/r/ffxivdiscussion: Has FFXIV had any major retcons or plot holes in the story?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

*snip*

---

*Sigh* Here we go with the genocide nonsense again, Can we let it rest for god's sake?

only the ancients who summoned zodiark were tempered. thats why their sociaty was in disagreement for the first time. and they actually got tempered. there is optional dialogue in shb with emet-selch about that. its not as extrem as it is when the tribes summon a primal. they messed around with the summoning ritual to enhance that effect.

and from what we know about the english localized version, it might not be the best idea to get heated up about details without checking the facts in other languages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

I never took that to mean it was actually Zodiark's power. I took it to mean it was an example of what his god would be able to do when it was restored, but wasn't actually being cast by his god. It's like if I open MS paint and draw a picture of Zodiark destroying everything. It's not actually Zodiark's power, it is just a picture; a demonstration of what Zodiark's power level will be when he is restored.

---

I mean, yeah. As I said I'm purposedly overthinking it, but Lahee (that was his high school nickname) seemed rather direct about "A spell without parallel" and it being linked to "his god", so I know the Athena theory thing is not very likely... but not entirely implausible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LandonIXIII

*Sigh* Here we go with the genocide nonsense again, Can we let it rest for god's sake?

---

The Sundering very much qualifies as an act of genocide, just as the Rejoinings do as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

When he said this, he didn't know we'd be corporal. Secondly, this isn't even a tech invented by his species, why does he know the rules when those who invented it don't even know? Thirdly, we did change the past. We caused the Sundering. Had we kept out mouths closed the entire time, the Sundering never happens. It was only speaking that caused it. And after we cause it, we stop speaking to make sure it goes through. Sure it's the writers controlling our character to make sure they do exactly what is necessary to cause a genocide and nothing more. They wrote the WoL to knowingly be directly responsible for a genocide. Because once the wheels are set in motion, the fact we then don't take action to stop it proves the WoL is complicit.

---

Being corporal is irrelevant. The writers did not include it in his statement and as such, is merely headcannon on your part. Secondly, there is thereotically no timeline where the sundering happens without us. None. The game was maintaining a past where we never went to it and the Sundering occurred without us, but it was quite literally retconned. The whole Elpis trip is an instance they made up strictly to excuse us traversing Elpis, without considering that it creates a loop where the WoL engineers everything and robs all agency from everyone else. The past cannot help but lead to the present, otherwise we wouldn't have returned to the MSQ. A separate branch would need to occur-- and maybe it did. But no one mentions a branch where Venat succeeded in saving her time period ans there's no evidence such a branch exists.

If there is a past where the Sundering occurred and we didn't visit, I'd still argue it doesn't matter anyway because the revisionist Elpis loop literally gets conjoined to the present anyway ie "we are retconning".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Everything you've said is headcannon

---

Doubtful. I tried to avoid my headcannon and just say the story SE was obviously trying to tell.

Quote:

---

that is not supported by anything told in the story that you've made up in order to justify the atrocity committed by Venat.

---

This idea of an atrocity is what is made up. Obviously, SE has not portrayed it that way in the slightest and it's because the story they are telling is that she was saving them from the self-destruction that happened to all the other stars, as I explained.

Quote:

---

If the Ancients are all tempered why is there disagreement over the third sacrifice?

---

Because Emet-Selch literally admits that were all tempered in optional dialogue.

Player: Tell me about Zodiark.
Emet-Selch: As I told you before--Zodiark is the creation of my people. The first people.
Emet-Selch: We summoned Him, as your kind might summon a primal--albeit an infinitely more powerful one.
Emet-Selch: And like one of your primals, He tempered us. It was only natural. There is no resisting such power. And so we Ascians came to exist solely to bring about the rule of darkness. His darkness.

Hydaelyn refers to them all as "servants of Zodiark" in 3.2. After Emet-Selch dies, Y'shtola refers to him as a servant of Zodiark. Because he was tempered.

Quote:

---

Why do the Loporits explain that tempering was added by the Ascians after the sundering?

---

What they explained was that they are only primals if you summon them with the desire to recruit others to ones' cause. Normally, the Ancients summoned without this desire, but given the above information, it is quite clear that they summoned Zodiark with the "desire to recruit others to ones' cause". Most likely because it was an emergency and they wanted everyone to be on board with their plan.

How Venat avoided being tempered was probably her travelers ward, something that she told us was uniquely hers. SE consistently said the rest of them were tempered dating back to the start of 2.0 to all the way through Shadowbringers.

Quote:

---

Why did Venat not warn them that Zodiark would temper them?

---

They already seemed to be tempered in the cutscene we watched. As for telling Emet-Selch this, maybe it was intentional, based on the dialogue above. He wanted everyone on board, but he didn't have the hindsight of what that would do to all the beast tribes, and his own people.

Quote:

---

If primals are made based off the desires of the creators, why would a being created from the desire to save the world instead destroy it?

---

Well of course, the purpose of Zodiark was to use the Aether to restore darkness to an area that was lacking it and to use the Ascians' aether to create trees, plants, vegetation, then restore them. But as we know, primals crave an endless supply of Aether because they were created with a desire to recruit others to their cause. Once they are recruited, it isn't long before they want to sacrifice themselves to their god, until all of them have done so and they have annihilated themselves. In other words, there was a flaw in its creation.

