What lore do you ignore?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Well yeah. Of course, the tempered thrall of Zodiark would think everyone else is less than a person and a husk. He's evil. The video is in his tempered scrambled brain's viewpoint. And he's being a hypocrite because his own people were also having a civil war and his own member council wanted the death of everybody for nothing before he got amnesia, so he shouldnt view himself as better than the generations to come, but you shouldn't expect that because he's tempered

All data we have in game references the First Astral Era as being prehistoric, so no, it wasn't that he was so brainwashed by a dark god he imagined the people reduced to 1/14th of their intelligence as animals. It was that she turned them into animals.

And even if she hadn't devolved the species. Even if the one and only thing she did was remove their immortality, she'd still be a mass murderer. If you reduce my lifespan from 70 years to five minutes, you are a murderer.

ETA: On Ultima Thul Emet-Selch says, "My ideals are inviolate, invincible."

If he was simply tempered not only would he have not been able to take actions to end his own life, like telling the WoL where to find him after kidnapping G'raha, which his Elpis self recognized as a suicide attempt, he also wouldn't have stood there long after Zodiark was dead, say, "I regret nothing." Refuse Hydaelyn's apology by being resurrected and turn around and go right back to the aetherial sea.

Even after all is said and done, he refuses to believe the salvation of the star HAD to be bought with the blood of his people. And I believe that too. Hydaelyn was a sociopath. That is the only way she could have done half the things she did. My sense of empathy would never allow me to amass the pile of bodies she did no matter the reward.

At least Emet-Selch has the defense that what we were turned into wasn't human and he was trying to put us back together so that we were people again. Even though I'm sure that excuse got harder and harder as time passed and we re-evolved.

But Hydaelyn looked at a world of people just as human and she was and thought, "Yeah, I should kill them all and assume complete control of their world." That action passed the "morally correct" sniff test for her. And for anyone who tries to argue it was transformation, not murder, well, she knew the Ascians would kill her "transformed" children in droves and set them free to perform that duty for her. So...still the most villainous character in the FF14 universe. Thordan? Pfft, he wanted to bring an end to war, Hydaelyn wanted to make more wars. Nidhogg? He actually left Ishgard standing and gave them a chance to come over to his side. She killed all her allies. Athena? Failed Hydaelyn, get gud scrub. The Ascians. Literal pawns. They labored for 12k years in an attempt to repair what she destroyed only to discover she was just using them to up her kill count.

But hey, Answers, am I right?

ETA2: Also the Lopporrits explain that tempering was something added to the magic when the Ascians taught it to us and it's possible to create a primal without being tempered. And that with a being as powerful as Zodiark you might feel a tug. That does not sound like someone who was so brainwashed he couldn't judge people who couldn't form words anymore or became part cat to fill the gaps left in their genetic code were in need of rejoining. And Venat attempting to "stop" Zodiark's creation really isn't an act of trying to help because without informing them of the real problem, if they agreed with her and didn't summon him they would have all died in the Final Days. She needed to create discord over Zodiark so that she'd have the excuse necessary for people to sac themselves to make her a god. If she really wanted a solution besides Zodiark, she would have told them what the problem was, but she didn't. With the one and only person with knowledge of the future, she set them up to suffer and die every step of the way. People assume she tried to do good because they are assuming she's a good person and are working backwards. But her primary concern was survival and she believed the only way for her familiars to survive was if they got good at enduring suffering, which meant that every step of the way increased suffering was her goal, not decreased suffering.

[Anonymoose]

If he was simply tempered not only would he have not been able to take actions to end his own life, like telling the WoL where to find him after kidnapping G'raha, which his Elpis self recognized as a suicide attempt, he also wouldn't have stood there long after Zodiark was dead, say, "I regret nothing." Refuse Hydaelyn's apology by being resurrected and turn around and go right back to the aetherial sea.

Even after all is said and done, he refuses to believe the salvation of the star HAD to be bought with the blood of his people. And I believe that too. Hydaelyn was a sociopath.

