Tales from the Dawn #3: "A Question of Life" (Hermes)

[Theodric]

Last I checked, certain posters now feigning concern had absolutely nothing to say when the poster in question was wishing death on those of us who like the antagonists, insulting our intelligence and peddling conspiracy theories about us being alts of one another.

[Lauront]

Last I checked, certain posters now feigning concern had absolutely nothing to say when the poster in question was wishing death on those of us who like the antagonists, insulting our intelligence and peddling conspiracy theories about us being alts of one another.

Indeed. If the mods were to show up, I don't think it'd bode awfully well for the poster in question.

[aveyond-dreams]

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

I've refrained from commeting in this thread given the sort of discussion that was taking place - but by merely playing through the MSQ and side content that isn't the impression I got from the Convocation members prior to...the destruction of their world and people. Which, naturally, had an effect on them. They were certainly more human and had more to like than Venat, who despite her being not as insufferable as some of the other female party members we've had, wasn't exactly the sort of person I expect could relate with people on a deeper level.

Venat's primary experience with suffering has been watching other people go through things. That isn't the same as experiencing them first hand, like people like Lahabrea had to. I would sooner trust pre-Sundering Lahabrea as a confidant than her.

[KariTheFox]

Regarding "Venat is morally culpable for not telling any of the ancients anything" I think, other than the pracitical concerns about Fandaniel that have already been pointed out, I think a couple points always get overlooked.

1, Venat is not choosing between say something, and help save the civilization of the ancients, and say nothing just because. It's say nothing to save the people of the future, who are confirmed to exist by the WoL, so it's not a hypothetical second group of people. They very much exist and are doomed if Venat does not enact her plan to help them, a plan that requires not saving the ancients.

Venat, is essentially being placed in front of an enormous trolley problem where on one track is her own people, and on another track are the future generations that she has explicit future knowledge about. Not exactly an enviable position to be in.

2, any Venat we meet in our time necessarily has to be the one who decided to choose us over her own people, or we wouldn't be meeting her. In other timelines, where Venat makes different choices that don't lead to the sundering, we don't exist.

[SannaR]

Ib4 someone reiterates that genocide is genocide while maybe or maybe not calling Venat a few choice names and how dare you not care about the plight of the Ancients or state even though you didn't bring it up that they wouldn't have had a chance to try n deal with Meteion if they had been told UwU.

[Absimiliard]

After a bit of thought, it occurs to me that Hermes was extremely abusive toward Meteion. He disregarded her very obvious distress at several points in the pursuit of information. He was in many ways treating this rare sapient familiar, something he himself was most directly responsible for the creation of, with far less care than those around him were shown to give ordinary familiars.

[SentioftheHoukai]

After a bit of thought, it occurs to me that Hermes was extremely abusive toward Meteion. He disregarded her very obvious distress at several points in the pursuit of information. He was in many ways treating this rare sapient familiar, something he himself was most directly responsible for the creation of, with far less care than those around him were shown to give ordinary familiars.

He literally didn't even let her think she liked a flippin' candied apple. Poor kid.

"Oh, that's just my preferences imprinting on you." Like Gods, what a douche.

Between that and his unhinged crusade where he sacrificed all his animals to get his answer from Meteion's report, I'm sometimes forced to doubt the integrity of any who might defend him. Seems to me some people would defend a dude ending the world with every life on the planet at risk because he was apparently "fighting the Fascist power!"

I'm here envisioning a scenario where they argue with the authorities on his behalf, and the wretched serial killer slips out the back door as their distracting the authorities that came to put the batshit fucker down.

[Lyth]

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

And this really is a recurring theme in the story of most of the Amaurotines. It's this pervasive hubris, a sense that they are somehow entitled to more than everyone else, that perpetually sets us at odds with their leadership.

...

Theodric. Referring to me as 'the poster in question' in response to a post where I've been directly named doesn't conceal that I'm the specific target of the witch hunt that you've incited. I'm not sure what your issue with me is, or why you seem so intent on incriminating yourself on an issue that I took great pains to keep open-ended and non-specific, but I would politely ask that you stop in the interests of not derailing this thread further.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

And this really is a recurring theme in the story of most of the Amaurotines. It's this pervasive hubris, a sense that they are somehow entitled to more than everyone else, that perpetually sets us at odds with their leadership.

Theodric. Referring to me as 'the poster in question' in response to a post where I've been directly named doesn't conceal that I'm the specific target of the witch hunt that you've incited. I'm not sure what your issue with me is, or why you seem so intent on incriminating yourself on an issue that I took great pains to keep open-ended and non-specific, but I would politely ask that you stop in the interests of not derailing this thread further.

Lyth, I don't know how to say this politely. It's both hilarious and insulting that you think you're being witch-hunted, you who accused people of being alts because they played the same bloody race in a video game. For once in your life, and your career with tenure on these forums..... TAKE THE L AND GO HOME. Any defending what you said earlier in this thread are..... equally guilty. Stop being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith and misrepresenting people's stances and perhaps people would be more likely to entreat you with respect.

Also, as for the Y'shtola point.... Well, frankly that stands to prove more of our points than the Fora Knights. That cutscene is actually prime materiel of the Scions being either selfish hypocritical pricks or heavily out of character in Endwalker. Because Venat is guilty of the same sins Y'shtola and Thancred attempt (and fail gloriously, in hindsight) to grill Emet-Selch for, but she's treated as a herois instead of a perpetrator. It's VILE, to repay a genocider with a pedestal and veneration. Your "point" has shown us little and less. Unless, of course your intent was to showcase yet more of this forum's double standards and inability to apply nuance to both sides of a moral conflict. In which case, you may feel free to consider us enlightened and elucidated.

[jameseoakes]

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

It's not a witch hunt your just being a hypocrite. With what you said being the case fir Emet, Venat is as bad (in mu opinion worse) than him so she should be treat at least the same as him but the game fawns over her.