Can we get choices that really matter and have a effect?

[Edax]

EDIT: just to add up the number of sundered soul shards present on our side of the battle. Being generous and counting the random adventurers summoned by Graha and Rhyne only as one:

WoL + party + Scions + Rhyne

9+7+5*8+1=57 shards. Thats 4 whole amaurotians.

Highlighting that the entire race of the Amaurotine wouldn't even be able to stand up to half an Alliance Raid only exposes their patheticness.

It wasn't just strength. He argues longevity, philosophy, morality, technology, wider perspective, unity.

From the sound of things, they only had 2 cities so they didn't last long. None of their technology seemed more advanced than anyone else's. All we see are lights and an Aetheryte. Big deal. And in terms of Unity, their civil war resulted in their virtual extinction. The fact that the human races don't follow the Amaurotine methodology and philosophy is to their benefit. The tale of the Ascian is a tale of self-destruction.

[Lersayil]

Highlighting that the entire race of the Amaurotine wouldn't even be able to stand up to half an Alliance Raid only exposes their patheticness.

What, because they wouldn't stand up to 12 paragons of a 8 times rejoined "race", each more than half as strong (on paper) than them? Come on. Also that number comes with the stipulation, that those people have both the blessing of light, AND a way of permanently killing them. We are basically the best the Source can offer currently, and we still needed strength in numbers (based on soul count) and mcguffins to defeat Emet.

From the sound of things, they only had 2 cities so they didn't last long. None of their technology seemed more advanced than anyone else's. All we see are lights and an Aetheryte. Big deal. And in terms of Unity, their civil war resulted in their virtual extinction. The fact that the human races don't follow the Amaurotine methodology and philosophy is to their benefit. The tale of the Ascian is a tale of self-destruction.

Technology wise it was stated by none other than the Scions, that even the building blocks baffle them and couldn't put a dent in them even if they wanted to. Creation magic was basically their technology, and thats something no one can (properly) replicate on any of the known shards.

In comparison, Allagan technology looks a lot more impressive, yet Garleans can already construct magitek relatively close to them by reverse engineering.

Wont argue morality and the rest because they are subjective and we lack information. But what are you basing "didn't last long" on? They were virtually immortal. We could easily assume that their displayed technological level lasted longer than the known history of humanity as a whole. And you are leaving out the world ending scenario before they collapsed as a race in their disagreement.

Agree to disagree works for discussions on best ice cream flavor or movie, etc. Morality affects human interaction and when people see something immoral, agree to disagree is not a natural response under normal circumstances.

Agree to disagree doesn't necessarily mean a peaceful resolution. Thats the point usually where the face stabbing mentioned comes in.

They don't have to use the word good and evil. Right and wrong is sufficient. Like I said, your definition of the word evil is a problem because you're putting unnecessary connotations to it.

Evil is a more specific word associated with morality. Words like wrong or bad can have other usage outside of morality.

If that is all the difference, then there would be no reason to omit it from the aforementioned environments. There is a difference in implied intent, weight and exclusion behind the words even if used in the same context. I agree that the issue is in the difference in how we define the word, but I'm not completely convinced that I'm the one in the wrong.

If there is an objective moral standard, then it's worthwhile to discuss different moral values as people try to reach that standard. We're not simply left with agree to disagree while our natural reaction is to cry out for justice when we see something immoral being done.

Morality can change and evolve with the times. However, I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective moral standard. In stories where its a thing, the morals usually don't change that much from start to finish, and many times its a "duh?" moment where the heroes realise something completely given.

On that note, I actually think that good objective morality stories are harder to write, without confirming to tired old tropes. If we exclude the last part though? Sure. By its nature, relative morality stories require a lot more work to make coherent.

[Canada_bangs]

This thread was painful to read and makes me want to swear loudly and punch an ant.

[Lersayil]

This thread was painful to read and makes me want to swear loudly and punch an ant.

The ant dissaproves of your moral ignorance, and how you devalue its existance. He also requests a branching decision where he gets to punch you.

I do agree though, the thread is a derailed mess, and I might have to take some responsibility on that front...

[Canada_bangs]

The ant dissaproves of your moral ignorance, and how you devalue its existance. He also requests a branching decision where he gets to punch you.

I do agree though, the thread is a derailed mess, and I might have to take some responsibility on that front...

Too bad for that ant... I have RAID and windex. I don't play when it comes to bugs, all of them must die instantly and in the most painful ways possible. When you have to throw away a bowl of soup because some stupid nat flies in the bowl and dies on your food you tend to stop caring about their feelings. Raid is a godsend.

