Let's play a game: Save the Ancients!

[ZavosEsperian]

Would you prefer I say 'domino effect'? Because the point I was making was that in the context of stopping the Ancients from falling apart, you can't do a direct problem-solve if you're starting after the Metia have left; there is no means to do so. This is even true for Venat, who had a wealth of social resources available to her and knowledge of the society she's going to use them in. It's even more true for the WoL, who in this context is a weak idiot with no friends. (That last part's a big problem, because the WoL's ostensible greatest strength is having a lot of those.) This is even a thing you yourself agree on, because your own plan still starts before that point.

Me espousing a possible solution that happens to take place before the events of Elpis is more of a convenience than me agreeing it is the only way. Within the realm of fiction and headcanons, you can devise a solution really at any given point inside of the timeline prior to the Sundering. I chose prior to those events to maximize potential survivors and to minimize the amount of extra baggage the WoL would require to effectively deal with the problems faced after the events where Hermes orders the Metia to destroy the Universe. Nothing is impossible and defying fate is something Final Fantasy is all about, but also minimizing the number of McGuffins and Deus Exes is also something required to make the story more believable.

If you want to save the Ancients, but only start with the WoL themselves after Ktisis (or Pandaemonium, which doesn't meaningfully change anything here), either physically present or not, you'd better have an insanely elaborate plan that can be weaved out of literally nothing, because that's what you've got. In my eyes, the butterfly effect is its best hope, the notion that the WoL can beat their proverbial wings and cause exactly the one storm you need. And frankly, that sounds like a terrible plan.

Venat's plan also hinges on putting all her chips onto the WoL. All events post Elpis would be out of Venat's ability to predict due to the WoL not knowing what would happen upon returning to the present, thus unable to communicate this. As such, the following things would be unknown to her:

-The ability for the Sharlayan's and the Loporrits to construct a ship that is capable of FTL travel and is able to reach the absolute furthest point away from Etheirys in the Universe, aka Ultima Thule (note: She directed the Sharlayans to build such a vessel and it is possible she knew about what it had to be able to do since she had a Meteion tracker, however this is not explained and thus the former statement is allowed to remain.)

-The WoL being able to overcome the Endsinger inside of its own domain, which was not suitable for life and required the sacrifice of multiple Scions to reach Meteion. (note: She did enhance the Azem Crystal, but whether it would be enough would be something she would not know.)

-Zenos being pivotal to her plan's success without knowledge aforethought of him needing to be present in the final battle.

-Any and all events occurring outside of what the WoL would know she would have to direct in a way to get to all the events the WoL is describing as events as part of the MSQ (all non-essential quests outside of the MSQ can be ignored since this will differ from WoL to WoL).

-The timeline G'raha Tia was in had to play out exactly the way that it did, and her influence there would be extremely limited if any at all.

This does not include the issues surrounding the paradoxical nature of the Sundering, as there is no indication of whose idea the Sundering was. It cannot be any incarnation of the WoL in a timeline system that does not have alternate universes, as their existence hinges on the Sundering being a thing so there would never be a sundering ever unless the idea originated beyond them. In a system where Alternate Universes are allowed and time travelling spawns alternate universes, only the initial timeline and potentially the second one would be affected since the idea still has to come from somewhere, but the existence of the WoL inside of the past can be explained away a bit more simply from a logical perspective.

Yet despite all these things, the plot still works out in Venat's favor. Defying fate, defying destiny, and defying reality are all hallmarks of a Final Fantasy game. Boiling down everything into something that plays out like dominos or even a butterfly effect is effectively useless here, as the game plays out in a realm of fiction. Yet, you would likely rule out such a plot from being viable years ago with the logic you are running with for my ideas.

It is clear you are applying deterministic thinking to a game franchise that largely goes against this notion in favor of overcoming impossible odds, such as saving the Ancients from themselves. The WoL saving the Ancients from what appears to be a predestined fate from our current perspective would make for a Final Fantasy franchise styled plot as the WoL goes up against a seemingly impossible outcome, only to defy it to save those who came before, and whose sacrifices now result in their initial goal: their salvation.

So once again, I pose to you this question again: Why are you playing a game/game series where determinism is one of the least supported concepts in its themes, and is usually torn to shreds by the end of the game?

As always, when I ask these questions, it is not meant to be taken as an offense. It is me making an observation I would like to have an answer to. And while you are not obligated to answer the question, it would help me be able to potentially come up with something to your liking.

[Vyrerus]

None of that makes sense, and the short story changes nothing except confirming whether we are in a "timeline is able to branch to support an old and new version of events" story or a "time traveller is exempt from the effects of a self-inflicted grandfather paradox" story, in favour of the former.

It makes as much sense as anything you've proposed, and yes, the short story confirms exactly what I've stated. It creates a second timeline, not a branch. It's not a branch, because the traversal relies on going to a space time that no longer has a coordinates within their own universe. This exempts their machine from being able to affect their timeline, since it needs those spatial coordinates (and it remains a great mystery as to how they even got them, since they're also dimensionally separate from The Source's universe and space time). The short story is the proof that their timeline was completely unaffected.

Branches for timelines come from second to second instances of time, and are already infinite and chaotic. You don't need a time machine to cause branches. They will result from any variation or hesitation in choice or chance.

The choice to try to change causality by traversing time causes a separate and new timeline, when dealing with backwards time travel. This is because the impetus for your traversal is linked to your past. You can't change your past at all, because it will fundamentally alter the casual links that lead up to your motive for the traversal. Particularly true if there's no way to account or plan to reverse for the changes you make.

Even if that's not how you view time travel, the short story introduced multiple timelines by having the 8UC remain unaffected by their traversal. This means their machine went to a parallel past. Not a shared past. For it to be a shared past, the short story would have to not exist, much like how the 8UC would have to no longer exist.

In other words, SHB's use of time travel concludes that you can change other timeline's past, but you can't change your own timeline's past. Which, with regards to Endwalker and the thread, means that the WoL could change things in the past but it would be in another timeline entirely.

Which Endwalker then takes the stance that a conjunction between two time periods has formed, resulting in our beloved causal loop, while still trying to have its cake and eat it too by having the WoL rewrite the past by showing them influencing things through Elpis sidequests. (This is why it's just Writer Fiat, and there are no real rules. This is a repeal or willful ignoring of the SHB precedent(in order to have fun, because there is nothing concrete about time travel, it is all theoretical and quite paradoxical))

You like to say that the story operates under the rules that changing the past just makes it so that the timeline revision is what always occurred, but that is not what occurs when there are multiple timelines. It doesn't even occur that way if you allow for branches, because the revisions will just cause branches, rather than change the actual events.

I know you're not going to see things my way, but perhaps others will. That's all I've got to say on this.

[ZavosEsperian]

Also Hi new here but Ive lurked for 2 years going on Hello everyone who isnt the person Im quoting.

Welcome to the forums. It appears you are aware of how people can be on the forums, so with that I wish you safe travels through this land of headcanons.

[Iscah]

I know you're not going to see things my way, but perhaps others will. That's all I've got to say on this.

Right then, same back at you – I know you're not going to see things my way either, but perhaps other will want to listen to a theory that takes every part of the game and makes it all make sense together, over your theory that chooses to interpret things so they don't make sense with each other.

I came up with my theory to fit Shadowbringers' branching timeline together with Alexander's stable time loops, and then Endwalker came along and I didn't have to adjust anything in my theory at all. That tells me I was on the right track.

[Cleretic]

When it comes to the topic of the Ancients you absolutely are. However are we just going to ignore that all your examples happen in a Sundered World (AKA a Shard of 7/13ths) and in the Unsundered world we are playing by a different set of rules? Ancients don't have the restrictions in Aether like the Sundered.

In our timeline after the initial Final days killed a good portion of the Star and the Ancient people. Following that with an ever smaller population pool they managed to get more uses out of Zodiark with just their sacrifices alone no Ambient Aether required. So unless my math ain't mathing anymore I don't see why they wouldn't have an issue taking Aether from a much larger population of Ancients without requiring their bodies and souls. Call it an Aether Blood drive and take a small bit from the Star symbolism and what not.

Also your doing it again in response to Redheadturk. Bad faith arguments Tsk tsk

Zodiark was unfathomably huge as far as aether goes. Trying to do my own math here, if we just ballpark that the Ancient world and its denizens have twice as much aether in them as the current Source (I hoped the EW fisher stoyrline would shed light on this, but it doesn't), then it stands to reason that making a Zodiark now would require sacrificing the entire population, or their 'ambient aether' equivalent. That's a lot of aether, and it logically tracks with his fight; we only fought him at half-ish strength, with a pilot that had barely any experience, and he's still among the trials in this game.

For 'ambient aether drain wouldn't have been as big a deal pre-sundering' to hold, the primals threatening it need to be of comparable power to Zodiark. And they're fractions of his full power; Ramuh was made with a stockpile of crystals, Alexander is powered by what's basically an aetheric vacuum cleaner. Eureka we don't know the origins of, but we do know it wasn't making things nearly as fast or as frequently as Zodiark. Hell, while he's not directly comparable, Eden was just one sundered Ascian jacked up with a bunch of light aether, and it still nearly scoured a whole shard clean.

Yeah, I genuinely think that if Alexander walking was a potential Calamity's worth of aether drain, Zodiark doing something as significant as putting out an eternal barrier probably would've been much worse.


And my comments to Turk are just underlining the strangeness I find that the people allegedly defending the Ancients are the ones insulting them. The thing about the Ancients falling to what they did is that it lets them be as great as they were: if they were only felled by an essentially unstoppable force, then it's not a failure, it's just a loss. Similarly, Hydaelyn being the result of an Ancient group getting mass support, as the EE3 tells us, means that the Ancients went out on their terms. Even if they could never have been perfect, the Ancients were all they could have been; they were their best and did their best, and the story never takes that from them.

...but the argument of 'they could have solved this' does take that from them. It takes away their scientific intelligence by saying that they weren't smart enough to come up with your solution; it takes away their social intelligence by saying that they could easily have been swayed by a lying demagogue. It tears apart their political integrity by saying that said demagogue could've gotten that power in the first place, even though we see Lahabrea recognize and act on that exact problem with Athena.

By saying that there was some obvious perfect solution that they just didn't take, we infantilize them. That their enlightened masses were easily fooled, that their greatest minds couldn't see the obvious. That they were merely naive babes who were hopeless without our help, instead of mature adults who couldn't stop the inevitable, and eventually stopped themselves going further.

I think the Ancients deserve better than that. I can't stop you forcing them in the kiddie pool, but I can do my part by making this the last thing I say on it.

[redheadturk]

I never said they weren't smart enough. I said they had crucial knowledge about the cause of the problem withheld from them, and that is true. Had they had said knowledge [which is what I propose they be given for an alternate timeline to spawn] they could very well have defeated the Final Days.

And IMHO? They deserved better than what they got. They deserved an alternate timeline in which they got to live.

[Yuella]

Venat did tell them how to beat the Final Days in that lengthy cutscene

---
Venat
No, my friends. Suffering exists, and we cannot pretend otherwise.

No civilization, however great, could eliminate it. If we would live, we must accept it as our constant companion.
Let us not seek to forget this tragedy. Let us carry it in our hearts, that we may grow stronger and know true happiness.

Bitter Ancient
We can't accept it! We won't accept it! It will be ours again—a world free of sorrow!

Venat
No, it will not, for there has ever been sorrow. Mankind was but spared its biting sting for a time.

So please, open your eyes. To try and reclaim those lives we lost by sacrificing yet more isn't wisdom. It is weakness.
No paradise is without its shadows. If we cannot accept this truth and learn from our pain, then our plight shall be repeated.
---

Stopping that particular Final Days would not stop another Athena or Hermes from doing the same thing again 1000, 10000 or 100000 years in the future if they never learn how to accept sufferings. This is the main point of the story (the details don't matter). There's no such thing as a perfect society (otherwise people like Athena or Hermes would not exist) and they have to learn accepting imperfection as part of their society instead of declaring every imperfect things or beings a failure immediately. Maybe there's a slight flaw in the writing where they didn't hammer this point well enough but the main idea is solid.

[KrasieArk]

Zodiark was unfathomably huge as far as aether goes. Trying to do my own math here, if we just ballpark that the Ancient world and its denizens have twice as much aether in them as the current Source (I hoped the EW fisher stoyrline would shed light on this, but it doesn't), then it stands to reason that making a Zodiark now would require sacrificing the entire population

I don't get your reasoning here. If a quarter percentage of the remaining Ancient civilization of Etheryris was enough to not only summon Zodiark but also give 2 additional uses.....why would they need to sacrifice their entire population?

For that matter where are you pulling an Ancient being twice as much Aether compared to a source denizen? The people of the Source aren't Ancients they have a completely different Baseline. We know this because folks in the 1st aren't inherently weaker in Aether usage versus the source and the same for Void Sent in the 13th. The only real exception to this are Freaks of Nature like the WoL , Godbert , and his wife.

Zodiark was unfathomably huge
For 'ambient aether drain wouldn't have been as big a deal pre-sundering' to hold, the primals threatening it need to be of comparable power to Zodiark. And they're fractions of his full power; Ramuh was made with a stockpile of crystals, Alexander is powered by what's basically an aetheric vacuum cleaner. Eureka we don't know the origins of, but we do know it wasn't making things nearly as fast or as frequently as Zodiark. Hell, while he's not directly comparable, Eden was just one sundered Ascian jacked up with a bunch of light aether, and it still nearly scoured a whole shard clean.

Yeah, I genuinely think that if Alexander walking was a potential Calamity's worth of aether drain, Zodiark doing something as significant as putting out an eternal barrier probably would've been much worse.

And yet it the proposed 3rd sacrifice would've used something similar to Ambient Aether or the Star if you will for yet another use of Zodiark , Heck even the fully rejoined Source according to Emet could've done the same thing. This is a classic Power creep situation but point still remains Ancient world Ancient rules.

I think the Ancients deserve better than that. I can't stop you forcing them in the kiddie pool, but I can do my part by making this the last thing I say on it.

This is the bad faith Argument. We all know this was a controversial point in the EW MSQ. You yourself wanted to avoid "THAT SAME DAMNED ARGUEMENT" in your very first post in this thread. Being blunt this is your Nuclear method to kill or derail the topic.

[redheadturk]

Venat did tell them how to beat the Final Days in that lengthy cutscene

---
Venat
No, my friends. Suffering exists, and we cannot pretend otherwise.

No civilization, however great, could eliminate it. If we would live, we must accept it as our constant companion.
Let us not seek to forget this tragedy. Let us carry it in our hearts, that we may grow stronger and know true happiness.

Bitter Ancient
We can't accept it! We won't accept it! It will be ours again—a world free of sorrow!

Venat
No, it will not, for there has ever been sorrow. Mankind was but spared its biting sting for a time.

So please, open your eyes. To try and reclaim those lives we lost by sacrificing yet more isn't wisdom. It is weakness.
No paradise is without its shadows. If we cannot accept this truth and learn from our pain, then our plight shall be repeated.
---

Stopping that particular Final Days would not stop another Athena or Hermes from doing the same thing again 1000, 10000 or 100000 years in the future if they never learn how to accept sufferings. This is the main point of the story (the details don't matter). There's no such thing as a perfect society (otherwise people like Athena or Hermes would not exist) and they have to learn accepting imperfection as part of their society instead of declaring every imperfect things or beings a failure immediately. Maybe there's a slight flaw in the writing where they didn't hammer this point well enough but the main idea is solid.

Yuella, you are being disingenuous. This is not "showing the way", this is Venat pontificating at a group of random people traumatized by an extinction level event that could have been avoided if she had told one or two Convocation members the truth. I disagree with EW's point that a world that has done its best to mitigate suffering [which we in the real world should be doing anyway, ya know, leaving the world a better place than we found it] is a bad place to be, that is all. Also, I would certainly prefer a thousand or 10 thousand years of a relatively tranquil life in the Ancient world where people don't starve or have to worry about being prostituted out [Limsa and Ul'dah both] or murdered in wars [Garlemald]. So, yeah.

[ZavosEsperian]

Stopping that particular Final Days would not stop another Athena or Hermes from doing the same thing again 1000, 10000 or 100000 years in the future if they never learn how to accept sufferings. This is the main point of the story (the details don't matter).

While this may be true of EW, that does not mean they are beyond saving. If we are arguing the main point of EW story as a justification as to why you cannot save the Ancients, consider that nearly all, if not all, Final Fantasy franchise games have an overarching theme about overcoming impossible challenges and odds in order to defy fate and becoming the person who shapes their own fate. Look at nearly every game and this theme will be manifested somewhere inside of each of the main titles, some more overt than others.

This theme is extremely present in FFXIV and is much more pronounced in later expansions as the feats the WoL and companions accomplish become more and more distinguished to the point you end up saving the Universe as a whole by the end of EW. DT's feats are going to likely be considerably less grand (at least from initial views of it as it isn't out yet) compared to that of EW and ShB, but this overarching plot will likely still exist in some form or another.

With that said, the task of saving the Ancients, based on your words, fulfills the "impossibility" portion of the equation and saving the Ancients in an alternate timeline would be defying fate. From a theme's perspective, I would say saving the Ancients fits in with a classic Final Fantasy styled plot and does have considerable potential down the line to come up in a future expansion .