*Spoilers* The Past and After the Endwalker MSQ End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Yeah, this is absolutely the angle. Tactically, Venat's plan was ironclad (or at least, as ironclad as it could get). Ethically, it was questionable.

To a point on an 'ironclad plan' though, you have to be willing to take the authors' word on it. Actually showing to exact lengths that a plan will be successful--and more successful than any alternatives--would just get tedious and boring, as well as lessening the impact of the actual characters enacting said plan, not to mention being basically catnip to people who value being smarter than the story over enjoying it. You kinda have to accept whatever groundwork the story goes through to confirm 'this is a good plan'.

Emet-Selch specifically saying that Venat's plan worked when his wouldn't have is part of that. Emet-Selch is a trustworthy adjudicator of Plan Goodness here, both as someone who initially opposed it and someone with a uniquely wide amount of knowledge of the situation, so if he says that it's the only one that would've worked then we can safely assume that is indeed true.

---

This sort of narrative economy argument only really works when the narrative is, well, economic - when there aren't unaddressed threads that seem to contradict what it's trying to tell you is self evident.

The writers didn't have to put the line from Emet where he suggests the convocation had special means of telling truth from lies. They didn't have to leave the implication that Venat's plan evidently is not ironclad by making the plot of Shadowbringers predicated on it having gone wrong in another timeline. The issue is not merely an absence of facts supporting the premise, but the presence of facts counter to it that require the audience to find their own justifications for dismissing.

The more controversial a plot element, the tighter the plot has to be to get people to accept it in good faith, and "cultural genocide was the right call to save the world" is about as close to maximum controversy as you can get. I think the fact that these forums, the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll, and pretty much everywhere else the story is being discussed are filled with people expressing discomfort or irritation with it self-evident proof that the writers didn't quite make it.

That might change with the post-MSQ content, mind. But it's at least true for the time being.

'Which in turn, leads us to our next question: how did Hermes, in his role as Fandaniel, not recognize the subject of his own research? We must assume that he either knew and was unable to help, or that he was otherwise prevented from identifying the cause in the first place. At this juncture, all we can do is speculate.'

'To be clear, the Convocation does not tolerate acts of deception or malice. We are practiced at perceiving truth, and would have known had Fandaniel lied to us. Hermes has no conscious wish for the world to end. Of that, I am certain.' (MSQ: A Flower Upon Your Return)

I think the reason why this passage exists is pretty self-explanatory. They didn't deliberately leave it as a clue for you to write AU fanfics with.

It's wholly unsurprising that there are still elements of society out there who would be uncomfortable with the idea of a decisive, messianic female lead saving the world. That doesn't make this narrative decision at all controversial or groundbreaking. I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

---

Agreed. Really, this is more of an omnicide situation.

As for the rest, please keep that trite out of here. We are an equal opportunity community here! Female figures are just as capable to commit world spanning atrocities as males are.

Jokes aside, I'm not sure what gave you that idea. The argument so far had nothing to do with her gender and was more or less civil and reasonable.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No, I'm just asking you politely to be respectful. If you want to dismiss that as trite, it's really not worth continuing the discussion.

---

Polite? Maybe. You did however passive-aggressively imply that some people here argue against Venat in bad faith due to some unrelated gender agenda, while also labeling a perfectly functional word used (more or less) correctly and not for laughs as problematic. Its hard not to respond to that without any hint of snark.

No, I'm just asking you politely to be respectful. If you want to dismiss that as trite, it's really not worth continuing the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

'Which in turn, leads us to our next question: how did Hermes, in his role as Fandaniel, not recognize the subject of his own research? We must assume that he either knew and was unable to help, or that he was otherwise prevented from identifying the cause in the first place. At this juncture, all we can do is speculate.'

'To be clear, the Convocation does not tolerate acts of deception or malice. We are practiced at perceiving truth, and would have known had Fandaniel lied to us. Hermes has no conscious wish for the world to end. Of that, I am certain.' (MSQ: A Flower Upon Your Return)

I think the reason why this passage exists is pretty self-explanatory. They didn't deliberately leave it as a clue for you to write AU fanfics with.

It's wholly unsurprising that there are still elements of society out there who would be uncomfortable with the idea of a decisive, messianic female lead saving the world. That doesn't make this narrative decision at all controversial or groundbreaking. I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

---

A request for respectfulness rings a little hollow when the first non-quotation line of your post is basically a dig at the person you're replying to.

I find there is significant problem with demanding Venat's plan to have "ironcladness": The main conflict is not Reason versus Emotion, it's Hope versus Despair.
Portraying Hope requires some amount of irrationality and lack of completeness, for the lack of better term.
If there is very well defined plan it becomes about difficulties of performing the plan well enough which strips the Hope element. If one get too unreasonable it becomes LoLrandom, that somehow works out cause Hope.