Quote:

---

Venat needed the human race to suffer in order to pass Meteion's test. When she sunders the world she says, "No longer shall man have wings to bear him to paradise."

---

That's because in order to know how to overcome Meteion's despair, people need to experience it on a regular basis, otherwise they won't know how to. The Ascians didn't know how to because they had only known perfection. In order to make them experience despair on a regular basis, their "wings" were removed as she put it. They would experience hardship and despair constantly, so that when they were finally confronted with a Final Days event, they would know how to deal with it and remain positive, which allows us to progress through Ultima Thule and remain hopeful enough to defeat her.

Even on the Source, the amount of people that actually succumbed to the Final Days wasn't that great. How many people that we normally see in these city states were missing? How many people in our quests vanished? Barely anyone. Because they had known hardship their whole life and most of them didn't just immediately struggle to deal with it.

I'll just link this video which backs up its talking points with sources, as this has been discussed many times already across numerous threads since Endwalker launched and I have little desire to quote things to certain posters that have been cited many times already:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsk412wCrJY

It is almost two hours long, admittedly, though that's a consequence of an in-depth character analysis being conducted. It is split into more easily digestible chapters elsewhere on the very same channel. The video was created by a team consisting of a number of lore enthusiasts - myself included - who wanted to compile such information in a single location.

It includes relevant statements from interviews with the development team as well as canon short stories that some may very well have not read due to being obscure.

If nothing else, we know that if Venat was aiming the Sundering at the protagonists and their loved ones then they would have no obligation to allow for it to happen to them. Therefore, nobody else is obligated to just roll over and accept such a horrific fate either.

I don't have anything new to add
Except that i would like to have more time with Zodiark...he was not the big bad after all. When we defeated him, we got a glimpse of Fandaniel's mind...but nothing about the beast :(

Probably the primal still had some memory of the fight vs crystal mom...wasted opportunity to show us said event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

*snip*

---

It's not that the atrocity didn't happen. It's that I'm not supposed to view erasing everyone's memory, breaking all familial connections, tearing apart their souls, and introducing them to a dramatically short lifetime of suffering as an atrocity. I do though. I am incapable of seeing the sundering as anything other than an atrocity built on the flimsy excuse it made humanity "strong."

Emet-Selch is committing suicide in Shadowbringers. The Elpis version of himself recognizes his actions as a suicide attempt. If by tempering he is a mindless slave, then nothing he did was his fault because he's a mindless slave. Who knowingly let him become a mindless slave? Venat. Who failed to warn him he'd become a mindless slave? Venat. Who had a traveler's ward that could have protected him from becoming a mindless slave? Venat. Who built her own god design off Zodiark's? Venat. So either she had the knowledge to make a primal without the tempering and the absorption of aether which she didn't give to the Convocation or like the Lopporit said those were negative effects added by the Ascians. The Lopporits said that with a being as powerful as Zodiark, you might feel a tug, which would explain why Emet-Selch would feel love and gratitude towards Zodiark, but he still spent an entire expansion acting against Zodiark's interests.

Zodiark protected the sundered for 12,000 years without doing any harm to the world, and all the souls of the dead were also safely protected all that time to be released back into the lifestream after he was destroyed. If he was the hungry, hungry baby eating hippo you guys like to make him out to be, why did he hurt not a single solitary person while Venat lied and manipulated, set up people to fight over something she knew wasn't dangerous, so she could make herself a god in order to torture people for 12k years. All the pain and death happens on her watch. All Zodiark did was prevent pain and death, and so she destroyed him because she didn't want that pain prevented. She wants people to endure suffering so they can know whatever she calls "true happiness." She never saved anyone. Only maimed and broke things while taking credit from the people and beings that actually did the saving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LandonIXIII

*Sigh* Here we go with the genocide nonsense again, Can we let it rest for god's sake?

---

I wish I could, but this forum is like dating Shaggy, "You gone believe me or your eyes?"

Yoshi P confirmed that the magical EW loop was closed. When you try to stretch it out and apply it to the 10 year history of the game, it doesn't work, because it's not meant to be interpreted that way. It creates all sorts of inconsistencies, problems, and meaningless actions within the narrative. The reason there are no side stories or sources that directly cover what Venat did or didn't do as far as Meteion is because they're written in the context of a non visit history, or at the very least one where she does not have any agency. And she's not the only person that doesn't. Rather than a 2 hour video, I prefer this thread that takes a deeper look at how time works in XIV:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...time_works_in/

Also, the Sundering is not built on the idea it made humanity strong, at least not completely. That's information conveniently revealed in..oh yeah, as I keep repeating...Endwalker. The writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too-- have a magical Elpis visit that gave us hope the future could be different but ultimately not change it because "fate" (because MSQ). As such, present day Hydaelyn and Lifestream Emet have to awkwardly assess and rationalize all of these new EW lore pieces as though they had agency when they didn't. Hydaelyn even makes reference to this in her trial-- "I had no choice but to render Zodiark asunder". It's not clear if Venat understands why she had no choice- that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

