Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What an absolutely bizarre thing to say. The game has never hypothesized that Venat's way was the only/best way, only that she thought it was the best way, in the same way that Emet-Selch thought that only the Ancients had the temperament and fortitude to take stewardship over the star. (Hint: both of them were wrong.)

---

Exactly. This isn't a matter of objective right and wrong. There were no good options in the first place. All any of them could do was make what they thought was the best choice in that moment and hope it all worked out.

And really, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Did you ever play FFTA? Emet-Selch is basically Marche and the only reason we're not rooting for him is because we're playing on team Mewt instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Unsundered or otherwise, mankind was always flawed in their own ways, though considering it from a strictly physical standpoint, they were damaged, living fleeting lives that are oft cut short by disease, famine, and myriad other factors that either didn't exist or didn't affect them originally.

The flaws the unsundered possessed are still present in the sundered as well, only now the lack of respect for life and death extends to their fellow man as well.

Perhaps they weren't objectively better, but it's hard for me to see them as not being better overall.

---

Better overall would I suppose be dependent on what is valued. In terms of comfort there’s a clear winner, but in terms of virtue? The sundered’s fleeting lives lead them to a greater appreciation for what life has to offer. Conflict and strife lead many to develop a conception of what is just and ethical. Again this is isn’t to glamorize suffering, I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all. To me it’s the Sundered that more purely embody what makes humanity worth fighting for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

What an absolutely bizarre thing to say. The game has never hypothesized that Venat's way was the only/best way, only that she thought it was the best way, in the same way that Emet-Selch thought that only the Ancients had the temperament and fortitude to take stewardship over the star. (Hint: both of them were wrong.) It's like you're saying the only math equation that comes out to the answer "4" is "8/2=", when Emet-Selch's equation might be "2+2=", etc, etc.

---

Even steel-manning Shb Emet I struggle to see how he was supposedly doing this because it was the “best way.” The man himself didn’t believe that schtick, given how desperately he tried to dehumanize and other the Sundered. It’s like when Elidibius would complain about the Sundereds memories, just blatantly self defeating logic.

He goes on these long rants about how great the Ancients are, and then follows it up by handwaving ruining the 13th, sacrificing untold innocent souls to bring his friends back because “the world belongs to us and us alone,” and then proceeds to invite his own downfall. Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

He doesn't.

That was one of the main themes of ShB and why Emet-Selch was satisfied in the end even though he lost. He was too tired to care any more and one way or the other just wanted it to be over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

I actually do agree with a good bit of what you're saying here, which I'm glad to say, though I think it can be argued that the Ancients valued their lives as well, just in a different more foreign sort of way than Sundered (and by extension, humanity as we know it) do. I'd call it a product of their culture really, they were enthused to the concept of enriching the world with that they had to offer and then, when they've decided they've done enough, have their rest by returning to the star and gracing the world anew with the person their soul would embody next. I think its their understanding of the cycle that makes the whole thing more heartening in my opinion. It's definitely different, but I myself wouldn't call one way of life superior to another. There's arguments in favor of both, which is what makes it such a compelling moral dilemma.

As for Emet, you're absolutely right that he's suffering inside as a result of what he's doing. Those insults and attempts at dehumanization that he throws at the Sundered are all his ways of coping with the scale of the destruction that he's bringing upon people. He was too good a person in the past for this not to phase him. However, I don't think that invalidates his beliefs. Those beliefs are what carry him to continue doing the things he does, and though its embittered him to the point where he's as hostile as he is to everything else, I think he still genuinely believed that their way of life was superior to the ones that he bore witness to, ones that often ended in tragedy and death. I'm sure he saw in the long run, he was saving people from living tragic lives, as he says "By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity," before laying it on thick with even more dehumanization. His true beliefs are there, just buried in prejudice.

The ideal is present, but its the method of getting there, which requires hurting and killing people, that's eating him up inside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightamethyst

Exactly. This isn't a matter of objective right and wrong. There were no good options in the first place. All any of them could do was make what they thought was the best choice in that moment and hope it all worked out.

And really, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Did you ever play FFTA? Emet-Selch is basically Marche and the only reason we're not rooting for him is because we're playing on team Mewt instead.

