction did was out of malice because they disagreed.

I agree. Honestly imo malice only became apart of the equation when the ascians began their restoration plan.

[Thenightvortex]

The only time i can think of is the group in venats walk demanding to have their paradise back rather than rebuilding and moving forward but thats still a bit of a stretch since they were about to commit an atrocity to get it back.

Isn’t having a perfect paradise back and rebuilding exactly the same thing in the context of the ancients? They are restoring their world after their losses, and therefore becoming closer to their vision of paradise.

As for the souls…When your friends and loved ones are stuck in a Limbo unable to either live or die peacefully, of course one would try to bring them back by any means necessary. And that’s not to mention that we do not know how much of an atrocity it truly was, you could say just as well that they sacrificed wildlife and there would be nothing to contradict it.

[sidurgu-12]

Isn’t having a perfect paradise back and rebuilding exactly the same thing in the context of the ancients? They are restoring their world after their losses, and therefore becoming closer to their vision of paradise.

As for the souls…When your friends and loved ones are stuck in a Limbo unable to either live or die peacefully, of course one would try to bring them back by any means necessary. And that’s not to mention that we do not know how much of an atrocity it truly was, you could say just as well that they sacrificed wildlife and there would be nothing to contradict it.

Not really. Wanting everything back in this case means restoring the world to before the song began rather than working to rebuild.

As for the second point no offense but im really tired of the "maybe they were animals" angle. All we know is new ensouled life sprang up after zodiark healed the planet and they planned to cultivate and sacrifice them to replace the trapped souls within him. Which would still be damning souls to a twisted existence.

[RukoBoshi]

And honestly if they were animals, Fandaniel would have probably have sided with the Hydaelyn faction.

At no point does anything in the game let us think that these new souls are animals. It's heavily implied to be new humans.
It honestly wouldn't be nearly as impactful if it wasn't just humans.

Also wouldn't make a lick of sense to not sacrifice animals in the first time, or not mention it in the first place.
To me "new life" implicitly means life that were born after all these humans were sacrificed to Zodiark.

[Lyth]

I think the going pro-Ascian claim was that Zodiark was trying to eat healthy and had a preference for vegetable souls. Although the Amaurotines had more atherically dense souls, he was willing to trade them back valued at a discounted rate of 12000 Seafarer's Cowries each on account of their inherent hubris. An unfortunate consequence of this deal was that it ultimately lead to the destruction of the West Mandra Empire.

Also, don't tease the octopus. There are much more interesting lore discussions to be had elsewhere.

[sidurgu-12]

I think the going pro-Ascian claim was that Zodiark was trying to eat healthy and had a preference for vegetable souls. Although the Amaurotines had more atherically dense souls, he was willing to trade them back valued at a discounted rate of 12000 Seafarer's Cowries each on account of their inherent hubris. An unfortunate consequence of this deal was that it ultimately lead to the destruction of the West Mandra Empire.

Also, don't tease the octopus. There are much more interesting lore discussions to be had elsewhere.

Thinking of that grind hurts my very soul.

[KageTokage]

And honestly if they were animals, Fandaniel would have probably have sided with the Hydaelyn faction.

At no point does anything in the game let us think that these new souls are animals. It's heavily implied to be new humans.
It honestly wouldn't be nearly as impactful if it wasn't just humans.

Also wouldn't make a lick of sense to not sacrifice animals in the first time, or not mention it in the first place.
To me "new life" implicitly means life that were born after all these humans were sacrificed to Zodiark.

If that was the case, then I've just left wondering why they didn't spell it out plainly considering that the writers obviously wanted people to unanimously agree with Venat's faction as having been in the right, with the Omega quests feeling like backpedaling to appease the people who weren't on board with that.

I suppose there may still be some deeper truths to be gleaned from Pandaemonium and Myths of the Realm.

As far as Hermes goes, the story spelled out that he kind of just stopped caring about his own feelings and fell into conformity in the wake of what happened in Elpis.

I think the going pro-Ascian claim was that Zodiark was trying to eat healthy and had a preference for vegetable souls.

I really dislike the oversimplification that not being opposed to the Convocation's original decision means that you by extension support the actions of Ascians in general.

They lost sympathy to me the moment they declared their former brethren as sub-human fodder fit only for destruction. For that matter, we don't even know if the Ancients would've been of one mind in that regard because it was essentially the three unsundered making that decision for their entire civilization.

[Thenightvortex]

Not really. Wanting everything back in this case means restoring the world to before the song began rather than working to rebuild.

As for the second point no offense but im really tired of the "maybe they were animals" angle. All we know is new ensouled life sprang up after zodiark healed the planet and they planned to cultivate and sacrifice them to replace the trapped souls within him. Which would still be damning souls to a twisted existence.

But again, how is it different? They were rebuilding, and in the process going back to the paradise that once was. Are the only difference the people they wished to bring back?

I’m pretty sure animals have souls so the point still stands.

And honestly if they were animals, Fandaniel would have probably have sided with the Hydaelyn faction.

At no point does anything in the game let us think that these new souls are animals. It's heavily implied to be new humans.
It honestly wouldn't be nearly as impactful if it wasn't just humans.

Also wouldn't make a lick of sense to not sacrifice animals in the first time, or not mention it in the first place.
To me "new life" implicitly means life that were born after all these humans were sacrificed to Zodiark.

It’s not heavily implied to be humans(or something like beast tribes, which I imagine the “new life” would be if the sacrifices were sapient), it’s just vague “new life” and “tiny lives” which can be interpreted differently. Perhaps it would have been more impactful, but considering that Venat does not mention the third sacrifice as part of her reason in the game or short story and neither it is referred to often at all, I am not sure if it was supposed to be impactful.

As for the animals, the possible reasons for it is that they are aetherically thinner, and therefore more susceptible to Dynamis. We know that after the first sacrifice the planet was left lifeless and barren, there might have been no animals to sacrifice.

[Layte_Aeon]

But again, how is it different? They were rebuilding, and in the process going back to the paradise that once was. Are the only difference the people they wished to bring back?

I’m pretty sure animals have souls so the point still stands.

The difference is that they wanted to act as if the tragedy of the Final Days never happened, that they could simply throw lives, be it their own or others at an issue, act like it's a solution and just leave it at that.

It’s not heavily implied to be humans(or something like beast tribes, which I imagine the “new life” would be if the sacrifices were sapient), it’s just vague “new life” and “tiny lives” which can be interpreted differently. Perhaps it would have been more impactful, but considering that Venat does not mention the third sacrifice as part of her reason in the game or short story and neither it is referred to often at all, I am not sure if it was supposed to be impactful.

As for the animals, the possible reasons for it is that they are aetherically thinner, and therefore more susceptible to Dynamis. We know that after the first sacrifice the planet was left lifeless and barren, there might have been no animals to sacrifice.

Thing is Emet also says shortly before he's fought that once the rejoinings are complete that the Ascians will "offer up the sources remaining inhabitants in sacrifice" a remark that comes shortly after it being noted that Emet did more than just recreate Amaurot he created facsimiles of his dead countrymen's souls, so that inhabitants of the source remark really lends itself to the idea that it was never going to be just animals or the sort that would needs be sacrificed.

Also animals don't necessarily have thinner aether, it mostly depends on the animal. Even after the Sundering there are some big and/or strong animals in the world.