Feedback: Feeling disappointed by 6.55's narrative, and thus unsure about Dawntrail

[SieyaM]

In the end I think this whole contest for the throne thing will become irrelevant pretty early in the expansion so we are wasting our time speculating on what could easily become a minor plot point. I suspect that just a few hours in we will find some bigger bad that will immediately sweep aside this competition and the scions will of course unite to stop it and that will be the plot of the expansion. Any promised conflict between scions where we might see "more of their personality" although I don't know how much more we could see after ten years will be minimal and resolved within moments.

[NanaWiloh]

Hahaha, that's the forums for ya. Making false assumptions, jumping to conclusions - you learn to just ignore it.

*curls up in a corner mumbles* I am trying ignore it..trying to ignore it. The voices wont stop...aaaaaaahh

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Only one of the scions, not including ourselves, isn't from Sharlaya, which is another point of contention for me. There is next to no diversity among this cast, the people who were from outside of this city have all been sidelined or killed. It's also unlikely it will be outright murder, more like the dreaded "trial by combat" trope they've worn out where you will just have to beat the opponents.

Moenbryda was from Sharlayan and lasted a whole patch before being killed.

[SieyaM]

Moenbryda was from Sharlayan and lasted a whole patch before being killed.

And still has more of an impact on fans than some of these scions that have been with us for the last ten years. I was mostly thinking of Lyse though who is the only scions I can remember from ARR that is both still alive and not from Sharlaya.

[ZavosEsperian]

saying venat commited genocide is a logical fallacy.

Your argument is a fallacy in and of itself. The 'fallacy' fallacy is one where someone argues another's is wrong on the basis of a poor argument or by the use of a logical fallacy. In addition, you are making the assumption that the term 'genocide' implies the killing of a particular peoples in all cases, which is not true per its formal definition. In addition, as I have seen a lot of this as of late, the concept of genocide as we know it IRL is known to both life after the Sundering via Alphinaud using the term when arguing with Varis in SB, but is also used as part of the French translation when Erichthonius is arguing with Athena about her objectives and what they would be during the last Pandaemonium wing.

With all of that said. This is what genocide's formal definition is. Note the bolded sections are the ones directly applying to Venat herself in the context of the sundering:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-Genocide Convention, Article 2

This is the justification for why these bolded terms apply to Venat:

Article 2 sections c and d should be relatively straightforward to understand. By sundering the Ancients, and with it the world, the physical destruction of the group is assured via completely altering their constitution, thus making them a physically unique race that is distinct from the race we know as Ancients. In addition, this was done in a calculated fashion, as it has been previously indicated in Q&A sessions Venat purposely allowed for Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, and Elidibus the ability to avoid the sundering attack. This meets the criteria to satisfy section C as the action lead to the destruction of the Ancient race at large, but left a couple sole survivors.

Section d is also relatively straightforward as well since the measure she took, which was sundering the world, would ensure no more births could occur from the population and, in the case of Emet, his children also would be sundered despite the obvious ancient lineage, and as such, the Ancient's ability to have children belonging to their same racial group via their constitution has been disrupted permanently.

Article 2 section b is a bit more complicated but is shown inside of the Nier ReIncarnation crossover event where previous life was unable to understand language and had to relearn how to speak. In addition, upon sundering the world, Venat introduced to the new life suffering which the Ancients had not suffered prior, which would include decreased resistances to the elements as well as other agents related to illness and pestilence, both can only occur if there is a change in the constitution to the Ancients that made them weaker as a species significantly and the reduction of their lifespans from countless millennia to, at best, 500 years in the case of Viera, but somewhere near normal human lifespans for all other races. These would constitute significant harm both mentally and physically, and I only need one of these to have the basis for the argument.

Finally, there is the intent issue. Genocidal intent can be determined either directly, which would be someone admitting to it or evidence to directly prove the elements described, or through circumstantial evidence, which has been used to determine intent involving genocide IRL multiple times. Venat outright says she is going to sunder the ancients and has the forethought to also be careful to not sunder very specific ancients as to avoid causing issues related to a perceived timeline that she was told, as such I would not need to go much further beyond that. Were circumstantial evidence be needed, she unleashed untold amounts of suffering onto the lifeforms created after the sundering occurred, and would these individuals be treated as shards of the original ancients, would also constitute the ancients as well. This callousness would be great enough to also fulfill that requirement were it needed.

From the definition, Sections B-E DO NOT DEFINE KILLING TO BE PART OF THIER DEFINITIONS, and as it takes only one of these conditions to be true for the term genocide to stick, it would be painfully obvious the sundering counts as a genocidal act, thus Venat did indeed commit an act of genocide.

Note this applies to a whole range of characters through the game, and none of them are excused. All of them would also have committed an act of genocide as well.

And reincarnation is a new life, not the same as before, your old life died.

The cycle of how things live and die has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Genocide deals with the partial or entire destruction of a race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. It has nothing to do with whatever the 'stuff' that makes a specific race of people a specific race of people, be it the very atoms constituting the body to the soul inhabiting the body in FFXIV terms. Any of these things can be recycled between different races in FFXIV's universe, what matters is if the original race in question still exists in an unaltered state and if the action taken resulting in the destruction of the original race was designed to do this to the race from the very start, which in the case of the sundering it was an original goal of the sundering.

As such I pose to you a question: Do you accept Venat committed an act of genocide, which would mean all other acts of genocide can be called as such, or are you able to forgive not just Venat's actions, but also the actions of the Ascians? Forgiving her but not the Ascians would be hypocritical and illogical as it would be a contradiction. The choice is yours for you to make.

[Turtledeluxe]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_...e%20victors%22.

