*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

I suspect they wouldn't be that much different from the WoL. Even Sundered, the WoL's reserves of aether are absolutely ridiculous. Whether this means Azem was obscenely powerful even by Ancient standards or it's just the WoL's mountain of plot armor striking again is anyone's guess. Individuals with pure, Ancient souls and the amount of aether that comes therewith will likely simply be able to freely change between jobs as "we" do, whereas normal people are limited to 1-2 jobs at the very most due to how hard it taxes their aether reserves. I imagine an individual born with an Ancient's aether levels might also be able to freely employ extremely taxing magic without fear of depletion.

If, on the other hand, the introduction of the Ancients' souls into the system begins the process of restoring the greater whole of mankind to the state they were originally in, we might eventually (but probably not within the WoL's mortal lifetime) see such things as creation magick again. Interbreeding between the normal population and their excessively powerful counterparts is bound to eventually raise overall levels to something a bit closer to where they were, although very likely not all the way there.

Sorry- the 14th shard got destroyed, along with all the soul fragments in it, and while the first didn't get completely destroyed, all the souls turned into light-beasts were lost as well. Ironically, the souls inside Zodiark were better protected. The other half could never be restored even with all the rejoinings possible complete, because all of them would be missing a shard, and 90% or so (how much of the first got scoured with light) would be missing two.

Hell, since we (WoL) rejoined with ardbert and there's been 7 other rejoinings, we were 8/14 shards of a "whole" person when we went back in time. And it wasn't even enough to be seen as a child or weak person by the ancients: they all thought we were just a familiar. The half that weren't put into Zodiark can never be restored, ever. The ascian's plan fucking up 2 of the shards they needed to do it ensured that, sadly.

We don't know for a fact the souls in the Void were destroyed. The voidsent (which I will note are what the people of that shard became) retained their complete sapience after transformation, unlike the knock off angels we saw in ShB. The shard itself is wrecked, but research is being conducted into ways that it might be restored.

Incidentally, the Flood of Light occurring on the 1st wasn't actually a mistake. That was planned for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

We don't know for a fact the souls in the Void were destroyed. The voidsent (which I will note are what the people of that shard became) retained their complete sapience after transformation, unlike the knock off angels we saw in ShB. The shard itself is wrecked, but research is being conducted into ways that it might be restored.

Incidentally, the Flood of Light occurring on the 1st wasn't actually a mistake. That was planned for.

---

Considering how Tesleen acted in the fight against her in Holminster, it may be that the Sineaters are in a similar category, just that the "Order" is forcing the "Chaos" of the mind still. Hopefully our work with Eden will help free them back into the Lifestream as they're destroyed.

I've said it before, but the writing's decision to leave the actual precise events of the Sundering as vague and indirect (Transparently done in pursuit of making both sides sympathetic) is what's led to these headaches. And I don't even mean what constitutes the 'new life' intended for the 3rd sacrifice. In my personal opinion it likely meant actual people with souls, but that is the least of my concerns. Where was Elidibus in all of this? He saw the resistance that Venat's faction took a stand for, and listened to them, disconnecting himself from Zodiark to reconcile things. Surely a 3rd sacrifice would not have taken place with the Heart himself vacant? Did Venat ignore him and use his departure as the chance she needed to sunder Zodiark? Did she not realize he'd left in an attempt to parley?

Debating the ethics of the 3rd sacrifice is all well and good, but this presented information is telling me it may not have happened at all, had things run their course. Speaking in inevitabilities like what would have become of the Ancient society is useless because we just don't know. We don't have enough details and we can't peek into what might have happened. All we have is stemmed from what Venat believed was right at that moment, and right now with Elidibus having done what he did, relayed to us in his dying words, I can only see Venat as the initial aggressor, in taking agency away from the entire world, and making a decision for all of reality that was not and never was hers to make.

Both her and the Convocation with that plan can be simultaneously wrong.

That is kinda the crux of the matter. Both were pretty clearly in the wrong for a multitude of reasons, but the bulk of the playerbase appears to be too stuck on "lol Venat good, Ancients bad" to comprehend the inherent wrongness in the Venat half of the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpectrePhantasia

I've said it before, but the writing's decision to leave the actual precise events of the Sundering as vague and indirect (Transparently done in pursuit of making both sides sympathetic) is what's led to these headaches.

