Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[EaraGrace]

It just strikes me as odd that they wouldn't spell out something like that clearly when it would've likely convinced more people that Venat was right and the MSQ narrative was already trying to spin things that way to begin with.

After recalling that thread about localization, though, I'm wondering how that particular quote was worded in the other translations because it's another example of something that can potentially give off a very different impression.

I doubt they felt the need to. The Ascians have shown themselves incredibly selective about who they extend moral consideration. Logically the idea that Venats faction is suggesting to turn over the world to the Behemoths and Morbols of the world doesn’t make much sense, as it wouldn’t achieve their goal and would more likely lead to dismissing their criticisms out of hand. Not to mention the idea requires a great deal of gymnastics even when viewed from the side of the Convocation. In this interpretation of events the Convocation wouldn’t actually need to sacrifice half of the world, as apparently other sources of aether could suffice, nor would they need to sacrifice the denizens of the Source in order to bring them back. We would need a better reason for their decision, or we would have to accept that they haphazardly choose the method they did.

Putting aside how absolutely mind-boggling it is to me to assert that you should reasonably expect people to just suck up and live with knowing that their loved ones are locked into a fate worse than death for eternity

See this is the problem woth this discussion. My position that I don’t think it right to sacrifice living beings in order to bring back their loved ones is somehow telling into me telling grieving families to suck it up. I can have the deepest empathy for someone’s loss while recognizing that their grief doesn’t justify sacrifice. The fact is those souls in Zodiark willingly gave up their bodies to become Him knowing what that meant.

Also where does it come from now they were “locked in a fate worse than death?” Hyth certainly seemed to be ok, all things considered.

- I suppose that's still a matter of personal perspective, no matter how much I may boggle - and the loaded questions regarding the specifics of the sacrifices to which nobody has any actual concrete answers - there is one thing brought up that does have an answer in the text:

Because at the time they managed to summon Zodiark and stabilize the situation, everything else was dead. The planet was on fire. The waters were poisoned. The wind had ceased to blow. There was literally nothing left to use except Ancient souls. That was the entire reason for the plan to gradually nurture other forms of life back into the planet until it was "bursting with vitality," so "a portion of it" could then be safely swapped with the trapped Ancients.

So there were no crystals? No other sources of aether at all? And the Ascians, when sacrificing those on the Source, are just doing it out of spite?

Good, that spares us from having to debunk said exhaustive list again.

“Debunk” is not the word to describe the responses to that list of reasons I’ve seen.

[Brinne]

Also where does it come from now they were “locked in a fate worse than death?” Hyth certainly seemed to be ok, all things considered.

If we're interpreting Hythlodaeus himself describing their situation as a "purgatory," and a people whose culture puts a premium on their connection to the star and returning to it in death, being cut off from the cycle of the star not therefore equating to "a fate worse than death" might also have to go into the "that is incomprehensibly mind-boggling to me but I mean uh if you say so" category.

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

"I... I...
Return... I must...return...
Why... Why... Why!?"

The vision's grief takes form and lashes out!

"Home... I want... I need..."

Uh, yeah, definitely seems perfectly all right to me! But yes, Hythlodaeus, a remarkable individual, is relatively coherent. So if I find one person who seems relatively okay in objectively terrible conditions, it means everyone involved is definitely okay in those same conditions, right? We don't have to worry about any of them! (This is not how that works, for what it's worth.)

So there were no crystals? No other sources of aether at all? And the Ascians, when sacrificing those on the Source, are just doing it out of spite?

Yeah, I'd say that's what "the planet was completely dead to the point that nature did not function and the wind ceased to blow" would indicate. You do remember how even a mostly-forestalled Calamity like Bahamut caused massive corruption in massive amounts of aether, right?

As people have indicated, it only makes sense that if the Ancients had alternatives to sacrificing their loved ones, they would have done it - and their actions and intentions follow coherently from that. Finding an alternative was what they were planning to do when they had breathing room with the world not literally ending around them, and they could harness other resources. Venat's actions, however, were fundamentally driven by an ideology of "let there be no turning back" and a primary concern with the actions and mindset of the sacrificers, so the precise content of the sacrifices used as the means to do so aren't necessarily as relevant to her.

[EaraGrace]

If we're interpreting Hythlodaeus himself describing their situation as a "purgatory," and a people whose culture puts a premium on their connection to the star and returning to it in death, being cut off from the cycle of the star not therefore equating to "a fate worse than death" might also have to go into the "that is incomprehensibly mind-boggling to me but I mean uh if you say so" category.