---

tbh because of how to the story is written i couldnt root for marche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Better overall would I suppose be dependent on what is valued. In terms of comfort there’s a clear winner, but in terms of virtue? The sundered’s fleeting lives lead them to a greater appreciation for what life has to offer. Conflict and strife lead many to develop a conception of what is just and ethical. Again this is isn’t to glamorize suffering, I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all. To me it’s the Sundered that more purely embody what makes humanity worth fighting for.



Even steel-manning Shb Emet I struggle to see how he was supposedly doing this because it was the “best way.” The man himself didn’t believe that schtick, given how desperately he tried to dehumanize and other the Sundered. It’s like when Elidibius would complain about the Sundereds memories, just blatantly self defeating logic.

He goes on these long rants about how great the Ancients are, and then follows it up by handwaving ruining the 13th, sacrificing untold innocent souls to bring his friends back because “the world belongs to us and us alone,” and then proceeds to invite his own downfall. Perhaps I’m being unfair to him, but I don’t even think he agrees with what he says deep down.

---

I believe there is moral value in making life comfortable for other human beings, and I feel it is immoral to bring suffering, pestilence, starvation, and war upon a species that had never suffered such before. So yes, I consider Venat's actions to be morally reprehensible. Also, we should be working to minimize strife, not glorifying it, and doing more for our fellows. Tha Ancients embodied every single bit of my moral principles before they got bodied by Venat, so of course I believe they should have been the ones to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I believe there is moral value in making life comfortable for other human beings, and I feel it is immoral to bring suffering, pestilence, starvation, and war upon a species that had never suffered such before. So yes, I consider Venat's actions to be morally reprehensible.

---

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

---

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I have to wonder where that ends then. The Ancients desire for comfort would ultimately lead them to destruction, so is oblivion better than pain? Is it ever acceptable to cause pain, or is the ultimate good simply to maximize comfort?

After all that’s ultimately the dilemma Venat faced.

---

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

I just can’t really say that the Ancients were better when most of what made them “better” came as happenstance and luck after all.

---

Literally 99% of the WoL’s successes/wins in the story is due to happenstance and luck though…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

---

Ancient society may have survived the Final Days but mankinds destruction would have been written in stone down the line with their current trajectory. Yoshi-P / Ichigawa confirmed in interview that their society would have lead to something akin to the final location of The Dead Ends dungeon so you can't suddenly disregard that even if you feel it's not relevant. The way the amaurotines were heading, they would have by default, created something they couldn't unmake that leads to their own destruction or continually experiementing on every avenue of life till they had nothing left to question (cause they technically had the resources and time to do this)

Technically the cycle of permenant life and death already existing on Etheirys post Hydaelyn sundering prevents them having enough time to unlock immoratalilty canon wise. Already took them generations to unlock a very basic one way time travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havenchild

Ancient society may have survived the Final Days but mankinds destruction would have been written in stone down the line with their current trajectory. Yoshi-P / Ichigawa confirmed in interview that their society would have lead to something akin to the final location of The Dead Ends dungeon so you can't suddenly disregard that even if you feel it's not relevant. The way the amaurotines were heading, they would have by default, created something they couldn't unmake that leads to their own destruction or continually experiementing on every avenue of life till they had nothing left to question (cause they technically had the resources and time to do this)

---

For all the focus the Plenty gets as a possible ending, it's strange to me that people forget that Venat has made it more likely that the other two "dead ends" could occur at some point in the future of Etheirys, even if the Plenty is less likely (or has been completely averted). Whether Etheirys dies to plague, bomb, or suicide monster--or something else entirely--Venat did not forestall the ending in and of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The kindest thing this set of quests did was clarify whether or not Venat was misleading her followers. It seems very likely at this point she wasn't. (I really have to laugh, though. Sundering is so "imprecise and difficult" it can leave holes for specific people to escape and create simulations of real people that only have the memories Venat approves of?)

It seems to me your objection is less, "the story would make no sense" and more "Venat would be no better or worse than Hermes and Emet-Selch," but that's already clear from these side quests. The reason her plan worked wasn't because it was a good plan or the best plan, it was because after she set the process in motion, countless people other than her made it work. It was a miracle that she had very little direct hand in.

---

It does raise some questions though as to what is going on below.

