What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[HollowedDoll]

In narrative, calling a breathing, thinking person an "it" is typically a denial of personhood. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...IsDehumanizing This, combined with the fact that the story specifically calls out several times how most Ancients disregard the lives of concepts and familiars demonstrates that their disregard of species other than their own wasn't unique to the future Ascians. Ancient society thought that way from the start.

And as I said, I'm not the person who pointed out the Ancients turning butterflies into clothes. You are specifically told the WOL was shocked by it, and Hytholodeus has to explain to your PC why it's okay because they don't really consider concepts living things. If the story had never brought it up, I wouldn't have cared. But they specifically brought it up to demonstrate how the Ancients think.

And how in the everliving hell are they supposed to know that you're a living breathing thinking "person" when you cannot even talk and look like a a miniature joke familiar resembling their prankster friend. After you get a big load of Emet's aether I'm pretty sure they stop referring to you as an it. Plus they never called Meteion an it either who is the closest to a "person", as far as I recall. As for the latter, it could be as simple as how you need a hunting license nowadays to hunt, so you cannot just "take" without permission.

[CrownySuccubus]

And how in the everliving hell are they supposed to know that you're a living breathing thinking "person" when you cannot even talk and look like a a miniature joke familiar resembling their prankster friend. After you get a big load of Emet's aether I'm pretty sure they stop referring to you as an it. Plus they never called Meteion an it either who is the closest to a "person", as far as I recall. As for the latter, it could be as simple as how you need a hunting license nowadays to hunt, so you cannot just "take" without permission.

Why are you arguing with me as if I'm the one who wrote the damn story?

My point was that, in writing, when an author wants to make a character seem dismissive of another life form, they will call them an "it". For example, in Terminator 2, there's an entire argument John (who sees the robot as a friend) and his mother (who does not) have over calling the machine "he" or "it". In Silence of the Lambs, Buffalo Bill constantly refers to the victims (who are human women) as "it" until the moment he kills them. Again, my point is that it's a common narrative trope to have characters refer to some form of life they do not respect as an "it".

I am not here to debate whether or not the Ancients were correct or right to refer to the WOL as an "it" when they first meet. I'm merely describing it as one of many ways in which the plot attempts to show the dismissive attitude that Ancients have for other species. This is one example, but the entire Elpis saga is full of other examples of the same thing. I fail to see how this is even worthy of debate.

I see. Yeah, I suppose that's an interesting analysis about how they could be seen as morally grey. Why is fulfilling one's purpose and returning to the star perceived as morally grey

I mean, it's literally the entire point of Endwalker.

What the Ancients were doing was dying, and the expansion's narrative theme was how precious it was to keep living, no matter what. The entire basis of that story thread was that the Ancients saw death (for themselves, but especially for non-Ancients) as no big deal, and Hermes (and later Venat) are the only ones who saw this attitude as a problem.

Once again, I am not agreeing with the story's morality, but that's what it is.

[kpxmanifesto]

What the Ancients were doing was dying, and the expansion's narrative theme was how precious it was to keep living, no matter what. The entire basis of that story thread was that the Ancients saw death (for themselves, but especially for non-Ancients) as no big deal, and Hermes (and later Venat) are the only ones who saw this attitude as a problem.

I personally don't see dying after having fulfilled one's purpose as morally grey, though. That happens to humans in real life too. They serve a purpose by working during adulthood, then they grow old and are unable to fulfill that purpose anymore, and then they die. I don't really perceive that as a moral issue. Sacrificing non-ancients can be a morally grey area depending on how you look at it, although I personally wouldn't consider it to be.

[CrownySuccubus]

I personally don't see dying after having fulfilled one's purpose as morally grey, though. That happens to humans in real life too. They serve a purpose by working during adulthood, then they grow old and are unable to fulfill that purpose anymore, and then they die. I don't really perceive that as a moral issue. Sacrificing non-ancients can be a morally grey area depending on how you look at it, although I personally wouldn't consider it to be.

Well, first, I don't agree that working is inherently a human's "purpose". Especially not in a world like the one we live in at present.

Secondly, I really don't see how you're unaware of the difference between dying of old age and natural causes, and willingly committing suicide after reaching some arbitrary "purpose". What you're suggesting is that if, say, Scarlet Johannsen decided she'd served her purpose in life, she should just jump off a bridge and that be considered perfectly normal. The Ancients weren't broken, withered old people. They literally killed themselves while in perfectly sound body and mind. And even if they were old, I don't see old people as having no more purpose in life. But hey, maybe that's just me.

[kpxmanifesto]

Well, first, I don't agree that working is inherently a human's "purpose". Especially not in a world like the one we live in at present.

You're free to believe whatever you like when it comes to this.