---

I don't know, I believe the ancients fully intended to sacrifice sentient beings with souls for the third sacrifice, but I still find them to be sympathetic. They had lost so much, and were willing to go to desperate and extreme lengths to get thier loved ones back. Ambiguity was never necessary for me to find them sympathetic, and indeed I think the ambiguity disappears if you engage directly with the themes and symbolism of the story.

As many people have stated, Venat's choice was not an ethical one. It is a symbolic and thematic one, the narrative sets up the dicothemy between the ancients, clinging to the past and desperate to return to the glory days of eld, and Venat, who has hope and belief in the generations that come after her. Venat's choice is ultimately the only way forward, because what the ancients represent (returning to the past) is impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I don't know, I believe the ancients fully intended to sacrifice sentient beings with souls for the third sacrifice, but I still find them to be sympathetic.

---

I'm not going to fight you on what the presented themes are, as you say they are readily apparent. However, 'themes' being apparent is not a valid excuse for being needlessly murky on what is pretty inarguably the most important event in the entire world's lore. To put all the Ancients in a box and tuck them away to be forgotten by history because the themes said so does not make for anything even approaching compelling. The Ancients were not a hivemind. They were not some embodiment of the past. Our past was their present. They were living, breathing people with friends, families, hopes and aspirations, and certainly not all of them thought in the way the Convocation and Zodiark's faithful did. It was described as the biggest divide in their history. Even Elidibus himself lost the will to continue fighting for the thing you say they represent absolutely. What of these people? We know full well the Convocation was misguided, but what gave Venat the right to strip everyone of the lives they had?

Just because a choice is symbolic or thematic, does not make it right. And we should not have to accept it as absolute just because we're told we should.

For the purposes of narrative theming, the ancients do exist to be a window into hypoborean past. They are, like any piece of a story, intended to fufill a thematic and symbolic purpose. I know pulling back the curtain and getting at the nuts and bolts of a story can kill the magic a little, but I feel like what you are talking about is a desire for the story to be something it was not intended to be.

You are free to reject the themes put forth by a narrative, but I do not think it's fair to call something intentionally misleading or murky just because you happen to reject the narrative themes put forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

You are free to reject the themes put forth by a narrative, but I do not think it's fair to call something intentionally misleading or murky just because you happen to reject the narrative themes put forth.

---

What you are telling me is essentially 'don't think about it too hard or it will start to come apart.' This much I understand can be a consequence of having so long running a narrative, and I'm not inherently in rejection of the one posed by Endwalker. I think such a message can be conveyed in a way that absolutely works. The problem arises when there exists information that counters the very message that it's attempting to pedal. Too much information flies in the face of what the Ancient's are 'supposed' to be for the sake of this expansions themes, and it suffers for it. That being said, my qualms with this have nothing to do with how vague the Sundering is described as. Again, it is the most important event to ever occur in the games lore, it should not be left to thematic interpretation, otherwise you run into problems exactly like this. Themes are not going to explain to me what Venat decided to do about Elidibus essentially surrendering. Themes are not going to make me forget that there was a whole other faction of Ancients who in fact did not want the past that Zodiark promised. Themes are not sufficient here, for them to be compelling and to be fulfilling, we need the proper context to mend the many glaring holes in what they are symbolically supposed to represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

That is kinda the crux of the matter. Both were pretty clearly in the wrong for a multitude of reasons, but the bulk of the playerbase appears to be too stuck on "lol Venat good, Ancients bad" to comprehend the inherent wrongness in the Venat half of the equation.

---

Or likewise stuck in the "lol Ancients good, Venat bad." Both sides need to recognize this.

I'm in the camp of 'neither bad people, both did bad things, but one side ended up correct and the other ended up committing genocides'. Which, granted, is a little wordy, but is the stance the game itself takes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I'm in the camp of 'neither bad people, both did bad things, but one side ended up correct and the other ended up committing genocides'. Which, granted, is a little wordy, but is the stance the game itself takes.

