Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[redheadturk]

His test was unreasonable, and about seven apocalypses late for my liking. I never got the feeling that test was genuine; rather, he was setting outrageous conditions of success so he could claim himself right when we fell short of them. If he actually wanted to stop the Calamity he had plenty of chances to.

And you've completely failed to understand that the third sacrifice, for the story to make any sense at all, has to be substantial to a level of moral ambiguity; it has to be something that would be objectionable. If the third sacrifice isn't a huge and dubious alternative of some kind, then the Convocation look stupid for not doing it earlier, and Venat's crew look stupid for objecting to the ethical alternative. Since I assume you don't think the Convocation are stupid, then the third sacrifice must be something substantial.

My view on that is 'if that requires sentient beings to be the ones being sacrificed, then that's what it is for you to consider the problem'. We don't know the contents, but we do know the stakes and responses; substitute whatever works for you in that context as the contents.

Problem is, it wouldn't have mattered if the sacrifices were grass and trees. Venat just wanted to have a moral leg to stand on for the Sundering.

[Cleretic]

Problem is, it wouldn't have mattered if the sacrifices were grass and trees. Venat just wanted to have a moral leg to stand on for the Sundering.

Your straw-Venat seems very impressive, but unfortunately the real Venat is a few feet to your left. Surrounded by just short of a dozen academics who had genuine reason to agree with her without the 'oh she's just surrendering all agency to time travel' excuse you're using to demean her agency, and who believed entirely in the cause.

So, let's perhaps revise the argument's direction for you: the third sacrifice isn't 'substantial enough for Venat to object to'. It's 'substantial enough for at least eleven environmentally-conscious academics to object to'. Essentially; what level of sacrifice do you think would have been enough to set off a room full of people like the Watcher?

[Rulakir]

And that is not a conversation I have the time or energy to have or pretend is worth having.

This is something everyone here had to learn the hard way, unfortunately. I enjoyed your posts though and hope it hasn't deterred you from engaging further.

Your straw-Venat seems very impressive, but unfortunately the real Venat is a few feet to your left. Surrounded by just short of a dozen academics who had genuine reason to agree with her without the 'oh she's just surrendering all agency to time travel' excuse you're using to demean her agency, and who believed entirely in the cause.

So, let's perhaps revise the argument's direction for you: the third sacrifice isn't 'substantial enough for Venat to object to'. It's 'substantial enough for at least eleven environmentally-conscious academics to object to'. Essentially; what level of sacrifice do you think would have been enough to set off a room full of people like the Watcher?

Presenting more headcanon as fact, I see.

[tokinokanatae]

So, let's perhaps revise the argument's direction for you: the third sacrifice isn't 'substantial enough for Venat to object to'. It's 'substantial enough for at least eleven environmentally-conscious academics to object to'. Essentially; what level of sacrifice do you think would have been enough to set off a room full of people like the Watcher?

Probably the same level of sacrifice that upset the researchers on Elpis.

I know it’s become the fashion in some circles to assume that the Ancient perspective is the same as the Ascian perspective, but that’s not the case. The Ancients saw their role on the planet to nurture life and evidenced no small amount of distress when even the life of animals was “cut short.” It’s a gigantic shift from seeing your society as one that protects and balances life to deliberately cutting short the lives of those creatures the planet has seen fit to provide souls for your own benefit. I can very easily see that becoming the source of a heated, ugly debate.

You can say the Ancients were callous to their own creations. I would disagree, but even if I accepted that premise, there is a marked basis in canon for them having a clear reverence for ensouled creatures—to the point where Phoenix accidentally gaining a soul and suffering in agony because of it was seen as a crisis that needed the intervention of one of their top government officials to evaluate and decide how to handle it. (As opposed to how we would handle a suffering animal right off the bat: put it down.)

[Lauront]

Probably the same level of sacrifice that upset the researchers on Elpis.

I know it’s become the fashion in some circles to assume that the Ancient perspective is the same as the Ascian perspective, but that’s not the case. The Ancients saw their role on the planet to nurture life and evidenced no small amount of distress when even the life of animals was “cut short.” It’s a gigantic shift from seeing your society as one that protects and balances life to deliberately cutting short the lives of those creatures the planet has seen fit to provide souls for your own benefit. I can very easily see that becoming the source of a heated, ugly debate.

You can say the Ancients were callous to their own creations. I would disagree, but even if I accepted that premise, there is a marked basis in canon for them having a clear reverence for ensouled creatures—to the point where Phoenix accidentally gaining a soul and suffering in agony because of it was seen as a crisis that needed the intervention of one of their top government officials to evaluate and decide how to handle it. (As opposed to how we would handle a suffering animal right off the bat: put it down.)

And to that we can add: how would those within Zodiark perceive this, i.e. to be returned after having sacrificed themselves? In a similar vein to ancient Emet's remarks on future Emet creating shades of his people out of nostalgia: Would we be seen as dishonouring them by doing this? Which is something I would consider a returned Elidibus could remark upon, revealing the purgatory state. There are plenty of angles one can approach it with to see why it might be controversial, that do not require it to involve further ancient sacrifice. All gaps the writers could have elaborated upon but haven't, so we simply are stuck with guesswork. The sacrifices simply are not brought up as a key motivator in the Q&A, her faction does not discuss them in a morally fraught sense (their concern is avoiding their doom, much like when she brings them up it's to frame them as 'weakness' for not accepting her words to roll with the predicament they were left in and "accept" suffering), so absent some new lore on this point, I am afraid there is little to convince me they were of central importance except in an instrumental sense.

[redheadturk]

Your straw-Venat seems very impressive, but unfortunately the real Venat is a few feet to your left. Surrounded by just short of a dozen academics who had genuine reason to agree with her without the 'oh she's just surrendering all agency to time travel' excuse you're using to demean her agency, and who believed entirely in the cause.

So, let's perhaps revise the argument's direction for you: the third sacrifice isn't 'substantial enough for Venat to object to'. It's 'substantial enough for at least eleven environmentally-conscious academics to object to'. Essentially; what level of sacrifice do you think would have been enough to set off a room full of people like the Watcher?

You're forgetting the fact that the sacrifice was irrelevant. Venat had made her decision prior to her confronting those strawman Ancients in the cutscene, and even if they had never come up with the plan for the third sacrifice she was gonna do what she was gonna do.

[Cleretic]

You're forgetting the fact that the sacrifice was irrelevant. Venat had made her decision prior to her confronting those strawman Ancients in the cutscene, and even if they had never come up with the plan for the third sacrifice she was gonna do what she was gonna do.

And you're forgetting that Venat had people alongside her, willing to go along with it. Educated people, who were not tricked, and one who even today stands by it. Again: if you think 'what sort of third sacrifice would be considered too much for Venat' is an invalid question, instead ask yourself 'what sort of third sacrifice would be considered too much for The Watcher'.

Or, if you're someone who likes the angle of putting yourself in the argument's shoes: if this were happening on Earth, what sort of non-human sacrifice would be enough to give you reason to pause and think? What level of non-human sacrifice, even if you were okay with it, would be big enough to make you go 'okay I can see why people would object to this'?

Whatever you land on, for either of those situations, that's the third sacrifice.