Thread: On Themis [6.4 SPOILER]

I can understand a bit better now where Yoshi-p's statements about Amaurot from the March 2022 Live Letter are coming from. If you saw some of those very same behaviors in any another person, you might ordinarily describe them as being unempathetic or even having antisocial personality traits. These, unfortunately, are common enough qualities in people in positions of power in our own societies.

The Amaurotines just happen to have power in excess as an entire society. They're used to creating and then snuffing out the lives of entire species 'for the good of the star'. This gets reinforced culturally as well - Emet's test to see if Hermes is 'qualified' to take the seat of Fandaniel is essentially to see if he can steel himself to make a species go extinct with his own hands, even if his very nature rails against it. Being too 'kind' or too 'compassionate' is counterproductive to the role. These traits are selected against. It's not that our fundamental natures are necessarily 'different' - it's that their environmental upbringing pushes them to become more uncompromising, ruthless and implacable.

The character who is probably the single best embodiment of this worldview is Pandaemonium's Lahabrea, which is unsurprising, given that he is both the most senior member of the Convocation and its Speaker.

Lahabrea is written in a way that is positively Byronic. He knows that Athena is corrupted by Sabik from the start. He creates Pandaemonium as an asylum for his wife safely away from the rest of society, in truly Rochester-esque fashion. And when he discovers her intent after merging souls with her, he quietly murders her and rips out the side of him that held any lingering affection for her - only to re-embrace her madness as his own in order to ensure that he had enough power to 'guide the Star'. And it's this very same decision that ultimately leads to his later descent into madness and subsequent demise.

He's genuinely caring to his son in a way that makes him very human, yet there's something utterly implacable in his nature and actions that makes him even more ferocious than Athena. I only wish that he was written this well from the very start, instead of the moustache-twirling villain that he was in ARR/Heavensward. I daresay if he had, he would have easily eclipsed even Emet in his scenes.

I think this clash of values, not between Emet and Venat, but rather between Lahabrea and the Warrior of Light, is ultimately what defines the crux of the battle between the old world and the new. Emet and Elidibus on some level are still friends. Lahabrea is Azem's first and truest antagonist, and he makes sure to remind us of this fact before parting ways for good.

'Was it his affinity for concepts of flame that made him so like the fire itself? From peerless Ifrita to that hopelessly immortal bird, his creations had burned bright and beautiful ─ as did he. He should have known what becomes of the flame once all else is ash.'

Originally Posted by Brinne

It's a little frustrating, I admit, to be interested in talking about the writing parallels between Athena and Venat, only to see the topic immediately get derailed by the same old arguments ignoring the core question entirely and acting like it's a given that well it's okay because Venat was doing it for the greater good, and she did feel bad about it, and we don't know everything she did, and, and!

...when, as I said, Pandaemonium's ultimate condemnation of Athena had nothing to do with that entire framework and was instead about the unacceptable cost to the people currently living around her. If Athena's own plan (as opposed to Venat's) of rising to godhood and subsequently erasing, then reshaping, the Ancients, souls, bodies, and all, into something better - and it just so happened to turn out that whatever Athena's version was also capable of dealing with the Endsinger (keeping in mind that Hydaelyn also had no guarantee and no way of knowing if we were up to the task or not)--

Is the argument that Athena would have been right, as the story argues Venat was?

Venat knew, or at worst made an educated guess that the ancients couldn't handle Endsinger so she took a chance on us. Her intention was to prepare humanity to face Endsinger.
Athena at that point didn't know that the Final Days were coming. Her intention was not to prepare humanity to face Endsinger.

Originally Posted by Yuella

Venat knew, or at worst made an educated guess that the ancients couldn't handle Endsinger so she took a chance on us. Her intention was to prepare humanity to face Endsinger.
Athena at that point didn't know that the Final Days were coming. Her intention was not to prepare humanity to face Endsinger.

The question was not whether or not Athena knew about the Endsinger, the question was that if her tinkering with the Ancients had made them resilient to the Endsinger’s attack, would her goals then be justified? Remember, her justification was that Ancients were weak and she wanted to improve them.

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The question was not whether or not Athena knew about the Endsinger, the question was that if her tinkering with the Ancients had made them resilient to the Endsinger’s attack, would her goals then be justified? Remember, her justification was that Ancients were weak and she wanted to improve them.

No.

Both to 'would it be justified' and 'would it have made them resilient to the Endsinger'.

Originally Posted by Cleretic

No.

Both to 'would it be justified'

Cool.

and 'would it have made them resilient to the Endsinger'.

Unrelated to the actual question, but also cool.

Originally Posted by Brinne

Cool.

Unrelated to the actual question, but also cool.

[Long, awkward silence.]

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

[Long, awkward silence.]

...

...

...

...Athena is my wife!!!!!