*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[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.

[Absimiliard]

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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The story in ShB was very clearly gearing up to paint Venat (or rather Hydaelyn, since we didn't yet know Venat) and her actions as being more morally grey than anything else, then Endwalker's writing comes zooming along to whitewash it.

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug. At least the sacrifices to Zodiark were wholly voluntary, yeah? And the third set of sacrifices were just going to be a portion of the Ancients' own creations after they'd had time to spread out and multiply across the world.

[redheadturk]

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The story in ShB was very clearly gearing up to paint Venat (or rather Hydaelyn, since we didn't yet know Venat) and her actions as being more morally grey than anything else, then Endwalker's writing comes zooming along to whitewash it.

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug.

Exactly! as noted above, my issues both with what Venat did [and yes, I take that issue with the Ascians as well] was the lack of consent. That bugs the heck out of me and I can't get fully aboard team Hydaelyn because of that lack of consent.

[EaraGrace]

There’s a trend in the forums I’m noticing. When there’s moral ambiguity for the heroes, suddenly any justification must be argued and debated, even if it’s dependent on someone’s personal moral system.

When it’s the villains, the statements on the flexibility of moral systems and the inherent difficulties with judging others actions start flying.

How interesting.

My issues with what Venat did have to do with the massive lack of consent on the part of the people she sundered. I take huge issues with that. I do not have an issue with the initial 2 sacrifices to Zodiark because the people who were sacrificed consented to being sacrificed. I do not have an issue with the third because I still hold that it was likely non sentient life being sacrificed and there is no consent necessary if the life in question is not sentient. We kill cows and pigs and chickens for meat all the time and I certainly do not consider that morally questionable. I have a huge problem with thinking, feeling people being sundered against their will.

There is no rightness in actions taken without the consent of the people you are acting upon.

Let’s turn this around. What evidence do you have that the sacrifices weren’t human beings?

And that last statement could easily pull us into a debate on irl issues, so I’m gonna hold off on the hypotheticals I want to ask.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here…

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug. At least the sacrifices to Zodiark were wholly voluntary, yeah? And the third set of sacrifices were just going to be a portion of the Ancients' own creations after they'd had time to spread out and multiply across the world.

That’s certainly an interpretation of SHB. One I don’t agree with but I respect different perspectives of the same story can and should exist. But makes you think that SHB grayness wasn’t just the result of foreshadowing? Don’t you think it’s possible you may have been intended to feel that way, only to have it be subverted in Endwalker?

And disagree entirely in the last paragraph. Just as I don’t think it’s immoral to stop someone from harming themselves, stopping the Ancients from becoming dependent on Zodiark, to the extent that it would lead to their doom, was neither callous or cruel. It was a hard choice, but one needed to be made, especially given the limitations to other options.

And please can someone show me a reason to believe they were gonna sacrifice chickens. This is getting ridiculous.

[Veloran]

I've been wondering why people are desperate to argue that the third sacrifice would have been sapient beings that were created to be thinking and feeling purely to be killed - when it flies in the face of the thematic meaning of the story, makes every character involved look like an idiot, and has not been mentioned once by a single character, ever. And the only conclusion I can see is that it's because it makes the Ancients look bad..

Presented without comment.

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?

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

There’s no indication that he ever was told the possibility of their disappearance. So let that be clear.

[EaraGrace]

Presented without comment.

I don’t believe they were created for that purpose. I don’t think they were “created” at all. Life existed before the Ancients began controlling the star, and I see no reason to believe that life didn’t spring up naturally afterward.

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Existentialism has no bearing on moral realism. It’s not a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

And good point with that context! He did know that I’ll concede. I think however the context does undermine the point as well. A willing sacrifice was never the issue at play here, and this one seems quite willing.[/QUOTE]

1.) The lives the Ancients intended to sacrifice to Zodiark were not the lives the Ascians intended to sacrifice. This is an important distinction.
2.) This is only partly accurate.
3.) We learn in Elpis that some of the Ancients' creations gained souls and were in turn able to create more like them via standard reproduction. A lack of aetheric density can easily be made up for with sheer volume.
4.) Can't disagree here. That phrase got tossed around quite a bit, though life energies and souls are two different things. Zodiark quite clearly contains a multitude of actual souls, not just the aetheric energies of their owners. This is mere supposition on my part, but I figure this might explain why Zodiark's aether reserves don't seem capable of being fully depleted.
5.) From what we are lead to understand in Elpis, much of their world is not yet inhabited by their creations. It seems quite probable that they sacrificed themselves for lack of any other viable sacrifices, or perhaps because Zodiark simply had to be so overwhelmingly powerful to perform its intended function. One of the things they did when they had Zodiark restore the world's ability to sustain life was to have him create new life as well, which we are lead to believe stemmed from the Ancients' own creations.

1. Never stated
2. This is a collection of reasons so I’m ok with partial credit
3. The sheer amount of creations this would staggering. Our aether was a drop in the bucket for Emet, and we were similar to most other familiars and creations there.
4. N/A
5. The new life formed naturally from the repaired world, not necessarily created by them directly. And weakening Zodiark outright seems a poor plan given what we know would happen to his rewritten natural laws. This was why the enervation was used I believe.

If we believe the narrative presentation about the non-existence of an extant meaning in life beyond what one chooses for themselves, that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

And I am saying we do not have enough information for me to have a firm opinion. I find Venat's actions morally objectionable for the reasons stated. Necessary as the other poster stated or not. they are still morally awful in my eyes. But I do not have enough information about what kind of lives would have comprised the third sacrifice nor whether those lives would have consented if they were sentient for me to take their side.

The word Venat is now banned from our back and forth. I’m asking once again if you think that the question of the moral consideration of a group of non-sapients would divide Amaurot society?

[redheadturk]

The word Venat is now banned from our back and forth. I’m asking once again if you think that the question of the moral consideration of a group of non-sapients would divide Amaurot society?

You are moving the goalposts, and I am no longer going to debate this with you. I made it clear what my issue was.

[KariTheFox]

You are moving the goalposts, and I am no longer going to debate this with you. I made it clear what my issue was.

They have asked you the same question three times and you haven't answered it. The goalposts are very firmly in the same place.