Given that Yoshi referenced the below scene in the same Q&A as he said she devoured their souls (meaning it was in his recent memory), I have to wonder if they just did not think the answer through properly? To me it makes no huge difference, but there is a tension between her followers knowing what would happen in full and the expectation expressed below that they would miss her as their leader (suggesting they'd persist beyond the Sundering):

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

FR version for comparison:

https://i.imgur.com/3ubxPOz.png

One could fill in the gaps but at this point they should address this. Perhaps something for another Q&A!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

---

At the end of the day, it comes down as well to a lack of forward planning. Address the question of what do we even do when we reach X goal and eliminate all strife (apparently, not existential angst/ennui)? The ancients always had the yardstick of what they saw as the best interests of the star (and by extension themselves and their creations given the symbiosis they perceived in it), and if a fate such as the Plenty loomed and threatened them, I see very little reason to think they'd not adjust their path; one of the Amaurotine shades even contemplates this possibility, so one would suspect this would no doubt strike up debate in their society had Venat been upfront about the reasons for her actions. The Plenty is at best a shoddy caricature of "Perfection" with shoddy caricature strawmen dressed so as to resemble the ancients. This is not compelling to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Literally 99% of the WoL’s successes/wins in the story is due to happenstance and luck though…

---

To me it's like trying to say you not being born a hyena or a vulture, but rather a human, is the only reason you're a good person. Happenstance and luck. Meanwhile, the Amaurot sidequests hint at them taking measures to suppress their worst instincts and act in a way they regarded as virtuous. For a society of individuals with such great innate powers, they had potential for corrupt/more dismal uses of these powers. With Ishikawa going as far as to attribute Hermes's inherent positive expectations of the answers he'd find in space to him living in a paradise, and based on what circumstantial evidence we have, one the ancients strove over time to build, I'm afraid it's a bit uncharitable to just write it off to happenstance and luck. Their powers are such that they could've turned their world into a hellscape through acting more like some mythological deities if they so wished - but they didn't and instead strove to create life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

For all the focus the Plenty gets as a possible ending, it's strange to me that people forget that Venat has made it more likely that the other two "dead ends" could occur at some point in the future of Etheirys, even if the Plenty is less likely (or has been completely averted). Whether Etheirys dies to plague, bomb, or suicide monster--or something else entirely--Venat did not forestall the ending in and of itself.

---

Not to mention that once the Source goes, any remaining reflections will go as well. So when the end comes, and it certainly will as the Sundered absolutely love finding new ways of blowing each other up, it will truly be the end of everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I'm...confused as to who/what you're referring to by that.

If it was in reference to that third round of sacrifices to be offered to Zodiark, we have virtually no context behind what they were and one has to remember that the Sundering affected all life negatively. Even if she truly had done it with the intent of protecting lives as opposed to subjecting mankind to her own trial, she irreparably damaged every being upon Etheriys in the process, though the Ancients seem to have gotten the worst of it due to being considerably denser in aether then any of their creations.

---

If you wish to tap into the mindset here, perhaps this will help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuella

the anti-sundering people are like spoilt rich kids who got their credit cards cut off by their parents. without the sundering, humanity would not have gone through the trials necessary to understand that suffering is part of life and accept it / rise above it instead of crying to Zodiark like those ancient losers in the post 87 flashback.

sometimes rich parents need to cut off their kids' financial supply to teach them how to go through the struggles of life.

---

Please note, this is being posted on behalf of Brinne.

She's having trouble with logging into the forums at the moment, but had things to say before the conversation drifted too far into irrelevancy. Anything beyond this point is her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

And they came to the Sundering decision, with a heavy heart--Venat knew that was the plan that worked in one timeline, but that also wasn't evidence that she could communicate to others, so they had to have come to and agreed to it through independent thought.

If you think they had a better option, you'd better have a damn good piece of evidence for it. You can argue with decent grounding that they might not have needed to take the fight to Meteion anyway, Zodiark would've held up indefinitely, but you can't argue that there was any other way to take that swing. Even Emet-Selch disagreed with you about that from beyond the grave.

---

I'm sorry, no. If someone is unironically asserting "actually, genocide is the only/best way", or to put it another way - "hey, turns out that sometimes genocide IS justifiable," the burden of proof is on THEM, whether it be a poster on the forums, or the game itself. That many people didn't feel that the game satisfied the enormous burden of proof this claim demands is the core of many of their issues. It is, like, THE classic apologism technique for all manner of atrocities to insist "but there was no other way! I had no choice!"

