*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The Ascians do not actually rejoin Shards by shooting lasers at the populace in the aspect they are trying to tip the Shard towards. Their plans always involve working with the population of said Shard and the Source to achieve their ends. They also don't tend to literally lie outright--though they certainly lie by omission--instead offering their chosen target something that will serve the interests of both parties.

---

I can hear Gaius screaming from Werlyt and Varis howling from the afterlife right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

We can see this in the Vauthry scene. Emet-Selch doesn't visit Vauthry's mother in the middle of the night, while she slumbers, to inject her with liquid sin eater. He instead approaches the family and speaks to them directly, explaining what he can offer then and what it will entail.

---

The deal was to ensure Vauthrys line would rule for perpetuity, not that he be the last king. Emet was clearly manipulating him. This wasn’t a partnership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Venat, on the other hand, lies to us pretty much constantly. She lies about the origins of Zodiark and Hydaelyn to us. She lies to us about how much power she has, what she is capable of accomplishing with that power. She allowed Hermes's lie to Emet-Selch and Hythlodeus to stand. She lies about what will happen when she assumes the guise of Hydaelyn to her followers. She did not tell us that we were shattered 14 parts of a greater whole to allow that to factor into the "choices" you say she gave us.

---

Only one of these is true, the others are reaches for lies or are based on no evidence. To blame her for not telling Emet and Hyth, when the game clearly states the problems with that, is unfair to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Zodiark was the work of elected officials after debate and struggle to save their star. Venat basically hijacked their work as a part of her own plan--a plan she didn't even share with her closest followers--and acted like the act of summoning Zodiark itself was some sort proof of moral deficiency. At best, she just kicked the can down the road 12K years for us to deal with. And if after all that, we couldn't? Well, she left her escape plan to the most isolationist society in the known world--thus practically ensuring the people that would be able to board her ark were limited at best--and the remaining six planets were shit out of luck. Looks like she valued their lives in the worst case scenario about as much as the Ascians did.

---

No evidence she didn’t share the full plan, in fact based on the recording in Anyder they knew more than the Convocation. And Ishgard became isolationist, to prepare. Before that they participated in international affairs as much as any nation, but given the gravity of what was needed, they withdrew to focus on their work. And how was that to work? Create 13 moon ships? For a contingency if everything else failed? We don’t even know if that’s possible!

Edit: I meant Sharlayan not Ishgard lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

No, actually she did give them a choice. That's why I wrote this sentence: "Though we haven't seen the full story, Venat, it appears, did in fact try to reason with the Convocation and seemed to have a faction that helped her summon Hydaelyn. The cutscene showed that."

Go re-watch the sundering cutscene if you haven't already.

Also, that reset was the point. That's what saved humanity and gave us a chance at fighting and defeating Meteion.

---

She approached them after the damage had been done, and she didnt exactly get consent from every ancient alive. She had the knowledge to potentially save the race itself and to prevent the final days altogether. She kept it a secret and then took control of every life upon the planet, sundering them. Again, people rant and rave about the consent with Mitron or with the rejoinings, you had better apply the same to Venat and her horrible decision-making.You call the plan to summon Zodiark idiotic. You realize the only reason they had to do this was because Venat refused to share information right? It's funny in your other post youre talking about choice, she didnt give the ancients any choice. She tried to approach them after the damage was done and their friends and family had died, and then made a decision that would impact the universe as we know it. However even barring that, Zodiark was the only reason we were even able to succeed, so by calling the plan idiotic, youre essentially saying that ensuring sundered survival is idiotic as well. Interesting take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

I don't understand how you can frame things in "choice" vs "non choice" and come to the conclusion that Emet-Selch is the one that is the one invested in non-consent. Note, this is not a "good" or "bad" aspect of Emet-Selch, it just literally is. Emet-Selch is actually huge on consent. (Just not informed consent.)

---

The "choice" the Ascians give the local populace on whatever shard they are about to destroy is manipulation and the illusion of choice. It's no different than if some conman came to you and said, "Would you like a million dollars?" And you say, "Yes!" and then he says, "Great. You just have to do this thing." You go and do that thing not realizing that the million dollars you are going to receive has just doomed you and your entire family.

Emet-Selch and Lahabrea were masters at identifying the weakness and desires of certain leaders, and then exploiting them.

But all this is moot because the overall goal is to Rejoin the shard, which removes the question altogether.

Zodiark was the work of elected officials to, for all intents and purposes, enslave themselves to a conjured god indefinitely. They were all going to be tempered and on top of that, still had no idea what the underlying cause of the Final Days were. The only solution they had after the Sundering was to genocide all the sundered people to bring their perfect civilization back. A civilization that was doomed to fall because, once again, they Final Days were not prevented.

Venat's plan outright answers Hermes' question and permanently stops the Final Days.

I don't think that destroying the world in order to answer some nutter's question is the action of a particularly sane or benevolent individual. Each to their own, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Snip.

---

I very much agree with all of this, and appreciate you bringing another well thought out perspective.

I do think it is odd to call Emet-Selch's role "ambiguous" in Shadowbringers. Sympathetic and understandable, certainly. I actually quite like Emet-Selch and the other ascians, and can sympathize with them, but at no point do I feel like there is any question that they should be stopped.

I will admit that in Elpis I was wondering at first if we could create some kind of split timeline, though the introduction of kairos dashed those hopes. It did make me sad, but it didn't kill my enjoyment of the story any. Especially when Venat explained that she intended to try to stop the final days to the best of her ability, in her own timeline. There's a sense that she tried her best and did what she thought she could to forestall things, but ultimately was led to the path of sundering. Rather than just doing it becausw the WoL said it would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I don't think that destroying the world in order to answer some nutter's question is the action of a particularly sane or benevolent individual. Each to their own, though.

