Thank you to the moderators

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Are we really turning this into another story debate thread?

---

Either this or we go back to the stupid Drama

Quote:

---

Cool, Gaius is based. Thanks for the compliment!

---

Gaius is banned, actually...so in retrospect, you might want to consider not being like him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VelKallor

Gaius is banned, actually...so in retrospect, you might want to consider not being like him?

---

Man, Gaius van Baeslar got banned? Darn, looks like I gotta change my signature now. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AwesomeJr44

Man, Gaius van Baeslar got banned? Darn, looks like I gotta change my signature now. :(

---

"Such devastation! This was NOT my intention."

Don't worry, he's got more alt to spare.

Oh, we're doing the whole "Venat is the true evil because the bad guys planning genocides were actually good somehow" thing again. Nice.

I mean, not nice at all - it's not a justifiable argument...no, it really isn't - but at least it's different than the alt army discussion. I'm not sure it's strictly better, though...just different. In its own way, it's just as toxic. <_<

I maintain my previous opinion; both sides were full of horrifying mass-murderers and we're better off without any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

Oh, we're doing the whole "Venat is the true evil because the bad guys planning genocides were actually good somehow" thing again. Nice.

I mean, not nice at all - it's not a justifiable argument...no, it really isn't - but at least it's different than the alt army discussion. I'm not sure it's strictly better, though...just different. In its own way, it's just as toxic. <_<

---

The controversy stems from the fact that for years many insisted that no matter how sympathetic the motives, there was never a justification for acts of genocide or racial replacement. Some even insisted that if anyone even remotely liked or sympathised with the Garleans or Ascians, then they were 'fascists', 'genocide apologists' and all manner of other horrid things. Some took it even further, sending death and 'forced consent' threats to anyone critical of Hydaelyn.

Then, Endwalker comes along and reveals that not only was the Sundering an intentional act of genocide and racial replacement, but the Sundered exist at the expense of the Ancients.

At which point, suddenly the very same posters turned around and insisted that there was a justification for acts of genocide - but only for Venat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

I maintain my previous opinion; both sides were full of horrifying mass-murderers and we're better off without any of them.

---

That's a fair stance to take, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

The controversy stems...

---

Those people are idiots, then. Anyone waging death threats and targeted criticism of entire groups of people over a video game is kinda stupid.

"Emet did nothing wrong" - almost to the point of defending his genocide - was the phrase of the day in ShB, not the other way around, as I recall. I didn't frequent here then, but that was the general position on Reddit, USUALLY tongue-in-cheek, but not always.

What Venat did was different, though. It wasn't "genocide and racial replacement". One MIGHT be able to argue the former in a way - making immortals mortal isn't exactly genocide, though, and we know they killed themselves (or something similar) after a time, anyway, so they weren't truly immortal in practice. It certainly wasn't "racial replacement", and using terms like that is far close to calling someone a German National Socialist.

The difference, to me, has long been that the Ascians clearly realized that the "lesser" races were intelligent beings, but instead of working with them as child races, chose to sacrifice them against their will, even though they were just minding their own business. On the other hand, Venat didn't want to Sunder her people, and only did so when they were dead set on doing that very thing - genociding the lesser races that had already been created. They weren't minding their own business, they had made a conscious act to engage in genocide, and insisted on doing so again.

Venat didn't go to the people, see them contrite and working for a sustainable world. She went to a people intending genocide and tried to talk them out of it, then when they willfully insisted they would go on with genocide and feel no qualms with it, then andonly then did the Sundering happen.

Venat's victims, as it were, were not killed off (being mortal when the race already practiced death is not genocide), and they were people wanting to commit genocide.
The Ascians' intent was to commit genocide, and do it on groups of people who weren't at all attempting genocide.
Venat's actions were to save others.
The Ascians' actions were to save themselves, at the expense of others.

While there are any number of ways of arguing whether what Venat did was truly right or not (though due to the bootstrap paradox, one could also argue she had no choice in the matter, depending on how one defines free will in such a scenario), but they were very clearly different than the Ascians'. The Ascians' victims were innocent, Venats' had committed genocide against their own race, and were turning their eyes on doing it to all other life on the planet, including intelligent and sentient innocent life, so that they could prosper at the expense of their genocide victims.

.

That's why I really don't like this argument/discussion.

Clearly, they were different, and people trying to make them out as the same aren't right. Venat's actions are subject to debate on their morality, that is true. But there's a difference between that and insisting they were "just as bad" or "the same" when her actions were against a population that to a man was intent on genocide and the Ascians' were not.

That, I think, is the difference.

One was a judgement of a people who had committed a massive crime (genocide) and intended to do so again - whether you think Venat was right to be Judge in this matter, it's akin to the death penalty in that respect, rendered by a court for the crime of murder.

The other was a judgement of sacrificial fodder upon an innocent population - genocide, the very crime Venat's actions were against in the first place. This is akin to a court rounding up an innocent person, that the court knows is innocent, and the judge condemning him to death because the king's daughter was murdered and SOMEONE has to pay.

THAT is a pretty big difference, and always will be to me. Venat's victims weren't innocent. Whether she was right to judge them or not. Emet's victims WERE innocent.

.

But...

...it's a story in a video game. People can believe what they want. Though I will always find it odd when people side with those tormenting the innocent over those tormenting the tormentors...

I do kinda wish that we could just accept that people have different opinions on subjective things like storytelling. Some people love Hydaelyn (Like me!) and some people hated what direction they went in. Thats OK. Diversity of opinion is great when it comes to lore discussion. So long as we do not gatekeep, belittle or personally attack those on the other side just for that then it should be good! In the end, its just a video game, people should be judged by their behaviour and actions rather then if they simp the big mommy goddess.