Yoshi P confirmed that the magical EW loop was closed. When you try to stretch it out and apply it to the 10 year history of the game, it doesn't work, because it's not meant to be interpreted that way. It creates all sorts of inconsistencies, problems, and meaningless actions within the narrative. The reason there are no side stories or sources that directly cover what Venat did or didn't do as far as Meteion is because they're written in the context of a non visit history, or at the very least one where she does not have any agency. And she's not the only person that doesn't. Rather than a 2 hour video, I prefer this thread that takes a deeper look at how time works in XIV:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...time_works_in/

Also, the Sundering is not built on the idea it made humanity strong, at least not completely. That's information conveniently revealed in..oh yeah, as I keep repeating...Endwalker. The writers wanted to have their cake and eat it too-- have a magical Elpis visit that gave us hope the future could be different but ultimately not change it because "fate" (because MSQ). As such, present day Hydaelyn and Lifestream Emet have to awkwardly assess and rationalize all of these new EW lore pieces as though they had agency when they didn't. Hydaelyn even makes reference to this in her trial-- "I had no choice but to render Zodiark asunder". It's not clear if Venat understands why she had no choice- that's the point.

---

I just wanted to say I haven't been responding because half of what you're saying I don't disagree with and the other half, I don't follow. Like I agree it's a closed time loop. I agree it creates a bunch of issues. But I disagree no one has agency. I'd argue that Venat and the WoL are the only people with agency because they are the only ones aware of the loop. Given they know about the loop, either of them should be able to break it by choosing to behave differently than they did in the past. Everyone else is on autopilot because they are doing what they'd do with no knowledge of the future, but both Venat and WoL know what will happen.

Also, I take her "I had no choice" to mean that given he was gonna put salve on own their booboos meaning they'd be too soft and gushy to pass the test, she had no choice but to sunder him, so we could go through our torture training and learn to endure despair. I don't think she meant she literally had no choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

I just wanted to say I haven't been responding because half of what you're saying I don't disagree with and the other half, I don't follow. Like I agree it's a closed time loop. I agree it creates a bunch of issues. But I disagree no one has agency. I'd argue that Venat and the WoL are the only people with agency because they are the only ones aware of the loop. Given they know about the loop, either of them should be able to break it by choosing to behave differently than they did in the past. Everyone else is on autopilot because they are doing what they'd do with no knowledge of the future, but both Venat and WoL know what will happen.

Also, I take her "I had no choice" to mean that given he was gonna put salve on own their booboos meaning they'd be too soft and gushy to pass the test, she had no choice but to sunder him, so we could go through our torture training and learn to endure despair. I don't think she meant she literally had no choice.

---

I am unsure how to respond because I don't understand the rules you're operating with regarding time and causality. For example, how do you know the characters are able to behave differently? If they behave differently, what does that mean for the future(present day MSQ)? Don't you agree that, if Venat did behave differently and did save the star in her own timeline, that it would create some kind of alternate timeline/divergence separate from the MSQ? Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you're accounting for these questions.

Also regarding the WoL, I don't see how they necessarily have agency but I do agree that they doomed the timeline inadvertently since they are (theoretically) the person who introduced Hydaelyn to the past, like the very idea of it.

The Emmerorolth plot hole could've been avoided if Galuf just said they killed her without indicating that she could not have been reborn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I am unsure how to respond because I don't understand the rules you're operating with regarding time and causality. For example, how do you know the characters are able to behave differently? If they behave differently, what does that mean for the future(present day MSQ)? Don't you agree that, if Venat did behave differently and did save the star in her own timeline, that it would create some kind of alternate timeline/divergence separate from the MSQ? Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you're accounting for these questions.

Also regarding the WoL, I don't see how they necessarily have agency but I do agree that they doomed the timeline inadvertently since they are (theoretically) the person who introduced Hydaelyn to the past, like the very idea of it.

---

Guess I'm working off Groundhog Day rules where only the people aware of the loop can choose to behave differently. After all, if you aren't aware of the loop you have no reason to behave differently. To me, I feel like the only reason we are in a closed loop is because Venat and the WoL *want* for us to be in a closed loop and if either of them felt differently they could take action to break the loop. However, no one else can because they are unaware of the loop and would just do whatever they'd naturally do with no knowledge of the consequences. The only people in the loop who know the results of their choices are Venat and the WoL. It's pretty obvious Venat is doing everything possible to maintain the loop including setting the Ascians loose and letting the First fall to light. People seem to make peace with this by believing she's Doctor Strange and somehow checked every other possible outcome and this was the one and only way humanity survives. Not only do I not believe that, even if it was, I don't think it would justify her actions.

She wanted Endsinger defeated. Sundering was the only way this could be done. Maybe if she had more time she could've thought of a different way but with the ancients crying and whining everyday and Zodiark is available, she couldn't take the risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

She wanted Endsinger defeated. Sundering was the only way this could be done. Maybe if she had more time she could've thought of a different way but with the ancients crying and whining everyday and Zodiark is available, she couldn't take the risk.

---

This is what I believe to be an honest reading of the text. She saw her people as weak little crybabies and she needed some tough sparks to fly to the edge of the universe and do some face punching. If we can't even agree on what happened and why, then debating the morality of it is pointless. We can't discuss if her eugenics program was good or bad if half of you think she did it to save babies from their brainwashed parents. The sundering would have killed the babies...and the parents...