---

....I mean, both sides went full on genocidal. It just took one side thousands of years to get there, while the other took the express lane to omnicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpectrePhantasia

However, 'themes' being apparent is not a valid excuse for being needlessly murky on what is pretty inarguably the most important event in the entire world's lore.

---

The impression I've gotten is they wrote themselves into a corner in ShB, one which they might not have recognized until they read players discuss it. The "new life" angle is what was presented in ShB (and mostly dropped in EW), so either the Convocation was mistaken about what Venat's motives were or that was the reason she was giving people.

I consider the second sacrifice the more interesting one. Zodiark had to restore the world after the Final Days. We're given no indication Venat objected to this, perhaps it was seen as being necessary after what we hear and see of the devastation it caused. We're told in Elpis that the Ancients can't create souls, so it calls into question whether Zodiark would be able to either. What exactly was he asked to do? Were it to make the planet inhabitable again, then the priority should've been on the flora and fauna necessary to re-establish an ecosystem. It doesn't make sense for the Ancients to give their lives for other humanoids unless they were incredibly altruistic.

Perhaps they asked Zodiark to return the world to how it was before the Final Days and, even then, it seems he was only capable of bringing back life in its infancy. Any newborns, whether human or animal, would've had to have been raised by the Ancients, which would certainly lend itself to them being loathe to sacrifice them later. Even taking humanoids out of the equation, you couldn't convince me to offer up cats I'd raised from kittens to be sacrificed. However, I'm sure I could find people who would if it meant releasing their departed loved ones.

Speaking of which, they wrote the souls of the sacrificed were trapped within Zodiark, which also changes the debate. It wasn't just about bringing them back to life, it was that their souls weren't even free to return to the star and a big deal is made about this being a fundamental part of their beliefs. I'm not religious myself, but I can only imagine that's like saying your loved ones can't go to Heaven, they're trapped indefinitely in purgatory, but you have the means to free them if you're willing to make a trade. This would be a difficult choice for many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

....I mean, both sides went full on genocidal. It just took one side thousands of years to get there, while the other took the express lane to omnicide.

---

I've brought this up before, but Venat's actions are difficult to quantify as 'genocide', in large part because it's a philosophical question if the Sundering counts as 'killing'. But since she was going up against an act that was also similarly shady, it's not really right to cast shade over her and not the Convocation.

And as I mathed out last night... evidence suggests that the Ascians didn't take 'thousands of years' to get to genocide, because going with the math that it takes one thousand to one and a half thousand years to commit a Calamity under normal circumstances (the brief time to the planned eighth being a known outlier), and that there was a failed attempt before the successful first Calamity, actually suggests that the amount of time they took before going for the genocide plan wasn't 'thousands of years', but somewhere between 'hundreds of years' and 'literal minutes'.

Whether or not Sundering counts as killing is irrelevant. She destroyed their civilization, erased everything about who they were, memories and all, expunged their entire culture and lives from history, (much as Emet wanted to do to the WoL, might I add) doomed them to living lifespans that were a fraction of their normal, and subjected them to more frail lives than ever before. Even if you want to veil Sundering itself as something different from killing, even though it is killing in everything but name, it doesn't matter because what the Ancients found to be a far more terrible thing than death itself is a life that is ended before the person can fulfill their desires, which is the exact kind of fate she subjects them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The impression I've gotten is they wrote themselves into a corner in ShB, one which they might not have recognized until they read players discuss it. The "new life" angle is what was presented in ShB (and mostly dropped in EW), so either the Convocation was mistaken about what Venat's motives were or that was the reason she was giving people.

---

Yeah I think there was lot more potential in what Shadowbringers wrote this dilemma to be, and was far more nuanced than what Endwalker tries to make of it afterwards. The second sacrifice is interesting I agree, and the lack of further explanation onto what occurred during the original Final Days is exactly what I'm talking about. In the end we don't know for certain what EITHER side is really fighting for. That is a problem. Boiling such a complex issue down to the simplicity that Endwalker tried to frame it as really left a bad taste in my mouth personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpectrePhantasia

Boiling such a complex issue down to the simplicity that Endwalker tried to frame it as really left a bad taste in my mouth personally.

