Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Also where does it come from now they were “locked in a fate worse than death?” Hyth certainly seemed to be ok, all things considered.

---

If we're interpreting Hythlodaeus himself describing their situation as a "purgatory," and a people whose culture puts a premium on their connection to the star and returning to it in death, being cut off from the cycle of the star not therefore equating to "a fate worse than death" might also have to go into the "that is incomprehensibly mind-boggling to me but I mean uh if you say so" category.

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

Quote:

---

"I... I...
Return... I must...return...
Why... Why... Why!?"

The vision's grief takes form and lashes out!

"Home... I want... I need..."

---

Uh, yeah, definitely seems perfectly all right to me! But yes, Hythlodaeus, a remarkable individual, is relatively coherent. So if I find one person who seems relatively okay in objectively terrible conditions, it means everyone involved is definitely okay in those same conditions, right? We don't have to worry about any of them! (This is not how that works, for what it's worth.)

Quote:

---

So there were no crystals? No other sources of aether at all? And the Ascians, when sacrificing those on the Source, are just doing it out of spite?

---

Yeah, I'd say that's what "the planet was completely dead to the point that nature did not function and the wind ceased to blow" would indicate. You do remember how even a mostly-forestalled Calamity like Bahamut caused massive corruption in massive amounts of aether, right?

As people have indicated, it only makes sense that if the Ancients had alternatives to sacrificing their loved ones, they would have done it - and their actions and intentions follow coherently from that. Finding an alternative was what they were planning to do when they had breathing room with the world not literally ending around them, and they could harness other resources. Venat's actions, however, were fundamentally driven by an ideology of "let there be no turning back" and a primary concern with the actions and mindset of the sacrificers, so the precise content of the sacrifices used as the means to do so aren't necessarily as relevant to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

If we're interpreting Hythlodaeus himself describing their situation as a "purgatory," and a people whose culture puts a premium on their connection to the star and returning to it in death, being cut off from the cycle of the star not therefore equating to "a fate worse than death" might also have to go into the "that is incomprehensibly mind-boggling to me but I mean uh if you say so" category.

---

The souls in Zodiark returned to the star as part of their “cycle.” Unlike the ones who gave themselves to Hydaelyn, a consequence they were forced to accept due to the actions of Amaurotine society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

---

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:

https://i.imgur.com/Cq77l8W.jpg

Kind of an odd statement if you were in unending torment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Uh, yeah, definitely seems perfectly all right to me! But yes, Hythlodaeus, a remarkable individual, is relatively coherent. So if I find one person who seems relatively okay in objectively terrible conditions, it means everyone involved is definitely okay in those same conditions, right? We don't have to worry about any of them! (This is not how that works, for what it's worth.)

---

Am I in a cornfield because I see nothing but strawmen. But sure, let’s play this out. If I went to hell do you think I’d find anyone who’s doing alright? I doubt even the most exceptional of people would be ok with things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Yeah, I'd say that's what "the planet was completely dead to the point that nature did not function and the wind ceased to blow" would indicate. You do remember how even a mostly-forestalled Calamity like Bahamut caused massive corruption in massive amounts of aether, right?

As people have indicated, it only makes sense that if the Ancients had alternatives to sacrificing their loved ones, they would have done it - and their actions and intentions follow coherently from that. Finding an alternative was what they were planning to do when they had breathing room with the world not literally ending around them, and they could harness other resources. Venat's actions, however, were fundamentally driven by an ideology of "let there be no turning back" and a primary concern with the actions and mindset of the sacrificers, so the precise content of the sacrifices used as the means to do so aren't necessarily as relevant to her.

---

Dynamis doesn’t corrupt aether, it smothers it. They are anathema to one another. And even a corrupted crystal can be used, as they’re just overaspected.