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

Hades both stands by his dedication to his people and admits that he never would have succeeded. (Twice accepting his defeat as valid in just Ultima Thule.) At the same time that he says he has no desire to live as Hades when the world he loved is gone and will never return, he also - after being reminded of the true threat beyond the stars and seeing you on the cusp of victory over it - finally accepts the ancients and the sundered as one humanity with one voice, and looks forward to returning to see the world you have won for life (that is, as a mortal). (Hythlodaeus extends this to "I hope we meet again in that life!" but Hades grumbles at that one.)

CITATION 1

So, here I am, Venat. I suppose you needed me to tie it all together, these frayed threads of our history─but knowing you, I suspect there's a joke in it too. Oh yes, I can imagine you gloating over my forgetfulness. Were I feeling charitable, I might assume you had left room for the possibility of this outcome. Still, you must be commended. Our methods would not have brought mankind this far. And so, as a show of respect to the last of us, I make this declaration. You will not end our journey! That is our answer! The answer of all lives of Etheirys, past and present!

Here's the Japanese, as well, as sometimes people suspect they might be different:

ヴェーネス、あの負けず嫌いめ。私をこの時代まで残しておいたのは、歴史を繋ぐためか、終末の真相を忘れていたことへの当てつけか……。
Venat, you always did hate to lose... Why am I still here? To ensure history connects properly? Or did you just want me to remember the true face of the apocalypse...?

至極好意的に解釈するのならば、こんなオチが生じる可能性を残したのだろうが。
If I were to afford you an supremely generous interpretation, I suppose I left myself open to this punchline.

何にせよ、その程度で掌を返すほど、私の人生は軽くなかった。礼などくれてやるものか。
But my existence has not been so easy that I will change my mind for that. You'll get no thanks from me.

……しかし、人をここに至らせたこと。この結末は、確かに私たちのやり方では掴み得なかったものだ。
...But that it has brought humanity to this point. We would never have grasped this result with our methods.

ならば賛辞と、最後の旧き人への手向けとして、口上のひとつくらいは垂れてやろう……！
So that being the case, as a compliment and final gesture to the last of us, I deliver this message...!

終焉を謳うものよ、私たちはお前によって終わらない！
You who sing of the end, we will not end here!

それが、あの星の過去に生き、今を生きる者からの答えだ……！
From the lips of one who lived in both the worlds of the past and present, this is our answer!

And the French for this one, too, since it's even more explicit:

Venat a toujours eu trop de suite dans les idées. M'aurait-elle épargné pour faire de moi la clef de voûte de son pont à travers les âges? À moins que ce ne soit un reproche voilé, ma punition pour avoir oublié bien malgré moi la cause de l'apocalypse...
Venat always was single-minded... But would she really have spared me to make me the keystone upholding her bridge through the ages? Unless this is a veiled reproach... My punishment for having forgotten the cause of the apocalypse despite myself...

Quoique, si je n'étais pas mauvaise langue, je dirais qu'elle a simplement cherché à orchestrer cet ultime coup de théâtre...
Although, if I was free to give a generous interpretation, I would say that she deliberately orchestrated this final little plot twist...

Si elle s'attend à des remerciements, elle sera bien mal servie. Ma vie ne fut pas un long fleuve tranquille, et ce revirement de cœur n'y changera rien.
If she expects me to be grateful, she will be sorely disappointed. My life was no long, tranquil river, and this change of heart affects that not one bit.

Je dois néanmoins lui reconnaître un certain don d'entremetteuse. Ce n'est pas avec nos méthodes qu'un être humain serait parvenu à mettre les pieds ici.
Nevertheless I must recognize in her a certain...gift as a matchmaker. It is not with our methods that humanity ever would have managed to set foot here.

Soit. En guise d'éloges à Venat, et d'ultime offrande à l'humanité originelle, je peux bien me fendre d'un préambule!
That is to say... By way of praise/eulogy to Venat, and as a final offering to the original humanity, I can well provide a preamble!

Chantre de l'anéantissement, nous ne serons pas défaits par tes vœux funestes!
Singer of annihilation, you will not be our undoing!