I genuinely don't think anything would have turned out radically different in WoL's absence, other than the fact that there is now a stable loop where Hydaelyn knows to watch out for their arrival and knows they will be the one to have to deal with Final Days. Otherwise, like, let's just assume that we weren't there. Hyth and Emet still run into Venat, they almost certainly still have her join because Venat's Venat and wouldn't miss the opportunity to mess with Mr. Selch. Along the way they still reunite with Hermes, Meteion eventually gets the message and disappears. Sure, without us it probably takes longer to find her, but she can't hide forever and eventually is either found, or overwhelmed by shared conciousness and comes out. After the report, Hermes still takes her away, and the other three still pursue. At the end of Ktisis, things play out pretty much exactly the same, except Hyth gets blasted harder. And once they're out, Venat is the one to have come up with the idea to not tell anyone to avoid alienating Hermes and plan a conspiracy in quiet, so she'll likely do that again. In the metaphorical cutscene, we literally see her beg her people to find a better path, and only resort to Sundering after it fails, so I believe it will happen again too. Like, our actions at best give Hydaelyn the idea to prepare the moon as the vessel (which could still happen without us) and slightly accelerate timeline of events on Elpis itself, but otherwise, it wouldn't be out of character for her, or anyone else, to still do things the way they were done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Guess I'm working off Groundhog Day rules where only the people aware of the loop can choose to behave differently. After all, if you aren't aware of the loop you have no reason to behave differently. To me, I feel like the only reason we are in a closed loop is because Venat and the WoL *want* for us to be in a closed loop and if either of them felt differently they could take action to break the loop. However, no one else can because they are unaware of the loop and would just do whatever they'd naturally do with no knowledge of the consequences. The only people in the loop who know the results of their choices are Venat and the WoL. It's pretty obvious Venat is doing everything possible to maintain the loop including setting the Ascians loose and letting the First fall to light. People seem to make peace with this by believing she's Doctor Strange and somehow checked every other possible outcome and this was the one and only way humanity survives. Not only do I not believe that, even if it was, I don't think it would justify her actions.

---

When Yoshi P said the loop is closed he didn't say why. He theorized reasons it could be, because he doesn't know. Hence my original post, that they do not think about consistency in any deep way. The loop is closed because the writers want it to be. The Elpis visit is very clearly a retcon, which means applying it to pre EW doesn't make sense. They made it make sense strictly for EW but created rules that blocked it from changing the future, which makes sense because otherwise you have to account for breaking the future and the MsQ completely chamges. So we end up with characters who now see clearly what they did but aren't aware of their own lack of agency.

I don't disagree that it would be nice if Venat told everyone, I just see no way she could have done so without breaking the game. It would be great if she didn't have these weird ideas that she had to sunder mankind and subject them to a trial. But the writers are the ones who made so that WoL introduced all these ideas to her. We agree the story is stupid, but imo what makes it stupid is that the WoL essentially introduced all of the problematic things about the story to characters who had no real ability to change the future and then left their time period. I just don't think Venat's choices have anything to do with being Doctor Strange or anything else-- it was all about her playing her role exactly as we were always told pre EW in order maintain the timeline. It's about the fact it's an MMORPG (ie plot convenience). They couldn't just tell us Elpis, it had to be experienced. So you end up with this strange mess for this part of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

The Sundering very much qualifies as an act of genocide, just as the Rejoinings do as well.

---

You wanna explain that one? The sundering did just that, it split them in thirteen. The rejoining requires the literal death of an entire shard AND causes a cataclysm on the source. Not sure why you think the sundering killed anyone unless you're being metaphorical or running on headcanon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palladiamors

You wanna explain that one? The sundering did just that, it split them in thirteen. The rejoining requires the literal death of an entire shard AND causes a cataclysm on the source. Not sure why you think the sundering killed anyone unless you're being metaphorical or running on headcanon

---

It has been explained many times already, including within the video I linked on the previous page which contains the sources in question. The sections of the video titled 'dehumanisation' and 'excuses' reveal much of the relevant information.

Though I will also link to a prior point towards the tail end of last year where this exact same 'debate' was had between some of the exact same posters, starting here:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6365173

...and lasting for many pages afterwards all in a desperate effort to try and obscure the consequences of Venat's actions.

It should be readily apparent why the whole scale elimination of an entire species - replaced with something completely different - qualifies as an act of genocide. Particularly when all knowledge and memory of that very same group is also hidden in the aftermath.

Though to make it easy, I will just post the definition outright:

https://i.imgur.com/eHooDPA.png

The term is in itself used within the setting, so we know the concept exists - and given that the Rejoinings count as it, the Sundering very much does as well given that both alter the state of any caught up either event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palladiamors

You wanna explain that one? The sundering did just that, it split them in thirteen. The rejoining requires the literal death of an entire shard AND causes a cataclysm on the source. Not sure why you think the sundering killed anyone unless you're being metaphorical or running on headcanon

---

If I reduce you to an IQ of 7 and you die five minutes later of natural causes because I've corrupted your genes to such an extreme degree I've shortened your lifespan to mere moments, I've killed you in every way that counts.