And they are relevant. If her last attempt to convince them that they need to accept suffering is not actually a dilemma, and is instead a simple question of logistics, then the whole premise falls apart (how convenient for those who dislike her). Not to mention the whole conflict becomes nonsense. Why didn’t Elidibus suggest using non-sentient aether when he came to “mediate.” After all, by that point life would be flourishing in all forms. I’m sure they could gradually sacrifice some trees here and there and avoid the conflict? Pretty odd that wasn’t brought up, like, anywhere no?

There's always a difference between theory and practice. Did the Convocation actually anticipate that the sacrificed souls would be trapped and slowly aetherically digested by Zodiark? Was that communicated to the general public? If it was an unexpected complication, were the second set of sacrifices informed about the consequences that the first set ran into? It seems strange that three-quarters of their society voluntarily elected to experience a 'fate worse than death' that they were culturally opposed to, and it also seems strange that the Convocation did not simply destroy Zodiark and free the souls immediately after they were done with him to spare them rather than doing more soul microtransactions for benefits. After all, in their mind, they had averted the Final Days.

It's also worth noting that the Convocation could also have destroyed Zodiark and freed the souls back to the lifestream at any point in time over the past 12000 years by simply physically destroying the wards and then Zodiark like Fandaniel did. They just wouldn't be able to do soul microtransactions with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

But the constant citation of "Hythlodaeus seemed ok" is... extremely Something. Meanwhile, the other souls are known as "Anguished Spirit," "Forlorn Spirit," and other such cheerful monikers in this zone literally named "The Sea of Sorrow."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Yes the “hazy fog” they were in was certainly terrible. You seem to desperately want to strawman into the position that I believe that being in Zodiark was some sort of party, it wasn’t. But it also wasn’t “hell.” If it was as terrible as you say, then why did they say:

["We are the will of the star, now and forever!"]

Kind of an odd statement if you were in unending torment.

---

Between these two apparently conflicting examples, I would like to make a suggestion, in line with my previous thoughts on the individuals becoming a single amalgamated primal will but also able to be individually plucked out again – it seems like they might act one way while they are within Zodiark but if individuals split out from the pack somehow, that's when they become self-aware and confused.

Maybe that happens naturally all the time that one or two drift off briefly and then they merge back in and resume being part of Zodiark, or maybe it's a consequence of the attack on Zodiark's bindings causing him to "fray" a bit. I'd have to go over the segment again and see exactly what is said about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Between these two apparently conflicting examples, I would like to make a suggestion, in line with my previous thoughts on the individuals becoming a single amalgamated primal will but also able to be individually plucked out again – it seems like they might act one way while they are within Zodiark but if individuals split out from the pack somehow, that's when they become self-aware and confused.

Maybe that happens naturally all the time that one or two drift off briefly and then they merge back in and resume being part of Zodiark, or maybe it's a consequence of the attack on Zodiark's bindings causing him to "fray" a bit. I'd have to go over the segment again and see exactly what is said about them.

---

I'm wondering if it may not be because Elidibus left as the heart of Zodiark all those years. While yes the sundering and imprisonment put then into a lull and the rejoinings caused them to wake up with out the "glue" that really held them together.

I mean once fanny Danny took over look how quickly he told the souls to STFU and such and made them leave. *shrugs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

And they are relevant. If her last attempt to convince them that they need to accept suffering is not actually a dilemma, and is instead a simple question of logistics, then the whole premise falls apart (how convenient for those who dislike her). Not to mention the whole conflict becomes nonsense.

---

It's somewhat comforting to read both you and Cleretic realize why people dislike the story even if you won't accept it. ("We can't accept it! We won't accept it!")

This is exactly the reason why people don't like Venat. She had the opportunity for a 'do over' and didn't take it. Her reasons for not doing so simply don't hold up under scrutiny. The debate will never end because while you believe she did the best/only thing she could, others do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

To what end? Venat is directly or indirectly relevant to many of the current storylines and so she is often brought up on that basis. If the next storyline involves, for example, a bunch of slavers prowling the seas between the three great continents and Meracydia then I don't really see what relevance Venat would have in such a discussion.