Instead, IMO the writers chose to show Hopefulness of Venat by her placing very "expensive" bet. So Venat is placing huge personal cost of being responsible of ending her own civilization on Hoping this will lead to us being able to stop Endsinger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pofruin

Instead, IMO the writers chose to show Hopefulness of Venat by her placing very "expensive" bet. So Venat is placing huge personal cost of being responsible of ending her own civilization on Hoping this will lead to us being able to stop Endsinger.

---

The problem being, that wasn't her "money" to bet. Anything that hinges on "you can't imagine the pain I felt when I hurt other people" is going to rub a section of people the wrong way.

I think the game would have been stronger without the montage, honestly. Then you can at least come up with your own plausible justification for Venat's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The problem being, that wasn't her "money" to bet. Anything that hinges on "you can't imagine the pain I felt when I hurt other people" is going to rub a section of people the wrong way.

I think the game would have been stronger without the montage, honestly. Then you can at least come up with your own plausible justification for Venat's actions.

---

But then people would want to know how it happened, and it wouldn't be the end of that story then because people would STILL keep asking about it. No, it was best they did what they did, else people would keep asking about it. Everybody here on the lore subforums likes to speculate, and unless they showed that cutscene, we all know we'd have kept asking questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

A request for respectfulness rings a little hollow when the first non-quotation line of your post is basically a dig at the person you're replying to.

---

Yeah…some of these comments just makes me realize why we’re getting clown outfits for all saints wake…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll

---

Do you mean on Reddit or the JP site itself? If the latter, I'm intrigued as to what they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Do you mean on Reddit or the JP site itself? If the latter, I'm intrigued as to what they were.

---

I mean the JP poll comments, here. http://blog.livedoor.jp/umadori0726/.../58861145.html

It's basically the same discourse as here. I'll roughly translate one for you as a sample as best I can. 216:

Quote:

---

Venat has become a character that I hate so much it makes me sick. Even if I knew she would be popular because of the way the story depicts her, it's true.

I liked her in Elpis. But seeing the confusion and despair of her people afraid in the face of death for the first time, she neither tried to care for them nor act in her role as an advisor.

Instead she said, "You guys are useless at life, so I'm just gonna create new life that'll be more adaptable."

What prevented Meteion's despair from destroying the world was Zodiark, who continued to supplement the Heavenly Veins (JP term for Aether Currents). And the ones who suffered the most were those she sundered and destroyed by her own judgement without notice or permission.

So why does she get a self-indulgent scene about her own suffering?

---

Janeway for me was correct "The future is the past, the past is the future it all gives me a complete headache" :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I mean the JP poll comments, here. http://blog.livedoor.jp/umadori0726/.../58861145.html

It's basically the same discourse as here. I'll roughly translate one for you as a sample as best I can. 216:

---

Nice, thanks for that. Can't say I disagree with that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Yeah, this is absolutely the angle. Tactically, Venat's plan was ironclad (or at least, as ironclad as it could get). Ethically, it was questionable.

To a point on an 'ironclad plan' though, you have to be willing to take the authors' word on it. Actually showing to exact lengths that a plan will be successful--and more successful than any alternatives--would just get tedious and boring, as well as lessening the impact of the actual characters enacting said plan, not to mention being basically catnip to people who value being smarter than the story over enjoying it. You kinda have to accept whatever groundwork the story goes through to confirm 'this is a good plan'.

Emet-Selch specifically saying that Venat's plan worked when his wouldn't have is part of that. Emet-Selch is a trustworthy adjudicator of Plan Goodness here, both as someone who initially opposed it and someone with a uniquely wide amount of knowledge of the situation, so if he says that it's the only one that would've worked then we can safely assume that is indeed true.

---

This appears quite contradictory. You're suggesting that introducing an Azem plan would inherently undermine the two others so that the Azem plan would appear valid while the Hydaelyn plan and Zodiark plan would appear invalid, thereby disrupting the narrative balance of the conflict, but at the same moment you also say that the Hydaelyn plan was "ironclad" and point out that the face of the Zodiark plan, Emet, seems to admit to it being better. And I know that you've argued that it wasn't just tactically better, but that it was morally and ethically superior as well. So the scales here clearly are not balanced, we have one plan that you believe is superior in every way, and which I would say the game goes out of it's way to prop up through presentation and sympathy at every turn, and another that is basically thrown to the dust without even the recognition of how it's aided us in the present.

In other words, when you're arguing for not introducing an Azem third path, it more just sounds like arguing for a status quo where the plan you prefer is in a better light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Yes, it does...

---

My use of the hypotheticals was to demonstrate that knowing of something, and knowing a basic form of its workings, does not equal being an expert. If you read my post, you'd know I brought those up to discuss whether Venats understanding of aether currents was enough to do what Hermes did. It isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Do you seriously mean to tell me that Hermes was not just a brilliant mind...

