On Venat's Role in the Story

[CrownySuccubus]

snip

I repeat: then the premise contradicts itself. The Plenty got rid of all forms of strife and achieved perfection. They then determined that lack of struggle was itself a form of strife.

Creating new problems for themselves or new horizons to explore is literally the EASIEST problem to solve, and they didn't do it. The only way this makes any sense is to reinforce an author's very heavy-handed morality.

Again, the aliens of the Plenty are supposed to be extremely wise and powerful, and yet, they couldn't think of this themselves? Like, let me ask a question: did the Ea or the Plenty ever discover time travel? This is something that people of the modern day Source figured out, and even learned to create a new timeline which can coexist (by virtue of two versions of G'raha Tia both existing), so does that mean these seemingly perfect alien beings did? But if they did, then the Ea's problem literally doesn't make sense. They feared the heat death of the universe, which would be a problem rendered moot by the ability to time travel to, say, the beginning of the universe ad infinitum.

If they did not figure this out or learn about it, then the Plenty's problem makes no sense. There are clearly still challenges and discoveries that are waiting to be made. The only way their despair thus makes sense is if we change the term "Ended all strife" to "Ended all KNOWN forms of strife", which still contradicts the despair itself. Again, if their despair is literally that they have no despair, then by gaining despair, they've learned that there are, indeed sources of strife that they need to overcome.

The ONLY reason these aliens choose to act stupid enough to die out is so that the writers can point to the Scions and says, "See? They've found the CORRECT way to live."

snip again

This argument still doesn't make any sense based on four things: 1) Hades' and Hyth's reaction to dynamis, 2) everyone's reaction to the possibility of time travel, 3) the Ancients' general reactions to the WOL and 4) their reactions to Hermes' requests to save the Charybidis. Here, we have two discoveries which are completely beyond their understanding and control, and their reaction basically is, "Fascinating. I want to learn more about this." (Although, understandably, learning of the apocalyptic reasons for the time travel took precedence.) Most Ancients remark that the WOL is a "familiar" unlike any they've ever seen before, and a magnificent marvel in and of itself, and finally, when Hermes presents reasonable alternatives to killing the charybdis, his fellow Ancients acknowledge he was right and his methods sound.


(1/2)

[CrownySuccubus]

(Continued)

If the game was trying to give the impression that Ancients were control freaks that reacted terribly to anything they didn't understand or seemed out of control, the writers had four opportunities to show it and failed. The Ancients post-Final Days suddenly becoming obsessed with returning the world to the way it was is treated as wrong, but that also means we need to gloss over the reasons WHY: because Venat decided NOT to tell anyone the truth. The entire time, but especially after Zodiark's summoning, Venat had every opportunity to tell people what the causes of the Final Days were and why, and then let the Ancients decide what they thought was the best course of action. But she didn't, and then acts disappointed when people make the wrong decisions based on lack of information. It's like deciding you'll kill someone if they can't tell you what you had for lunch Tuesday, when you went out of your way to eat your lunch where nobody could see you or find you.

Again, the only purpose this serves is to create that "Sucks for them, but I got mine" mentality for the protagonists. Tell me: what would the modern races have done if the Scions had never learned about Meteion? They would have taken all of the resources, knowledge, and friendly people they could get, bring them to the Moon, and create a paradise to live in to escape the Final Days until a new planet could be found, sacrificing anyone they could not save (or, in the case of the Garleans, did not want to) for the sake of their own lives and to preserve as much of their civilizations as possible. And yes: they WERE going to try to create a perfect paradise, free of suffering. That is literally the entire purpose of the Loporrits; their only goal in life was to create a perfect paradise where every need was met. This is flat-out stated by Livingway and Growingway when they're introduced, and stated by Buildingway along with the flavor description for Smileton. And all of this is what Hydaelyn told them to do in the event that mankind failed to discover or find a way to defeat Meteion.

How is this ANY different than what the Ancients were going to do, based on the information they had? Venat literally went out of her way to warn as many Sundered people as she could about Meteion or find an alternative means for them to survive if they failed to overcome it, including her "Hear, Feel Think" auto-reply message, the Loporrits and the Moon, and leading the WOL to the Elpis flower. But she didn't tell the Ancients a damn thing because "something something, don't want to prove Hermes right and also Fandaniel is needed for Zodiark".

None of this makes ANY sense unless the story only expects you to look at this from the perspective of the modern races. From the perspective of the Ancients, though, the whole plot falls apart. Or, as I said, this only makes sense if the player thinks: "Sucks for them, but I got mine."

(2/2)

[KariTheFox]

I feel like saying "What if the Plenty used their wisdom to solve their desire to commit societal sucide" and "what if the Ea circumvented the heat death of the universe through time travel" are the kinds of questions that are just a refusal to engage with the thematic message behind those two races.

Yes, through the magic of imaginative fiction we can come up with all the ways we want to have The Plenty and the Ea escape their fates, but in doing so we are just refusing to engage with the questions being raised by them. What would it mean to live in a world that has eliminated all negativity and achieved perfection? What do we do with the knowledge that everything in the universe eventually succumbs to entropy?

It's easy to think of imaginative ways to avoid answering those questions, harder to actually engage with them directly.

[CrownySuccubus]

I feel like saying "What if the Plenty used their wisdom to solve their desire to commit societal sucide" and "what if the Ea circumvented the heat death of the universe through time travel" are the kinds of questions that are just a refusal to engage with the thematic message behind those two races.

Yes, through the magic of imaginative fiction we can come up with all the ways we want to have The Plenty and the Ea escape their fates, but in doing so we are just refusing to engage with the questions being raised by them. What would it mean to live in a world that has eliminated all negativity and achieved perfection? What do we do with the knowledge that everything in the universe eventually succumbs to entropy?

It's easy to think of imaginative ways to avoid answering those questions, harder to actually engage with them directly.

No, that is DIRECTLY engaging with the questions raised by those races. And by doing so, show why said questions are stupid.

"What if we eliminated all negativity and achieved perfection" is a functionally worthless question to build a morality system around, if for no other reason than the terms "negativity" and "perfection" being completely subjective and open to definition. If you ask 10 human beings to define those words, you'll get 30 answers.

My question of "Why didn't the Ea or The Plenty overcome their problems" is one such definition. What if, for example, you define "Perfection" as ANY possible form of problem? And define "negativity" as, say, "lack of desire to live"? If that's the case, then nothing about the Ea or the Plenty makes sense, because the very fact that they found a problem that took away their desire to live means that their definition of "perfection" was not an all-encompassing one and that there was a form of "negativity" they overlooked. How can I meaningfully engage with this plot point, then, if I'm told that a race that is infinitely more wise and powerful, never even CONSIDERED the problem from this angle?

That is why I call this premise "stupid"; any philosopher worth their salt has already engaged with these very ideas. Hell, the Greeks and Chinese were already tackling these subjects in their debates millennia ago, and they didn't even know what a "heat death" was. There are entire libraries full of meaningful ways to address the subjects of futility and inevitability. Yet, we're told that two alien races which are way more advanced than anything humans will ever achieve were completely bamboozled by "Baby's First Nihilism and Existential Crisis".

[Tehmon]

They overcame problems on their star with effort, wisdom and slow progress. I repeat: how is this different from developing a cure to things like disease or Tempering? Where is the golden line between "Helping people and making their lives better is a good thing" and "You've overcome too many problems and become the face of pure hubris"?

Sundered are mortal. Any kind of accumulation of knowledge, talent and prowess is halted by this fact. This means they will never be powerful or wise enough to rid the world of all suffering, they simply do not have the time or the talent to do it. Maybe in far far far far far far FAR future, with the accumulation of hundreds of thousands of generations of knowledge..

Sundered are also diverse. Personal histories and a range of cultures, personalities, motives, needs, values and wants. This means there will rarely be any cause that unifies all of the sundered under one ideology to reject all suffering, it's just impossible. Emet himself made a point out of how the sundered wouldn't sacrifice half of theirs to save the world, and that the ancients similarities vastly overpowers their differences, unlike the sundred.

