I wish they'd thrown in some kind of remark that Golbez is just a title or "stage name" and not really the other guy's name either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
We could call the other one Theodor, anyway.
-
10-19-2023, 10:56 AMIscah
-
10-25-2023, 03:05 AM4clubbedace
people keep equating "emet/the ascians had a empathic goal" with "the ascians were right"
those are two different statments that convey two different things.
Golbez is also in "has an empathic goal", ironic that he would have helped the ascians since the goals are one and the same, (doubel so that the ascians are at fault for it) -
11-12-2023, 10:47 AMDreadCrowGaia is innocent, considering she's more or less the reincarnation of her ascion self with no memories of what she did in the past life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostly_Raxus
Fordola is actively working towards being a better person and since she has a form of the Echo and more or less hear the thoughts of those around her will forever understand the weight of her sins.
Estinien was certainly being driven insane by the Eye, as Nidhogg's rage was fueling his own, but it's also important to remember that he wasn't going around murdering random dragons because he could. He was actively fighting Nidhogg's brood. While dragons were victims of Ishgardian deceit ages ago, the people who are alive today are ignorant of truth and actively being lied to... But that doesn't matter to the dragons. They are killing the Ishgardians of today because Ishgardians of yesterday did something bad. And like Fordola, he's been actively trying to redeem himself since the events of Heavesward.
Being "10000000000% ok" with fictional genocide is technically "fine" as it doesn't actively hurt people, but it still feels like sort of a weird take to have. Especially if you're defending fictional genocide with the exact same language people use to justify real genocide. Like, it doesn't mean you're cool with people really getting killed, but I feel it takes a lack of self-awareness to not realize why some people think it feels kind of squicky. -
01-02-2024, 10:05 PMLady_SilvermoonEmet-Selch was trying to restore his people who had been murdered, mutilated and run through a torture machine to "grow strong." I can very much understand why plan A would be to slap everything that was torn apart back together. If someone steals something from you, gives it to their kid, are you no longer allowed to take it back because the kid wasn't the thief? I didn't think Goldbez was evil for his plan. I just thought there was a better way. Why send everyone to the lifestream if we can restore the shard? Lets save everyone. His situation wasn't morally complex. He was just desperate and needed a better plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuella
-
01-02-2024, 10:11 PMLady_SilvermoonI don't view Emet-Selch as a villain. I view him as an antagonist. I don't blame the wolf for eating the hare and I don't blame the hare for running even if it means the wolf will starve. We are made of the parts of his people. It was a case of survival of the fittest. Nature can be cruel (or Venat as I later discovered).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eisi
If only we had time travel and alternate timelines so that both groups could have lived...oh wait... -
01-02-2024, 10:58 PMClereticSo, let me slap down the primer of how FFXIV time travel works. Definitive mechanical explanations don't really exist, because Alexander (or the Tycoon) is the only one who'd know and isn't talking, but we have two different potential results:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
1. Stable time loop; the person/thing that goes back always went back, and did whatever resulted in the timeline they originally came from. This happened in Alexander (twice), and with us in Elpis.Because it's all still the same timeline, traveling back to the original point is possible.
2. Divergent timeline; the person/thing that goes back creates an entirely new timeline, with their old one being orphaned. This happened in Shadowbringers, with the Crystal Exarch. Their previous timeline appears to continue existing, but there's no longer a way to access it from the now-prime timeline.
It's unclear what causes the two different events; most likely it's related to the scale/type of the change being made, because all the time-loop changes were very 'clean' in terms of leaving everything where it was, but we don't actually have any evidence. For all we know, it's controlled by the average temperature in Radz-at-Han across both time periods. So on an in-universe level, there's no way to control for this even if anyone wanted to, unless that anyone was Alexander (or the Tycoon).
Now, if you recall, we went to Elpis for a specific reason in a specific scenario: we were following up a lead in finding information, because in the face of the Final Days everyone was at a bit of a dead end on what to do. That meant that, while we were off having a chill-out tea time with Emet and Hyth in the past, everyone in the present was desperately performing damage control and waiting for us to come back with the info. In the long term, they needed us to formulate a solution, but remember that when we got back, people were kind of on the back foot; never mind the long term, I'm not even sure they had a short term left if we didn't come back.