---

Given neither were widely understood, and his particular interests led him to experiment with them, yes. His desire to find extraterrestrial life and his emotions led him to experiment with Dynamis, his interest in flight and high altitude concepts led him to study celestial currents, and his position at Elpis clearly shows that he's an exceptional scholar even before rising to the seat of Fandaniel. There is a reason they chose him to be Fandaniel, and why all involved see him as invaluable to the halting of the Final Days. You are the one to assert that they are all wrong. That he isn't necessary, and that Venat for reasons unknown simply chose to not take the better option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Sundering all life on the planet and the fabric of reality was a far "bigger deal" than all of that...

---

She was certain enough to not trust the Convocation with what was to happen, a group she knew well and had no reason to distrust until this point. Once again, if you're going to hold fast to the belief that she didn't have reason to believe what she did (which the game repeatedly shows was a good call), then why did Hythlo and Emet agree that Venats plan was the right one in the end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

And yet Venat DID try to talk to them...

---

She stated, multiple times, that her reason for siding against the Convocation was to prevent another Final Days. She and her followers warned them that what they were doing was not solving the issue, and in fact, was leading humanity down the path of destruction. They ignored her, and instead resolved to sacrifice innocent souls to reclaim their "perfect paradise." If the only thing she did wrong was not explicitly telling them of Meteion, a piece of information that would have driven them further into despair, before having to sunder the world and Zodiark, then I have no issue with what she did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

This whole "tempering = had to be killed" nonsense is way past done...

---

They do not "have to be killed," but they have their ability to be objective on matters pertaining to the god they were tempered by compromised. I actually agree with you that wouldn't be enough. It was the tempering, plus the belief that Zodiark was their ultimate salvation and that they were fighting for their fellow Amaurotines that made conflict necessary. They would not accept anything less than the paradise Zodiark could promise them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

The more controversial a plot element, the tighter the plot has to be to get people to accept it in good faith, and "cultural genocide was the right call to save the world" is about as close to maximum controversy as you can get. I think the fact that these forums, the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll, and pretty much everywhere else the story is being discussed are filled with people expressing discomfort or irritation with it self-evident proof that the writers didn't quite make it.

---

I have nothing to add anymore between you and Veloran, y'all always nail everything much better than I could!

Quote:

---

Instead she said, "You guys are useless at life, so I'm just gonna create new life that'll be more adaptable.

---

I laughed far too much at "you guys are useless at life". Thanks for translating that. I hadn't looked at the original site and according to others the only thing the Japanese players have been complaining about has been the SAM job. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

This sort of narrative economy argument only really works when the narrative is, well, economic - when there aren't unaddressed threads that seem to contradict what it's trying to tell you is self evident.

The writers didn't have to put the line from Emet where he suggests the convocation had special means of telling truth from lies. They didn't have to leave the implication that Venat's plan evidently is not ironclad by making the plot of Shadowbringers predicated on it having gone wrong in another timeline. The issue is not merely an absence of facts supporting the premise, but the presence of facts counter to it that require the audience to find their own justifications for dismissing.

The more controversial a plot element, the tighter the plot has to be to get people to accept it in good faith, and "cultural genocide was the right call to save the world" is about as close to maximum controversy as you can get. I think the fact that these forums, the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll, and pretty much everywhere else the story is being discussed are filled with people expressing discomfort or irritation with it self-evident proof that the writers didn't quite make it.

That might change with the post-MSQ content, mind. But it's at least true for the time being.

---

Using a handful of unhappy comments on a popularity poll where she placed Third easily doesn't really work.

Its effectively the same thing that happened with Emet. Immediately became one of the most popular characters in the series, still incredibly easy to find comments from people who didn't like him.

Shit the discourse about Venat know is so similar to the discourse about Emet after ShB it gives me Deja vu.

But regardless, that poll gets to the real meat of EW, just how insanely popular Puddingway is.

What a hero

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

Using a handful of unhappy comments on a popularity poll where she placed Third easily doesn't really work.

Its effectively the same thing that happened with Emet. Immediately became one of the most popular characters in the series, still incredibly easy to find comments from people who didn't like him.

Shit the discourse about Venat know is so similar to the discourse about Emet after ShB it gives me Deja vu.

But regardless, that poll gets to the real meat of EW, just how insanely popular Puddingway is.

What a hero

---

I think the tone of the conversation around Venat is a little different to the one about Emet, even if there are some similarities. Though a lot of people thought of Emet as an evil and unsympathetic character, it was rare to see confusion about why he acted the way he did, or conversations about the quality of the writing surrounding him - it mostly focused on how he was a hypocritical selfish asshole and how people who liked him and were willing to overlook that were just horny or stupid.

In contrast, despite the segment I quoted, most conversations about Venat here and there are more about the time loop plot and her behavior in it not really making much sense, or making her come across unintentionally as a really bad person with unclear motives that we're nevertheless obviously intended to support. One is dislike of a character from an in-universe perspective, while the other is more about the story itself.

