*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Lauront]

It was idiotic not because I misunderstood it,

No, that is exactly why it was idiotic. You mixed up the sequence of events and omitted the fact that Zodiark is essential to buffering the planet and restoring the star, and the reason as to why the sacrifice was even needed, while at the same time omitting that they were working on deliberately limited info.

but because apparently there are a number of people who completely missed what the entire story was actually about.

The writers are free to present a theme. We are free to interpret it as we like and consider whether what they put in commits that to being the only possible outcome or one where we think what was presented is consistent with said theme.

It can be summed up in one scene - right hereZodiark forestalled The Final Days, it would not have stopped them. In the end, their civilization would have fallen to apathy and sought death as a release even and especially if they all came back. This is not conjecture or headcanon, this is what we were actually shown in Elpis. The entire notion of once your purpose has been served you "return to the star" is tantamount to saying there is nothing to live for once you've achieved whatever it is you want to achieve. If you do some of the sidequests in Elpis, it is even more on the nose.

No, it really is both conjecture and headcanon all in one, because it does not really address the question of how they would've adjusted their plan had they been given the necessary information. Linking me the stylised cliff notes version of things I am already very well acquainted with has little hope of persuading me. As to their stance to death? They also saw themselves as the very lifeblood coursing through the planet. It is not at all strange to me that such long-lived creatures would take such an approach to death given how the soul cycle works in the setting. The error here is in presuming that they'd not adjust their views if they were given a full explanation of why Venat had these concerns beyond merely stating suffering is necessary at a rather bad time for them. Again, stylised scene, so maybe she tried harder, but in the absence of a full and proper explanation, I can see why they'd not have been swayed. We're shown in Elpis that, when given good cause, they do very readily adjust their ways.

The plan to summon Zodiark is idiotic because it is a temporary solution (albeit one that lasted thousands of years) to a catastrophic problem. "Why can't we just go back to the way things were?"

...and who but Venat knew this? Her entire plan hinges on Zodiark being summoned, because of that shielding effect he provided, as well as his ability to restore the star from its moribund state. All covered in the sources I provided, and glossed over by that stylised scene.

That's what the Ancient who turned to Venat asked. Therein lies the problem. A problem which the only solution was to Sunder.

Nah. That was her solution to it. But the only one? That is what Kizuya is referring to as headcanon.

"The truth has to be melted out of our stubborn lives by suffering. Nothing speaks the truth, nothing tells us how things really are, nothing forces us to know what we do not want to know except pain. And this is how the gods declare their love. Truth comes with pain." - Aeschylus, The Oresteia.I'm a Greek mythology nerd and there is some serious Greek tragedy influence all over Endwalker.

Pain and suffering in the context of the story provides a bulwark against the apathy that was already creeping throughout Ancient society. The Ancients lived in a utopia where they wanted for nothing. That is why it was so unusual for Hermes to experience despair. They knew very little of it. Again, THIS IS THE PROBLEM. As long as this "perfection" exists, there will come ruin. No amount of sacrifices is going to stop that.

Did you do the sidequests? Others had similar sentiments to him. With a bit of pep talk, they got over it and found new resolve. Hermes was unique in being dissatisfied with any answer he got, something even surviving in Amon, an entirely "new" person. And G'raha surmises that there is an inherent orientation in certain souls, which I'd say is borne out by this and other similar examples. If they genuinely risked this fate, were told about it in explicit terms and not through platitudes, when they were grieving the near-loss of their star and countless of their people, and thus were given a proper chance to re-evaluate things going forward, as well as making adjustments as necessary to their society to avoid such a possibility, and still resolved not to do anything about it? Then I might agree, although it'd be their choice to make.

Second, on a strategic level. Thinning out our aether makes us more susceptible to dynamis, and therefore better able to combat it. Coupled with the hard road of suffering and failure, to stay the course no matter what, this is what gives the star the best chance of survival.

Which, once more, is but one way to do it. It took no more than a handful of sundered champions and the scions to defeat Endsinger. Veloran has already done an excellent job here outlining potential alternatives they had at their disposal, nevermind the huge question mark that is Elidibus as the WoL.

And I said earlier in this thread, I am hard-pressed to think of a worse idea than Venat telling the Convocation what she knew. It would have made a bad situation infinitely worse.

Mere say-so.

Emet-Selch: 'Once the rejoining of worlds is complete, Zodiark will regain His full strength and shatter his prison. Then we shall offer up the Source's remaining inhabitants in sacrifice, that we might resurrect our brethren who died to bring Zodiark into existence.'

Smashing plan. Little contentious, but a great start. You should definitely vote for it at the next meeting.

Why are you citing the plan after the Sundering as evidence of what it was before the Sundering? Nevermind that the remaining ancients were also sundered in the process (including Emet-Selch's close buddy), whereas the original plan was to sacrifice the vague "new life" to restore those sacrificed, and thus this cannot be the same plan.

The ones who initially sacrificed themselves did so voluntarily, and we do not know that the lives they intended to sacrifice to bring back their brethren were sentient. Like as not, they were not. Also, the Ancient's society had been utterly stable for thousands upon thousands of years prior to the Final Days. There is no reason to think that once they were stable again post third sacrifice that they would ever have gone down the same path that world did.

I think it's important to be clear on what we know about with that whole conundrum. Creations which gain souls are living beings, but that can range from anything from an animal, plant life or monster to rare familiars like Meteion (although that isn't explicitly addressed in the story because she was never subjected to a proper examination, possibly because the creator's soul aether has to be distinguished from a genuine soul through someone with precise soulsight.) The story never specifies what this "new life" is except for the fact that elements of it had souls, and Venat's faction believed it should inherit the star in the future. At the same time, this is for pragmatic reasons, and leads me to think it may well have been a combination of animals, plant life and familiars that had qualified for souls, although ancients are also a possibility. But the story never specifies, so we can but speculate. I'm agnostic as to the morality of the plan without knowing specifics, and furthermore, without knowing how they'd adjust their views on it if the full truth had been disclosed to them - they may have come to the view that waiting until Meteion was driven back and dissolving Zodiark to free the souls when it was safe to do so may have been the better course of action. He was deemed necessary at an absolute minimum to protect the star, but they didn't know that the root cause was a removable one.

[Lium]

No, it really is both conjecture and headcanon all in one, because it does not really address the question of how they would've adjusted their plan had they been given the necessary information.

Your entire argument hinges on "What if Venat told everyone what she knew? How would the Ancients have adjusted their views had they known?" You know what we call that? Conjecture. Because we'll never know.

You are saying I misunderstood or that it is conjecture when you are quite literally doing the exact...same...thing. You are clinging to a "What if" scenario where one does not exist.

The writers are free to present a theme. We are free to interpret it as we like and consider whether what they put in commits that to being the only possible outcome or one where we think what was presented is consistent with said theme.

I'm not talking about the theme, I'm talking about the actual story. As in, what the writers have put in the game. Whether you like it or not is a matter of opinion, and that's fine. But this is what it is. Being free to interpret it the way you like is also fine, but we have a word for that. Do you know what it is? Headcanon.

So, once again. You are doing the exact same thing.

It's fine to disagree and I love these debates about the story. But not when you are accusing people of doing something that you yourself are doing. Almost to the letter.