Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

So tinfoil hat time from me. What if she did indirectly try to tell them about Meteion? There's been two things that have been bothering me. One is the behavior of Azem. The whole they did whatever it is you think your Azem would have done is the correct answer, but we also know what Azem was doing we just can't tell you at this point in time as it would spoil other things answer has never sat well with me. The other one is why did Zodiark make the new life aetherical thinner? Who or why did he choose to do so? Was it because he couldn't make new life be as thick as Ancients? Which could lead to problems with the whole switch a bunch of thiner souls for a bunch of thicker souls idea. What if Venat and Co got Zodiark and mostly Elidibus to agree to make them thiner so they could be used against Meteion? Or if no one told/asked them to make said new life thiner then maybe the whole "leave the care of the star to this thiner younger life" line was supposed to mean that her group wanted to again use them to go find and battle Meteion? And the convocation for whatever reason didn't ask for clarification or they did and didn't get a clarification. Would explain why there was a need for a Hydelean Zodiark fight or why it felt pleas fell on deaf ears. I know there's a lot of holes and that some won't even agree with this theory and that's fine.

To the well the WoL could just find the unsundered versions of their friends thing. Not all of their friends were sundered Ancients. A few of them had bared witnesses to multiple star showers and never awoken to the echo which seems to be the tell tale sign that you used to be an Ancient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

We didnt just observe though. We directly interacted with them. We werent some invisible entity or viewing this through the echo. We were literally there, interacting with them, and we are still doing so now in pandaemonium.

---

Endwalker is basically us taking the Exarch role of being a time traveler who can at the very least save people of another timeline; but unfortunately our champion, past!Venat, is a dumb bitch who instead retread the same events even though we gave her a cheat sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

How were they hiding? They thought the threat was gone. Venat was the only one with the knowledge that it wasn’t and she said nothing to prevent it all. What would you have them do exactly? Somehow figure out that there was still some intergalactic space flea? They didn’t choose a slow death. It wasn’t a choice. That’s beyond bizarre thinking. Literally look up the definition of genocide. Because by your description, the rejoinings are in the same boat. They aren’t genocide because the souls are recycled LOL.

---

The part where a member of the her faction told them as such that their doom had only been postponed. It fell on deaf ears. Did you think that the massive debate that erupted over all of this that the core of Zodiark had to pull himself to mediate was due to Veant's side being vague? As for why she didn't say anything before the final days she gives her reasons, all logical given the situation.

They chose a course of action that would lead to them all dying. Venat wanted to give life a chance to live and took it. You all keep overlooking the fact that the majority rejected doing anything but bringing their loved ones back.

For those of you really trying to conclude that the rejoinings are justified, you do know they'd all just die again and their initial sacrifice would have been for nothing right? You are aware that Metion wanted to end the reincarnation cycles right? You are aware that theirs is a society that simply doesn't care much about their own deaths because they know they return in some shape right? They aren't the same, one gave mankind a chance in the face of actual genocide and the other was useless bloodletting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

The part where a member of the her faction told them as such that their doom had only been postponed. It fell on deaf ears. Did you think that the massive debate that erupted over all of this that the core of Zodiark had to pull himself to mediate was due to Veant's side being vague? As for why she didn't say anything before the final days she gives her reasons, all logical given the situation.

They chose a course of action that would lead to them all dying. Venat wanted to give life a chance to live and took it. You all keep overlooking the fact that the majority rejected doing anything but bringing their loved ones back.

For those of you really trying to conclude that the rejoinings are justified, you do know they'd all just die again and their initial sacrifice would have been for nothing right? You are aware that Metion wanted to end the reincarnation cycles right? You are aware that theirs is a society that simply doesn't care much about their own deaths because they know they return in some shape right? They aren't the same, one gave mankind a chance in the face of actual genocide and the other was useless bloodletting.

---

Yes, but did not tell them why. If someone walked up to you and said "You're still doomed" and didn't tell you why so you could fix the problem I daresay you wouldn't be too keen on listening either. Also, full rejoinings after Meteion was defeated would be something I as the WoL would throw my full support behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Yes, but did not tell them why. If someone walked up to you and said "You're still doomed" and didn't tell you why so you could fix the problem I daresay you wouldn't be too keen on listening either. Also, full rejoinings after Meteion was defeated would be something I as the WoL would throw my full support behind.

---

I'm sure that will go over well with the population. Not to mention being pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

I'm sure that will go over well with the population. Not to mention being pointless.

