Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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.