*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?

[Lauront]

The text in EW makes it very clear that the sacrifices were made voluntarily.

Of course, it's clear from SHB as well. My point isn't that, but that they'd have most likely not wanted to use themselves as fuel for it if they could avoid it. However, the Final Days nearly killed off the star, as per this.



One of the shades also says this: 'Tis a huge undertaking, and it must be completed ere the corruption spreads this far. Thus I say to you again: do not hold out hope for an audience...

I believe the issue of the third sacrifice was an entirely dropped plot point that was replaced with the conflict of "deny suffering" versus "accept suffering".

It's a possibility, depending on how you take that scene/what they intend of it, particularly given the time travel at play, such that it erased that conflict altogether and substituted it with a different one. But for anyone referencing the third stage of sacrifices, they cannot avoid the SHB sources for that very reason.

Meteion's report isn't relevant to the Convocation's proposal, however. It doesn't matter if they viewed Zodiark as a temporary solution or a permanent one. They planned on bartering for the souls of their friends with the souls of non-Amaurotian life. This really had nothing to do with protecting the star.

Sorry but that doesn't hold water.



Also plainly evident from the screenshot Theodric posted.

It reveals as much as it simplifies, we can’t ignore it.

Only in the sense of what they wanted to focus on in EW. But then my point is, if you want to discuss the third stage of sacrifices, you cannot constrain yourself to that source...

Certainly requires less acrobatics.

No, I think it really is a much bigger stretch to try argue from that that any possibility of them averting the sundering is ruled out.

But let’s play out the tape. If Emet is only referring to the being physically at the point on the path, does that not also mean they would fail at defeating Meteion? That’s literally the only path there, if you don’t get there you don’t defeat Meteion.

If you mean to argue that in 12k years, with her having tagged Meteion (he does refer to her as a matchmaker, after all...), they could not conceive of a way to reach her, including with Venat’s assistance once she’d divulged the truth of the matter, yes. Needless to say, I don’t see that as plausible in the least.

I think the fact he is even willing to grant her a compliment should be indicative of his thoughts. He suffered a thousand thousand lives because of her, compliments aren’t exactly easily given afterward.

Again – why? His memories were restored. He’d made his peace with his defeat and the sundered. He was already in a mindset to honour his promise, and Meteion is about to be driven out. He doesn’t know the ins and outs of time travel (and neither does she.) He has little reason to hold back a compliment at that point, with all those caveats in mind...

As Venat notes, the Final Days would mean the end of all the things he holds dear. She had friends, comrades, loves, hopes and desires in that Ancient world. Why do you believe she wouldn’t exhaust all options to see them protected, as the creation of Hydaelyn and Sundering the world would mean losing all of that and more? I’m to believe she made the decision without exhausting all reasonable alternatives?

Because she had already set herself certain constraints on what she could reveal, plus had a desire to answer Hermes’s question. That alone is part of the tragedy of it all, that she could not really articulate what her concerns were because she thought Hermes was essential (debatable by that point), and didn’t want to cause panic… I am sure that she exhausted all options available – with those constraints in mind.

[redheadturk]

Hm. This is a fair point. If you're going to perform a rebellious act in opposition to an established governing body to usurp its power, it's only natural that you run a public opinion poll before committing high treason to make sure that everyone is on board first. Hang on, let's not sacrifice the souls of the lesser mortals without their consent just yet. Let's just wait till we get these poll numbers back before we decide if it's appropriate to stage a coup, first.

You must really dislike Emet, for wanting to sacrifice the souls of all the sundered people of the world to Zodiark for the rest of eternity without their permission. You also probably detest both the Scions and Azem, for killing off Emet and ruining his plan without sanction from the Ascian collective.

Sometimes your time for talking is just up and you have to act. And failing to act is an action in itself. That was the point of Venat's speech in Anamnesis Anyder: Are you all on board with this, knowing that your former friends will forever condemn us for standing up against the Convocation? If so, there's no point discussing it further.

Which is why I consider her actions wrong and repugnant. And I stated clearly that the Ascians were also morally wrong for their actions without consent. What the Scions did was to protect their own lives, which they had every right to do. What Azem did was to attempt to find a third option, and did not harm either side, which was also within their rights.

[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.

[redheadturk]

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

Which had nothing to do with my original argument about my moral objections to Venat's actions.

[Nilroreo]

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

Whether or not all actions are morally equal is irrelevant to me. I'm not going to absolve Billy of the crime of killing 100 people just cuz Mike killed 101. Either both of em are wrong, or none of em are. No cherrypicking.