There's also a lot more of it this time around. I was around this forum after ShB came out (I don't post very much, so you can go in my history and see, if you like) and there was comparatively just a few threads about Emet. Most of it was people gushing about how much they loved the story, with no deeper controversy.

I'd also note that for quite some time, it was stated by certain posters that there could never be a good excuse for any of the genocides conducted within the story. That no matter if the alternative was death or some sympathetic reason was put forward, it was too much of a red line for any character or faction to cross. Similar reasoning was put forward in regards to anything to do with robbing another sentient being of their free will and agency. Once again, even accounting for sympathetic reasons.

Now that the Sundering was revealed to be an intentional act and not an accident, however, the act itself is being downplayed by some in a way that doesn't really align with what it actually brought about and involved. Given that the Sundering led to the extinction of the Ancients and was completely non-consensual...I daresay it's a bit odd for the goalposts to shift so far in the opposite direction!

Each to their own, I suppose. I am of the firm belief that Venat was made to be pretty likable throughout Elpis and that by not having her lose her memories alongside Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus her actions become far more dubious than they would have been had she not been written in such a way as to deliberately withhold information from the Convocation that would have been of immense use in the fight against Meteion and the Final Days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

...people who liked him and were willing to overlook that were just horny or stupid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slatersev

Using a handful of unhappy comments on a popularity poll where she placed Third easily doesn't really work.

---

Something I would like to point out is that you can like a character as a character and absolutely not agree with their views or even hate them. Love to hate and all that jazz.

Really, I could argue against Venats logic all day long, but I actually think third place is a relatively good fit for her.

If we weren't on the internet, I would argue that people can unironically like a good villain without forgiving their failings... but who am I kidding, in polls like these thats rarely the majority of the votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

snip

---

I did not expect Zenos of all people to drop such a good chain of relevant lines but I love being proven wrong:

https://i.imgur.com/alvYVPr.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

I did not expect Zenos of all people to drop such a good chain of relevant lines but I love being proven wrong:

https://i.imgur.com/alvYVPr.jpg

---

God, I forgot about that line, and it resonates so hard with the central debate they put forward; they saw this coming.

In truth, very few people were swayed by Venat's reasons or motivations. That's not to say that those aren't compelling, but by the time she said them, we'd already decided how we feel about it. It's no longer persuasive, it's just evidence for where we'd already landed.

Just like how, ultimately, no reason of Zenos' ever could have swayed Jullus. He wasn't looking for a good reason, he was looking for another avenue of attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

My use of the hypotheticals was to demonstrate that knowing of something, and knowing a basic form of its workings, does not equal being an expert. If you read my post, you'd know I brought those up to discuss whether Venats understanding of aether currents was enough to do what Hermes did. It isn't.

---

Why are you so certain of that, when all we're actually told he did was make the connection between the stagnating currents and the outbreaks of the Final Days? We are never given a technical reason for his import beyond that, yet it is also a connection that was already known to Venat. At no point is it said that nobody else's understanding was insufficient, rather it is simply that Hermes ended up being the one because he was positioned to do so.

Quote:

---

Given neither were widely understood, and his particular interests led him to experiment with them, yes. His desire to find extraterrestrial life and his emotions led him to experiment with Dynamis, his interest in flight and high altitude concepts led him to study celestial currents, and his position at Elpis clearly shows that he's an exceptional scholar even before rising to the seat of Fandaniel.

---

Hermes motives are one thing, it is his supposed sole authority that beggars belief. In reality even unparalleled experts in certain fields are not literally the only authority in their field, let alone in multiple. Meanwhile Hermes is supposed to be the head researcher not just in the study and creation of life - Something that like half the Convocation are supposed to be the preeminent experts on - but also the only one anywhere to have adept knowledge on two other phenomenon? To put it into perspective, this is like the head of the World Health Organization being the only person in the world to have researched both the workings of Earth's magnetic fields and discovered Dark Energy.

It should not be surprising that a narrative asking us to believe that a single person was simply so unique and indispensable that it was better to allow billions to die rather than risk upsetting him is an extremely questionable decision, both ethically and logistically.

Quote:

---

then why did Hythlo and Emet agree that Venats plan was the right one in the end?

---

Because everything was already done and set on that path by virtue of the game needing to exist, and the writers wanted to comfortably wrap everything into a happy bow where everyone's favorite characters don't detest each other. You'll notice that despite being the cause of everything and killing trillions of people respectively, Hermes and Meteion are almost always given eminent sympathy and are presented in happiness with the others in the closing art.

Quote:

---

She and her followers warned them that what they were doing was not solving the issue, and in fact, was leading humanity down the path of destruction. They ignored her,

---

What exactly were they supposed to do when Venat was withholding the reasoning behind her position? If somebody were to tell you to destroy your computer because having it would ruin you, would you do it despite not knowing that it was infected with malware that was in the process of stealing all of your personal information?

Quote:

---

they have their ability to be objective on matters pertaining to the god they were tempered by compromised.

