Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[EaraGrace]

It's somewhat comforting to read both you and Cleretic realize why people dislike the story even if you won't accept it. ("We can't accept it! We won't accept it!")

See I would say something similar. Given this entire discussion requires dismissing that whole cutscene you’re quoting. Maybe not wise to bring that up as an example of “accepting reality.”

Given I don’t believe the evidence supports the “there just plants and animals” hypothesis, no I don’t really think this is a valid criticism of Endwalker.

This is exactly the reason why people don't like Venat. She had the opportunity for a 'do over' and didn't take it. Her reasons for not doing so simply don't hold up under scrutiny. The debate will never end because while you believe she did the best/only thing she could, others do not.

So I have to ask, not just you but also everyone else that’s been involved in this discussion for the past several months. Do you think it’s objectively true that Venat is in the wrong, that her reasons “don’t hold up to scrutiny?”

The whole premise has been doing nothing but falling apart like a jenga tower with every new piece of information related to it released since 6.0. Since the Omega quests just come out and say that the resistance to the Dynamis transformation is almost totally random and not strongly correlated to one's life conditions or strength of character, the entire idea that the sundering was necessary to create a world of people that could withstand despair and existential oblivion through their inurement to suffering basically becomes moot.

Or as said by Omega it’s a combination of random environmental and emotional factors like friends, family, support systems, personal beliefs, hopes, experiences etc. We suggest this to Omega when we leave Thavnair for Garlemald. Those happen to also be the things mentioned by Venat. It’s the same irl, life experiences, financial situation, genetics, belief systems, support networks, all impact the chance one has of experiencing mental health problems. The point isn’t to say that there isn’t ways to improve ones ability handle these horrific occurrences, but that what ultimately will do the trick is entirely specific to the person. That randomness is exactly why She left humanity alone. Endwalker almost screamed at the player that one’s meaning and purpose has to be fine by oneself. Omegas conclusion that the heart is “the phenomenon that influences ones interpretation of reality” is exactly the kind of “life is what you make of it” statement that many criticized Endwalker for.

[redheadturk]

So I have to ask, not just you but also everyone else that’s been involved in this discussion for the past month. Do you think it’s objectively true that Venat is in the wrong, that her reasons “don’t hold up to scrutiny?”.

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: The Ancient world was an objectively better place than the one that Venat left us with. As I see it as a moral imperative to lessen suffering for your fellow man, yes, she was objectively wrong for not helping them prevent the Final days and for the sundering.

[Cleretic]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: The Ancient world was an objectively better place than the one that Venat left us with. As I see it as a moral imperative to lessen suffering for your fellow man, yes, she was objectively wrong for not helping them prevent the Final days and for the sundering.

Except that the event that ended that perfection was not the Sundering: it was the End of Days, an event that could not be stopped (well, unless someone introduced Hermes to the concept of peer review, but for some reason that's not the idea being discussed). After that point, untimely deaths were now a thing, people were in pain, and difficult decisions were no longer unavoidable. A perfect building stops being perfect when it's felled by an earthquake; the sin is not on the demolitionist clearing the rubble, no matter how much you think it could be repaired.


Knowing that the notion of 'nobody was inherently right or wrong, because morality is not inherent and not all choices are made comfortably' was completely intentional to the point where the game directly asked it, I do think it's interesting to see exactly why people take the stances they do--including the people who take a stance that they can't take a stance. The people saying they don't have important information are perhaps the ones that I most understand without agreeing with, because from them I see an overall angle of 'I want to know I will make the right choice, and right now I don't'. Some are genuinely unsure and just want clarity, some seem to be leaning one way or the other but want some kind of green light to say that they're right before they plant their feet. I get that, but I don't think it's ever going to happen; actual proof of what the third sacrifice entailed, or the exact conscious experience of being a soul inside Zodiark, probably won't come. You might just need to make peace with the fact that you won't be perfectly happy with your answers.

Another thing I see, though, is sort of a post-hoc justification of the position someone landed on, either by claiming facts that aren't relevant (or might not be there at all) or taking swings at the character representing the other side. Essentially, to shore up the belief that you made the right choice by knocking the other side down even further. I wouldn't even say I'm free of this, even if the evidence for my stance came non-linearly; I land on Team Hydaelyn because I'm an environmentalist who will ultimately put the wellbeing of the planet over the comfort of its people, but somewhere in my greater argument will always be 'and also that guy on the other side goes on to invent fascism'. If I'm completely honest, even I don't know how relevant that part is to the argument or my eventual stance on it. But overall... I hope all the people taking this approach actually did get there through considering the situation as given, and didn't just twist, ignore or fabricate evidence to land in the camp they wanted.

[Veloran]

Or as said by Omega it’s a combination of random environmental and emotional factors like friends, family, support systems, personal beliefs, hopes, experiences etc.

Or just raw shock and incomprehension, like with the main interviewee. Omega pretty much discards the notion of any actual correlation of factors at play.

Another thing I see, though, is sort of a post-hoc justification of the position someone landed on,

Omega specifically calls this out. Both with the player describing Emet-Selch as sort of a tragic friend, and with the innate inconsistency of viewing Venat as a hero and Hermes as a villain even though their actions and motivations in trying to forcibly change humanity are identical.

[redheadturk]

Regardless of Venat's reasoning or justification, I do not think she had the right as a single person to decide the course for the entirety of mankind based on her own beliefs. Venat has no right to act as a higher being or some sort of messianic figure to her fellow man; who is she to pass judgement? Who is she to decide the ancients right to live because of her own fears of the Plenty? This is my issue with Venat. As Emet-Selch said to Hermes in Ktisis, "Who are you to decide our fate?".

Maybe some can justify genocidal actions to themselves with the argument of the ends justify the means, but I cannot. Hermes was wrong to set a test for mankind's right to existence. Venat was wrong to pass judgement on their fate, especially whilst she withheld the stakes and vital information regarding the situation from essentially the entirety of the population. Emet-Selch was wrong to perpetuate a cycle of genocide to undo what was done to the ancients.

I would argue that what Venat did was worse. By withholding that information, she is at least partially complicit in the Ardors as well.