We have a responsibility to interrogate that, and reject it, IRL, and I'm certainly not going to give it a pass here just because the writing put words in several characters' mouths to try to force that angle. Venat (and Emet-Selch, for that matter) sincerely believing that as characters is one thing - to assert that that is factually correct is another matter entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

If Venat was not taking the best option, then the story no longer functions as intended. It is no longer people making different but valid and internally justifiable moral decisions, and frankly, I don't even know what the story IS anymore if not that. So you can't throw 'she had better options' without significant proof that said better options existed, not just to overcome the story's own evidence and testimonies, but also to provide an alternative definition for what this story is.

If you don't have that evidence, then any alternatives you draw up are fanfiction. I can appreciate some good fanfiction, but we should recognize it for what it is.

---

"The premise of this story is reliant on the idea that under the circumstances genocide was necessary, therefore we must not challenge that premise" is not the compelling argument you think it is. I would posit that if a story is truly reliant on a premise like that, it deserves to fall apart. Fortunately, the writers have shown they're willing to re-examine the story as far as that goes, even if, as what is fundamentally a consumer product, the game is not going to harshly villify a character as popular as Venat.

But on the topic itself: I've felt for a while that I've said all I've had to really say about my issues with 6.0 as a whole, but I really needed to voice my sincere appreciation for this quest.

I absolutely loved it. I loved it so much that I basically immediately ran here to voice my love for it (only to be frustrated at my inability to log in because I had been away from home for a couple of weeks, lol.) If 6.0 had this framing/thematic approach all along, I would have been able to unabashedly love Endwalker. Yes, being able to voice our opinion on Venat and the others' actions was important, but probably even MORE important for me was the first part of the quest - when Omega was investigating "why did some succumb to the Song of Oblivion and not others?"

The ultimate conclusion of "it's basically arbitrary and impossible to construct any logical or objective reason for it" was basically ideal and perfect. A rejection of the framing of one's ability to not succumb to despair as being attributed to "fortitude," or "strength," or "weakness," or any other Social Darwinist garbage - in favor of something far more honest and far, far more compassionate. Endwalker's MSQ hinted at this angle at a few points - which is part of why the theming often felt conflicted and confused with itself - but to have it very clearly laid out in stark text was extremely cathartic, to say the least. If Endwalker was fighting with itself over these ideas, I hope that - and it does seem that - this is essentially the final word on the issue from here on out.

In my self-indulgent, "everything caters to my whims" fantasy world, would it go further? Of course. To assert that and refuse to judge is inherently a refutation of Venat's actions and worldview. If there is no way someone to identify or solve the magic factor that leads one to be able to overcome despair - if that factor essentially doesn't exist in any meaningful way - then that means attempts to forcefully engineer it are nonsense and amount to pointless, misguided cruelty. But I never expected, realistically and in good faith, for the game to actually "turn on" Venat to that degree. People who are interested in questioning the text are still provided the dots to connect the line for themselves.

And to be honest, I was surprised that the questline went as far as to have the Watcher, of all people, very, very gently assert that Venat was wrong to try to erase history. The basic framing of all of the major Ancients as, while having good intent, being equivalent in taking absolutely horrific actions that need to be questioned, is far better than the previous thread that Venat was objectively correct and everyone else just needed to fall in line. (I do still think the idea that 'oh, the Ancients in general were just Like That' is ridiculous and terrible, but for the individuals in question - sure.)

But I do want to express my thanks and gratitude for this questline, and for obviously listening to those who had problems with Endwalker's writing. As I've said before, I've loved this game for almost ten years, want to continue loving it, and never wanted to feel like I had to post on these forums or else my head would explode. This was a wonderful step in the right direction. Is this alone enough to "make up" for the dissonance and unease from 6.0? Probably not, but if the story continues this line of thoughtfulness, it's well on the way there, for me - and I hope the writers can see the positive reception to these quests and take it to heart.

Yep, heartily agree on the point that it dispelled there being some "essential something" about facing off despair that all those ancient civilisations lacked, and good riddance to that premise. I do hope we're seeing some course-correction, what with Yoshida's comments on Y'shtola and oddly placed but welcome depiction of the Sundering in the Nier mobile game crossover as well, but time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I don't believe that comfort leads to destruction, nor that pain is necessary to feel joy. I think they would have gotten on just fine if Venat hadn't decided to take the agency of every single one of the Ancients and instead told them why the Final Days were happening so they could fix them.

Edit to add: Before you bring up the Plenty, I again point out that what caused their destruction was not their level of comfort, but two other things. Their immortality, and their hive mind. I am not saying conflict is unnecessary, but conflict can be handled with negotiation and debate, which is how the Ancients dealt with such typically. The hive mind mostly, I feel. Without any way to have differences in order to have such debates, life gets boring. It isn't strife that adds flavor to life, or pain, it's the differences in mindsets.

---

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.

Quote:

---

Farther still existed a star without strife. Where none remembered life’s trials, or it’s joys. What it’s people had gained from ease, they lost to apathy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested? Endwalker points out that everything must end eventually. If that's the case, I know which ending of the three I'd prefer.

---

Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.

Quote:

---

By sundering the world, she ultimately guided your kind to victory, yet in doing so caused irreparable damage to its individual members.

---

People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Their end is not ascribed to those things, it was their desire to eliminate sorrow that did so. Meteion says this verbatim.





Or maybe not self destructing is the best option?

And I would remind those in this thread that Omegas comments do not disprove the necessity of the Sundering.



People will undoubtedly focus on the second half of the statement and not the first of course.

---

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

---

Are we really going to have to post the Q and A answer again? Like I get what you’re saying but it seems pretty clear cut given everything said in game and out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

Is the end the Plenty faced really a special kind of terrible compared to the first two Dead Ends? Is monstrosities pleading with survivors for death to end their suffering and people being blown to bits by bombs somehow better than a creature that offers peaceful death when requested?

---

Yes.

There's a big difference between a terminal cancer patient wanting to end the pain and a someone contemplating suicide simply because he's bored with life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

And how did they "eliminate sorrow?" Hive mind. I don't believe joy loses its savor without sorrow, though sorrow is a fact of life regardless. Also, I trust Meiteion's word about as much as I trust Varis'. Aka, not a whit.

---

Why not trust her word? She isn't evil like Varis. She was also far more close to these folks than any of us with an ability to connect and feel others like no one else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IkaraGreydancer

Why not trust her word? She isn't evil like Varis. She was also far more close to these folks than any of us with an ability to connect and feel others like no one else

---

Venat was pure evil and a monster, she's not worthy of any trust

It was really fun! Especially because you could say none of them were justified. Good succinct and a firm rebuke to the actions of those three.

Considering we had ample opportunities and reason to tell Venat right to her prick face that she's a lunatic who commited an unforgivable act based on her own irrational fears, i'd say this is way too little way too late. But i suppose you gotta take what you can get.

I don't think there was any indication that Ancients were trying to "eliminate sorrow" in the manner that the people of the Plenty were, especially not when the very creation magic around which their society revolved was the source of many problems and as long it continued to be used they would inevitably invite strife into their lives in ways both big and small.

That might have changed in the aftermath of the Final Days, but we'll never know because they were cut off before they could even start with the debatably unnecessary sacrifices. And no, I don't take the testimony of those two Ancients Venat speaks to as indicative of the whole. There were likely many who just wanted to spare the souls of their loved ones from languishing as part of Zodiark for eternity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I don't think there was any indication that Ancients were trying to "eliminate sorrow" in the manner that the people of the Plenty were, especially not when the very creation magic around which their society revolved was the source of many problems and as long it continued to be used they would inevitably invite strife into their lives in ways both big and small.

That might have changed in the aftermath of the Final Days, but we'll never know because they were cut off before they could even start with the debatably unnecessary sacrifices. And no, I don't take the testimony of those two Ancients Venat speaks to as indicative of the whole. There were likely many who just wanted to spare the souls of their loved ones from languishing as part of Zodiark for eternity.

---

They willingly sacrificed themselves. Who said they wanted to return? Who even suggested it in the first place?

I feel like the core problem is that the game tried to present it as some kind of universal truth, rather than one person's misguided opinion, that suffering is necessary or people will get bored and want to end it all – making Venat's actions a heavy-hearted realisation of this inescapable fact and the necessity of carrying it out.

It's just that the whole premise seems misguided at a writer's level, and if you're not on board with that philosophical proposal (I am not) then it reframes the necessity of Venat's actions, and the result is the dissonance between her noble portrayal and what she actually did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

They willingly sacrificed themselves. Who said they wanted to return? Who even suggested it in the first place?