---

We do not know to what degree they were influenced, if at all. The Loporrits and Emet in ShB would suggest very little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

He wasn't looking for a good reason, he was looking for another avenue of attack.

---

Put another way, genocide becomes justifiable if you have a "good reason", even if it was once considered so abhorrent that it must have been an accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Put another way, genocide becomes justifiable if you have a "good reason", even if it was once considered so abhorrent that it must have been an accident.

---

Indeed. A reminder of how our own biases can define how we look at things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

We do not know to what degree they were influenced, if at all. The Loporrits and Emet in ShB would suggest very little.

---

Emet spends half his screentime in ShB fawning over Zodiark. Sure he's not a happy little bundle of cackling craziness about it like Lahabrea, but he's clearly simping hard for old Zodi.

That and he outright describes himself as tempered IIRC. We've never known even the most lightly tempered go against their god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Why are you so certain of that.

---

Because, if that were true, then Venat could have removed him from the Convocation. Which then begs the question, if that were true why wouldn’t she. She had all the reason to do so. The repeated statements that Hermes was invaluable and that he worked both to identify the cause and find a solution to the Final Days explains it perfectly. And why the prerequisite of a technical reason? We don’t need to know the details to trust the fact that if multiple people say he is necessary, then he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Hermes motives are one thing, it is his supposed sole authority that beggars belief...

---

First, the Convocation demonstrates how specialized researchers in Amaurot become given how they focus on different forms of life. Second, unlike with modern researchers, natural aptitude to different forms of Aetherial manipulation also impacts they’re ability to do research. We see this reflected in Emet, whose aptitude for seeing souls makes him predisposed to the seat and to be an expert on the Aetherial realm. Hermes demonstrates in our fight with him an exceedingly good use of wind aether, as well a deep passion for the subject. Him being a pioneer in those relatively unknown fields of study makes sense. Celestial aether currents and dynamis have no known applications until Hermes utilizes them. Even in our world an unexplainable, unusable phenomenon would have few dedicated research efforts, until someone makes it worth looking into. There’s no reason to believe that the information that Hermes imparts on us of the subjects is not a product of his own research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

It should not be surprising…

---

Without context I wouldn’t be able to tell if you’re referring to the WoL or Hermes here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Because everything was already done…

---

Because as much as the consequences of their actions are horrifying, the reasons, the intent, was worthy of empathy. Hermes was emotional isolated, facing an existential crisis and the destruction of his last hope for life when we fought in Elpis. Meteion was a being created with the uncontrollable power to feel the emotions of others, and found herself in a void surrounded by the damned and despairing souls of the universe. Just like with Emet, I can say their actions are wrong, but I cannot hate them for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

What exactly were they supposed to do when Venat was withholding the reasoning behind her position?

---

If you had the ability to tell if a person was lying, multiple people were just ruined by something to do with the computer and this person was a good friend, yeah I’d say I’d believe them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

We do not know to what degree they were influenced, if at all. The Loporrits and Emet in ShB would suggest very little.

---

We don’t disagree. I’m just saying it didn’t help.

The tempered thing is a huge "so what?"

Revealing the true cause of the Final Days does not imply Zodiark would need to go. Quite the opposite. So it's not as though anyone is saying their god - who saved the world, restored it and continued to shield it - is the issue. Zodiark had to be maintained to form a shield around the world. Their entire dispute centered around those souls caught inside him; in order to keep him functional in his role, it is plausible he'd require an exchange of aether to release them. Also, we are looking at Emet 12k years later, and while he does say they're tempered, he frames this in particular around Zodiark's aspect of darkness and the Ascians acting as transmission belts of that. This is a known aspect of tempering, alignment to the Primal's aether, but it is only one part of it. As a primal lacking a presiding will to compel them to do anything, and without the flawed rites used in the beast tribe summonings, I am wholly unpersuaded that said tempering would pose an issue in their discussions or to them believing Venat's story, particularly when Elidibus himself emerged from Zodiark to mediate a dispute. Considering what Zodiark is (an entity formed of the collective will of his people to save their star), I am not surprised that Emet exhibits reverence to him... and even so he was willing to give the WoL a chance and deviate from his original plan... 12k years later.

Regarding Emet's concession on their methods, there is not much reason to take this to refer to ancient society as such, when we could simply go with the much more plausible explanation of it referring to the Rejoining plan, which is not really what Veloran is arguing about - which is to say the scenario where the ancients were given that information before the Sundering. And I have to say, unless she were to spill the beans on her reasoning and ditch the platitudes, I see very little reason as to why they ought to heed her and forestall releasing their people from Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jandor

Emet spends half his screentime in ShB fawning over Zodiark. Sure he's not a happy little bundle of cackling craziness about it like Lahabrea, but he's clearly simping hard for old Zodi.

That and he outright describes himself as tempered IIRC. We've never known even the most lightly tempered go against their god.

