*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Rulakir]

It's interesting, the more I read of the other side of the debate the more I realize how much is contradictory. First, it was the sundering was necessary because the Ancients were incapable of interacting with dynamis. Now, it's Venat pursued multiple paths and only chose sundering as a last resort.

My feeling has always been if you believe there was any chance that the Ancients could've found a way then what Venat did was unequivocally wrong.

[RyuDragnier]

It's interesting, the more I read of the other side of the debate the more I realize how much is contradictory. First, it was the sundering was necessary because the Ancients were incapable of interacting with dynamis. Now, it's Venat pursued multiple paths and only chose sundering as a last resort.

I find it interesting on the other side of the debate as well. A lot of the people for the Ancients seem to ignore information the game has pointed out, try to rewrite what was shown as being false, and even seem to make very weird and odd jumps in logic. TBH it's getting really annoying and hard to have good discussion around here when one side is trying to ignore the very information we're given.

[Denishia]

Insert joke about how the Ancient society ruled by Amaurot states that they solve conflicts and run their society off of rational logical debate and discussion, but have the same emotions as all the sundered people of Etheirys (if, as Hermes showcased, a lack of emotional wisdom and support that does feel like a pointed critique towards the handling of mental health issues) and like anyone claiming to argue based on facts and logic being the first red flag that the debate will be about and run off of emotional biases.

[Cleretic]

Insert joke about how the Ancient society ruled by Amaurot states that they solve conflicts and run their society off of rational logical debate and discussion, but have the same emotions as all the sundered people of Etheirys (if, as Hermes showcased, a lack of emotional wisdom and support that does feel like a pointed critique towards the handling of mental health issues) and like anyone claiming to argue based on facts and logic being the first red flag that the debate will be about and run off of emotional biases.

Amaurot definitely feels like a very emotionally immature society for how intellectually enlightened they are. There's a lot of relatively simple things they never seemed to consider, they're EXTREMELY bad at dealing with mental health issues (RIP Hermes, therapy hadn't been invented yet), and are so emotionally unprepared for great turmoil that Venat had to screen people for 'being okay to hear bad news', and was right to. If we can trust Emet's Amaurot to be accurate, then people were making grossly violent children's toys and not seeing a problem with that.

It doesn't make their demise any less tragic or the society any less worthy of life, but it does mean I don't want to live there. And in retrospect, makes their struggle against an End of Days fuelled by emotionally-charged energy both darkly ironic and deeply unsurprising. Meteion was basically their kryptonite, in every possible way.

[Lauront]

It's interesting, the more I read of the other side of the debate the more I realize how much is contradictory. First, it was the sundering was necessary because the Ancients were incapable of interacting with dynamis. Now, it's Venat pursued multiple paths and only chose sundering as a last resort.

My feeling has always been if you believe there was any chance that the Ancients could've found a way then what Venat did was unequivocally wrong.

We need to keep in mind the timeline constraint, IMO. I share your dissatisfaction towards her and her reasoning but ultimately it's the time travel that is the cause of it all. Equally though, it leaves a lot of "what ifs" as viable possibilities. Part of why I'm not overly fond of how it was all resolved.

[Rulakir]

We need to keep in mind the timeline constraint, IMO. I share your dissatisfaction towards her and her reasoning but ultimately it's the time travel that is the cause of it all. Equally though, it leaves a lot of "what ifs" as viable possibilities. Part of why I'm not overly fond of how it was all resolved.

Ultimately it's the writers' fixation on a closed time loop that involved the WoL. I know some people don't like discussing the writing rather than the story, but that's the core of the issue. Had we been able to save the Ancients in an alternate timeline or had we been a witness to and not a participant in history it would've made a difference. I'm not sure it would've made Venat any more likeable, but at least 1) the player wouldn't have been an accomplice and 2) whatever decisions she made wouldn't have been compromised by knowledge of the future.