---

Never said she was benevolent. In fact, in each of my posts I've called her solutions "dark", "controversial, "and the lesser of two evils."

And yet, that nutter's question is the basis for the Final Days as it is written in the game. That is the whole reason the writers have given for its existence.

I just think summoning Zodiark was idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

I just think summoning Zodiark was idiotic.

---

...and as has been pointed out many times within this very thread, Zodiark is the entire reason why Etheirys even exists both before and after the Sundering. If there is no Zodiark, there is no Etheirys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

Never said she was benevolent. In fact, in each of my posts I've called her solutions "dark", "controversial, "and the lesser of two evils."

And yet, that nutter's question is the basis for the Final Days as it is written in the game. That is the whole reason the writers have given for its existence.

I just think summoning Zodiark was idiotic.

---

Could you please then explain how it was idiotic? What other choice did they have exactly? Also bringing up Zodiark's tempering is a bit of a mott point considering we now know the "tempering" was very minimal, so much so even the loporrits say it, and we know from the short story the tempering was so minimal even the convocation was split on the 3rd sacrifice decision. Once again, the only reason they had to summon Zodiark is Venat didnt tell people the truth of what would happen and didnt prepare them. Had she told them perhaps they could have found a solution without summoning him. Its a bit besides the point though as her entire plan relied upon him. So in that case her entire plan was idiotic as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

No, actually she did give them a choice. That's why I wrote this sentence: "Though we haven't seen the full story, Venat, it appears, did in fact try to reason with the Convocation and seemed to have a faction that helped her summon Hydaelyn. The cutscene showed that."

Go re-watch the sundering cutscene if you haven't already.

Also, that reset was the point. That's what saved humanity and gave us a chance at fighting and defeating Meteion.

---

Sound also to me like the convocation of 14 was a ruling body of government for the planet. And they do tend to be able to make decisions on what they feel is right for the people. Also we have no idea how long it was between the last set of sacrifices and the third set they were proposing, so we can not even state that the common man had no choice in the matter. For all we know they did have that choice and the majority were voting for that third sacrifice and not listening to what Venat and her group where saying.

Quoted you Lium just to add this to it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

I just think summoning Zodiark was idiotic.

---

I wouldn't go so far to say it was "idiotic", the convocation might have seen it as thier only option. Though it is interesting to note that Hermes as Fanadaniel appears to be the one who designed the concept that became Zodiark. Is it any suprise that so much death was required for Zodiark to function, knowing what we know about Hermes' subconconcious desires for oblivion.

If Hermes really did want everyone and himself to die, then getting half thier population to sacrifice themselves was a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I wouldn't go so far to say it was "idiotic", the convocation might have seen it as thier only option. Though it is interesting to note that Hermes as Fanadaniel appears to be the one who designed the concept that became Zodiark. Is it any suprise that so much death was required for Zodiark to function, knowing what we know about Hermes' subconconcious desires for oblivion.

If Hermes really did want everyone and himself to die, then getting half thier population to sacrifice themselves was a good start.

---

Well...Hydaelyn required sacrifices as well so theres that, although i thought we had already crossed this bridge a long time ago and surmised the reason Zodiark needed so many sacrifices was because he required a vast amount of aether to perform his feats. Forming a giant aether dome last minute while the planet is decaying isnt exactly easy to do.I highly doubt sacrifices were their first option, merely a last resort Could you give a citation btw on hermes being the one behind Zodiark's creation btw? I dont remember seeing that, i always thought it was hinted Lahabrea did it what with the statues in akadaemia and him being the top master in creation magicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Well...Hydaelyn required sacrifices as well so theres that, although i thought we had already crossed this bridge a long time ago and surmised the reason Zodiark needed so many sacrifices was because he required a vast amount of aether to perform his feats. Forming a giant aether dome last minute while the planet is decaying isnt exactly easy to do.I highly doubt sacrifices were their first option, merely a last resort Could you give a citation btw on hermes being the one behind Zodiark's creation btw? I dont remember seeing that, i always thought it was hinted Lahabrea did it what with the statues in akadaemia and him being the top master in creation magicks.

---

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

---

Wellt hats what i thought i mean....they literally have the Zodiark statues in the Words of Lahabrea in Akadaemia and that combined with his supreme prowess for creation magicks, i just cant see Hermes being the one who did it. Especially because iirc it was stated in ShB Zodiark itself was already in the works pre final days.

The original decision to summon Zodiark was a reasonable one. If you're moving celestial currents on a global scale, then you likely need a suitably powerful entity with adequate energy reserves to be able to do it. The soul cost seems to correlate with the scale of the action being performed. The problem comes after, when the Amaurotians find themselves in control of an all-powerful being who is able to make their wishes come true in exchange for souls.

While the Ancients saw themselves as 'stewards of the star', we only have our own civilization and their nationalistic ideals taken at face value as a basis for this judgement. We know that there's at least one other advanced nation 'across the pond' that dates back to the same time period as the Ancients. The only surefire way to know is to travel to other places, see what's actually happening on other continents, and learn about their history. Perhaps Amaurot is merely Dollet to the New World's Esthar, and this is just Disc 1. The world is too big to simply assume that Amaurot is the beginning and end of it.

It's possible I'm misremembering wrt to Hermes and Zodiark, though I feel like I at least remember it being mentioned he was indispensable when it comes to combatting the final days. I might have taken that as meaning he deisgned Zodiark, since that was his speciality.