Causing an alternate timeline doesn't create a best-of-both-worlds: it's one response to a Sophie's Choice, as suddenly we can't get back to the present that needs us, leaving them to die even if the ancient world lives (and as an aside, that's a big 'if'). By going back through causing a stable time loop, we make the other response: the ancient world still dies, but we can still save our own. -
01-02-2024, 11:23 PMIscahThere's time travel along a single timeline, and then there is jumping between different branches of a split timeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
All instances of time travel that we have seen used in the game stem from Alexander's power, and so far as we have been shown, those powers have only performed the first type of time travel. Either it forms a clear loop on a single timeline (Alexander raids, Elpis time loop) or is only used for the first step of causing a split timeline, which is travelling backwards along a single timeline to transport the timeline-breaker from their original future to their past, at which point their own actions are what causes a split. The breaker – G'raha in our sole canon example – is carried into the new split and has no way back to their original timeline unless their time machine has the ability to jump from one branch to another, which has not been indicated as possible. G'raha seems to believe that the people he knew in the other future are utterly beyond his reach now.
If we somehow succeeded in changing events at Elpis to prevent the history we know, then we would likewise be swept into an alternate timeline with no guarantee of finding our way back to our original present. Neither would we actually have prevented the suffering of the Final Days, because that already happened in the past that led to our own existence, and would still happen in that timeline. Meanwhile the people we left behind in our own present would not be saved, because we might not return at all, or might return but not have witnessed the reason for the Final Days occurring.
If we do not bring news of the root cause of the Final Days to our present, then it is utterly doomed, everyone dies permanently because their souls get imprisoned by Meteion, and Emet-Selch's twelve thousand years of suffering have been for nothing.
The two potential story courses are...
If we only witness the events at Elpis (or unsuccessfully meddle):
- the ancients still go through the Final Days
- events up to the present happen, resulting in our character being alive
- we go to Elpis and return with a solution
- the present-day world is saved
Final outcome: could not help the ancients; could help present-day people.
If we broke the timeline:
- the ancients still go through the Final Days and Sundering in one branch of the timeline
- events up to the present happen
- we go to Elpis and do NOT return with a solution
- present-day world is doomed
- in another branch of the timeline, maybe we saved the ancients and they live happily ever after, or maybe a different crisis strikes and they're doomed anyway.
Final outcome: could not help the original ancients, could not help the present day, cannot guarantee that the other timeline won't just be a different variety of failure.
So in short, splitting the timeline does not prevent any suffering, while dooming people who could otherwise be saved.
In any case, my personal theory is that you can only break the timeline if you are already familiar with how things "should" happen. G'raha was armed with detailed knowledge of the event he was trying to stop; we did not have a single clue what to expect in Elpis. -
01-03-2024, 12:35 AMMikkoAkure
That person is digging up old threads and spamming the forum as if it’s going to bring the Ancients back so it’s really not worth engaging them. They’ll tire themselves out eventually.
-
01-03-2024, 02:26 AMIscahSo I have gathered since writing my earlier post. If someone genuinely wants to talk and bumps up a thread on the subject, fine; bump up five while not coming back to responses and I'm going to start assuming they're not here to discuss in good faith. Particularly on this subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
-
01-03-2024, 04:18 AMRavLandslide
I like Emet and I could understand where he was coming from, so I can kinda say the same about Durante. The guy's been tormented for 10k+ years of being made of dark-aspected aether, I can't imagine that does much good to your psyche.
I also find it rather fair that he can easily redeem himself, but that might be because I don't really know how many suffered under his plot, whereas with Emet we know he had supposedly been responsible for the death of millions. -
01-03-2024, 09:36 AMClereticHonestly, I think they already did. Going by their post history, I don't expect them to come back; they seem the type to really want to post about one subject, and then leave once they have.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
It was really frustrating to watch, because they had that awful mix of 'frequently factually incorrect' and 'grossly emotionally charged language'. I wanted to 'well actually' them a whole lot more than I have (Including with EE3 evidence, I was actually excited to bring that in), but for a lot of it they're clearly wrapping way too much of themselves and their own values into it, and they'd take it as a personal attack if I told them that actually, Emet would not be praised as the ender of poverty and sexual assault if he completed all the Rejoinings. I only really felt confident refuting the more isolated points, like a misunderstanding of how time travel works.
I do kind of wonder why they did all this, because it really feels completely out of nowhere. Their post history confirms they're not the sort to do this regularly, and they completed Endwalker at least half a year ago (and were talking about very different parts of it), so this isn't 'I just hit the credits and I have kneejerk opinions'. It's also not just a new member/sockpuppet of the usual Team Zodiark crowd, because they tend to post together, and have fairly consistent talking points that this doesn't really jive with.
