On Venat's Role in the Story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

For the millionth time, I am perfectly willing to agree that Venat did a bad thing to her fellow ancients. Her act killed them all. They're dead. My question is so what about it?

Where is this pointless, circular discussion that has been going on for months leading? Okay - Venat bad. Venat genocided the ancients, they're dead because of her choices and actions. Are we going to spend the next six months belaboring this point? Or do you actually want to move the discussion to something - anything else. The people who don't like her have condemned her, and the people who do have pointed out that she had believable reasons and motivations.

---

It seems like everytime you get proven wrong, you resort to “what is the point of this conversation.” The one of the main points of these forums, especially lore, is to debate. If you don’t enjoy the debate, then don’t click the thread. Its that simple. Idk why you would come into a thread if your only retort is “why are we still talking about this.” It’s still being talked about because this revelation not only contradicts multiple story and plot points, but also because this was the end of a 10 year long arc. I’m sorry but the story to the end of 10 years isn’t going to stop being talked about in a couple weeks. Don’t like it, don’t comment.

I've noticed the people who complain about these debates the most are also the most active in them. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

I've noticed the people who complain about these debates the most are also the most active in them. :P

---

In some cases, across multiple sites at the same time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Awareness of the ephemeral nature of life makes you recognize how precious it is.

---

Or the exact opposite, ala Fandaniel.

Quote:

---

'To be content with one's life' is a common English idiom. It doesn't actually have anything to do with death or spontaneous combustion, perish the thought! It simply means to be happy with what you have. This is also an example of why context matters.

You know, if it makes you feel better, I can pretend that I didn't see you say what you said. It's not like misremembering a quote is a big deal. I do it all the time, which is why I have a habit of cross-checking things where possible, even when it's a quote that I've cited a few times. I really don't think less of you for it.

---

Since you are again not actually quoting anything I'm saying even as you aggressively insist that I myself have misquoted, let me just repost some of the critical statements you seem to be having trouble with.

Quote:

---

Bleak as the contents of Meteion's report might be, many could hear it and remain content with their lives.

---

Quote:

---

Venat specifically says that most of the Ancient population would be able to cope with the knowledge of a dead, meaningless universe.

---

Quote:

---

She very clearly states that for most of the Ancients, they could continue living even knowing Meteion's report. This was not a statement limited only to Hermes.

---

I would like you to specifically explain to me how either of the two latter quotes from me are misquotes or mischaracterizations of what Venat is saying in the first quote. Because frankly, when you acknowledge that "contentment with one's life" idiom and then immediately go on to say that I must be talking about death or spontaneous combustion in reference to the phrase "they could continue living", you are really not lending any credence to the idea that you aren't arguing in bad faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

You're misunderstanding/oversimplifying the concept of "non-existence" in Buddhism. Nirvana is not simply oblivion. It is rejoining/becoming one with the universe as a perfect, whole entity free of weakness like the Buddha himself. For example, one can look at the portrayal of the Buddha in Journey to the West -- when Son Wukong is challenged to jump from one end of the universe to the other to try and escape the Buddha, Wukong pretty much lands the exact same place he started and realizes that the Buddha IS the universe. "Non-existence" in Nirvana does NOT mean sheer oblivion.

This version of "non-existence" is present in the concept of the Aetherial Sea, where souls are supposed to go (at least on Etheirys) after death.

---

There is debate about what exactly nirvana means or entails and the presentation of the Buddha as being a god-being one with the universe in Journey to the West is just one interpretation, but I was referring to the concept of parinirvana, or nirvana after death more specifically.

But, if you want to run with the JttW ideal of the Buddha as a perfect, universal entity free of weakness and suffering - Obviously Endwalker rejects the entire concept of such a being. The idea of perfection, the idea of freedom from suffering as a virtue, even the idea of an infinite universe, Endwalker basically says that all of these ideals are either bad or wrong or not true.

I also don't think the idea of the aetherial sea is equitable with the idea of nirvana, not in the least because it's only a pit-stop on the path to further reincarnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Again, not really. If anything, the Final Days only made the report that much more important to make public.

---

And bewildered and divided they would perish. Ancient society had never faced a crisis of any sort like this, especially not one of mortal threat. They’re reaction was clearly panic and disarray.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

The point being made is that we do not all react to them with the same uniformity that the game likes to portray.