Though if Zodiark as a concept was already around pre-final days, that makes me wonder what the hell Lahabrea was up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

On the question of moral ambiguity, I much preferred Endwalker to Shadowbringers. As human as Emet felt to me, as understandable as his desires were, at no point did I feel his actions engendered or deserved ambiguity. He was evil, his actions only defensible by denying the very humanity of those he was acting upon. There was no ambiguity to me, his desires were for his own benefit, at the cost of others, and thus at the end did I not feel sad for the man he became, only what he was and for the love he clearly had for his people. When I compare that to Venat, an altruistic hero acting for the right reasons, on a path limited only to horror and pain and suffering, I cannot help but find myself moved more by the latter. And, I mean, just look at this thread. I’ve argued up and down that Venat made the right choice, a position I believe in, but nearly 100 pages of discussion shows the issue is not one sided. Even if I hate to admit it this is indeed what moral ambiguity looks like. Strong feelings, diametrically opposed, with either side saying full throatedly that they are right. Despite my strong stance I still look for other options, try to consider what others are saying in finding another way, and yet my own, totally subjective viewpoint is that she was right. And many disagree. And that’s honestly amazing! Even as someone that thinks it was the right choice, I still don’t like that a character that I sobbed at meeting and getting to spar with was the one who had to do it. That to me is the moral ambiguity Endwalker brings. Painful, ugly, yet necessary decisions born from the best desire to love all.

---

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between moral ambiguity as a narrative device, and moral ambiguity as experienced by the player. For me, many of my issues with Endwalker don't stem from the fact that Venat was a grey character - I'd have been fine with that - but that as many people on both sides have pointed out, we are clearly meant to view her unambiguously as right and good. A lot of keys have been tapped here about how no character given any credence really speaks against her and the framing during her scenes is relentlessly positive and affirming of her perspective, but a better example might be the description for her minion, which more or less just lavishes praise on her. Characters might be biased and framing can be argued, but when the narration of the game itself describes a character as a wonderful person, it's pretty clear you're meant to think of them as a wonderful person. When contrasted with her actions, this creates an uncomfortable dissonance that doesn't make the story more compelling, but less. Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

Even though Emet-Selch is also a mass murderer, I never got that sense from Shadowbringers. Characters call him out, and the narrative voice about him swings from negative to neutral to positive depending on the context. Even if it produces less discourse (though certainly no shortage), I'd say that's a better example of moral ambiguity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

While the Ancients saw themselves as 'stewards of the star', we only have our own civilization and their nationalistic ideals taken at face value as a basis for this judgement. We know that there's at least one other advanced nation 'across the pond' that dates back to the same time period as the Ancients. The only surefire way to know is to travel to other places, see what's actually happening on other continents, and learn about their history. Perhaps Amaurot is merely Dollet to the New World's Esthar, and this is just Disc 1. The world is too big to simply assume that Amaurot is the beginning and end of it.

---

Honestly, the existence of other nations and cultures in the ancient world is one of the biggest bugbears I have about the Sundering. It's one thing to pass judgement on your own culture, and quite another to pass judgement on all cultures, or at least consider them reasonable collateral damage.

It also means that Amaurot had their sights set on sacrificing more than lovable dolphins. But who knows, perhaps the level 150 dynamis ancients living over in the New World are having a chuckle to themselves even now over Amaurot's short-sighted grievances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

...

---

There are two passages that reference Hermes' contribution that I can remember off hand, the first occurs during your discussion with the Watcher after obliterating Zodiark, and the second is your conversation with Elidibus just before he sends you back to Elpis. His main contribution that we know of was in identifying that the corruption occurred where the celestial currents were the weakest (i.e. stagnant). Elidibus goes on to say that he subsequently dedicated himself to finding a countermeasure, but it's unclear how exactly Zodiark was conceptualized. I'm sure that Lahabrea would have played a part, given that this is fundamentally Creation magic on a large scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It also means that Amaurot had their sights set on sacrificing more than lovable dolphins.

---

I'm unsure what you mean by this. You're told in Amaurot that they intend to sacrifice the "new life" specifically, not any members of their species or pre-existing creatures.

'New life' could mean many things in a society where mentioning death without euphemism is met with raised eyebrows. I don't recall seeing that second clause come up as part of the in-game text, though, unless you'd like to provide a quote for that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

'New life' could mean many things in a society where mentioning death without euphemism is met with raised eyebrows. I don't recall seeing that second clause come up as part of the in-game text, though, unless you'd like to provide a quote for that part.

---

The English script is slightly vague, since the translators opted the frame the lines around the life of the planet itself rather than actual creatures, but the Japanese script goes:

Quote:

---

ヒュトロダエウス : そこで、さらにまた半数がゾディアークに命を捧げ……星を清め、木々や小さな命たちを芽吹かせたのさ。

Thus did a further half of the remaining people offer up their lives to Zodiark, that he might cleanse the planet and seed new life on it.

ヒュトロダエウス : そうして、再び命が巡りだしたとき……人類は、いかにしてこの星を護り続けるかを再考した。

Time would pass, and eventually life would flourish again. They reconsidered the best way for humanity to continue their guardianship of this star once that time came.

ヒュトロダエウス : 十四人委員会の出した結論は、こうだ。

The Council of Fourteen presented this conclusion.

世界を育み、それが再び十分に満ち足りたときに、いくらかの生命をゾディアークに捧げる……。

That when the time was ripe, and the world bountiful with life, they would sacrifice a portion of it to Zodiark...

ヒュトロダエウス : それによって、ゾディアークの中に力として取り込まれた同胞たちを、地上に復活させ……皆でまた、世界を管理する。

Such that he might revive those whose aether he had consumed for power, and everyone would once again oversee the world together.

ヒュトロダエウス : ……だが、それを良しとしない人々がいた。

But there were those who did not agree.

彼らは、ゾディアークに命を捧げるのをやめ、新しい世界を、生まれ来る命たちに任せるべきだと言うんだ。

They believed that it was time for the sacrifices to come to an end, and for them to hand the new world over to the new lives living upon it.

---

This draws a fairly clear distinction between the new life, which the Ancients want to cultivate and sacrifice and the followers of Hydaelyn wish to hand the world over to, and themselves. Unless you specifically meant the 'pre-existing creatures' part - it is vague if we're talking about just new members of older species which are now flourishing, or new ones outright.

In FF12, that Venat is portrayed as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who wanted to free man from the machinations of their fellow Occuria. But even still they caused untold pain and suffering, the game's narrative leaves it ambiguous just how much Venat's efforts truly benefitted mankind, and even the characters expressed varying levels of discontent for what they did. In the end it was very much a YMMV situation that allowed players to make up their own mind on it, and it made Venat one of my favorite FF villains. Because they ARE doing what they feel is best, but the game doesn't force you to agree, and while Ashe comes to agree on the "Occuria sucks" part, she's still not praising Venat for being an awesome wonderful person.

I feel a bit... disappointed with this Venat I guess? I feel I wasn't allowed to form an opinion of Venat/Hydaelyn on my own, the game just outright says how you should feel about her and how wonderful she is. I wanted to like her, but the way the game went about it just did not really catch me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RicaRuin

In short:
No, because supporting genocide is still very bad.

---

Venat genocided her people as well, and we would have had the dragonballs...err...Zodiark to fix everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HappyHubris

Venat genocided her people as well, and we would have had the dragonballs...err...Zodiark to fix everything.

---

Except that using Zodiark requires sacrificing an absurd amount of life. We can't really put a name on the crime that the third sacrifice would've been, given we don't know the selection process, but we do know that the people in charge of deciding that had no compunctions about causing genocides for Zodiark's sake. ...rather a lot of them, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teraq

Now, I think I could rant for several paragraphs about exactly how and why Endwalker let me down in myriad ways – and surprisingly enough, not all of them have to do with Venat – but I will try and make it short and actually relevant to this thread:

---

I agree with everything you said and just wanted to add that all of my reasons don't have to do with Venat either. I disliked the theme and how it was handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

---

You're not misremembering. Hermes is only ever credited with discovering the connection between aether currents and the Final Days by Elidibus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

---

This is the main reason I considered quitting as well. (I'm waiting to see what they have planned for the future.) I had to ask myself if I wanted to continue role playing in a game both written and developed by people I seemingly fundamentally disagree with when it comes to values. I also found the narrative full of platitudes and I'm certainly not interested in a game that's going to preach at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vehere

...the game just outright says how you should feel about her and how wonderful she is...

---

And this right here is 100% where I'm coming from with my arguments.

I'm operating under what's actually in the game. Not what could have been or what should have been. But what the writers actually put in the expansion.

These are the facts as presented to us:

1) Emet-Selch and his camp had a plan to summon Zodiark and rejoin the shards. This was shown to be wrong because it only delays the Final Days, not permanently stops them. And it does not answer Hermes' question. Endwalker, unlike Shadowbringers which was much greyer in its morality, was very much on the nose with this. It hits you over the head with it. Again and again. So much so that the writers even make Emet-Selch tell you in Ultima Thule "My way was wrong. Venat's way was right. You are to be commended. We never would have made it this far." Paraphrasing.

2) Based on what we've been shown with the way dynamis works, Venat's plan to summon Hydaelyn and sunder the world was the right way. Once again, the game hits us over the head with this repeatedly. "Learn to walk," "Through suffering comes joy," "Perfection leads to apathy." Hermes' depression. Several of the side quests in Elpis. Two-thirds of Ultima Thule hammer this point home (the Ea and the Omicrons). The final area of Dead Ends is completely on the nose in regards to the Ancients. The game straight up tells you, Venat is the tragic hero of the entire story arc.

This is not interpretation, this is not headcanon, this is not conjecture. This is the expansion.

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

The counterargument that I've seen repeated in this thread is "But what if Venat told the Ancients what she knew?" My response to that is, maybe she did? At least some. By all indications, she did communicate to a degree. There's no way of knowing what went down in those days leading up to the first sacrifice. We have some accounts from various characters and some cutscenes. But we really don't know what happened. We do know that Azem wasn't really keen on either faction. And we also know that Venat had some support.

Emet-Selch never believed a word we said even after he saw everything. So telling the Convocation what she knew still doesn't guarantee they would have changed course. And telling Hermes that his Meteion was still alive would be a non-starter. He would be dead set against Venat and everyone else. He's already shown his true colors.

Those are my opinions. But I'm basing them on what's been shown in the game. Not what I think should have been done.

Such lines in the sand make strike me as worthy of a raised eyebrow given that the Convocation could not possibly have factored the Sundered into the equation when they decided to summon Zodiark. Given that, y'know, Venat didn't actually bring up any of the key points that would have allowed for alternate paths to be taken. It also doesn't address the common element brought up in response. That without Zodiark, there would be no Etheirys. Thus, the plan is only 'idiotic' if one wishes to see Etheirys succumb to the consequences of the Final Days as it was Zodiark, not Hydaelyn, who both restored Etheirys to a livable state and served as a ward against the return of Meteion's influence.

The Sundered being subjected to the Rejoinings is entirely upon Venat's shoulders as a result. A deliberate attempt to wipe out a race - in this case, the Ancients - is going to be understandably be met with resistance. Much in the same way as I suspect that humanity in our world would seek to priortise itself over some other, alien race.

As for the writing itself? Nobody is obligated to like or support any given character. It remains to be seen how the story elements are spoken about in various lore related interviews but back in Shadowbringers the stance was very much the case of leaving things open to personal interpretation. Some people liked Emet, others were indifferent and then there were those who disliked him. The same can be said of Venat, so it'd be rather strange if - after Shadowbringers - the writers then claimed that people have to accept what she did as heroic and entirely justified.

Venat's actions benefitted the Sundered, sure, though only indirectly and not without Venat leaning on Zodiark, the Ascians and Midgardsormr. As such, I think people are free to dislike her and even disagree with her if they so wish. After all, genocide doesn't cease to be genocide simply because the entity responsible cries, sings and declares herself to be a 'supreme deity' who shows her supposed 'love' through subjecting her 'children' to abuse and suffering.

Perhaps most importantly, however, as Lauront and a few other posters have pointed out on a number of occasions throughout this very thread Emet isn't claiming that Venat was correct to do what she did. Such is readily apparent with the French version, which a fair few of us posting here work with! Still, each to their own. Everybody's perfectly entitled to their interpretation of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

---

While I agree on the broad points, I disagree on this one, because Zodiark was necessary to protect the planet itself from the End of Days. Yes, it wasn't permanent, but it was the only option to hold it off until a better solution could be found. Hell, Venat's plan only succeeds with Zodiark there, because otherwise the End of Days doesn't stop, and nobody capable of stopping it can survive long enough to reach that point.

The problem wasn't then, it was after. The Ancients as a whole learned poorly from the whole thing, and instead of going 'we avoided destruction, so let's rebuild' went 'this big giant thing saved us; surely it can solve more things if we feed it more people'.

I don't necessarily think summoning Zodiark was a bad idea. I think it was one of the many "we had no choice" cases in the game.

However, the story was dead-set on showing us that those who cannot confront despair will unmake themselves when given the tools to do so, and that's exactly what Zodiark was. We were shown every indication that the Ancients would continue to sacrifice their people to Zodiark in the face of their suffering, which was now an intrinsic part of their world after the events of the Final Days. The first summoning of Zodiark was necessary. The second one? Possibly necessary, but more ambiguous. The potential third one, however, was a clear and obvious indicator that the Ancients had no idea how to cope with loss and were incapable of doing so. The writing was on the wall. They damned themselves to oblivion the moment they had the power to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of what they once had. Zodiark had to be stopped, and the Sundering was the only means of doing so due to how much stronger Zodiark was than Hydaelyn. I don't think it was Venat's intention all along, either. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, she explicitly rebuked that after our fight with her. It's much more likely that it was a desperate, last minute decision made by someone who was every bit as traumatized and terrified as the other Ancients doing whatever she could to give hope to the world.

Because there sure as fuck was no hope where they were at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

1) Emet-Selch and his camp had a plan to summon Zodiark and rejoin the shards. This was shown to be wrong because it only delays the Final Days, not permanently stops them. And it does not answer Hermes' question. Endwalker, unlike Shadowbringers which was much greyer in its morality, was very much on the nose with this. It hits you over the head with it. Again and again. So much so that the writers even make Emet-Selch tell you in Ultima Thule "My way was wrong. Venat's way was right. You are to be commended. We never would have made it this far." Paraphrasing.

---

Again, this isn't quite correct. Emet admits that Venat's plan was successful at doing something his own never aspired to achieve, but this isn't tantamount to saying, "my way was wrong." He explicitly rejects that idea and says he still believes in his decisions and values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

---

Venat relied on the summoning of Zodiark to stop the song from reaching the planet. Without it, her plan doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm unsure what you mean by this. You're told in Amaurot that they intend to sacrifice the "new life" specifically, not any members of their species or pre-existing creatures.

---

I'm not sure of the connection between potential other civilizations and the new life, but a big chunk of life in the present is clearly from Elpis. Given how dead the planet was implied to be, it would seem that a big chunk of the new life was based on existing concepts at least.

Zodiark is stuffed to the brim with Ancient souls after all, makes sense to nab a few ideas from them.

-----

Speaking of souls inside Zodiark.

When the sacrifices were first explained back in ShB, I had assumed they were used for fuel and as a result they were dead and gone, part of me suspected Zodiark might have even been lying about his ability to revive them.

Turns out though that, yes, they are all still there. We get to the moon and they're wandering about, we even have a little chat with Hythlo again. Which raises the question, why didn't Emet just go and visit?

'You think your tattered soul of equal value to those I lost?!'

You didn't lose him bro, he's on the moon, just go visit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

I don't necessarily think summoning Zodiark was a bad idea. I think it was one of the many "we had no choice" cases in the game.

However, the story was dead-set on showing us that those who cannot confront despair will unmake themselves when given the tools to do so, and that's exactly what Zodiark was. We were shown every indication that the Ancients would continue to sacrifice their people to Zodiark in the face of their suffering, which was now an intrinsic part of their world after the events of the Final Days. The first summoning of Zodiark was necessary. The second one? Possibly necessary, but more ambiguous. The potential third one, however, was a clear and obvious indicator that the Ancients had no idea how to cope with loss and were incapable of doing so. The writing was on the wall. They damned themselves to oblivion the moment they had the power to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of what they once had. Zodiark had to be stopped, and the Sundering was the only means of doing so due to how much stronger Zodiark was than Hydaelyn. I don't think it was Venat's intention all along, either. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, she explicitly rebuked that after our fight with her. It's much more likely that it was a desperate, last minute decision made by someone who was every bit as traumatized and terrified as the other Ancients doing whatever she could to give hope to the world.

Because there sure as fuck was no hope where they were at the time.

---

Thank you. I guess where my "summoning Zodiark was idiotic" comes from is everything you said in your second paragraph. It's not that I was trying to gloss over the fact that he kept Etheirys alive, but that I was so focused on the consequence of it. The act of summoning Zodiark was a band-aid on a gaping wound. It couldn't possibly hold forever. Your bolded part explicitly calls out the malady infecting their society.

And this is where we get into the realm of conjecture because we really don't know what happened leading up to the first sacrifice. It's possible Venat proposed an alternative that was rejected by the Convocation. Although, I'll concede if such a thing happened we surely would have heard of it by now in some way. Hydaelyn would have probably said after our fight with her that she did try to speak out but was not heard or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lium

And this right here

---

You seem to have assumed that every other argument in the thread was not made with what's in the game in mind. It's what's in the game that causes it to be a Broken Aesop. It's what's in the game that causes the disagreements. The writers can self-insert all they want, and that won't change how people feel about or perceive it.

They can say Venat was right until they're blue in the face, and the characters in the game can agree with them, and they can show it to never go another way, but they only achieve these things through dubious means.

They're achieved by:

1) Ignoring that Ancients possess The Echo and can use it at will, and not merely peer into another's memories, but see them as they happened precisely. This makes Venat's excuse that she won't be believed a plot hole. How could they not believe what they could witness firsthand by peering into her soul? They don't need the environment of Ktsis Hyperboreia. Her soul escaped undamaged. The script has used the Echo in the past to pass on crucial information with such frequency that I've lost count. In every instance it has been irrefutable evidence. Yet, this time, with characters who can literally control it, it's not used.

2) Not showing the actual Sundering. By not showing the Sundering as it actually happened, they left the door wide open for people to take issue with it while simultaneously giving them very little to work with. This also served to disguise the horror inherent in it. The scene they do show goes more towards making it seem as Hydaelyn is suffering more than the people she destroyed. She's stained by their blood, black with sin, but we know full well now that she goes on being a Supreme Goddess who lies to every single one of her champions all throughout the 12,000 years until we start uncovering the truth. She may have even lied to her own faction in Ananemis Anyder, by asserting that Hydaelyn would only shackle Zodiark not Sunder the world.

3) Allowing Venat to escape Ktsis with her memory intact. This made everything she did intentional, rather than incidental, calling the morality of her actions into question. It's what makes her an Anti-Villain, not a hero. She used evil ends to achieve something ultimately good.

Zodiark could not address the Final Days' root cause, because he was not made to do that. He was made in ignorance of Meteion, because Venat would not open her soul to the Convocation. And even in his ignorance, he was twofold vital to Venat's plan.

1) The Hydaelyn faction copied his design schema and sacrificed themselves in a similar manner to imbue Venat with Hydaelyn.

2) His aether web was necessary to keep the Sundered world from being drown into dark oblivion by Dynamis.

It is absurd to allege that an entire race could not come up with a means to stop Meteion when it merely took a small coalition to stop her after she had gained power for 12,000 years. Just by having information about her. Just having scant information about Dynamis as well. Just having the slightest indication that we can even manipulate it at all.

As for the Sundering. It's been argued in this thread ad nauseum that it was not killing because people lived, but even if it killed no one, and I don't believe that in the slightest, it is still morally wrong. Essentially it nonconsensually cloned the entire populace 13 times, and then asserted that the clones not only have the right to life but a greater right to life than their donors. Who by the way "donated" every part of themselves in the "creation" of the Sundered.

By comparison the Rejoinings kill clones, which in turn returns what was, "donated" to its Source.

If that confuses you, then look at the line from Hydaelyn's speech, "Man will no longer have wings to bear himself to paradise."

Translation: I am going to mutilate what is currently a fundamental characteristic of everyone in the world, so that they have to live the way that I believe they need too.

By doing this she inflicted every real horror that we know, and some that we imagine onto Sundered mankind. Slavery. Racial discrimination. Sexual discrimination. Sexuality discrimination. War. Famine. Pestilence. Inexplicable death. That is the unfathomable genocide.

And did you notice? Hydaelyn still has wings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between moral ambiguity as a narrative device, and moral ambiguity as experienced by the player. For me, many of my issues with Endwalker don't stem from the fact that Venat was a grey character - I'd have been fine with that - but that as many people on both sides have pointed out, we are clearly meant to view her unambiguously as right and good. A lot of keys have been tapped here about how no character given any credence really speaks against her and the framing during her scenes is relentlessly positive and affirming of her perspective, but a better example might be the description for her minion, which more or less just lavishes praise on her.

---

Venats status as a hero in the story is firmly rooted in her intentions and the beliefs and values she holds. But that that isn’t saying Her actions cannot be grey. While the game doesn’t outright condemn her, it does give food for thought on the nature of her actions and the morality of it. She alone is held responsible for the Sundering. She herself states that the Her defining action in the narrative, was neither good nor just. Therein lies ambiguity, it’s just that unlike Emet and the Rejoinings, our presence was limited in the narrative when it came to Venat and the Sundering. If we were playing as an Ancient, I’d see the question of the Sundering and who side to take igniting an incredible amount of discussion. The Rejoinings meanwhile, aren’t ambiguous in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Characters might be biased and framing can be argued, but when the narration of the game itself describes a character as a wonderful person, it's pretty clear you're meant to think of them as a wonderful person. When contrasted with her actions, this creates an uncomfortable dissonance that doesn't make the story more compelling, but less. Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

---

But I don’t think the gross feeling is necessarily the result you think it is. You can hold that Venat had virtue while still believing the Sundering was beyond the pale. I felt gross when the game kept explaining how these mass murdering mad men were actually motivated by love, but I recognized that grossness wasn’t a result of the messaging, but rather the result of how that information makes the situation more complicated. I fail to see how the same can’t apply to Venat. In both cases the narrative gives ample reason to empathize, while still leaving the moral question up to the player. The only difference is we know now that Venats goals were predicated on information she and ourselves were left to keep to secret, and that ultimately Venat was playing the long game. None of this changes the moral questions of the actions involved. I think it perfectly consistent to have seen everything the narrative has to show, and still go ”that wasn’t right.” I think the writers would even be thrilled at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Even though Emet-Selch is also a mass murderer, I never got that sense from Shadowbringers. Characters call him out, and the narrative voice about him swings from negative to neutral to positive depending on the context. Even if it produces less discourse (though certainly no shortage), I'd say that's a better example of moral ambiguity.

