Pandæmonium story

[Lauront]

Well... that is quite the take. In the event that some future Supreme Deity Messiah figure decides the sundered are too "privileged", have too much magic/tech and life with no calamities is getting a bit too comfy, we can reassure them that even as their kind is wiped out and altered into life forms that live much less, no longer use magic, become much aetherically thinner etc., it is definitely not genocide and, hey, some guy speaking of a succession of generations means they're still around! Especially when Alphinaud says this as it unfolds:



Rest easy little guy, and thank them for alleviating you of the burden of your uh... "privilege".

[Theodric]

Personally I don't give much weight to the 'privilege' argument. It's often coming from those driven by spite, who see that someone else has something that they want and so they come up with dubious reasons as to why that person should lose out. Ignoring, in this case, the multiple side quests that show the Ancients identifying the disparity between our character's aether levels and their own whilst actively offering to help them by sharing some of their own aether.

Which is more than can be said for the Sundered, who by contrast decided to engage in attempted genocide of the Garleans due to their difficulty in manipulating aether.

With the ability to make use of creation magic being an innate trait for the Ancients, it is also bizarre to consider it to be a 'privilege' when it comes as naturally to them as breathing.

It'd be like taking Xaela men and declaring them to be 'privileged' because they're typically very physically imposing and strong.

In addition, nobody is obligated to simply roll over and not seek a return to what once was if some deluded individual such as Venat decides to stand by idly as an apocalypse strikes. It's natural and completely understandable to rebuild and want to do everything possible to protect and preserve one's civilisation and loved ones. They're what ultimately matter to most people, after all.

[TheMightyMollusk]

This is full of nothing but headcanon.

This entire debate is full of nothing but headcanon, yet it keeps swallowing threads whole.

[IkaraGreydancer]

This is full of nothing but headcanon. Please cite to me where in the story it says they were sacrificing their children. Exactly, you can’t. As for what she did, please look up the definition of genocide, because if you don’t think the sundering was genocide, then neither are the rejoinings. As for people being resurrected without a monkey paw effect, all the scions get resurrected in UT, with no consequences whatsoever.

Last I checked rejoinings were actually outright killing folks. Idk if it's ever stated that sundering kills people. It split them. I could be wrong but I've always understood them to be different.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Last I checked rejoinings were actually outright killing folks. Idk if it's ever stated that sundering kills people. It split them. I could be wrong but I've always understood them to be different.

Lady….i was talking about in accordance to someone saying the ancients were sacrificing babies for the zodiark sacrifices. Not the rejoinings. That’s pure headcanon and isn’t even implied anywhere. As for the rejoinings vs sundering, please look up the definition of genocide and look at the nier crossover with emet selch. You’ll have your answer i promise.

[redheadturk]

What have I done to wrong you? I disagreed with an opinion, and argued against and so I deserve to be insulted?



I speak for me, and me only. Let that be clear.

It is my belief that in the defense of life the actions Venat took, the Sundering, the ending of the Ancient world and the wiping of their civilization from memory, was justified. Was it good? No. Was it kind? No. Was it necessary? Yes. This has been argued ad nauseam for several months now.

As I said, I don’t condone killing out of grief. It’s the context, the motivation, the reasoning that defines the goodness of an action and with the right factors killing another can be justified. Like killing to save an innocent or prevent unjust harm. Emet does not meet that criteria and he knows that. His desire was to see his friends, family and society returned, an understandable goal certainly, but not a right one. It’s the equivalent of killing someone for their organs in order to save a family member. I can empathize but never condone.

For Venat, the situation is different. All of existence is at stake, including those she would in end up Sundering. Thus the question is who can be saved. A classic trolley problem, with the slight distinction that if depending on who you choose all life would die. I think that changes things. Other disagree.

Genocide is never justified. The fact that you can bold face say her genocide of her people is justified horrifies me tbqh. Difference between me and you? I know the Ascians did horrible things. I know they had to be stopped. I do not justify their genocide of myriad sundered societies, not really. But I sure as shite am not gonna justify Venat's either.

[KageTokage]

I'm really curious as to how the final tier of Pandaemonium is going to play out, but at the same time, I'm curbing my expectations that it's going to make me feel any better about the hand Elidibus and others were dealt.

I'm already bothered by the fact that we just saunter back to Aporia without showing so much as a smidge of remorse or concern about the fact our friends from the past are on the cusp of a world-ending disaster and know none the better...though I suppose that could still change if we end up having to go back in time again to figure out what the heck is happening in the present.

If they already established that the law of causality ensures that we literally can't change the future no matter how hard we tried, then logically there'd be no harm in telling others about the Final Days because fate would find a way to ensure nothing came of it in the long run.