---

As often as people say we had all of ShB to learn the Ascians' side, we find out in EW that it was entirely without context. Instead of seeing what really happened in EW, we get a dramatization of events from Venat's POV. Elidibus, the person who probably would know the most since he was acting mediator, conveniently has memory issues, is disposed of before we travel to the past, and doesn't make an appearance again within the MSQ. (It remains to be seen what, if anything, we learn in Pandemonium.) I doubt we'll ever know the truth of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I've brought...

---

It's not hard to quantify what Venat did as genocide at all. To even deny that's what it was is to literally discount the Ancients' lives. Either all lives are precious, or some aren't. Can't have it both ways. There are similar philosophical branches we can travel down that paint the Rejoinings as not being Genocide, and in that same branch of thought lies the denial of Venat's deed too.

But there is one hard thing the Sundering did that Rejoinings could never do. That is, it damaged the soul which is the core of an Etheirysian's being. At first it seems not to matter, we could even be generous and suggest that it's the same sort of deal IRL where the spirits housed in Eastern shrines are split and taken to other shrines to impart a growing spirit across all the lands. However, FFXIV's account of Etheirysian souls is too detailed for that to really hold water. Especially when the combining of the sundered souls restores power and vitality, as the soul approaches wholeness.

This(Ye Olde Sundering) made Etheirysians susceptible to, "true death" via Dynamis, and has lead to the only true deaths for Etheirysians with no possibility of reincarnation for such individuals (At least as shown currently, though I suspect with the writers wanting to maintain Hydaelyn's "inexorable" integrity they will throw the baby out with the bathwater yet again at some point in the near future. This will create its own host of new problems, probably).

The perspective that sundered souls are somehow "lesser" or incomplete versions of real people is the view of the ascians and Emet-Selch. A perspective that is shown to be wrong by the narrative.

Sundered people are able to lead rich, fufilling lives and care for each other as much as any unsundered. Emet-Selch was wrong to call us broken things that barely qualify as people.

Also, the cycle of reincarnation seems to happen just fine regardless of whether or not the sundering happened. With the exception of the souls bound up in zodiark and meteion's nest. But we dealt with both of those problems.

Edit: As for needing "more detail" about Venat's side and motivation in Endwalker, what more could people possibly want? We learn in Shadowbringers that the Ancients intended to sacrifice more life in ordee to bring back thier bretheren. And we later learn that Venat's faction believed that Zodiark would ultimately fail to prevent the final days and thier society would end up going down the same path regardless.

Venat and her faction oppossed Zodiark on both practical and philosphical grounds. We already knew that going into Endwalker. All Endwalker did was let us fill in the specifics. I'm really curious as to what more people wanted to be told that wasn't made glaringly obvious already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

It's not hard to quantify what Venat did as genocide at all. To even deny that's what it was is to literally discount the Ancients' lives. Either all lives are precious, or some aren't. Can't have it both ways. There are similar philosophical branches we can travel down that paint the Rejoinings as not being Genocide, and in that same branch of thought lies the denial of Venat's deed too.

---

The philosophical questions surrounding the Sundering might spawn another 75 pages :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

But there is one hard thing the Sundering did that Rejoinings could never do. That is, it damaged the soul which is the core of an Etheirysian's being. At first it seems not to matter, we could even be generous and suggest that it's the same sort of deal IRL where the spirits housed in Eastern shrines are split and taken to other shrines to impart a growing spirit across all the lands. However, FFXIV's account of Etheirysian souls is too detailed for that to really hold water. Especially when the combining of the sundered souls restores power and vitality, as the soul approaches wholeness.

This(Ye Olde Sundering) made Etheirysians susceptible to, "true death" via Dynamis, and has lead to the only true deaths for Etheirysians with no possibility of reincarnation for such individuals (At least as shown currently, though I suspect with the writers wanting to maintain Hydaelyn's "inexorable" integrity they will throw the baby out with the bathwater yet again at some point in the near future. This will create its own host of new problems, probably).