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

Whether he was told beforehand or not doesn't matter when you consider his full quote in game:

"...So I do. I wonder if that other age continues onward somehow, cut adrift from times flow? Or have I simply etched myself a place upon this new block of history? Either way, this is an unexpected development. As the summoner of your souls, my death was meant to release you back to your world. Yet I am very much alive, and you are still stuck here in the First."

Why would he say "My death was meant to release you back to your world" if the thought never crossed his mind until that point? Sounds to me like his disappearance was always part of the plan.

I can certainly understand why someone, who feels she was in the wrong, would be upset by the story taking sides.

Hmm... I never said she was in the wrong.

But that is indeed what the story did and it has done, in ARR, Heavensward, Stormblood, Shadowbringers and elsewhere again and again.

ARR has you going up against the XIV legion in a battle to decide who has dominion over Eorzea. The dilemma was accepting the Garleans bargain and living under their protection as they stomp out the Eikon infestation, or drive them away and handle it ourselves over a prolonged period of time. We choose to fight, and as a result, Eikons continue to be an issue for the next 3 expansions. So yeah, we choose a side, and it came at a cost. Reminder this was long before the revelation that Garlemald was an ascian pet project.

HW made it explicitly clear that both sides of the conflict were perpetuating the problem. We don't take either sides as both Thordan and Nidhogg had their own agenda to cause harm to innocents. Both are killed.

SB didn't have much of a moral dilemma so I'll let that one slide.

ShB Has us fighting Emet for the right to live on Etheirys. What he thought of us is irrelevant to the fact that he was ultimately fighting for something he loved as did we. Our love and conviction won out and he died. We chose our side, but we didn't have any more right to live than he did. It was just a simple struggle for survival.

And it did so this time by not just saying she felt bad about it, but by making clear that the decision was necessary.

It wasn't, it was just a choice she settled on. She had no idea if we would succeed or not. The outcome of our battle with Meteion was a big question mark to everyone including her. All she had was hope.

[Lium]

No, it really is both conjecture and headcanon all in one, because it does not really address the question of how they would've adjusted their plan had they been given the necessary information.

Your entire argument hinges on "What if Venat told everyone what she knew? How would the Ancients have adjusted their views had they known?" You know what we call that? Conjecture. Because we'll never know.

You are saying I misunderstood or that it is conjecture when you are quite literally doing the exact...same...thing. You are clinging to a "What if" scenario where one does not exist.

The writers are free to present a theme. We are free to interpret it as we like and consider whether what they put in commits that to being the only possible outcome or one where we think what was presented is consistent with said theme.

I'm not talking about the theme, I'm talking about the actual story. As in, what the writers have put in the game. Whether you like it or not is a matter of opinion, and that's fine. But this is what it is. Being free to interpret it the way you like is also fine, but we have a word for that. Do you know what it is? Headcanon.

So, once again. You are doing the exact same thing.

It's fine to disagree and I love these debates about the story. But not when you are accusing people of doing something that you yourself are doing. Almost to the letter.

[Theodric]

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

I would have thought it to be something that did not necessarily need to be pointed out though I think it is well worth noting that nobody is obligated to spend time and posts on circular back and forth rhetoric that amounts to little more than leading questions.

[Lyth]

????

I'm well familiar with the passage, having cited it to you on previous occasions. What's the relevance here? The Convocation were short-sighted in assuming that Zodiark was a permanent solution, sure. But the Convocation were convening over the plan to sacrifice non-Amaurotian souls to free their friends. That has nothing to do with addressing the Final Days at all.

Which is why I consider her actions wrong and repugnant. And I stated clearly that the Ascians were also morally wrong for their actions without consent. What the Scions did was to protect their own lives, which they had every right to do. What Azem did was to attempt to find a third option, and did not harm either side, which was also within their rights.

I can see why you would consider Venat's faction and all of Amaurot as being morally repugnant under that criteria, but I'm surprised that you aren't so willing to condemn Azem, the Scions, and the rest of humanity as well for acting similarly in their own interests. Venat's faction was acting in defense of the lives and souls of the non-Amaurotians on the star who weren't given the opportunity to consent, in much the same way that Azem and the Scions did in defense of the sundered peoples of Etheirys. I think that if you want to condemn one on that principle, you should be consistent across the board and just condemn them all. Having power to effect change is morally repugnant by those standards.