Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Iscah]

We're effectively Azem, given that most Amaurotians that we run into seem to recognize us as such. It just serves as a universal noun for the player character, and WoL/WoD not only cumbersome but applies to other individuals as well.

We are not Azem, especially not when Azem exists in the story as a distinct (if unseen) character who is talked about separately. We do not have their powers or their memories, or even their entire soul. Emet and Hyth are long-term friends with Azem but have only just met us.

Just because we look like Azem and remind people of Azem does not make us Azem. We are the inheritor of their legacy but a separate person.

It doesn't serve as a "universal noun for the player character" because it refers to someone else.

[Lyth]

Hm, I'll have to leave that for Pandaemonium to decide. The player character, then.

...

I don't recall using the term 'create'. A world in which the 'heat death of the universe' exists is likely subject to the laws of thermodynamics, so I would expect that there's an overarching energy conservation law that prevents you from doing any sort of de novo energy production using dynamis. The word manifest here means to 'make palpable or perceivable'. To give form to the formless. Entelechies can utilize dynamis, but their actions are a function of the ambient emotion, not their own.

I've seen people mention this 'selective sundering' business before. It might be possible, but the original sundering itself didn't sound like it was something that could be controlled with all that much precision. And you're still essentially using Venat's solution at the end of the day, because it relies on putting together a team of sundered heroes to address the problem. The team of characters who defeat the Endsinger are a product of everything that has happened to date. It's a bit like saying 'Amaurot could win if they just had the Scions' and then flat out refuse to acknowledge all the circumstances that made them who they are.

[Alenore]

Hm, I'll have to leave that for Pandaemonium to decide. The player character, then.

I don't recall using the term 'create'. A world in which the 'heat death of the universe' exists is likely subject to the laws of thermodynamics, so I would expect that there's an overarching energy conservation law that prevents you from doing any sort of de novo energy production using dynamis. The word manifest here means to 'make palpable or perceivable'. To give form to the formless. Entelechies can utilize dynamis, but their actions are a function of the ambient emotion, not their own.

I've seen people mention this 'selective sundering' business before. It might be possible, but the original sundering itself didn't sound like it was something that could be controlled with all that much precision. And you're still essentially using Venat's solution at the end of the day, because it relies on putting together a team of sundered heroes to address the problem. The team of characters who defeat the Endsinger are a product of everything that has happened to date. It's a bit like saying 'Amaurot could win if they just had the Scions' and then flat out refuse to acknowledge all the circumstances that made them who they are.

Sorry if I thought you did, "manifest as dynamis" sounded a lot like you implied it to my non-native speaker ears!

I don't think the sundering would be a bad solution if Venat gave a choice to people. Not "bad" in the sense that it doesn't work, but because she literally killed her whole race but 3 people in all but names. Their souls are still recycled and other life grows from it, but her solution wasn't any better on a life-cost point of view than Hermes' or Emet-Selch.

That could be sundered heroes along entelechy creations and supported from afar by ancients, for all I know.

I'm not blaming the writers really, it only shows that Venat is very much an Ancient and takes the same kind of drastic measures, just like the others. Hers are based on her love of humanity, Emet on his love of the Ancient society, and Hermes on life itself.
I just don't think saying "there was NO way the Ancients could have done anything, even if they knew what was happening" rests on any solid ground.

[Lyth]

I can see your reasoning.

I think it's difficult to judge the Amaurotians' decisions on the basis of our own societies value systems' because of how different it is. The idea of having a referendum over a controversial topic is probably a foreign concept when you're expected to conform and obediently follow the decisions of a group of respected elders. You can't really say that a decision is undemocratic when the system of governance isn't democratic to begin with. I certainly think that all of the Amaurotians in question are very decisive regardless of methodology, which is what you would expect of them given their backgrounds, and is an essential trait in a leader.

The entire question itself is fairly academic, but for myself, I would need more information to properly determine what the best course of action was. I think that some of the essential details are necessarily locked away behind the story of Pandaemonium and Myths, which is why I'll personally reserve my final viewpoint for then.

[redheadturk]

I can see your reasoning.

