Thread: Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Ancient society may have survived the Final Days but mankinds destruction would have been written in stone down the line with their current trajectory. Yoshi-P / Ichigawa confirmed in interview that their society would have lead to something akin to the final location of The Dead Ends dungeon so you can't suddenly disregard that even if you feel it's not relevant. The way the amaurotines were heading, they would have by default, created something they couldn't unmake that leads to their own destruction or continually experiementing on every avenue of life till they had nothing left to question (cause they technically had the resources and time to do this)

Technically the cycle of permenant life and death already existing on Etheirys post Hydaelyn sundering prevents them having enough time to unlock immoratalilty canon wise. Already took them generations to unlock a very basic one way time travel.

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

For all the focus the Plenty gets as a possible ending, it's strange to me that people forget that Venat has made it more likely that the other two "dead ends" could occur at some point in the future of Etheirys, even if the Plenty is less likely (or has been completely averted). Whether Etheirys dies to plague, bomb, or suicide monster--or something else entirely--Venat did not forestall the ending in and of itself.

Not to mention that once the Source goes, any remaining reflections will go as well. So when the end comes, and it certainly will as the Sundered absolutely love finding new ways of blowing each other up, it will truly be the end of everything.

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.

Farther still existed a star without strife. Where none remembered life’s trials, or it’s joys. What it’s people had gained from ease, they lost to apathy.

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.

By sundering the world, she ultimately guided your kind to victory, yet in doing so caused irreparable damage to its individual members.

People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.





Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.



People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

Originally Posted by redheadturk

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

Are we really going to have to post the Q and A answer again? Like I get what you’re saying but it seems pretty clear cut given everything said in game and out.