I don't know why I have to explain this to what I presume to be adults, but history is written by the victors, insofar as it relates to post-conflict information retention. This isn't a hard and fast rule as its highly dependent on key witnesses and evidence in general. Additionally, it becomes less and less true over time with the rise of technology. You may be the victor now, but the entire world can know your crimes. Your interpretation of the game, and the world, are reductive and fairly useless. The developers are not pushing this idea and at all.

The more all of you talk the more it sounds like a. you are in denial and b. you have some other ethical hangup that has nothing to do with the playerbase or Yoshi P and are looking for moral grandstanding wherever you can find it. Any time the conversation breaks down to point out that you don't actually understand what happened or what the story was even about, you "give up".

This is why you should not jump to just players' morality based on your interpretation of a story, especially when you are not equipped to do so.

The Genocide Convention is a human rights treaty, not a fictional humanoid treaty.

And if the French localizer used it, that just tells us they're comfortable applying extremely insensitive real world classifications to a video game about Ancient perfect beings.

SE also has a well documented historical issue with localizations. This is an extreme case where it would be appropriate to look at the original source and decide if that's the best term.

[Eisi]

Yeah it's fucked up and it ruined the whole upcoming expansion and Final Fantasy XIV and every game that Yoshi P will ever make and Square Enix and every JRPG henceforth, it was catastrophic.

What's with this weird hyperbole? You can just come out and admit that you agree with me.

My head canon is that my character didn't overthink the whole thing since loitering around Eoreza waiting for something to happen Vs exploring Tural (with some added political nonsense) and trying to find the city of gold is no contest!

Yeah that's my headcanon as well. My WoL is cute, talented and strong, but she doesn't really think a lot.

[Kes13a]

My head canon is that my character didn't overthink the whole thing since loitering around Eoreza waiting for something to happen Vs exploring Tural (with some added political nonsense) and trying to find the city of gold is no contest!

I tend to agree. my character would let all the random "what ifs" say in the forums. she would agree that one person who wants to lead that wants wars of conquest is bad.. and would figure the rest out when she saw the lay of the land. all the blithering about genocide and the rest before we have a firm idea of things by some just seems like wetting yourself in dark pants. maybe they just enjoy the warm feeling....

[ZavosEsperian]

The Genocide Convention is a human rights treaty, not a fictional humanoid treaty.

And if the French localizer used it, that just tells us they're comfortable applying extremely insensitive real world classifications to a video game about Ancient perfect beings.

You're preaching to me about insensitivities while simultaneously denying the humanity of the Ancients. Dehumanization is considered to be the 4th stage inside of the stages of genocide. Being unable to see the actions Venat took as genocide leads me to believe you have poor media literacy skills or you are ok with genocidal actions so long as they are done with a good reason.

In addition, the French localization of the game is as valid as all of the other versions of the game according to the writers as they all go through a review process. For you to deny one means you deny them all and, as such, proves you are not arguing in good faith. If you take issue with the French version of the game, take that issue up with SE and not me.

As far as genocide is concerned as a term, I have already explained once before but its core definition is what I have shown you. Since you seem insistent that using the definition I am using is not correct, I will now use the definition as it is seen in multiple dictionaries instead:

The deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. -Dictionary.com

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group -Merriam-Webster

The crime of intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, by killing people or by other methods -Cambridge

In short, your arguments are incomplete or do not address the arguments I have raised. In addition, you are proving to me you are arguing from a point where you are invested in the correctness of the argument, and as a result must resort to dehumanization of the Ancients to convince yourself they are not a form of humanity or mankind as the game refers to it as. It would be best to retreat inside your shell and review the story before trying to argue again.

[Turtledeluxe]

You're preaching to me about insensitivities while simultaneously denying the humanity of the Ancients. Dehumanization is considered to be the 4th stage inside of the stages of genocide. Being unable to see the actions Venat took as genocide leads me to believe you have poor media literacy skills or you are ok with genocidal actions so long as they are done with a good reason.

In addition, the French localization of the game is as valid as all of the other versions of the game according to the writers as they all go through a review process. For you to deny one means you deny them all and, as such, proves you are not arguing in good faith. If you take issue with the French version of the game, take that issue up with SE and not me.

As far as genocide is concerned as a term, I have already explained once before but its core definition is what I have shown you. Since you seem insistent that using the definition I am using is not correct, I will now use the definition as it is seen in multiple dictionaries instead:



In short, your arguments are incomplete or do not address the arguments I have raised. In addition, you are proving to me you are arguing from a point where you are invested in the correctness of the argument, and as a result must resort to dehumanization of the Ancients to convince yourself they are not a form of humanity or mankind as the game refers to it as. It would be best to retreat inside your shell and review the story before trying to argue again.

If you want to look up a definition, then look up the one for humanoid. They aren't human. They're also not real. Your invoking of the Convention is inappropriate and childish.

Also, divorcing it from the legal definition isn't something I've ever heard of-- there's not some general version of it. The general terms, and in fact even the French word, are rooted in the legal definition. Nonetheless, XIV is a fantasy world with souls, Lifestream, reincarnations and rejoinings (ie death can just be undone anyway, EVEN IF it requires more death to occur). So a Sundering is not the same as general extermination. Aetherial density btw is a. not a human trait b. doesn't have a human comparable aspect IRL c. isn't real and d. even in the context of XIV, is something common to the whole planet and whatever lives on it. So a global lowering of aetheric density is not comparable to ethnic or racial targeting. Using genocide over aetheric density, even if you regard it 1:1 with something IRL, is less like targeting someone for eye color and more like lowering all of reality's iron levels (because of a global threat that thrives off of iron and not WHO or WHAT they are).

And I do not have to follow the French translation. I already explained that localisations are not the law, and historically have been proven to be inaccurate. That doesn't mean you can't follow them in general, it does mean they are occasionally inaccurate. Given no other translation uses the term, this may be one such case.