(Spoiler) About amaurots downfall

[Ardox]

The one thing I've had issue with on the theory of the creation magic being their downfall is the fact the Ancients were so long lived that they've been apparently doing this for a very long time. I was curious at why the breaking point then vs earlier times in their existence. Was it due to population or what?

There's absolutely nothing in the lore for us to know what the source is, but that reasoning is flawed: wherever the breaking point is you could always ask "Why not earlier?".

[QT_Melon]

There's absolutely nothing in the lore for us to know what the source is, but that reasoning is flawed: wherever the breaking point is you could always ask "Why not earlier?".

Well of course. But that isn't flawed logic. Murphy's Law if something that bad was going to go wrong, it should go wrong right away, otherwise they wouldn't have had to gone through all the trouble in their society if the discovery of their effects were detrimental.

Honestly sticking with "Creation Magics Gone Wild" sounds like a bad video late night TV infomercials are trying to sell you. I definitely want something more interesting than just that in storytelling.

[YianKutku]

Well of course. But that isn't flawed logic. Murphy's Law if something that bad was going to go wrong, it should go wrong right away, otherwise they wouldn't have had to gone through all the trouble in their society if the discovery of their effects were detrimental.

Honestly sticking with "Creation Magics Gone Wild" sounds like a bad video late night TV infomercials are trying to sell you. I definitely want something more interesting than just that in storytelling.

My own reading was that the fall of Amaurot was due to their complacency.

The problems with creation magicks occurred "across the sea", and we see Amaurotines kind of academically debate whether to go help them, or to leave them to their fate. The sheer blase nature of the Amaurotines makes me think that while this particular problem with creation magick had never happened before, other problems that might have been threatening did, and only just happened to be resolved before they went anywhere.

So it seems like the Amaurotines believed that this particular instance was just another hiccup in their everlasting paradise, until suddenly it wasn't, possibly due to snowballing too quickly to be contained. Interestingly, the Convocation apparently were desperate enough to summon Zodiark (and have dissenters leave to later summon Hydaelyn), so they took it seriously. Seriously enough to countenance sacrificing half of their entire race to fix whatever problems were happening "across the sea", while simultaneously keeping the true nature of the threat (and the price involved in solving it) obscured from the general populace.

[Theodric]

I do not believe that the Ancients themselves are to blame for the destruction that befell them. From what we saw of their society it was a very peaceful one. The use of creation magic was also regulated and not simply used for pure decadence. In addition, debate was encouraged and decisions were weighed carefully. We also see the sheer scale of the destruction wrought upon the Ancients in the Amaurot dungeon itself. Bringing forth Zodiark was not done on a whim, it was very much presented as a necessity to prevent the Star from fading into nothing.

Having the blame pinned on the Ancients would be a pretty disappointing revelation and I do not doubt that the only reason it is pushed so heavily as a theory around these parts is due to the resident Hydaelyn enthusiasts desperately wanting her to be free of any and all blame, no matter how many characters or factions have to be thrown under the bus in order for such to occur.

[YianKutku]

Having the blame pinned on the Ancients would be a pretty disappointing revelation and I do not doubt that the only reason it is pushed so heavily as a theory around these parts is due to the resident Hydaelyn enthusiasts desperately wanting her to be free of any and all blame, no matter how many characters or factions have to be thrown under the bus in order for such to occur.

How could Hydaelyn possibly be blamed when Amaurot's fall happened before she was even conceived of, much less existed?

[Theodric]

How could Hydaelyn possibly be blamed when Amaurot's fall happened before she was even conceived of, much less existed?

I was more referring to the unfortunate trend of many a poster around these parts being rather desperate to have her be pure and righteous, justified in all that she does - thus, from their perspective, they would be fond of the idea of the Ancients being the harbingers of their own annihilation so they can argue that what Hydaelyn went on to do was a necessity and not the complete erasure of an entire society and race of people.

[YianKutku]

I was more referring to the unfortunate trend of many a poster around these parts being rather desperate to have her be pure and righteous, justified in all that she does - thus, from their perspective, they would be fond of the idea of the Ancients being the harbingers of their own annihilation so they can argue that what Hydaelyn went on to do was a necessity and not the complete erasure of an entire society and race of people.

Who? Which posters specifically?

[Theodric]

Who? Which posters specifically?

I'm not going to list them by name, since that could easily be mistaken as 'naming and shaming'. You're free to agree to disagree with me if you wish to believe that there aren't a lot of posters around these parts siding with Hydaelyn at every possible turn, though.

The lore forum is, after all, a lot more pleasant when it operates under the same rules of debate that the Ancients adhered to!

I do not intend to condemn anybody for it - we all have our favourite factions and characters, after all. I simply hope that the story does not backtrack when it comes to Hydaelyn from this point on. Though she may not be a deity, she's still a 'higher being' of a sort and they tend to be much more interesting when they do not simply act with purity in anything and everything that they do.

[YianKutku]

The lore forum is, after all, a lot more pleasant when it operates under the same rules of debate that the Ancients adhered to!

But you're not operating under the same rules of debate. You're making insinuations and poisoning the rhetorical well, while refusing to outright state your citations and sources.

For example, you said (in another thread) that you would prefer that Hydaelyn and Zodiark are both defeated or neutralized, because you prefer the plot development that has "history in the reins of man". That's a good, strong statement, and while I strongly disagree with it, I would not think to criticize that.

But going "Hydaelyn is definitely evil, because what if such-and-such" is much less strong, and relies too much on unsupported speculation presented as fact. If you present your evidence and interpretations thereof, there will certainly be pushback (from myself or others) for that, with our own evidence and interpretations. Similarly, when I said that I believed the Amaurotines were complacent and that resulted in their undoing, I expect pushback using evidence and sources from the game lore, or reasonable interpretations thereof, and I'm willing to change my mind if I learn a new interpretation that works better.

But simply going "you want the Ancients to be at fault because you want to remove all blame from Hydaelyn" is bad debating form, by positing motivation to the poster, rather than looking at their evidence and interpretation. Especially when I say "why do you think that, what is your evidence", and you decline to engage. That's not debate, but merely avoiding debate.

[Theodric]

I don't believe that Hydaelyn is 'evil'. I also do not believe her to be 'good'. So, too is it the case with Zodiark. So far, the only major character to truly be presented as unforgivably evil is Zenos.

On my end, if Hydaelyn adheres to a concept of morality that does not align fully with our own then I will find that to be very intriguing and fitting for what is essentially a 'higher being'. If, however, she turns out to be pure and fully justified in even her falsehoods and mistakes then I wouldn't find that to be particularly engaging by comparison.

My comments weren't made as a personal attack but more so a playful quip. I'm all for debate and the like - though I don't always have the time or the drive to dig around for specific quotes or to provide examples of which posters said a specific thing, especially if it includes statements that were made days or weeks back.

My posting and debate style isn't going to appeal to everybody. That's perfectly fine - I don't post here with the intention of winning a popularity contest. I enjoy the game and have an interest in the story and world but I do not approach it with the same fine-toothed comb as some others do. As such sometimes I just weigh in on things as I see them with a drive-by comment.