---

Almost all of Emet's time in ShB is spent acting against Zodiark's best interests. If he was so intent only on serving Zodiark, he could have simply killed WoL (much easier said than done but far from impossible) and left it at that fairly early on. This is highlighted in Endwalker when past-Emet questions why he would ever willingly invite his own demise to his doorstep to defeat him, not knowing that future-Emet set it all up in an attempt to find another way than the rejoining plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Because, if that were true, then Venat could have removed him from the Convocation. Which then begs the question, if that were true why wouldn’t she. She had all the reason to do so. The repeated statements that Hermes was invaluable and that he worked both to identify the cause and find a solution to the Final Days explains it perfectly. And why the prerequisite of a technical reason? We don’t need to know the details to trust the fact that if multiple people say he is necessary, then he is.

---

Metatextually, Venat couldn't remove him because they were trying to set up a timeloop and if she had done so the game never would have happened. Hence we have a very vague and flimsy justification presented for why she couldn't. This is clearly not something we are intended to dwell on, because thinking about it too much undermines the narrative.

As to the "technical reason" point - From the outset it should be clear that if Venat didn't have some prerequisite technical knowledge that needed to be used that only Hermes had, then she obviously couldn't know about that knowledge to know that they would need it. This is why the writing leaves it in vagaries, because logically Venat could not possibly know that he was necessary beyond the fact that he was smart and a smart person could theoretically be useful. In other words, Venat risks billions of lives on a very spurious basis, which again we are not supposed to inspect.

Quote:

---

First, the Convocation demonstrates how specialized researchers in Amaurot become given how they focus on different forms of life.

---

Yes, they are all quite specialized. Except for Hermes, who is a lone specialist in several unrelated yet plot-critical fields of study. For example they have experts in aquatic, terrestrial, and fungal/plant life - But no specialist in avian life?

Quote:

---

Without context I wouldn’t be able to tell if you’re referring to the WoL or Hermes here.

---

The extremely questionable ethics and logistics in fact apply just as equally to WoL as to Hermes. Because as Vyrerus pointed out much better than I in another thread,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

Because it's not mankind nor the concept of man that accepts, and is given the actual test; then passes it. It is one, idealized and idolized individual. An anointed chosen one birthed by the murder of original man. Prepared and groomed for the role, and given every tool past, present, and future to ensure success. If all of that is what's required to be worthy of life, then no basic concept for the worthiness of life exists.

---

I would argue that WoL's role in the narrative significantly undermines some of the presented themes as espoused by Venat, and the framing of her 12,000-year promise to WoL kind of makes it look like she destroyed her race and made countless billions of people suffer all for the sake of one person's existence.

Quote:

---

Because as much as the consequences of their actions are horrifying, the reasons, the intent, was worthy of empathy. Hermes was emotional isolated, facing an existential crisis and the destruction of his last hope for life when we fought in Elpis. Meteion was a being created with the uncontrollable power to feel the emotions of others, and found herself in a void surrounded by the damned and despairing souls of the universe. Just like with Emet, I can say their actions are wrong, but I cannot hate them for it.

---

It's not so much they themselves I'm taking issue with here, rather it's the way the story is presenting them. For example in ShB Emet and Elidibus were framed as quite tragic figures, but their flaws and villainous elements are still clearly shown to the player, their wrongdoing was itself never in question even if the justness of their core cause was.

Quote:

---

If you had the ability to tell if a person was lying, multiple people were just ruined by something to do with the computer and this person was a good friend, yeah I’d say I’d believe them.

---

If I could tell someone was lying I should think that would make me less inclined to believe them, not more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Regarding Emet's concession on their methods, there is not much reason to take this to refer to ancient society as such, when we could simply go with the much more plausible explanation of it referring to the Rejoining plan, which is not really what Veloran is arguing about - which is to say the scenario where the ancients were given that information before the Sundering. And I have to say, unless she were to spill the beans on her reasoning and ditch the platitudes, I see very little reason as to why they ought to heed her and forestall releasing their people from Zodiark.

---

He could have just said 'our plan would not have worked' if that's what he meant. The much more plausible explanation is that he is refering to all the methods he had at his disposal.

Sorry but no cigar. "Our plan" is not fundamentally any clearer in this case than "our methods", especially when the group he most recently belonged to is the Ascians, applying a very specific set of methods to restore mankind and the star, but at the 11th hour. I understand you want to believe that statement applied to the possibility of what Veloran is discussing above, where she reveals this knowledge to the ancients, and you can believe that - I certainly do not - but understand that it's not particularly convincing in cementing the notion that any methods the ancients had available to hone dynamis, either via facilities like Ktisis Hyperboreia, or via proxy methods, or even just by sundering a select few (given that just a few sundered sufficed to dispatch Endsinger, in spite of hoarding many stars' worth of despair) would not have succeeded. That would be a rather huge stretch. Out of interest, I also checked the FR version, and I would note that his statement is broader in EN, whereas in FR he is more specific in attributing to her (as opposed to their) methods the act of setting foot on Ultima Thule... partly accomplished, let's not forget, by tagging Meteion, as well as Sharlayan devising an escape pod. I am not sure what the JP version says, but if we say they're similar in their narrower scope, to me this undermines this as some broad sweeping statement about the ability of the ancients to devise a/any counter to Meteion had they had been told more, or even as a reference to the Ascian methods, and is just referring to getting there. A much narrower scope, I am sure you'll agree.

