Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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...

[Iscah]

I would just like to point out that even if we (or Venat after we left) did successfully change and rewrite events and create a better path thanks to our foreknowledge, we would not see the result of it in our modern timeline. There still has to be a timeline where things played out as they always did in addition to the one where things were changed, just like the Eighth Calamity timeline still exists alongside ours.

Either the setting in Elpis actually is at the start of that branched timeline (unlikely due to Pandaemonium apparently requiring a time loop) or it will branch from ours at whatever point the events we described to Venat become impossible to occur. If it happens, we won't and can't know, any more than the occupants of the Eighth Calamity timeline can know whether G'raha succeeded.

[redheadturk]

I would just like to point out that even if we (or Venat after we left) did successfully change and rewrite events and create a better path thanks to our foreknowledge, we would not see the result of it in our modern timeline. There still has to be a timeline where things played out as they always did in addition to the one where things were changed, just like the Eighth Calamity timeline still exists alongside ours.

Either the setting in Elpis actually is at the start of that branched timeline (unlikely due to Pandaemonium apparently requiring a time loop) or it will branch from ours at whatever point the events we described to Venat become impossible to occur. If it happens, we won't and can't know, any more than the occupants of the Eighth Calamity timeline can know whether G'raha succeeded.

Most of us don't care. We would rather a timeline we will never see where the Ancients were never sundered than the timeloop we got.

[thegreatonemal]

Most of us don't care. We would rather a timeline we will never see where the Ancients were never sundered than the timeloop we got.

You very clearly do, you lot talk about it quite a bit.

[KizuyaKatogami]

You very clearly do, you lot talk about it quite a bit.

Yes, just as you very clearly talk about plot points you know nothing about and understand very little. You came so close to getting it too i was clapping for you. Shame…

[thegreatonemal]

Yes, just as you very clearly talk about plot points you know nothing about and understand very little. You came so close to getting it too i was clapping for you. Shame…

Pretty sure I understand it far better than you. Just say you don't like the character and stop making things up that don't follow the lore presented. We're here talking about the lore, not your what if fancanon if the world wasn't sundered or if Venat told them about Metion. A shame that nearly every post about this topic goes down the same hole.

[Veloran]

And what did he have to say after the truth sunk in?

The truth of it didn't begin to sink in until the worst of it was over. I have not the words to describe how I felt then. The sorrow, the overwhelming sense of helplessness...

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

One other little line that is important in this discussion I think needs to be brought up.

The greater context of that line, and the conclusions Omega reaches, are more relevant than the line in isolation. Omega asks why Djinabaha didn't turn and Khalzahl did, given they were both in the same circumstances, to which Djinabaha responds that it may have just been his focus on protecting their workshops that stopped him from spinning into a panic, but then he says that Khalzahl likely had the same motivation and this very thing may have been what drove him to his transformation. Omega postulates from this a difference in their strength of spirit, but when meeting Nashvan it's revealed that it wasn't really a strength of spirit which allowed him to escape turning, but rather his blindness to the reality of what was happening. Later when he realized what had occurred, he nearly died of the sorrow of his own accord, and only didn't because he chose to hold on to that grief so the people he loved would be remembered. 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.

G'raha orphaned his timeline, he can't go back.

He never tried to go back.

This doesn't mean you have a chance to save both timelines; it means that the present day dies in darkness, waiting for you to come back with crucial information that never comes; they can never find Meteion because they never know she's there. This is not speculation: this is STATED, by Elidibus.

It is not possible to save both worlds. I was going to compare this scenario to a trolley problem, but in truth, it's worse; the trolley problem presumes that if you act, less will die but those who do will be on your hands. In the scenario you've invented, to stay on the course is to save more lives; diverting is the cruelest possible choice, by all metrics.

If we did it the exact way G'raha did it, we would be stuck. We would create a new course of time while we are in it, and be carried along into a different future to the one we travelled from – leaving all our friends and our entire world to die without the precious information we learned. (And whatever you may personally think of the Scions, they are clearly the generic-WoL's dear friends, and I would doubt that the WoL is the sort of person who would leave them to their fate.)

It's possible that Elidibus's portal would work differently and create a bridge across the two branches, but perhaps we didn't want to risk it, or didn't think of it, or the writers didn't think of it.

Ultimately, the ancients ARE doomed to go through the suffering of the Final Days in at least one timeline, and creating a second better one won't actually fix it for the first lot. And we do need to get back to our own timeline.

An excellent point - If not for the fact that the portal is still open, and WoL is still going back, even after having saved this timeline. In other words, the timeline could still be split and all those people spared. And not just the Ancients, but literally infinite worlds and peoples throughout the cosmos that were murdered through Meteion's song of oblivion being blasted on loop for 12,000 years. And not just them, but 7(9) worlds which would never have been created just to be obliterated for the sake of the Source's future.

And currently, because we've already defeated the Endsinger and ended the universal apocalypse, the only thing stopping WoL from doing this and creating a universe without such unimaginable death and destruction is... The possibility that they'll be stuck there, unable to see their friends again?

[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.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Pretty sure I understand it far better than you. Just say you don't like the character and stop making things up that don't follow the lore presented. We're here talking about the lore, not your what if fancanon if the world wasn't sundered or if Venat told them about Metion. A shame that nearly every post about this topic goes down the same hole.

Iscah and Turk were having a conversation, or debate if you will, to which you interjected with something that added absolutely nothing to the conversation for the sake of being snarky. There we go though. Denoting someones thoughts to just "they dont like the character." It's funny too because i dont know how many times ive said i actually somewhat liked Venat before the whole Kairos ordeal. So your point is not only invalid but also ignorant at best. Try again

[Theodric]

From what I've seen, a fair few people - myself included - found Venat to be pretty likable during the Elpis storyline. It was everything outside of Elpis that caused them to raise an eyebrow and realise that she was, unfortunately, a genocidal social darwinist who feigned having no other options available to her and cruelly murdered a bunch of innocent people.