*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[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.

[Nilroreo]

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.

Thats fine. But what's "best" is ultimately up to the individual. Venat isn't perfect and isn't the arbiter of right and wrong. She made a decision that ultimately led to the ancients being driven into a corner and drove them to desperate measures. She did what she did for another era that was no closer to figuring out the truth of what the final days truly were. There are several instances where characters are shown committing questionable acts in pursuit of some goal they deemed necessary.

In another post, I brought up that G'raha and the ironworks of his timeline theorized that averting the 8UC in our timeline would've erased all inhabitants of his. This includes everyone on Etheirys, all its remaining sundered shards, and any aliens that still may exist across the universe at the time if there are any. Despite this, they still went along with this mission because to them, a world in which the WoL survives was preferable to their own broken world, and thus was worth the sacrifice.

Everyone is ultimately entitled to their opinion on what is right or wrong. If you deem the sacrifice of innocent lives to be an act of evil, then that's fine. I don't care and don't take it too personally when someone voices their opinion on a certain group and the atrocities they might have committed. I also don't care enough to take a hard stance on who's actions are more or less just. At the end of the day, they're just actions and I'm just here to see a story unfold.

What I do care about however is when the story itself is incapable of taking an unbiased stance and deeming the actions of our characters as more morally justifiable than the acts of the Ascians. The ancients determine that exchanging the lives of all life forms on their star for those initially devoured by Zodiark was worth it, and they're vilified for it. Fine, that's only fair. G'raha basically threatens to erase an entire timelines worth of people without consent, and unsurprisingly... nobody cares! But don't get me wrong, I get it lol! G'raha is our friend, and he did what he did to save us, so of course we let him off the hook. Why on earth would we ever vilify someone who was on our side, we're supposed to be the good guys! When Hydaelyn decided to cripple the world leading to untold suffering for 10K years, what she did was not a kindness and it pained her to have to go through with it. She feels bad about it so its ok guys, let's not give her a hard time.

[EaraGrace]

Thats fine. But…

Yes, moral disagreements are common. That does not change however, the fact that there are right and wrong actions. Unless you believe all actions morally equal?

In another post...

Let’s be forthright. That theory was the equivalent of an afterthought, happening only when they had completed their work and sent Graha on his way and now had a moment to ponder. It was not a serious concern, or something they actively debated, so to portray it as if their project was mired or at the very least asking that question all throughout feels a bit disingenuous.

Everyone is ultimately entitled to their opinion...

With you so far.

What I do care about however is when the story itself is incapable of taking an unbiased stance...

Once again, this feels like jury rigging a moral dilemma from an offhand comment said in supplementary material. Yes, the Ironworks and Graha have some parallels with the Ancients. This makes for an interesting moral quandary. How far are you willing to go to save your friends? Who are you willing to sacrifice? All very interesting questions that let’s be clear, G’raha never was asked nor even considered because to him that was never the question. It was do you want to save the WoL while we deal with our world. There’s no indication that he ever was told the possibility of their disappearance. So let that be clear.

On Venat, yes the story does make a statement on whether her actions were right or wrong. I can certainly understand why someone, who feels she was in the wrong, would be upset by the story taking sides. But that is indeed what the story did and it has done, in ARR, Heavensward, Stormblood, Shadowbringers and elsewhere again and again.

And it did so this time by not just saying she felt bad about it, but by making clear that the decision was necessary. If you think I defend Venat because I think she has a conscience, then I fear you’ve misunderstood by thoughts on the matter. I defend her because I think her actions were right, not good or kind, but right. And I do so because of what the story has told us and my own moral system. If you disagree, that’s fine. But where I have issue is in the numerous attempts to portray the situation as something other than it is, either by saying the facts in the story aren’t true or that she had secret reasons for acting as she did. That’s not a disagreement over the morals. That’s disagreement with the text itself.