Remember that when Emet said that line, he had the knowledge that was taken and 'hidden' from him, and still says it would've worked. And he's had some time to dwell on it all, too. And yet he doesn't turn up mad that things were kept from him or certain that there was another way; he just gives Venat credit for doing what they couldn't have.

So me, that doesn't just mean the literal interpretation of saying 'the Rejoinings wouldn't have worked while this did'; he's been gifted with essentially omniscient perspective on this issue, and still thinks Venat made the right choice, never alluding to 'oh but there were other ways'. Since Emet is the sort of guy that'd absolutely take every opportunity to be superior, I take that to mean that there just wasn't a way to be superior about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

Sorry but no cigar. "Our plan" is not fundamentally any clearer in this case than "our methods", especially when the group he most recently belonged to is the Ascians, applying a very specific set of methods to restore mankind and the star, but at the 11th hour. I understand you want to believe that statement applied to the possibility of what Veloran is discussing above, where she reveals this knowledge to the ancients, and you can believe that - I certainly do not - but understand that it's not particularly convincing in cementing the notion that any methods the ancients had available to hone dynamis, either via facilities like Ktisis Hyperboreia, or via proxy methods, or even just by sundering a select few (given that just a few sundered sufficed to dispatch Endsinger, in spite of hoarding many stars' worth of despair) would not have succeeded. That would be a rather huge stretch. Out of interest, I also checked the FR version, and I would note that his statement is broader in EN, whereas in FR he is more specific in attributing to her (as opposed to their) methods the act of setting foot on Ultima Thule... partly accomplished, let's not forget, by tagging Meteion, as well as Sharlayan devising an escape pod. I am not sure what the JP version says, but if we say they're similar in their narrower scope, to me this undermines this as some broad sweeping statement about the ability of the ancients to devise a/any counter to Meteion had they had been told more, or even as a reference to the Ascian methods, and is just referring to getting there. A much narrower scope, I am sure you'll agree.

---

Nicely put - I'm half tempted to play through the French version of the game myself once Endwalker is given the New Game+ treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Almost all of Emet's time in ShB is spent acting against Zodiark's best interests...

---

Only at the very end, everything up to that point fell in line with the Zodiark plan. And if were going by what Emet says:

Quote:

---

Emet: And like one of your primals, He tempered us. It was only natural. There is no resisting such power. And so we Ascians came to exist solely to bring about the rule of darkness. His darkness. Of course, some would call us "evil" for it... and they would be fools. Though that is only to be expected, given their innate ability to conceive of the nature of our universe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Metatextually...

---

I just don't think it has the holes you believe it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

As to the "technical reason" point...

---

You do not need an in-depth knowledge of a subject, to know you need an expert. I could know if someone near me needed immediate surgery, but also know that I am not capable of doing so. Does that mean I in fact have the requisite knowledge?

Not to mention the whole point of going to Elpis was to find Hermes. Mentioning him, and the role he would have, would be unavoidable in explaining our presence there. This is further proven when Venat mentions the stagnation of celestial currents when confronting Hermes, we told her of the role he played, and the contributions we knew of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Yes, they are all quite specialized. Except for Hermes, who is a lone specialist in several unrelated yet plot-critical fields of study...

---

Yes, events involving one of his creations, a secret one that he told no one of, motivated and encouraged by circumstances he shares with no one else, makes him uniquely positioned to address things. This is true.

He is the one to figure out why the Final Days was different for us than it was for the Ancients, as well as the first to conclude that the source came from off-world based simply on his understanding of celestial aether and dynamis. Again the again the story says and shows he is important. I can't tell you how to feel about it, only that that is the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

The extremely questionable ethics...

---

Knowing that things as they stand lead to our coming, and acting to ensure that outcome are two different things. She states she will not take for granted anything as she "walks her path," and she will strive to do her best. Because, as she states plainly, "We cannot know until the moment is at hand."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

If I could tell someone was lying I should think that would make me less inclined to believe them, not more.

---

As far as I am aware, none, not Emet, not Elidibus, not the Ancients she pleaded with, not those who followed her, none accused her of being a liar. The closest was Emet saying Hydaelyn would undoubtedly have a differing view of events surrounding the Sundering. Not much.

Keeping Hermes and therefore the entire convocation in the dark was important because of Hermes knew that the universe was so meaningless, he would use his knowledge and resources to sabotage any efforts the ancients made to forestall the final days.