The souls in Zodiark returned to the star as part of their “cycle.” Unlike the ones who gave themselves to Hydaelyn, a consequence they were forced to accept due to the actions of Amaurotine society.

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:



Kind of an odd statement if you were in unending torment.

Uh, yeah, definitely seems perfectly all right to me! But yes, Hythlodaeus, a remarkable individual, is relatively coherent. So if I find one person who seems relatively okay in objectively terrible conditions, it means everyone involved is definitely okay in those same conditions, right? We don't have to worry about any of them! (This is not how that works, for what it's worth.)

Am I in a cornfield because I see nothing but strawmen. But sure, let’s play this out. If I went to hell do you think I’d find anyone who’s doing alright? I doubt even the most exceptional of people would be ok with things.

Yeah, I'd say that's what "the planet was completely dead to the point that nature did not function and the wind ceased to blow" would indicate. You do remember how even a mostly-forestalled Calamity like Bahamut caused massive corruption in massive amounts of aether, right?

As people have indicated, it only makes sense that if the Ancients had alternatives to sacrificing their loved ones, they would have done it - and their actions and intentions follow coherently from that. Finding an alternative was what they were planning to do when they had breathing room with the world not literally ending around them, and they could harness other resources. Venat's actions, however, were fundamentally driven by an ideology of "let there be no turning back" and a primary concern with the actions and mindset of the sacrificers, so the precise content of the sacrifices used as the means to do so aren't necessarily as relevant to her.

Dynamis doesn’t corrupt aether, it smothers it. They are anathema to one another. And even a corrupted crystal can be used, as they’re just overaspected.

And they are relevant. If her last attempt to convince them that they need to accept suffering is not actually a dilemma, and is instead a simple question of logistics, then the whole premise falls apart (how convenient for those who dislike her). Not to mention the whole conflict becomes nonsense. Why didn’t Elidibus suggest using non-sentient aether when he came to “mediate.” After all, by that point life would be flourishing in all forms. I’m sure they could gradually sacrifice some trees here and there and avoid the conflict? Pretty odd that wasn’t brought up, like, anywhere no?

[Brinne]

First defeated by two weeks of not logging in, and then defeated by daily post limits. ;_;

The souls in Zodiark returned to the star as part of their “cycle.” Unlike the ones who gave themselves to Hydaelyn, a consequence they were forced to accept due to the actions of Amaurotine society.

All hail Fandaniel! \o/ Thank you, Amon, our savior!

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:

"Hell" is your word, not mine. Mine was "a fate worse than death," which, to the Ancients, it was.

Isn't that quote from when they're trying to resist Fandaniel's attempts to supplant their will? That changes the context.

Am I in a cornfield because I see nothing but strawmen. But sure, let’s play this out. If I went to hell do you think I’d find anyone who’s doing alright? I doubt even the most exceptional of people would be ok with things.

In other words, yes. If you can find a single person who seems "ok" with their conditions - let's say, for a different example, we find a single person who's relatively personally upbeat even though their community at large is suffering from starvation, poverty, and plague - then that means their conditions as a whole aren't in fact bad and we don't need to concern ourselves with it. Thank god that dilemma has been cleared up and we can go back to living our lives, nevermind other members of that "group" screaming in pain and anguish.

Dynamis doesn’t corrupt aether, it smothers it. They are anathema to one another. And even a corrupted crystal can be used, as they’re just overaspected.

Oh, you're right, my bad! I'd forgotten that the story established that an attack from the Final Days completely wipes out the target’s aether. So, yes, there was absolutely nothing else to use, by all evidence.

And they are relevant. If her last attempt to convince them that they need to accept suffering is not actually a dilemma, and is instead a simple question of logistics, then the whole premise falls apart (how convenient for those who dislike her). Not to mention the whole conflict becomes nonsense. Why didn’t Elidibus suggest using non-sentient aether when he came to “mediate.” After all, by that point life would be flourishing in all forms. I’m sure they could gradually sacrifice some trees here and there and avoid the conflict? Pretty odd that wasn’t brought up, like, anywhere no?

We never directly saw Elidibus's attempts to mediate (because we cannot allow any actual characters with agency within a hundred miles of Venat's flashback), so once again, who knows? No one here can actually say with certainty.

I'm saying they're less relevant because, since Venat's objections were ideological and based on the Ancient way of life, the very principle of "looking back" and not "embracing suffering," then yes, she would have objected even if the sacrifice was going to be some trees. The nature of the sacrifices does not matter very much at the core of her concerns; she was not acting for the sake of the sacrifices (she Sundered all of them as well.) She was acting "for the sake" of the Ancients--or rather "mankind"--because she saw them going down the "wrong path" by attempting to restore what they had pre-apocalypse to begin with. Whatever shape and means is used to do that doesn't alter the core action, and thus, Venat retaliating against it.

