Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I disagree with the interpretation of the people of the plenty being "horrified" or "suffering" in any way. The emotional tones you say you see, I don't really read it like that. To me, it's more akin to simply being bored with life and happy to experience an alternative, not a horrible, despair-inducing existensial crisis.

It only looks like "despair" to an outsider because surely you would only embrace death because you are suffering in life, but I think it makes The Plenty more interesting and more alien if they willingly embraced thier deaths from a place of contentment and bliss, rather than outright despair.

---

I don't see how you can look at people shouting "At last, mercy for us all!" or "O how I have waited for this moment!" "O Ra-la, bringer of sweet oblivion...hear our prayers!" and claim that you don't see emotional tones in any sincerity, but do you I guess. But as far as I'm concerned, the hair between "suffering" and "wanting death so badly that you beg for it and cheer with relief when it comes" is so thin that I don't see it worth debating. So I'll continue to call it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

And by "Meteion is using the races in Ultima Thule as arguments", I mean that she is presenting them in a certain order and certain perspective in order to make a point - which is something along the lines of "look at all these societies who died in suffering and despair after trying thier best, and then look at the Plenty, who died blissfully after acheiving perfection, wouldn't it be easier and better to just skip to the part where we all die?"

It's entirely possible that there were members of The Plenty's society that disagreed, or didn't want to die. But that doesn't really matter for the purposes that they are being used by Meteion for, which is to try to convince the WoL and the Scions that death is a wonderful and pleasant alternative to the suffering inherent in life.

---

It's also possible that Meteion was riding on a unicycle and juggling moogles every time she was offscreen, but if the story doesn't show us something, then it's speculation. To be frank, I don't see why Meteion would bother to do that. Meteion didn't particularly care about the first two areas of the Dead Ends, where there were plenty of people who wanted very much NOT to die but wound up dying anyway due to plague or weapons of mass destruction. If there were people who opposed the rest of the Plenty's desires, only to fail and die anyway, or eventually die out due for other reasons, that would only STRENGTHEN her argument that oblivion is inevitable no matter what you want or do.

Meteion: "And when one asked: What was the point? There were none left to answer."

Remember that Meteion didn't set out as a bringer of despair. She simply asked questions and read people's feelings, and the answers she received turned her into that.

For me the notes in the section of the Plenty were written mostly after Meteion arrived. Or right around the time she made contact. That until she made contact they for whatever reason didn't seem to notice they were living in apathy. Sure, there is that one that sort of remembers having other emotions but they don't have the strength or want to try and remember what that is. Until she arrives and asks them the question and they become confused by it. Instead of facing what problems that brought up they call forth their God Ra-La.

Quote:

---

Will we ever truly reach the dividing line? I doubt it, because the vast amount of different perspectives will disagree on where that line between good life and perfection that leads to collapse exists. Even the concept of '' life that is as good as it can be without the threat of what an utopia and perfection would cause to our civilization '' would vary from person to person, or at least from culture to culture.

---

If the point is avoiding a "Dead End" altogether, or for as long as possible, and if we - hypothetically - accept the premise of the "perfection Dead End" as one of many, then I have to point out that we also got illustrated multiple "dead ends" that did not collapse because of perfection. As a matter of fact, they collapsed because a) of factors that did not exist in Etheirys until Venat Sundered it (disease and war) and b) because of an unbridgeable gap amongst mortals in "a vast amount of different perspectives." So singling out the Ancients in this regard, even putting aside the ways that they are not a 1:1 correlation with the Plenty, honestly starts feeling a little targeted and mean-spirited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

I do not see any problem here, on the contrary I find it quite fascinating. Ultimately the sundered mankind will never reach perfection, our mortality and diversity in thought, ideology and culture will not allow it.

---

There are two problems with this. Handily, one is Watsonian, and one is Doylist.

