*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Jandor]

The reality of the situation is that even with Meteion removed the world is still doomed. It will die as a direct result of the people dwelling on it. They've already damaged it almost beyond the point of recovery in the comparatively short time their little civilizations have thrashed around. All getting rid of Meteion did was delay it some more. Better to die whole - die as yourself - than die as some broken thing.

What an exceptionally edgy take.

[Cilia]

The reality of the situation is that even with Meteion removed the world is still doomed. It will die as a direct result of the people dwelling on it. They've already damaged it almost beyond the point of recovery in the comparatively short time their little civilizations have thrashed around. All getting rid of Meteion did was delay it some more. Better to die whole - die as yourself - than die as some broken thing.

Meteion or no, the Ancients' pursuit of perfection would have doomed them one way or another, sooner or later.

[RyuDragnier]

It is impossible for anything perfect to exist. By removing your emotions, you have become imperfect, you lack the things that make people...people. Chasing after perfection only leaves a path of destruction behind you until you've reached the point to where...nothing matters. Look at the 2nd and 3rd worlds in The Dead Ends as examples, chasing after true peace left nothing but destruction, and achieving "perfect enlightenment" only led to people wanting to die because there was nothing to live for.

[Lurina]

Meteion or no, the Ancients' pursuit of perfection would have doomed them one way or another, sooner or later.

This just feels so contrary to all the messages in the story so far. Didn't the arcs for the nations in Heavensward, Stormblood and Shadowbringers, or even within EW itself, show that societies are capable of change? That nothing is as black and white as "they're broken and doomed, better to just kill 'em", and there's always hope so long as there's a tomorrow?

[RyuDragnier]

This just feels so contrary to all the messages in the story so far. Didn't the arcs for the nations in Heavensward, Stormblood and Shadowbringers, or even within EW itself, show that societies are capable of change? That nothing is as black and white as "they're broken and doomed, better to just kill 'em", and there's always hope so long as there's a tomorrow?

All after "collapses" in a sense. Ishgard's entire church hierarchy had to come crashing to the ground along with their beliefs, Doma and Ala Mhigo required themselves to be freed from Garlemald, Norvrandt had to be freed from the light and technically Eulmore, Bozja required a lot of lives to be lost and a war before the head of the resistance realized that "villain has a point" in how the IVth treated people, etc. Every single nation had to build back up after the status quo was burned to the ground.

They all began to rebuild and try to move on, something the Ancients seemed to be unable to do, considering they sacrificed people TWICE to Zodiark (after an unknown amount of time between them) and were on their way to a THIRD sacrifice. They couldn't let go and move on, and that was the main difference between the nations we've seen currently ingame and the Ancients.

[Cilia]

This just feels so contrary to all the messages in the story so far. Didn't the arcs for the nations in Heavensward, Stormblood and Shadowbringers, or even within EW itself, show that societies are capable of change? That nothing is as black and white as "they're broken and doomed, better to just kill 'em", and there's always hope so long as there's a tomorrow?

The difference is contemporary nations accept their world is imperfect, and strive to make the best of it. The Ancients wouldn't let go of the past, choosing their "perfect paradise free from sorrow" over confronting life's hardships - and indeed, sacrificing the future for the sake of the past. Contemporary people do not do this - the protagonists / "good guys" anyway - and instead learn the lessons of the past for the sake of a better future.

Bleach has its flaws, and the character in question isn't the most morally straight, but Mayuri Kurotsuchi has an excellent speech on why perfection is not worth pursuit.

[Lurina]

The difference is contemporary nations accept their world is imperfect, and strive to make the best of it. The Ancients wouldn't let go of the past, choosing their "perfect paradise free from sorrow" over confronting life's hardships - and indeed, sacrificing the future for the sake of the past. Contemporary people do not do this - the protagonists / "good guys" anyway - and instead learn the lessons of the past for the sake of a better future.

Bleach has its flaws, and the character in question isn't the most morally straight, but Mayuri Kurotsuchi has an excellent speech on why perfection is not worth pursuit.