Let me explain this another way. From Venat's perspective, it does not matter if a hypothetical thief is stealing from a rich person, or stealing from an orphanage - or stealing some jewelry, or stealing someone's life-saving medicine, or stealing some stale bread. What matters is that they are stealing - or more specifically, that they have shown themselves to be someone that steals - and so long as they are committing that general act, period, then she will strongly object in the same way. (And then murder them if they don't acquiesce.)

I would say understanding this is about as convenient as, uh, clarifying that Venat's actions were based on her "beliefs," clarifying that she deliberately left Emet-Selch survive to preserve the timeline, clarifying that the Sundering was a violent and horrific act that completely erased the identities of the Ancients, clarifying that one's resistance to the Final Days is largely random and arbitrary and not something that can be solved...

[EaraGrace]

All hail Fandaniel! \o/ Thank you, Amon, our savior!

Another strawman. Recognizing that reincarnation is better than some fates is not saying death isn’t bad. I can recognize becoming a Sin Eater is better than being a blasphemy, both are bad.

"Hell" is your word, not mine. Mine was "a fate worse than death," which, to the Ancients, it was.

Ok, either way one would expect them to be a bit less willing to stick around in such circumstances no?

Isn't that quote from when they're trying to resist Fandaniel's attempts to supplant their will? That changes the context.

And yours is from an awakening soul that is part of a entity that was Sundered and sealed away. Both of us are operating of of slanted perspectives.

In other words, yes. If you can find a single person who seems "ok" with their conditions - let's say, for a different example, we find a single person who's relatively personally upbeat even though their community at large is suffering from starvation, poverty, and plague - then that means their conditions as a whole aren't in fact bad and we don't need to concern ourselves with it. Thank god that dilemma has been cleared up and we can go back to living our lives, nevermind other members of that "group" screaming in pain and anguish.

You understand why I used hell as an example right? If the conditions in Zodiark were so horrific as to necessitate any cost in order to free them, then finding individuals who don’t seem to be immediately concerned with their current circumstances would contradict that no? I think it better that we don’t subject unknowing innocents to that fate then, if it is as terrible as you say.

Oh, you're right, my bad! I'd forgotten that the story established that an attack from the Final Days completely wipes out the target’s aether. So, yes, there was absolutely nothing else to use, by all evidence.

What evidence. Anyder survived the damage with concepts intact. Why was it not reduced to its base aether?

We never directly saw Elidibus's attempts to mediate (because we cannot allow any actual characters with agency within a hundred miles of Venat's flashback), so once again, who knows? No one here can actually say with certainty.

This is the god in the gaps argument. You can’t use the lack the evidence to the contrary as proof of something existing.

I'm saying they're less relevant because, since Venat's objections were ideological and based on the Ancient way of life, the very principle of "looking back" and not "embracing suffering," then yes, she would have objected even if the sacrifice was going to be some trees. The nature of the sacrifices does not matter very much at the core of her concerns; she was not acting for the sake of the sacrifices (she Sundered all of them as well.) She was acting "for the sake" of the Ancients--or rather "mankind"--because she saw them going down the "wrong path" by attempting to restore what they had pre-apocalypse to begin with. Whatever shape and means is used to do that doesn't alter the core action, and thus, Venat retaliating against it.

And yet previous sacrifices did not necessitate the Sundering. The third sacrifice was the breaking point. Why in your opinion, is that the case?

Let me explain this another way. From Venat's perspective, it does not matter if a hypothetical thief is stealing from a rich person, or stealing from an orphanage - or stealing some jewelry, or stealing someone's life-saving medicine, or stealing some stale bread. What matters is that they are stealing - or more specifically, that they have shown themselves to be someone that steals - and so long as they are committing that general act, period, then she will strongly object in the same way. (And then murder them if they don't acquiesce.)

Once again we’re back to arguing that Venat was proposing leaving trees and insects the role of the stars steward.

I would say understanding this is about as convenient as, uh, clarifying that Venat's actions were based on her "beliefs," clarifying that she deliberately left Emet-Selch survive to preserve the timeline, clarifying that the Sundering was a violent and horrific act that completely erased the identities of the Ancients, clarifying that one's resistance to the Final Days is largely random and arbitrary and not something that can be solved...

Oof the loaded assumptions here. Lots of unproven assertions based in mixed evidence and headcanon.

