What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

You didn't answer the question. How can Venat gamble or lack control of something when she's well informed about the future of Emet and her imminent sundering slash?

---

Yoshi-P already answered that question in the link the poster provided. In short, the sundering required utilizing her power to its utmost limits. The monumental effort required made the technique something unwieldy to say the least - virtually uncontrollable, and so she was unsure if her attempt to give Emet-Selch an out would actually work. It was also partially up to the man himself; he needed to recognize what was happening, spot the "flaw" in the sundering, and take action to preserve himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Yoshi-P already answered that question in the link the poster provided. In short, the sundering required utilizing her power to its utmost limits. The monumental effort required made the technique something unwieldy to say the least - virtually uncontrollable, and so she was unsure if her attempt to give Emet-Selch an out would actually work. It was also partially up to the man himself; he needed to recognize what was happening, spot the "flaw" in the sundering, and take action to preserve himself.

---

How was she unsure when she knows his future is at the bottom of the sea playing games with their city? We told her all this. Emet existing in his og form post sundering absolutely requires that he survive the sundering. If it's all one timeline, if Venat is fully informed, then it isn't a gamble. It's a choice.

I also forgot to address Graha-- yes he time traveled and unlike us, he stayed there for a long time. It's unclear what would have occurred on the first without his visit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

How was she unsure when she knows his future is at the bottom of the sea playing games with their city? We told her all this. Emet existing in his og form post sundering absolutely requires that he survive the sundering. If it's all one timeline, if Venat is fully informed, then it isn't a gamble. It's a choice.

---

The future wasn't certain. That's kinda the point. Venat didn't know if she could reach the outcome she sought or not. All she could do was use the knowledge she was given to try for it, and that is precisely what she did. Obviously the narrative took the direction of her being successful, but from an in-universe perspective nothing was over til it was over. Things could've gone awry at any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

In fact in general if it's single timeline time loop, why is the game the way it is at all? I could literally write a book of how it really makes pre EW Hydaelyn nonsensical and bizarrely obsessed with drawing out the Ascian conflict and keeping everything exactly the same.

---

Yes exactly. That's what we have been saying this whole time. It's a time loop maintained by Venat at the expense of not just the Ancients but everyone else who ever lived on the planet, the shards or any other planet effected by the Endsinger. That's why we say the story should call her out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The future wasn't certain. That's kinda the point. Venat didn't know if she could reach the outcome she sought or not. All she could do was use the knowledge she was given to try for it, and that is precisely what she did. Obviously the narrative took the direction of her being successful, but from an in-universe perspective nothing was over til it was over. Things could've gone awry at any time.

---

And they absolutely would've gone awry if it weren't for the events of Shadowbringers. Remember that Graha pulled us into the first to not only save that shard but also to prevent us from dying as a consequence of it rejoining with the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurdity

And they absolutely would've gone awry if it weren't for the events of Shadowbringers. Remember that Graha pulled us into the first to not only save that shard but also to prevent us from dying as a consequence of it rejoining with the source.

---

Expecting that we are not done with that alternate timeline, either. I wouldn't be shocked even in the slightest that if in a few expansions from now we basically pull another Shadowbringers, but this time end up in that alternate timeline. They would get to parade around Emet, Elidibus, and Venat version 2. :P

It's gonna be FF14's Warlords of Draenor/Legion moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I also forgot to address Graha-- yes he time traveled and unlike us, he stayed there for a long time. It's unclear what would have occurred on the first without his visit.

---

If G'raha doesn't go to the First and eventually summon the WoL there, then Zenos stays in Eorzea hunting for us and doesn't stop Varis from releasing the Black Rose, causing the Eighth Calamity and the Rejoining. We know how that goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The future wasn't certain. That's kinda the point. Venat didn't know if she could reach the outcome she sought or not. All she could do was use the knowledge she was given to try for it, and that is precisely what she did. Obviously the narrative took the direction of her being successful, but from an in-universe perspective nothing was over til it was over. Things could've gone awry at any time.

---

So in the case of the attack, we tell her what she does. In the case of Emet, we don't. Got it. I don't subscribe to your single timeline theory anyway, but you don't seem to be able to make it make sense. That's considering you're in denial that Elidibus spells out that fate can't be changed. And no I didn't take out context, he does tell you that your actions won't affect the future. In that sense with Shadowbringers, we weren't coming at that story from a future point of that world but another. So it's not comparable at all. You cannot say it works just like 5.0 because we don't have access to the future of 5.0 as we did with 6.0 when we visited Elpis.

And my point is that, you cannot cite the same specific assign intention to the sundering if by your own logic it's all just a gamble. Maybe this time, she was just trying to sunder Zodiark, or the local area, and not the entire world. Maybe this time she didn't want to create reflections. Or does something exist that distinguishes what the other possibilities she was accounting for here? Is there a resource for what we told her and what we didn't? Since she was accounting for Emet not surviving (and by extension everything going differently as a result of her attack)? And yes, that's even if you use her words at the end of the trial, because the way she explains it makes her seem disappointed, not pleased. That's even if you use the JP quote by the way because "what's done is done" can also be interpreted as reisignation and/or regret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

What lore are you referring to that she didn't know what her attack would do? We literally tell her what she does. The walk cutscene, while not a literal retelling of events, shows her doing it deliberately. Also on the mention of not everyone dying; you're right there were THREE survivors from the entire planet. It's also worth noting that the use of the term genocide is not reliant on the effectiveness of said genocide. Not everyone has to be dead for us to call it what it is.

---

Which reminds me you can keep throwing around the word genocide, intention always matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

So in the case of the attack, we tell her what she does. In the case of Emet, we don't. Got it. I don't subscribe to your single timeline theory anyway, but you don't seem to be able to make it make sense. That's considering you're in denial that Elidibus spells out that fate can't be changed. And no I didn't take out context, he does tell you that your actions won't affect the future.

---

We tell her everything, but we can't tell her the exact details of how everything came to pass, because we don't know either. All she could do was try her best to set up the circumstances that would seemingly permit our future to happen, so in that respect, there was always going to be some unavoidable risk involved.

And when Elidibus says "you cannot affect change", he isn't saying we are incapable of doing so - he's saying that we can't if we want our future (the present as is) to come to pass, and to that end, for the timeline to stay as is.

Quote:

---

Yet even should you manage to interact with others, you will be unable to effect meaningful change. For the reality you wish to save—the reality to which you must return—exists as a result of the Final Days. You cannot reshape the past to undo the tragedies of the present. Cannot unmake the sorrow and suffering fated to come.

---

So he's saying even if you want to help, you can't, because if you throw everything off balance by trying to change things, you risk jeopardising the current world we're going back in the past to save in the first place.

Quote:

---

You cannot say it works just like 5.0 because we don't have access to the future of 5.0 as we did with 6.0 when we visited Elpis.

---

??? It is the same, we're just G'raha in this scenario. Only we want to preserve our future, whereas G'raha wanted to do the opposite and undo theirs.

Quote:

---

Maybe this time, she was just trying to sunder Zodiark, or the local area, and not the entire world. Maybe this time she didn't want to create reflections. Or does something exist that distinguishes what the other possibilities she was accounting for here?