If that is not considered murder, then attempting you smash you back together again most certainly shouldn't be considered murder. I consider both murder, but I consider Venat's crimes more grievous because what she did she did to her own species, what the Ascians did, they did to the shredded pieces of their people as they attempted to undo her war crimes. And regardless of how anyone feels about the Ascians' action, Venat set them up to do the rejoinings by purposely sparing them, so those deaths are also on her ledger along with all the pain and suffering endured by the unsundered as they labored for 12k years attempting to restore their people without knowing they were just controlled opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palladiamors

You wanna explain that one? The sundering did just that, it split them in thirteen.

---

Incorrect. It split them into 14. Or, more accurately, it reproduced 14 identical copies of the original world and every lifeform upon it.

The closest real world example we could ever provide to understand this is to reference Cloning. More or less, The Sundering "cloned" the original world and its inhabitants, while simultaneously eliminating the originals. There's a bit of pondering to do on, "The Soul." That was the only thing not "cloned." The souls were split, but the physical identity of everything was "cloned."

The "cloning" process was less than perfect. All clones came out roughly 1/3rd the physical size of the originals with 1/14th of the aetheric density of the original hosts. It's unspecified by how long, but lifespans were also drastically reduced.

The results of this "cloning" process is that all original hosts were eliminated. However, their souls were partially intact and spread out within the shards, and their memories could eventually be recalled or salvaged through a few different techniques that the Ascians found by trial and error.

The Rejoinings were basically an imperfect reversal of this process. Essentially it kills the descendants of the clones, imbuing The Source bodies with greater aetheric density and stitched the souls back together. In essence, they would not restore the former people, as Rejoinings do not seem to increase physicality. They would, however, make memories and knowledge easier to access as the people of The Source became more whole on a soul level.

Suffice it to say, all of the shards exist because of their original " donors." This process killed those donors, removing their lives and wills from the face of Etheirys. This process also tucked 13 of the shards into a dimensional pocket so convoluted that not even the writers know the specifics surrounding how Etheirys is seen by outside eyes. But within the context of Endwalker it was revealed that all that afflicts and affects The Source can kill all of the reflections, meaning that The Source is the only one that truly matters, as it is the nucleus for all life on Etheirys and within its dimensional frankenstein patchwork quilt existence.

In short, The Sundering was a genocide (or Omnicide if we wanna realize this also happened to planets and animals and dirt), that not only killed people, but radically altered the natural state of the entire planet, forever placing it in a dire, unnatural state.

The WoL told Venat about the future. So if she is a murderer then that makes the wol her accomplice. Cause WoL knew she would sunder the world and Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

If I reduce you to an IQ of 7 and you die five minutes later of natural causes because I've corrupted your genes to such an extreme degree I've shortened your lifespan to mere moments, I've killed you in every way that counts.

---

This did not happen tho, The ancients ceased to exist and 14 new unique individuals completely unrelated in any way to the previous Ancients were created. Noone was killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

If that is not considered murder, then attempting you smash you back together again most certainly shouldn't be considered murder.

---

The second is murder because you are actively killing 1 (or more) unique individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

I consider both murder, but I consider Venat's crimes more grievous because what she did she did to her own species, what the Ascians did, they did to the shredded pieces of their people as they attempted to undo her war crimes. And regardless of how anyone feels about the Ascians' action, Venat set them up to do the rejoinings by purposely sparing them, so those deaths are also on her ledger along with all the pain and suffering endured by the unsundered as they labored for 12k years attempting to restore their people without knowing they were just controlled opposition.

---

The End of Days was something that could not be stopped and had already begun. Knowing that what does one do? Attempt to stop that which you know cannot be stopped or do exactly what was done before and hope that the stopgap performed before will reach a successful conclusion?

We know the flow of event was 1. Planet destroyed, yet small number of survivors (Exact number unknown and largely unnecessary) 2. Half of survivors willingly sacrifice themselves to create Zodiark and expends Zodiarks power to recreate the planet. 3. Further Half of remaining half of Survivors (Or 1/4th of all Survivors) sacrifice themselves willingly to re-empower Zodiark and Zodiark expends the energy to recreate all life on the Planet. 4. Final survivors willingly sacrifice themselves to create Hydalen which A. Creates the Moon and imprisons Zodiark there. B. Sunders the Planet, Moon, and all Life on the Planet. C. Places the 14 Planets with their partner Moons equidistant in a circle and erects a barrier/"cloaking shroud" around each pair to hide them from the coming Endsinger and either knowingly or coincidentally keeps each planet that falls from spilling out to the others when they fall.

Even if we told Venat what little we actually knew about what happened/ was going on/ was going to happen, there is sooo much we don't know or didn't know at the time that is rather important to what eventually happens and could have had unintended consequences. The cataclysmic fall of the 13th is an example. The Ascians attempted and failed to rejoin the 13th and as such sundered it from the Aetheric River which not only prevented a portion of Zodiark from returning to the source it also caused the unique beings from that shard to be unable to rejoin the Aetheric River. (I don't believe we have successfully rectified this altho I could be wrong. I had theorized a sufficient blast of Light aether could have jump started its re connection to the Aetheric River altho we have not yet found out what has really happened to the 13th since our departure.)

People seem to forget that if Venat had not done what she did during the original End of Days, the End of Days would have simply continued to occur again and the planet and all life would have been destroyed all over again without way to definitively end the cycle. (Possibly without a way to re-empower Zodiark as well which would cause a final End of.)