Secondly, I really don't see how you're unaware of the difference between dying of old age and natural causes, and willingly committing suicide after reaching some arbitrary "purpose".

There's a difference, but is it a moral issue to commit suicide when their lifespans are infinite? So they live as long as they like and then they end their lives when they want to live no more, or they just keep living. They have a choice. That seems completely sensible to me, and I don't see any moral issues with that. To me, if they didn't have a choice in that, then that would be encroaching on morally grey territory.

[Brinne]

Well, first, I don't agree that working is inherently a human's "purpose". Especially not in a world like the one we live in at present.

Secondly, I really don't see how you're unaware of the difference between dying of old age and natural causes, and willingly committing suicide after reaching some arbitrary "purpose". What you're suggesting is that if, say, Scarlet Johannsen decided she'd served her purpose in life, she should just jump off a bridge and that be considered perfectly normal. The Ancients weren't broken, withered old people. They literally killed themselves while in perfectly sound body and mind. And even if they were old, I don't see old people as having no more purpose in life. But hey, maybe that's just me.

I fully agree with you on not seeing working as a human's purpose (I'm disabled! I can't work! I spend my time making embarrassing cringeposts on forums discussing MMORPGs instead!), but I do think - and this probably comes down to a question of "intent versus execution" - you can't really apply the world we live in to the present to the Ancients' situation. They're immortal, know that reincarnation exists, and the process is fully consensual. That being said, of course there's room for cultural shifts in terms of broadening one's ideas of what one's "purpose" can be - just like, even though the Ancient society was far more humane in their treatment of animals than ours, of course there was still room for improvement there, too. But I can't correlate our hypothetical situation of "putting down people who can't work" to the Ancients' in this case, per se.

[Skyborne]

Personally saw no real problem with the Ancients' arrangement on a more pragmatic level... given they are immortal and don't die of age or disease, only through violence. Considering they also had children and likely saw that as quite important, leaving meaningful roles to those children by your departure (knowing you will reincarnate anyway) doesn't seem like a bad idea. A bit like a forest, where having all the old trees smothers out all the light for all the saplings below unless they are cleared through some other means.

Otherwise, with no one really dying, Etheirys would eventually become quite overpopulated... then, I suppose, they'd be forced to look into space travel.

As an aside, soon this thread will be 300 pages. And it will be beautiful. (笑)

[CrownySuccubus]

you can't really apply the world we live in to the present to the Ancients' situation. They're immortal, know that reincarnation exists, and the process is fully consensual.

Again, I'm NOT. The story (and writers) intends for us to find it scary, but I agree with you.

However, I will remind you I'm NOT the one who compared it to real life circumstances. Manifesto did, when they erroneously compared it to humans dying of old age.

Also, I want to point out that Venat was seen as weird for NOT choosing to do it. Emet-Selch makes a snide remark about the decision, and another Ancient at one point tells her how much she looks forward to when Venat goes back to the star, and Venat avoids the question. The way they framed the conversation was like someone asking a career woman when she's finally going to retire and have a baby, when said woman has expressed no desire to do it.

[Brinne]

I mean, it's literally the entire point of Endwalker.

What the Ancients were doing was dying, and the expansion's narrative theme was how precious it was to keep living, no matter what.

This just caught my eye, apologies. It's sort of odd when you consider "Flow," as described by Ishikawa, as a song about gently accepting death, and part of Meteion's answer as the song of hope to the universe. Endwalker is a very strange expansion, huh.

EDIT:

Seriously? Ugh. I know this thread is somewhat infamous now for being 200+ pages of EW criticism. I can only hope they have someone on the team reading it.

Well, if nothing else, again, he acknowledges outright in that interview that the audience had a very different reaction than the one he anticipated re: Hermes and Ancient society, and the tone on Venat in the Q&A was very different from the one in the game. Mistakes of execution versus intent in writing happen - I think the question is how they adapt to that disconnect going forward.

[Lauront]

This just caught my eye, apologies. It's sort of odd when you consider "Flow," as described by Ishikawa, as a song about gently accepting death, and part of Meteion's answer as the song of hope to the universe. Endwalker is a very strange expansion, huh.

EDIT:



Well, if nothing else, again, he acknowledges outright in that interview that the audience had a very different reaction than the one he anticipated re: Hermes and ancient society, and the tone on Venat in the Q&A was very different from the one in the game. Mistakes of execution versus intent in writing happen - I think the question is how they adapt to that disconnect going forward.

It does have me wondering if there were potentially conflicting perspectives or sentiments that went into writing the ancients, in all honesty, particularly because the sidequests almost fill in a narrative gap which goes to some length to humanise them more, almost picking up where Amaurot and its shades left off. I have to wonder if there was a divergence here in Ishikawa's sentiments on the matter, and Yoshi's. Very much second your closing statement.