Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What an absolutely bizarre thing to say. The game has never hypothesized that Venat's way was the only/best way, only that she thought it was the best way, in the same way that Emet-Selch thought that only the Ancients had the temperament and fortitude to take stewardship over the star. (Hint: both of them were wrong.)

---

Exactly. This isn't a matter of objective right and wrong. There were no good options in the first place. All any of them could do was make what they thought was the best choice in that moment and hope it all worked out.

And really, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Did you ever play FFTA? Emet-Selch is basically Marche and the only reason we're not rooting for him is because we're playing on team Mewt instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Unsundered or otherwise, mankind was always flawed in their own ways, though considering it from a strictly physical standpoint, they were damaged, living fleeting lives that are oft cut short by disease, famine, and myriad other factors that either didn't exist or didn't affect them originally.

The flaws the unsundered possessed are still present in the sundered as well, only now the lack of respect for life and death extends to their fellow man as well.

Perhaps they weren't objectively better, but it's hard for me to see them as not being better overall.

---

Better overall would I suppose be dependent on what is valued. In terms of comfort there’s a clear winner, but in terms of virtue? The sundered’s fleeting lives lead them to a greater appreciation for what life has to offer. Conflict and strife lead many to develop a conception of what is just and ethical. Again this is isn’t to glamorize suffering, I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all. To me it’s the Sundered that more purely embody what makes humanity worth fighting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What an absolutely bizarre thing to say. The game has never hypothesized that Venat's way was the only/best way, only that she thought it was the best way, in the same way that Emet-Selch thought that only the Ancients had the temperament and fortitude to take stewardship over the star. (Hint: both of them were wrong.) It's like you're saying the only math equation that comes out to the answer "4" is "8/2=", when Emet-Selch's equation might be "2+2=", etc, etc.

---

Even steel-manning Shb Emet I struggle to see how he was supposedly doing this because it was the “best way.” The man himself didn’t believe that schtick, given how desperately he tried to dehumanize and other the Sundered. It’s like when Elidibius would complain about the Sundereds memories, just blatantly self defeating logic.

He goes on these long rants about how great the Ancients are, and then follows it up by handwaving ruining the 13th, sacrificing untold innocent souls to bring his friends back because “the world belongs to us and us alone,” and then proceeds to invite his own downfall. Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

He doesn't.

That was one of the main themes of ShB and why Emet-Selch was satisfied in the end even though he lost. He was too tired to care any more and one way or the other just wanted it to be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

I actually do agree with a good bit of what you're saying here, which I'm glad to say, though I think it can be argued that the Ancients valued their lives as well, just in a different more foreign sort of way than Sundered (and by extension, humanity as we know it) do. I'd call it a product of their culture really, they were enthused to the concept of enriching the world with that they had to offer and then, when they've decided they've done enough, have their rest by returning to the star and gracing the world anew with the person their soul would embody next. I think its their understanding of the cycle that makes the whole thing more heartening in my opinion. It's definitely different, but I myself wouldn't call one way of life superior to another. There's arguments in favor of both, which is what makes it such a compelling moral dilemma.

As for Emet, you're absolutely right that he's suffering inside as a result of what he's doing. Those insults and attempts at dehumanization that he throws at the Sundered are all his ways of coping with the scale of the destruction that he's bringing upon people. He was too good a person in the past for this not to phase him. However, I don't think that invalidates his beliefs. Those beliefs are what carry him to continue doing the things he does, and though its embittered him to the point where he's as hostile as he is to everything else, I think he still genuinely believed that their way of life was superior to the ones that he bore witness to, ones that often ended in tragedy and death. I'm sure he saw in the long run, he was saving people from living tragic lives, as he says "By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity," before laying it on thick with even more dehumanization. His true beliefs are there, just buried in prejudice.

The ideal is present, but its the method of getting there, which requires hurting and killing people, that's eating him up inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightamethyst

Exactly. This isn't a matter of objective right and wrong. There were no good options in the first place. All any of them could do was make what they thought was the best choice in that moment and hope it all worked out.

And really, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Did you ever play FFTA? Emet-Selch is basically Marche and the only reason we're not rooting for him is because we're playing on team Mewt instead.

---

tbh because of how to the story is written i couldnt root for marche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Better overall would I suppose be dependent on what is valued. In terms of comfort there’s a clear winner, but in terms of virtue? The sundered’s fleeting lives lead them to a greater appreciation for what life has to offer. Conflict and strife lead many to develop a conception of what is just and ethical. Again this is isn’t to glamorize suffering, I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all. To me it’s the Sundered that more purely embody what makes humanity worth fighting for.



Even steel-manning Shb Emet I struggle to see how he was supposedly doing this because it was the “best way.” The man himself didn’t believe that schtick, given how desperately he tried to dehumanize and other the Sundered. It’s like when Elidibius would complain about the Sundereds memories, just blatantly self defeating logic.

He goes on these long rants about how great the Ancients are, and then follows it up by handwaving ruining the 13th, sacrificing untold innocent souls to bring his friends back because “the world belongs to us and us alone,” and then proceeds to invite his own downfall. Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

I believe there is moral value in making life comfortable for other human beings, and I feel it is immoral to bring suffering, pestilence, starvation, and war upon a species that had never suffered such before. So yes, I consider Venat's actions to be morally reprehensible. Also, we should be working to minimize strife, not glorifying it, and doing more for our fellows. Tha Ancients embodied every single bit of my moral principles before they got bodied by Venat, so of course I believe they should have been the ones to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I believe there is moral value in making life comfortable for other human beings, and I feel it is immoral to bring suffering, pestilence, starvation, and war upon a species that had never suffered such before. So yes, I consider Venat's actions to be morally reprehensible.

---

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

---

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

---

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all.

---

Literally 99% of the WoL’s successes/wins in the story is due to happenstance and luck though…