The ancients were planning to commit genocide by sacrificing the new lives. If a bad guy holds a gun to a hostage's head, what should a police officer do? The police would shoot the bad guy to save the hostage. In this case, the ancients were the bad guy, the new lives were the hostage, Venat was the police officer.

Major plot hole : the Twins not growing.

LET THEM GROW DAMMIT.

Honestly, the heated argument about whether Hydaelyn committed genocide and whatnot would've ended way, waaaay earlier if those who decry her actions didn't also excuse the Ascians' in the same breath. The common bottom line should be that the Ancients had very extreme ways to solve problems, not "one side good, one side bad".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

Urianger speculates that, since the place we fight Zenos for the last time is basically made of pure dynamis, it reacted to him to bring the teleporter back to send the WoL home as his thanks for finally getting his rematch. It's as plausible an explanation as any other.

---

Agreed - and it's the explanation I choose to follow, and there aren't an abundance of possibilities anyway. I mean, Meteion was the only other being present before the fight and it was very heavily implied that she was unaware that the Warrior of Light remained behind to fight Zenos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BokoToloko

Honestly, the heated argument about whether Hydaelyn committed genocide and whatnot would've ended way, waaaay earlier if those who decry her actions didn't also excuse the Ascians' in the same breath. The common bottom line should be that the Ancients had very extreme ways to solve problems, not "one side good, one side bad".

---

This is very cute, but the real reason this argument is going for so long is that the writing in Endwalker was subpar. Venat, Hermes, Meteion, these are all victims to a plot that should have never been written the way it was in the first place. To assume one side of the "conflict" is to implicitly try and protect the story itself as redeemable or to seek it's flaws in the wrong places. As if the issue was that Venat should have been a villain or that people are whitewashing the Ascians. No, Venat was clearly written with the intent of being a tragic hero, which was completely botched by way of the absolutely ridiculous timeloop bonanza that had implications the writers simply didn't think about.

What ruins lore discussions in this community is the "XIV has no flaws" crowd keeps using headcanons and personal interpretations to argue against plot holes and retcons or poorly explained detail.

If it's not explicit in-game or in any official media and interview your argument is worth nothing.

No one is saying the story is perfect or flawless (I agree it is flawed, but then, so is all literature or fiction frankly.). What people are objecting to is a certain element of the playerbase has adopted a completely irrational hatred of Venat and her story, based simply out of.. well... disappointment. Disappointment that their Ascian/Garlean waifus and husbandos didn't get to save the world with their character, or that the Empire didn't get a FFXII treatment and instead ended up like the Empire in FFII or VI, killed by it's own hand.

So these constant attacks on Venat and the Sundering, using loaded language such as "she was responsible for genocide!" even when effectively countered, and the constant thread derailing such as this very thread, only proves that some people simply cannot let things go... just like the Ancients/Ascians themselves, ironically.

To quote Aeris in FFVII Remake: gotta move forward, not back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I hate the spiteful othering that's needed to justify the complete extermination of the ancients as a race. Venats nothing but a monster who took the cowards easy route

---

And this is exactly what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

The ancients were planning to commit genocide by sacrificing the new lives. If a bad guy holds a gun to a hostage's head, what should a police officer do? The police would shoot the bad guy to save the hostage. In this case, the ancients were the bad guy, the new lives were the hostage, Venat was the police officer.

---

I hate the spiteful othering that's needed to justify the complete extermination of the ancients as a race. Venats nothing but a monster who took the cowards easy route

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

No one is saying the story is perfect or flawless (I agree it is flawed, but then, so is all literature or fiction frankly.). What people are objecting to is a certain element of the playerbase has adopted a completely irrational hatred of Venat and her story, based simply out of.. well... disappointment. Disappointment that their Ascian/Garlean waifus and husbandos didn't get to save the world with their character, or that the Empire didn't get a FFXII treatment and instead ended up like the Empire in FFII or VI, killed by it's own hand.

So these constant attacks on Venat and the Sundering, using loaded language such as "she was responsible for genocide!" even when effectively countered, and the constant thread derailing such as this very thread, only proves that some people simply cannot let things go... just like the Ancients/Ascians themselves, ironically.

---

I think a game the praises as a hero a monster that outright commits enginc genocide is worthy hatred as is the character that did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

No one is saying the story is perfect or flawless (I agree it is flawed, but then, so is all literature or fiction frankly.). What people are objecting to is a certain element of the playerbase has adopted a completely irrational hatred of Venat and her story, based simply out of.. well... disappointment. Disappointment that their Ascian/Garlean waifus and husbandos didn't get to save the world with their character, or that the Empire didn't get a FFXII treatment and instead ended up like the Empire in FFII or VI, killed by it's own hand.

So these constant attacks on Venat and the Sundering, using loaded language such as "she was responsible for genocide!" even when effectively countered, and the constant thread derailing such as this very thread, only proves that some people simply cannot let things go... just like the Ancients/Ascians themselves, ironically.

To quote Aeris in FFVII Remake: gotta move forward, not back.



And this is exactly what I am talking about.

---

Agreed

Sadly, with the (probably) hundreds of threads created to specifically discuss 'but Venat is eeevil' and threads that weren't created to discuss that but were derailed, I suspect there'll be no end to it until Dawntrail does something that sufficiently offends them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I think a game the praises as a hero a monster that outright commits enginc genocide is worthy hatred as is the character that did it.

---

Hm... Yeah, no. The writing wasn't perfect, but the willingness to present a very gray character was commendable. Because Venat is morally gray: some people tend to forget that if she ended up acting in this way, it was also to prevent the Zordiak worshippers from sacrificing their population again and again to a primordial who, despite his protective role, remained submissive to his nature. So who needed to "devour" his followers, here in a rather literal way.

That's why she took this decision: humanity was self-destructing, and instead of letting the process run its course, she seized the last remaining chance: to kill those responsible before they destroyed absolutely everything.

I definitly appreciated the fact that we didn't have a Disney Venat, even if the story is flawed in many ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

It's that I'm not supposed to view erasing everyone's memory, breaking all familial connections, tearing apart their souls, and introducing them to a dramatically short lifetime of suffering as an atrocity. I do though.

---

The alternative is they all sacrifice themselves to Zodiark hoping he will make the world perfect again. This doesn't seem a good alternative. For as much as we can argue "they were only going to sacrifice a certain %", they were tempered and not completely themselves. They were devoted to empowering Zodiark, not necessarily following the original plan.

Emet-Selch told us that an initial sacrifice was made to summon Zodiark and stop the Final Days, but then another one was made to allow vegetation to grow and that they would all be restored afterwards.

There is not necessarily any proof that the ones in the cutscene with Venat were part of that. They did not even seem to succeed in sacrificing themselves to Zodiark because of her actions. They were just trying to sacrifice themselves to Zodiark because they didn't know how to cope with hardship and were not really themselves either because of being tempered.

Quote:

---

Emet-Selch is committing suicide in Shadowbringers. The Elpis version of himself recognizes his actions as a suicide attempt.

---

Not quite. I think he was genuinely fighting to restore the version of the world he loved and would accept the outcome of the fight whatever it was.

It seemed like he thought he could get the Warrior of Light to carry all the Light to the source to speed up the Rejoining, but then determined they couldn't handle all the Light so he would do it the slow way, with the Warrior of Light as a Light Warden. He thought he would easily win the fight but did not expect Ardbert to join the Warrior of Light and have to face a warrior holding all that Light, nor did he expect the other heroes from across the rift.

But I think just as he said when he entered the Amaurot dungeon, that if we wanted to prove ourselves worthy to inherit the star then we must prove it and that was what the fight was about.

Quote:

---

If by tempering he is a mindless slave, then nothing he did was his fault because he's a mindless slave.

---

There was obviously a lot of truth and freedom that he had because even the scions admitted what he was doing was "only logical" from a purely Ascian point of view, but he obviously wasn't entirely himself. His non-Elpis self is clearly not the same as the Elpis version. Wanting to restore his people was no doubt genuine, but perhaps a good example is Louisoix being tempered by Bahamut. He seemed to have a lot of freedom to be himself but certain actions were bias toward Bahamut and its restoration.

Quote:

---

Who knowingly let him become a mindless slave? Venat. Who failed to warn him he'd become a mindless slave? Venat.

---

Maybe she didn't know that would happen. She was going off of a story that we told. And what if she couldn't convince Emet of this? She also expressed worry (in a cutscene) that if she did explain it to the Convocation, that she might not be believed. Emet wasn't believing our story for the time that he did know it, so how would Venat convince him of this crazy story she heard from a "time traveler"?

Quote:

---

Who had a traveler's ward that could have protected him from becoming a mindless slave? Venat.

---

Well, true, but it seems like such a small detail. I actually don't think small details like that would be passed down via a story, so it always throws me off that the MSQ will show me explain an Echo vision, then the scions will know little details that happened in the background that nobody would realistically include in a summary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palladiamors

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvick

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enkidoh

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carin-Eri

snip

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

snip

---

There is a lot of stuff for me to go over between all the posts I have mentioned above, most of the issues overlap with each other and as such I believe can be addressed in one post.

The main issue at hand concerns whether a genocide occurred due to Venat’s actions and whether she herself is guilty as the perpetrator. Genocide as a crime is defined inside of what is known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide or more simply the Genocide Convention. The parts of the convention we are most concerned with would be those pertaining to Articles 2 and 3, which both define the crime of genocide as well as define those who are able to be charged. We shall start with Article 2. I will bold all sections of article 2 pertaining to Venat’s actions and the argument will be contained below the definition, but hidden to prevent the post from being too long:

Quote:

---

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-Genocide Convention, Article 2

---

Article 2 sections c and d should be relatively straightforward to understand. By sundering the Ancients, and with it the world, the physical destruction of the group is assured, and this was done in a calculated fashion, as it has been previously indicated in Q&A sessions Venat purposely allowed for Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, and Elidibus the ability to avoid the sundering attack. Section d is also relatively straightforward as well since the measure she took, which was sundering the world, would ensure no more births could occur from the population and, in the case of Emet, his children also would be sundered despite the obvious ancient lineage.

