Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lustre]

I just came to say Emet was right. Peace out

[KageTokage]

I'm curious to see how things play out with the Omicron dailies; namely whether or not the recreations of the extinct civilizations will remember and recount the ends they met in greater detail and perhaps ponder over how things could've gone differently.

Though perhaps more then anything else, I'd like to decipher the mystery of what happened to the people of the Necropolis, because there's something profoundly disturbing about an entire alien race just suddenly vanishing without a trace.

[CrownySuccubus]

A good world that would kill them. The fact that it was good in many respects does not change that truth.

Except it wasn't "the world" that killed them. They were murdered by Heremes and Meteion before being finished off by Venat.

And lets be clear, revealing to a world of all powerful beings, so powerful in fact that a small group of dissidents could shatter that selfsame world, that the event that traumatized them was only delayed, and not permanently averted would be a hard sell alone. But adding that this was the combined answer of all known life and would require humanity to face their trauma is even worse. Yeah, its a hard call, but to pretend that she just withheld info on a whim is strawmanning her.

It's not a "hard call" at all. No one deserves to make unilateral decisions for an entire planet.

AOr its like intentionally making decisions to lower living standards in order to prevent climate change.

To be frank, if you agree with one person making that decision for all of humankind, then I think that's fundamentally messed up.

And again, its "this is impossible to achieve, but you should continue to strive to do so knowing and accepting that fact."

Except, once again...you can't claim that one thing is impossible to achieve, and then try to prove that with something else equally impossible.

The fact that, once again, the game has multiple characters talk about the futility of only valuing perfection, and juxtaposes these "perfect" worlds with the negative utilitarianism-esque result, should give us reason to doubt that they are perfect after all.

Except, again, this argument does not work because of the Plenty. The premise of the Plenty is that they have eradicated all sorrow, and this is stated multiiple times by independent entities outside of the denizens themselves.



The entire premise of the Plenty is that if there is no sorrow or strife, there is no joy. So we are told in absolute terms that they eliminated sorry and strife, and thus have no joy. The story does not present this as "they BELIEVE they have done this, but are wrong", because if it did, the premise would be faulty. If they did not eliminate all sorrow and suffering, and thus joy, then the simple solution to their problem is to demonstrate sorrow and suffering which they overlooked, and thus joy that they overlooked...and if that's the case, then the Plenty are idiots who killed themselves for no reason.

So we're left with two conclusions: either the Plenty is a fallacy which doesn't work within its own premise, or the Plenty are all idiots and their abject lesson proves nothing. Personally, I don't find either one of those very engaging for the themes of the story.

Hell, the Ancient world embodies this completely, with Venat commenting that Hermes now sees the world without the perfect veneer, and how that leads to his actions. We are shown the flaws of that world and yet it too was described by many characters ingame as perfect. This isn’t a contradiction, it’s a consequence of unreliable narration, and done so with intent.

This argument only works if you accept the conclusion: that Venat is correct and her judgment makes sense from an out-of-universe context.

If you do not accept this, then Venat's statement makes no sense, because we're once again assuming that "perfect" means "current best" and not an absolute state. Again, this is like assuming that the iPhone X was perfect before the iPhone 11 came out, which was perfect before the iPhone 12 came out, and so on and so forth.

AI believe the bar necessary to harm an innocent is so high that only an evil of impossible magnitude could justify such an act. The destruction of life both present and future constitutes such a circumstance to me.

Again, the problem with this argument is that Venat had other options and did not take them.

[SannaR]

Yet the convocation is hinted at being the ones unilaterally making choices for the whole planet all the time. So how is it ok that 14 people are allowed to make choices for an entire planet?

[CrownySuccubus]

Yet the convocation is hinted at being the ones unilaterally making choices for the whole planet all the time. So how is it ok that 14 people are allowed to make choices for an entire planet?

Because they were elected and/or approved for the positions, have oversight and accountability, and their proposals are debated and discussed by the wider population as a whole.

