Quote Originally Posted by Scintilla View Post
Whilst it doesn't have too much relevance to many aspects of the discussion, it does apply to one: Sentience and Sapience being where many feel the line is drawn between whether a death is considered murder or not.

Imagine the following situation -
Humans are on the brink of extinction; almost totally wiped out by an unexplained cause, with the death toll that continues to rise drastically daily. In desperation, many of the survivors sacrifice themselves in the hope of saving their remaining friends, family and the species. Men and women sacrifice themselves to secure a future for the next generation. Mothers and fathers sacrifice themselves to enable their children to live as they once did.
As wished, the spread of death eventually stops - but too late. The loss being so great that the population can't be recovered by any other means except one. Unfortunately, this means comes at a cost: the extinction of all of the other Great Apes and countless deaths of various other creatures. But it would not only restore your own family and friends, but all Humans who were lost to those events.

Would you do it?
Taking that question by itself, the answer would be a definite and immediate "no, I would not". I know Alisaie does pose the same question, but this is the same character who was kind of unhealthily obsessed with her grandfather's death back in ARR and Coils, so I think we can consider that just Alisaie's character, rather than authorial hinting that we're supposed to agree with her.

However, I don't think this somehow makes me morally superior or anything, since it is, again, only a matter of degree. I would not genocide macroscopic species to bring back loved ones, but I would absolutely take antibiotics to cure a cold.

In this case, the Ascians are the Humans: arguably superior in many respects (Intelligence, lifespan etc.). The populations of the Source/Shards are the Apes: less able, perhaps, but sentient and sapient nonetheless.
Would it be wrong? Yes. But, in all honesty, would most of us do any different?
That's kind of the difference, though: you (and presumably players in general) would acknowledge that whether we would do it or not, we would still accept that it is wrong, and the only questions are whether it is worth it, and whether it is necessary.

Emet-Selch doesn't do that. He treats the genocide as a matter of course, and he rushes straight into wiping out every life on the shards, not because it will directly help resurrect the Ancients, but simply as a precursor to prepare for the actual genocide to resurrect the Ancients. He holds no regrets and no compunctions, and he gleefully mocks us for it, which is even far beyond the mere apathy that most people have when, say, they eat meat or take antibiotics.

Emet-Selch doesn't see killing mortals as murder, but he also doesn't see it as unfortunate either.