---

You’ll be disappointed to find out then the writers see to have already have done so. Thancred and the Scions survived despite their aether being overwhelmed with Dynamis (much to Meteions surprise), the souls held by Meteion returned to their bodies (the dragons, Ea and Omicrons) after we defeated Endsinger, and from the role quests there seems to be more to the Blasphemies than we thought.

Not to mention the question of what she was supposed to do. If you view the Sundering as an unneeded genocide, then I can understand that position. But, if you believe the Sundering necessary, plus the fact she acted to prevent Zodiarks destruction and gave us the clues needed to get to Elpis, it would be hard to criticize her for those deaths when she did all she could to prevent them. I think I’ve made clear where I fall on that, thus I don’t agree with the criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

You'll be disappointed

---

The Scions weren't transformed. They were influencing Dynamis as well. That's how they and we combatted Meteion. They weren't overwhelmed on the soul level. Their bodies were dissipated, but their souls went on to alter Ultima Thule's environs in an active struggle until we broke Meteion's will by having Hyth and Hades create Elpis flowers. Once that was achieved, all that their souls had been struggling for was evinced into true being. Their bodies were then brought back, and their souls back into them by Hydaelyn's magic on the Azem stone calling. As far as all the other people in Ultima Thule, I'm not sure on that. I don't remember anything concrete about it, but it's been a minute, and I'm not even half way done with my second playthrough still. Even if they are though, it's a farcry from returning their entire civilization, planet, and population to their own cycles if they even have those.


As far as Blasphemies go, they merely seem to be influenced by the dominant personality in the being they're transformed from at the time Dynamis overwhelms them. This mostly goes into explain why they act the way they do as Blasphemies, as well as expound on the past of the characters intertwined with each Blasphemy. The most interesting bit of note is that a partial primal imparts the personality of one of the Heaven's Ward onto Profane Fafnir. The man underneath all of that doesn't seem to be part of the Blasphemy at all. The healer, tank, melee, and ranged physical all have regular(more or less) people transformed with differing scenarios that impart that the deep seated desires of the person transformed carry into the Blasphemy. There was nothing to suggest they return to live anew. Nothing to cast doubt on what was stated during the events of Thavnair and Palaka's Stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

It's not hard to quantify what Venat did as genocide at all. To even deny that's what it was is to literally discount the Ancients' lives.

---

This argument is so cyclical that exactly the two of us have had exactly this same sub-argument once before.

Even if you do count the Sundering as a genocide, you have to count the Ascians as:
A: before the Sundering planning at least one act of mass extermination against the entire mission statement of their civilization (calling it 'genocide' is unclear without knowing their selection process for the third sacrifice, but bad either way)
B: going on to perform fourteen acts of confirmed genocide (all seven successful Calamities destroying a shard, all but one Calamity also decimating the Source, plus the Thirteenth)
C: planning to perform at least twenty-eight genocides in total, likely more (all Rejoinings counting both shard and Source, plus the sacrifice to fix the Thirteenth, plus the sacrifice to remake the Ancients)

Again, I reiterate my actual angle: At the time of the Sundering, both sides were making morally dubious decisions for high-minded reasons, to the point where, if I were an Ancient at the time, I don't know if I'd have sided with either. But afterwards, we learn that Venat was factually correct, and also that the Convocation would be completely okay with doing the same morally dubious thing Venat did over two dozen times, each one in a much less dubious context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I'm in the camp of 'neither bad people, both did bad things, but one side ended up correct and the other ended up committing genocides'. Which, granted, is a little wordy, but is the stance the game itself takes.