No 'supposedly' about that: just looking for fairly direct attribution, he claims both the Allagan and Garlean empires as his. Even just going by Garlemald where we know his role, that puts a lot of deaths and suffering as his knowing and unapologetic fault, and if he got his way those numbers only would've been bigger.Quote:
Originally Posted by RavLandslide
Meanwhile, Durante's biggest sin was basically an accident, and his actions afterwards were a misguided attempt to fix it that... didn't really end up with a particularly high bodycount. Not only does that make it very easy to believe that he's got his heart in the right place for improving, he also doesn't have a particularly big rap sheet for me to beg for a response to.
...he also actually wants to improve, so, he's got that over a hypothetical Emet redemption. Emet didn't want to redeem himself, because redemption implies ever thinking you did wrong, and he did not. -
01-03-2024, 10:13 AMLady_SilvermoonYikes. Way to judge me. I just started posting on the forums yesterday, so yeah, I commented on old stuff that interested me and I hadn't responded because I was sleeping. Catching up on what you said now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
-
01-03-2024, 10:18 AMLady_SilvermoonYes, I am aware, but when we first went back, I assumed us going back would lead to the outcome of two timelines like with what happened in Shadowbringers as it makes the most sense given we can keep going back there to do quests, raid and gather. I did not imagine my WoL just going back in history chilling with these people and not mentioning, "Oh, btw, the lot of you are about to die horribly, good luck with that."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
I just assumed given it's a place we could continue to return to, our actions would be similar to G'raha's causing a new timeline. But nope, while it was okay to go back in time and save us, the Ancients must die for some reason. -
01-03-2024, 10:24 AMLady_SilvermoonAll I know is there is a timeline where history has been changed and both timelines continue. Yes, they could make it so that we'd have trouble getting back to our time if we'd changed the past, but given they are handwaving us back and forth through time with magic, they could have just as easily given us two timelines, one where they were doomed and one where they were saved. It's not like there is any real science behind why I'm able to go back to Elpis and do the Pandamonium raids. And I was sure they were gonna do that, because who would go hang out with these people on the regular and not try to save them? I'm sick of my character glancing down and looking all sad when these people ask about the horrors coming their way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iscah
-
01-03-2024, 10:31 AMLady_SilvermoonYou can see that much information on me? That's creepy. (My bad, I thought you could actually see my gameplay history, not that you guessed I finished Endwalker around my first posts.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
To answer your question, I googled something that landed me on a forum thread and I sat there reading through 60 pages of a lore discussion from like two years ago, but didn't want to comment on it because it was like two years ago. So after reading that, I looked up some more current posts. Wrote some comments, went to bed and woke up to my existence being highly analyzed and discussed in a way I'm not used to seeing on forums. But okay.
Just a rando who usually discusses lore on other mediums and just happened upon a forum post last night. That's all. -
01-03-2024, 10:53 AMZavosEsperianUnfortunately, the inhabitance of the lore forums are not afraid to go through post histories. I tend to lurk instead of post but most who are of your mindset have moved on to greener pastures or also tend to lurk as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
-
01-03-2024, 11:07 AMjameseoakesYeah it really feels there's a creepy policing going on in the lore with people being pretty much harassed for talking about the wrong topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
-
01-03-2024, 11:28 AMMalackaiDon't worry about it :) think most of people at this point just lurk around. Personally I don't really visit the forums either maybe once a month or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
So its weird that people expect you to answer like its a daily thing or so or that apparently timezone don't exist and people need to sleep...
Frankly I still find it a weird choice myself that they went with a non AU timeline especially since they established AU can exist.
But then again most of EW soured me at this point (Some the the messaging was just giving giant red flags for me personally.) -
01-03-2024, 11:38 AMClereticYeah; you don't have a very long post history, so I basically just hit 'View Forum Posts' and scrolled down very slightly. You posted about Meteion mid-ish last year, so I have very little information, but what I do have says 'you finished Endwalker back then at the latest, and had a different broad response. I didn't actually consider that a negative per se--I considered it a green flag of sorts actually, since you clearly don't have an established history and aren't some kind of burner account--it was just a bit curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
Something you're probably not aware of is that this subforum has a particular problem with 'drive-by trolling' (I think a lot of subforums have it, but it's very noticeable here probably because the subject matter is much looser); someone who turns up exactly once, posts a weirdly argumentative hot take, and then completely vanishes. Sometimes they're there for one day, sometimes it's just a single post. It sucks, because I always like new people joining the conversation with new ideas, despite what some people might think... and then we instead just get an angry, probably deliberately incomplete argument from someone who never comes back. But a slight bit of extra reading can help identify the sort of person we're looking at pretty early, and help inform what conversation there is to have: if they're not coming back, you're not about to get any answers to your questions, but there might still be a conversation worth having about, say, 'all the ways the Empire didn't fix the primal problem and in fact made it worse'. -
01-03-2024, 12:34 PMSannaRMaybe because we have had Titanman necro things as is their want and try and troll this subform? Or that other guy who openly called people in here slurs and whatnot begging us to report them so that they would get banned. That and some of those who post here don't frequent the other parts. And it's not like other people in other sections of this forum don't go and look at others post history. Then there are those who when subbed have in the past will talk about a thread's topic only to go "but did you know Venat's a b*tch and a genocidal maniac?" in the middle or the end of their statement knowing full well that it's bait in hopes they'll get round 456 about the sundering.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
-
01-03-2024, 01:11 PMZavosEsperianQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
You both realize neither of the excuses you make justify your behavior on the forums. It is up to you whether you wish to interact with someone, be it a curious new individual to the forums or a troll. Searching through post histories and talking about what you found openly, especially discussing it with the person you were looking into, is most likely going to draw the ire of whoever you have just looked into instead of having a conversation in good faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by SannaR
That being said, a poor sense of media literacy would suggest being unable to discern the intentions of the person who authored the post in question. It shouldn't be too difficult to identify a troll from a well to do poster on the forums. It all seems like there is a significant amount of gatekeeping going on here in terms of forums discussion if you instantly go on the offensive against someone who may actually have genuine questions.
In terms of different opinions related to the interpretation of the story, there will be individuals who will have different opinions and people do have the right to back up their claims and reach agreements on disagreeing with their various interpretation of events. Not discussing these various events in full stymies discussion and makes the forums boring. I have witnessed this sort of behavior where both sides of each argument becomes too combative and resorts to ad hominem attacks as well as behavior that would be decried as abhorrent by many people's standards. Don't claim to be a victim when you yourself were taking part in the selfsame behavior.
In short, be willing to hear people out. You may end up learning something new or see a new perspective you never thought of before. -
01-03-2024, 01:35 PMMikkoAkureGoing into a forum and replying to multiple threads multiple times each back-to-back with posts saying things like wanting to ignore that "millions died so I could play cactpot" and comparing the systematic killing of millions of people across multiple worlds to "stealing from someone and giving it to their kid" is going to make people suspicious and doubt their commitment to have an actual, real discussion. Especially with the history of similar trollish behavior on these forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
-
01-03-2024, 02:02 PMClereticWhat behavior? You're really gonna need to be much more specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
The worst I can recall personally doing, and will readily admit was a fault of mine, was throwing out claims and verdicts about in-story characters and groups that I'll readily agree weren't helpful to discussion; 'genocide' was neither especially helpful, nor especially welcome, as a term when discussing the Ancients or Ascians. I regret using it, and I've done my best over time to have a better standard for it all and to steer any discussions into a different space than that. If that's what you're thinking of, then I apologize, and I've always felt that the best I can do about it is to just do better in the future.
But I get the feeling that's not what you're thinking of. So if I've forgotten something, please, let me know. -
01-03-2024, 09:31 PMRavLandslideYeah, his flashback cutscenes also make him look like a genuine and caring guy who just wants the best for everyone. Don't really understand why so many people seem to hate him...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
-
01-03-2024, 11:34 PMLady_SilvermoonI had to actually look up trolling to see how this whole discussion of if I'm a troll is even a thing. And I get it now. You think I'm saying what I'm saying in hopes of upsetting you. I'm not. I mean everything I'm saying and the snarkiness is just part of my personality and the way I speak. Until I came to find a discussion about me and not the story, it hadn't even occurred to me that what I said would be capable of upsetting you. I'm a big Emet-Selch fan, but there is no condemnation of his behavior that would upset me because it's true. If you point out he experimented on his own descendant, yep. He burned babies in their cribs, yep. He made every world he visited a worse place on purpose, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
So why would pointing out Venat killed millions if not billions of people be upsetting? She did. There is even a cool cinematic of it with a power ballad playing in the background. And while Shadowbringers did introduce the complicated and messy situation of if someone taking something from you and it's held by that group for generations, is it still acceptable to use violence to take it back. But comparing what Venat did to that scenario was never meant to be inflammatory, it is actually a massive downplay of what she did. She didn't just take their land. No, she took their world, their lives, their history, their bodies, their language, their sanity, even their very souls. Real people can't take from one another the amount Venat took from the Ancients due to a lack of magic power.