---

But there’s no ambiguity. The moral question doesn’t exist here. He’s wrong, and that’s that. On this the narrative is even more clear than with Venat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Honestly, the existence of other nations and cultures in the ancient world is one of the biggest bugbears I have about the Sundering. It's one thing to pass judgement on your own culture, and quite another to pass judgement on all cultures, or at least consider them reasonable collateral damage.

---

Amaurots influence was far reaching, and given the lack of organized conflict I think it reasonable to believe that differences between the cultures of Etheirys were not pronounced, as they wouldn’t be limited by time, location or resources. The world of Etheirys seems even more interconnected than our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

1) Ignoring that Ancients possess The Echo and can use it at will, and not merely peer into another's memories, but see them as they happened precisely. This makes Venat's excuse that she won't be believed a plot hole. How could they not believe what they could witness firsthand by peering into her soul? They don't need the environment of Ktsis Hyperboreia. Her soul escaped undamaged. The script has used the Echo in the past to pass on crucial information with such frequency that I've lost count. In every instance it has been irrefutable evidence. Yet, this time, with characters who can literally control it, it's not used.

---

The issue was not whether she’d be believed, but the impact of that information on the actors involved. Summoning Zodiark involved a complex web of moving pieces, and any one being out of place could bring disaster. Informing the world that a being beyond the stars, born of the desire for death felt by countless civilizations more advanced than Etheirys, would not help handle a crisis that feeds on fear and doubt. Then there’s how Hermes would react, a necessary contributor to the salvation of Etheirys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

2) Not showing the actual Sundering. By not showing the Sundering as it actually happened, they left the door wide open for people to take issue with it while simultaneously giving them very little to work with. This also served to disguise the horror inherent in it. The scene they do show goes more towards making it seem as Hydaelyn is suffering more than the people she destroyed. She's stained by their blood, black with sin, but we know full well now that she goes on being a Supreme Goddess who lies to every single one of her champions all throughout the 12,000 years until we start uncovering the truth. She may have even lied to her own faction in Ananemis Anyder, by asserting that Hydaelyn would only shackle Zodiark not Sunder the world.

---

A woman who loved her world and the people in it, whose very meaning in life was to travel and help those selfsame people, is trapped in Aetherial Sea, surrounded by the souls of those who perished as a result of the world she acted to make, forced to offer more and more of her Aether in a desperate attempt to ensure it wasn’t all for nothing, all the while watching as the people she loves tear themselves apart. Yes she did suffer.

And once again, the fact that one of those Anyder argued to the Convocation that they didn’t stop the Final Days shows they knew. The fact that Zodiark was the literal will for the star meant that to harm him meant harming the star. All of this is clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

3) Allowing Venat to escape Ktsis with her memory intact. This made everything she did intentional, rather than incidental, calling the morality of her actions into question. It's what makes her an Anti-Villain, not a hero. She used evil ends to achieve something ultimately good.

---

Much in the same way as a doctor who amputates a leg to prevent the person from dying, she acted to prevent the world from dooming itself. There are various ways to look at her actions and see it just, the Principle of Permissible Harm, The Double Affect, all are perspectives that make her more than an “anti villain.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

If that confuses you, then look at the line from Hydaelyn's speech, "Man will no longer have wings to bear himself to paradise."

Translation: I am going to mutilate what is currently a fundamental characteristic of everyone in the world, so that they have to live the way that I believe they need too.

---

This misses the whole point of this scene. She does not act out of the belief they should simply follow her “way of life” but rather that Zodiarks power makes all other paths incredibly hard. If I knew a benevolent deity would solve all my problems with a flick of his finger, that I wouldn’t need to suffer ever again (or at least think I wouldn’t), why would I do anything but worship him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

By doing this she inflicted every real horror that we know, and some that we imagine onto Sundered mankind. Slavery. Racial discrimination. Sexual discrimination. Sexuality discrimination. War. Famine. Pestilence. Inexplicable death. That is the unfathomable genocide.

And did you notice? Hydaelyn still has wings.

---

It is undeniable that the Ancient world experienced less suffering and it’s a shame when faced with the barest evidence of mortally and loss they were prepared to do anything to escape. Let’s be clear, the Sundered do not have any less virtue or moral fiber than the Ancients, they just face more desperate circumstances. As we see in Pandaemonium, conflict, strife, and injustice exist as well in the Unsundered World. They just could afford to shove it deep underground and forget about it.

I’d prefer if she got the chance to walk the world she helped save, got to meet and help the people she loved. Wings are a poor prize for a hero such as she.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teah_Kaye

I believe it was only possible for us to interact with the trapped souls on the moon because Fandaniel and Zenos had already broken some of Zodiark's seals.

---

Hmm, I could see that being the case. Works for me.

-----

Still not really sure why He had to keep hold them though, guess it was just bad design, first proper summoning and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Venats status as a hero in the story is firmly rooted in her intentions and the beliefs and values she holds. But that that isn’t saying Her actions cannot be grey. While the game doesn’t outright condemn her, it does give food for thought on the nature of her actions and the morality of it. She alone is held responsible for the Sundering. She herself states that the Her defining action in the narrative, was neither good nor just. Therein lies ambiguity, it’s just that unlike Emet and the Rejoinings, our presence was limited in the narrative when it came to Venat and the Sundering. If we were playing as an Ancient, I’d see the question of the Sundering and who side to take igniting an incredible amount of discussion. The Rejoinings meanwhile, aren’t ambiguous in the slightest.

---

There's no real way to say this softly, so I'll be blunt: I don't agree that it gives any food for thought at all. Venat's brief statement - immediately denied by Y'shtola - that she did something unkind does not offset the universal positivity in which she is framed by the characters, quest log dialogue, the aforementioned minion dialogue, and the range of responses given to the player character, all of which are unabashed in positivity towards her at all occasions. Regardless of whether they end up on our side or not, this is not a treatment that any other NPC who is intended to read as morally complicated (eg: Lolorito, Ysayle, Estinien, Regula, Yotsuyu, Emet, Elidibus, Fourchenault) gets.

This is so self-evident to me that I don't think there is any point in discussing the subject if we can't agree. We might as well have played different games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

There's no real way to say this softly, so I'll be blunt: I don't agree that it gives any food for thought at all. Venat's brief statement - immediately refuted by Y'shtola - that she did something unkind does not offset the universal positivity in which she is framed by the characters, quest log dialogue, the aforementioned minion dialogue, and the range of responses given to the player character, all of which are unabashed in positivity towards her at all occasions. Regardless of whether they end up on our side or not, this is not a treatment that any other NPC who is intended to read as morally complicated (eg: Lolorito, Ysayle, Estinien, Regula, Yotsuyu, Emet, Elidibus) gets.

---

Ysayle is actually a great example, as she has a similar presentation to Venat. She commits morally ambiguous acts for a good reason and despite the ambiguity that game doesn’t focus on her moral failings, and instead all parties, even those violently opposed to her, give her praise.

And that statement want “refuted” at all, Y’shtola simply observes a reason for her actions. Hell Hydaelyn immediately follows Y’shtolas statement with the “there was no kindness nor justice in the bloodshed I wrought” line. So no, the narrative never errs from including that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

This is so self-evident to me that I don't think there is any point in discussing the subject if we can't agree. We might as well have played different games.

---

I find myself feeling similarly. I think some people just don’t like Venat. And I think some people like Venat. It seems like that’s all this truly comes down to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Ysayle is actually a great example, as she has a similar presentation to Venat. She commits morally ambiguous acts for a good reason and despite the ambiguity that game doesn’t focus on her moral failings, and instead all parties, even those violently opposed to her, give her praise.

And that statement want “refuted” at all, Y’shtola simply observes a reason for her actions. Hell Hydaelyn immediately follows Y’shtolas statement with the “there was no kindness nor justice in the bloodshed I wrought” line. So no, the narrative never errs from including that point.

---

If you read the quest log annotation for Ysayle, her minion dialogue, or the reactions the characters have to her throughout the story and upon her death, she couldn't be more different to Venat. All of them are neutral or acknowledge that, even though she ultimately did something heroic, she was a complicated character. They do not straight up tell you she is a hero. I understand that if you were comfortable with the story of EW to begin with you might not have gone trawling around looking for this stuff to check whether or not you've gone crazy for disliking it, but it really does feel like night and day.

As for Y'shtola, I didn't mean her comment in the cutscene, but rather what she says if you speak with her afterwards. She says (paraphrasing) that though Venat might have thought of herself as cruel person, she just couldn't see how much good she'd truly done for the world. Again, in terms of what the story wants you to feel, it comes across as about as subtle as a sack of bricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I find myself feeling similarly. I think some people just don’t like Venat. And I think some people like Venat. It seems like that’s all this truly comes down to.

---

I've said this before, but I earnestly don't dislike Venat's character in isolation. She's very charming in Elpis, and if you ignore the framing of the game, you can read the Sundering as a coldly utilitarian act, or as an fallible ideological decision that framed strength and embracing suffering as pivotal to the expense of all else - I could go on.

The issue isn't with her, it's with the game itself. My strong impression is that it doesn't want me to think she's interesting or analyze her actions critically, it wants me to love her and think of her as a savior and also my mom. I find that really uncomfortable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

The issue isn't with her, it's with the game itself. My strong impression is that it doesn't want me to think she's interesting or analyze her actions critically, it wants me to love her and think of her as a savior and also my mom. And that's weird.

---

Where is the issue then? That game shows her as what she specifically IS (mom and savior) for each and every character present when meeting her?

Does the fact that your progenitor Diety is not Unfallable, Omniscient, doesn't share your moral values, has committed atrocities, was Duplicious and Hasardous to You yourself and was generaly pshychopatically autoritarian somehow change the fact that she WAS in fact responsible for your creation and focused every effort in continued survival of you and yours?

There is so much Zenoism going around here. Where people judge the story from their own personal moral towers, without adjusting for POW of the characters present. Can you give good reason Why Alisae or Yshtola would not feel at least somewhat grateful to Hydelyn?

There's no such thing as a neutral viewpoint. Characters express their own views, not some "objective" abstraction.

The Watcher: 'Like Zodiark, Hydaelyn's purpose is a reflection of her creators'. They wished to look to the future, and not linger in a prison of the past.'
Y'shtola: 'The Ascians set in motion seven Rejoinings before we came to oppose them. How many more worlds would have been lost had we not placed our faith in Her? How many more souls living in the present would have been snuffed out for the sake of those long dead?'

Now you can turn around and say that the Ascians' counterpoint to Hydaelyn is unfairly represented in the current era. Which makes sense, because most people still alive would consider it to be a really uncomfortable viewpoint. That doesn't stop you from rooting for whichever side you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm unsure what you mean by this. You're told in Amaurot that they intend to sacrifice the "new life" specifically, not any members of their species or pre-existing creatures.

---

Your supporting quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

世界を育み、それが再び十分に満ち足りたときに、いくらかの生命をゾディアークに捧げる……。

That when the time was ripe, and the world bountiful with life, they would sacrifice a portion of it to Zodiark...

---

The reason why I asked for a citation was because I knew that it wasn't supported by the in-game text. You knew this as well. The reason why the lore discussion in these forums gets progressively more distorted with each retelling is because people like sprinkling in partial truths on their fiction.