How is this any different from Garlemald clinging to their imperial glory, and their past when they didn't live in a snowy wasteland? Or Ishgard clinging to the ancient grudge of the Dragonsong War? Or for an example presented more positively, Ala Mhigo clinging to their days as an independent state?

The story is full of groups who are unable to accept their present day circumstances or what's for the best because of a preoccupation with some past event or glory. But in all of those cases, even if they're depicted as being wrong, it's shown that change is possible - and that they're worth saving in spite of their flaws.

There's nothing that fundamentally separates the toxic nostalgia of the Ancients from the toxic nostalgia from the present day nations. Being willing to condemn one as doomed in absolute terms but not the other feels like a post-hoc justification for why them all dying was okay.

[Cilia]

How is this any different from Garlemald clinging to their imperial glory, and their past when they didn't live in a snowy wasteland? Or Ishgard clinging to the ancient grudge of the Dragonsong War? Or for an example presented more positively, Ala Mhigo clinging to their days as an independent state?

The story is full of groups who are unable to accept their present day circumstances or what's for the best because of a preoccupation with some past event or glory. But in all of those cases, even if they're depicted as being wrong, it's shown that change is possible - and that they're worth saving in spite of their flaws.

There's nothing that fundamentally separates the toxic nostalgia of the Ancients from the toxic nostalgia from the present day nations. Being willing to condemn one as doomed in absolute terms but not the other feels like a post-hoc justification for why them all dying was okay.

Those toxically nostalgic elements are always presented as antagonistic forces, and we pave the way for a better future by removing them from the equation (often with extreme prejudice, but hey, it's an RPG). Garlemald's warmongering isn't portrayed positively (and mostly predicated on a lie besides). Ishgard (or rather the Church) clinging to the lies that begat a thousand years of bloodshed isn't portrayed positively. Ala Mhigo wants its independence back, but pointedly does not want to go back to how it was before the Imperial occupation because Mad King Theodoric exposed the problems with a monarchial government. The closest you get is actually Doma, but even they acknowledge their society was not perfect and can still improve - that was the whole point of Yotsuyu as a character.

All of the Ancients, excepting Venat and her cabal, wanted to sacrifice tomorrow for yesterday. There were no lies, only delusions of perfection.

[Rulakir]

The Ancients had to sacrifice themselves for Zodiark because the Final Days had destroyed the world. There was no other sufficient source of aether to tap. This is also on Venat's shoulders for not giving them a heads up but, hey, have to subject mankind to their trial! Only 25% of their population was left, "no small number" of whom were on Venat's side, but that still wasn't sufficient for her apparently unobtainable standards.

I also think the perfection arguments are nonsense. Nobody knows for a fact what the fate of the Ancients was going to be and it certainly wasn't any one individual's moral authority to end it without consent. Apparently their civilization being destroyed by treachery wasn't one of the considerations because that's ultimately what finished them.

The Final Days could have been a turning point if they hadn't been left in the dark about it.

[Lurina]

Those toxically nostalgic elements are always presented as antagonistic forces, and we pave the way for a better future by removing them from the equation (often with extreme prejudice, but hey, it's an RPG). Garlemald's warmongering isn't portrayed positively (and mostly predicated on a lie besides). Ishgard (or rather the Church) clinging to the lies that begat a thousand years of bloodshed isn't portrayed positively. Ala Mhigo wants its independence back, but pointedly does not want to go back to how it was before the Imperial occupation because Mad King Theodoric exposed the problems with a monarchial government. The closest you get is actually Doma, but even they acknowledge their society was not perfect and can still improve - that was the whole point of Yotsuyu as a character.

All of the Ancients, excepting Venat and her cabal, wanted to sacrifice tomorrow for yesterday. There were no lies, only delusions of perfection.

I'm not arguing that the Ancients were in the right for wanting to bring back their old way of life through the sacrifices, I'm arguing that that it goes against everything else the story says - where we're shown time and time again that civilizations can break free of their bad impulses and change, usually by virtue of just a few dissidents willing to make a stink about it - to act like their destruction was some foregone conclusion that would have happened no matter what, even if Meteion wasn't around.

That was what you were originally saying three posts ago, right?