---

Indeed – and it's only Endwalker that frames them as "eternally trapped and conscious within Zodiark" and in need of being let out. When we were debating Shadowbringers I think everyone, or at least the majority, were under the impression that the sacrificed souls were essentially dead (whether absorbed into Zodiark or gone to the aetherial sea) and Emet's desire to resurrect them could never actually be fulfilled because there was nothing left of them to revive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Indeed – and it's only Endwalker that frames them as "eternally trapped and conscious within Zodiark" and in need of being let out. When we were debating Shadowbringers I think everyone, or at least the majority, were under the impression that the sacrificed souls were essentially dead (whether absorbed into Zodiark or gone to the aetherial sea) and Emet's desire to resurrect them could never actually be fulfilled because there was nothing left of them to revive.

---

Yeah. That was very much new information that completely reframed the Ascian's motivations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Indeed – and it's only Endwalker that frames them as "eternally trapped and conscious within Zodiark" and in need of being let out.

---

Actually, Endwalker doesn't frame them as that. There's one guy wanting out, sure, but everyone else is basically lamenting 'we put everything on the line, why isn't this working'. Which I can absolutely understand from my own life; it really sucks to put your all into something and then see it failing. We're also seeing them at a real low point, so it's impossible to extrapolate back to guess the overall mood of those souls at a time that was less dire.

I think what happened is that we saw people in a situation that some of us read as 'trapped', and then therefore wanted to free them because that's the natural response to seeing someone trapped. But in that point, we only had a conversation with one person: Hythlodaeus. And he seemed pretty chill about it all, really; he made his choice and never once regretted it. In fact, it's an outlook reflected by the Watcher, still believing in the heavy decision they made. Granted, both of them were sample sizes of one, but in a character-driven story, 'the testimony of one dude with a name' is kinda the most valuable way to gauge how you're supposed to feel about the group they're representing.

I don't think they were trapped, I think they almost all wanted to be there. it's just that they were hoping for a better result than Fantastic Dan and the Reaper Man trying to jack their Megazord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

...

---

Fair point, if that is how it is phrased. I suppose even more then, the difference between what we pictured in Shadowbringers and what we now know from Endwalker is a shift from "the whole thing is tragic because they wouldn't even be revivable anyway" to "actually it would have worked, but they still shouldn't be doing it because the sacrifices volunteered to be sacrifices so others could live, and switching them out for the things that are alive because of their sacrifice is direly missing the point".

The souls on the moon before Hythlodaeus express a desire to either return to life or return to the star. I have no idea how that could be interpreted as anything other than trapped, especially given that was a fundamental part of their belief system. They may have willingly sacrificed themselves to Zodiark, but I doubt when they did so they realized they would be committing to a 12k year purgatory within him. Incidentally, Hythlodaeus himself uses the word "purgatory".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I don't think there was any indication that Ancients were trying to "eliminate sorrow" in the manner that the people of the Plenty were, especially not when the very creation magic around which their society revolved was the source of many problems and as long it continued to be used they would inevitably invite strife into their lives in ways both big and small.

That might have changed in the aftermath of the Final Days, but we'll never know because they were cut off before they could even start with the debatably unnecessary sacrifices. And no, I don't take the testimony of those two Ancients Venat speaks to as indicative of the whole. There were likely many who just wanted to spare the souls of their loved ones from languishing as part of Zodiark for eternity.

---

https://i.imgur.com/89s7DIT.jpg

Quote:

---

Temperamental Spirit:
We and the star were fulfilled...
Wanted for naught, mourned for naught...
So why... Why did it have to end!?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

The souls on the moon before Hythlodaeus express a desire to either return to life or return to the star. I have no idea how that could be interpreted as anything other than trapped, especially given that was a fundamental part of their belief system. They may have willingly sacrificed themselves to Zodiark, but I doubt when they did so they realized they would be committing to a 12k year purgatory within him. Incidentally, Hythlodaeus himself uses the word "purgatory".

---

Yep. If nothing else, when with the Scions willingly sacrificing themselves only to come back a few minutes later I can't say I care much for the idea that the Ancients should have been content to just sit around inside of Zodiark. Especially when the only reason Zodiark was conjured forth in the first place ended up being due to Venat's refusal to share the information she had of the impending Final Days.

I imagine no shortage of Ancients gave themselves to Zodiark for the sake of their loved ones. There's nothing inherently selfish about that - and certainly, I doubt they would be pleased to find that their loved ones were then brutally subjected to genocide by some nutter masquerading as a 'supreme deity'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yep. If nothing else, when with the Scions willingly sacrificing themselves only to come back a few minutes later I can't say I care much for the idea that the Ancients should have been content to just sit around inside of Zodiark.