---

Aren't you the one who said souls get recycled and thus Venat was not genocidal? We can rejoin the shards and anyone who dies will be back in a couple years right? We should be staying consistent here. Either wiping people out is ok or it isn't. And I'd hardly call making the population their natural selves pointless. Life before the sundering was better than life afterwards, and rejoining the star would revert it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

Aren't you the one who said souls get recycled and thus Venat was not genocidal? We can rejoin the shards and anyone who dies will be back in a couple years right? We should be staying consistent here. Either wiping people out is ok or it isn't. And I'd hardly call making the population their natural selves pointless. Life before the sundering was better than life afterwards, and rejoining the star would revert it.

---

Yes souls are reincarnated. Did you forget about the part where the they were on the same path as those of the Plenty, even without the final days. Why would you put us back on that path? Why would you throw away everything that everyone has gone through to go back to the past? Their lives clearly weren't better. That life did make someone like Hermes.

We went over this in Shadowbringers Just because life ends doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning or that you should toss it aside in favor of the past.
You can stop trying to twist my words now. Context is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Do you believe:

1) Venat strolled through Amaurot during the Final Days and did nothing as she watched others being slaughtered in the streets?
2) That the Final Days were still occurring after the second sacrifice?
3) That Venat sundered the world before her battle with Zodiark and not as Hydaelyn?

If none of these things are accurate, then why would I believe her interaction with the Ancient strawmen is? There are reasons that cutscene is dismissed.

---

I believe we can recognize that the cutscene is not literal while also exploring what the cutscene is communicating. Especially when we can corroborate it with the the Unending Codex and the other statements by various characters in ShB and EW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Yes souls are reincarnated. Did you forget about the part where the they were on the same path as those of the Plenty, even without the final days. Why would you put us back on that path? Why would you throw away everything that everyone has gone through to go back to the past? Their lives clearly weren't better. That life did make someone like Hermes.

We went over this in Shadowbringers Just because life ends doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning or that you should toss it aside in favor of the past.
You can stop trying to twist my words now. Context is important.

---

You realize that after the sundering the sundered are now susceptible to becoming like both the first and second areas of the dead ends right? Those two would’ve been an impossibility for the ancients but they are now a major possibility for the sundered. 2 is worse than 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

You realize that after the sundering the sundered are now susceptible to becoming like both the first and second areas of the dead ends right? Those two would’ve been an impossibility for the ancients but they are now a major possibility for the sundered. 2 is worse than 1.

---

So end all their lives for no real reason so the newly reincarnated people can end up like the third? Why? Everybody dies, why do whole worlds need to die right this second?

First defeated by two weeks of not logging in, and then defeated by daily post limits. ;_;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

The souls in Zodiark returned to the star as part of their “cycle.” Unlike the ones who gave themselves to Hydaelyn, a consequence they were forced to accept due to the actions of Amaurotine society.

---

All hail Fandaniel! \o/ Thank you, Amon, our savior!

Quote:

---

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:

---

"Hell" is your word, not mine. Mine was "a fate worse than death," which, to the Ancients, it was.

Isn't that quote from when they're trying to resist Fandaniel's attempts to supplant their will? That changes the context.

Quote:

---

Am I in a cornfield because I see nothing but strawmen. But sure, let’s play this out. If I went to hell do you think I’d find anyone who’s doing alright? I doubt even the most exceptional of people would be ok with things.

---

In other words, yes. If you can find a single person who seems "ok" with their conditions - let's say, for a different example, we find a single person who's relatively personally upbeat even though their community at large is suffering from starvation, poverty, and plague - then that means their conditions as a whole aren't in fact bad and we don't need to concern ourselves with it. Thank god that dilemma has been cleared up and we can go back to living our lives, nevermind other members of that "group" screaming in pain and anguish.

Quote:

---

Dynamis doesn’t corrupt aether, it smothers it. They are anathema to one another. And even a corrupted crystal can be used, as they’re just overaspected.

---

Oh, you're right, my bad! I'd forgotten that the story established that an attack from the Final Days completely wipes out the target’s aether. So, yes, there was absolutely nothing else to use, by all evidence.

Quote:

---

And they are relevant. If her last attempt to convince them that they need to accept suffering is not actually a dilemma, and is instead a simple question of logistics, then the whole premise falls apart (how convenient for those who dislike her). Not to mention the whole conflict becomes nonsense. Why didn’t Elidibus suggest using non-sentient aether when he came to “mediate.” After all, by that point life would be flourishing in all forms. I’m sure they could gradually sacrifice some trees here and there and avoid the conflict? Pretty odd that wasn’t brought up, like, anywhere no?

---

We never directly saw Elidibus's attempts to mediate (because we cannot allow any actual characters with agency within a hundred miles of Venat's flashback), so once again, who knows? No one here can actually say with certainty.

