*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[EaraGrace]

If the plan seems idiotic, it's because you've completely misunderstood it - here are the relevant sources on it. They had no option but to resort to sacrifices of their own because of what the Final Days did to the planet. It's never stated to be their preferred option. They then had to resort to more to revive the planet. And it is only with the final, more contentious stage that they'd sacrifice some of the new lives to restore those inside Zodiark. The scenario shown within the Dead Ends final area, facile caricature as it is, was not an inevitability if she but shared that knowledge of the fate of that star (derived from a few lines of Meteion's report) and her deeper concerns... of course the story introduced various contrivances to stop that. Her entire plan is parasitic upon Zodiark's existence, all the same. It wouldn't work without him.

Let me first point out the fallacy of saying that a story’s writing is relying on contrivances, but only when it prevents your preferred direction from being taken. Pointing out that they’re are problems with Ancient society, they’re obsession with only perfection and their willingness to sacrifice whatever it would take to birth a world without fear or suffering, even eschewing morals to do so, is not contrivance. It’s a logical and thematically appropriate failing.

And forgive me, but if I’m reading you right I think you’ve missed the point of Dead Ends and the message of Ultima Thule. Etheirys will eventually die. All things will eventually die. It was that revelation that broke the Ea. The point Venat makes, the point of the Sundering and defeating Meteion, was that even with the inevitability of the end, you should fight for tomorrow. That even if only for another day, people will be able to live, find beauty in world, hear, feel, and think. And that that is worth fighting for. If the Ancients knew that there was nothing they could do to stave off the end, that no sacrifice would halt it, they would break. The Ea did, the Omicron did, the dragons did, advanced civilization after advanced civilization did. To believe that the Ancients, possessing the flaws they were, would be different for no reason other than saying they are somehow special, is foolish. Only a civilization that accepts the inevitability of suffering, that looks with both eyes at the inevitability of the end, and still can find joy and happiness, will not. And even then only for a time.

I think it should also be noted that ensouled does not necessarily equal sentient in this context. Some carnivorous plants may be ensouled, but I would certainly never believe they were sentient. lol. People, and familiars with the ability to speak and possessing of self awareness, those are sentient.

This seems arbitrary. Why wouldn’t a carnivorous plant capable of being bestowed a soul, a soul that will carry memories and experiences no less than a humans, be unworthy of consideration?

[redheadturk]

Let me first point out the fallacy of saying that a story’s writing is relying on contrivances, but only when it prevents your preferred direction from being taken. Pointing out that problems with the Ancients, they’re obsession with only perfection and their willingness to sacrifice whatever it would take to birth a world without fear or suffering, even eschewing morals to do so, is not contrivance. It’s a logical and thematically appropriate failing.

And forgive me, but if I’m reading you right I think you’ve missed the point of Dead Ends and the message of Ultima Thule. Etheirys will eventually die. All things will eventually die. It was that revelation that broke the Ea. The point Venat makes, the point of the Sundering and defeating Meteion, was that even with the inevitability of the end, you should fight for tomorrow. That even if only for another day, people will be able to live, find beauty in world, hear, feel, and think. And that that is worth fighting for. If the Ancients knew that there was nothing they could do to stave off the end, that no sacrifice would halt it, they would break. The Ea did, the Omicron did, the dragons did, advanced civilization after advanced civilization did. To believe that the Ancients, possessing the flaws they were, would be different for no reason other than saying they are somehow special, is foolish. Only a civilization that accepts the inevitability of suffering, that looks with both eyes at the inevitability of the end, and still can find joy and happiness, will not. And even then only for a time.



This seems arbitrary. Why wouldn’t a carnivorous plant capable of being bestowed a soul, a soul that will carry memories and experiences no less than a humans, be worthy of consideration?

No, tbh, they are not worthy of consideration in the same way feeling, thinking people are. Plants do not have the capacity for memory and feeling that humans have, and in the situation of "the plants die or humanity dies" I am sure going to give the plants the heave ho.

[EaraGrace]

No, tbh, they are not worthy of consideration in the same way feeling, thinking people are. Plants do not have the capacity for memory and feeling that humans have, and in the situation of "the plants die or humanity dies" I am sure going to give the plants the heave ho.

Being ensouled means having that capacity. If that plant is ensouled, then they do have some consideration. And we are discussing in universe. If you hold plants as having less moral consideration on Earth then that’s fine. But we’re talking of Etheirys.

[redheadturk]

Being ensouled means having that capacity. If that plant is ensouled, then they do have some consideration. And we are discussing in universe. If you hold plants as having less moral consideration on Earth then that’s fine. But we’re talking of Etheirys.

I hold them as having less moral consideration period. Again, ensouled does not necessarily mean sentient. Mankind and some particular familiars were sentient, plants are not

[Lauront]

Let me first point out the fallacy of saying that a story’s writing is relying on contrivances, but only when it prevents your preferred direction from being taken. Pointing out that problems with the Ancients, they’re obsession with only perfection and their willingness to sacrifice whatever it would take to birth a world without fear or suffering, even eschewing morals to do so, is not contrivance. It’s a logical and thematically appropriate failing.

If you don't like the word "contrivances", go with "plot elements". The fact of the matter is that the ancients were divided over this topic, for reasons we don't exactly know, even if we do know what was animating Venat's concerns now. Hence that poster, pointing me to that cutscene is a waste of my time, because this whole topic was covered extensively in SHB through a multitude of sources and was not as simplistic as that stylised scene ultimately makes it out to be.

And forgive me, but if I’m reading you right I think you’ve missed the point of Dead Ends and the message of Ultima Thule. Etheirys will eventually die. All things will eventually die. It was that revelation that broke the Ea. The point Venat makes, the point of the Sundering and defeating Meteion, was that even with the inevitability of the end, you should fight for tomorrow. That even if only for another day, people will be able to live, find beauty in world, hear, feel, and think. And that that is worth fighting for. If the Ancients knew that there was nothing they could do to stave off the end, that no sacrifice would halt it, they would break. The Ea did, the Omicron did, the dragons did, advanced civilization after advanced civilization did.

Forgiven, because you're not right. I am aware of the point it is making. Where I diverge is leaping from what is shown in the Dead Ends to the notion that the ancients could not possibly have adjusted their ways without being sundered, if they had been given the requisite information, and not just in the form of inspirational quotes. Venat herself states that the conclusion of Hermes's report would not phase many of her people and that unlike Hermes, they'd be able to accept it. But the fact is, they were not presented with this information, which would have provided tangible proof of her concerns. At the time, they were grieving the utter devastation of their star and decimation of their population.

To believe that the Ancients, possessing the flaws they were, would be different for no reason other than saying they are somehow special, is foolish. Only a civilization that accepts the inevitability of suffering, that looks with both eyes at the inevitability of the end, and still can find joy and happiness, will not. And even then only for a time.

Give them the information in full and we'll talk. Until then we're dealing on the mere say-so that they wouldn't.

That's an incredibly bizarre statement to make. It not only cedes the argument but it also reflects poorly on you as a person.

No, your argument continues to be flawed for the reasons I outlined. Merely stating it's the same person with the same principles doesn't dislodge the problems it faces.

[EaraGrace]

If you don't like the word "contrivances", go with "plot elements". The fact of the matter is that the ancients were divided over this topic, for reasons we don't exactly know, even if we do know what was animating Venat's concerns now. Hence that poster, pointing me to that cutscene is a waste of my time, because this whole topic was covered extensively in SHB through a multitude of sources and was not as simplistic as that stylised scene ultimately makes it out to be.

