Thread: The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

Originally Posted by Cilia

*snip*

Something I take issue with is the definition of perfection. The game argues against eliminating any and all negatives in society including feelings. A society without any adversity will probably stagnate and fall. But then, is that society actually perfect if it cant sustain itself? Leaving low level adversity, just enough to engage thought doesn't have to be as affective as actual real suffering and major societal issues. It just has to be engaging enough so society can push on existing. This is the train of thought the game only partially covers. I would argue that the Ultima Thule was the perfect example of imperfect societies. They were all flawed in their own perceived perfection, and the Scions reject them as such. Could you argue with their train of thought if it was actually perfect?

Venats answer to the problem of inevitable strive for perfection wasn't an answer at all. It just pushed the world back a couple thousand years in progress. It was avoiding the problem, not facing it. Worse, it was denying a whole race of people to face the problem, to make an informed decision, and to possibly come up with a solution (or die trying).