*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Rannie]

Thank you so much I would like to see it (when available) in all languages it does give a clearer picture on things. =)

[Kordarion]

As an aside, I think it's rather condescending to repeatedly dismiss the French and other non-English localisations of the game when no small number of lore enthusiasts are from various parts of Europe.

I haven't made any comments myself, but my only concern is that if that is the intent is for what is being said in French or German to have definitive statements that change what characters mean and what their arguments are is that the English version should also have these. Its not fair if say, the french translation has a more specific take that goes in to more detail about a character but that said dialogue is omitted in English, that as someone who can only speak English, my ability to interact with the lore is hindered.

It also comes across as condescending when someone's response is always this other language has the right answer but you don't know it because you can't speak it.

Also translation problems/errors in terms of dialogue and intent are a thing and that all translations, English included, can't be taken as pure fact especially not if you are translating a translation in order to use it as an argument.

[Lyth]

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.

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.'

You're claiming that the Ascians went from 'Let's think about sacrificing all the non-Amaurotians on the star' to 'Let's sacrifice the souls of all the non-Amaurotians left on the star'. That's fine, but that transition itself shows why they shouldn't have the power to make that decision in the first place. Emet is still Emet, and his arguments for eradicating humanity are still predicated on the belief that his friends lives are more valuable than your own. There's no 'responsible use of soul sacrifice to bring back loved ones' here. Just don't do it.

...

It's wrong to misappropriate words such as genocide without respect for their historical context. If you were simply unaware of this, it would have been worthwhile to look up the United Nations definition of the term and the associated atrocities that it was created around before continuing to defend its misuse by making jokes about it. Likewise, it's odd to throw out an arbitrary claim about my socioeconomic status as if that's reason to disregard my points. It's absurd at minimum, but it also reflects incredibly poorly to be the sort of person who looks down others based on how much money they have.

[Kordarion]

...and when these are often closer to the original Japanese version, which is no less canon and is often clearer on certain points.

Then the problem doesn't lie with the English lore community but Square Enix, if they can't translate their intent/wording properly, such as failing to specify Emet's concession to Ultima Thule, then its not fair to have conversations about the lore when people are put at a disadvantage because their translations aren't given the necessary quality checks. Heck why even translate the game if doing so leaves you with less information and an incomplete picture?

[Lauront]

Thank you so much I would like to see it (when available) in all languages it does give a clearer picture on things. =)

I'd ultimately like the Japanese version in all honesty but it's the hardest to get hold of. For the time being though, I'm not inclined to take that statement as the broad sweeping statement some people think it is, and that is even assuming I'd put that much weight on Emet's view alone, when he himself was open to being corrected on the sundered's potential to shepherd the star, and acknowledged he did not know much of dynamis, so the theoretical alternative of how his people would adapt to a full blown explanation and with the time to experiment properly with dynamis is to me too complex a matter to simply brush aside on the basis of such an opinion, even if he and Venat were well regarded in their society.

[KariTheFox]

Why do many creatures, such as Sin Eaters for example, feed specifically on living aether? We're never told Eaters consume souls, just living aether - We can presume that this type of aether is somehow different or of exceeding potency in some way.

That's a pretty big presumption in search of a conclusion (that the ancients were totally just going to sacrifice some animals and plants, so it's no big deal.) Couldn't it be the case that creatures like Sin Eaters are feeding on the aether of living things because it is easier to get at the aether in a living being, since you can kill them and simply release the aether that way? A lot harder to kill and eat a crystal unless your biology is specifically set up to do that.

(Also with Sin Eaters specifically, I don't even think they're 'eating'. Their nature as umbrally aspected creatures of light makes me doubt they need sustenance or have a metabolism of any kind. What they are doing is making more life that is like themselves, reproducing, after a fashion.)

[Theodric]

It also comes across as condescending when someone's response is always this other language has the right answer but you don't know it because you can't speak it.

Each to their own but I personally wouldn't consider it to be 'condescending', especially when many people in the current era are fluent in multiple languages. That isn't true of everybody, though it doesn't strike me as fair to expect players on a global forum to keep quiet and not bring up other localisations for added clarity.

It's also an established trend around these parts, given that it isn't unusual for the New Year's messages to be discussed from the position of every available localisation. The same happens when new patch trailers go live and discussion threads are made to interpret what is going on.

[Lauront]

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.'

You're claiming that the Ascians went from 'Let's think about sacrificing all the non-Amaurotians on the star' to 'Let's sacrifice the souls of all the non-Amaurotians left on the star'. That's fine, but that transition itself shows why they shouldn't have the power to make that decision in the first place. Emet is still Emet, and his arguments for eradicating humanity are still predicated on the belief that his friends lives are more valuable than your own. There's no 'responsible use of soul sacrifice to bring back loved ones' here. Just don't do it.

To be precise, non-ancients, albeit it is unclear because every single source on it is deliberately vague beyond the possession of souls. I am not arguing that that stage was necessarily a good idea. I don't know what was involved in that stage of sacrifices (i.e. what type of beings) or how they'd modify their plan if they were given the full truth as to what Hermes had learnt via Meteion. Their society was originally divided on this plan, which we know from the Sources I posted. We also can see very clearly from the Elpis sidequests that the ancients are quite readily open to modifying their practices where they see the merit in it. What I am disputing is that the plan, based on the knowledge they had, was idiotic, especially given that those souls inside Zodiark would be unable to return to the star, something the ancients valued - this may well explain the emotional gravity to it. Furthermore, he had to be maintained to avoid a repeat as far as they knew, thus the exchange of unspecified life. Venat's entire plan is dependent on stages 1 and 2 of the sacrifices completing, and she only knows 3 may end poorly because of what Meteion's report says of what we now know to be the Plenty. So I am open to the view that that stage is a bad idea, but not so much persuaded by the idea that they couldn't have been persuaded to re-think the plan if they were given more context...

[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?

[Theodric]

It's wrong to misappropriate words such as genocide without respect for their historical context. If you were simply unaware of this, it would have been worthwhile to look up the United Nations definition of the term and the associated atrocities that it was created around before continuing to defend its misuse by making jokes about it. Likewise, it's odd to throw out an arbitrary claim about my socioeconomic status as if that's reason to disregard my points. It's absurd at minimum, but it also reflects incredibly poorly to be the sort of person who looks down others based on how much money they have.

One doesn't need to look at an organisation frequently mired in horrific scandals (such as human trafficking) for a definition of what genocide involves nor does it strike me as appropriate to attempt to gatekeep what does and does not qualify as 'genocide' in a fictional setting. To be quite honest, I'm not particularly interested in dragging real world historical events into such discussions as it is often done in a very biased and hypocritical manner, often as little more than a point scoring exercise.

At any rate, given that Venat's actions resulted in the extermination of the Ancients - and she refers to herself as the 'last of her kind' you're free to claim otherwise but as I see it her actions were very much a clear cut case of genocide.