Your argument is like claiming that a democratic republic and a dictatorship are the exact same thing.

[SannaR]

What oversight? They chose and approved their own replacements. Sure the person being interviewed could turn down the job but it doesn't come off as the general public had much say. I'd agree that there was debate, but the decisions they made wasn't just for Amaurot but the entire world. They're like Supreme Court Justices. Hired on for life. The one rare time we saw anyone override the group's decision on something was the Volcano incident.

[CrownySuccubus]

What oversight? They chose and approved their own replacements. Sure the person being interviewed could turn down the job but it doesn't come off as the general public had much say.

The entire point of Amaurot was that the general populace had a say and could raise objections to the policies or ideas of the Convocation. Likewise, it's implied that part of the successor selection process involved vetting that the person in question had distinguished public service.

I'd agree that there was debate, but what their decisions wasn't just for Amaurot but the entire world. They're like Supreme Court Justices. Hired on for life. The one rare time we saw anyone override the group's decision on something was the Volcano incident.

In ShB, we see someone deemed the "Amaurotine Firebrand" protesting vehemently against many of the Convocation's policies, and he is likewise allowed to voice his complaints even to groups who did not agree with his position. Likewise, while Amaurot was a capital, we know for a fact that both travel and long-range communication were common for them, based on the teleportation devices on Elpis, as well as the fact that the Amarotine shades mention hearing word from outer provinces. So it didn't seem to matter very much if people were in the capital or not when it came to making their voices heard.

Besides that, all of which you describe is taken up to an even greater extreme with Venat. Outside of a very exclusive circle which largely agreed with her, no one even knew about Venat's plans or goals (and even then, she still seems to have kept most of the truth from them, if the Watcher is any indication). Just like real life democracies and republics, Amaurot and the Convocation were in no way perfect, but still leagues better than any dictatorship or shadow cabal in terms of accountability. The problem with Venat is that she pretty much WAS a dictator in charge of a shadow cabal, who made genocidal decisions on her own volition and with ZERO chance for debate or oversight. Any criticisms you can lobby towards the Convocation's style of government are multiplied upon Venat.

[Lauront]

The Convocation along with the other civil institutions of their star were expected to show full transparency:

Emet-Selch: It is held that all civil organizations should conduct their affairs with total transparency, and the Convocation is no exception.

This was brought to light through another thing they revealed in the Q&A:

Q: In the cutscene after the level 87 dungeon we see a red sigil appear for Emet-Selch’s face. Does that mean such sigils are an Ascian thing but rather identify one as belonging to the Convocation of Fourteen? Please explain the lore.

A: So it’s not really just there for identification purposes and if you think about it every person who takes a seat in the Convocation of Fourteen has really intense magic power so basically it appears whenever they use grand magic almost as if it’s a limiter that constrains their magic. However each sigil does indicate the seats on the Convocation so even if someone who’s not on the Convocation went “Oh yeah, magic time! woaaaah!!!”, it’s not going to show up on their face. You can’t just simply name yourself the Fifteen Seat and then blast your magic hoping it’ll appear. I think it’s also connected to Convocation’s responsibility as these are the people that are acknowledged by the society as having those grand powers and taking up these seats. So you know you don’t want people just randomly wandering around blasting magic without knowing who it is or what purpose so it indicates that they’ve been chosen for this role and keeps them in line. For that reason I also think that when one leaves the seat like for example when Venat gave up her seat, she would also give up the sigil so it would no longer appear on her. (YoshiP smirks) So people talking about the seat of Yoshida but that kind of just makes me sad because I think there’s nobody who could take up the seat if I give it up. Also I don’t have a cool symbol on my face!

