*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[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?