[Edax]

Technology wise it was stated by none other than the Scions, that even the building blocks baffle them and couldn't put a dent in them even if they wanted to. Creation magic was basically their technology, and thats something no one can (properly) replicate on any of the known shards.

Magic is not technology.
tech·nol·o·gy
noun
noun: technology; plural noun: technologies
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"
machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

mag·ic
/ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

But what are you basing "didn't last long" on? They were virtually immortal.

By the implication that they only had 2 cities. They were not fruitful and they did not multiply much despite the potential of infinite time. It implies they didn't last long before they were destroyed.

We are basically the best the Source can offer currently, and we still needed strength in numbers (based on soul count) and mcguffins to defeat Emet.

And thus proving we are the more powerful race. Emet was the best the Ascians had and he was defeated. He needed strength in numbers and he did not have any because of the deficit of his race, nor did he have the will to secure macguffins to defeat his supposed inferiors.

Who is the superior? The few Spartans or the many Romans? We see in history the Spartans never amounted to much. A race can prove superior through strength in numbers. Emet stood alone and now all the unsundered have been defeated in battle.

[MrThinker]

By the implication that they only had 2 cities. They were not fruitful and they did not multiply much despite the potential of infinite time. It implies they didn't last long before they were destroyed.

I think you are making quite a huge leap in logic right there. There are only 2 cities that we know of for certain but that doesn't automatically imply they were the only cities to exist.

[Edax]

I think you are making quite a huge leap in logic right there. There are only 2 cities that we know of for certain but that doesn't automatically imply they were the only cities to exist.

Of course it implies it. There's no information to suggest there were ever more then 2 cities. That's not to say there can't be, but for they way they talk, their city across the pond was the first to experience the disaster, then shortly afterward the disaster was at Amaurot's door. They is no discussion of other cities being hit with the disaster nor do they ever discuss getting help from elsewhere despite the recreation being "the last days of Amaurot". For all intents and purposes, after the first city fell, Amurot stood alone which implies they were alone.

[linay]

Agree to disagree doesn't necessarily mean a peacful resolution. Thats the point usually where the face stabbing mentioned comes in.

o.0 LOL

If that is all the difference, then there would be no reason to omit it from the aforementioned environments.

There really isn't. Define a term and use it consistently. (I blame lack of moral convictions. >.>)

There is a difference in implied intent, weight and exclusion behind the words even if used in the same context.

I would agree that there is a difference, which is why not using it when appropriate would be a disservice to language as a communication tool.

Morality can change and evolve with the times. However, I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective moral standard. In stories where its a thing, the morals usually don't change that much from start to finish, and many times its a "duh?" moment where the heroes realise something completely given.

On that note, I actually think that good objective morality stories are harder to write, without confirming to tired old tropes. If we exclude the last part though? Sure. By its nature, relative morality stories require a lot more work to make coherent.

Well, I don't think morality has to change unless given reason to. It depends on what the storyteller want to tell.

Not wanting to utilize "tired old tropes" would be a poor excuse/reason to change one's morality.

[Lersayil]

Magic is not technology.
tech·nol·o·gy
noun
noun: technology; plural noun: technologies
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"
machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

mag·ic
/ˈmajik/
noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Given how magic (aether to be more precise) in FFXIV is a measurable, quantifiable and researchable force of nature, those definitions don't apply. Its just another fundamental force, on which you base your technology.

By the implication that they only had 2 cities. They were not fruitful and they did not multiply much despite the potential of infinite time. It implies they didn't last long before they were destroyed.

2 cities we know of, none of which we have accurate data on about size or population. There is also a correlation between technological advancement, average length of life and population. As we see in the real world, the more advanced a country, the more its population shrinks. We have no data to extrapolate what would happen on the level where the amaurotians reached, but its something to think about.

And thus proving we are the more powerful race. Emet was the best the Ascians had and he was defeated. He needed strength in numbers and he did not have any because of the deficit of his race, nor did he have the will to secure macguffins to defeat his supposed inferiors.

Who is the superior? The few Spartans or the many Romans? We see in history the Spartans never amounted to much. A race can prove superior through strength in numbers. Emet stood alone and now all the unsundered have been defeated in battle.

The romans you mention fell to a hoard of uncultured barbarians and internal corruption. The technological advancement of the whole of Europe was held back by at least a hundred years due to the inquisition.

Might makes right, but not always for the better.

And you kinda conveniently ignored the mcguffins.