Tales from the Dawn

[Lauront]

I think an important thing to take into account, and something that really adds a lot of context to the Ancients is that the big thing Venat became known for discovering is that the Ancients are the same as everything else. This makes the whole Zodiark/Hydaelyn conflict make a lot more sense, because it defines how each side is seeing it all; the notion that the Ancients aren't somehow different is clearly new, at least on an Ancient scale.

Which we don't as humans, generally speaking. The sundered, likewise, don't. The fact that all life shares the same building blocks does not thereby mean all life is equal, and the more sophisticated a certain organism is, the more distance there is going to be between it and less sophisticated organisms. We hold to this even with creatures as proximate to us as chimps - how great is the difference between, say, an elder dragon, or an ancient, and such a being?

But she is the one in the right if you're someone who believes in the right of all lives to live.

Are you trying to claim that her motivation was some notion of the "right" of all lives to live? You keep trying to insinuate this argument into her faction's motives, but that doesn't seem to be the point being extracted from her "epiphany"; rather, it is the inevitability of the "miracle" of life. Not an assertion that all life is thereby equal (which is patently false) and thus that it all is endowed with some "right" to live. A principle no species in the setting adheres to, least of all the sundered - but the same goes for the likes of the dragons. That is more closely aligned to Hermes's reasoning, which she discards in favour of setting her own 'test', as he himself continues to condemn both ancients and sundered for their perceived "sins". If anything, she appears to have concealed her knowledge of the future (probably also of the fact that she would be doing more than just "shackling" Zodiark) and convinced her faction that Zodiark could be anathema to the further growth of mankind, which she pitched as necessary to avoid their plight repeating. That is the basis on which the sacrifices are opposed whenever we hear from the mouth of her own faction. What we are witnessing here is a faction of ideologues forcing upon their own people a "growth" that ultimately led to their genocide. She appears to fetishise existence for its own sake, whatever the form accomplishes that goal.

The story is verging very closely on trying to make an argument from authority when it comes to Venat and her decision, as it repeatedly tries to remind of us her brilliance and "unique" perspective. Sorry, I am not buying it.

Of course, this forum's never been great at grasping this part of the story.

Oh then do enlighten us, great sage Cleretic. Please correct those of us who are "bad at morals" with the knowledge you were bestowed upon your personal Mt Sinai.

With all due respect, I’m going to say we should drop this direction for the topic right now. It is unhelpful and given the current real life connections it does nothing but raise the conversations temperature. Lets not do this.

Why? Cleretic wanted us to "chew the fat" on the type of moral arguments implied here. This is one such associated argument. Why is it off limits? You and others here routinely go directly to very controversial lines of argumentation, and yet when it touches a little too closely to your personal beliefs, it's off limits? His line of inquiry is valid and fitting.

[Cilia]

The central conceit of the Ancients is that they were special. They were not.

As we know from the way XIV's metaphysics work, souls are a gift from the planet to creatures born in accordance with its natural law. It doesn't matter what form that life takes, and all souls are the same structurally. Souls are given to living things, live their lives as a given incarnation, and then return to the planet to be either reborn or broken down and melded with other aether to create new souls.

What that means is, cultivating life to feed souls to Zodiark for the Ancients' is the perversion of a gift even the Ancients did not command. Nobody knows what the souls they were going to feed Zodiark had been previously and it's very likely they were previously incarnated as Ancients themselves, in whole or in part. Just as the Ancients that sacrificed themselves to create and empower Zodiark didn't die, the same would be true of the things sacrificed to liberate those Ancients' souls - you'd just be condemning souls of equal value to the same unenviable fate. The only difference is the subjective value placed on those souls.

It's hubris to the extreme, the belief that they are worthy of the gift of life above all others and that the planet exists to serve their desires.

Not that this is going to really convince anyone of anything...

[Lauront]

Burgers come from living beings too, i.e. creatures with souls. Someone better alert the authorities. BTW I'd like a source on your comment that all souls are the same structurally.

Not that this is going to really convince anyone of anything...

Quite so, it's not.

[Cilia]

Burgers come from living beings too, i.e. creatures with souls. Someone better alert the authorities. BTW I'd like a source on your comment that all souls are the same structurally.



Quite so, it's not.

You gonna... you gonna be constructive, or just take sarcastic shots at people? Friend? Coz if it's the latter I don't see why you're here.

Big difference between killing for nourishment and killing for necromancy.

The fact all things can be talked to through the Echo (be it our own, or Krile's own more beast specific ability) at least implies all souls are the same at their core. Whether it's incarnated as a dog, a person, or a behemoth, a soul is a soul. Leaving out the Sundering (which obviously influences aetheric density) Ancients' souls, or the souls of sentient / sapient things, are special because... why, exactly?

[Theodric]

The simple fact that this forum is host to posters from all over the world from many different countries, cultures and belief systems is proof enough that Venat cannot be 'right'.

If the Scions are opposed to something happening to their loved ones then there's no acceptable reason for anybody else to bend over and allow for it to happen to them. I don't see that as an unreasonable point of view.

The feigned concern over the idea that all beings are equal strikes me as rather strange, too. I'm pretty confident suggesting that most reasonable people would prioritise their loved ones over a bunch of chickens. To say nothing of the fact that many of us posting here likely consume meat and use products made from animal parts.

I suppose this is another good opportunity to point out that whatever belief systems some here subscribe to are by no means universal.

Then, of course, there's the simple fact that it isn't reasonable for people to be fine with their loved ones being stuck inside Zodiark for thousands of years or even all of eternity. Especially not when a viable method existed to draw them out and they were only inside Zodiark in the first place due to Venat standing by idly and allowing the Final Days to happen. Somehow I doubt someone allowing Limsa Lominsa to be destroyed would be viewed by the game's protagonists as a 'herois' regardless of their reasons for letting a bunch of innocent men, women and children perish horribly.

I think if someone stands by and allows a disaster to happen purposefully then they have no business criticising the methods used to return to normality. Let alone inflicting genocide upon the traumatised survivors so they can masquerade as a goddess.

Really, with how insistent certain posters were over the years around these parts that there was never an acceptable reason for genocide I'm surprised that they're suddenly fine with the idea just because it isn't directed at the game's protagonists.

[SannaR]

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm sure is probably correct but I think what Eara objects to being discussed is that of abortion. Which is a VERY touchy subject and should probably not be talked about here. A forum about a game let alone this section or this thread.

[Theodric]

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm sure is probably correct but I think what Eara objects to being discussed is that of abortion. Which is a VERY touchy subject and should probably not be talked about here. A forum about a game let alone this section or this thread.

Even controversial subjects can be discussed in a civil manner and if someone feels that they cannot discuss a particular subject without getting heated then it's probably best that they don't partake of the discussion.

That aside, many of us aren't even American but I've seen no such hesitation to bring up heavy issues that happen to involve Europeans.

So long as people recognise that this is a forum devoted to a video game story and not a platform to preach about their real world beliefs then it should be fine, I think.

[YianKutku]

The story gives some welcome insight into what a public servant who isn't part of the Convocation thinks about, well, the Convocation. Not a personal close friend of one (as Hythlodaeus was), but rather an unnamed and "regular" archivist. Someone of some competence and skill, given he was promoted to chief archivist, but not a famous person.

Tangentially, I had read the Sherlock Holmes short stories pastiche collection "Observations By Gaslight" recently, and the archivist reminds me of the chapter about Arthur Lomax, the sublibrarian who was mentioned in like a single line in the original stories, but fleshed out quite well in that short story. The archivist here seems to fit into the same personality as Lomax, in that he's quietly intelligent (ie notices things, but doesn't bother mentioning it unless necessary, even in the narrative), happiest when surrounded by a vast range of information, and willing to go very far when it comes to what he believes in.

There's also confirmation that the Convocation is not exactly democratically elected. The successors of the Convocation members are chosen by the current seat-holders, and approval of their appointment seems to be mostly a formality. We saw this in the aftermath of Elpis, where Emet-Selch claimed he was there to investigate how Hermes ran Elpis, but got the memories of that investigation completely wiped out, returned to Amaurot with as little information as he arrived with, and Hermes became Fandaniel anyway. Similarly, Venat chose "us" as Azem, and the seat of Azem continued to give headaches to the rest of the Convocation, up to and including being condemned as a traitor during the Final Days. Thus the implication is each seat of the Convocation chooses the person they, personally, think is suited, and the rest of the Convocation cannot argue against this save for particularly grievous offenses.

Something I might be reading too much into is that between this story and the dialogue in-game of Endwalker and Pandemonium, there is the impression that the Ancients don't appear to have a lot of experience with strong emotions. They're almost like Star Trek Vulcans: they try to maintain and present a rational, logical front that focuses on careful reasoning and calm discussion, but when they start feeling emotions too strong to be reasoned away, they go all the way to the point of obsession and excess. Elpis-era Lahabrea even tried to rip out that emotional part of himself to maintain his rational side, which seems like overkill for a situation that would probably be solvable through talking it out and perhaps therapy (whether professional or just confiding in others). The archivist here feels fierce loyalty and common mindset to Venat, and appears to be unfamiliar with this feeling.

Quite so, it's not.

Yes, we know you have chosen not to be convinced by anything, as you have stated yourself.

[Lurina]

It's not that the story wants you to sympathize with Venat. It's that the entire planet around you for most of the game has benefited from her, and so they are naturally pro-Hydaelyn in much the same way that, say, Jews are broadly pro-Yahweh; sure, he's not perfect, but on the whole they're pretty glad he went to bat for 'em.

You're not wrong about why the present-day population would be sympathetic to Hydaelyn, but I'm not talking about the story encouraging you to take her side. You've misunderstood what I meant by "sympathetic". I don't mean the story wants you to agree with the Hydaelyn faction, I mean that it wants you to have sympathy for their position - to understand where they're coming from on an intellectual and emotional level. You are meant to see them as having a good point that, depending on your perspective, potentially justifies their actions.

But I'm saying that a vague gesturing towards the ideas of "all life deserves a chance" and "we can't get stuck in the past" does not do this. The Sundering is presented as an effectively genocidal act; it order to feel even remotely reasonable as a solution, it needs to have some kind of concrete basis showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no alternative, otherwise the people behind it come across as having lizard morality and are therefore impossible to sympathize with.

Like, because of her foreknowledge, Venat's actions can make sense to at least a degree, even if the whole scenario is kind of flippant anime writing. But reading this story, if we discount my stupid joke about him just being horny, it is impossible for me to understand what recognizable human thought could be going through the Watcher's mind in supporting her actions. "Hmmm, it really does vibe like the general culture of the planet is going to be more flippant about sacrificing non-human life going forward and is becoming obsessed with capturing a romanticized past, I guess we better destroy civilization"? It's not human. Like, can you ever in a million years imagine that train of thought being reasonable when applied to our own world by anyone who isn't completely insane?

You're always talking about how the Ascians were genocidal monsters, but at least ("at least") their genocides were working towards a materially definable goal. As far as we've been informed, this is genocide for pure ideology. It makes them look like utter monsters, even though we're obviously not meant to see them that way.

I don't want this! It makes the story dumber! This is why people in these discussions who liked the story always infer some concrete basis for the Sundering in the immediate sense to resolve this moral dissonance. But the writers keep slamming those doors shut with every addition to the story. Maybe the Sundering wasn't actually that bad? Nope, they were identity-deathed so hard they lost the ability to speak. Maybe Venat told them the whole story? Nah, she didn't. Maybe the sacrifices were sentient, or would kill the planet, or the Ancients were otherwise in some explicit way creating a society based on eternal mass-murder? <silence>

Sorry for repeating myself, but I just don't understand what they're thinking.

It's hubris to the extreme, the belief that they are worthy of the gift of life above all others and that the planet exists to serve their desires.

The problem isn't that the Ancients weren't doing something misguided, it's the scope of the punishment. Modern society is constantly doing awful and hypocritical things that should be held to account. But only a crazy person who advocate for it being burned to the ground with everyone in it.

[sidurgu-12]

Something I might be reading too much into is that between this story and the dialogue in-game of Endwalker and Pandemonium, there is the impression that the Ancients don't appear to have a lot of experience with strong emotions. They're almost like Star Trek Vulcans: they try to maintain and present a rational, logical front that focuses on careful reasoning and calm discussion, but when they start feeling emotions too strong to be reasoned away, they go all the way to the point of obsession and excess. Elpis-era Lahabrea even tried to rip out that emotional part of himself to maintain his rational side, which seems like overkill for a situation that would probably be solvable through talking it out and perhaps therapy (whether professional or just confiding in others). The archivist here feels fierce loyalty and common mindset to Venat, and appears to be unfamiliar with this feeling.

i think i said this elsewhere but this extreme restraint on individuality and the bonds they form despite this made me care a lot for the ancients.