*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It’s especially annoying when one sides both ignores the information and pushes headcanon as truth. Then everything just gets muddled between what’s real and what’s fake.Not to mention the usage of irl terms people keep using that dont really equate to a fantasy scenario.

---

I mean you say that but your also guilty of spreading misinfo such as claiming they hold ceremonies for there departed creations as a point in there favor vs Sundered when that entire quest is about how they have never done it before the WOL, a sundered being came up with it.

People have been pushing "headcanon" to justify the other side being wrong while also claiming there side isnt which is goofy.

There's also people who will just ignore what Emet said despite it not being any type of headcanon at all. Or people claiming Venat didnt even try to talk the Ancients down when we have an entire scene thats nothing but here trying to do just that.

Nobody is above anybody else here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

The original post asked if I would side with the Ascians knowing what I know, and I would have to say no. Their plan at the time of us meeting them was terrible, and I could not be a part of that. I would not side with Hydaelyn either, though...

Oh, and Hydaelyn... Kindly stop calling me your child. I might be one of your Sundered, but only because you forced it on the world. I happily denounce you.

---

Your whole post is pretty much exactly how I feel, and I can't applaud this part enough. The whole time I felt like my hand was forced and I didn't appreciate being treated like a tool for one side. I wanted to say I'm not your child or your champion. I'm trying to figure out how to save myself and the people I care about. I felt manipulated a lot of the time, especially with all the vague answers I was given by her about what I was supposed to be doing. I definitely felt manipulated after the explanation I was given in HW - like it was meant to hype me up enough to stay on her side and not ask questions.

It really kind of made me wonder, did she also give similar vague explanations to her supporters? Because when I actually started finding out the other side of the story in Shb I remember thinking, this is nothing like how it was portrayed to me this whole time. Of course, we're not shown all of her discussions when she was trying to gather support, but I feel like if her interactions with us are anything to go by - if her supporters were not given the whole story but an oversimplified explanation that hyped them up and made them feel like saviors, coupled with the fact that she had a respected position, then I can see how they could support her.

I'm glad they didn't say which side Azem was on, given the fact that the player base has different opinions on all of this. As I've said before I'm always on my own side. Here's to hoping that we can just go back to being adventurers in the future because this whole thing gave me a headache lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

There was already a mechanism in place to show respect for dead creations.

---

Well, there was an existing mechanism in place to use time magic to accelerate the decomposition process of dead creations. That's a bit like suggesting that a trash compactor is the equivalent of a hearse.

You don't even have to go digging through the side quests to see the core problem, though. The Amaurotians saw their creations as tools to be created and destroyed at a whim, something that they justified because they presumably had no souls (although 'Through His Eyes' suggests that this might be more complex than we presently understand. If you take away Hermes' discomfort and alienation from the fact that he's the only one who sees the idea of killing off an species and replacing it with a better one as a problem, you have no main conflict. Even Venat's faction steps in to pluck away their collective godhood when they move from 'let's sacrifice more of ourselves to Zodiark' to 'lets sacrifice the other life on the planet to get back our friends'. The main challenge that Hermes throws at us is: Can you learn to respect and value life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

... destroyed at a whim, something that they justified because they presumably had no souls ...

---

We've been shown one instance where destroying the concept was the outcome, in the MSQ no less. It was anything but a whim. The process was shown to be quite in depth and exhausted ALL other possibilities. I won't argue that some researchers seem rather flippant for what they do (much like in the real world) but rules and due process exists, and is enforced by the higher ups. Hermes pushed for peer review, but the researcher in question already explored all the possibilities and presented them to even satisfy a bleeding heart like Hermes.

Hell, Hermes is the main cautionary tale why the creation process was heavily regulated and bureaucratized. A single peer review, and we wouldn't have to deal with the Meteion situation (something I recall even Emet points out).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The Amaurotians saw their creations as tools to be created and destroyed at a whim, something that they justified because they presumably had no souls (although 'Through His Eyes' suggests that this might be more complex than we presently understand.

---

Just curious, what are your thoughts about A.I. for example? How our society creates different types of A.I., studies it, does experiments and disregards certain models at a whim if deemed not suitable? The way the ancients used creation magicks made me think of this issue. We've seen it addressed in movies like iRobot the "what if" situations where our creations start thinking for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

We've been shown one instance where destroying the concept was the outcome, in the MSQ no less. It was anything but a whim. The process was shown to be quite in depth and exhausted ALL other possibilities. I won't argue that some researchers seem rather flippant for what they do (much like in the real world) but rules and due process exists, and is enforced by the higher ups. Hermes pushed for peer review, but the researcher in question already explored all the possibilities and presented them to even satisfy a bleeding heart like Hermes.

Hell, Hermes is the main cautionary tale why the creation process was heavily regulated and bureaucratized. A single peer review, and we wouldn't have to deal with the Meteion situation (something I recall even Emet points out).

---

theres that but also the butterfly scene and the scene where they wanted to destroy a species because the third generation wouldnt fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

theres that but also the butterfly scene and the scene where they wanted to destroy a species because the third generation wouldnt fly.

---

The latter was reasonable if it turned out to be a permanent generational problem. Which it wasn't and was resolved as such. The butterfly I'll concede to, but even that isn't that much different than crafting a cloak from leather or something.

Edit: actually, if you want a bad example there is the behemoth side quest. There was like 3 different revisions of that concept, each with major physical and mental differences. Unless the concept owner made modifications on the fly (which I'm unsure they can?) thats at least 2 dead proto-behemoths right there played for laughs.

Well that and the... beavers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

The latter was reasonable if it turned out to be a permanent generational problem. Which it wasn't and was resolved as such. The butterfly I'll concede to, but even that isn't that much different than crafting a cloak from leather or something.

---

These creatures only got those chances because of Hermes. And even after Emet just used a few minutes of his time to teach the creature to fly the person in charge of it still questioned if it wouldnt have been easier to just destroy the race and start anew. I honestly doubt these problem animals would still be alive if the chief of the Elpis was not so kind to them.

We also cant really compare us killing animals for fur and other stuff with the things that the Ancients did. First the sundered had to bascially fight these creatures (quite a few of them being huge and very dangerous), risking their own life. And second we basically cant use creation magic so we have to use real items to create things for us. As far as the side quests hint at, Ancients bascially can even create meals with their magic. Emet and Hythlo create the Elpis flowers without the need to return some living beings into aether. So unlike us they dont need to do that to survive.

Basically the sundered are part of the circle of life, just like the other creatures. The Ancients were above it and still just destroyed those that they did not like. And I guess I can accept that with the wolves. It would be horrible for all if these would be released and bascially destroyed a whole other creature race or more. (Of course the question remains on why such beings were even created in the first place) But seemingly they are also taken down if they dont fit into the perfect box the Ancients have built for them.

As a side note: I found it very interesting how in the big side quest in that zone, the NPCs really like our ideas because they are so fresh and do admit that with their long lifespans their creativity and new ideas are getting bad. I think that might have been another small hint that at the end they might have ended like the race from the dungeon, when they finally created their perfect world. Of course that does not mean that they should die, after all the journey to it is important too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

snip

---

Things get iffy when Hermes is involved, as he's not just the pro life guy, but also a head researcher in Elpis. We have absolutely no idea how much of his intervention is beyond his professional responsibility. The one with the flying creature implies carelessness or incompetence from the researchers, and I don't think its mentioned if there is any more paperwork or approvals involved. On the other hand however, the one where they actually did put down the concept, it was shown that the researchers in charge went above and beyond to test any and all possible alterations, and documented them to a point where it stood up to biased peer review from Hermes.

I won't argue that they don't see creations, familiars and sundered as somehow lesser. They absolutely do. But they do handle most with a measure dignity (apparently relative to sentience or perceived soul?), and they do have a point, to a point. Having the ability to create and destroy life innately, with varying complexity is bound to cause some divergence from our own views on life and death.

You argue that they have it better, they should be better. Personally, I argue they have it better... they could do so, soo much worse just for their personal amusement. I won't say they couldn't be better, but I think its safe to say they are doing damn near the best one could expect from an imperfect society blessed with near godlike powers.

I honestly struggle to imagine a better outcome should humanity ever get such a power even in a post-scarcity scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The main challenge that Hermes throws at us is: Can you learn to respect and value life?

---

I'll get back to you on that as soon as my Hunt Train is over.