I'm saying they're less relevant because, since Venat's objections were ideological and based on the Ancient way of life, the very principle of "looking back" and not "embracing suffering," then yes, she would have objected even if the sacrifice was going to be some trees. The nature of the sacrifices does not matter very much at the core of her concerns; she was not acting for the sake of the sacrifices (she Sundered all of them as well.) She was acting "for the sake" of the Ancients--or rather "mankind"--because she saw them going down the "wrong path" by attempting to restore what they had pre-apocalypse to begin with. Whatever shape and means is used to do that doesn't alter the core action, and thus, Venat retaliating against it.

Let me explain this another way. From Venat's perspective, it does not matter if a hypothetical thief is stealing from a rich person, or stealing from an orphanage - or stealing some jewelry, or stealing someone's life-saving medicine, or stealing some stale bread. What matters is that they are stealing - or more specifically, that they have shown themselves to be someone that steals - and so long as they are committing that general act, period, then she will strongly object in the same way. (And then murder them if they don't acquiesce.)

I would say understanding this is about as convenient as, uh, clarifying that Venat's actions were based on her "beliefs," clarifying that she deliberately left Emet-Selch survive to preserve the timeline, clarifying that the Sundering was a violent and horrific act that completely erased the identities of the Ancients, clarifying that one's resistance to the Final Days is largely random and arbitrary and not something that can be solved...

I would just like to point out that even if we (or Venat after we left) did successfully change and rewrite events and create a better path thanks to our foreknowledge, we would not see the result of it in our modern timeline. There still has to be a timeline where things played out as they always did in addition to the one where things were changed, just like the Eighth Calamity timeline still exists alongside ours.

Either the setting in Elpis actually is at the start of that branched timeline (unlikely due to Pandaemonium apparently requiring a time loop) or it will branch from ours at whatever point the events we described to Venat become impossible to occur. If it happens, we won't and can't know, any more than the occupants of the Eighth Calamity timeline can know whether G'raha succeeded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I would just like to point out that even if we (or Venat after we left) did successfully change and rewrite events and create a better path thanks to our foreknowledge, we would not see the result of it in our modern timeline. There still has to be a timeline where things played out as they always did in addition to the one where things were changed, just like the Eighth Calamity timeline still exists alongside ours.

Either the setting in Elpis actually is at the start of that branched timeline (unlikely due to Pandaemonium apparently requiring a time loop) or it will branch from ours at whatever point the events we described to Venat become impossible to occur. If it happens, we won't and can't know, any more than the occupants of the Eighth Calamity timeline can know whether G'raha succeeded.

---

Most of us don't care. We would rather a timeline we will never see where the Ancients were never sundered than the timeloop we got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Most of us don't care. We would rather a timeline we will never see where the Ancients were never sundered than the timeloop we got.

---

You very clearly do, you lot talk about it quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

You very clearly do, you lot talk about it quite a bit.

---

Yes, just as you very clearly talk about plot points you know nothing about and understand very little. You came so close to getting it too i was clapping for you. Shame…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Yes, just as you very clearly talk about plot points you know nothing about and understand very little. You came so close to getting it too i was clapping for you. Shame…

---

Pretty sure I understand it far better than you. Just say you don't like the character and stop making things up that don't follow the lore presented. We're here talking about the lore, not your what if fancanon if the world wasn't sundered or if Venat told them about Metion. A shame that nearly every post about this topic goes down the same hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

And what did he have to say after the truth sunk in?

---

Quote:

---

The truth of it didn't begin to sink in until the worst of it was over. I have not the words to describe how I felt then. The sorrow, the overwhelming sense of helplessness...

---

In other words, if the Final Days had just lasted a little longer he would have turned.

Quote:

---

One other little line that is important in this discussion I think needs to be brought up.

---

The greater context of that line, and the conclusions Omega reaches, are more relevant than the line in isolation. Omega asks why Djinabaha didn't turn and Khalzahl did, given they were both in the same circumstances, to which Djinabaha responds that it may have just been his focus on protecting their workshops that stopped him from spinning into a panic, but then he says that Khalzahl likely had the same motivation and this very thing may have been what drove him to his transformation. Omega postulates from this a difference in their strength of spirit, but when meeting Nashvan it's revealed that it wasn't really a strength of spirit which allowed him to escape turning, but rather his blindness to the reality of what was happening. Later when he realized what had occurred, he nearly died of the sorrow of his own accord, and only didn't because he chose to hold on to that grief so the people he loved would be remembered. Ultimately, Omega is forced to conclude that it wasn't some factor of anyone's "strength of spirit" which allowed for their survival, but that there was no pattern and their resistance to turning was primarily up to chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

G'raha orphaned his timeline, he can't go back.

---

He never tried to go back.