Endwalker haunts me more than any piece of fiction I've ever experienced. Because I liked it. I was fully on the Venat train. The Ancients had to die. Tragic, sure. But they weren't strong like the modern races. They couldn't endure suffering like the modern races. They couldn't wield dynamis like the modern races. They were genetically and culturally inferior. Useless eaters.
The horror of realizing all it takes is a pretty lady, some inspirational words and an awesome song to turn me into a full on Garlean, yeah...haunted. That's how I'd describe it. -
01-04-2024, 12:59 AMSannaRWe are open to discussion and to listen to others opinions on the story. But when you have as I said a known troll to these forums come in here and try and do what they do in general when they're bored as heck on their newest alt why shouldn't we want to shut that down? Or when we have people who again come here and clearly don't want to discuss anything and just call people slurs and harass anyone? Or try to turn any other topic into yet another slug fest over the sundering only to deny that slipped in what at this point might as well be "We were on a break" or "They should lock her up/but what about her emails" of trying to start a damn fight. And as I said some here do not frequent other parts of these forums. So when a troll from (almost always) the general section comes and drops in and starts trying to use headcannon as fact or as how a few have taken Lady_Silvermoon's posts to read like as a new troll people would rather warn others to not engage due to being exhausted. There have been many a time that we tried to have debates with other trolls for pages on end only for someone to enter a thread and point and laugh at us for entertaining said troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
-
01-04-2024, 01:00 AMZavosEsperianThis isn't an unreasonable feeling, there are many who gladly sang the tune the story provided only to realize the gravity of the actions committed later down the line. The MSQ does a good job with this in terms of how it is choreographed; paring music with powerful moments performed by an attractive character to boot to capture the mind of the person going through the game. If anything, it is a proper example at just how powerful propaganda can be as a tool against the human mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
With that being said, I don't fault people for enjoying the story. To me, there is no point in judging someone's take of a fictional story and as such I do not mind allowing people exploring what the authors/writers were trying to convey through the story. I also don't mind letting people be critical of how a story is portrayed, particularly if there is a discrepancy between what the author was trying to convey versus what is interpreted, as that can potentially indicate miscommunication between the author and the reader.
Unfortunately, people do not like it when you go after Venat for the actions she took. For whatever reason, it appears the ability for people to accept your opinion in regards to Venat is tantamount to heresy in many corners of the forums, let alone other areas where the story is discussed. I, admittedly, do understand your point of view in regards to this, as Venat's actions are undeniable in terms of what the sundering did. Mentioning this fact, however, tends to draw the ire of many individuals either because they are unable to see how you arrived at your perspective or because they themselves feel attacked when you are critical of a character who is largely liked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
-
01-04-2024, 01:54 AMClereticSo, imagine how this sort of talk feels to people who took the viewpoint of 'both sides faced difficult choices and there is no clear moral right answer, but I personally feel that I would side with Venat'. This isn't incorrect by what the game puts forward, and in fact is a broadly very popular take outside of these forums; it's hard to say if it's a majority, but it's certainly very popular and there's very little in the way of vicious argument about it, and Venat's routinely in the upper echelons of character popularity polls during Endwalker. You might realize, that sort of crowd isn't especially happy to hear these things, especially given we've been hearing them fairly constantly for the past two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
Now, imagine how it feels to not just have that sort of view of 'in this difficult hypothetical, I would side with Venat', but also have the feeling of 'I would prefer to move on and talk about any other part of the game'. There's a lot of other parts of the game, after all! Venat is actually only a small part, and speaking personally, isn't even a part I especially enjoy; I find all of Elpis fairly dull. I'd prefer if we were instead talking about Thavnair, or the Thirteenth, or primals, or that new expansion we're getting more info about this weekend. And yet, it keeps getting relitigated, by people who at best aren't very nice about it, and at worst are actively looking to start a fight or derail ongoing conversation.
Now, with all that in mind, look at your post history the past day or so.
I think you'll understand why we aren't especially warm to the subject. -
01-04-2024, 02:22 AMMikkoAkureUltimately this is my view of Venat since regardless of how awkwardly it was written, the intention was for us to side with her. Plus, Venat and all the Ancients were written years after the start of the game and the game was not built with them in mind. Our world is and always has been the more important one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
But I don’t mind criticisms from that point of view since as I said, they shoehorned all this in rather awkwardly onto a story that wasn’t built with this in mind and seemingly changed Venat to a greyer morality since they saw how successful it was with Emet-Selch, though that’s just my conjecture.
