Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[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.)

[tokinokanatae]

If there’s no difference between one person and fourteen making a unilateral decision, all that leads us to is, “both the Convocation AND Venat were wrong.” Please keep in mind that I strenuously disagree with the idea that rightfully elected officials are the same as “Grandma Genocide” building a super weapon in a library basement with her twelve likeminded friends, but even if you see no material difference between the two, it doesn’t suddenly follow that Venat was okay to do what she did.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[KariTheFox]

Oh, I see the confusion.

I'm not trying to justify Venat's actions here, whether or not she was right or wrong matters very little in this context, I just want people to actually get the facts straight regarding Convocation - they were not democratically chosen and they did in fact make decisions for all of society with zero oversight or accountability to the public at large (there is no mechanism for citizen to remove a convocation member making decisions they disagree with, they would have to either retire or be ejected by the other members. Not democratic.)

Not everything has to lead back to Venat being right or wrong here.

[tokinokanatae]

Oh, that’s an incredibly silly thing to argue, but I do apologize for misreading you.

We don’t know enough about the inner workings of the form of government in Amaurot to say one way or the other. The game not explicitly telling us the ways in which a Convocation member can be relieved from duty through citizen vote is not the same as that mechanism not existing. The only things we do know is that there is some sort of public vetting process (as seen by Hythlodeaus’s story of how Emet-Selch was approved for the position) and the position is usually held until the death of the official, once they are put into place.

It’s possible that the Ancient world was a place where a Convocation member could murder people in the street or take bribes for fast-tracking concepts and nothing could be about it, but then the Firebrand Amaurotine seems pretty weird for complaining about the process of concept approval as opposed to the mass corruption the entire office is mired in.

The Zodiark plan is discussed in the streets in Amaurot and would have failed if not for the active voluntary sacrifice of regular citizens—so it’s absolutely contingent on the approval of people like us. The votes cast for Zodiark were the lives people gave to protect their loved ones. Whereas we DO know that Venat had retired from her prior office and had absolutely no public oversight. People are not discussing or lining up to assist with the Hydaelyn plan. That alone shows you the difference between the two.

[Theodric]

Oh, I see the confusion.

I'm not trying to justify Venat's actions here, whether or not she was right or wrong matters very little in this context, I just want people to actually get the facts straight regarding Convocation - they were not democratically chosen and they did in fact make decisions for all of society with zero oversight or accountability to the public at large (there is no mechanism for citizen to remove a convocation member making decisions they disagree with, they would have to either retire or be ejected by the other members. Not democratic.)

Not everything has to lead back to Venat being right or wrong here.

Huh? From what I recall, it's been pointed out many times throughout a variety of threads that the Convocation was not simply going off and doing its own thing with zero oversight and accountability. It wasn't a hive mind, either - since Elidibus' seat was designed to sometimes align with the Convocation on some occasions and against it on others.

There's also the conversation between the player character and Hythlodaeus during the Elpis portion of the story, as seen here:



Note how it is pointed out that countless people from the world over vouched for Emet-Selch, rather than just the Convocation.

Their entire society is also built around research and debate.

I'd also point to this snippet from one of the short stories:



An outright insinuation that debates are held in regards to the suitability of individuals appointed to positions of authority.

[Brinne]

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?

If that "drastic action" was wiping out all humans as a species? Good lord, I cannot emphasize enough absolutely positively NOT.

[CrownySuccubus]

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?

Your question already makes my point for me: Why did the aliens warn us instead of invading the planet and killing everybody?

Because remember, that's what we're discussing. Someone deciding to kill millions of lives and all of civilization because of "future warning signs" they believe in.

Aliens giving a warning, and letting us decide what we want to do about it, is instantly more humane than just killing everybody and saying "You're welcome".

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.

Eara, do you see how these bolded parts contradict each other?

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?

Yes, it is for the exact reasons outlined in the response above. If aliens came and blew up the planet Earth, reducing all of mankind back to cavemen, and simply left without explaining why, I don't think I need to elaborate why that would be "messed up".

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.

Eara, to be absolutely frank, your arguments right now are that you think one person should have the absolute power to decide whether or not billions of human lives end based on their own "moral judgment" about humankind's future. If you find the argument of "letting someone die form horrific preventable diseases because of Tik Tok" insulting, you have to realize that that possibility is what you are arguing for. Again, that is what advocating for absolute power amounts to. If Real Life Hydaelyn-sama decided to Sunder the Earth because she watched millennials and Gen Z kids care more about getting views on Tik Tok than what goes on in the political or business spheres, and decided to destroy it all to stop humanity from being "distracted by frivolous pursuits rather than saving their dying planet", then there would be nothing we could do to stop her. If she decided to do it out of jealousy or spite or even just because, we still wouldn't be able to stop her. Hell, she could even do it on a complete whim and later justify it to herself for "noble" reasons. Again...that's what dictatorships allow.

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.

The MSQ quests also explain that many dragons DID flee like he did, and all of them except Midgard eventually got wiped out by the local populace. And even in Midgard's case, he was also followed by Omega.

EDIT: Thanks Brinne for reminding me who the Grebuloff are.

If we take this back to Meteion's quote: "In the course of which, they learned the truth. That they would never be free of fear and sorrow, anger and despair-of loneliness-so long as they yet lived." The problem with equating the dragons or the Grebuloff with the Plenty is that the former two were killed by external forces which destroyed their "paradise". I realize that the text seemingly implies that the Grebuloff polluted their own world or something like that, but this once again is a different beast altogether than the reasons the Plenty died off. The Plenty did not get invaded or become riddled with rot and disease -- their deaths were based on a subjective opinion that they were bored. In fact, the Plenty would probably have WELCOMED a plague or a robot invasion if it gave them something to do.

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.

This statement only means they didn't find anyone with an answer. It does not mean that the reasons for no answer were the same.

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.

Meteion never disputes a word that the Plenty say. The Plenty define "perfection" as elimination of all strife and sorrow, and Meteion acknowledges that they did this multiple times. As I've said before, it really does not matter if the Plenty achieved any "further perfection" besides this, because eliminating all strife and sorrow is ALREADY an impossible feat, as you have agreed to. Arguing "perfection is impossible thus you shouldn't try to get it" doesn't work if the characters achieve other impossible things, such as eliminating all sorrow and strife.

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."

If one person literally decides the fate of an entire planet for 12,000 years, that is a dictatorship. If your argument is that the person is doing this to "preserve good" (a subjective value), then that is a "benevolent" dictatorship.

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.

I use that same language because, for me, it makes no difference. You can call this a "dictatorship" or "happy royal fun time", but I still consider it a 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 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.

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?

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.

Again, the fact that you CAN have a democratic ruler that manages to gain absolute power does not change the fact that absolute power is built right into dictatorship from the start. Based on what we know of the Zodiark debate, literally everybody got to vote on whether or not to take that course of action, which automatically makes it more fair than the Sundering.

The argument of "but democracies CAN be corrupt, therefore there's no difference" is like claiming that because you CAN still die while wearing a seatbelt (or, hell, there have even been cases when it was the seat belt, air bag, or some other safety feature that killed a person who would have otherwise survived) , there's no difference whether cars have them or not. The entire point of democracy and Rule of Law is to PREVENT that sort of abuse of power; democracy can lead to its own flaws (tyranny of the majority), but once again: that sort of tyranny is baked right into a dictatorship from the start.

The fundamental problem with this statement:

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.

Is that the conclusion is "Dictatorships are great when I agree with them, but not when I don't". But the entire problem with a dictatorship is that your disagreement is irrelevant. No one's opinion matters except for the dictator.

[Lyth]

?

In your past two replies to me, I've been struggling to see how your response relates to the text that you've actually quoted. I don't really have a whole lot of interest in Amaurot's system of governance, outside of the fact that I probably wouldn't want to live there. I don't think that you can argue that nepotism isn't an issue within their system, especially when we've seen several examples already, and the fact that it's inherent in pretty much any group that appoints its own members (human society included).

The members of the Convocation who went on to become the Ascians single-handedly killed millions across the seven worlds that they destroyed, all out of a feeling of racial superiority. And the bottom line is that regardless of what you feel about Venat's actions, you cannot ever justify what the Ascians did. Either way, you can conclude that the Amaurotians had their share of problems as a group, and it's for the best that they've been collectively written out of the story.

[CrownySuccubus]

In your past two replies to me, I've been struggling to see how your response relates to the text that you've actually quoted. I don't really have a whole lot of interest in Amaurot's system of governance, outside of the fact that I probably wouldn't want to live there. I don't think that you can argue that nepotism isn't an issue within their system, especially when we've seen several examples already, and the fact that it's inherent in pretty much any group that appoints its own members (human society included).

The members of the Convocation who went on to become the Ascians single-handedly killed millions across the seven worlds that they destroyed, all out of a feeling of racial superiority. And the bottom line is that regardless of what you feel about Venat's actions, you cannot ever justify what the Ascians did. Either way, you can conclude that the Amaurotians had their share of problems as a group, and it's for the best that they've been collectively written out of the story.

I believe that the millions of Ancients that were killed by the cosmic chess game between Venat, Hermes, Meteion, and (unwittingly) the Unsundered are unambiguous victims here. I also believe that whatever imaginary problems we try to speculate about their system of government don't justify or equivocate to millions of people having their fates decided for them.

As tokinokanatae said: at best, we're making the argument that "everybody was wrong".

[Lauront]

Oh, I see the confusion.

I'm not trying to justify Venat's actions here, whether or not she was right or wrong matters very little in this context, I just want people to actually get the facts straight regarding Convocation - they were not democratically chosen and they did in fact make decisions for all of society with zero oversight or accountability to the public at large (there is no mechanism for citizen to remove a convocation member making decisions they disagree with, they would have to either retire or be ejected by the other members. Not democratic.)

Not everything has to lead back to Venat being right or wrong here.

The problem with your entire argument is this "zero oversight or accountability" part. Both Crowny and Tokino addressed this pretty well, and I will repeat the point about the sigils raised by Yoshi which very strongly contradicts this understanding of unchecked power (coupled with the expectation that they are transparent in their dealings along with their other civil institutions), but the argument that sparked this was that if the Convocation was in a position of authority to make decisions on behalf of the star, why do we have an issue with one person doing this, and it has been explained why. Said individual does not possess the legitimate authority to do so (not that I imagine their society would ever bestow on them such authority), they went behind their society's back to do it and betrayed their trust by annihilating them, and the nature of the decision - i.e. annihilating them as a people and fracturing them as a star - is not something you can plausibly argue the Convocation would be allowed to get away with, especially if it hid its reasoning and sprung it on the entire public out of the blue.

And to push it to an extreme here: even if the government in question was authoritarian in nature, like say papal Ishgard's or Garlemald's, it still would not follow that it would be within the legitimate scope of the ruler's power to annihilate their people, certainly not as a matter of expectations. No more than it would having, say, some radical group in Ul'dah that decided to gas them all with Black Rose, and then throwing out the question: well they're ruled by a monarch and plutocratic council, so why's it not ok when some other small cabal does something to the people of that nation? Ditto if Vrtra was replaced with an evil twin dragon. To make it less hypothetical, it's exactly what happened with Zenos. The appropriate response there may be to reflect on what allowed for it to happen and put in measures to prevent it from recurring. Not "ugh you were ok with your ruler having xyz powers, why's it a problem if some dissident group unilaterally decides to kill you all." And it's not like we as players would be expected to find such logic inherently compelling, either.

I ultimately don't even think the issue of whether it's a democracy or not would change much in the eyes of someone motivated to find fault with them, because 1) the question can always be reframed as "well if you're ok with the existence of an individual or body to make certain decisions on behalf of their broader society, what's the problem with this singular dissident person or group doing it? it's just a difference in numbers, right? It's still just might makes right, isn't it?" and 2) their broader society had moved to proceed with the third sacrifices (we know this from how she frames her group as small in number in the Anamnesis flashback), so it would be re-cast as her having to oppose a society that had become "broken" (in this context, refused to "accept suffering" - an argument I see very commonly with a side helping of "Zodiark tempered them all" and "they'd never stop sacrificing".) The problem is clearly the nature of the decision and how it's being imposed, i.e. unilaterally and without warning; it is in all respects a hostile act.