---

Nope, everything had to proceed as it did in our world's past, otherwise we wouldn't exist to be able to battle Meteion. Everything had to happen the way it originally did, including the Sundering, the shards and the Ascians going about their shenanigans with Calamities, for the outcome that she believed the most in to be able to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

We tell her everything, but we can't tell her the exact details of how everything came to pass

---

And the entire premise of the this conversation that has spanned needless pages now is that she knowingly committed genocide down the very details. So what you're establishing is that she didn't, which is what I've been saying. She expended her energy on an attack to bring down Zodiark because there was no other choice but to divide his power and conquer. Even if she had clues about the future, her and her followers failed to solve the problem in time as the walkng sequence (which is clearly an abstraction representative of days, weeks, months of interactions between Venat and others) shows us. She didn't really know exactly what the sundering would result in as far as what exact state it would leave humanity in it because how would the WoL tell her all of that? Finally and most importantly, the game doesn't frame her as perfect nor does it frame her solution as unquestionable. You're supposed to question it because who was really right in the conflict-- the group who wanted a tempered future that rendered the earth a false paradise or the group whose solution was to splinter their power in a reckless attack that went far beyond merely weakening humanity? And that's assuming you subscribe to the "we revised history to be one timeline" take, which I don't. But even if you do, the story makes sense and Venat isn't some genocidal maniac. Emet is, Yotsuyu is, Durante is, Zenos is. Venat is not. It's worth noting as well that the game confirms Hydaelyn was summoned exactly the same as Zodiark-- which means she had a heart and other people on her side (most likely a significant number of people).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

So he's saying even if you want to help, you can't, because if you throw everything off balance by trying to change things, you risk jeopardising the current world we're going back in the past to save in the first place.

---

In the very next quote you are saying Graha wanted to undo their future. I'm not how you can reconcile your own interpretation of this statement with what you said there. So, is some magic rule governing our time travel that Graha is not subject to? You're just misintrepreting what's being said. Time travel, in FFXIV, doesn't change reality. The variables can change, but it cannot be meaningful change,the result will be the same. Whether Graha travels back to the First or not, it would've theoretically been Flooded and eventually saved. Whether we travel to Elpis or not, the Final Days are bound to be instigated where they will affect our current reality. That's what he is saying. He's not just saying "you can't help".

N

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lunaxia

ope, everything had to proceed as it did in our world's past, otherwise we wouldn't exist to be able to battle Meteion. Everything had to happen the way it originally did, including the Sundering, the shards and the Ascians going about their shenanigans with Calamities, for the outcome that she believed the most in to be able to happen.

---

Exactly, I'm glad we agree.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts overall on why the rhetoric about genocide is so bizarre and why the story, even if you believe in a single timeline, actually does make sense. It is believable? Maybe not. That's not what people have been arguing. What actually doesn't make sense, is how the time loop affects the rest of the game prior to EW with respect to Hydaelyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

That pretty much sums up my thoughts overall on why the rhetoric about genocide is so bizarre and why the story, even if you believe in a single timeline, actually does make sense. It is believable? Maybe not. That's not what people have been arguing. What actually doesn't make sense, is how the time loop affects the rest of the game prior to EW with respect to Hydaelyn.

---

How is people wanting to call her out bizarre? It doesn't matter if her actions brought the world we live in. It doesn't even matter if we LIKE the world we live in. What matters is that her actions ended up killing entire worlds full of people that did not want to die. We can appreciate what we have now, but still say that Venat was wrong to toy with the lives of so many. An awful act is still an awful act, even if a supposed hero does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

How is people wanting to call her out bizarre? It doesn't matter if her actions brought the world we live in. It doesn't even matter if we LIKE the world we live in. What matters is that her actions ended up killing entire worlds full of people that did not want to die. We can appreciate what we have now, but still say that Venat was wrong to toy with the lives of so many. An awful act is still an awful act, even if a supposed hero does it.

---

It wasn't world's full of people and many of them did want to die, by literally serving a summon who recurring called for sacrifices and tempered the rest. I wouldn't call being permanently tempered living. It's bizarre because you're either being obtuse or just don't realize that Zodiark was only a good solution for people who were content permanently serving and sacrificing for him in order to act as a shield against the Final Days.

And I keep having to remind everyone-- Hydaelyn was a group effort. So it's not the awful act of Venat, it's the awful act of a collective. And it isnt awful because as I keep saying, the force required to injure Zodiark had the byproduct of sundering. Its not "Venat plotted to send humans back to the dark ages". If anything your hyper focus on Venat seems very odd. I don't notice anyone calling out or making threads about the myriad other genocidal people in the story who are also framed as heros at particular points or even have redemption arcs. I think the real issue you have is deeper than that.

Venat doesn't even really get a redemption arc. It's a confession and then we kill her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

She didn't really know exactly what the sundering would result in as far as what exact state it would leave humanity in it because how would the WoL tell her all of that?

---

What do you mean? She could see the WoL right in front of her. She had their direct testimony, gleaned both from the Ascians and their very existence as a person. She knew it would yield a species that would be aetherically less dense, and what shape it'd take more or less. Plus we know from both her own mouth when questioned by Y'shtola and from the dev Q&A that she deliberately sundered them to bring about this result, i.e. she believed they'd wield dynamis more easily this way and feared that her own people would become like the Nibirun because she believed they couldn't change.

Quote:

---

(most likely a significant number of people).

---

Nope:

Quote:

---

Venat
You know as well as I that but few support our cause. Far fewer than they who place their faith in Zodiark.

---

See: https://ffxiv.gamerescape.com/wiki/B...rface#Dialogue

Other sources add to this, like the dev Q&A on why her summoning consumed her followers souls (well, aside from the little wrinkle that is the "fragments" of their souls in Myths...)

Quote:

---

Finally and most importantly, the game doesn't frame her as perfect nor does it frame her solution as unquestionable.

---

It kind of does in the MSQ. It's not until the Omega quest that her decision is meaningfully questioned in any capacity. The MSQ presentation does not bother to question her logic at any point, and the codex doubles down on it as tragic but necessary and paints her actions as nothing other than benevolent.

Quote:

---

the group who wanted a tempered future

---

Citation needed. Only the Convocation was tempered - a problem she knew how to shield from and could've prevented, if it mattered, by giving them the knowledge to avert the need to summon Zodiark. Both the dev Q&A and her own words in 5.2, and her short story in Tales from the Dawn, point to what she believed was her people's ability to adapt to the despair they had experienced as the cause, not tempering. You keep bringing tempering up but really, you're really just making it up at this point.

Quote:

---

But even if you do, the story makes sense and Venat isn't some genocidal maniac.

---

Putting aside the word "maniac", her actions are nonetheless genocidal and the intent is there for this. Her actions come at the expense of the ancients' existence and furthermore rely on the Rejoinings taking place at least up to the 8UC for the sake of maintaining timeline consistency. You're trying to argue from the fact that she wasn't 100% confident if her methods would work to her aims being fuzzy, but that's really not how it's framed. Her aims are clear and pretty unambiguous, and frankly admitted to when questioned by Y'shtola, and also by Yoshi P in the Q&A.

Quote:

---

In the very next quote you are saying Graha wanted to undo their future. I'm not how you can reconcile your own interpretation of this statement with what you said there. So, is some magic rule governing our time travel that Graha is not subject to? You're just misintrepreting what's being said.

---

Who can say? The writers have never really divulged the basis for how time travel works in the setting. We can only infer from the few instances we see and there's still question marks around that, to which the only answer so far is what Yoshi gave.

Quote:

---

Time travel, in FFXIV, doesn't change reality. The variables can change, but it cannot be meaningful change,the result will be the same. Whether Graha travels back to the First or not, it would've theoretically been Flooded and eventually saved. Whether we travel to Elpis or not, the Final Days are bound to be instigated where they will affect our current reality. That's what he is saying. He's not just saying "you can't help".

---

Meanwhile the 8UC timeline existing as an independent forked timeline in its own right. Go read it here. https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../#sidestory_08

Quote:

---

That pretty much sums up my thoughts overall on why the rhetoric about genocide is so bizarre and why the story, even if you believe in a single timeline, actually does make sense. It is believable? Maybe not. That's not what people have been arguing. What actually doesn't make sense, is how the time loop affects the rest of the game prior to EW with respect to Hydaelyn.

---

Yes, welcome to the club! We have been critical about how EW employed time travel in this thread since day one. Go look at the tags in the thread even. It does not, however, mean that what the writers wrote is not what they intend to be canon, regardless of how little sense it makes. And that is, that she is intending for the timeline from which you appeared in Elpis to remain consistent with the recollection you gave her, leading her to declare in EW that a conjunction of timelines has now been seeded. This is further supported by the devs' own words on how this can be interpreted, and her deliberate decision to try spare Emet-Selch.

At this point, I have to question, as have others, whether for someone who so vehemently argues their corner whether you've actually gone through the story, because there's a lot of misunderstandings that crop up in your posts. For instance, you keep hinging your words on what Elidibus said, but as the dev Q&A and her own words in EW make clear, it is Venat who is acting towards maintaining the timeline, which implies as a corollary that if she did not, it could deviate. Again, so far you've been reluctant to provide any sources for anything you say, and you come to very strange misinterpretations of the sources being provided.

Does it all make sense? Nope, but whether it does or not they're setting this out as how things went down, and on that basis, Venat is assigned a lot of agency and somehow, in spite of all the gaps in her knowledge, is aiming towards a timeline convergence. You don't have to like it or consider it logical - I certainly don't - but that is the level of agency she is being assigned. And on that basis, she is open to criticism. It doesn't really matter if in some other timeline, some hypothetical Venat made a greater effort to salvage her people, as all we have are her words that she'd make such efforts, and no tangible proof, so we are ultimately judging her based on what we do at least know. And that Venat is one who decided not to give her people the full picture and to proceed with the Sundering as an "answer" to Endsinger. It's possible to both criticise the weirdness of how they resorted to time travel, and to criticise the parties involved on the basis of what they chose to make canon as, whatever its faults, it's what we're stuck with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

It wasn't world's full of people and many of them did want to die, by literally serving a summon who recurring called for sacrifices and tempered the rest. I wouldn't call being permanently tempered living. It's bizarre because you're either being obtuse or just don't realize that Zodiark was only a good solution for people who were content permanently serving and sacrificing for him in order to act as a shield against the Final Days.

---

I don't really think you're in a position to be insulting others here over being obtuse. But Zodiark did not temper anyone but the Convocation, and even that was presented as a side effect without much follow up at the time. He was resorted to as a summoning because they had run out of other available sources of aether because of the Final Days eating away at their star. This is why people say it was within her hands whether or not they resorted to summoning him, because if they had been warned earlier of the nature of the problem, a different solution could have been devised. But you're still framing this in a misleading way that's not even consistent with the story's own way of presenting it.

Quote:

---

And I keep having to remind everyone-- Hyaelyn was a group effort. So it's not the awful act of Venat, it's the awful act of a collective. And it isnt awful because as I keep saying, the force required to injure Zodiark had the byproduct of sundering. Its not "Venat plotted to send humans back to the dark ages". If anything your hyper focus on Venat seems very odd.

---

She had more knowledge than her combined group. This is also covered in her short story:

Quote:

---

Unable to find the words, the archivist retreated into ritual. He held out a crystal—as he had countless times before—upon which was stored the last chapter of cosmological wisdom Venat had sought. Though she had spoken of its importance, he suspected she withheld the entire truth. Of her glimpse into the future, she had offered precious little.

---

That aside, I don't think any here would disagree that her entire group should share some of the blame, but we have to consider how much they knew compared to her.

Quote:

---

I don't notice anyone calling out or making threads about the myriad other genocidal people in the story who are also framed as heros at particular points or even have redemption arcs. I think the real issue you have is deeper than that.

---

Must've been absent for most of ARR, HW, SB and SHB, then. But then again, the story does not shy away from criticising those characters, even where it presents their motives as sympathetic, so this is a rather moot point.

Quote:

---

Venat doesn't even really get a redemption arc. It's a confession and then we kill her.

---

From the story's position (or even the way you tried to frame it), what is there to redeem? Even in the Omega story, the Watcher is hoping for validation of her and her group's ideological view through the Sundered. In the end, she herself insists on the fight, knowing the cost, because she sees it as a test she wants to administer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

It wasn't world's full of people and many of them did want to die, by literally serving a summon who recurring called for sacrifices and tempered the rest. I wouldn't call being permanently tempered living. It's bizarre because you're either being obtuse or just don't realize that Zodiark was only a good solution for people who were content permanently serving and sacrificing for him in order to act as a shield against the Final Days.

And I keep having to remind everyone-- Hyaelyn was a group effort. So it's not the awful act of Venat, it's the awful act of a collective. And it isnt awful because as I keep saying, the force required to injure Zodiark had the byproduct of sundering. Its not "Venat plotted to send humans back to the dark ages". If anything your hyper focus on Venat seems very odd. I don't notice anyone calling out or making threads about the myriad other genocidal people in the story who are also framed as heros at particular points or even have redemption arcs. I think the real issue you have is deeper than that.

Venat doesn't even really get a redemption arc. It's a confession and then we kill her.

---

We don't call out the other mass murderers because the story is happy to call them out for us. All we are asking is that it actually do the same to Venat. Her scene before we kill her wasn't that. It was basically her saying "I have done something awful" and us comforting her for it. I don't want to comfort her, I want to agree with her that she did something awful.

As for many of them not wanting or wanting to die, while it's kinda awful that you do not considered Tempered people living as we have shown that Tempering is reversible, what about the innocent people on the Shards who had to die before wee got to the point where her plan might work? She knew about them. They certainly did not want to die.

And yes, I am aware of her followers and I do not care for them other. A small group who all decided that they knew better for the world and then planned to force their will on it. Now the Twelve are forever soured in my mind too since they are all just based on Venat followers, and creations of Venat herself. The reason I do not mention them, though, is that Venat never entirely told them what was up. They followed her like good little sheep and she led them to their doom.

That said, I am not sure arguing with you has much of a point since you basically keep trying to argue that even the most vile things are okay and should never be questioned so long as they lead to an outcome we like. Which is a valid viewpoint, I suppose. It is just not one I can agree with. I figure that we can acknowledge the world we live in now, while still calling out Venat for being a crap person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

Expecting that we are not done with that alternate timeline, either. I wouldn't be shocked even in the slightest that if in a few expansions from now we basically pull another Shadowbringers, but this time end up in that alternate timeline. They would get to parade around Emet, Elidibus, and Venat version 2. :P

It's gonna be FF14's Warlords of Draenor/Legion moment.

---

Don't give me hope that this happens. The moment it does then there no longer exist any reason to prevent the summoning/sundering by going back to Elpis. If they ever actually make multi timelines truly Canon then we better go back and fix that event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

She had their direct testimony.

---

As someone else already pointed out, WoL doesn't know every mechanism at play but an overall idea. They can't instruct Venat how to sunder people right for example.

Regarding the follower count, I never said it was more, I said it was a significant number. That's a fair assumption because summons need a certain level of aether. And besides more people =/= morally correct.

[QUOTE=Theodric;6365959]It kind of does in the MSQ./QUOTE]
No it doesn't. The last two expansions were all about questioning her. You're asking me to live in a time period longer than 5 years ago and well, no. It's a 10 year long dev cycle, expecting perfect consistency is unrealistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Citation needed.

---

Zodiark requires sacrifices and he tempers people who follow him. Given any amount of time at all, any rate of progress, he would consume the world or, at minimum, temper everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yoshi P in the Q&A.

---

Just because a character says something to acknowledge an event occurred doesn't mean they're aggressively proud of it. I called it a confession. Implying it was some well laid out plan "Hmm humans will devolve to this point, with this many resources, let me decorate the reflections" is different from "I had no other choice and I did the most powerful attack I could that unfortunately sundered the world".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

For instance

---

Where are the quotes regarding Venat is preserving the timeline and our visit was capable of affecting reality to the degree of avoiding the Final Days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

because if they had been warned

---

This is total conjecture, so it's not worth arguing. Speaking of being obtuse and hinging arguments, your literal entire post history ITT depends on this conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

She had more knowledge

---

Yet, still a group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Must've been absent

---

I can see threads via search history. You're going to ignore the redemption of Zenos, Emet, even Durante? Their crimes or intended crimes are hand waived away and they get treated like normal people in game, not to mention have fandoms. There's never been an 800 page thread about *ehem* those types of antagonists.

The Omega story asks you who is more justified. How exactly is that condoning her? And it is a test, in a way, because she was making it so that people couldn't rely on Zodiark. What's your point? I've called the sundering reckless and explained that while Venat wasn't entirely malicious, she also wasn't entirely innocent either. How many more times will I need to say it I wonder? The Ancients in general had slightly different set of ethics from our time and being arrogant is fairly common in their behavioral patterns-- Venat is not immune to that. Once again that's the whole point of the conflict itself and even the root cause of the Final Days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

We don't call out the other mass murderers because the story is happy to call them out for us. All we are asking is that it actually do the same to Venat. Her scene before we kill her wasn't that. It was basically her saying "I have done something awful" and us comforting her for it. I don't want to comfort her, I want to agree with her that she did something awful.

---

The game does call her out but in less impactful ways (such as by asking if she's justified directly and killing her), most likely because of the nostalgia associated with her from before they decided to turn her into an arrogant Ancient. I think the MMORPG element played a role in this decision to be totally honest. I think it's a little disingenuous though to suggest the game never tries to bait you into thinking Hydaelyn is either evil or making a mistake though-- it does it more and more as the game ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

As for many of them not wanting or wanting to die, while it's kinda awful that you do not considered Tempered people living as we have shown that Tempering is reversible, what about the innocent people on the Shards who had to die before we got to the point where her plan might work? She knew about them. They certainly did not want to die.

---

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The entire tragedy of Zodiark is the massive sacrifice that had to be made. That means voluntary death. As far as people who supported his continued existence, that's pretty similar to desiring death because they had no idea tempering was reversible. And if Emet's dialogue is anything to go by, they were pretty intoxicated by him. It's not like his effects would extend to the Convocation and that's it. He would inevitably continue tempering. As far as Venat's sundering, you guys really need to get over it. The entire point of the conflict is that it's tragic and no one was right.

Your outrage entirely hinges on the game condoning her or your not having a dialogue box saying "I hate you". Is it really that serious???? The game doesn't totally condone her and they forgot your text box.

The story isn't about me and my moral pandering or ego stroking. I'd also note not only are you kind of morally judgy but not everyone interpreted the story they way you did. Most people interpreted Venat's walk through the Final Days as the original act as it happened (without the Elpis visit) so it's not viewed as "mass murder". And you may think "wow that's crazy"but did you even watch the scene...? Venat is clearly relaying what happens as though she is taken aback but willing to continue on..and to elaborate what I mean by surprised is that she knew she was sundering but I don't think she anticipated the state it put humanity in and/or prepared for the weight of the consequences.

And tbh I'm not entirely sure if the walk abstraction is a reference to the original timeline or the modified Elpis timeline, because we don't know if the MSQ is operating on a single timeline (with a time loop) or if the Elpis visit is a seperate, deviant timeline we just leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

As someone else already pointed out, WoL doesn't know every mechanism at play but an overall idea. They can't instruct Venat how to sunder people right for example.

---

Sure, and that in turn is part of the problem of the whole idea of maintaining timeline consistency over that time span and so many worlds, with such limited knowledge, and so she is figuring some aspects out - like I said, there is fuzziness to her methods. But we are discussing her aims here, which are known, not the "how". She cannot be certain of anything but she is still taking extreme actions with an end goal in mind.

Quote:

---

Regarding the follower count, I never said it was more, I said it was a significant number. That's a fair assumption because summons need a certain level of aether.

---

Sure, but as we've seen these summonings can be performed with quite a low threshold of aether, as per Tsukuyomi and Shiva. Anyway, it need not even be an assumption, because we know from their own words that it was a low count, precisely twelve plus herself.

Quote:

---

And besides more people =/= morally correct.

---

I'll be sure to inform whoever is arguing that as much.

Quote:

---

No it doesn't. The last two expansions were all about questioning her. You're asking me to live in a time period longer than 5 years ago and well, no. It's a 10 year long dev cycle, expecting perfect consistency is unrealistic.

---

They were not. SHB only cast some doubt on her motives on the basis that she had lied about what she is. But it wasn't until the end of the 5.x series that the Scions began asking questions, and even then it was more in the direction of what her precise will was. We did not know her actual motivations until EW, so trying to pretend SHB dealt with this when it's not revealed until EW is comically silly.

Quote:

---

Zodiark requires sacrifices and he tempers people who follow him.

---

He requires sacrifice for specific acts. He tempered his summoners through his sheer power in the act of summoning him. But nowhere is it stated he tempers people who follow him beyond that. If you insist on claiming it, provide the textual evidence. The cutscene with Venat won't do because it doesn't come up there at all.

Quote:

---

Given any amount of time at all, any rate of progress, he would consume the world or, at minimum, temper everyone.

---

Again, citation for where this is ever mentioned. Not even her followers articulate such a concern.

Quote:

---

Just because a character says something to acknowledge an event occurred doesn't mean they're aggressively proud of it. I called it a confession. Implying it was some well laid out plan "Hmm humans will devolve to this point, with this many resources, let me decorate the reflections" is different from "I had no other choice and I did the most powerful attack I could that unfortunately sundered the world".

---

But who here is arguing that she saw herself in a villainous light? She no doubt believes she has good reason for it. But it can be questioned whether her course of action, given its extreme costs, was the right one.

Quote:

---

Where are the quotes regarding Venat is preserving the timeline and our visit was capable of affecting reality to the degree of avoiding the Final Days?

---

Read the bolded:

Quote:

---

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. What happened?
A: Well, I think the most important thing is that you can come up with your own theories for this one. In my personal interpretation however is that the timelines were always the same. Another interpretation you can have is that maybe Venat worked really hard behind the scenes to ensure the timeline didn’t go awry. Therefore the Warrior of Light was always acting in accordance with this plan of Venat so the timeline that we are aware of didn’t change when we went back to the affected. I personally think that when we went to Mare Lamentorum and we first met Argos and Argos really took to us when we were able to ride it, that's basically the proof that at that point, the timeline is going accordingly. We are adding all these stuff to New Game+ in 6.1 so if you’re interested in this I suggest you replay it and think about these questions when you’re playing it.

---

Then couple this with the fact that she's attempting to spare Emet from her actions.

As to whether it could avert the Final Days or not, I don't believe I ever said it necessarily would - it's an unknown because the scenario never played out. What I am getting at is that if the Convocation and ancients were provided with the necessary knowledge, they would be able to come to a better solution than Zodiark. As was stated, he's still capable of shielding the star for a very long time given that he was created on the basis of incomplete knowledge, but we know G'raha's actions already resulted in a timeline split from the 8UC's future, so let's not pretend it's impossible for an AU to form here.

Quote:

---

This is total conjecture, so it's not worth arguing. Speaking of being obtuse and hinging arguments, your literal entire post history ITT depends on this conjecture.

---

I think it is perfectly worth speculating on, because the entire story set up asks us to think of her motives in terms of knowledge the ancients were not provided, and on the basis of "what ifs" regarding what would happen if they didn't change when they were not really given any good reason to change. To affect meaningful change to the timeline would require that knowledge to be provided. This seems more like it's inconvenient for you to speculate upon it, therefore you don't' think it's worth arguing. Then don't. No skin off my nose. But I am not dropping the point.

Quote:

---

I can see threads via search history. You're going to ignore the redemption of Zenos, Emet, even Durante? Their crimes or intended crimes are hand waived away and they get treated like normal people in game, not to mention have fandoms. There's never been an 800 page thread about ehem those types of antagonists.

---

Yes, they have fandoms. Villains/antagonists being popular in a FF series is not surprising. However, the story is critical of all of their actions, and specifically Zenos and Emet are both called out in lengthy exchanges by the Scions. Durante is subjected to much the same via Zero. So saying that their crimes are "handwaved" away is a bizarre mischaracterisation of what's happening here. Equally the story is not asking me to accept their actions as tragic necessities. It does try argue they should've taken a less bloody course of action. On top of all this, the WoL isn't working in concert with their agendas, but against them. They receive help from them after they've already defeated them in their capacity as antagonists or villains. They not painted as aligned to their goals.

Quote:

---

The Omega story asks you who is more justified. How exactly is that condoning her?

---

A pity that it isn't reflected or followed up anywhere else, like in the MSQ itself, and is confined to that singular sidequest series, isn't it? And that the codex proceeds without acknowledging any such nuances.

Quote:

---

And it is a test, in a way, because she was making it so that people couldn't rely on Zodiark. What's your point? I've called the sundering reckless and explained that while Venat wasn't entirely malicious, she also wasn't entirely innocent either. How many more times will I need to say it I wonder? The Ancients in general had slightly different set of ethics from our time and being arrogant is fairly common in their behavioral patterns-- Venat is not immune to that. Once again that's the whole point of the conflict itself and even the root cause of the Final Days.

---

Being arrogant is fairly common in many a character's behavioural patterns, but with the ancients specifically, we know their society arrives at large decisions through debate and consensus, and expect transparency from their officials, so this "she's an ancient" excuse the writers like to invoke isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. Nor does it exempt her from any criticism, any more than it would the likes of Emet-Selch, Hermes or Athena. Indeed, the story does not shy away at all from a critical stance towards Athena.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

The game does call her out but in less impactful ways (such as by asking if she's justified directly and killing her), most likely because of the nostalgia associated with her from before they decided to turn her into an arrogant Ancient. I think the MMORPG element played a role in this decision to be totally honest. I think it's a little disingenuous though to suggest the game never tries to bait you into thinking Hydaelyn is either evil or making a mistake though-- it does it more and more as the game ages.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. The entire tragedy of Zodiark is the massive sacrifice that had to be made. That means voluntary death. As far as people who supported his continued existence, that's pretty similar to desiring death because they had no idea tempering was reversible. And if Emet's dialogue is anything to go by, they were pretty intoxicated by him. It's not like his effects would extend to the Convocation and that's it. He would inevitably continue tempering. As far as Venat's sundering, you guys really need to get over it. The entire point of the conflict is that it's tragic and no one was right.

Your outrage entirely hinges on the game condoning her or your not having a dialogue box saying "I hate you". Is it really that serious???? The game doesn't totally condone her and they forgot your text box.

The story isn't about me and my moral pandering or ego stroking. I'd also note not only are you kind of morally judgy but not everyone interpreted the story they way you did. Most people interpreted Venat's walk through the Final Days as the original act as it happened (without the Elpis visit) so it's not viewed as "mass murder". And you may think "wow that's crazy"but did you even watch the scene...? Venat is clearly relaying what happens as though she is taken aback but willing to continue on..and to elaborate what I mean by surprised is that she knew she was sundering but I don't think she anticipated the state it put humanity in and/or prepared for the weight of the consequences.

And tbh I'm not entirely sure if the walk abstraction is a reference to the original timeline or the modified Elpis timeline, because we don't know if the MSQ is operating on a single timeline (with a time loop) or if the Elpis visit is a seperate, deviant timeline we just leave.

---

The Endwalker story has made me feel like a hypocrite and had dragged me kicking and screaming out of a tale I quite enjoyed before. Asking for a dialogue box to express dissatisfaction with Venat's actions is not too much to ask. Especially since previous expansions have been fine with giving us more diverse answers in how we respond to our companions, even if the story inevitably still leads to the same dialogue.

Beyond that, the way the story had been written has basically given a moral dissonance between how we act, and what we endorse. It just seems weird that we can handwave all those lives "because they were necessary and beyond saving" one minute, and then turn around and save the 13th because everyone deserves a chance the next.

It is clear you and I will never reach consensus though, so prolly best to agree to disagree.

At the end of the day this is also a thread about Endwalker's issues as a whole. Venat comes up often because of how much agency she has in the entire plot. I think that it's pretty bizarre to pretend as if she's being unfairly singled out on that basis alone when the game bent over backwards to tie her - and the player character - to so many different aspects of the story to a such lofty a degree.

Furthermore as can be witnessed throughout the entirety of this thread there are many different reasons outlined as to why Endwalker didn't land for particular individuals. Sometimes there is firm alignment and agreement, at other times there is not. Though understandably this thread is a place for people to express their concerns with the story and they will continue to do as much for as long as it exists.

- I don't remember HW that well, but Yotsuyu needed aether crystals, not one person.

- If you don't associate more == morally superior, then why bring it up? I never said more, you did.

- What's comical is that you don't search reddit threads. The game gives you reasons to think Hydaelyn is evil/suspicious and you can find reddit threads about it spanning, probably, the whole game's existence (in years). Maybe you weren't suspicious, idk.

- He requires half of the world just to be summoned and he tempers because he's a summon. We know from the MSQ uncontrollable tempering begets more tempering. Maybe WoL should've told Venat how to deal with tempering. As far as additional sacrifices, they were scheduled to happen so I'm not sure what's confusing about that. "This resulted in a series of sacrifices, first by offering another half of their population to restore Etheirys to habitability, and the plan on harvesting the lives of the new races that would develop on the planet in the future to resurrect those they had sacrificed earlier." Sounds like genocide to me, but again you all aren't actually concerned with genocide so why would you notice? Taking even half the population is outrageous, even if they were willing, because we have no idea if those people even understood what they were signing up for beyond "instant solution".

- Who cares[ if her decision was right? Endwalker is asking everyone to make their own decision about who was right or wrong in the Ascian conflict. There's no "I hate Emet" text button either as far as I know, and characters even dignify him with understanding, despite retaliating with yet more cycles of genocide. Whether I think it's right or you think it's right doesn't matter because Endwalker is not a morality pageant contest furthermore-- by subjecting yourself the tribalism of it all you're missing the whole point that no one was right. It's a trick question.

- What does the quote provided to do with anything? It says to make your own theory and "maybe Venat was working behind the scenes". That's not definitive declaration "Venat was preserving the timeline of events".

- A tangent but have you considered too much interference with the future in the Elpis timeline would mean the WoL never exists and create an inconsistency that doesn't work with this game???

-The Ancients coming up with a solution to Zodiark or the Final Days is conjecture and, imo, not relevant only because I interpret Elidibus's statements to mean the Elpis visit lacked any potential to change the future-- that the Final Days were an inevitable reality. Fate is a very common topic in FF so maybe I'm biased (I play the other games) but I don't think time travel can change fate in a particular timeline. As you've noted, maybe a timeline divergence can happen that results in a different future for that alternate timeline. But that's different from taking the original timeline of the sundering for example and just redoing it with a new future without establishing a deviation. I personally think the Elpis visit created a deviant timeline that spans the range of our visit and conjoined with our present MSQ time (which is the future of the original timeline). In that sense in terms of the present MSQ, there's still a Venat in the past who made the decision to sunder with no future knowledge (and as I've said I also think the walking sequence is depicting this based on the dialogue and the vocal delivery) and there's our new conjoined timeline which puts everyone on the same page and results in a new future. I think that's why Venat mentions a conjunction of time. It was a fanservicey way to have us experience Elpis without breaking the lore (we were literally Azem so a single timeloop paradox doesn't make sense to me). <--- This drives a lot of my takes btw and I understand not everyone sees the events this way.

- As far as the other antagonists, they are eventually treated as normal and we kill Hydaelyn almost immediately after unmasking her. I'm not sure what more you want. She's dead-- Durante isn't, Zenos died willingly, and Emet was temporarily psycho at the time so it was unavoidable. You interpret the final scene as comforting to her or something-- I interpreted it as complicated and bittersweet. I loved it. But I guess your perception of it is colored by whether or not you think the sundering occurred with knowledge of the future and accept the time paradox it requires. For me there's always going to be the default Venat who didn't have the future hints. That's why again, I'm not overall concerned with the "what if's" because for me that timeline got cut off and conjoined with ours-- it didn't have a future.

- I'm not sure how many times the game needs to ask you to judge Hydaelyn.

- Being arrogant is not an excuse, it's just the source of many of the problems of that era because they were so high on the hierarchy of needs. It definitely gave Hermes room to ruminate and motivated him to threaten the existence of the universe, for example. A lot of our time in Elpis was meant to explore this idea, because Elpis seems so perfect and being a god seems ideal. Yet it had unanticipated downsides and led to severely irrational decisions in multiple instances, not just with Venat. That's why I'm not particularly concerned with Venat because the messages and themes in Endwalker were not really about her possible motivations after the Elpis visit and whether that was the real history.

Quick question Turtle. Is the reason you refuse to see it as a true loop because it removes the genesis of the knowledge? You mentioned you prefer the idea that a Venat exists without the future hints. Does that mean you reject the idea that the game you played through could have contained future hints for Venat explicitly because you just think she didn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Don't give me hope that this happens. The moment it does then there no longer exist any reason to prevent the summoning/sundering by going back to Elpis. If they ever actually make multi timelines truly Canon then we better go back and fix that event.

---

Sadly, if/when we do go there it will prolly be just to back up that Venat was correct and and that the timeline went to rubble without her plan. I like your idea more, but I have seen how the writing has gone these past few patches. Heck, they wouldn't even let the Ancients live on in Ultima Thule, and we saved the rest of the supposedly doomed races there. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Quick question Turtle. Is the reason you refuse to see it as a true loop because it removes the genesis of the knowledge? You mentioned you prefer the idea that a Venat exists without the future hints. Does that mean you reject the idea that the game you played through could have contained future hints for Venat explicitly because you just think she didn't?

---

It isn't really a refusal. It's how I interpreted the scene. To expound, everyone here is saying Venat didn't warn anyone and didn't do anything. Since there is no direct evidence of that (maybe she did and they still failed) I'm assuning this idea is based on the fact that immediately after we leave Elpis, the walk scene happens? It feels far too jarring imo for the writers to seriously be implying Venat knowingly repeated the exact same behavior after WoL leaves. To me it just felt like fanservice. It was just an abstraction bc fans always have always wanted a visual depiction of the sundering.

As far as Venat existing without the future hints, it's hard to explain. My thinking on this is:

- We are in the original timeline (MSQ)
- We time travel in this timeline to the past
- This creates an alternate timeline /deviation because, as I have mentioned, we already existed in Elpis as Azem although we are not shown in the Elpis trip (for this reason)
- Once we return to our timeline, because of a plot Mcguffin, this deviated timeline conjoins to MSQ original timeline

So the past of the MsQ plot is the original past (us as Azem, no future visit) , the present is a conjoined present (hence why we can visit Elpis and have the raids etc). I think this for several reasons

-- Venat in the present MSQ calls out a conjunction twice if I am not mistaken
-- the writers needed a way to have you directly play the cause of the Final Days bc there is NO way to just have it told to you
-- involving you as your own player character causes continuity issues with SHB so they had to wipe Emet and Hythlodeus's memories specifically
-- Venat's memory being kept in tact is needlessly problematic, to everyone's point, and again seemed like fanservice to enhance the emotional impact of the trial
-- As I've mentioned we were Azem...along with Ardbert and Golbez, and whoever is on the remaining reflections
- The writers themselves won't admit it because it's a cluster fuck that barely makes sense, not to withhold mystery

I can go on. There's lots of reasons I have this complicated view that basically boil down to fanservice, gameplay convenience, continuity issues, etc. It doesn't really have to do with saving Venat's character or the genesis of the knowledge.

I genuinely don't think Venat is meant to be saved. I don't even think of her as a protagonist. She's a misguided antagonist, like many of the Ancients. I think she had this idea based on her traveling that she couldn't leave the star because of a romantic idea that her passion for living, endless optimism etc were somehow essential to culture at large. And that ambition/self involvement exploded when she became Hydaelyn. I think given that its a 10 year old game there are lots of quotes you can likely pull that paint her this way or that-- but for EW I feel like they were trying to make her overall motivations/reactions what you see in the sundering sequence (and afterward) and in the trial. Someone who is sort of resigned, did their best to fend off the rejoining, knows they fucked up, and finally accepts that humanity doesn't need her. I don't think she's only crying because it's goodbye, but also because it's the end of her narcissism. It's like someone crying not for the victims but because they got caught in a way. But I also think that's why she's an amazing character, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

-- As I've mentioned we were Azem...along with Ardbert and Golbez, and whoever is on the remaining reflections

---

Ok I really need you to explain why you keep sticking to the idea that the WoL is not in Elpis but is instead inhabiting Azem. We see the WoL travel to Elpis and appear as a mini ghost who then gets noticed by Hyth and Emit (noting the familiarity of the WoL's soul to that of Azem), enlarged & made solid, given clothes to better blend in despite everyone we talk to being able to instantly recognize as a familiar and specifically not "a person", compared to Meteion in regards to the lacking of aether, repeatedly badjured by Emet to explain who we are and what we are doing, and directly called out by Venat because she recognizes the ward on us.

Please help me understand what part of any of that allows for the non inclusion of literal time travel but also taking the place of any character besides the WoL and not Azem who is notably talked about as not being there by Venat, Hyth, and Emet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Ok I really need you to explain why you keep sticking to the idea that the WoL is not in Elpis but is instead inhabiting Azem. We see the WoL travel to Elpis and appear as a mini ghost who then gets noticed by Hyth and Emit (noting the familiarity of the WoL's soul to that of Azem), enlarged & made solid, given clothes to better blend in despite everyone we talk to being able to instantly recognize as a familiar and specifically not "a person", compared to Meteion in regards to the lacking of aether, repeatedly badjured by Emet to explain who we are and what we are doing, and directly called out by Venat because she recognizes the ward on us.

Please help me understand what part of any of that allows for the non inclusion of literal time travel but also taking the place of any character besides the WoL and not Azem who is notably talked about as not being there by Venat, Hyth, and Emet.

---

We are a reincarnation of Azem. That's why our soul is familiar. I'm confused as to why you are confused. The only thing I said that's controversial is Golbez is also a reincarnation because it's not exactly confirmed, but it's imo it's heavily implied as he's a paragon of virtue who goes unidentified for no reason and has their voice hidden. The fact Ardbert and WoL are literally Azem is well established.

I suppose you could argue we were Azem at some other time, but I don't buy that. I think the reason Hythlodeus mentions it and the reason they specifically denote Azem isn't around is because Azem is the unsundered version of all their shards in the reflections. In other words it would have been weird because they're us...seems like a pointless way to muddy the moment.

"With Ardbert speaking through the Warrior, Emet-Selch momentarily saw an Amaurotine who was an old friend of his in the Warrior's place. In truth the Warrior, and thus Ardbert as well, was a reincarnation of Azem, the fourteenth member of the Convocation of Fourteen from the ancient Amaurot."

This is from the wiki btw. My point being I was not aware it was controversial. The reason it is thinner btw is bc..you know..the sundering. You know we aren't a familiar and don't just happen to feel familiar to Azem lol.

And if you disagree and think the various hints in SHB and post SHB don't confirm it. Why exactly is Azem kept such a secret with the arc officially over? You know it, I know it. We were Azem. I never said it meant we can't time travel. I said it necessitates that the time travel create a deviation

Tbh I'm unsure why anyone would want to believe the literal WoL existed in Elpis. It's terrible writing. Just regard the Elpis visit timeline as a limited alternate fanservice thing that gets tacked onto MSQ for effect and honestly EW is great. I'm quite serious in that I really think all the Elpis stuff was really just an excuse so we could play it and meet the Ancients as our character. That's why I don't understand why people are so heated about it.

Sir do you not remember the words you type and what they mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

I played the game where it's casually hinted at multiple times that we were Azem. It's not possible the WoL existed in Elpis-- they're a sundered being.

---

Do you understand that the WoL was very literally in Elpis or not? Bad writing or not aside, do you understand that the WoL canonically existed in Elpis for the duration of the Elpis MSQ as a direct result of actual canonical time travel?

You keep saying these random things and going off on tangents about them. Kindly please stop doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Sir do you not remember the words you type and what they mean?


Do you understand that the WoL was very literally in Elpis or not? Bad writing or not aside, do you understand that the WoL canonically existed in Elpis for the duration of the Elpis MSQ as a direct result of actual canonical time travel?

You keep saying these random things and going off on tangents about them. Kindly please stop doing that.

---

Yes, I've said repeatedly that we time travel to Elpis. But my point is that, it doesn't make us part of the actual history. You can think that, I don't think that for all the reasons I've cited.

And I think every time someone "recognizes us" what they're reacting to is Azem. In the same way Hythlodeus does.

I guess I used the wrong wording. I meant we didn't exist in the past of Elpis as WoL, but rather Azem. As in the past PRE VISIT. The months, weeks, days, hours, seconds prior. We were Azem. We were likely Azem when we visited. That probably sounds confusing but I don't know how else to explain it. I'm referring to the time period. When we visit, the unsundered Azem wandering around but not shown, is actually us. We are there as well as WoL, so it's like we exist twice in the same space.

That's why Hythlodeus jumps on us for being a thinner Azem. Because we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

Yes, I've said repeatedly that we time travel to Elpis. But my point is that, it doesn't make us part of the actual history. You can think that, I don't think that for all the reasons I've cited.

And I think every time someone "recognizes us" what they're reacting to is Azem. In the same way Hythlodeus does.

I guess I used the wrong wording. I meant we didn't exist in the past of Elpis as WoL, but rather Azem. As in the past PRE VISIT. The months, weeks, days, hours, seconds prior. We were Azem. We were likely Azem when we visited. That probably sounds confusing but I don't know how else to explain it. I'm referring to the time period. When we visit, the unsundered Azem wandering around but not shown, is actually us. We are there as well as WoL, so it's like we exist twice in the same space.

That's why Hythlodeus jumps on us for being a thinner Azem. Because we are.

---

You've essentially head cannoned the entirety of Elpis as a giant Echo vision. Fun fact that's actually very close to how I suggested it should have worked some 600ish pages ago. What you are describing is time viewing and not time travel though. By this logic you don't think we actually traveled to the past and instead just looked at it which is prove-ably false; some of that proof I already posted to prompt this specific tangent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

You've essentially head cannoned the entirety of Elpis as a giant Echo vision. Fun fact that's actually very close to how I suggested it should have worked some 600ish pages ago. What you are describing is time viewing and not time travel though. By this logic you don't think we actually traveled to the past and instead just looked at it which is prove-ably false; some of that proof I already posted to prompt this specific tangent.

---

No I haven't. It's well understood that when you travel to a point in time where another version of you exists, it creates a temporal paradox. Which is why I believe the Elpis visit itself is supposed to be considered a deviated alternate timeline that essentially conjoins with the present mostly for fanservice effect (the Hydaelyn trial, the Emet pop up at the end m, the raids, etc). The WoL can interact with this timeline to essentially do things Azem would have thereotically done in the same time. That is the idea.

I have in no way denied the Crystal Tower allows for time travel, that we time traveled, etc. I've been talking about this for soooo many pages. You can believe the Elpis visit is a single timeline time loop..idc I don't believe that. And nothing you have proves it. The devs haven't confirmed it. Because the situation with Elpis bends the rules and they don't feel like explaining it.

And please don't repeat "but Argos, but Elidibus", because it doesn't refute what I am saying. Here is a similar take on reddit:

"I interpreted the Elpis loop as being us creating an alternate timeline like Graha, but where he stayed in the alternate timeline, we returned to ours.
Then Venat confirms the "convergence", where due to actions being carried out were so similar to the original past, that alternate timeline fused back into the main timeline, bringing its minor changes with it.

By this interpretation the events of history could have occurred without us, but Venat would not be aware of future events, nor have tracked Metion. History would have occurred how it was explained in SHB: Venat opposed the sheer destruction of life.

This interpretation also resolves the potential paradox of Graha's timeline where the WoL died before they could visit Elpis, yet history remained."

The only difference is they aren't concerned with a time paradox as the reason for the alternate timeline. They theorize its because it is too similar to the original timeline which, I'm not sure why. That's also why I originally called it a plot Mcguffin tho bc it's kind a joke. The reason doesn't matter-- the writers wanted to conjoin the Elpis visit to the MSQ so they did. That's the real reason. What you are thinking is that it didn't need to be conjoined beduase well, we time traveled and it's a time loop that is now history! I do not think that otherwise why would they bother so blatantly calling out the conjunction .. and this does not mean the visit itself is an echo view or a fever dream. It means it is a literal timeline, a pocket of time where we time traveled, that splintered off from the original timeline (aa the user i quoted explained) and conjoined to the present msq timeline bringing the "minor changes" (I wouldn't say they're minor but I mentioned them already).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

No I haven't. It's well understood that when you travel to a point in time where another version of you exists, it creates a temporal paradox. Which is why I believe the Elpis visit itself is supposed to be considered a deviated alternate timeline that essentially conjoins with the present mostly for fanservice effect (the Hydaelyn trial, the Emet pop up at the end m, the raids, etc). The WoL can interact with this timeline to essentially do things Azem would have thereotically done in the same time. That is the idea.

---

Where is it canonically stated that a paradox is created when you time travel within the universe of Final Fantasy XIV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Where is it canonically stated that a paradox is created when you time travel within the universe of Final Fantasy XIV?

---

They probably won't be able to answer that, because they (the writers) have not mentioned anything of the sort. The most that has been said in regard to time travel is that we should avoid discussing future events with the locals (like in Elpis) so that our future selves continue to exist. We ended up doing that anyway, and it changed absolutely nothing. It certainly didn't result in any sort of paradox. And the one person with the knowledge required to do anything ended up keeping it to herself, so...yeah. All of that said, the writers haven't really handled time travel very well in Endwalker, so I guess that does leave room for a lot of theories. The whole "convergence" thing that Hydaelyn talked about sort of...came out of nowhere, too. Nothing was changed, because she took it upon herself to keep things the way that they are presently. "Convergence" just sounds cooler I guess. In reality, all she did was guarantee that history was repeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

Where is it canonically stated that a paradox is created when you time travel within the universe of Final Fantasy XIV?

---

It isn't. I've already said that several times by excessively referring to my ideas as opinions. The devs haven't confirmed or denied but rather offered "maybes" and "form your own opinion on it". So that's what I did. And I'm not the only one...it is a very common idea.

But it's equally as common to take the WoL being in Elpis very literally when it really doesn't make any sense and creates all kinds of uncessary problems. I think you guys just like to complain personally.

And it defies reasoning in a way bc why then is Venat retelling us the entire sundering experience as though we don't know...the answer is..bc she isn't. Once we left her tineline our experience with her simply conjoined with the present day. The sundering abstraction we saw is the original sundering of a non aware Venat, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

They probably won't be able to answer that, because they (the writers) have not mentioned anything of the sort. The most that has been said in regard to time travel is that we should avoid discussing future events with the locals (like in Elpis) so that our future selves continue to exist. We ended up doing that anyway, and it changed absolutely nothing. It certainly didn't result in any sort of paradox. And the one person with the knowledge required to do anything ended up keeping it to herself, so...yeah. All of that said, the writers haven't really handled time travel very well in Endwalker, so I guess that does leave room for a lot of theories. The whole "convergence" thing that Hydaelyn talked about sort of...came out of nowhere, too. Nothing was changed, because she took it upon herself to keep things the way that they are presently. "Convergence" just sounds cooler I guess. In reality, all she did was guarantee that history was repeated.

---

You know what is even more annoying with all that? Venat's dialogue near the end of Elpis even mentions that we might end up finding our world very different when we are speaking to her before we leave. It gave me hope that the Venat, this time, might have been able to find a better solution, and that perhaps maybe a splinter timeline could have existed where the Ancients got a chance. She mentions not giving up on her species, but then does exactly that. I get that one of them is just general character being hopeful stuff, but the part about maybe finding our world being different gave me some sort of hope that maybe we would find a secret pocket of Ancients or something. There was nothing though. :(

Edit: And yes, I get that both lines were just platitudes that meant nothing, but at the time I was still hoping that somehow all these people I had come to quite like would be given a chance, even if it wasn't in my timeline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

It isn't. I've already said that several times by excessively referring to my ideas as opinions. The devs haven't confirmed or denied but rather offered "maybes" and "form your own opinion on it". So that's what I did. And I'm not the only one...it is a very common idea.

---

And that's different from headcanon how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xirean

And that's different from headcanon how?

---

The version of Venat you are painting does not officially exist either, I am sorry to tell you.

At least my interpretation of the events solves problems with the story vs creating frustrating illogical characters and situations thet make you think the writers have no idea what they are doing.

Most people liked and have moved on from 6.0 and I honestly find it depressing that there's still this topic about it up every week, haters hating bc strong woman did something I guess (idk what it is tbh). I don't buy that you're all still upset about an MSQ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

You know what is even more annoying with all that? Venat's dialogue near the end of Elpis even mentions that we might end up finding our world very different when we are speaking to her before we leave. It gave me hope that the Venat, this time, might have been able to find a better solution, and that perhaps maybe a splinter timeline could have existed where the Ancients got a chance. She mentions not giving up on her species, but then does exactly that. I get that one of them is just general character being hopeful stuff, but the part about maybe finding our world being different gave me some sort of hope that maybe we would find a secret pocket of Ancients or something. There was nothing though. :(

Edit: And yes, I get that both lines were just platitudes that meant nothing, but at the time I was still hoping that somehow all these people I had come to quite like would be given a chance, even if it wasn't in my timeline.

---

Your ranting doesn't even make sense please stop. If you believe the Elpis visit is what actually happened pre 1.0 then if Venat tampered with the timeline as a result of the future info, it could theoretically destroy the future we exist in. This is why I keep thinking its trolling at this point because you can't seriously not understand this.

Since you have clearly dwelled on it for two years. Honestly what seems like platitudes is your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtledeluxe

Your ranting doesn't even make sense please stop. If you believe the Elpis visit is what actually happened pre 1.0 then if Venat tampered with the timeline as a result of the future info, it could theoretically destroy the future we exist in. This is why I keep thinking its trolling at this point because you can't seriously not understand this.

Since you have clearly dwelled on it for two years.

---

I wasn't asking to destroy the timeline we were in, but I had been kinda hoping for a G'raha like scenario where the Venat we talked to when we went back in time actually found a solution other than the Sundering and there was some sort of weird timeline we would never see except maybe in a website side story (like G'raha's original timeline.).

That or a pocket of Ancients somewhere on one of the Shards could have been cool, but that will never/was never going to happen.

I assure you though, I am not a troll. Just someone who was saddened by the story in Endwalker after joining during Shadowbringers and loving it very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nayukhuut

I wasn't asking to destroy the timeline we were in, but I had been kinda hoping for a G'raha like scenario where the Venat we talked to when we went back in time actually found a solution other than the Sundering and there was some sort of weird timeline we would never see except maybe in a website side story (like G'raha's original timeline.).

That or a pocket of Ancients somewhere on one of the Shards could have been cool, but that will never/was never going to happen.

I assure you though, I am not a troll. Just someone who was saddened by the story in Endwalker after joining during Shadowbringers and loving it very much.

---

Well the timeline idea is interesting except that I don't agree. I have the literal opposite perspective. I think if we got a side story it would be the Elpis visit timeline continued after we left and we got to see what an informed Venat actually did. I think the Elpis visit is the weird timeline you are talking about but it was simply cut off to avoid messing with the MSQ. Which is why I think it would be cool if it wasn't cut off and had nothing to do with MSQ. But if that happened you would not have the context of the Hydaelyn trial, the ending moment with Emet and Hythlo, the raids, etc so they transplanted it into the MSQ for those bonuses.

This is also a huge issue with the very first post ITT. Because we are literally never shown Venat "not lifting a finger", it is simply assumed to be the case because people assume the Elpis visit is the original msq timeline.