On Venat's Role in the Story

[CrownySuccubus]

snip

But this is exactly the problem: the story can't have it both ways. We're flat out told by the narrative that the Ea and the Plenty had solved all problems. Either they did or they didn't.

If they didn't, then the entire premise they're meant to be metaphors for is wrong. They were no more perfect than us. If they did, then the way they died out makes no sense.

The story wants cake while eating it too.
.

snip

Again, they can't have it both ways. Is the Ea's despair about the heat death of the universe, or is it a metaphor for inevitability itself? If the heat death of the universe is the problem (which is what the Ea tell you), then the fact that time travel is not brought up rebuts their argument. To them, this should have been another problem to solve. If they eventually did get to the same problem as the Plenty (which, as I said above, is another area of ridiculousness), then the same thing I said before applies.

snip

This logic only works if you are completely incapable of considering new information once presented -- which seems completely unlikely for any intelligent species. In fact, certainty in general is considered an absurdity in any scientific field. Scientists typically try to avoid saying things like "This is how the universe works, absolutely" and moreso say "This is how the universe works, based on current theory". They do this because the entire basis of scientific integrity is the assumption that new information is always possible.

Again, if these advanced aliens did not consider this, then they were literally dumber than modern academics. Or, more accurate, they were how writers THINK academics behave.

Isnip

You'll notice that I didn't mention the Dragons. I thought they (and to a lesser extent, the Omicrons, although, I do have issues with them) were pretty well-done and believable. The Ea and the Plenty, though? No. They came across as plot devices which represent what people who don't actually engage in academia think academia is like.

snip

Yeah, because they honestly shouldn't have. Their demise came came because two Ancients (Hermes and Venat) chose to ignore the protocols that their society had put in place in order to prove/disprove whether or not that society was fit to live. Emet-Selch pointed out the problem with Meteion so fast that we're basically left to conclude that if Hermes had followed protocol, the Convocation would have been able to point out the flaw in his approach and create a SETI machine that didn't gain depression when it slammed into the Fermi Paradox.

As I said, the entire situation just feels like an elaborate strawman deliberately cherry-picked to make Venat right.

(1/2)

[EaraGrace]

But this is exactly the problem: the story can't have it both ways. We're flat out told by the narrative that the Ea and the Plenty had solved all problems. Either they did or they didn't.

If they didn't, then the entire premise they're meant to be metaphors for is wrong. They were no more perfect than us. If they did, then the way they died out makes no sense.

The games quite clear that removing all known problems from a society in turn creates new ones. Its not trying to have it both ways.

To quote Meteion, who brings up some pretty prescient examples

Meteion: One race had concluded that finite time was the root of all woes. Aspiring to shatter its shackles, they went in search of infinity. They discovered nothing is infinite, and that neither time or death can be cheated. Disillusioned, they gave up on the future-and themselves

Meteion: One race had discarded all things that gave rise to sorrow, hoping to have only joy. They found joy had lost its savor in the absence of sorrow, and lost their will to live.

The point I think, is to demonstrate that despite their supposed "perfection," each and every one became a Dead End. The story isn't trying to both say these societies are perfect and they failed, but that no society is perfect and they, believing it possible to achieve perfection fell apart when faced with that reality. That to me is logically consistent.

Again, they can't have it both ways. Is the Ea's despair about the heat death of the universe, or is it a metaphor for inevitability itself? If the heat death of the universe is the problem (which is what the Ea tell you), then the fact that time travel is not brought up rebuts their argument. To them, this should have been another problem to solve. If they eventually did get to the same problem as the Plenty (which, as I said above, is another area of ridiculousness), then the same thing I said before applies.

The issue is that the Ea realized that they can't solve that problem. To quote the Ea

Coph-coodg: In hopes of proving that this determination was erroneous, we scrutinized our research from all angles, even as we sought to avert the everlasting winter. The endeavor proved fruitless. So infamously so, in fact, that it became synonymous with vain effort. The universe as we know it would end, and there is no way to prevent it.

All their knowledge yielded no solution and that broke them.

This logic only works if you are completely incapable of considering new information once presented -- which seems completely unlikely for any intelligent species. In fact, certainty in general is considered an absurdity in any scientific field. Scientists typically try to avoid saying things like "This is how the universe works, absolutely" and moreso say "This is how the universe works, based on current theory". They do this because the entire basis of scientific integrity is the assumption that new information is always possible.

True to an extent. Suggest to a scientist that Newtons laws or General Relativity is wrong and you'd have to show evidence. Hell take the current scholarship on climate change for example. Most are pretty forthright about how depressing the future is.

You'll notice that I didn't mention the Dragons. I thought they (and to a lesser extent, the Omicrons, although, I do have issues with them) were pretty well-done and believable. The Ea and the Plenty, though? No. They came across as plot devices which represent what people who don't actually engage in academia think academia is like.

And I disagree. I see the currents of the Plenty and the Ea in antinatalism, nihilism, and various other philosophical beliefs and I don't believe those are only believed by idiots.