Telle est la parole des peuples de jadis et d'aujourd'hu! La réponse qu'ils t'opposent en chœur!
These are the words of the people of the past and the present, the answer we give you as a single choir!

CITATION 2

The encore is finished, and I will not suffer myself to live again by Hydaelyn's magick. But more than that, the future you seek is not the past we loved. That is why we fought. And why I lost. But though you defeated me, my ideals are inviolate. Invincible. Spare me your pity. I have no use for it. If you would do something for me─save our star. See this tale to a triumphant conclusion, and with elation in your hearts, bid the final curtain fall. Only then may it rise again and a new tale begin─with new parts for all to play.

ハイデリンの術に生かされるなど、願い下げだからな。
I have no desire to be sustained by Hydaelyn's power.

……何より、お前たちが進む未来は、私の愛した過去じゃない。だからこそお前たちと本気で、命を懸けて戦ったんだ。
...After all, the future on the horizon is not the past I so dearly loved. That's why I fought you. Fought with everything I had.

その結果ならば、敗北であれ、覆すものか。私が今の私であるかぎり、この想いは砕けない。
Would I change that, knowing it ends in defeat? Never. As long as I am who I am, my sentiments will never be broken.

間違っても哀れんでくれるなよ。お前たちに望むことがあるとすれば、あの忌々しい終末を打ち払うことだけだ。
Do not pity me for my mistakes. I have but one wish - stop this damned apocalypse.

そして勝鬨を喝采に代え、万感の想いとともに、幕を下ろせ。
See the sounds of triumphant battle through to thunderous applause and - with all your heart and soul - bring the curtain down.

それでこそ、次の公演が始められるのだからな。新たな舞台と新たな役で……お前たちも、私たちも。
Only then can a new performance begin. A new stage, with new roles. For you... and for us, too.

Personally, I find it very difficult to reconcile these lines and that tone with some of the perspectives people assign to him. Especially without removing half of the meaning, "Remember us," was supposed to convey. But, again, I'm the kind of person to accept the intent and critique the execution.

Also the Lopporrits explain that tempering was something added to the magic when the Ascians taught it to us and it's possible to create a primal without being tempered. And that with a being as powerful as Zodiark you might feel a tug.

This one however appears to just be sarcasm on the part of Livingway which often gets mistaken for being sincere. The "little tug" appears to be an English-only under-exaggeration akin to the "teeny-tiny toy boat". All 3 other language just say, "Well if it was Zodiark, you'd still be tempered, of course, but it's not, so you won't."

CITATION

In contrast, our creation magicks─the original and the best, accept no substitutes─don't incorporate any of that rubbish, so there's no risk of tempering. I mean, if the being was on the scale of Zodiark, you might feel a little “tug”...but I think we'll be safe enough.

けれど本来の創造魔法に、その概念はありません。さすがにゾディアーク級を創れば引っ張られるでしょうが、今回の規模であれば、ご心配には及ばないかと。
However, original creative magic does not have that concept. Of course, if we were to create something of Zodiark caliber, that would drag you in, but at this scale, I don't think there is any need to worry.

Fort heureusement, ce danger n'existe pas si l'on respecte les rituels originaux. À moins que l'on parle de puissantes entités comme Zordiarche, bien sûr, mais les nôtres seront bien plus modestes.
Fortunately, this danger does not exist if we respect the original rituals. Unless we're talking entities as powerful as Zodiark, of course, but ours will be much more modest.

Aber ihr könnt ganz unbesorgt sein. Die Schöpfungsmagie kommt ohne diesen gemeinen Zusatz zurecht. Außerdem beschwören wir ja keinen zweiten Zodiark, oder? Es besteht also kein Anlass zur Sorge, kann ich euch versichern. Es wird schon schiefgehen!
But you can set your worries aside. Creation magic can do without that nasty little addition. Besides, we're not summoning a second Zodiark, are we? So there is no need to worry, I can assure you.

(As always, corrections welcome on translations, I am by no means a fluent speaker of anything but English.)