The topic of the third sacrifices was being debated amongst their people, hence the division over it that even shook the Convocation. Emet in his short story jokingly refers to putting up for debate the matter of Hyth's suitability for his position within the Hall of Rhetoric. It is clear that their positions did not amount to unchecked authority to do whatever they wanted, without any input from their broader society, and Venat - no longer a Convocation member and acting behind everyone's backs in what she was going to do - cannot possibly be said to be subject to the same constraints the Convocation or any of their other civic institutions were. It's as far removed from what is known to have been expected of their society's mode of governance as you can get.

The entire premise of the Plenty is that if there is no sorrow or strife, there is no joy. So we are told in absolute terms that they eliminated sorry and strife, and thus have no joy.

It can be easy to miss it given where the dialogue occurs, but the Scions mention it as well -

Y'shtola:



G'raha:

[SentioftheHoukai]

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Like I said earlier, none of the societies portrayed appeals to me personally as 'ideal', so I'd take issue with calling them 'perfect'. I would not wish to live in any of them, Amaurot included, simply because being part of a hivemind does not appeal to me. You might have a different viewpoint, but that's just your viewpoint.

The tangential discussion about societal progress is irrelevant. People will always seek to improve their lives in accordance with their own personal ideals. But to claim that those ideals are identical and uniform for all human beings is ignorant. That's why a 'utopia' is a contradiction in terms.

Ancients =/= HIVEMIND?!

.........Where did you get this outlandish idea?

How am I supposed to engage with a community that with purpose, twists the facts of a narrative so egregiously?!

[EaraGrace]

Except it wasn't "the world" that killed them. They were murdered by Heremes and Meteion before being finished off by Venat.

And what would come afterwards if the Final Days never occurred?

It's not a "hard call" at all. No one deserves to make unilateral decisions for an entire planet.

I have bad news about the world we live in.

To be frank, if you agree with one person making that decision for all of humankind, then I think that's fundamentally messed up.

The right choice is the right choice. I think Venat and her group made the right call given wheat we know, and I think the circumstances of the moment make that clear.

Except, once again...you can't claim that one thing is impossible to achieve, and then try to prove that with something else equally impossible.

Perhaps I missed this point but what was “equally impossible” that was achieved? The Dead Ends accomplished much, sure, but they recognized impossibility when they saw it.

Except, again, this argument does not work because of the Plenty. The premise of the Plenty is that they have eradicated all sorrow, and this is stated multiiple times by independent entities outside of the denizens themselves.

The entire premise of the Plenty is that if there is no sorrow or strife, there is no joy. So we are told in absolute terms that they eliminated sorry and strife, and thus have no joy. The story does not present this as "they BELIEVE they have done this, but are wrong", because if it did, the premise would be faulty. If they did not eliminate all sorrow and suffering, and thus joy, then the simple solution to their problem is to demonstrate sorrow and suffering which they overlooked, and thus joy that they overlooked...and if that's the case, then the Plenty are idiots who killed themselves for no reason.

I believe you may have misunderstood the narratives point. The people of the Plenty, and all those who tried something similar, were well aware they failed at the end of their efforts. As Meteion says:

Though worlds apart, these peoples shared a belief. The belief that they had tried their best. That they had tried to fulfill, with every step and success. In the course of which, they learned the truth. That they would never be free of fear and sorrow, anger and despair-of loneliness-so long as they yet lived.

It was that realization, that “paradise” was empty and a prison, that broke them.

This argument only works if you accept the conclusion: that Venat is correct and her judgment makes sense from an out-of-universe context.

If you do not accept this, then Venat's statement makes no sense, because we're once again assuming that "perfect" means "current best" and not an absolute state. Again, this is like assuming that the iPhone X was perfect before the iPhone 11 came out, which was perfect before the iPhone 12 came out, and so on and so forth.

Or we assume “perfect” means the best they could do in the universe they live in, given the conception of perfection they decided to adopt. As the denizens of the Plenty described themselves, “infinity constructed by the finite.”

Again, the problem with this argument is that Venat had other options and did not take them.

And I do not see those as options for the reasons laid out.

The Convocation along with the other civil institutions of their star were expected to show full transparency: