Pandæmonium story

[Skyborne]

Different people with different personality types will respond differently to the same situation... if I had to guess, Lahabrea's the type who finds escapism via becoming absorbed in work. Emet-Selch's the classic tsundere grump who becomes embarassed when called out (imagine locking him in a room with Alisaie and having them fight over the WoL...)

[EaraGrace]

I don’t really think it had to do with moral weight. He did the same thing to us in ShB. He was looking for something in the sundered to prove themselves as capable of taking over the star.

So we agree it wasn’t actually about whether the Sundered had equal moral consideration then?

And the whole “prove yourselves” was a clear act of self delusion. A blatant attempt at justifying what he was already doubting. The man literally says this

Did you now? One last do-or-die attempt to foil my plans before your mind dissolves into madness?
How very, very...heroic of you.
In every single age, there is always someone who wants to stand up to the evil Ascians.

To

Let us imagine that the laws of reality are again undone, and the world faces true annihilation. Do you honestly believe that half your number would sacrifice themselves to save the other?
Of course they wouldn't!

In less than a minute. Followed by a “final test” which he immediately dismisses the results of and a “final final test” that he only accepts the results of after being dealt a mortal wound.

When his son dies he was struck with that grief of basically, “i had all this hope for these people and they die so quickly to the smallest of things?” No was is really rational in grief. I’m happy that you apparently can cope with it well but a lot of people don’t. Grief is one of the hardest things for people to get over and 9 times out of 10 some people don’t handle it rationally.

I don’t condone killing out of grief. That isn’t me saying I can cope amazingly, that’s just not approving of murder.

It’s part of being human and he seemed to display this quite well. In comparison to Hermes who displayed this but to an inhuman extreme where he threw the equivalent of a temper tantrum and because of this was the catalyst in destroying civilizations and entire planets.

I’m glad you made the comparison because I think Hermes and Emet are perfect compliments. Both inflicted suffering out of pain, both tried to justify it with some misanthropic logic and both came to see they were wrong.

I’d actually have to agree with Yoshi P and Ishikawa (and Hythlodaeus lol) that Hermes’ test was more fair though.

[KizuyaKatogami]

and both came to see they were wrong.

Emet: "But though you defeated me, my ideals are inviolate, Invincible."

[Rulakir]

The irony is it's only the Ancients who end up passing Hermes' test. Apparently no other world did. The sundered barely manage to defeat Meteion despite the WoL having been groomed for the role by someone with a cheat sheet and given every tool past and present to ensure success to the extent that the WoL could not have done it without substantial assistance from unsundered Ancients. So, in a way, the Ancients passed the test not once, but twice.

[SentioftheHoukai]

So we agree it wasn’t actually about whether the Sundered had equal moral consideration then?

And the whole “prove yourselves” was a clear act of self delusion. A blatant attempt at justifying what he was already doubting. The man literally says this



To



In less than a minute. Followed by a “final test” which he immediately dismisses the results of and a “final final test” that he only accepts the results of after being dealt a mortal wound.



I don’t condone killing out of grief. That isn’t me saying I can cope amazingly, that’s just not approving of murder.



I’m glad you made the comparison because I think Hermes and Emet are perfect compliments. Both inflicted suffering out of pain, both tried to justify it with some misanthropic logic and both came to see they were wrong.

I’d actually have to agree with Yoshi P and Ishikawa (and Hythlodaeus lol) that Hermes’ test was more fair though.

Oh, Eara you delightful person.

Do you not realize what you just did?

Emet-Selch: It's not murder if I kill you whilst not considering you a person.

Eara: I just don't condone murder.

Also Eara and her posse of friends: We don't consider what Venat did to the Ancients genocide.

????

[EaraGrace]

Oh, Eara you delightful person.

What have I done to wrong you? I disagreed with an opinion, and argued against and so I deserve to be insulted?

Do you not realize what you just did?

Emet-Selch: It's not murder if I kill you whilst not considering you a person.

Eara: I just don't condone murder.

Also Eara and her posse of friends: We don't consider what Venat did to the Ancients genocide.

????

I speak for me, and me only. Let that be clear.

It is my belief that in the defense of life the actions Venat took, the Sundering, the ending of the Ancient world and the wiping of their civilization from memory, was justified. Was it good? No. Was it kind? No. Was it necessary? Yes. This has been argued ad nauseam for several months now.

As I said, I don’t condone killing out of grief. It’s the context, the motivation, the reasoning that defines the goodness of an action and with the right factors killing another can be justified. Like killing to save an innocent or prevent unjust harm. Emet does not meet that criteria and he knows that. His desire was to see his friends, family and society returned, an understandable goal certainly, but not a right one. It’s the equivalent of killing someone for their organs in order to save a family member. I can empathize but never condone.

For Venat, the situation is different. All of existence is at stake, including those she would in end up Sundering. Thus the question is who can be saved. A classic trolley problem, with the slight distinction that if depending on who you choose all life would die. I think that changes things. Other disagree.

[jameseoakes]

What have I done to wrong you? I disagreed with an opinion, and argued against and so I deserve to be insulted?



I speak for me, and me only. Let that be clear.

It is my belief that in the defense of life the actions Venat took, the Sundering, the ending of the Ancient world and the wiping of their civilization from memory, was justified. Was it good? No. Was it kind? No. Was it necessary? Yes. This has been argued ad nauseam for several months now.

As I said, I don’t condone killing out of grief. It’s the context, the motivation, the reasoning that defines the goodness of an action and with the right factors killing another can be justified. Like killing to save an innocent or prevent unjust harm. Emet does not meet that criteria and he knows that. His desire was to see his friends, family and society returned, an understandable goal certainly, but not a right one. It’s the equivalent of killing someone for their organs in order to save a family member. I can empathize but never condone.

For Venat, the situation is different. All of existence is at stake, including those she would in end up Sundering. Thus the question is who can be saved. A classic trolley problem, with the slight distinction that if depending on who you choose all life would die. I think that changes things. Other disagree.

They set up very badly why this is the case, the sundering seems all about Venats contempt of her own race. There's no meaningful reasons given for why the Ancients couldn't do something about Metion given some time to take stock of what Dynamis actually is. She kills out of spite

[EaraGrace]

They set up very badly why this is the case, the sundering seems all about Venats contempt of her own race. There's no meaningful reasons given for why the Ancients couldn't do something about Metion given some time to take stock of what Dynamis actually is. She kills out of spite

I don’t know if I believe one has to have “contempt” to do the sundering, nor do I believe there’s a lack of meaningful reasons to believe ancient society was incapable of finding a solution. Most alternatives either have the ancients forcing suffering on others with no desire to share the burden or simply allowing Meteion to win. I know others won’t agree but that is my position and I don’t believe I came to it out of spite.

[Rulakir]

I viewed it more as Venat having a crisis of faith. She seemed shaken after after Meteion reported on Deka-hepta, which became an arguably unreasonable fear and one she felt compelled to avoid at all costs even if it meant all but destroying her people and placing Etheirys in substantially more jeopardy of other fates. Venat had no way of knowing if Etheirys would ever reach that conclusion, so the sundering was a preemptive measure and no doubt she felt fully justified in avoiding what she personally considered the worst possible outcome. Ironically, it could be said Venat did end up giving into despair when it came to her own people.

[Avidria]

They set up very badly why this is the case, the sundering seems all about Venats contempt of her own race. There's no meaningful reasons given for why the Ancients couldn't do something about Metion given some time to take stock of what Dynamis actually is. She kills out of spite

I didn't get the impression it was contempt or spite driving her. I actually agree with Rulakir here - I think she gave in to despair. I think she gave up on her people being able to save themselves.

So I will say I think there are some things the writers could've done to make her intentions clearer. There's a gap in knowledge on what happened between us showing up in Elpis and her sundering the world. What did she try? Who did she tell, if anyone? We don't actually know, we only have implications - some heavier and clearer than others.

If I'm following her logic right, it came across as more of her... Convincing herself that her people would always choose the past, always choose to strive for a perfect paradise that they lost instead of facing an imperfect future, always reject suffering, and the only way to avoid falling into despair in the face of suffering is if they're so used to facing suffering that forging ahead anyway is a fundamental part of who they are.

So basically she saw flaws in her society, didn't agree with their take on paradise and what can/should be sacrificed to maintain it, and didn't trust they'd make the "right" choices in the face of disaster. So she entrusted the future to people she could ensure would intimately understand and accept pain and suffering as a part of their reality. Whether that was a good call or not... Well. The survivors get to decide I guess.