---

The way I see it is, one ended up winning and one ended up losing. Simple. It doesn't matter who was right or wrong. If someone can find a way to win by being sneaky and forming a coup, well then the losers can whine all they want but in the end they lost. Isn't that how life is anyway? There's a lot of injustice in the world that happens just because someone used money, power or some type of strategy to implement their plans. For an ancient just living their life who has nothing to do with the convocation's choices, Venat is a villain. To the sundered defending their lives, the Ascians are the villains. If the Ascians had won, the story would be told in a different way and they could be viewed as heroes. All that matters in the end is who wins, then they can write history the way they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhNooo

The way I see it is, one ended up winning and one ended up losing. Simple. It doesn't matter who was right or wrong. If someone can find a way to win by being sneaky and forming a coup, well then the losers can whine all they want but in the end they lost. Isn't that how life is anyway? There's a lot of injustice in the world that happens just because someone used money, power or some type of strategy to implement their plans. For an ancient just living their life who has nothing to do with the convocation's choices, Venat is a villain. To the sundered defending their lives, the Ascians are the villains. If the Ascians had won, the story would be told in a different way and they could be viewed as heroes. All that matters in the end is who wins, then they can write history the way they want.

---

I wouldn't say that was a certainty however, it's just a guess nothing more, for all we know there were ancients just living their lives and not giving a damn and when the sundering occurred they just shrugged it off and continued living. The fact is we don't know and saying things like that is just conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rannie

I wouldn't say that was a certainty however, it's just a guess nothing more, for all we know there were ancients just living their lives and not giving a damn and when the sundering occurred they just shrugged it off and continued living. The fact is we don't know and saying things like that is just conjecture.

---

I highly doubt someone just dusts themself off, shrugs and just walks off after getting sundered. It looks like it's a painful thing going by that dramatization from Venat's POV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhNooo

I highly doubt someone just dusts themself off, shrugs and just walks off after getting sundered. It looks like it's a painful thing going by that dramatization from Venat's POV.

---

You'd be very surprised at how there are a lot of people who if they didn't know wouldn't care or feel that as long as they are alive it's all tha matters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpectrePhantasia

I'm not going to fight you on what the presented themes are, as you say they are readily apparent. However, 'themes' being apparent is not a valid excuse for being needlessly murky on what is pretty inarguably the most important event in the entire world's lore. To put all the Ancients in a box and tuck them away to be forgotten by history because the themes said so does not make for anything even approaching compelling. The Ancients were not a hivemind. They were not some embodiment of the past. Our past was their present. They were living, breathing people with friends, families, hopes and aspirations, and certainly not all of them thought in the way the Convocation and Zodiark's faithful did. It was described as the biggest divide in their history. Even Elidibus himself lost the will to continue fighting for the thing you say they represent absolutely. What of these people? We know full well the Convocation was misguided, but what gave Venat the right to strip everyone of the lives they had?

Just because a choice is symbolic or thematic, does not make it right. And we should not have to accept it as absolute just because we're told we should.

---

It's worth noting, according to the source texts on this, even the Convocation was initially divided on this matter. IMO not being given all the info here about what really drove Venat's concerns did not help, because their own intent was to safeguard the star's well-being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhNooo

I highly doubt someone just dusts themself off, shrugs and just walks off after getting sundered. It looks like it's a painful thing going by that dramatization from Venat's POV.

---

Same. Their cut lifespan alone would result in them dropping dead not too long after. But hey, maybe they'd even thank her for it and praise Hydaelyn for doing it to them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

It's worth noting, according to the source texts on this, even the Convocation was initially divided on this matter. IMO not being given all the info here about what really drove Venat's concerns did not help, because their own intent was to safeguard the star's well-being.

---

We did only get two sides of the story and neither of them were completely unbiased. I wish we could find some type of unbiased crystal that had recorded everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhNooo

I highly doubt someone just dusts themself off, shrugs and just walks off after getting sundered. It looks like it's a painful thing going by that dramatization from Venat's POV.

---

While I personally suspect there was some amount of stress and strain with the Sundering (I'm not sure I'd call it 'pain' so much as just 'so weird you need to sit down for a while'), that part of the post-Elpis scene is when it goes from 'literal but abridged retelling' to 'extremely figurative', so it's hard to use it as evidence. Personally I read it as 'after the Sundering there was pain', which is significantly different to 'the Sundering hurt'.

Yes, but bias is scarcely relevant when post-defeat Elidibus is describing what caused him to emerge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rannie

You'd be very surprised at how there are a lot of people who if they didn't know wouldn't care or feel that as long as they are alive it's all tha matters

---

Oh for sure. But I believe that there are are things worse than death and just the whole idea of the sundering makes me physically wince.

I also have another angle to bring to the table as far as Venat is concerned. We know that actions have consequences and I feel like this whole struggle our character has had with the Ascians is pretty much a direct result of Venat and her supporter's choice in the beginning. They all knew that they would be viewed as basically traitors but felt like they were doing the right thing. Well, now our character and the rest of the sundered had to go through so much destruction and death because of what the Ascians viewed as trying to get justice for what Venat did. It's like having parents who are in the mafia or who did something morally questionable years ago and then you as their child ends up getting hurt or killed because the people your parents screwed over are coming for revenge. Like I get that she was trying to save the new life but damn it feels like they'd get screwed over regardless because they'd either get sacrificed or sundered and then die again in one of the calamities or lose people fighting the Ascians, or just end up working a 9-5 job constantly worried about paying bills and wondering if this is all life has to offer lol.

Like seriously when I look at it, it looks like "normal" people arguing over their toys. Maybe it would have been better for the devs to make the ancients look more alien isntead of looking just like us.

Ehhhh I'd still go with an inanimate crystal than via one who was once the actual heart of zodiark. That gets even a bit iffy there and I don't know if I could trust the impartiality of it... but that's just me *shrugs* and I barely know Elidibus.

@OHnooo see that's where people do have the different opinions to you the sundering may be seen as worse than death. When I think of it I try to put myself in their position and see how I would feel if it happened to me. Honestly I would say I would be glad to be alive. I may not entirely remember things but I would still remember some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rannie

I wish we could find some type of unbiased crystal that had recorded everything

---

Agreed! I've been wanting something like that for the longest time. I mean even just from rl experience, being the "mediator", I tend to be between friends, there have been so many arguments where people are blaming each other for things and then a non-biased 3rd party or a snapchat video sets the record straight about what happened.

There's still so much that I want explained about this story and the fact that this is literally the end of the arc is just crazy to me. How can you do this to us SE lol

I want to warn about that 'unbiased crystal' wish: I think that a lot of people asking for it, similarly to the people who want to know how Azem really felt about it all, want it because they think it would validate their view. 'Surely an unbiased third party would agree with me that X is right and Y is just ridiculous', that kinda thing.

I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily coming from that direction, just that I think it's worth pausing and considering it: Do you want an unbiased source because you think you know what the unbiased source would say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I want to warn about that 'unbiased crystal' wish: I think that a lot of people asking for it, similarly to the people who want to know how Azem really felt about it all, want it because they think it would validate their view. 'Surely an unbiased third party would agree with me that X is right and Y is just ridiculous', that kinda thing.

I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily coming from that direction, just that I think it's worth pausing and considering it: Do you want an unbiased source because you think you know what the unbiased source would say?

---

It is a slippery slope is it not for people to have their ideals and values come crashing down around their ears when it doesn't come out exactly they way they think it would. While I hold certain ideas myself, I like to form a more solid opinion when I can hear and see things from all angles... atleast that's what I try to do. Admittedly, it doesn't always work that way. I'm human after all and maybe occassionally egotistical but who can't say that?

^_^

Speaking for myself, I simply wanted better characterization for Venat. I was ready to believe that the Sundering, from a certain point of view may have been necessary. Before Endwalker's release, I had a feeling that her reasoning would be something along the lines of the Ancients unfortunately existing in a state where their creation magicks were always going to go awry, and, like a chain reaction, spread into a calamity that would make up the Final Days. Granted, that kind of is how it happened, but I was posing it in a more broad and all-encompassing sense than one troubled Ancient and his poorly programmed creation. Anyway, in order for me to be content with this reasoning, I needed two things. One, assurance beyond a shadow of doubt that there is no other way to stop the Ancients' descent but to sunder the world, and two, that Venat would be the kind of person to come to this conclusion and make that decision. I don't believe the narrative successfully locked either of these things down.