This is where I disagree. “Going after” a character in what looks like an emotion-driven rant does not make it look like you’re trying to have a conversation. It looks like you’re looking for a fight or you’re trying to vent.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
From my point of view Venat wasn’t a malicious witch spitefully plotting the destruction of her own people and that angle didn’t seem to be the intention from the writing. There were no disagreements at all for the initial summoning of Zodiark or His second sacrificial act.
But you also have to remember that at this point, we’re already in a post-apocalyptic situation. The Final Days were over but 3/4 of the surviving population had been sacrificed to Zodiark and we don’t know how many people died before Zodiark was summoned and the sacrifices began so any count of the people sundered is baseless conjecture at that point. Enough of that population was left to create a schism amongst the survivors and summon a primal strong enough to fight with Zodiark and whose power of stasis could overcome Zodiark’s power of change.
You could very well argue that they didn’t know Venat intended the Sundering (which I think should’ve stayed as a side-effect of the battle), but Venat’s faction still didn’t believe that the planet should be culled to bring back the sacrifices. I don’t believe the sacrifices intended to come back either and I don’t believe it was a known possibility at the beginning. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been as big of a deal if they’re just temporarily reduced to aether until Zodiark is done and then they’d come back. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been as big a deal between Hytholodaeus and Emet-Selch when the former volunteered. -
01-04-2024, 07:47 AMLady_SilvermoonWhy wouldn't you simply skip my posts rather than question my character and my motives? Yeah, if I agreed with murdering millions of people, I wouldn't want to be reminded that murdering millions of people so you can take everything they have is bad actually. But that feeling is actually the dissonance between you trying to claim that this case is the exception and the reminder that no, it isn't. It's the exact same as every time some group is wiped out "for the best." What she did is no different than what Thordan or Athena would do. But instead of addressing how it is somehow different, it becomes about me and my desire to "upset you" because there are no real points as to why her genocide is the good one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
I get it. I feel awful about the pile of bones they decided to sit our characters on top of which is actually why I talk about it so often. It really does haunt me. I can't phantom why they made such a decision as to have the Sundering be something done on purpose with full knowledge of the result. And every time I peel back the layers I am even more shaken by the implications.
So what do you want me to do? Go away so you aren't reminded how horrific her actions were? Lie in my answer to every post so that the reality that hit me after the credits rolled doesn't upset anyone else? Sounds like you want to keep living in the Garden and ignore the darkness in the world. And we all know how mommy goddess deals with those types...
I like her too. That's what makes that story so scary. But as Matsya would say, "Do not avert your eyes. See the world for what it is."Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
If they have evidence she didn't murder millions if not billions of people in a eugenics program, I'd like to see it. If I was convinced she didn't do what it seems to me she very obviously did, I'd actually feel better. But if they'd like me not to point out she murdered millions of people in a eugenics program because it makes them feel bad, well...I'm new here and I don't know exactly how these forums work given I was doing each reply as a separate post the other day, but I assume there is a block function. Averting your eyes is actually an option regardless of the morals of the game saying you shouldn't. The morals of the game also said we shouldn't sacrifice a world to save our own, soo clearly there are exceptions to the rule (especially when it comes to Venat). -
01-04-2024, 09:46 AMClereticSo what was your feeling on the third sacrifice to Zodiark?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
-
01-04-2024, 10:19 AMLady_SilvermoonI feel that people invent a sentient race never seen or heard of before or after the Sundering to justify Venat's actions because the truth is so horrific, headcannon has to makeup people for her to save to live with it. It's the same way people say that the Ancients deserve to die because they didn't respect life, they were willing to turn a butterfly into a robe to my level 90 leatherworker...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
Every excuse we ever give to justify the eradication of these people, the sundered races do the same but worse. So in the case of the third sacrifice people tell themselves that the Ancients wanted to sacrifice sentient people because they can't grasp how noble these people were in comparison to us. They viewed themselves as the stewards of the star. Their disagreement was one over duty.
If my mom ended up in purgatory to save me and I can sacrifice some cows to get her back, call me Burger King. We invent a sentient race because there would be no disagreement among humans or the sundered races if we could sacrifice animals to get our loved ones back. It would be more like if someone kidnapped some of the Viera from Fanow and wanted the secrets of Ronka in exchange for their release. Some would be like, yeah, let's give it to them and get our people back while others would be like, no, it's our sacred duty to protect that information, and the people they have hostage have made that same vow. That's why Emet-Selch is abhorred at the suggestion he'd try to free the people in Zodiark because based on his value system they are doing their duty.