On a Watsonian level, if our approach if "mortality is a safeguard against a Dead End [and therefore necessarily existing as a mortal is superior to existing as an immortal]" then the story, in-universe, is deeply inconsistent, because we had an entire expansion about the mortal humanity reconciling with an immortal race - the Dragons - with an urge to understand one anothers' perspectives without trying to fundamentally force an alteration on one or the other, and instead seeking a peaceful co-existence based on mutual acceptance. There is absolutely no hint that the dragons are morally expected to give up on their immortality or need to concede that their mode of existence is an inferior one to humans'. Their Dead End also had absolutely nothing to do with their immortality or their peaceful, unified way of life. It was entirely a random, unexpected attack from outsiders that had absolutely nothing to do with anything they did, their own choices, or how they lived.

On a Doylist level, this is a suggestion that there are fundamentally wrong ways, inferior ways, to be born and then live according to innate, immutable characteristics one is, again, born with. The Ancients did not engineer themselves to be ageless or wield the powers they did. They were born with them. Do you see how the suggestion of "there are ways of physically existing in this world that are just innately inferior and wrong, and if you are born that way, that justifies a mindset of 'it's okay to exterminate them because they were doomed anyway' or 'it's okay to exterminate them in favor of a biologically 'more correct' form of life' immediately becomes deeply horrifying, particularly speaking from the perspective of someone disabled and/or a member of a marginalized group?

I always come back to the fact that if the sundering were indeed 'necessary' then the story did a poor job of conveying that. Rather than rehash all the reasons why, I'll just skip to I was reminded of Althena in Lunar: Eternal Blue. The evil force in that story had permeated every corner of the world and was turning mankind into monsters. The remaining vestiges of humanity were suffering and begged Althena for salvation. It's made abundantly clear due to the extent and severity of the corruption she had no choice but to raze the planet to ensure it was excised. Survivors were relocated to the moon until such a time as the world could restore itself to being inhabitable.

Perhaps if they'd kept the 'Sound' within the planet and Hydaelyn sundering it to keep it at bay it could have worked. It could have even been the reason why people were divided over the fate of the star, if Venat had actually brought up the sundering as a course of action until they could figure out a permanent solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

Ultimately the sundered mankind will never reach perfection, our mortality and diversity in thought, ideology and culture will not allow it.

---

Even the notes within The Plenty imply they were once similar to the sundered. Not to mention Allag was arguably headed that route until the calamity. Just because people are diverse now doesn't mean they will be in perpetuity.

Plus, the denizens of The Plenty were a hivemind. There wasn't anything to indicate the Ancients were anywhere close to that considering their divide over the fate of the star following the Final Days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

That's ultimately the problem here. On its own, the philosophy of "we can never get to perfection but we should keep striving for the best outcome we can" is fine, and it's what the story has been running on up to this point.

The problem here is when they also try to have this story element of "look at these people who kept striving until they did reach what they believe to be perfection! It invariably turned out to be their undoing and their whole society collapsed!"

---

Because that was the only goal. Achieving that perfection was what it was all for, and learning it could either not be obtained (Ea) or isn’t conducive to living (the Plenty) leads to destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

So where is the dividing line? Where should we keep trying, and where should we stop because our idea of creating a good world for people might actually be just as flawed and lead to similar disaster?

---

There isn’t one! The point isn’t to prevent people from making a good world, but preparing those who built it and live in it to see it end, and still retain the will to live. That’s the point of Venats trial!

Quote:

---

As fragmented, imperfect beings, yours is a neverending quest.
A quest to find your purpose, knowing your end is assured.
To find the strength to continue, when all strength has left you.
To find joy, even as darkness descends.
And amidst deepest despair life everlasting.

---

The Sundered live their lives knowing the end will come, knowing that everything they built will end and they are forced to reckon with that. As we do in our lives too. It’s the dyed sand mandalas, destined to be destroyed and lost!