---

And the point I would make is you only need enough people to react in a way that would endanger everyone to justify remaining quiet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

As someone struggling with mental health and depression said on Reddit, one of the main problematic aspects of Endwalker is that if the Final Days happened right now, it implies everyone struggling with mental illness and clinical depression would almost instantly turn into a blasphemy while the "strong minded" would survive and thrive. As I've mentioned before, Endwalker's worldview is decidedly social darwinist.

---

And as someone with severe chronic depression I accept that if the Final Days happened now I would be especially vulnerable. Hell having been a part of community that regularly deals with deaths from despair Endwalker hits very close to home.

And you know what, I disagree with that person entirely. The game doesn’t say “oh the strong will live and that’s good.” It says “all will face suffering, despair and death, and there’s no promise we will overcome. This is a hard existence, but each an everyone of us, no matter their temperament, no matter if theyre brave or courageous or inherently strong willed, they can all find the strength to continue. Can find joy and light in the darkness.”

To me that’s beautiful. But that’s ultimately my interpretation, so let’s I think recognize that different people will interpret differently and that’s actually a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

And bewildered and divided they would perish. Ancient society had never faced a crisis of any sort like this, especially not one of mortal threat. They’re reaction was clearly panic and disarray.

---

If the Ancients were already bewildered, panicked, and in disarray, wouldn't that mean they were already suffering from the negative consequences of being told even while not being told?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

If the Ancients were already bewildered, panicked, and in disarray, wouldn't that mean they were already suffering from the negative consequences of being told even while not being told?

---

To a certain extent yeah! But I think the idea that Zodiark had saved them and righted the stars “laws” was important to overcoming that for them. Which doesn’t work as well when you know what is actually happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

This part in bold is disingenuous loaded language.

The people who do not like Venat's actions in the story emphatically deny that the people who like her have "pointed out" any such thing. Do her supporters personally think her reasons and motivations are believable? Sure they do. But you can't argue that said things were "pointed out" when the deniers' entire argument is that there IS nothing to point out.

It's like saying "People who believe in hard science have condemned Flat Earth theory, and Flat Earthers have pointed out their proof that the Earth is flat".

---

I mean, the story absolutely lays out her motivations and reasoning. And plenty of people have yes - pointed to and referenced what is in the text. I don't know what's so controversial about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

It seems like everytime you get proven wrong, you resort to “what is the point of this conversation.” The one of the main points of these forums, especially lore, is to debate. If you don’t enjoy the debate, then don’t click the thread. Its that simple. Idk why you would come into a thread if your only retort is “why are we still talking about this.” It’s still being talked about because this revelation not only contradicts multiple story and plot points, but also because this was the end of a 10 year long arc. I’m sorry but the story to the end of 10 years isn’t going to stop being talked about in a couple weeks. Don’t like it, don’t comment.

---

No, I'm really trying to understand where this is all supposed to be going. I am even conceding, for the sake of moving the discussion along - that the sundering was genocide, that Venat murdered her own people, and that she did not have faith in them.

So, what now? Is the entire point of this discussion to just repeat the same points endlessly? I am desperate pleading with you all the actually talk about something now. Instead of just going in circles forever about how Venat bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

I mean, the story absolutely lays out her motivations and reasoning. And plenty of people have yes - pointed to and referenced what is in the text. I don't know what's so controversial about that?



No, I'm really trying to understand where this is all supposed to be going. I am even conceding, for the sake of moving the discussion along - that the sundering was genocide, that Venat murdered her own people, and that she did not have faith in them.

So, what now? Is the entire point of this discussion to just repeat the same points endlessly? I am desperate pleading with you all the actually talk about something now. Instead of just going in circles forever about how Venat bad.

---

Oh, I dunno, so maybe if the devs happen to see how dissatisfied a significant portion of their player base is with this outcome it may encourage them to resolve this in such a way that it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of that significant portion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Oh, I dunno, so maybe if the devs happen to see how dissatisfied a significant portion of their player base is with this outcome it may encourage them to resolve this in such a way that it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of that significant portion?

---

Agreed. The devs need to know that supporting something like this doesnt sit well with a large portion of the playerbase.The final fantasy franchise has always been about finding hope and defying fate so that things like a mass genocide weren't necessary. Ironically this is one of the main premises for final fantasy 10, a game this expansion took a boss from. Hopefully people speaking out about this will prevent writing like this from happening in the future.