[Lady_Silvermoon]

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

Hades both stands by his dedication to his people and admits that he never would have succeeded. (Twice accepting his defeat as valid in just Ultima Thule.) At the same time that he says he has no desire to live as Hades when the world he loved is gone and will never return, he also - after being reminded of the true threat beyond the stars and seeing you on the cusp of victory over it - finally accepts the ancients and the sundered as one humanity with one voice, and looks forward to returning to see the world you have won for life (that is, as a mortal). (Hythlodaeus extends this to "I hope we meet again in that life!" but Hades grumbles at that one.)

CITATION 1

Here's the Japanese, as well, as sometimes people suspect they might be different:

And the French for this one, too, since it's even more explicit:

CITATION 2

Personally, I find it very difficult to reconcile these lines and that tone with some of the perspectives people assign to him. Especially without removing half of the meaning, "Remember us," was supposed to convey. But, again, I'm the kind of person to accept the intent and critique the execution.



This one however appears to just be sarcasm on the part of Livingway which often gets mistaken for being sincere. The "little tug" appears to be an English-only under-exaggeration akin to the "teeny-tiny toy boat". All 3 other language just say, "Well if it was Zodiark, you'd still be tempered, of course, but it's not, so you won't."

CITATION
(As always, corrections welcome on translations, I am by no means a fluent speaker of anything but English.)

Him admitting that her torture machine did in fact work is not the same as saying I'm fine with you eliminating my species. People grab so hard on that Emet-Selch admitted their tendency to just plow through any problem with overwhelming strength probably wouldn't have gotten them to the edge of the universe to teach emotional regulation to a bird and jump from that to therefore it must have been okay to eradicate his race and create a new species specifically to be tortured...

Given us mere mortals can come up with a dozen ideas better than Venat's torture machine, had the Ancients been given the actual information about the problem, I believe they would have figured something out. But unlike Venat, I actually believe in man's potential and their ability to find a way forward.

Also, even if that was the one and only way to save the universe, I still wouldn't have condoned it because respecting a person's autonomy is my highest moral value. Perpetuating the species isn't even on the list. If all humanity decided to stop making babies tomorrow and I had the power to magically change it, I would not override their will and force them to have kids just so "something" exists. We all know that the universe will eventually end. Taking away people's right to choose just so there is something there to see the heat death of the universe runs contrary to my morals. Especially when making sure 'something' survives involves crippling the people in question.

"Our plan to save humanity involves three month lifespans that you'll spend in agonizing pain." If the species decided it wasn't worth it and to just peace out, I'd let them. But that's because I value people's rights to make decisions about their own lives. She butchered her species and ran them through her despair machine without consent. And given this was a species where half of them volunteered to sacrifice themselves to save the other, I feel like if she explained her plan and the reason for it to them, she'd have probably gotten enough volunteers to be run through her torture machine that she wouldn't have had to take them by force.


ETA:

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

The only way I can reconcile what the game and other sources are telling me happened with how they want me to feel about what happened is that tone and details are being decided by two different people. More specifically, I theorize that Natsuko Ishikawa had been setting Venat up to be a villain since Shadowbringers and Yoshi P overrode it and decided he wanted her to be a hero and so they presented her that way without changing any of her actions. This is the only way I can make sense of what I'm looking at because I can't believe they'd try to sell me on Venat's actions unless someone, somewhere doesn't full get what she did.

I have considered the possibility that it's me that is misunderstanding her actions. But even if I accepted every contradictory claim made by those arguing with me. That she tried to help the Ancients, even though they have to die for her plan to handle Meteion to work. That the Ancients weren't killed, though any transformation that extreme counts at death to me. That it was the one and only possible way to save the universe...so basically, a being made by one guy couldn't possibly be defeated by anything of his species all working together? That the one and only way to save the world was for one woman to decide the fate of everyone for twelve thousand years? That's antithetical to everything in the story including Endwalker where the entire world comes together to defeat Meteion. So we could do it, cause we're superior, but they had no chance being the inferior species...seriously, I can't believe this was done on purpose...