Quote:

---

This doesn't mean you have a chance to save both timelines; it means that the present day dies in darkness, waiting for you to come back with crucial information that never comes; they can never find Meteion because they never know she's there. This is not speculation: this is STATED, by Elidibus.

It is not possible to save both worlds. I was going to compare this scenario to a trolley problem, but in truth, it's worse; the trolley problem presumes that if you act, less will die but those who do will be on your hands. In the scenario you've invented, to stay on the course is to save more lives; diverting is the cruelest possible choice, by all metrics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

If we did it the exact way G'raha did it, we would be stuck. We would create a new course of time while we are in it, and be carried along into a different future to the one we travelled from – leaving all our friends and our entire world to die without the precious information we learned. (And whatever you may personally think of the Scions, they are clearly the generic-WoL's dear friends, and I would doubt that the WoL is the sort of person who would leave them to their fate.)

It's possible that Elidibus's portal would work differently and create a bridge across the two branches, but perhaps we didn't want to risk it, or didn't think of it, or the writers didn't think of it.

Ultimately, the ancients ARE doomed to go through the suffering of the Final Days in at least one timeline, and creating a second better one won't actually fix it for the first lot. And we do need to get back to our own timeline.

---

An excellent point - If not for the fact that the portal is still open, and WoL is still going back, even after having saved this timeline. In other words, the timeline could still be split and all those people spared. And not just the Ancients, but literally infinite worlds and peoples throughout the cosmos that were murdered through Meteion's song of oblivion being blasted on loop for 12,000 years. And not just them, but 7(9) worlds which would never have been created just to be obliterated for the sake of the Source's future.

And currently, because we've already defeated the Endsinger and ended the universal apocalypse, the only thing stopping WoL from doing this and creating a universe without such unimaginable death and destruction is... The possibility that they'll be stuck there, unable to see their friends again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

All hail Fandaniel! \o/ Thank you, Amon, our savior!

---

Another strawman. Recognizing that reincarnation is better than some fates is not saying death isn’t bad. I can recognize becoming a Sin Eater is better than being a blasphemy, both are bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

"Hell" is your word, not mine. Mine was "a fate worse than death," which, to the Ancients, it was.

---

Ok, either way one would expect them to be a bit less willing to stick around in such circumstances no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Isn't that quote from when they're trying to resist Fandaniel's attempts to supplant their will? That changes the context.

---

And yours is from an awakening soul that is part of a entity that was Sundered and sealed away. Both of us are operating of of slanted perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

In other words, yes. If you can find a single person who seems "ok" with their conditions - let's say, for a different example, we find a single person who's relatively personally upbeat even though their community at large is suffering from starvation, poverty, and plague - then that means their conditions as a whole aren't in fact bad and we don't need to concern ourselves with it. Thank god that dilemma has been cleared up and we can go back to living our lives, nevermind other members of that "group" screaming in pain and anguish.

---

You understand why I used hell as an example right? If the conditions in Zodiark were so horrific as to necessitate any cost in order to free them, then finding individuals who don’t seem to be immediately concerned with their current circumstances would contradict that no? I think it better that we don’t subject unknowing innocents to that fate then, if it is as terrible as you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Oh, you're right, my bad! I'd forgotten that the story established that an attack from the Final Days completely wipes out the target’s aether. So, yes, there was absolutely nothing else to use, by all evidence.

---

What evidence. Anyder survived the damage with concepts intact. Why was it not reduced to its base aether?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

We never directly saw Elidibus's attempts to mediate (because we cannot allow any actual characters with agency within a hundred miles of Venat's flashback), so once again, who knows? No one here can actually say with certainty.

---

This is the god in the gaps argument. You can’t use the lack the evidence to the contrary as proof of something existing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I'm saying they're less relevant because, since Venat's objections were ideological and based on the Ancient way of life, the very principle of "looking back" and not "embracing suffering," then yes, she would have objected even if the sacrifice was going to be some trees. The nature of the sacrifices does not matter very much at the core of her concerns; she was not acting for the sake of the sacrifices (she Sundered all of them as well.) She was acting "for the sake" of the Ancients--or rather "mankind"--because she saw them going down the "wrong path" by attempting to restore what they had pre-apocalypse to begin with. Whatever shape and means is used to do that doesn't alter the core action, and thus, Venat retaliating against it.

---

And yet previous sacrifices did not necessitate the Sundering. The third sacrifice was the breaking point. Why in your opinion, is that the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Let me explain this another way. From Venat's perspective, it does not matter if a hypothetical thief is stealing from a rich person, or stealing from an orphanage - or stealing some jewelry, or stealing someone's life-saving medicine, or stealing some stale bread. What matters is that they are stealing - or more specifically, that they have shown themselves to be someone that steals - and so long as they are committing that general act, period, then she will strongly object in the same way. (And then murder them if they don't acquiesce.)