Yeah, because they honestly shouldn't have. Their demise came came because two Ancients (Hermes and Venat) chose to ignore the protocols that their society had put in place in order to prove/disprove whether or not that society was fit to live. Emet-Selch pointed out the problem with Meteion so fast that we're basically left to conclude that if Hermes had followed protocol, the Convocation would have been able to point out the flaw in his approach and create a SETI machine that didn't gain depression when it slammed into the Fermi Paradox.

As I said, the entire situation just feels like an elaborate strawman deliberately cherry-picked to make Venat right.

Would peer review change the answer Meteion found? Would it change the fact that Ancient society is primed to kill itself, as Hermes points out? Emet agrees with his argument there as well.

(Continued) Which is EXACTLY my point.

Technically, Venat WAS wrong. But you're not supposed to THINK about that. Reason for living or not, humanity was going to be utterly screwed if the Scions had not gotten every possible warning she could throw at them about the Final Days. If she had done to them the same thing she did to the Ancients (silence), expac 7.0 would be "The Adventures of the Moon in the cold, empty void".

Except we didn't go to the moon. We fought for the other path and won. The path she laid for us and believed we were capable of walking. So she was right!

Like I said before: there would have been NO difference between humanity's outcome and that of the Ancients. But, we're not supposed to think about it, and the game bends over backwards to make Venat "right", because the outcome allows us to exist and not them. "Sucks for you, but I got mine."



I repeat: it NEVER should have gotten to that point. Venat should have given the Convocation as many warnings about Meteion and the Final Days as she gives us in the story. Then, maybe the Ancients would have been able to make more informed decisions. Maybe they wouldn't. But they deserved as much of a chance as the Sundered races got.

Instead, Venat basically chose to play Hermes' game by Hermes' rules. The two engaged in a philosophical pissing match that resulted in 12,000 years of repeated genocides across 14 worlds.

The Ancients made no attempt to face suffering and in fact made it impossible for anyone to do so. If the Ancients wished to face Meteion they would need to do three things.

1. Sunder themselves or reduce their aether to dramatically lower levels in order to manipulate dynamis and face non-voluntary death.
2. Seal away Zodiark to prevent him from answering their self imposed suffering
3. Dedicate all of their resources to finding a way to Ultima

The Ancients we see in Endwalker and Shadowbringers repeatedly reject suffering as a concept, forming a society without personal expression and one that instead focuses solely on "perfecting" the star. In both expansions we see others say that this will inevitably lead to Dead End, as without a different purpose Ancient society would end itself. On top of that, the Ancients when faced with mortality where so traumatized and broken the event seared itself onto their souls and pushed them to create a god capable of not only stopping the crisis but undoing it entirely, at high cost.

They traded their future for their past willingly. Thus do I agree with Venat, they would not willingly walk the path. Because who would right?

This realization leads to the Sundering and why I personally find it to be the right move. I can understand why others find it disagreeable, Venat herself had doubts, but for humanity to survive other options do not exist. Telling the Ancients of Meteion would not change what needed to be done, or the actions required to change things. They would have to abandon their previous world and embark on a new path. I don't think they would.

Aside: I wanna thank everybody here for the civil discussion. I may not agree with you guys, but you've brought up challenging points and have likewise respected my opinion. That's one reason why I'm going to refrain further from calling anything in the story "stupid" as a show of respect.

And Crowny let me say I appreciate your perspective as well! This has been one of the more enjoyable conversations on this topic and I have a lot of respect for your opinion on it!

[CrownySuccubus]

The games quite clear that removing all known problems from a society in turn creates new ones. Its not trying to have it both ways.

Yes it is, because the Plenty's reason for despairing was that they could find no new problems to bring their lives joy.

The game wants to conflate "solving all known problems" and "solving all possible problems" as the same thing, and that's a contradiction.

To quote Meteion, who brings up some pretty prescient examples

Those two examples are the Ea and the Plenty, whom we are already discussing.

The point I think, is to demonstrate that despite their supposed "perfection," each and every one became a Dead End. The story isn't trying to both say these societies are perfect and they failed, but that no society is perfect and they, believing it possible to achieve perfection fell apart when faced with that reality. That to me is logically consistent.

Yes they are. The entire point of The Plenty was that they had achieved perfection and thus, could find no new struggles to bring joy to their lives. If the source of their ennui was "we have solved all known problems", then that ennui should have ended the moment they realized that their perfection itself was a problem.

"But they didn't want to do that" is not an valid explanation, in my opinion. To me, that is no different than trying to justify why a cartoon villain monologues instead of shooting the hero with "well, he's just arrogant". How convenient that the characters are irrational when it serves the plot.

All their knowledge yielded no solution and that broke them.

The reason I brought up time travel is to illustrate how this is a "show, don't tell" issue. Time travel is the direct solution to their problem, but the game does not address it. This also goes into what I said about the Ea's logic only works if you assume the impossibility of new information. Are the Ea basing this conclusion on what they know, or is the story saying that they literally do know everything? If it's the former, "what they know", then the Ea are excluding the possibility that there could ever be any new information. If it's the latter, "they literally do know everything", then we go back into what I said before about the game literally claiming they achieved "perfection" (perfect knowledge in this case). So which is it? Again, the story can't have it both ways.


(1/2)