---

The difficulty there is that the Scions were able to be revived because the purpose of their sacrifice – supplying the aether to make Ultima Thule aetherially tangible enough for us to traverse it – was complete. Their aether was supplanted by Emet and Hyth's creation magic, and so they could safely be returned.

The ancients sacrificed into Zodiark (or equivalent aether, apparently) needed to remain in place until Zodiark's purpose was complete, and aside of any debate into whether they could have or not, the ancients did not achieve that. They may have just intended to leave Zodiark in place permanently if they couldn't figure out the base cause of the Final Days.

I also have to wonder if – given that we know Hydaelyn was powered by the souls as well as corporeal aether of her summoners – this logically must have been happening with Zodiark as well. Are prayers enough to sustain him or is he (by design or necessity) also slowly consuming the souls of the sacrifices to power that planet-wide shield? Would he eventually need more sacrifices to "keep the shield battery charged"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

The difficulty there is that the Scions were able to be revived because the purpose of their sacrifice – supplying the aether to make Ultima Thule aetherially tangible enough for us to traverse it – was complete. Their aether was supplanted by Emet and Hyth's creation magic, and so they could safely be returned.

The ancients sacrificed into Zodiark (or equivalent aether, apparently) needed to remain in place until Zodiark's purpose was complete, and aside of any debate into whether they could have or not, the ancients did not achieve that. They may have just intended to leave Zodiark in place permanently if they couldn't figure out the base cause of the Final Days.

I also have to wonder if – given that we know Hydaelyn was powered by the souls as well as corporeal aether of her summoners – this logically must have been happening with Zodiark as well. Are prayers enough to sustain him or is he (by design or necessity) also slowly consuming the souls of the sacrifices to power that planet-wide shield? Would he eventually need more sacrifices to "keep the shield battery charged"?

---

i think hes slowly consuming them but since he was supplied with a ludicrouse amount of souls its gonna take a while for them to be completely devoured.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I also have to wonder if – given that we know Hydaelyn was powered by the souls as well as corporeal aether of her summoners – this logically must have been happening with Zodiark as well. Are prayers enough to sustain him or is he (by design or necessity) also slowly consuming the souls of the sacrifices to power that planet-wide shield? Would he eventually need more sacrifices to "keep the shield battery charged"?

---

Lauront has made some detailed posts on the subject in the past from what I recall, so I'll have to go and look for them when I have more time. With that said, it was outlined during one of the recent Live Letters - the 'clarification' one, I believe - that Zodiark was protecting the souls within him and unlike with Hydaelyn, did not opt to burn through any of them.

It lends credence to the idea, I suppose, that not only was Zodiark exceedingly powerful but he was able to shield not only Etheirys in his Sundered state but all the souls held within him as well.

It's always interesting to see how people work with incomplete information. Most of our knowledge about Amaurot comes from two time points. One is on Elpis, prior to the Final Days, and the second is in Amaurot itself, while the Convocation is deliberating over whether or not to summon Zodiark.

There's a lot of missing information. Namely:

• Who was the index transformation that triggered the Final Days, and what were the circumstances around it? (i.e. Who was their Kahlzahl?)
• What discussions exactly took place between Venat's group of confidantes and the Convocation?
• What was the circumstances around Azem's departure from the Convocation, and what ultimately happened to them?
• What are the drawbacks to using Zodiark's powers? What are his upkeep energy costs over time and how were they planned to be paid? What happens to the additional souls that are sacrificed to him after his initial summoning, including the third set that the Convocation planned on making?
• What was the societal impact of being tempered by him, and were people still compos mentis to make decisions about sacrificing their lives to him?

As someone interested in lore, I'm actually much more interested in seeing the answers to these questions than I am about having the opportunity to pass a judgement. And I suspect the reason why some of these points are as yet unanswered is because of Pandaemonium and Myths, which is why you can't just simply fill in the blanks with your own headcanon.

What was said about the souls in zodiark from that interview was

Quote:

---

A:*Souls are also made of aether, and she had used so much aether that even her soul was gone. Zodiark absorbed those who were sacrificed and was still able to maintain their souls within, whereas Hydaelyn did not have the leeway to preserve the souls of the summoners, including that of Venat herself. This difference was because Venat’s group was a very small minority compared to the group that had summoned Zodiark based on the Convocation’s decision. Venat’s soul, which was the last to remain, was used up in the trial against the Warrior of Light and their allies.

---

Found from the posting here from the LL

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5861039