Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[KariTheFox]

"And even if their reign ends, that doesn't negate the possibility of consequences -- by the time the last Roman emperor fell, Europe had become a theocratic hegemony, and by the time Germany was defeated, a few million people had been exterminated and humankind entered a nuclear cold war. Hell, even in the case of Venat, the changes she made to Etheirys (if not the universe, by not telling anybody about Meteion) are fundamentally permanent, and nobody has the ability to do anything about it."

All true, Venat's actions had far reaching implications that echo through history, I'm not disputing that.

Doesn't mean she's making many other decisions after that one. People still have agency in the world she had a hand in laying the groundwork for.

[CrownySuccubus]

People still have agency in the world she had a hand in laying the groundwork for.

Sure. Doesn't change the fact that she decided that groundwork completely on her own for 12,000 years, and that nobody has any choice BUT to do so.

[Lyth]

More accurately, the events of the next 12000 years were determined by both her actions and those of the Convocation. If you want to take issue with Venat, then your issue really lies with Amaurotians as a whole. And I think that's a fair stance to take. Everything that we've seen of the Convocation throughout the story suggests that most of their leadership were just not good people, and the nepotism around their selection meant that this was unlikely to ever change for the better. Good riddance to the Convocation as a group, really.

I think that a lot of people here are glad that the Amaurotians' role in the story is finally wrapping up, as Gaius finishes off his mask collection in the background. Perhaps someday he'll invite us over his house for tea and biscuits, so that we can view his trophies and reminisce on old times together. It wouldn't do to forget, after all.

If you want to discuss and debate the philosophy behind Eden, Endwalker, and utopias, then that's great. But I do think that you always should go in with the mindset that you're not going to change anyone else's mind.

The problem is that people tend to stake their egos on it and the discussion turns unnecessarily sour. I'm not sure why it's always the people who dislike debating the most who keep on poking this thread to get the Lore forums' attention. There are actually personal character blogs on this website for people not specifically looking for the interactive part of the discussion.

Either way, perhaps this debate has reached its natural closure, and there are more interesting ones now around the Void anyhow.

[CrownySuccubus]

More accurately, the events of the next 12000 years were determined by both her actions and those of the Convocation. If you want to take issue with Venat, then your issue really lies with Amaurotians as a whole. And I think that's a fair stance to take. Everything that we've seen of the Convocation throughout the story suggests that most of their leadership were just not good people, and the nepotism around their selection meant that this was unlikely to ever change for the better. Good riddance to the Convocation as a group, really.

There's already been a lot of discussion about why that argument is wrong.

As I said earlier, this argument fallaciously argues that because dictatorship and democracy are both forms of authority, they're both equal and completely denies the possibility that one is worse than the other.

The entire point of Amaurot was that the general populace had a say and could raise objections to the policies or ideas of the Convocation. Likewise, it's implied that part of the successor selection process involved vetting that the person in question had distinguished public service.

In ShB, we see someone deemed the "Amaurotine Firebrand" protesting vehemently against many of the Convocation's policies, and he is likewise allowed to voice his complaints even to groups who did not agree with his position. Likewise, while Amaurot was a capital, we know for a fact that both travel and long-range communication were common for them, based on the teleportation devices on Elpis, as well as the fact that the Amarotine shades mention hearing word from outer provinces. So it didn't seem to matter very much if people were in the capital or not when it came to making their voices heard.

Besides that, all of which you describe is taken up to an even greater extreme with Venat. Outside of a very exclusive circle which largely agreed with her, no one even knew about Venat's plans or goals (and even then, she still seems to have kept most of the truth from them, if the Watcher is any indication). Just like real life democracies and republics, Amaurot and the Convocation were in no way perfect, but still leagues better than any dictatorship or shadow cabal in terms of accountability. The problem with Venat is that she pretty much WAS a dictator in charge of a shadow cabal, who made genocidal decisions on her own volition and with ZERO chance for debate or oversight. Any criticisms you can lobby towards the Convocation's style of government are multiplied upon Venat.

Plus Lauront's post here:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6040755

[EaraGrace]

Oh boy long post incoming, apologies for taking up even more space here.

...How "convenient" that one person shouldn't be allowed to make a judgment call to commit genocide on the entire human race and reset civilization based on a possibility which is inherently impossible to predict

I think you're establishing a standard for decision making that would be ridiculous if applied evenly. If another species came to Earth, and warned us that they had ruined their world with nuclear weapons and explained that we shared many of the same warning signs, would you not agree that should engender drastic action even if we can't know for certain?

As I said earlier, this argument fallaciously argues that because dictatorship and democracy are both forms of authority, they're both equal and completely denies the possibility that one is worse than the other.

I don't say they're both equal, I said that based on the standard you established, with one person making decisions that affect the lives and wellbeing of billions in dramatic ways, pretty much every system of government on Earth fails to avoid that problem. If a nation has a head of state that makes decisions, it is effectively doing that same thing.

No, you're doubling down on your opinions. Which is NOT conducive to a discussion.

What do you want me to say then? I'm restating my position because I haven't been convinced otherwise and because it explains why I think what I think. You started this specific chain by saying my opinion is "messed up," which isn't exactly conducive to discussion in the first place is it?

Then that answers your question, doesn't it?

I guess so.

Give me one example. If it's a valid one, I'll apologize.

Regardless, the next time you pull that, this discussion is over immediately.

Sure. I think equivocating my arguments to someone letting people die from horrific preventable diseases because of Tik Tok was not only a ridiculous comparison but downright insulting for one. I haven't done that to you, the most I've equivocated is either an explanation of my own arguments or the statement about anarchism, which I stressed in the statement itself was not meant to be dismissive or insulting.

So MAYBE the dragons? So one out of the four mentioned...

Again, the dragons don't count, the plague world doesn't count, nor does the one destroyed by their deity.

Or they may have fled like Midgard, who is noted in the Ultima Thule quests as being mocked for his decision. But ok, so what of the Grebuloff as you mention? Their invasion of the world above the ocean was because they sought what they thought was paradise, only to find it wasn't.

This world is not the boundless paradise we were promised. Our population quickly outstripped the habitable land, while seas we thought would shine forever blue ran dry, spoiled in forging the tools of conquest. Cramped homes turned to squalor, and then came the sickness.

And the ones where Meteion doesn't know what happened literally cannot count, because she flat out does not have the answers.

Sure. The only conclusion one can have on those that were already gone is that they are dead.

That's a strawman. What I hold is that you are overreaching on a very general statement that Meteion made to offer it as "proof" of your argument, when it isn't.

But my objection is that Meteion had no reason not to cling to doubt in her conclusion if there were any to be found. The Meteia were desperate to find even one answer to give to Hermes, and I don't think it logical to conclude they wouldn't take what they could if they did indeed find something.

Every quote you present that states how it's "impossible" to do it is countered by direct quotes which stated that the Plenty literally did it. Which I've quoted multiple times. The very fact that there are quotes that contradict each other is flat out, text proof of said contradiction. So how have I "yet to answer" anything?

And I would say the quotes you use are a mix of statements by the Plenty themselves, or arguments made using different language that allows for nuance. The Plenty are in fact the only ones that use the word perfection to describe themselves, even Meteion in the quotes you include. The Scions are the closest to making that sort of statement, but even don't go as far as the denizens of the Plenty do, nor obviously do they believe the Plenty to be a true manifestation of the perfect society.

Your reasoning (based on the first two quotes in this post) basically amounts to "the answer to our problems is a benevolent dictatorship", where one person or cabal with good intentions acts unilaterally to enact whatever goal they think needs to be done for the sake of life.

No, once again there's nuance here your stripping me of. There is a wide gulf between I thinking should good individual should act to preserve good even if that calls for standing in opposition to the majority, and "the answer to our problems is a benevolent dictatorship."

To avoid any semantics, we can call "one person makes decisions for the rest of an entire world" something other than a "dictatorship" if you like, but it really doesn't matter what it's called. It doesn't change the next part of my statement.

The problem with this argument is that such a benevolent dictatorship is, like perfection or predicting the future, impossible.

Before I jump into the argument itself I want to point out something I have an issue with. In the first part of this quote you do something I appreciate, you recognize that specific language is inflammatory to me and would get in the way of the discussion and thus offer an alternative. I think that's cool.

The problem is you immediately follow up by using that selfsame language having just explained that you know and expect me to have a bone to pick with it. Why? Its not necessary, and you obviously know I'm going to reject that argument and the baggage it came with. But ok enough whinging on to the argument.

The exact same fundamental problem that prevents perfection and prediction of the future is also inherent in the concept of a "benevolent" dictatorship...

Humans are infallible this is totally true, but one doesn't need to be dictator to make world altering decisions. Presidents do that all the time, and often go against the wishes of the people in doing so. Abraham Lincoln moved against the will of many during the Civil War, and yet he was right to do so. Even on a more individual level people stand in opposition to the world they live in and oftentimes by force make change happen. And it can be for the better! I don't have to make Venat dictator in order to believe she has the right of it here. One can hold that it is best to allow as much freedom of choice as possible while recognizing that the every desire of the majority is not always right and that it be best that they not be followed. If a celestial dragon came down from the heavens and said to the world "no more racism" (as ridiculous as that sounds I know), I don't believe I would have cause to fight against them. I could understand why others are wary for sure, but I honestly would support that at least.

And even if their reign ends, that doesn't negate the possibility of consequences -- by the time the last Roman emperor fell, Europe had become a theocratic hegemony, and by the time Germany was defeated, a few million people had been exterminated and humankind entered a nuclear cold war. Hell, even in the case of Venat, the changes she made to Etheirys (if not the universe, by not telling anybody about Meteion) are fundamentally permanent, and nobody has the ability to do anything about it.

And once again that isn't exclusive to these situations. The world could've ended in 1962 and only a handful of individuals would've had the power to make that decision.

If you agree with EW's story in that the pursuit of a perfect world leads to Dead Ends, then you, more than anybody here, should be absolutely opposed to the idea that any one person should EVER decide the fate of an entire planet -- because if the dictator decides that pursuing perfection is the correct thing to do, then that's where the world will be headed, because the definition of a dictatorship is that they're the only one with the power to act or decide.

And once again I don't believe that a dictatorship is alone in this problem. In the timeline where Venat tells the world of Meteion, who would ultimately get to decide what to do with that info in Amaurotine society?

Furthermore, a dictatorship is a form of government that REQUIRES perfection...

And once again I can say the same thing of any sovereign, President, Queen, Prime Minister, etc. The benefit of a democracy is you do have the infrastructure to remove them from power non-violently, which is partly what makes democracy great in my eyes, but that doesn't change the fact that for a specified amount of time a person can make decisions for you that you hate. Tyranny is only for individuals, majorities can be tyrants as well.

[Theodric]

I think there's a very big difference between a nation breaking free of the chains cast by another and...deliberately standing by to allow an apocalypse to occur and inflicting genocide upon the unsuspecting survivors.

Sometimes societal change is required - but if the cost is at the expense of a whole bunch of innocent men, women and children through the deliberate genocide of an entire race and civilisation then that is very much a red line in the sand for many I suspect.

What the game tries to do is present that cost as inevitable and the actions of a 'good person' and yet the game is full of well meaning antagonists and villains who have specifically been stopped on the basis that even if they had a point, the consequences of their actions were considered to be a step - or multiple steps - too far.

I've said as much before, though if Venat's actions were directed at the Sundered rather than the Unsundered then I have a hard time buying into the idea that the Scions and City State leaders would just bend over and agree that Venat is a good person for wanting to wipe out every last man, woman and child within their civilisations.

Equally, we can apply that concept to our world as well - it's why eco terrorists are so dangerous, especially if they're convincing themselves that things would be better if only they could kill large swathes of humans and/or lower the standard of living - which would, in actuality, cause more pollution and strife since people forced into poverty don't exactly have environmental protections at the forefront of their minds.

[Lauront]

Ok, I genuinely don't understand how a statement where it is clearly stated that highly sensitive affairs that are revealed only to select few, which he states includes us, can be interpreted this way. The word include quite literally means "comprise or contain as part of a whole." What exactly do you think the whole being referred to is?

You're dumping a screenshot there to try suggest, I'd imagine, that they don't conduct their affairs with transparency. Of course, this just sets up a rather ridiculous standard for it, where if you're not telling any rando who shows up the details of your deliberations as they're happening, it somehow doesn't constitute transparency. Virtually no (sane) government of any kind does this. We can understand the concept to mean communicating your decision to the public and explaining the rationale of it, and possibly followed up with debate. Maybe allowing for access to the minutes of the discussions. It doesn't mean just offering the information up to any person (or, for that matter, unknown entity) who shows up simply because they asked, especially whilst the matter is being deliberated. Simply deciding to inflict a genocide on a group based on reasons you kept to yourself (and I mean the actual reasons, not platitudes), and reasons never even discussed with the broader public or their governing council is not consistent with their mode of governance.

[KariTheFox]

There is zero indication that Amaurot was a democracy. The population did not vote for thier leaders or on policy - the leaders were chosen by the other members of the convocation, based on the standards that they themselves set.

It's very nice that the "Firebrand" is allowed to stand on the street and speak his mind, but the ability to speak openly without being suppressed for your speech does not make a political system a democracy, it makes it "not oppressive to free speech,".

If the Firebrand had been allowed to run for office and get votes from people who agreed with them and have actual power to influence policy, then it would be a democracy, but it just looks like the Convocation is a benevolent oligarchy run by a group that ultimately selects is own members. And a benevolent oligarchy has all the same problems as a benevolent dictatorship.

[Lauront]

You don't seem to realise how little it matters whether they're a democracy in the conventional sense or not in this context. It's already been shown that their leaders did not enjoy unchecked authority to do whatever they wanted, i.e. their authority was delimited (e.g. with the sigils showing their were limitations placed on them, be they symbolic or otherwise.) Trying to argue they should just roll with what Venat did because they're not a democracy, when the scope of powers their government had presumably did not include "genociding us all for reasons you failed to offer up to us", is ridiculous. Even in the case of relatively more authoritarian states like papal Ishgard or Garlemald, where the ruler has relatively greater authority, it would be considered a betrayal by their people if their leader just decided to kill them all - as Zenos did. More than this, the game would position it as deserving of sympathy and something to be opposed or condemned. And both those are cases unlike Amaurot, where we're explicitly told how their officials are expected to conduct themselves. Nevermind that in this scenario, it's a dissident in their ranks who ended them. So I am not sure what this point is meant to prove. At this point we simply have an extremist deciding to end their society because they thought it was doomed.

[KariTheFox]

If it "doesn't actually matter" whether Amaurot was a demicracy or not, why keep insisting that it was when it so obviously was not?

It's impossible to have a discussion when basic facts about the world are in dispute.

(My point is that if you have a problem with Venat excercising her judgement and making sweeping decisions for all of society, then that same logic has to apply to the Convocation, there's very little difference to me between 1 person thinking they know best for everyone, and 14 people thinking the same.)