Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

What is the difference between killing “new life” that came from Zodiark and Primals?

As always, I would expect those who - by their own admission - want to champion the 'mommy goddess with a soft voice' to say and do whatever it takes in order to try and push her as 'correct'.

At this point, I'm not even sure what the point of these circular arguments even is. Nothing being discussed is anything that can't be resolved with a simple 'agree to disagree'. It's just amusing that the same posters who screeched for years about the Ascians and the Garleans because of 'genocide' cannot handle a light bit of pushback and people saying they disagree and disapprove of Venat when...she engages in genocide and turns out to be directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of horrific suffering present in the setting itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What is the difference between killing “new life” that came from Zodiark and Primals?

---

It's the difference between killing a person and deleting a computer program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

What are you talking about? Eden was the result of one guy dying. Surely if some sundered could figure out how to make the life energy of one ancient and some primals into an effective terraforming device, the ancients could have too.

Sure, maybe it would have taken longer than the sacrifice a large number of thier population to instantly restore the ecosystem, but we've confirmed it'd work.

Heck, maybe "terraforming with primals" was the original Azem's mysterious third option.

---

Eden’s transformation is what contributed to the flood of light maam. Aka the thing that wiped out nearly the entire world. Also…primals don’t contain a will or emotion? That’s very interesting to me because based on their dialogue they seem to possess a LOT of emotion, and i don’t think they consented either. Iirc you were all very against the ancients using any creations for their benefit and saw it as hubris, with one of you even saying that the eden primals….lol, “consented.” Sorry had to stifle a laugh there. But yeah to me they very much have a will and emotions based on their dialogue. At least moreso than egi’s or nixies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

It's the difference between killing a person and deleting a computer program.

---

What makes the difference between a computer program and a person, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Because Venat also demonstrated a perfect willingness to "sacrifice living beings" in order to "protect the Ancients" (from her own perspective) by subjecting them to the Sundering as well.

---

She showed a willingness to Sunder living beings that we’re going to self destruct their own civilization. The dilemma Venat faced is the trolley problem. The dilemma the Ancients faced is the fat man version of the trolley problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

She herself never spoke of defending the sacrifices. The writers have never tied defending the sacrifices in to her motives. Her big speech before the Sundering was wholly centered on her love of her people as the driving factor for her decision. The sacrifices did not matter to her except how they factored in to what she saw as the Ancients' downfall.

---

I already know that I’ll get “that cutscene should be ignored” but I’m posting it anyway.

https://i.imgur.com/tgIRYXS.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What makes the difference between a computer program and a person, though?

---

Sentience for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

As always, I would expect those who - by their own admission - want to champion the 'mommy goddess with a soft voice' to say and do whatever it takes in order to try and push her as 'correct'.

---

And as always, the group solely interested in defending the Ascians, as well as pretty much every other opposing faction in the game, has decided they know best and we should all just shut up.

Clearly, we don't see the Eden Primals as alive, so killing them is not really murder.

Wait, no, that's nonsense. We've clearly seen that you can have conversations with Primals, even philosophical discussions, and they demonstrate a will to live and resistance to being killed, so...

Wait, I'm confused again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

It's the difference between killing a person and deleting a computer program.

---

And now we're at step one again, asserting it involved persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

What are you talking about? Eden was the result of one guy dying. Surely if some sundered could figure out how to make the life energy of one ancient and some primals into an effective terraforming device, the ancients could have too.

Sure, maybe it would have taken longer than the sacrifice a large number of thier population to instantly restore the ecosystem, but we've confirmed it'd work.

Heck, maybe "terraforming with primals" was the original Azem's mysterious third option.

---

Are you just back to musing of "omg why didn't you think of this dumb dumbs"? To which one could add: why didn't Venat propose it, in that case? There are likely obvious reasons as to why this would not work, such as a planet being drenched in dynamis being harmed and atrophied by it in ways light, which solely causes aetheric stagnation but otherwise keeps the aether intact, would not be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

She showed a willingness to Sunder living beings that we’re going to self destruct their own civilization. The dilemma Venat faced is the trolley problem. The dilemma the Ancients faced is the fat man version of the trolley problem.

---

Venat Sundered everything, all life, sacrifices included. Remember Emet's line? "That light split the world, and every life upon it!" What you're saying would work if Venat Sundered only the Ancients, but everything got axed.

Quote:

---

I already know that I’ll get “that cutscene should be ignored” but I’m posting it anyway.

---

Yes, as noted, her primary objections are "reclaiming lives" and "weakness" with the sacrifices being incidental as the method used to do and express those things, respectively. Her focal point is the virtue of the Ancients. I don't see her arguing about how "the sacrifices don't deserve to be killed" or "the sacrifices are innocent."

I have my suspicions about the primals in the game as to how much of a true "will" they actually have considering Ramuh remembers events between summonings even if he was still in the Sea at the time the events happened.