This isn't speculation - this exact scenario playing out was the entire instigating incident of Endwalker. The only difference being it was Xande who triggered Amon's desire for oblivion, instead of Meteion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

Keeping Hermes and therefore the entire convocation in the dark was important because of Hermes knew that the universe was so meaningless, he would use his knowledge and resources to sabotage any efforts the ancients made to forestall the final days.

---

I'm not certain about that. He reached his despair-into-madness point thanks to Meteion, but then he wiped his own memory of it happening. So he should be back to his melancholy but basically good self at that point, with no idea that the root cause of the Final Days is a disaster of his own making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I'm not certain about that. He reached his despair-into-madness point thanks to Meteion, but then he wiped his own memory of it happening. So he should be back to his melancholy but basically good self at that point, with no idea that the root cause of the Final Days is a disaster of his own making.

---

The more accurate reasoning is that if Hermes knew his wayward creation wasn't actually dead but trying to wipe out humanity as part of his "test of worthiness," he wouldn't help or actively sabotage efforts to prevent the Final Days. In order to make things fair he wiped his memory so he wouldn't be tempted to do nothing, since it was a trial of humanity (himself included).

That said it's made eminently clear in story that Hermes' knowledge and understanding of dynamis and celestial aether currents were vital to creating Zodiark and forestalling the Final Days. And it is indeed true that, knowing all of this, his reincarnation sabotaged the aetherial shroud protecting Etheirys (for his own reasons, or so he says).

Hermes failed the trial long before Meteion went rogue by not having any humanity in the first place. Much like Venat, he's another character the narrative seemed to bend over backwards to convince you he was a good person, but his actions don't line up with that being the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Hermes failed the trial long before Meteion went rogue by not having any humanity in the first place. Much like Venat, he's another character the narrative seemed to bend over backwards to convince you he was a good person, but his actions don't line up with that being the case.

---

I love Hermes and think he's a great character, but I guess it's only really just occurred to me that there are players that actually took his, "I'm the only one that cares about creations, no one else is like me, only I ever feel sad, therefore there is something wrong with society that I can only fix with an example of a superior way to do things," at face value?

To me, it was just so obvious he was a hypocrite? Maybe I'm wrong, but I really did think that the way he was written in how he treated Meteion ("that's not YOUR favorite food, it's MY favorite food, because YOU can't EAT") was much more borderline abusive and thoughtless than the way we saw any other Ancient treat one of their creations in Elpis. Meteion was ultimately a tool to Hermes, a delivery system to bring the words he wanted to hear, because he couldn't bear to try to communicate his feelings to his fellow man without evidence for fear of rejection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Hermes failed the trial long before Meteion went rogue by not having any humanity in the first place. Much like Venat, he's another character the narrative seemed to bend over backwards to convince you he was a good person, but his actions don't line up with that being the case.

---

...what? His entire thing is that he has humanity--albeit differently-centered humanity. It's a huge thing that he's the one guy that goes 'actually, it's kinda messed up that we're free of suffering and death but make creatures that are designed to suffer and die'. Which is an absolutely valid stone to throw at the Ancients; if you invent the concept of an apex predator I think you need to have a serious think about what you're doing with your life.

He's got a naive approach to resolving this question he makes for himself, and doesn't handle the answer he gets well at all (both essentially a consequence of Ancient thinking), but to say he lacks humanity is grossly missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

...what? His entire thing is that he has humanity--albeit differently-centered humanity.

---

Were he truly humane he wouldn't have turned on a dime when it came to subjecting all of existence to the Final Days. I'm not going to play armchair psychiatrist because I don't know what kind of mental illness someone has to have to do what he did, but it was something present even during the times people thought he was a "noble soul".

I'm not arguing the appearance he gave others, I'm saying it was false. Anyone capable of doing what he did is not someone who was truly empathetic or had a reverence for life. I believe Amon was closer to the truth of who Hermes was at the core.

Hermes' whole problem is that he's someone in a world of gods that holds human values. Amaurotine civilization is heavily patterned on ancient Greece, with their biggest players named after Olympian gods (Hermes included); the Olympian gods are famously hypocritical, petty jackasses to humans that place little to no value on individual lives, much like the Ancients pretend to be so much better than sundered humanity but are at their core not much different. Hermes just sees this tendency for the Ancients to place themselves above everything else and calls them out on it, making valid criticisms of Amaurotine culture that (are intended to) resonate with audiences but not his peers.

His whole "test of humanity's worthiness" is just an excuse to get out of killing Meteion, despite knowing it would be the responsible thing to do (something Emet-Selch calls him out on). Hermes loved her (or at least the Meteion he kept with him on Etheriys) more than any of his other creations, his civilization, and very likely his own life. A slightly insensitive remark on her physiology doesn't mean he only saw her as a tool, given he repeatedly shows concern for her happiness by asking you to take her away from discussions that would have her feeling down and promises her a gift upon her sisters' return to Etheriys. Meteion is basically Hermes' surrogate daughter, which is why he acts so irrationally when it comes to dealing with her.