*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Theodric]

I'll be honest...I haven't seen that.

There's likely many more similar takes to be found throughout this thread and others, though two quick examples taken from the first couple of pages:

no. they couldnt have succeeded because races with strong aether wouldn't have been able to interact with dynamos. Which is one of the reasons why venat did what she did.

We are explicitly shown what the end result of the Ancient society would be in the third segment of the final dungeon, the society there is supposed to be the end result of what the Ancients had. A perfect world, with no meaning left, seeking an end to their own existance.
Even if the Ancients survived the final days, Venat was STILL in the right to "cut their wings" and proclaim that "mankind shall walk". It was the only solution, they have to suffer to live.

I don't particularly care what other people choose to take from any given story or situation. Fiction is fiction and it exists to me as little more than entertainment.

Though I do not think it would be unfair to point out that many of those taking issue with the idea of Venat being criticised or disagreed with in any way just so happen to be claiming that the Ancients had to go and had to be wiped out. All based on a rather arguably flimsy argument tying them to one of the scenarios outlined in the final dungeon.

They're free to do as much, though it falls apart in my opinion when the Sundering is downplayed in terms of what it was. An action that was entirely non-consensual and an act of genocide that wiped out an entire race and civilisation that very likely would have stood a chance at surviving had it not been dealing with a saboteur deliberately holding back knowledge of the cause of the Final Days and the location of the being responsible for it.

[EaraGrace]

I don't particularly care what other people choose to take from any given story or situation. Fiction is fiction and it exists to me as little more than entertainment.

Alright cool.

They're free to do as much, though it falls apart in my opinion when the Sundering is downplayed in terms of what it was. An action that was entirely non-consensual and an act of genocide that wiped out an entire race and civilisation that very likely would have stood a chance at surviving had it not been dealing with a saboteur deliberately holding back knowledge of the cause of the Final Days and the location of the being responsible for it.

That didn’t last very long.

Again, are you missing that I do not until consent is obtained by the other people who were sundered? You seem to be quoting me and entirely glossing over that.

I am not asking for your opinions on what follows after, I am simply using quotes to illustrate my point that the group defending the new life’s consent was the group that sundered the world, and the group wishing to make that decision for that life is the group sundered.

[redheadturk]

Alright cool.



That didn’t last very long.



I am not asking for your opinions on what follows after, I am simply using quotes to illustrate my point that the group defending the new life’s consent was the group that sundered the world, and the group wishing to make that decision for that life is the group sundered.

And I made the point that we do not know #1 whether the life was sentient or not and #2 whether they would have consented or not. And I can not side with Venat's group until I have that information. I side fully with the Ancients sundered because their consent was not sought or given prior to Venat's actions and that is utterly morally repugnant in my eyes.