In other words, if the Final Days had just lasted a little longer he would have turned.

Maybe. Maybe not. In that other timeline perhaps he’s inspired by someone else. We have no way of knowing.

Ultimately, Omega is forced to conclude that it wasn't some factor of anyone's "strength of spirit" which allowed for their survival, but that there was no pattern and their resistance to turning was primarily up to chance.

First let’s recognize that what’s described as random is not peoples reactions, but instead the environmental factors that ultimately inform their reactions to despair. This is a subtle distinction, but one that’s extremely important. One of these is impossible to control or push in a certain direction. The other is possible to manipulate, but only in a limited way. What Omega ultimately concludes about the heart is not that it is random, but that it is illogical. As he says:

<blip> My earlier hypothesis has been borne out. The suboptimal operation being conducted here is the result of emotionally compromised reasoning.

Consistent only in their inconsistency, the responses from both contingent member and imperial citizen were highly irrational. Conversely, any Omicron considering their predicaments would have echoed my assessment exactly.
The divergence from self-evident logic is key...
Hypothesis. The illogical relationship between would-be saviors and suffering populace is another result of the unpredictable nature of mortal hearts.
<blip> Any property or ability has inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Yet never have I encountered such a unique detriment. It appears that those who share your metaphysical capabilities are prone to complicating simple cognitive processes.

[Brinne]

You understand why I used hell as an example right? If the conditions in Zodiark were so horrific as to necessitate any cost in order to free them, then finding individuals who don’t seem to be immediately concerned with their current circumstances would contradict that no? I think it better that we don’t subject unknowing innocents to that fate then, if it is as terrible as you say.

Once again, yes, you are agreeing that this is your logic - that "if a single individual seems, to my estimation, okay within a terrible environment, even if the majority of others around them are in explicit anguish, then everyone should be okay with it and any anguish expressed can be disregarded." In which case, we've hit another one of those impasses where I can't do anything but shrug and go, sure - I personally believe that logic is deeply fallacious, deeply callous, and overlaps with the excuses one often hears to dismiss all manner of poor conditions and mistreatment ("I was beaten as a child, and I turned out fine!"), but all right. I can't convince anyone to care about the demonstrable pain of others when they're looking for any excuse to pretend it isn't valid.

What evidence. Anyder survived the damage with concepts intact. Why was it not reduced to its base aether?

You... you yourself pointed out Dynamis snuffs out aether. It was explicitly stated in the text that the world was dead, necessitating the use of Ancient souls for the massive amount of aether needed to fuel Zodiark. This sacrifice has never been painted by anything in the story besides noble and laudable. To use your words, you are denying the premise of the text here, and I'm not sure for what - to suggest the Ancients were not acting out of necessity and desperation when they used themselves as sacrifices, but, like, laziness? Is that your ultimate hypothesis here?

This is the god in the gaps argument. You can’t use the lack the evidence to the contrary as proof of something existing.

Uh, I was never trying to prove anything existed. That was in reply to your question of "so why didn't Elidibus do this?" and I answered with "we have no specific or concrete details on exactly what he did."

And yet previous sacrifices did not necessitate the Sundering. The third sacrifice was the breaking point. Why in your opinion, is that the case?

Because you're mistaking the "stealing" in the metaphor as being the stand-in for "sacrifice" in general, when it is not. The stand-in is, again, the ideological factor of "looking back" and "not embracing suffering." The first two sacrifices didn't hit Venat as indicating guilt of those emotional crimes. The third did.

[EaraGrace]

Once again, yes, you are agreeing that this is your logic - that "if a single individual seems, to my estimation, okay within a terrible environment, even if the majority of others around them are in explicit anguish, then everyone should be okay with it and any anguish expressed can be disregarded." In which case, we've hit another one of those impasses where I can't do anything but shrug and go, sure - I personally believe that logic is deeply fallacious, deeply callous, and overlaps with the excuses one often hears to dismiss all manner of poor conditions and mistreatment ("I was beaten as a child, and I turned out fine!"), but all right. I can't convince anyone to care about the demonstrable pain of others when they're looking for any excuse to pretend it isn't valid.

You are once again extrapolating more than you should. My point is that we lack a definitive statement on what it is like to be one with Zodiark. If you disagree then please post that statement. Otherwise, lets recognize that both of us are reaching conclusions from contextual clues. I see Hyth being ok and the statements from the souls discussing how they intended Zodiark to be forever the star's will, and I'm concluding that this is not a "fate worse than death."