Both sides are perfectly reasonable stances to hold and the solution to resolving them isn't murder everyone. She allowed Zodiark to happen because she needed him as a shield for her new world and then used his existence as an excuse to get 12 people to give up their lives and more of their souls than they seem to know they will be losing so she can kill everyone they know and love.
But let's say I'm wrong and the lesser life isn't animals. Let's say that it's sentient beings, us even, let's say they wanted to sacrifice cat boys and bunny girls. Well, whatever life they were fighting over was sundered, so RIP. And the people who wanted to protect that life and agreed with her? Also sundered. So attempting to humanize the third sacrifice to dehumanize the Ancients doesn't work because whatever the third sacrifice was she destroyed it in the Sundering. You can't save anyone by ripping them to shreds and mutilating them to the point where they are no longer recognizable and reducing their lifespan by a factor of hundreds. That's not how saving works.
Her goal was not to save the third sacrifice, her goal was to make sure the future was shaped by her hands and hers alone. -
01-04-2024, 10:47 AMCleretic
Okay, so your view is that everyone who disagrees is a strawman, because you just invented a five-paragraph counterargument to nobody out of thin air in response to one question.
We're done. Have fun. -
01-04-2024, 10:52 AMMikkoAkureThis isn't all just Venat's vanity project like you keep trying to insinuate. The movement against Zodiark also seems to have started without her initially as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
Quote:
Originally Posted by EE3
According to the 3rd Encyclopedia, her faction knew about the Sundering and the whole reason they did what they did is because they didn't believe that the world would survive a second coming of the Final Days. The faction was also more than just The Twelve and it was sizable among the surviving population of Ancients.
Another thing to remember is that the people who were killed during the Final Days would not come back and that didn't look like any small number. The original world pre-Final Days was never coming back and if the third act had gone on and those sacrificed did indeed get their bodies and individuality back, then the Ancient world would still be forever altered with a tempered convocation and a literal god of their own creation at the center of their society as the rest of the universe collapsed around them over millennia and Endsinger speeding up the heat death of the universe. -
01-04-2024, 11:28 AMjameseoakesThat is still pretty terrible reasoning to purge your own race from existance and for the last part that not really any different to what Venat does making herself a literal god with 12 sub gods to enforce her will for millennia while Metion extermates all life in the universe. Honestly Venat likely just gave Metion more time and if people know the true cause of the end of days then it would be a lot easier to defend against so that reasoning seem frankly badQuote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
-
01-04-2024, 11:52 AMLady_SilvermoonNothing you've linked goes against my understanding of what happened. It's made very clear her actions were not designed to protect the third sacrifice, but to destroy her people because she deemed them too powerful to live. That's what she did. That's what she said she was doing as she did it. That's what the information you've linked to me says she was doing. All while not telling these people ahead of time there is a depressed bird at the edge of universe attempting to destroy it. Asking the Ancients to nerf themselves, but not telling them why, then letting the Final Days happen and going, "see, see, we must be nerfed" and when not enough people agree to do it, murdering literally everyone is not the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
In Endwalker the entire world comes together and we all work together to stop the Endsinger. But with the Ancients, Venat takes it upon herself to enforce her will on the star and eradicate her species. Her actions are antithetical to even the morals of her own expansion. So when does everyone work together and when does someone wipe everything and everyone out and start over? We say that hope is eternal, but that's only true if you're not an Ancient, if you're an Ancient, there is no hope for you. We tell the Ea that even if life is finite, it's still worth living. But only if you're not an Ancient, if you're an Ancient being a Dead End (which is the final fate of every species) means it's okay to kill you and use your parts for scrap. The Garleans, the Omicron, the Grebuloff all deserve another chance no matter how much havoc they wreaked, but the Ancients? No second chance for them. What about the Ancients make them so unfit for salvation when that's not true for any other species we ever come across?
