Let's play a game: Save the Ancients!

[Lyth]

It is a bit hard to follow the core points of the discussion, to be fair. Let me try to summarize.

I think the main ongoing question was whether a society of hedonistic and whimsical godlings could be stably governed by a small circle of nepotistic oligarchs without everything rapidly going to pieces. The story handwaves this by saying that they were all of one peaceful (hive)mind until they weren't. When required to provide further detail in subsequent stories, such as the ones on Elpis, Amaurotine society in contrast turns out to be actually filled with charismatic individualists who routinely use their immense powers in accordance with their personal whims and beliefs. Naturally, when we get to be friends and know them better, it ends up being one self-inflicted world ending threat after another.

Under such conditions, being eloquent and persuasive will only get you so far, and sometimes the application of force (physical or institutional) will be required. Convocation members were not necessarily selected on the basis of raw power, so it seems unlikely that they could maintain stable rule under such conditions indefinitely. (We already know for a fact that they were unable to, even with their current member group, and you can actually rest your case at that.)

As an example, several people noted that the Convocation would struggle to pass their intimidation checks had they run with Hyth instead of Hades as the party face, as was originally planned. The tangential counterclaim made was that Hyth isn't less capable than Hades in raw magical power, he's just being modest. That strikes me as a bit of a stretch, but it seems to be a contentious point in here for whatever reason.

A similar back and forth occurred around Hermes as well, although it's worth remembering that this is the same future Convocation member who we witnessed get outwitted by an amybystoma and stuck on a tree within minutes of being introduced. Not the high point of Convocation gravitas, to be sure.

Either way, Amaurot was designed as a 'creation myth' to explain the backstory of the world setting. It isn't the primary setting itself. The starting premise in the writing that it was destroyed twelve thousand years ago. I could see a 'What if' scenario eventually being presented as part of an Ultimate fight (i.e. the Azem's plan route), but I wouldn't expect much more than that.

[Lunaxia]

Ah, my bad. Sanna is right about the LB, it's been a while since I did Trusts and I must have got the mechanic confused with Squadrons or Explorer mode.

welp

I understand the argument perfectly well, and funnily enough I have a feeling that you do too.

The assumption underpinning the majority of the arguments initially put forward with absolutely no bad faith or bias whatsoever makes use of that really fun, super swell and not at all concerning belief the Ancients were doomed to die anyway, so genuinely "saving" them is pointless/ impossible and handwaving their demise, weirdly justified. I challenged the broader reasoning behind the claim (i.e. someone else would have done it if not Hermes, they were incapable of defending or saving themselves, the Ancients were all inherently dangerous and possessed apocalyptic powers that were effectively a ticking timebomb, etc. etc.) as well as the fundamental premise behind this train of thought that claims mortals are any safer or less prone to wiping themselves out. This then devolved into, amongst other things, calling the overarching ability of the Convocation into question, with Hythlodaeus' potential recruitment being cited as a reason why they wouldn't have actually been sufficiently powerful enough to deal with any outside threats because he's supposedly a bit of a limp noodle in a fight.

It gets a little chaotic when multiple people respond with their own litany of reasons why the Ancients wouldn't have worked and ergo merited their total destruction, but that's inevitably how these discussions go.

And for the record, playing dumb and attempting to attack my credibility with strawman fallacies because you've run out of things to say is disappointing, even if I shouldn't be surprised. I take that as it being safe to say we're effectively done here.

whether a society of hedonistic and whimsical godlings could be stably governed by a small circle of nepotistic oligarchs.

This is genuinely hilarious.

Ah, but no, clearly there isn't any prejudice against them in these forums at all.