*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

...And yeah, they did kind of just dig themselves deeper by clarifying points like Venat letting Emet-Selch and the others escape on purpose as well as her somewhat irrational fear that the Ancients were going to go the way of the Plenty when they were never trying to "eliminate strife" as they had been. Creation magic in itself ran counter to that idea considering that it was openly acknowledged that new creations could be horrifyingly dangerous, yet nobody seemed to get called out for it unless they were trying to break protocol by unleashing an untested concept into the outside world.

---

The Ancients before the calamity might not have, but the ones afterwards? The ones that wanted their pure bliss back?

And I dont agree with Hermes solution at the end but I do agree with his question on what would happen if the Ancients reached their goal to create a perfect star? He even ask: Would we all die in satisfaction?

As soon as I saw the Plenty I was sure that this was a nod towards the Ancients. Just as there was a nod towards Venats later actions when Meteion talked about a planet that got rid of all suffering and basically still died because life lost its meaning.

Would I want to join Emet because I'm absolutely crazy about the character? Yes.

Would I want to join Emet because his plan and his ideas were good? Absolutely not. Especially after experiencing Elpis. Elpis really snapped me out of the idea that everything was absolutely perfect before the calamity. It was a wonderful experience but interacting with Hermes made me realize how imperfect it was really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

The Ancients before the calamity might not have, but the ones afterwards? The ones that wanted their pure bliss back?

And I dont agree with Hermes solution at the end but I do agree with his question on what would happen if the Ancients reached their goal to create a perfect star? He even ask: Would we all die in satisfaction?

As soon as I saw the Plenty I was sure that this was a nod towards the Ancients. Just as there was a nod towards Venats later actions when Meteion talked about a planet that got rid of all suffering and basically still died because life lost its meaning.

---

The Convocation's repeatedly stated intent was just to bring back those who gave their lives to summon Zodiark, which in a void really didn't seem like that terrible of a thing without more context behind exactly what it was they were sacrificing. While their methods changed post-Sundering to something more blatantly reprehensible, the end goal remained consistent.

It's only in the post-Elpis cutscene that we're suddenly presented with these delusional Ancients who think Zodiark can fix everything for them.

Also, the jist I got from the people of the Plenty was that they threw away everything that could've been perceived as a source of strife, even the things that gave their lives meaning. That may have even included their very star down below judging from the fact that it's a barren, broken wasteland with what civilization was left relegated to a few isles floating above. As a result, their pursuit of "perfection" comes across as having been rather reckless compared to the Ancients who deliberated over decisions and debated at length in hopes of ensuring they were making the right choice.

I mean, this is the same Convocation who has spent the past 12000 years trying to deliberately end the lives of every living being across 14 worlds. You can try to make them look more sympathetic, but you can't undo 8 years worth of writing.

This is one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to design matryoshka doll villains, because the innermost one ends up being responsible by proxy for all the bad in the world. If you have multiple, parallel antagonistic factions, some of whom are at odds with each other, then they tend to become a lot less polarizing and a lot more sympathetic. Garlemald and Allag both would have been a lot more interesting had Emet never touched them. But the power differential was so one-sided that they ended up becoming merely puppet dictatorships. Emet's introduction scene with Varis single-handedly destroyed Varis' character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I mean, this is the same Convocation who has spent the past 12000 years trying to deliberately end the lives of every living being across 14 worlds. You can try to make them look more sympathetic, but you can't undo 8 years worth of writing.

This is one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to design matryoshka doll villains, because the innermost one ends up being responsible by proxy for all the bad in the world. If you have multiple, parallel antagonistic factions, some of whom are at odds with each other, then they tend to become a lot less polarizing and a lot more sympathetic. Garlemald and Allag both would have been a lot more interesting had Emet never touched them. But the power differential was so one-sided that they ended up becoming merely puppet dictatorships. Emet's introduction scene with Varis single-handedly destroyed Varis' character.

---

And yet, people still sympathize with a character who we’ve been her puppet for the past 8-10 years, with 0 agency for ourselves, and who knew of multiple deaths, and destruction and still let it all happen anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

And yet, people still sympathize with a character who we’ve been her puppet for the past 8-10 years, with 0 agency for ourselves, and who knew of multiple deaths, and destruction and still let it all happen anyways.

---

You're laboring under the assumption that she just stood by and let the aciasns run wild. Pretty sure there have been warriors of light throughout the ages. That very fact goes against your assumption. She tried and failed to stop them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NekoMataMata

Would I want to join Emet because his plan and his ideas were good? Absolutely not. Especially after experiencing Elpis. Elpis really snapped me out of the idea that everything was absolutely perfect before the calamity. It was a wonderful experience but interacting with Hermes made me realize how imperfect it was really.

---

The irony is absolute 'perfection' is bad (The Plenty), but apparently the Ancients not being perfect is... also bad? I find it arbitrary. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or anyone else thought the Ancients weren't perfect (which is subjective). It didn't give anyone the right to overthrow their democracy, strip them of their will, violate their bodies and souls without consent, and force them to birth 14 new existences conveniently with no knowledge of the monstrous crime that has been committed upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Also, the jist I got from the people of the Plenty was that they threw away everything that could've been perceived as a source of strife, even the things that gave their lives meaning. That may have even included their very star down below judging from the fact that it's a barren, broken wasteland with what civilization was left relegated to a few isles floating above. As a result, their pursuit of "perfection" comes across as having been rather reckless compared to the Ancients who deliberated over decisions and debated at length in hopes of ensuring they were making the right choice.

---

The comparison struck me as odd because the denizens of The Plenty have a fundamentally different belief system than the Ancients, yet we're supposed to somehow connect the dots that this was ultimately going to be their fate? Pointing out that people have to note the robes and masks similarities because, frankly, without them you'd arguably never make that connection.

I don't know how long it takes to undergo such a foundational change given that they would have had to decide that returning to the star was no longer beautiful and the thing to do was live forever, it could've been 20k+ years into the future for all we know. (This opens up a whole other discussion as to whether or not the star would cease giving out souls or wouldn't they eventually suffer from overpopulation?) What I don't see discussed nearly enough is that in trying to avoid this one particular fate Etheirys was made susceptible to many others depicted in Ultima Thule that they weren't at risk for before the sundering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

You're laboring under the assumption that she just stood by and let the aciasns run wild. Pretty sure there have been warriors of light throughout the ages. That very fact goes against your assumption. She tried and failed to stop them.

---

Except her entire plan hinged upon them causing calamities. She stood by and watched her people get slaughtered by the final days. By all means continue though, to believe she truly did everything she could. Except you know, not lie, not keep secrets, tell the truth etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Except her entire plan hinged upon them causing calamities. She stood by and watched her people get slaughtered by the final days. By all means continue though, to believe she truly did everything she could. Except you know, not lie, not keep secrets, tell the truth etc etc.

---

No it didn't. All she knew is that they did, that doesn't mean she didn't try to stop them The whole making warriors of light to fight against the forces of darkness throughout the ages is more than enough proof. She explained why she didn't speak to the 14, you also have zero proof that she didn't do anything during the final days. You can just say you don't like the character, making stuff up to justify your dislike ain't it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The irony is absolute 'perfection' is bad (The Plenty), but apparently the Ancients not being perfect is... also bad? I find it arbitrary. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or anyone else thought the Ancients weren't perfect (which is subjective). It didn't give anyone the right to overthrow their democracy, strip them of their will, violate their bodies and souls without consent, and force them to birth 14 new existences conveniently with no knowledge of the monstrous crime that has been committed upon them.

---

You're missing the point. The idea of the ancients being perfect and having no problems was the main point of argument for Emet's side. He claimed that despite all the suffering the Umbral Calamities brought, there was still far more suffering created naturally amongst the peoples of each shard and of the source itself. In his comparison he makes it seem as if any amount of damage done to those currently existing is negligible because the ancients had no problems.

It's a bit of a utilitarian way of thinking. He's claiming that his way will cause the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering in the long run.

You can't change what happened to them and that's not really worth the discussion.