Article 2 section b is a bit more complicated but is shown inside of the Nier ReIncarnation crossover event where previous life was unable to understand language and had to relearn how to speak. In addition, upon sundering the world, Venat introduced to the new life suffering which the Ancients had not suffered prior, which would include decreased resistances to the elements as well as other agents related to illness and pestilence, both can only occur if there is a change in the constitution to the Ancients that made them weaker as a species significantly and the reduction of their lifespans from countless millennia to, at best, 500 years in the case of Viera, but somewhere near normal human lifespans for all other races. These would constitute significant harm both mentally and physically, and I only need one of these to have the basis for the argument.

Finally, there is the intent issue. Genocidal intent can be determined either directly, which would be someone admitting to it or evidence to directly prove the elements described, or through circumstantial evidence, which has been used to determine intent involving genocide IRL multiple times. Venat outright says she is going to sunder the ancients and has the forethought to also be careful to not sunder very specific ancients as to avoid causing issues related to a perceived timeline that she was told, as such I would not need to go much further beyond that. Were circumstantial evidence be needed, she unleashed untold amounts of suffering onto the lifeforms created after the sundering occurred, and would these individuals be treated as shards of the original ancients, would also constitute the ancients as well. This callousness would be great enough to also fulfill that requirement were it needed.

If it isn’t obvious from the above, KILLING OR MURDER IS NOT A REQUREMENT FOR GENOCIDE TO BE CHARGED AGAINST SOMEONE. This is intentional as it is possible to destroy a group without killing a single person from said group, and the UN recognized this back when the convention was first drafted up.

Article 3 describes who can be charged with genocide via the definition provided via Article 2:

Quote:

---

The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

-Genocide Convention, Article 3

---

I do not think it necessary to go over this section in as much detail, but technically we are an accessory to the act due to telling Venat about it, which would be an act of conspiracy. Venat is guilty of committing the acts that define Genocide, so I do not believe it to be necessary to go into a full dissertation on that.

Whether you want to determine Venat as evil or not is on the person consuming the media, I won’t enforce a view here as I am trying to remain as objective as possible while presenting this argument. I will say excusing genocide using an excuse of saying it prevented another one would not be sufficient of a defense in court. You would likely cause the party you are accusing to come under scrutiny, but you yourself won’t be absolved of the crime just for saying that.

I should note the acts the Ascians committed also would constitute genocide, this has nothing about absolving their actions as they fully own what they are doing and thus would also be guilty by definition and would have the intent to be considered guilty without the need of circumstantial evidence. The point of this is to show Venat herself is guilty of the same thing levied at the ancients, particularly the Ascians, yet treatment of Venat tends to be more positive over the Ancients due to who we role play as in the story directly benefiting from Venat’s actions more so than the action of the Ascians, who won’t hesitate to kill you for getting in the way and disrupting their plans.

If we are to take the definitions above, it would be clear Venat would be guilty of the act of genocide. Whether you determine her as evil, good, or some shade of grey in between, is up to you the reader. I would argue determining Venat as wholly good would be foolish unless you believe there are real life examples where you are able to justify genociding an entire or part of a group of people for your own benefit. All other interpretations I believe could be reasonably justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

If we are to take the definitions above, it would be clear Venat would be guilty of the act of genocide. Whether you determine her as evil, good, or some shade of grey in between, is up to you the reader. I would argue determining Venat as wholly good would be foolish unless you believe there are real life examples where you are able to justify genociding an entire or part of a group of people for your own benefit. All other interpretations I believe could be reasonably justified.

---

Arguably, the scions are guilty as well. Before they were able to reverse tempering, they had a dark practice that involved killing those that were tempered because they could not be saved.

We can even argue the Warrior of Light does not care about the fact they would kill animals with a painful weapon for sidequests or underdo a court case every time they "kill" an enemy that held a weapon against them.

But none of these things are the point of the story, and trying to focus so much on this idea that we or Venat did things wrong seems like a way for people to intentionally try and ruin the story for themselves, because many of the people making this argument seem really unhappy with the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

The main issue at hand concerns whether a genocide occurred due to Venat’s actions and whether she herself is guilty as the perpetrator.

---

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

Arguably, the scions are guilty as well. Before they were able to reverse tempering, they had a dark practice that involved killing those that were tempered because they could not be saved.

We can even argue the Warrior of Light does not care about the fact they would kill animals with a painful weapon for sidequests or underdo a court case every time they "kill" an enemy that held a weapon against them.

---

Broadening the scope of my argument to fit characters where the argument is considerably more debatable or using vastly incorrect logic in regards to the Genocide Convention makes your argument seem extremely foolish, ill thought out, and makes any argument you try to throw later down the line more likely to be brushed off because of the poor form here.

The WoL could be considered guilty, but not for the reason you gave. The WoL is an accessory to the Sundering Venat committed and thus did engage in conspiracy, particularly upon not telling anyone after the memory wipe scene what happened as an attempt to stop the sundering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

But none of these things are the point of the story, and trying to focus so much on this idea that we or Venat did things wrong seems like a way for people to intentionally try and ruin the story for themselves, because many of the people making this argument seem really unhappy with the story.

---

The point of the story is an extremely ill thought out one since it did not consider alternate views to the story where it could be easily misinterpreted, which is a failure of media literacy between author and audience in part of the authors/writers. Displeasure in regards to the story is mostly related to the above situation which is not helped by the fact open interpretation of specific events is encouraged by the writing team, which causes headcanon to be accidentally added to events that transpired.