(EW Spoilers) Tales from the Dawn #5 - Days Gone By, Days Yet to Come

[redheadturk]

Venat's extreme ideology post final days was an outlier. Happy now? I think you very well knew what I meant, you just chose to ignore the obvious context clues that should have been seen. What you said is not the gotcha you think it is.

[Cleretic]

Venat's extreme ideology post final days was an outlier. Happy now? I think you very well knew what I meant, you just chose to ignore the obvious context clues that should have been seen. What you said is not the gotcha you think it is.

I'm not, no. Because here's the thing:

Most are good people. Hermes and Venat were very much outliers prior to the extreme trauma that led to the Rejoining plan.

First of all, you've gone from 'led to the Rejoining plan' to 'post Final Days'. That's actually very important and you're gonna need to clarify, because those are two separate cause-effect relationships acted on by very different groups. Either you're talking about:

'Led to the rejoining plan' starts with the Sundering, and so the active party is the Ascians, a very specific group of thirteen people who went on acts of multi-planetary destruction. (We will ignore separate sources of trauma like Lahabrea, as well as clear evidence that they're not all on the same page, neither is useful here.)

But 'post Final Days' leads to the second and third Zodiark sacrifices, and so the active party is, broadly, the entire population of the planet who's suddenly dealing with the first thing really causing them to grapple with grief and trauma being unfathomably huge.

You need to be clear which one of those two you're essentially giving a pass to in this conversation, and not critiquing on the same level.

Because here's the other thing: you clearly think the 'extreme trauma' is an explanation. That we have to point at whichever one of these groups you mean and go 'they had to live through X and are dealing with that, and we need to keep that in mind'. Which is fair...

Except that you hold out the exceptions to be Hermes and Venat, who we therefore have to treat differently. But I would argue they also faced extreme trauma; they were different trauma, instead facing both of them with existentially horrifying information and betrayal that left them, in separate ways, feeling that they had to act. ...and then if your inciting truamatic event is the Final Days, for Venat, also living through that. (Hermes did too, but in a way that leaves both sources independent instead of compounded.) From the post-Elpis scene, this was clearly something she grappled with, and she clearly leaned on parts of her experience and expertise as Azem that you yourself outlined that she must have (specifically, the traveling and the counseling). She is not apart from this trauma that you correctly attribute to everyone around her... and yet, you treat her differently. As somehow separate, and deserving of separate scrutiny.

Intentionally or not, you're holding a double standard. And I think it's important that you either explain why she's different, or accept that she's not.

[thegreatonemal]

I'm not, no. Because here's the thing:



First of all, you've gone from 'led to the Rejoining plan' to 'post Final Days'. That's actually very important and you're gonna need to clarify, because those are two separate cause-effect relationships acted on by very different groups. Either you're talking about:

'Led to the rejoining plan' starts with the Sundering, and so the active party is the Ascians, a very specific group of thirteen people who went on acts of multi-planetary destruction. (We will ignore separate sources of trauma like Lahabrea, as well as clear evidence that they're not all on the same page, neither is useful here.)

But 'post Final Days' leads to the second and third Zodiark sacrifices, and so the active party is, broadly, the entire population of the planet who's suddenly dealing with the first thing really causing them to grapple with grief and trauma being unfathomably huge.

You need to be clear which one of those two you're essentially giving a pass to in this conversation, and not critiquing on the same level.

Because here's the other thing: you clearly think the 'extreme trauma' is an explanation. That we have to point at whichever one of these groups you mean and go 'they had to live through X and are dealing with that, and we need to keep that in mind'. Which is fair...

Except that you hold out the exceptions to be Hermes and Venat, who we therefore have to treat differently. But I would argue they also faced extreme trauma; they were different trauma, instead facing both of them with existentially horrifying information and betrayal that left them, in separate ways, feeling that they had to act. ...and then if your inciting truamatic event is the Final Days, for Venat, also living through that. (Hermes did too, but in a way that leaves both sources independent instead of compounded.) From the post-Elpis scene, this was clearly something she grappled with, and she clearly leaned on parts of her experience and expertise as Azem that you yourself outlined that she must have (specifically, the traveling and the counseling). She is not apart from this trauma that you correctly attribute to everyone around her... and yet, you treat her differently. As somehow separate, and deserving of separate scrutiny.

Intentionally or not, you're holding a double standard. And I think it's important that you either explain why she's different, or accept that she's not.

I think its time to stop going back and forth with these folk. He's not going to address any of this and will merely deflect and then make another wild accusation. Like always, like clockwork. We'll be back in in a week as the lore book drops and like pretty much most lore that has expanded upon particular topic, continue to prove them wrong.

[Cleretic]

I think its time to stop going back and forth with these folk. He's not going to address any of this and will merely deflect and then make another wild accusation. Like always, like clockwork. We'll be back in in a week as the lore book drops and like pretty much most lore that has expanded upon particular topic, continue to prove them wrong.

Honestly, you're right, I've just always been susceptible to taking the bait and fighting things not worth fighting.

It's not even interesting to point out redheadturk's got an obvious double standard: that's like scientifically proving that grass is green. Hell, not even that; at least the reason grass is green is interesting and has value in other areas. Turk just has a double standard because they're starting from 'Venat Bad' and working backwards; any explanation isn't genuine reasoning, it's post-hoc justification.

I'm looking forward to EE3 (and didn't order through Amazon, so I'm not hitting any problems with them), but not really because of the eight-to-twelve pages on the Ancients we're gonna get. Although I do find it funny that it might well become invalid within less than a month, if female hrothgar get revealed in 6.55 or Fanfest like we suspect.

[redheadturk]

But 'post Final Days' leads to the second and third Zodiark sacrifices, and so the active party is, broadly, the entire population of the planet who's suddenly dealing with the first thing really causing them to grapple with grief and trauma being unfathomably huge.

You need to be clear which one of those two you're essentially giving a pass to in this conversation, and not critiquing on the same level.

Because here's the other thing: you clearly think the 'extreme trauma' is an explanation. That we have to point at whichever one of these groups you mean and go 'they had to live through X and are dealing with that, and we need to keep that in mind'. Which is fair...

Except that you hold out the exceptions to be Hermes and Venat, who we therefore have to treat differently. But I would argue they also faced extreme trauma; they were different trauma, instead facing both of them with existentially horrifying information and betrayal that left them, in separate ways, feeling that they had to act. ...and then if your inciting truamatic event is the Final Days, for Venat, also living through that. (Hermes did too, but in a way that leaves both sources independent instead of compounded.) From the post-Elpis scene, this was clearly something she grappled with, and she clearly leaned on parts of her experience and expertise as Azem that you yourself outlined that she must have (specifically, the traveling and the counseling). She is not apart from this trauma that you correctly attribute to everyone around her... and yet, you treat her differently. As somehow separate, and deserving of separate scrutiny.

Intentionally or not, you're holding a double standard. And I think it's important that you either explain why she's different, or accept that she's not.

Except the trauma wasn't necessary if she had, I dunno, told at least Emet and Hythlodaeus the truth of what they were dealing with.. For her, she knew. The element of surprise was not there for her, which makes her worthy of separate scrutiny. The others not only had the trauma of the Final Days itself, but of the unknown betrayal by lies from Venat, and later the trauma of being genocided by her. Did the Convocation become genocidal themselves in response? Yes, and I never claimed differently. 12 thousand years of grief can do awful things to a person.