Perhaps the best argument I could make for this is the fact that death was an alternative, they after all could've chosen to die and be burned away like those who summoned Hydaelyn did. Why didn't they, if being with Zodiark is a fate "worse than death?"

You... you yourself pointed out Dynamis snuffs out aether. It was explicitly stated in the text that the world was dead, necessitating the use of Ancient souls for the massive amount of aether needed to fuel Zodiark. This sacrifice has never been painted by anything in the story besides noble and laudable. To use your words, you are denying the premise of the text here, and I'm not sure for what - to suggest the Ancients were not acting out of necessity and desperation when they used themselves as sacrifices, but, like, laziness? Is that your ultimate hypothesis here?

Ok, I'm going to walk this through as simply as possible.

Lets operate under the assumption that, as you suggest, there is nothing inherently superior in Ancient souls that make them the best option to empower Zodiark.

1. The Ancients need aether to summon Zodiark
2. Ancient souls are not special and could be replaced with other sources of aether
3. Ancients are able to reduce objects and creatures into base aether
4. There exist multiple facilities, creations, etc. that survived the Final Days that could be reduced to base aether

This leads to a simple conclusion. You don't have to sacrifice humans. You can use other sources.

Uh, I was never trying to prove anything existed. That was in reply to your question of "so why didn't Elidibus do this?" and I answered with "we have no specific or concrete details on exactly what he did."

And you're response was "maybe he did." My point is rooted in the fact that there is a clear solution to the dilemma that divided the Ancients, yet despite acting rationally they did not take that option. Why? This is only a problem if you believe there's nothing special or unique about the souls of sentient beings.

Because you're mistaking the "stealing" in the metaphor as being the stand-in for "sacrifice" in general, when it is not. The stand-in is, again, the ideological factor of "looking back" and "not embracing suffering." The first two sacrifices didn't hit Venat as indicating guilt of those emotional crimes. The third did.

Not true. As the Watcher stated Venat opposed Zodiarks initial sundering, yet did not sunder him immediately.

[Veloran]

First let’s recognize that what’s described as random is not peoples reactions, but instead the environmental factors that ultimately inform their reactions to despair. This is a subtle distinction, but one that’s extremely important. One of these is impossible to control or push in a certain direction. The other is possible to manipulate, but only in a limited way.

Debatable.

No...pattern? You imply that the transformation was not contingent on individual fortitude, but rather a random contribution of environmental factors?

I don't agree with your supposition of what this is talking about. It seems to me the premise of this statement is the transformation, not people's individual fortitude. So when he says "but rather", the full thought would be, "The transformation is contingent on a random contribution of environmental factors?"

If we set aside the idea that this is referring to environmental factors like, say, the amount of Dynamis that just happened to get dumped on them, then we're talking about this in the context of a person's psyche. And if we look at it from that angle, then it is truly a random factor. No person has exactly the same perspective and reaction from one day to the next, or even one hour to the next. Something someone can shrug off or not even notice in one second might be intensely annoying or aggravating in the next second. In this sense, their survival was really only dictated by whatever random state their perception happened to be rolling at the specific time the Final Days arrived.

[Iscah]

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:

["We are the will of the star, now and forever!"]

Kind of an odd statement if you were in unending torment.

Between these two apparently conflicting examples, I would like to make a suggestion, in line with my previous thoughts on the individuals becoming a single amalgamated primal will but also able to be individually plucked out again – it seems like they might act one way while they are within Zodiark but if individuals split out from the pack somehow, that's when they become self-aware and confused.

Maybe that happens naturally all the time that one or two drift off briefly and then they merge back in and resume being part of Zodiark, or maybe it's a consequence of the attack on Zodiark's bindings causing him to "fray" a bit. I'd have to go over the segment again and see exactly what is said about them.

[Rannie]

Between these two apparently conflicting examples, I would like to make a suggestion, in line with my previous thoughts on the individuals becoming a single amalgamated primal will but also able to be individually plucked out again – it seems like they might act one way while they are within Zodiark but if individuals split out from the pack somehow, that's when they become self-aware and confused.

Maybe that happens naturally all the time that one or two drift off briefly and then they merge back in and resume being part of Zodiark, or maybe it's a consequence of the attack on Zodiark's bindings causing him to "fray" a bit. I'd have to go over the segment again and see exactly what is said about them.

I'm wondering if it may not be because Elidibus left as the heart of Zodiark all those years. While yes the sundering and imprisonment put then into a lull and the rejoinings caused them to wake up with out the "glue" that really held them together.

I mean once fanny Danny took over look how quickly he told the souls to STFU and such and made them leave. *shrugs*