Answers is about the same exact thing. The cyclical nature of existence!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

But again, the story creates a very muddy area around the line between "be content with what you have" and "make the world better even if it can't be perfect". I understand that you, and several others, want to give the text the benefit of the doubt and assume that it aspires more to the latter than the former, but the problem is that the way the narrative is muddied gives the former more credibility than it deserves as well.

---

I’m not giving it the benefit of the doubt I’m expressing what I believe is a consistent message that Endwalker wished to express and did! The problem was never that the Ancients desired to make a better world, but that they didn’t wish to live in anything else but. She believed they couldn’t change, and that would kill them and all others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

That's not the point. The point is that the story wants to make the argument that some achievements are impossible, while also presenting us with societies that have achieved actually impossible achievements to point at and say, "See, they did this impossible feat and now they're miserable for it". Again, you can't have it both ways.

---

And I’m arguing your splitting hairs over something the narrative states multiple times isn’t the point. Hydaelyns speech lays out clearly the problem with the dead ends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

That's Meaning 1, then. You can't have infinite perfection AND be limited.

---

Please show me where someone is stated to have achieved infinite perfection. I genuinely don’t know where this was stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

And maybe that's all true. Humanity fulfilling her hopes and surpassing her is something she allowed for the possibility of, but her words and her extensive plans with the moon show that it wasn't the outcome she actually expected to happen.

---

You’ve yet to give an explanation for Sundering the world if she didn’t believe they could do it and was counting on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Yoshida himself said that Venat working very hard behind the scenes to ensure that the timeline proceeded in accordance to how it should is a valid interpretation of events. That is my interpretation of how it all went down, that Venat intended for all of this to happen and worked to make it so. Are you going to disagree and insist that this is an invalid idea?

---

I honestly do not care if you believe that theory, but understand that I don’t share it and any conclusion based on it will require justification for me to believe it. Not that you should care but I want to make that clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Venat's care for her own people was itself contingent on a subjective and ultimately meaningless test. I also disagree that Emet's empathy for mortals was contingent on passing the test, but I doubt you'll ever accede to that.

---

I won’t because I thanks that’s wrong and believe I can support that. You disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

But you would kill an innocent person in exchange for the theoretical life of someone in the future.

---

I would kill an innocent in order to allow the potential for life to go on. Sacrificing one life for another I would not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Because that was the only goal. Achieving that perfection was what it was all for, and learning it could either not be obtained (Ea) or isn’t conducive to living (the Plenty) leads to destruction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

There isn’t one! The point isn’t to prevent people from making a good world, but preparing those who built it and live in it to see it end, and still retain the will to live. That’s the point of Venats trial!

---

The problem with this argument is that Venat introduced MORE suffering. She literally brought mortality, weakness, disease, war, famine and other things to a society that had eliminated those things long ago. When told that a specific set of events would lead to the destruction of said world, she withheld information in tacit agreement with the "test" that said destruction would pose. Venat effectively undid and reset a plethora of progress that objectively made a "good world".

This would basically be the same as destroying the cure for polio, tuberculosis and smallpox because you think kids spend too much time on TikTok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I’m not giving it the benefit of the doubt I’m expressing what I believe is a consistent message that Endwalker wished to express and did! The problem was never that the Ancients desired to make a better world, but that they didn’t wish to live in anything else but. She believe they couldn’t change, and that would kill them.

---

Again, this argument doesn't work because Venat had the information to warn people about what was coming and did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

And I’m arguing your splitting hairs over something the narrative states multiple times isn’t the point. Hydaelyns speech lays out clearly the problem with the dead ends.

---

You claim it's "splitting hairs", but it's the entire fallacy of the plot. You cannot build a narrative based on "this is impossible to achieve, therefore don't live your life pursuing it" and then flat out point to societies that achieved other impossible things as proof of your argument.