The sundered trying to make the world a better place will never reach a point where all lives woes can be eliminated. It will never, ever, EVER happen. Neither do the sundered think that they can rid all suffering, and for many that is something they learn the hard way. To think different is naivety, and the twins are the vehicle to deliver this message in the story. But regardless of this, because they have been subjected to suffering throughout their lives, they have the potential to persevere in the face of despair. The twins showcase this as well.

Meanwhile, ancients have the full power, the immortality and the unity of ideology and thought to actively pursue the complete rejection of struggle, suffering and strife. Sundered do not in any capacity. It wasn't necessarily wrong of ancients to try to eliminate all suffering, as that is something even the sundered would potentially do if they became fully rejoined (though that is debatable), but it clearly had negative consequences, as ancients weren't able to eliminate suffering as a concept, just swiped it under many many many rugs.

But we would need to know more about the ancient civilization to come to a conclusion how they viewed suffering, beyond one of the ancients mentioning that individualistic garments are frowned upon because it causes jealousy, and therefor suffering.

[EaraGrace]

I repeat: then the premise contradicts itself. The Plenty got rid of all forms of strife and achieved perfection. They then determined that lack of struggle was itself a form of strife.

Creating new problems for themselves or new horizons to explore is literally the EASIEST problem to solve, and they didn't do it. The only way this makes any sense is to reinforce an author's very heavy-handed morality.

Easy? Yes. But once again doing so would mean accepting you're society can never be perfect and that suffering is inescapable. Not to mention if you've dedicated yourself to the eradication of suffering, and then are required to create suffering in order to perpetuate your existence, wouldn't that invalidate your purpose? You'd only be able to justify it by completely abandoning that as a goal, which leads to its own problems.

Again, the aliens of the Plenty are supposed to be extremely wise and powerful, and yet, they couldn't think of this themselves? Like, let me ask a question: did the Ea or the Plenty ever discover time travel? This is something that people of the modern day Source figured out, and even learned to create a new timeline which can coexist (by virtue of two versions of G'raha Tia both existing), so does that mean these seemingly perfect alien beings did? But if they did, then the Ea's problem literally doesn't make sense. They feared the heat death of the universe, which would be a problem rendered moot by the ability to time travel to, say, the beginning of the universe ad infinitum.

The point of the Ea's realization is to show the inevitability of their demise. Time travel doesn't solve that issue, it delays it. The universe would still be destined to fade and they would lack the means to halt its demise. Assuming they discovered an infinite means of time travel, they would simply be trading one doom for another, as they would simply find themselves in the shoes of the Plenty. Blessed with time, with nothing to with it. No new knowledge or discoveries await them. And that's assuming time travel is infinite and has no inherent limitations. Which is debatable.

If they did not figure this out or learn about it, then the Plenty's problem makes no sense. There are clearly still challenges and discoveries that are waiting to be made. The only way their despair thus makes sense is if we change the term "Ended all strife" to "Ended all KNOWN forms of strife", which still contradicts the despair itself. Again, if their despair is literally that they have no despair, then by gaining despair, they've learned that there are, indeed sources of strife that they need to overcome.

If my goal is to eliminate suffering and I eliminate all known forms of suffering to me, then I have indeed eliminated suffering. I can't assume that some other form of undiscovered pain exists if I have no evidence of it, anymore than I can believe for certain that a magical fairy follows me around just out of view or that a magical element exists that I can use to make whatever I want.

The ONLY reason these aliens choose to act stupid enough to die out is so that the writers can point to the Scions and says, "See? They've found the CORRECT way to live."

I don't think thats why they written that way. What you see as stupid I see as directly connected to many well thought conclusions about life and its meaning. Schopenhauer is all over the dragons, and the Ea/Plenty all scream Bernard Williams and Shelly Kagan.

This argument still doesn't make any sense based on four things: 1) Hades' and Hyth's reaction to dynamis, 2) everyone's reaction to the possibility of time travel, 3) the Ancients' general reactions to the WOL and 4) their reactions to Hermes' requests to save the Charybidis. Here, we have two discoveries which are completely beyond their understanding and control, and their reaction basically is, "Fascinating. I want to learn more about this." (Although, understandably, learning of the apocalyptic reasons for the time travel took precedence.) Most Ancients remark that the WOL is a "familiar" unlike any they've ever seen before, and a magnificent marvel in and of itself, and finally, when Hermes presents reasonable alternatives to killing the charybdis, his fellow Ancients acknowledge he was right and his methods sound.