Even if I were to accept everything at face value and hit myself in the head until I forgot about all the glaring contradictions, we end up at Gilead. A situation where it's okay to do literally anything to people if it means preserving the species...I play FF14 to relax. I want to fish and marketboard PVP without thinking about the horrors upon which this world is built. I am rooting for someone to somehow make it all make sense without my WoL being a mutated catalyst for genocide in an unending torture loop. But I mostly just get comments about the Ancients unworthiness to live or assurances their massacre was the only way cause the story says so.

Even if they retconned it and told us that we're actually volunteers that agreed to be sundered and run through her torture simulator and that the rest of the Ancients were outside of time and space waiting for us to fix the problem, I'd feel better.

[Lyth]

In the interests of quickly wrapping up a few loose ends (the new lore stuff is much more interesting):

What Emet-Selch saw was malformed creatures incapable of speech when he comes from a species that can understand any language due to knowing the intent of your soul.

When you first arrive in Propylaion, both Emet and Hythlodaeus are incapable of understanding what you are saying, despite the fact that you are able to follow their entire conversation. From their perspective, you're 'literally too intangible to form words'. It's only after Emet spares a snifter of his bounteous aether to bring you to their size that they gain the ability to understand what you're telling them (Lv. 86, Hope Upon a Flower).

...

Rebuttal can't happen without refutation. You seem to be misreading my points, which results in the 'counterpoints' not offering any clash for me to engage with.

You can take it as given that the timelines did not diverge in a meaningful way. If they had, the past would have changed when we left Elpis to return to the present. Why this is the case is left open to interpretation. In particular, it is not explicitly stated whether this is a stable time loop, or one that simply converged back on the same sequence of events to keep the future unchanged. It's also unclear about whether this was by design (i.e. Venat attempting to preserve the timeline) or incidental. I'm more inclined to think the latter:

'Until a moment finally arrives, we cannot know for certain what will come to pass - regardless of our supposed foreknowledge. So you needn't worry for us.' (Venat, Lv.87, Travellers at the Crossroads)

I'm not offering a specific interpretation on what happened between our departure from Elpis and the time of the Sundering. I'm just pointing out that there are pre-existing facts from the adjacent story that place limitations on what could have happened in that time period. So when you say it's 'open to interpretation', it's more accurately 'open to interpretation, but within the bounds of the facts of the story'. There are some solutions that are not viable. There are likely more non-viable solutions than we can predict, because we can't test every possibility. Your strategy would likely be more conservative on a single playthrough than one in which you can reset or undo your decisions to test what works.

I'm not sure why you think that enlisting Hermes' aid to create additional entelechies is a viable solution to fighting Meteion. I think the problem with this should be self-evident.

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

That is because you've just been sent 12k years in the past and are too thin to even press against the door. They weren't failing to understand you because of you sundered status but because of you are literally paper thin. If that had been the same issue, Emet-Selch could have simply given people aether and saved his species...

[ZavosEsperian]

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

Anything you say? I dislike restating myself, or requoting stuff I have quoted earlier, but for the sake of time I will leave out Yoshi-P's personal interpretation as that is his own opinion and only state what the writers’ intent was as fact, as Yoshi-P says this initial response on behalf of the writing team.

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

Any extra constraints added are invented by you, and thus make your argument invalid to the writers’ point of view, which is leaving everything open to interpretation. In addition, the argument I am stating is on the basis of possibility, whereas yours requires absolutes.

The task you have in proving your statement with the writers' given constrains is not provable. You can only prove it based on contrivances of your own making by adding your own view of various story points into the writer's vision. Under those contrived constrains, you can prove yourself correct, but under the constraints the writers laid out, you can never be correct for sure, which means your argument is always false unless the writers explicitly say yours is correct.

In addition, to prove my argument correct, all I would have to prove the existence of an alternate timeline inside of the story as to show it is consistent with the writers’ constraints (I don't actually have to do this since their interpretation is open, I am doing this just for you), which we know of existing thanks to G'raha Tia's jump from his timeline where the 8th Umbral Calamity occurred and its continued existence via Tales from the Shadow: An Unpromised Tomorrow. It does not matter whether the timeline survives to the end or not, the only thing that matters in my argument is if the possibility exists, which due to the existence of this timeline and its continued existence, thus proving my argument as always true.