---

Once again we’re back to arguing that Venat was proposing leaving trees and insects the role of the stars steward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I would say understanding this is about as convenient as, uh, clarifying that Venat's actions were based on her "beliefs," clarifying that she deliberately left Emet-Selch survive to preserve the timeline, clarifying that the Sundering was a violent and horrific act that completely erased the identities of the Ancients, clarifying that one's resistance to the Final Days is largely random and arbitrary and not something that can be solved...

---

Oof the loaded assumptions here. Lots of unproven assertions based in mixed evidence and headcanon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

In other words, if the Final Days had just lasted a little longer he would have turned.

---

Maybe. Maybe not. In that other timeline perhaps he’s inspired by someone else. We have no way of knowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Ultimately, Omega is forced to conclude that it wasn't some factor of anyone's "strength of spirit" which allowed for their survival, but that there was no pattern and their resistance to turning was primarily up to chance.

---

First let’s recognize that what’s described as random is not peoples reactions, but instead the environmental factors that ultimately inform their reactions to despair. This is a subtle distinction, but one that’s extremely important. One of these is impossible to control or push in a certain direction. The other is possible to manipulate, but only in a limited way. What Omega ultimately concludes about the heart is not that it is random, but that it is illogical. As he says:

Quote:

---

<blip> My earlier hypothesis has been borne out. The suboptimal operation being conducted here is the result of emotionally compromised reasoning.

---

Quote:

---

Consistent only in their inconsistency, the responses from both contingent member and imperial citizen were highly irrational. Conversely, any Omicron considering their predicaments would have echoed my assessment exactly.
The divergence from self-evident logic is key...
Hypothesis. The illogical relationship between would-be saviors and suffering populace is another result of the unpredictable nature of mortal hearts.
<blip> Any property or ability has inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Yet never have I encountered such a unique detriment. It appears that those who share your metaphysical capabilities are prone to complicating simple cognitive processes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Pretty sure I understand it far better than you. Just say you don't like the character and stop making things up that don't follow the lore presented. We're here talking about the lore, not your what if fancanon if the world wasn't sundered or if Venat told them about Metion. A shame that nearly every post about this topic goes down the same hole.

---

Iscah and Turk were having a conversation, or debate if you will, to which you interjected with something that added absolutely nothing to the conversation for the sake of being snarky. There we go though. Denoting someones thoughts to just "they dont like the character." It's funny too because i dont know how many times ive said i actually somewhat liked Venat before the whole Kairos ordeal. So your point is not only invalid but also ignorant at best. Try again

From what I've seen, a fair few people - myself included - found Venat to be pretty likable during the Elpis storyline. It was everything outside of Elpis that caused them to raise an eyebrow and realise that she was, unfortunately, a genocidal social darwinist who feigned having no other options available to her and cruelly murdered a bunch of innocent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

You understand why I used hell as an example right? If the conditions in Zodiark were so horrific as to necessitate any cost in order to free them, then finding individuals who don’t seem to be immediately concerned with their current circumstances would contradict that no? I think it better that we don’t subject unknowing innocents to that fate then, if it is as terrible as you say.

---

Once again, yes, you are agreeing that this is your logic - that "if a single individual seems, to my estimation, okay within a terrible environment, even if the majority of others around them are in explicit anguish, then everyone should be okay with it and any anguish expressed can be disregarded." In which case, we've hit another one of those impasses where I can't do anything but shrug and go, sure - I personally believe that logic is deeply fallacious, deeply callous, and overlaps with the excuses one often hears to dismiss all manner of poor conditions and mistreatment ("I was beaten as a child, and I turned out fine!"), but all right. I can't convince anyone to care about the demonstrable pain of others when they're looking for any excuse to pretend it isn't valid.

Quote:

---

What evidence. Anyder survived the damage with concepts intact. Why was it not reduced to its base aether?

---

You... you yourself pointed out Dynamis snuffs out aether. It was explicitly stated in the text that the world was dead, necessitating the use of Ancient souls for the massive amount of aether needed to fuel Zodiark. This sacrifice has never been painted by anything in the story besides noble and laudable. To use your words, you are denying the premise of the text here, and I'm not sure for what - to suggest the Ancients were not acting out of necessity and desperation when they used themselves as sacrifices, but, like, laziness? Is that your ultimate hypothesis here?

Quote:

---

This is the god in the gaps argument. You can’t use the lack the evidence to the contrary as proof of something existing.

---

Uh, I was never trying to prove anything existed. That was in reply to your question of "so why didn't Elidibus do this?" and I answered with "we have no specific or concrete details on exactly what he did."

Quote:

---

And yet previous sacrifices did not necessitate the Sundering. The third sacrifice was the breaking point. Why in your opinion, is that the case?

---

Because you're mistaking the "stealing" in the metaphor as being the stand-in for "sacrifice" in general, when it is not. The stand-in is, again, the ideological factor of "looking back" and "not embracing suffering." The first two sacrifices didn't hit Venat as indicating guilt of those emotional crimes. The third did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Iscah and Turk were having a conversation, or debate if you will, to which you interjected with something that added absolutely nothing to the conversation for the sake of being snarky. There we go though. Denoting someones thoughts to just "they dont like the character." It's funny too because i dont know how many times ive said i actually somewhat liked Venat before the whole Kairos ordeal. So your point is not only invalid but also ignorant at best. Try again

---

I add my bit and you come spouting nonsense.

I care little and less how many times you've said it, the core of the issue still stands. Stop making stuff up with no basis in the lore. Keep your headcanon to the headcanon thread. It's there for a reason. Now if you would actually like to discuss the actual lore we can do that. If not, stop talking to me you are adding nothing to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

I add my bit and you come spouting nonsense.

---

I mean... it's not like you're above spouting nonsense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

I mean... it's not like you're above spouting nonsense...

---

One might even say they've made something of an art form out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

From what I've seen, a fair few people - myself included - found Venat to be pretty likable during the Elpis storyline. It was everything outside of Elpis that caused them to raise an eyebrow and realise that she was, unfortunately, a genocidal social darwinist who feigned having no other options available to her and cruelly murdered a bunch of innocent people.

---

Yeaaa, none of which you just described is what happened in the story. The actual game we played put it as such. Venat, with limited options has to make a cruel decision in order to give life a chance to save itself because the majority of her fellows are set upon a plan that will ensure that everyone dies.

At least from what I've seen people say she could have done they all fall apart. We even have a scene where she goes through some of her options with an explanation of why they might go wrong. It's the making stuff up and coming up with half thought out ideas that causing a bunch of us to tilt our heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

I add my bit and you come spouting nonsense.

I care little and less how many times you've said it, the core of the issue still stands. Stop making stuff up with no basis in the lore. Keep your headcanon to the headcanon thread. It's there for a reason. Now if you would actually like to discuss the actual lore we can do that. If not, stop talking to me you are adding nothing to the conversation.

---

Except youre literally spouting headcanon.You're literally defending venat's genocide by claiming it isnt genocide when literally, by definition, it is factually genocide. Try.Again.Once more, with feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Except youre literally spouting headcanon.You're literally defending venat's genocide by claiming it isnt genocide when literally, by definition, it is factually genocide. Try.Again.Once more, with feeling.

---

What did I say was headcanon? You keep harping on the semantics of calling it genocide. I'm pretty sure I said much more than that. You can stop trying to pull at that one little straw. What did I just tell you in my last post to you? Pretty sure it was do not speak to me unless you are going to speak about the lore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

What did I say was headcanon? You keep harping on the semantics of calling it genocide. I'm pretty sure I said much more than that. You can stop trying to pull at that one little straw. What did I just tell you in my last post to you? Pretty sure it was do not speak to me unless you are going to speak about the lore.

---

Oh goodness! Please forgive me for not obeying your lordship oh great oatmeal. I will only speak to you unless i speak about lore i swear from this day henceforth.










So we both agree what Venat did was genocide now? Cool? Cool. Glad to know we're on the same page :) Love you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Please forgive me for not obeying your lordship oh great oatmeal.

---

Yo when you're done with the oatmeal, pass it over. I want some.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/02...g?v=1625758188

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Oh goodness! Please forgive me for not obeying your lordship oh great oatmeal. I will only speak to you unless i speak about lore i swear from this day henceforth.










So we both agree what Venat did was genocide now? Cool? Cool. Glad to know we're on the same page :) Love you!

---

Cool, so you demonstrate that you can't read very well. Can't even read a screen name correctly That explains why you couldn't do as I asked. Take a few tries and go reread my comments to you. One for more than your semantics game and also my request to you. Third time's the charm? I believe in you buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

First let’s recognize that what’s described as random is not peoples reactions, but instead the environmental factors that ultimately inform their reactions to despair. This is a subtle distinction, but one that’s extremely important. One of these is impossible to control or push in a certain direction. The other is possible to manipulate, but only in a limited way.

---

Debatable.

Quote:

---

No...pattern? You imply that the transformation was not contingent on individual fortitude, but rather a random contribution of environmental factors?

---

I don't agree with your supposition of what this is talking about. It seems to me the premise of this statement is the transformation, not people's individual fortitude. So when he says "but rather", the full thought would be, "The transformation is contingent on a random contribution of environmental factors?"

If we set aside the idea that this is referring to environmental factors like, say, the amount of Dynamis that just happened to get dumped on them, then we're talking about this in the context of a person's psyche. And if we look at it from that angle, then it is truly a random factor. No person has exactly the same perspective and reaction from one day to the next, or even one hour to the next. Something someone can shrug off or not even notice in one second might be intensely annoying or aggravating in the next second. In this sense, their survival was really only dictated by whatever random state their perception happened to be rolling at the specific time the Final Days arrived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Can't even read a screen name correctly.

---

Oh no, we read it perfectly Mr Oats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Once again, yes, you are agreeing that this is your logic - that "if a single individual seems, to my estimation, okay within a terrible environment, even if the majority of others around them are in explicit anguish, then everyone should be okay with it and any anguish expressed can be disregarded." In which case, we've hit another one of those impasses where I can't do anything but shrug and go, sure - I personally believe that logic is deeply fallacious, deeply callous, and overlaps with the excuses one often hears to dismiss all manner of poor conditions and mistreatment ("I was beaten as a child, and I turned out fine!"), but all right. I can't convince anyone to care about the demonstrable pain of others when they're looking for any excuse to pretend it isn't valid.

---

You are once again extrapolating more than you should. My point is that we lack a definitive statement on what it is like to be one with Zodiark. If you disagree then please post that statement. Otherwise, lets recognize that both of us are reaching conclusions from contextual clues. I see Hyth being ok and the statements from the souls discussing how they intended Zodiark to be forever the star's will, and I'm concluding that this is not a "fate worse than death."

Perhaps the best argument I could make for this is the fact that death was an alternative, they after all could've chosen to die and be burned away like those who summoned Hydaelyn did. Why didn't they, if being with Zodiark is a fate "worse than death?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

You... you yourself pointed out Dynamis snuffs out aether. It was explicitly stated in the text that the world was dead, necessitating the use of Ancient souls for the massive amount of aether needed to fuel Zodiark. This sacrifice has never been painted by anything in the story besides noble and laudable. To use your words, you are denying the premise of the text here, and I'm not sure for what - to suggest the Ancients were not acting out of necessity and desperation when they used themselves as sacrifices, but, like, laziness? Is that your ultimate hypothesis here?

---

Ok, I'm going to walk this through as simply as possible.

Lets operate under the assumption that, as you suggest, there is nothing inherently superior in Ancient souls that make them the best option to empower Zodiark.

1. The Ancients need aether to summon Zodiark
2. Ancient souls are not special and could be replaced with other sources of aether
3. Ancients are able to reduce objects and creatures into base aether
4. There exist multiple facilities, creations, etc. that survived the Final Days that could be reduced to base aether

This leads to a simple conclusion. You don't have to sacrifice humans. You can use other sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Uh, I was never trying to prove anything existed. That was in reply to your question of "so why didn't Elidibus do this?" and I answered with "we have no specific or concrete details on exactly what he did."

---

And you're response was "maybe he did." My point is rooted in the fact that there is a clear solution to the dilemma that divided the Ancients, yet despite acting rationally they did not take that option. Why? This is only a problem if you believe there's nothing special or unique about the souls of sentient beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Because you're mistaking the "stealing" in the metaphor as being the stand-in for "sacrifice" in general, when it is not. The stand-in is, again, the ideological factor of "looking back" and "not embracing suffering." The first two sacrifices didn't hit Venat as indicating guilt of those emotional crimes. The third did.

---

Not true. As the Watcher stated Venat opposed Zodiarks initial sundering, yet did not sunder him immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Not true. As the Watcher stated Venat opposed Zodiarks initial sundering, yet did not sunder him immediately.

---

The watcher's kinda biased here though... he's a little bit of a... not sure if I can say the word here, but it's a four letter word that starts with S and ends with P, and in the middle is his tier 3 sub to Venat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Can't even read a screen name correctly

---

https://i.imgur.com/Z8TRsW3.png

I think there's a fairly common expression involving stones and glass houses? At any rate, it's 'Gridania' as opposed to 'Gridinia' if I remember correctly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

The watcher's kinda biased here though... he's a little bit of a... not sure if I can say the word here, but it's a four letter word that starts with S and ends with P, and in the middle is his tier 3 sub to Venat.

---

Damn that some good faith right there. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Damn that some good faith right there. :rolleyes:

---

I'm more focused on the Loss and Fire of the expansion lol
Faith is for people who eat Oatmeal. (Watcher eats oatmeal confirmed?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

Oh no, we read it perfectly Mr Oats.

---

the.great.one.mal
No, I don't think so, you added some letters and moved some around to get your little joke.
So we agree that you and the other person can't read very well right. Explains a lot. Might wanna work on that before participating in an online forum. Unless these forums has a voice chat option I'm not aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

You are once again extrapolating more than you should. My point is that we lack a definitive statement on what it is like to be one with Zodiark. If you disagree then please post that statement. Otherwise, lets recognize that both of us are reaching conclusions from contextual clues. I see Hyth being ok and the statements from the souls discussing how they intended Zodiark to be forever the star's will, and I'm concluding that this is not a "fate worse than death."

Perhaps the best argument I could make for this is the fact that death was an alternative, they after all could've chosen to die and be burned away like those who summoned Hydaelyn did. Why didn't they, if being with Zodiark is a fate "worse than death?"

---

If you're waiting on a "definitive statement" on what it's like from an individual human perspective in response to an environmental condition, then, conveniently, you'll be waiting forever and can draw upon the "who can saaaaay" angle for eternity. Drawing on some personal experience so I can speak more confidently on it, if you'll forgive me - without a constant supply of insulin, I would die a painful death. But one of the first things you learn in managing this condition is that there is no definitive or universal experience you can absolutely cite or draw upon. It is different for every single person who has it. In other words, you all now get to enjoy type one diabetes and have to manage the constant fatigue and giving yourself multiple daily injections or die, along with the associated financial burden, but don't worry, you should all be totally okay with it, because some people manage fine!

"Some people manage fine" and there not being a "statement of definitive experience" does not mean that does not mean we cannot confidently say that, as a whole, it is a shit condition to live with, that we should not expect people to have to live with it if there's any alternative, and if there some kind of cure ever exists in the future, it is absolutely positively the moral choice to apply it to those who need it.

Also, we're talking about different things in your second statement. "Death" to the Ancients is "returning to the Star and entering the cycle of reincarnation." I never suggested being trapped in Zodiark is worse than what happened to the Hydaelyn followers. Both of those outcomes, from an Ancient perspective, construes a fate worse than death. Would you like me to agree that the fate of what happened to the souls fueling Hydaelyn was worse than Zodiark? I can certainly agree to that! It's quite messed up, and I feel extremely bad for the ones sacrificed to Hydaelyn!

Quote:

---

This leads to a simple conclusion. You don't have to sacrifice humans. You can use other sources.

---

Uh, yes. It's canon that you can use other sources. That's the entire basis of the Ancients' plan to get their loved ones back. That is not the same as saying that at the time Zodiark needed to be summoned the alternative resources were available in the quality or quantities needed - once again, it is stated those resources needed to be "nurtured" until the planet was "bursting with vitality." Zodiark is a Primal of darkness, of moving, active dynamic energy - so, likely, yes, dark-aspected aether - living energies - as Hythlodaeus's shade put forth.

It's also impressed upon us the massive amounts of aether contained within an Ancient's body and soul. Hydaelyn powered herself on the souls of very few individuals to Sunder the entire world, stay operable for the next twelve thousand years, and continue to empower Warriors of Light and intervene on their behalves to make sure things were proceeding smoothly. It's a bit hard to take the suggestion of "why didn't they just use some ruined buildings instead lol" in good faith, I'm sorry.

Quote:

---

And you're response was "maybe he did." My point is rooted in the fact that there is a clear solution to the dilemma that divided the Ancients, yet despite acting rationally they did not take that option. Why? This is only a problem if you believe there's nothing special or unique about the souls of sentient beings.

---

My response was not "maybe he did." My response was "we do not know," or to put it another way, "you can't reasonably cite something as evidence for your argument that has never been concretely established in any way, shape, or form." We have no context as to the debates that took place among the Ancients, only that they happened. Perhaps some people felt that the urgency of getting their loved ones out meant taking the fastest route possible, versus a slower, more humane approach; perhaps people were still so stressed out and traumatized not all options that seemed "obvious" were apparent to them. We have no idea. I'd love to have a better understanding of it, don't get me wrong!

Quote:

---

Not true. As the Watcher stated Venat opposed Zodiarks initial sundering, yet did not sunder him immediately.

---

Hydaelyn was explicitly relying on Zodiark to protect the planet to make her plan work, and the Watcher clarified that "opposing Zodiark" never meant wanting him gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

https://i.imgur.com/Z8TRsW3.png

I think there's a fairly common expression involving stones and glass houses? At any rate, it's 'Gridania' as opposed to 'Gridinia' if I remember correctly!

---

Wow, you zoomed and enhanced and still got it wrong. Do you need glasses? Up the brightness on your monitor?