I think it's difficult to judge the Amaurotians' decisions on the basis of our own societies value systems' because of how different it is. The idea of having a referendum over a controversial topic is probably a foreign concept when you're expected to conform and obediently follow the decisions of a group of respected elders. You can't really say that a decision is undemocratic when the system of governance isn't democratic to begin with. I certainly think that all of the Amaurotians in question are very decisive regardless of methodology, which is what you would expect of them given their backgrounds, and is an essential trait in a leader.

The entire question itself is fairly academic, but for myself, I would need more information to properly determine what the best course of action was. I think that some of the essential details are necessarily locked away behind the story of Pandaemonium and Myths, which is why I'll personally reserve my final viewpoint for then.

Uh, "Referendum over a controversial topic being a foreign concept"? Are we talking about the same society? Ya know, the one that considers debate to be an evening's light entertainment? I don't think we played the same game.

[Kuroka]

I mean we shot a pathway of aether across the universe just to go there. Why not just shoot more aether at Meteion's location to trap her in a cage of aether she can't escape from, which prevents her from using the universe's dynamis?

Literally as she was so nice to gather all of her on one place, it seems lol

The main problem also was that they did not know WHY their magic was running amok, if they knew what to fight against, they might have been able to create a personal version of Zodiark's shield for everyone...

[Alenore]

I can see your reasoning.

I think it's difficult to judge the Amaurotians' decisions on the basis of our own societies value systems' because of how different it is. The idea of having a referendum over a controversial topic is probably a foreign concept when you're expected to conform and obediently follow the decisions of a group of respected elders. You can't really say that a decision is undemocratic when the system of governance isn't democratic to begin with. I certainly think that all of the Amaurotians in question are very decisive regardless of methodology, which is what you would expect of them given their backgrounds, and is an essential trait in a leader.

The entire question itself is fairly academic, but for myself, I would need more information to properly determine what the best course of action was. I think that some of the essential details are necessarily locked away behind the story of Pandaemonium and Myths, which is why I'll personally reserve my final viewpoint for then.

Something certain is they didn't value life as we do in our society. They see themselves as organism of the Star, whose goal was to work toward its perfection. They knew souls followed a cycle, and death wasn't especially tragic but something to be celebrated.
However, they do value peer-review (Elpis is pretty much that after all), and as caretakers of the Star, they probably don't act rashly on such a grand scale without some kind of approval. Pretty certain an Hydaelyn concept didn't go through the Bureau of the Architect :>

But I agree, a definitive answer will require this chapter to be closed.

Uh, "Referendum over a controversial topic being a foreign concept"? Are we talking about the same society? Ya know, the one that considers debate to be an evening's light entertainment? I don't think we played the same game.

Debating and voting about issues are quite different though. Their society doesn't strike me as especially democratic, but more similar to the perfect city described by Aristotle, where everybody should take part in society but people recognized for their virtue raised to positions of office, or even the one from Plato's Republic, with a council instead of a philosopher king.
Convocation members are mostly designed but there's no formal vote, the Convocation decide between themselves how to lead the others, and in turn the people mostly agree because they trust those in charge to make the best judgement calls.

So yeah, referendums are probably unheard of. Both Hermes and Venat just thought they knew better than everyone else, just like everybody expect the Convocation to know better than the masses.

[Lauront]

However, they do value peer-review (Elpis is pretty much that after all), and as caretakers of the Star, they probably don't act rashly on such a grand scale without some kind of approval. Pretty certain an Hydaelyn concept didn't go through the Bureau of the Architect :>

They also value transparency:

Emet-Selch: It is held that all civil organizations should conduct their affairs with total transparency, and the Convocation is no exception.

You can sort of see this with how the shades Hades put together were aware of the plan to summon Zodiark, and later on, in the way the debate on the sacrifices divided their broader society. Her own reasoning for not working with them is a deviation from her usual MO:

Venat: Ordinarily, I wouldn't hesitate to call upon the Fourteen. However, it was the desire for a fair determination that drove Hermes to attempt to erase our memories; were he made aware of his actions, there is no telling whether he would remain a friend or become a foe.

While she had her reasons, it is clear it is a departure from their usual style of governance, and so on this point:

I don't think the sundering would be a bad solution if Venat gave a choice to people. Not "bad" in the sense that it doesn't work, but because she literally killed her whole race but 3 people in all but names. Their souls are still recycled and other life grows from it, but her solution wasn't any better on a life-cost point of view than Hermes' or Emet-Selch.

I agree. Particularly since it seems other solutions could be conceived and they were not given a full/true account of the source of the crisis.

[EaraGrace]

Yes, but this is specifically because of the heat death of the universe. It is an inevitable end to everything they care about, that would leave them drifting eternally due to their effectively immortal nature. They gave up because they realised their ultimate fate is either suicide or something much worse, with this understanding coming as a result of the fight that gave them purpose. No other encountered race in the setting has faced anything near that, and the only way to avoid it is to die before it's relevant.

So in your eyes the Ea made the right choice in self-terminating? Lets imagine the Ancients also discover the heat death of the universe, having already succeeded at "perfecting" Etheirys and completing their purpose. Would you say its only logical that they also self-terminate?

The quest where you read epitaphs from some of them highlights this pretty well I think, there's one that talks about how they fought to leave their planet, how they fought to travel between dimensions, and how they fought for nothing. These are people that will live so incredibly long that the current age of the universe would be a tiny blip to them, they will live to see everything they have ever loved or cared for die, and they have absolutely no way to avert this fate. They give up when encountered with the incontrovertible fact that there is no actual hope for them to change this, no matter how hard they tried.

And Endwalker is all about what we do when faced with ends that cannot be forestalled.

As fragmented, imperfect beings. Yours is a neverending quest. A quest to find your purpose knowing your end is assured.

I'm not aware we're given any information that suggests the Ea were somehow unhappy before they reached this state? The fact that the sundered are not as competent at achieving their goals as the Ea were is why they don't struggle with this same issue, they simply have not advanced to a stage where it's even worth thinking about. The responses we do see from them regarding the topic suggest they're just entirely unequipped to even try tacking the problem at all, outside just refusing to acknowledge it.

So the question stands is it preferable to be the Ea and feel that the only option is oblivion, or the Sundered and perhaps through ignorance (and perhaps through something else) live to flourish and have fulfilling lives?

I don't think the setting as provided allows for a happy ending in the extremely long term, outside maybe some exceptionally low maintenance immortals just living in giant time travel loops, I guess. Or as some weird suffering obsessed culture that refuses to fix many problems and views their inevitable death as a good thing, maybe, but that's just cenobites crossed with the ancients.

By this logic we can say nothing is lost in the destruction of the universe then, as all are doomed to unhappy endings anyway. This is of course Fandaniels position.

Meteion was wrong because she was (they were?) attempting to take away any autonomy from people or civilisations regarding how they would meet their end, but they were correct about the fate of all life. I don't believe denial of that is a virtue, and I do hope that if there's more quests like these omega ones they might touch more on the Ea, as they're fairly unique in this context.

One doesn't have to deny entropy in order to believe fighting for tomorrow is worth it. One can accept its inevitably, and much like death to mortal beings, make use of the time we have to its fullest extent. The journey, not the destination, so to speak.

Personally I imagine I'll die somewhere in my early 80s, or maybe my 90s if I'm unlucky enough, but if you're planning on living past 10,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000,​000 years old I can understand why you might have a different take to me on this stuff.

I don't plan on living that long either. But I do concern myself with those future lives because I also believe they should be fulfilling and good as possible. Which is why I would hope to ensure those lives don’t feel as if self termination before they need to is the better option.

Sorry if I thought you did, "manifest as dynamis" sounded a lot like you implied it to my non-native speaker ears!

I don't think the sundering would be a bad solution if Venat gave a choice to people. Not "bad" in the sense that it doesn't work, but because she literally killed her whole race but 3 people in all but names. Their souls are still recycled and other life grows from it, but her solution wasn't any better on a life-cost point of view than Hermes' or Emet-Selch.

That could be sundered heroes along entelechy creations and supported from afar by ancients, for all I know.

We do have her factions quote asking for the Ancients to relinquish stewardship to those new beings. Given what we know about her goals, and her actions that followed that suggestion, I think it logical to conclude that this was a possibility for her. However, two major issues need to be resolved before this is a solution.

1. The Ancients would have to agree to let those beings live their own lives free of interference or control. In order for them to strike against Meteion they would need to develop their own outlooks, reasons and motivations for existing as mortals. Interfering would compromise this.

2. Efforts would have to be taken to separate mortals and the Ancients in order to prevent conflict. The Ancients held sway over the star for millenia. Watching mortals make mistakes and ruin things would be excruciating and given the Unsundereds reasons for hating the Sundered conflict is almost inevitable. Likewise, should mortals come to know the Ancients and their power, they may try to do the same thing they did to the dragons. I'm imagining Thordan 2.0.

I'm not blaming the writers really, it only shows that Venat is very much an Ancient and takes the same kind of drastic measures, just like the others. Hers are based on her love of humanity, Emet on his love of the Ancient society, and Hermes on life itself.
I just don't think saying "there was NO way the Ancients could have done anything, even if they knew what was happening" rests on any solid ground.

I wouldn't be so quick to presume the writers aren't addressing this chance. This expansions Tales and the Myths of the Realm are still incomplete.

[Alenore]

We do have her factions quote asking for the Ancients to relinquish stewardship to those new beings. Given what we know about her goals, and her actions that followed that suggestion, I think it logical to conclude that this was a possibility for her. However, two major issues need to be resolved before this is a solution.

1. The Ancients would have to agree to let those beings live their own lives free of interference or control. In order for them to strike against Meteion they would need to develop their own outlooks, reasons and motivations for existing as mortals. Interfering would compromise this.

2. Efforts would have to be taken to separate mortals and the Ancients in order to prevent conflict. The Ancients held sway over the star for millenia. Watching mortals make mistakes and ruin things would be excruciating and given the Unsundereds reasons for hating the Sundered conflict is almost inevitable. Likewise, should mortals come to know the Ancients and their power, they may try to do the same thing they did to the dragons. I'm imagining Thordan 2.0.



I wouldn't be so quick to presume the writers aren't addressing this chance. This expansions Tales and the Myths of the Realm are still incomplete.

I seem to recall one such quote, but I can't seem to find it now. Do you have it around? It doesn't seem to be in Anamnesis.
As for your 1, not necessarily. Beings of similar aether density already exist in the world, namely the multitude of familiars.
We weren't efficient against Meteion because we had torebuild civilization multiple times and had incredibly foreign motivations compared to Ancients. In fact, out outlook on life is quite similar to Venat's, and I suppose Azem's as well.

So no, I argue to integrate them into society as full fledged ancients who made a sacrifice in order to fix the Meteion problem, and they may choose to be rejoined after their purpose is over or continue as mortals in that society.
Even if they were to create a society, I doubt Emet-Selch and the other Ascians would have much issue with how things are done in Sharlayan. A civilization guided by Ancients wouldn't necessarily end in tragedy.
And then, if mortals tried to go full Ancientsong way, how would it end? Rejoin, and become Ancients? Well, one experiment failed, 12000 years of experiment to go!


To be clear, I don't think the writers even imply that Venat's way was the only one. But it's something part of the community thinks, despite constantly failing to give proof. Which is natural since no proof can exist, given it never even had a chance to happen.
The game takes place in a world where Venat did sunder Etheirys, and since our timeline cannot simply be erased due to 10 years of content taking place in it, it had to be resolved this way. They also probably didn't want to do the whole "change past to create a safe timeline" a second time after Shadowbringers, and so had Venat act the way she did. It shows us a flawed Venat, but it works, characters obviously not always making the best decisions.

Even in the liveletter, when Yoshi-P breaches the subject, he says it's something Venat believes, not that there wasn't any other way. She sees Zodiark being summoned, and comes to the conclusion that they'll just go toward their end, envisionning them ending in a similar way as the Plenty. So she decided to sunder everything.
Yoshi-P even mentions that Alphinaud was right when he contested Emet-Selch's right to judge mankind, and that the same applied to Venat.