Whatever makes it easy for you to sleep at night. Selectively choosing scenes to believe and one’s not to does not equal canon however. If you want to point out the specifics for the differences, that’s fine. But the fact remains that the plan to rely wholly on Zodiark was doomed to fail. It worked to buy time. That’s all.

Forgiven, because you're not right. I am aware of the point it is making. Where I diverge is leaping from what is shown in the Dead Ends to the notion that the ancients could not possibly have adjusted their ways without being sundered, if they had been given the requisite information, and not just in the form of inspirational quotes.

Venat would disagree, a position she gained nothing from having. Emet as well would concede that Venats path was the correct one. As much as I respect your opinion and your right to have it, I will place their judgements of what Ancient society could and couldn’t do over yours.

Venat herself states that the conclusion of Hermes's report would not phase many of her people and that unlike Hermes, they'd be able to accept it. But the fact is, they were not presented with this information, which would have provided tangible proof of her concerns. At the time, they were grieving the utter devastation of their star and decimation of their population.

I would ask for the full quote your referencing.

Give them the information in full and we'll talk. Until then we're dealing on the mere say-so that they wouldn't.

Once again, denying canon statements won’t make them any less important.

I hold them as having less moral consideration period. Again, ensouled does not necessarily mean sentient. Mankind and some particular familiars were sentient, plants are not

Thats fine. My point however is a soul is a soul. There is no distinction made between a humans, and plants in universe..

[Lauront]

Whatever makes it easy for you to sleep at night. Selectively choosing scenes to believe and one’s not to does not equal canon however. If you want to point out the specifics for the differences, that’s fine. But the fact remains that the plan to rely wholly on Zodiark was doomed to fail. It worked to buy time. That’s all.

I don't recall disputing that reliance solely on him would not work given the nature of the true cause of the Final Days. What I am disputing is calling it idiotic with the context of the information that they had.

Venat would disagree, a position she gained nothing from having. Emet as well would concede that Venats path was the correct one.

Do you mean that scene whereby in the French version he narrows his concession to getting them to Ultima Thule? I don't consider it adequate, sorry. And that is even if I were inclined to simply take their opinions over more tangible evidence of how they'd react.

As much as I respect your opinion and your right to have it, I will place their judgements of what Ancient society could and couldn’t do over yours.

And I'd like to see how the ancients would've reacted and adapted to this information in full. Again, the plot was written in such a way where they weren't allowed it.

I would ask for the full quote your referencing.

Venat: Bleak as the contents of Meteion's report might be, many could hear it and remain content with their lives.
Venat: But not Hermes. For him, the veneer of perfection has long been cracked, and it was to the distant heavens he looked for the means to repair it.
Venat: I understand his anguish after a fashion─my own refusal to return is in opposition to the world's established order.
Venat: Yet for me, the imperfections only enhance the fragile beauty of our star. I will fight to see it delivered from destruction, warts and all.

So she clearly didn't think that lowly of her people's general emotional resilience.

Once again, denying canon statements won’t make them any less important.

And once more, insisting there is a canon statement to the effect of what they would've done in receipt of the full context behind her concerns, when there isn't, doesn't make your argument any stronger in this respect.

[EaraGrace]

I don't recall disputing that reliance solely on him would not work given the nature of the true cause of the Final Days. What I am disputing is calling it idiotic with the context of the information that they had.

And I’m disputing ignoring that scene. If you wish to argue the specifics then do so, but that scene did occur and thus we must consider it in these discussions, especially when discussing the events it portrays.

Do you mean that scene whereby in the French version he narrows his concession to getting them to Ultima Thule? I don't consider it adequate, sorry. And that is even if I were inclined to simply take their opinions over more tangible evidence of how they'd react.

First, unless you wish to proffer a more accurate translations this is what it comes out as as far as I can see.

I must nevertheless recognize in her a certain gift of matchmaker. it is not with our methods that a human being managed to set foot here

Not as clear as your saying it is. Lots of symbolism laced in that. And second, once again what did Venat gain from Sundering her world? Why would her judgment, with Emet agreeing, be incorrect?