Hermes is a different issue altogether. Neither one of us can definitively prove their answer. The difference is the scope of the proof. Yours requires Hermes to turn out bad every time, whereas mine only requires him to do as I have said one time for it to be true. My original argument did invoke an infinity when discussing Hermes as its only contrivance because you are using an argument that also invokes infinity as you directly state the following:

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it.

By invoking the term ‘any’, you are creating a scenario where there are a possible infinite number of timelines and you would have to go and prove for all timelines this being true. Additionally, the information you gate with his memory loss is not subject to the effects of Kairos as I have explained earlier. With those memories freed from your contrived example via proving your statement regarding those memories as false, I can then use them in my argument which, thanks to you using the term ‘any’ is also subject to this infinity, and since my statement is existential, proving it would simply take the writers adding in one scenario where he takes the actions you said he won’t do. Please note us arguing our points doesn’t make one more valid than the other, as neither of these events have been proven to exist or have never been stated to occur in every case, thus both of our arguments are false. The point I am making is you using false information/restrictions via headcanon/interpretation causes your arguments to be extremely poor arguments due to how you frame them in the face of the writers’ point of view as well as invoking terms and conditions you may not intend to. As such, it is rather pointless for either of us to get held up on this argument.

I would suggest in the future to heed your own advice at the beginning of this discussion, it will help you in the future as you appear to defy your own expectations by placing artificial constraints on the story.

(…), you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.

[Lyth]

...

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

How do you reconcile your belief that nothing could be done to change the timeline with your belief that Venat released the Ascians hoping the change the timeline (even though she didn't give them any information that would perhaps lead them to behave differently and the producers have stated she's attempting to maintain the timeline.) https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6397195

You've contradicted yourself from post to post. You ignore the ample evidence being quoted at you. And people applaud while nothing you're saying is consistent even with other things you've said in this thread.

I've come to realize the amount of denial I'd have to be in to see Venat's actions as something besides genocide is a level of doublethink I'm incapable of. I was hoping discussing things here would give me new insights that might make me doubt my interpretation. But now I see what would be required of me to view her acts as good.

War is peace.

[ZavosEsperian]

No, the burden of proof is yours.

See my previous post. Everything I stated is logically sound in terms of how logic is understood around the globe (if there are any faults in my logic, you are free to point them out and I will admit to it). My argument and your are fundamentally different, and as far as the burden of proof is concerned, mine is already met for the type of argument I made, which is existential. The type of statement you made is universal and has a higher burden of proof than an existential statement. If you cannot show your statement is universally true, you have failed to make a logical argument and thus the argument should be disregarded. An example of a failed universal proof looks like this:

I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases and, as such, is unable to be used as proof for a universal statement

The divergence possibility cannot be ruled out because you want to ignore the existence of the timeline G'raha originated from and its continued existence, which goes against arguments you hold everyone else up to. I will remind you again what your previous statement was paired with what the writers' think on this issue:

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

and here is what the writers say about this issue:

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

As far as Hermes is concerned, I have already stated neither of us have any way to prove our arguments as true, nor have I ever taken a stance where I am personally invested in proving this point true for headcanon reasons. You are free to assume what I believe in terms of the story, but you cannot deny the logic of the argument. From a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is higher on universal statements than it is on existential statements due to the nature of the two statement types. No amount of arguing will ever change this fact. As such, you have no way to prove what Hermes would do outside of conjecture, which is not sufficient to prove a universal statement true. Similarly, I have no way to prove Hermes' involvement either because there does not exist a case to prove me true. As such, it is pointless to keep doing this unless you are enjoying learning about logical proofing for our arguments here, in which case I do not mind continuing to show you how to argue using logical statements.

In any case, there is one true universal statement you have made in your posts on the subject from all viewpoints based on the circumstances:

The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends.