Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Tama-Kanzashi]

It sounds like you're simply dancing around the issue. The rejoinings were most certainly not consensual, given that they resulted in the destruction of seven worlds and eradication of all life on them, a point that's explicitly stated in the in-game text. It's a bit like saying that you'd be fine with mass murder if it was 'consensual', which is a nonsensical use of the word. So are you against what the Ascians did or not?

It sounds like you are simply dancing around the issue. The Sundering was most certainly not consensual, given that it resulted in the destruction and fragmentation of a civilization and countless lives and the erasure of them from collective memory, a point that is explicitly stated in in-game text. It's a bit like saying that you would be fine with mass murder if it was 'consensual', which is a nonsensical use of the word. So are you against what Venat did or not?

...try on this shoe please. You might be amazed at how well it fits you.

[Lyth]

????

I haven't the slightest problem directly stating my views on the matter, unlike your friend.

There isn't enough information provided around the Sundering to render a proper verdict on it, especially when we don't know what was at stake during their talks. What was the 'new life' that stood to be forcibly sacrificed? What were the long-term consequences of summoning Zodiark? All I can conclude so far is that the Amaurotines as a society had a lot less empathetic approach to decision-making, and I much prefer the world of the present to the world of the past. So when I go with 'none of them were right', it's simply because we presently just don't have enough context on Venat's decision.

I have no problem liking any of the Amaurotians individually as characters, and one of the fun things about fantasy is that you can root for characters who are unapologetically evil. I think that the stories around the Void are going to produce some fantastic villains, and I'm actually much more interested in them because they don't seem to carry any pretenses of greatness, whereas the Amaurotines just come across as overbearing and narcissistic.

But why would you try argue any of this from a standpoint of supposed 'moral superiority'? It's just so tiresome and boring. It forces you desperately redirect any scrutiny of Emet's actions, when they're obviously heinous. You're unnecessarily digging yourself a hole. Just accept that he's wonderfully evil and cherish him for it. Your mistake was in thinking that he needed to be 'morally right' to be valued in the first place.

[Lauront]

But why would you try argue any of this from a standpoint of supposed 'moral superiority'? It's just so tiresome and boring. It forces you desperately redirect any scrutiny of Emet's actions, when they're obviously heinous. You're unnecessarily digging yourself a hole. Just accept that he's wonderfully evil and cherish him for it. Your mistake was in thinking that he needed to be 'morally right' to be valued in the first place.

I know you're arguing in the worst possible faith and are merely derailing the discussion to distract from any debate actually being had, but this is amusing - we could just swap out the word "Emet" in the above for "Venat" and we wouldn't need to change a word other than the name and gendering.

Oh, and we have this tidbit from Yoshi:

I do get that Emet-Selch is really popular but I sort of agree with Alphinaud when Emet is talking about judging people and think, “What right does he have to do that?”, and that might be applicable to Venat too, like “What right does she have to do that?” with showing various things about the Ancients and how different they were from us as people and how they were sort of the same, so I think if you go back and look at all of the different parts including the side quest including the Ancients in them, you might find them interesting.

Of course, I am going to set aside that we have seen sundered antagonists render "judgements" of a very similar nature.

As Veloran put it, this isn't really either/or, because...

I'm just going to say it: The Ascians are, in essence, Venat's controlled opposition. She knew what they would do, and paved the way for their existence, while they were unknowingly acting as agents of her plans. Even if Emet-Selch hadn't come out and said this in Ultima Thule, as many people have been pointing out in this thread their proclivities towards spreading chaos and resetting civilization through great destruction every few thousand years is exactly what Venat's ideals call for.

After all, as Yoshi put it:

As you think back to the text towards the end Emet-Selch did imply that Venat let him live unsundered. In fact Venat did intentionally leave a tiny floor in her Sundering attack - a crack that Emet-Selch can wiggle through. Sort of like…yes it was a powerful attack but intentionally chose to do it in this fashion.

As this poster put it, though:

"I have no problem directly stating something." Then proceeds to do a mealymouthed dance around, "Sundering? What is it? What did it do? Who can say, really?"

Of course the Rejoinings were bad. Stop pretending like you're the only one on these forums capable of a nuanced appreciation of anything. It's weird and it makes you look stupid.

Quite.

We could also refer to the below as an instance of the pot calling the kettle black:

whereas the Amaurotines just come across as overbearing and narcissistic.

I'd dispute that characterisation in the case of the kettle, but for the metaphorical pot, well...

Though I am sure you are concocting your next conspiracy about who is whose alt.

I think you need to take a break from your little stint as self-appointed forum "inquisitor".