It would be like having a mystery story where the main character smugly derides other characters for believing that a silly superstition is behind the mystery, but later revealing that he solved the mystery by asking a ghost. You can't claim that something being impossible is the reason you shouldn't try to do it, and then introduce entire groups that did OTHER impossible things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Show me in the text where someone is stated to have achieved infinite perfection.

---

Eara, I've explained this thoroughly within several posts. I've carefully walked you down my logic on this. I refuse to do so again.

You will either reread what I've said and engage with my point in good faith, or this point of discussion is done. I'm not playing these sorts of games to try to go for "gotchas".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I would kill an innocent in order to allow the potential for life to go on. Sacrificing one life for another I would not.

---

If this comes down to "sacrificing an innocent life to save a different, concrete, materially existing life is morally terrible and worthy of condemnation" but "sacrificing an innocent life for an abstract potential life is morally good and worthy of praise" then, yeah, this is probably an utterly unbridgeable gap in terms of worldview, values, and morals, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

The problem with this argument is that Venat introduced MORE suffering. She literally brought mortality, weakness, disease, war, famine and other things to a society that had eliminated those things long ago. When told that a specific set of events would lead to the destruction of said world, she withheld information in tacit agreement with the "test" that said destruction would pose. Venat effectively undid and reset a plethora of progress that objectively made a "good world".

---

A good world that would kill them. The fact that it was good in many respects does not change that truth. If the world today was facing destruction, yet preventing it would require those living today to face much more struggle than those previously, it is my belief that they should.

And lets be clear, revealing to a world of all powerful beings, so powerful in fact that a small group of dissidents could shatter that selfsame world, that the event that traumatized them was only delayed, and not permanently averted would be a hard sell alone. But adding that this was the combined answer of all known life and would require humanity to face their trauma is even worse. Yeah, its a hard call, but to pretend that she just withheld info on a whim is strawmanning her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

This would basically be the same as destroying the cure for polio, tuberculosis and smallpox because you think kids spend too much time on TikTok.

---

Or its like intentionally making decisions to lower living standards in order to prevent climate change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

You claim it's "splitting hairs", but it's the entire fallacy of the plot. You cannot build a narrative based on "this is impossible to achieve, therefore don't live your life pursuing it" and then flat out point to societies that achieved other impossible things as proof of your argument.

---

And again, its "this is impossible to achieve, but you should continue to strive to do so knowing and accepting that fact."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Eara, I've explained this thoroughly within several posts. I've carefully walked you down my logic on this. I refuse to do so again.

You will either reread what I've said and engage with my point in good faith, or this point of discussion is done. I'm not playing these sorts of games to try to go for "gotchas".

---

Crowny I have genuinely tried to engage with this point in good faith but I don't agree on you on this. To go with your language, I think the game has those living in dead ends assert that their conception of perfection follows meaning 2, when in actuality they live in meaning 1. The fact that, once again, the game has multiple characters talk about the futility of only valuing perfection, and juxtaposes these "perfect" worlds with the negative utilitarianism-esque result, should give us reason to doubt that they are perfect after all. Hell, the Ancient world embodies this completely, with Venat commenting that Hermes now sees the world without the perfect veneer, and how that leads to his actions. We are shown the flaws of that world and yet it too was described by many characters ingame as perfect. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s a consequence of unreliable narration, and done so with intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

If this comes down to "sacrificing an innocent life to save a different, concrete, materially existing life is morally terrible and worthy of condemnation" but "sacrificing an innocent life for an abstract potential life is morally good and worthy of praise" then, yeah, this is probably an utterly unbridgeable gap in terms of worldview, values, and morals, unfortunately.

---

I believe the bar necessary to harm an innocent is so high that only an evil of impossible magnitude could justify such an act. The destruction of life both present and future constitutes such a circumstance to me. I don't think others need to agree with me, nor do I think doing something like the Sundering is great or amazing or awesome, but I do think its the moral choice. As the Watcher said you're free to come to your own conclusion.

I just came to say Emet was right. Peace out