For one, there are too many factors and bits of information that imply things could have gone differently. If Venat had simply stepped down with Elidibus rather than perform the Sundering, this becomes a matter that they have plenty of time to resolve in a peaceful manner. Even though Zodiark wasn't a permanent solution, he bought thousands of years of time for them to come up with a different path to follow, that perhaps Azem could help with? The Convocation would have to be at least receptive at this point, but even if it becomes a nightmare of politics and debate, its preferable to putting all of the power in the hands of a single person to decide the fate of the world. And it's not like Venat didn't want this either. She did. If she didn't, she wouldn't have tried reasoning with the Ancients in that metaphorical scene. She performed the Sundering out of desperation, not want. So why is Elidibus, someone on the Convocation who clearly is listening, never given further attention?

For two, Venat never came off to me as the kind of person who would perform an atrocity like the Sundering, even if it were for a noble purpose. She's a sweet, caring maternal figure, who I liked very much for her time in Elpis. The kind of character to really mean it when she says that "Nothing is impossible," and not decide after the fact that a future for her own people was impossible. I have a very hard time believing that someone who supposedly had boundless faith in mankind would then decide that mankind is unworthy to exist as they began, and that the only recourse would be to shatter them beyond recognition. She's not a true god. She is just another person. A character who would do this needs a visible flaw to truly hone in on, and I think a misstep was made in not making one readily apparent, as with Hermes.

Instead, what we got was feel-good mummery, Venat was only ever acting for the greater good, she's the only one who knows the truth, and because the themes are on her side, it's all water under the bridge and totally necessary, right? I know it may sound that I'm yearning for something that wasn't meant to be, but all of the pieces were there for something that would be truly understandable out of her, and the fact that so many are sharing their thoughts that it isn't a very good reasoning, tells me there was much room for improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Do you want an unbiased source because you think you know what the unbiased source would say?

---

No I want an unbiased source because I want to know what happened from an unbiased source instead of from two obviously biased POVs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I want to warn about that 'unbiased crystal' wish: I think that a lot of people asking for it, similarly to the people who want to know how Azem really felt about it all, want it because they think it would validate their view. 'Surely an unbiased third party would agree with me that X is right and Y is just ridiculous', that kinda thing.

I'm not saying that anyone here is necessarily coming from that direction, just that I think it's worth pausing and considering it: Do you want an unbiased source because you think you know what the unbiased source would say?

---

I don't get this take that people who ended up feeling sour about the Sundering were looking for an excuse to dislike Hydaelyn. I was ready and willing to like and agree with her, and still would be if they told a version of the story that actually made sense and didn't require huge, tone-directed assumptions on the part of the player to work around their vagaries.

Not everyone picks a made-up side in a narrative to cheer for, and then sticks with them like some kinda sports team. I just want a non-messy story.

Much as having an unbiased source confirm my preferred view would be epic, yeah I think what's more important is having an actual proper retelling of events so we can truly draw our own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I don't get this take that people who ended up feeling sour about the Sundering were looking for an excuse to dislike Hydaelyn. I was ready and willing to like and agree with her, and still would be if they told a version of the story that actually made sense and didn't require huge, tone-directed assumptions on the part of the player to work around their vagaries.

Not everyone picks a made-up side in a narrative to cheer for, and then sticks with them like some kinda sports team. I just want a non-messy story.

---

This. I have no interest in dealing with absolutes and I couldn't care less who was right or wrong in this situation. I also have no interest in sugarcoating genocide when the perpetrator just so happened to be a character I personally liked. Both sides committed atrocities and no amount of comparisons between their death counts will ever absolve either side of this conflict of their sins. In addition, Emet regarding sundered beings as lesser or subhuman is irrelevant to the fact that his people have no more or less a right to the planet as we do. Your feelings on the matter are your own and you're free to disagree with him but to argue that we deserve it more than him cuz he called us a bad name is pointless.

To me, Venat's actions weren't an objectively correct answer as she had no idea what the outcome would be and wouldn't have created an exit strategy had she known everything would turn out fine. The sundering was simply an answer, just one answer she chose. And until I learn that there truly was no point in warning the ancients beforehand, or that the ancients were guaranteed to sacrifice innocent lives despite Elidibus himself exhibiting apprehension at the 11th hour, I will continue to treat her decision of sundering the world as just an answer.