*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[EaraGrace]

There is zero evidence that the new life created by Zodiark was sapient. This being the case, there is nothing demonstrably wrong with sacrificing it to bring back the many friends and loved ones that gave up their lives to save the world. With the original sacrifices restored and the world healed, why would paradise have been a bad thing? Zodiark was more than powerful enough to forestall the end indefinitely, and the world during that age had more than enough aether to sustain him without any harm being done.

Venat, on the other hand, consigned her own people to what is essentially oblivion because of her own lack of hope. They never had a choice. Their flame was snuffed out needlessly, as it is very likely they would've found a solution to the Meteion problem in time.

We know that the new life had to have souls equal in value to the sum of the sacrificed Ancients, otherwise the exchange wouldn’t be equal and Zodiark would be weakened. So they’re sacrificing innocent souls all the same

[Veloran]

On the first point, I actually am very sympathetic to that argument. The second I completely disagree with. Emet fell into a despair that led him to committing horrific acts of evil and then inviting the WoL to kill him. Hythlo was not conscious due to Zodiarks imprisonment and Venat is the one who made the initial judgement that they couldn’t handle it.

I was referring to when they found out about the universe in Elpis. None of the three fell into shock or despair from that.

And my argument is that not only is this a worthless move as unlike Midgard there’s no planet protected from Meteion waiting to be found, the actual resources needed to travel between planets required thousands of years to gather and develop and there’s no reason to believe the group she could gather together could accomplish this.

Clearly Venat thought it was possible given she planned and prepared for that very eventuality. Is there some particular reason she couldn't have simply done that instead of killing everyone else and forcing them to adhere to her ideals?

Hydaelyns summoners sacrificed themselves to a man, with Venat at the heart, Zodiarks summoners also included those who would still live, as well as being immensely more powerful, thus does one leave some tempered and the other doesn’t. There’s no bad writing with this despite what you may be believe.

Your argument is that all of her summoners had to die to give Hydaelyn a chance despite her specifically being designed with a power that hard-countered Zodiark, but despite being an Ancient concept empowered by their souls she was also conveniently not powerful enough to cause this vague "tug". This is something like paint by numbers writing here, convolution for the purposes of meeting an end point.

My point is that if the Ancients wished to defeat Meteion they would need to face her in her Dynamis filled nest, and they already showed that they were unprepared for the despair they would inevitably face there, while being surrounded by Dynamis. They wouldn’t be able to as they were.

99.99999% of modern humanity would also stand absolutely no chance doing that same thing. A bunch of panicky civilians aren't heroes, that's true regardless of the era.

Right, because the magicks we’ve seen in 14 are so easy to cast that they don’t require more than a passing understanding of their effects to mimic. Not to mention everything else potentially left unmentioned that could’ve come up in Zodiarks creation.

Venat knew the solution. No amount of hming and haing and imagining nonexistent barriers will do away with the fact that she could have told them about the currents immediately and saved millions of lives.

If they are, then she must not of lied.

Or, as I postulated before, she did and the distrust this bred led them to ignore her.

demanding tribute from the planet they're supposed to be nurturing.

We know that the new life had to have souls equal in value to the sum of the sacrificed Ancients, otherwise the exchange wouldn’t be equal and Zodiark would be weakened. So they’re sacrificing innocent souls all the same

We all do that on a daily basis. Why, given life, is the Dodo meant to die, helpless in my stir-fry?

[KariTheFox]

We all do that on a daily basis. Why, given life, is the Dodo meant to die, helpless in my stir-fry?

Surely you can see that there is a difference between livestock/wild animals, and entire civilizations and cultures full of sentient beings with hopes and dreams. (I mean, the ascians don't see the difference, but that's why they're wrong. When Emet-Selch tells a room full of people that he doesn't consider them to be sentient beings, we're not meant to think 'oh well i guess he has a point. i guess all my friends are not actually people')

And we know that the ascians were not just going around killing non-sapient animals, since every rejoining represents an entire world full of culture and civilizations being wiped out - not to mention all the people on the source who die as result of the calamities. They did it seven times, and intended to do it more.

Besides, the ancients' standard for what counts as "sapient" life was pretty arbitrary. It had nothing to do with any actual demonstration of sapience, but more to do with having sufficiently dense aether. If your aether is dense enough, you're a person with a soul according to them. If it's not dense, then are you really a person at all? It doesn't matter if you demonstrate all the other signs of personhood and are able to communicate as a sentient being. It's an elitist and completely arbitrary standard that elevates the lives of the ancients over everyone else.

[Veloran]

Surely you can see that there is a difference between livestock/wild animals, and entire civilizations and cultures full of sentient beings with hopes and dreams.

Yes. The issue is that for the third sacrifice it was never established that any sapient beings would be sacrificed. The topic isn't about the conflict of the seven calamities, it's about the third sacrifice pre-sundering. In that situation, we've never been told that the life to be sacrificed was anything more than plants and animals, nor if they would have had souls. And if they did, again, clearly being sundered did not give anybody a deeper respect for life given everyone is happy to breed, hunt, kill and consume potentially-soulful beings without a second thought, often not even for the purposes of survival, but rather for those of greed.

[RyuDragnier]

Yes. The issue is that for the third sacrifice it was never established that any sapient beings would be sacrificed. The topic isn't about the conflict of the seven calamities, it's about the third sacrifice pre-sundering. In that situation, we've never been told that the life to be sacrificed was anything more than plants and animals, nor if they would have had souls. And if they did, again, clearly being sundered did not give anybody a deeper respect for life given everyone is happy to breed, hunt, kill and consume potentially-soulful beings without a second thought, often not even for the purposes of survival, but rather for those of greed.

But isn't sacrificing all that life a form of greed and selfishness as well? "You're not real life because I don't see you as such, so now I'm going to end your existence to bring back somebody I see as real life because I can't come to terms with their death."

[Slatersev]

Surely you can see that there is a difference between livestock/wild animals, and entire civilizations and cultures full of sentient beings with hopes and dreams. (I mean, the ascians don't see the difference, but that's why they're wrong. When Emet-Selch tells a room full of people that he doesn't consider them to be sentient beings, we're not meant to think 'oh well i guess he has a point. i guess all my friends are not actually people')

And we know that the ascians were not just going around killing non-sapient animals, since every rejoining represents an entire world full of culture and civilizations being wiped out - not to mention all the people on the source who die as result of the calamities. They did it seven times, and intended to do it more.

Besides, the ancients' standard for what counts as "sapient" life was pretty arbitrary. It had nothing to do with any actual demonstration of sapience, but more to do with having sufficiently dense aether. If your aether is dense enough, you're a person with a soul according to them. If it's not dense, then are you really a person at all? It doesn't matter if you demonstrate all the other signs of personhood and are able to communicate as a sentient being. It's an elitist and completely arbitrary standard that elevates the lives of the ancients over everyone else.

Its funny because even Emet doesn't really believe that either. If you talk to Y'shtola right near the end of Ultima Thule (Annoyingly I can't remember which quest specifically) she mentions that the fact that all the Ancients in Elpis had no trouble believing you were just a weird Familiar and not really a person, but the shades in Emet's recreation of Amaurot refer to the Scions as children and treat them as such says a lot about what he thinks subconsciously.

Young and Naive? Oh sure, but he already saw the Sundered as people no matter what he claimed.

[Veloran]

But isn't sacrificing all that life a form of greed and selfishness as well? "You're not real life because I don't see you as such, so now I'm going to end your existence to bring back somebody I see as real life because I can't come to terms with their death."

Maybe, but as I said it's fundamentally no different from what we do all the time. For example from Hermes' sociopathically empathetic perspective killing beasts on Elpis was horrifying, but from WoL's perspective it's something they'd do any day for 20 gil.

[KariTheFox]

Yes. The issue is that for the third sacrifice it was never established that any sapient beings would be sacrificed. The topic isn't about the conflict of the seven calamities, it's about the third sacrifice pre-sundering. In that situation, we've never been told that the life to be sacrificed was anything more than plants and animals, nor if they would have had souls. And if they did, again, clearly being sundered did not give anybody a deeper respect for life given everyone is happy to breed, hunt, kill and consume potentially-soulful beings without a second thought, often not even for the purposes of survival, but rather for those of greed.

Given that the first two sacrifices involved the ancients throwing thier own, obviously sapient selves into the zodiark sacrifice pit, it stands to reason that a third, equivalent sacrifice would also involve sapient life. If you could just sacrifice dodos and fish to satisfy zodiark's need for sacrifice, why would the ancients have bothered with sacrificing themselves?

Also, themetically it would be kind of silly. "First we sacrificed half our population - then the other half that was left after that, and then... we were going to sacrifice every single chicken on the planet." C'mon.

[Veloran]

If you could just sacrifice dodos and fish to satisfy zodiark's need for sacrifice, why would the ancients have bothered with sacrificing themselves?

Because they were all dead and the world was a ruined wasteland by then.

[KariTheFox]

Because they were all dead and the world was a ruined wasteland by then.

Was it? It's my understanding that the blasphemies were something that affected sapient beings, who have the capacity to despair. And they'e not animals, they don't hunt or eat. They only want to spread further pain and suffering. The rest of the biosphere, animals that have no capacity to feel that kind of existential dread, really don't seem to be affected at all. But I could be wrong.

Besides, I think that misses the point. Zodiark isn't an engine you can just throw biomass at until it does what you want. The ancients were sacrificing themselves to zodiark in a religious manner, because "sacrifice" implies giving up something of value. In the case of the ancients, the lives of their beloved brethren, and the chance to ever return to the aetherial sea and be reborn to the star. Things highly valued in their culture. It's a sacrifice because the loss was keenly felt by everyone involved.

But a bunch of non-sapient animals? To the ancients - able to create anything, who wanted for nothing? How would it be a meaningful sacrifice at all to round up a bunch of animals and kill them for zodiark? It would be effortless, and they would be able to recreate everything they "sacrificed" easily. It's not really a sacrifice at all, it's more like a biomass delivery.