And I'd like to see how the ancients would've reacted and adapted to this information in full. Again, the plot was written in such a way where they weren't allowed it.

I surely would’ve too, as would Venat. Unfortunately, circumstances made it impossible. Such is life.

So she clearly didn't think that lowly of her people's general emotional resilience.

That quote is from before Ktisis. You don’t think her judgement may change once the full truth was laid bear? And many =/ all. The world would be divided, and as Venat says this would lead to their destruction.

And once more, insisting there is a canon statement to the effect of what they would've done in receipt of the full context behind her concerns, when there isn't, doesn't make your argument any stronger in this respect.

I fail to see how we don’t have a canon statement on what they would’ve done. The game beats you over the head with the message that they would’ve broken. Would you need Ishikawa to say it to confirm that fact?

[Nilroreo]

I fail to see how we don’t have a canon statement on what they would’ve done. The game beats you over the head with the message that they would’ve broken. Would you need Ishikawa to say it to confirm that fact?

Yes, We do. because as it stands now, all we have is conflicting information. The fact that this has been going on for 60+ pages alone is proof that nobody can come to a definitive consensus on anything.

When analyzing a games lore, all you can do is take the information provided by the game at its word and assume it isn't lying to you until new information arises. When Emet says his own methods wouldn't have brought his people this far, we have to trust what he says, not like there's any other choice in the matter. We also have to acknowledge that nobody, NOBODY, including you or me knows what would have happened had Venat actually shared what she knew. We never get to see this story unfold, and thus any claims that it wouldn't have worked out or that the ancients were on a path towards self-destruction is nothing but baseless conjecture. We also don't know if they would've been able to save themselves in that scenario, we just don't know. And that is precisely why I consider Emet's line irrelevant in the grand scheme. Sure, its relevant now that all is said and done, the ascians are all dead, we're literally standing where no man has stood before, so yeah, he's right. Venat sundered the world denying the ancients the opportunity to know. After what she's done, they never had a chance to come this far.

But when you take Emet at his word, you're now forced to assume that it still wouldn't have worked had Venat actually shared her knowledge... except that would be baseless conjecture and we can't know that for sure because again, we never actually saw that happen. We just don't know, and we'll never know, unless we know.

[EaraGrace]

Yes, We do. because as it stands now, all we have is conflicting information. The fact that this has been going on for 60+ pages alone is proof that nobody can come to a definitive consensus on anything.

When analyzing a games lore, all you can do is take the information provided by the game at its word and assume it isn't lying to you until new information arises. When Emet says his own methods wouldn't have brought his people this far, we have to trust what he says, not like there's any other choice in the matter. We also have to acknowledge that nobody, NOBODY, including you or me knows what would have happened had Venat actually shared what she knew. We never get to see this story unfold, and thus any claims that it wouldn't have worked out or that the ancients were on a path towards self-destruction is nothing but baseless conjecture. We also don't know if they would've been able to save themselves in that scenario, we just don't know. And that is precisely why I consider Emet's line irrelevant in the grand scheme. Sure, its relevant now that all is said and done, the ascians are all dead, we're literally standing where no man has stood before, so yeah, he's right. Venat sundered the world denying the ancients the opportunity to know. they never had a chance to come this far.

But when you take Emet at his word, you're now forced to assume that it still wouldn't have worked had Venat actually shared her knowledge... except that would be baseless conjecture and we can't know that for sure because again, we never actually saw that happen. We just don't know, and we'll never know, unless we know.

I actually really like these points and would agree. My response could only be that given the information we know Venat to have, plus the information we come to learn from the various major figures in the story, it is reasonable to believe that Venat was acting correctly contingent on the information she had. It is indeed true that we won’t know for certain. But, as is the case in our lives, we are not certain of anything and must make the best decisions possible regardless.