And in all those examples never once was their own mortality considered. The Ancients never conceived that they themselves would face an untimely demise.

Temperamental Spirit: The Final Days taught us to fear a death forced upon us.
The injustice of duties and dreams left unfulfilled. The grief of unexpected partings...

Swift as darkness, cold as ash.

Such tragedy, yet no catharsis! Such truth, yet no consolation...

That is literally the entire purpose of the Loporrits; their only goal in life was to create a perfect paradise where every need was met. This is flat-out stated by Livingway and Growingway when they're introduced, and stated by Buildingway along with the flavor description for Smileton. And all of this is what Hydaelyn told them to do in the event that mankind failed to discover or find a way to defeat Meteion.

Because that would mean Venat was wrong, and humanity could not discern a reason for living that those other Dead Ends could not. The moon was essentially a last ditch effort/hospice for an entire species.

How is this ANY different than what the Ancients were going to do, based on the information they had? Venat literally went out of her way to warn as many Sundered people as she could about Meteion or find an alternative means for them to survive if they failed to overcome it, including her "Hear, Feel Think" auto-reply message, the Loporrits and the Moon, and leading the WOL to the Elpis flower. But she didn't tell the Ancients a damn thing because "something something, don't want to prove Hermes right and also Fandaniel is needed for Zodiark".

The point of her trying to reason them out of the third sacrifice was also to see if they were able to conceive of a way forward having now faced their own mortality. If they were unable to then learning of Meteion would not change anything, as they would be unable to conceive of a permanent solution. After all, from what we know of dynamis and Meteion, overcoming the song of despair would require both a weakening of their aether and a willingness to face despair and death with no promise of victory. If they couldn't agree to not sacrificing their future, then how could they be expected to face those challenges? I think the argument that they still had a right to answer that with all the facts is a good one, but I think we all know that it would not change their answer. Not so long as Zodiark could protect them.

[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)

[CrownySuccubus]

(Continued)

Because that would mean Venat was wrong, and humanity could not discern a reason for living that those other Dead Ends could not. The moon was essentially a last ditch effort/hospice for an entire species.

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".

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."

The point of her trying to reason them out of the third sacrifice was also to see if they were able to conceive of a way forward having now faced their own mortality. If they were unable to then learning of Meteion would not change anything, as they would be unable to conceive of a permanent solution. After all, from what we know of dynamis and Meteion, overcoming the song of despair would require both a weakening of their aether and a willingness to face despair and death with no promise of victory. If they couldn't agree to not sacrificing their future, then how could they be expected to face those challenges? I think the argument that they still had a right to answer that with all the facts is a good one, but I think we all know that it would not change their answer. Not so long as Zodiark could protect them.

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.

(2/2)

[Erendis]

Speaking of Venat's role in the story, what are your thoughts of reworked Ultima fight? Hydaelyn going "pray to the crystal with all your might" and then herself removing primal essence from Ultima? They made those primals have super attacks and then let Hydaelyn obliterate them singlehandedly? It feels they decided to make WoL a lot weaker than they were before. Also, since when do we pray to the crystal? Wth...

[KariTheFox]

No, that is DIRECTLY engaging with the questions raised by those races. And by doing so, show why said questions are stupid.

No, I don't think it is. We might be talking past each other. The Plenty never saw their decision to die as a "problem" to be "solved" in the first place. They were happy, content, and had nothing left to do or strive for. To them, dying was to be a beautiful and novel experience.

The question being asked by The Plenty is not "how could they have prevented their deaths" but "why should they?"

As for the Ea, you're right in that plenty of philosophies have engaged with inevitability and futility without directly addressing the heat death of the universe. The scientific aspect of the question is really just window dressing for what is really being asked - why bother living if everyone and everything we know is going to die and be forgotten anyway?

Maybe you have answers for those questions, maybe you think they're silly and easy to answer. Plenty of characters in the story do too.