You have not one made a single counterargument to anything I've said. All you've ever done is attack my character. But okay. Have a nice life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
-
01-04-2024, 11:52 AMZavosEsperianThere is a lot of headcanon to go around on the forums unfortunately. Per EE3 page 11:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
Within EE3, there is no distinction as to what is being given up to Zodiark for the purpose of resurrection as the term "Living Energy" is rather vague and could mean a whole assortment of life forms. Anyone stating there is any specific lifeform, be it sentient or not, being sacrificed is directly contradicted by EE3. It should be noted the sacrifice back to Zodiark to attempt to resurrect the sacrificed Ancients in question would likely not work for any souls fully consumed in totality and it is unclear whether or not any Ancient whose soul was not fully consumed could be resurrected either.Quote:
"Once the star was duly returned to vitality, they would offer a portion of its living energy to Zodiark in turn, thus allowing them to resurrect their sacrificed brethren whose souls slumbered within the deity."
-EE3 page 11, section 'The Schism'
As I have previously stated in a previous post, your viewpoint is one where people tend to become rather vitriolic, rude, or just plain old mean when it is encountered. I personally do not have qualms with anyone with differing opinions whereas others here clearly do and will not admit to their biases. If you are interested, I might be able to introduce you to individuals I know who also are of my mindset where people are able to discuss their various interpretations of the story without fear of ridicule or, at the very least, with the ability to agree to disagree . I personally am more of the opinion neither side was morally correct as both sides are various blends of grey to me. -
01-04-2024, 12:08 PMLady_SilvermoonFrom what I can tell from the story it seems the souls inside Zodiark were protected and unharmed as Hythlodeus comes out of it perfectly normal and they were returned to the lifestream upon Zodiark's destruction. Given the sheer amount of aether Zodiark had to work with and the Ancient version of G'raha at the helm, I am not surprised no harm came to the souls of the sacrificed. Even if they couldn't be brought back as themselves, even releasing them back into the lifestream would have been a kinder fate than leaving your friends and loved ones serving as a human shield forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
As for my reception, I'm not taking it personally. I don't blame other people for being emotional, like I said, I am haunted by the implications of Endwalker. If someone actually had an explanation that both fit with the text and didn't make our WoL the champion of the most terrifying villain I've ever come across, because not only does she murder, mutilate and torture us for her agenda, she makes us love her as she does it, I think I'd be the happiest here to see that perfectly reasonable alternate explanation that fits the text.
But what I usually get is one of the 30 contradictory reasons Endwalker gives that the Ancients HAD to die. And it makes me sick to hear them because they are the same reason we give for real world genocides too. "They are too powerful." "They are culturally inferior." "They are biologically inferior." "We can make better use of their resources than they could." -
01-04-2024, 12:48 PMClereticI have the same feeling. As I mentioned before: It's an ugly situation, with no objective moral right answer even if you look at every single fact; all you can do is decide where you're comfortable, and try to reckon with what that means. I have my own answer, that I've come to terms with and could explain... but won't, because the only person that answer truly matters to is myself, and because doing so frequently devolves into personal attacks. At least the guy that used to call me slurs has been banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian
By the way, I asked you earlier for 'my behavior on the forums' that has you so heavily against me; can you elaborate on that? I do like being able to improve on my faults, but that does require knowing what they are in the first place. I made a guess earlier, but I still don't think that's the one you're thinking of. -
01-04-2024, 01:28 PMTheodricYep. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the character who forced both the Ancients and the Sundered into a confrontation with one another - namely Venat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon
To trot out one of my favourite snippets from a certain manga:
https://i.imgur.com/6Po2GrX.png
It's really as simple as that as far as I'm concerned. I'm frequently baffled by the persistent habit around these parts where certain posters insist that backing Venat is the only way forward and that the Ancients 'needed to' just be killed and replaced.
Shadowbringers was so largely successful on the basis that it proposed a solid premise - neither the Ancients or the Sundered deserved to be completely wiped out but unpleasant circumstances forced such a confrontation as inevitable for the sake of their respective goals and long term survival.
You can go back pretty far and see many supposed 'ZoDiArK fAnS' express this very opinion and point out the many different routes in which Venat could have taken in order for things to play out differently.
The character that deliberately sabotages, lies to and then destroys her own species is not a trustworthy source for what 'has to' happen - and once again, I want to point out how the Sundered only come to exist as a direct consequence of the Ancients being thoroughly wiped out.
We know full well from their own statements that the game's protagonists wouldn't accept Venat's judgement if she were to wipe out their loved ones, memories and civilisations through the Sundering so...there's no real obligation or need for any other species to submit to such judgement themselves.
Personally I think Venat would have aged better as a Yunalesca type figure. It's essentially what she ended up being written as in the end. At the very least, the Sundering being an accident rather than intentional act would have been less tone deaf but...what's done is done.