---

No, the idea is correct. When we're dealing with a moral quandary which entails the destruction of one world for the sake of creating another one, inevitably everything that happens in that latter world is relevant to the question. For an example related to your hypothetical, look at Yotsuyu, someone who resorted to countless horrible deeds after being abused by the people and circumstances she was born to. Obviously, the conditions that made her who she was never would have happened in the ancient world. Similarly, anytime in the future there's some evil done by mankind against itself, there will always be the lingering sentiment that something else was destroyed specifically to enable this to happen. So whenever we look back and judge the ancient conflict, we're weighing it against the consequences of the world we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

the whole premise falls apart

---

The whole premise has been doing nothing but falling apart like a jenga tower with every new piece of information related to it released since 6.0. Since the Omega quests just come out and say that the resistance to the Dynamis transformation is almost totally random and not strongly correlated to one's life conditions or strength of character, the entire idea that the sundering was necessary to create a world of people that could withstand despair and existential oblivion through their inurement to suffering basically becomes moot.



On the topic of the sacrifices - Frankly, I think that this was an idea that was a holdover from the original H&Z storyline, or some iteration of it, that doesn't actually have much relevance to the conflict they developed later. Clearly, a big underlaying idea with Hydaelyn and Zodiark are the notions of multiplicity and regression. Hydaelyn splits things into more things, Zodiark substracts things into less things. Obviously that didn't really turn out to be what either of them were about, particularly Zodiark where the half-sacrifices were really only incidental to how he functioned, but with all the talk about "reflections" and "dimensional compression" earlier in the story there was definitely a stronger focus on expansion vs contraction, with the calamities being part of this. In the earlier version of the plot, I'd guess that the Ascian's goal was the literal rejoining of all reality and all lives back into a single primordial god-being, with the current leftovers of that story being the rejoinings and the sacrifices that brought about his creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

It's somewhat comforting to read both you and Cleretic realize why people dislike the story even if you won't accept it. ("We can't accept it! We won't accept it!")

---

See I would say something similar. Given this entire discussion requires dismissing that whole cutscene you’re quoting. Maybe not wise to bring that up as an example of “accepting reality.”

Given I don’t believe the evidence supports the “there just plants and animals” hypothesis, no I don’t really think this is a valid criticism of Endwalker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

This is exactly the reason why people don't like Venat. She had the opportunity for a 'do over' and didn't take it. Her reasons for not doing so simply don't hold up under scrutiny. The debate will never end because while you believe she did the best/only thing she could, others do not.

---

So I have to ask, not just you but also everyone else that’s been involved in this discussion for the past several months. Do you think it’s objectively true that Venat is in the wrong, that her reasons “don’t hold up to scrutiny?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

The whole premise has been doing nothing but falling apart like a jenga tower with every new piece of information related to it released since 6.0. Since the Omega quests just come out and say that the resistance to the Dynamis transformation is almost totally random and not strongly correlated to one's life conditions or strength of character, the entire idea that the sundering was necessary to create a world of people that could withstand despair and existential oblivion through their inurement to suffering basically becomes moot.

---

Or as said by Omega it’s a combination of random environmental and emotional factors like friends, family, support systems, personal beliefs, hopes, experiences etc. We suggest this to Omega when we leave Thavnair for Garlemald. Those happen to also be the things mentioned by Venat. It’s the same irl, life experiences, financial situation, genetics, belief systems, support networks, all impact the chance one has of experiencing mental health problems. The point isn’t to say that there isn’t ways to improve ones ability handle these horrific occurrences, but that what ultimately will do the trick is entirely specific to the person. That randomness is exactly why She left humanity alone. Endwalker almost screamed at the player that one’s meaning and purpose has to be fine by oneself. Omegas conclusion that the heart is “the phenomenon that influences ones interpretation of reality” is exactly the kind of “life is what you make of it” statement that many criticized Endwalker for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I'm not sure why I keep seeing claims that sentient lives would be involved with the third round of sacrifices when there's nothing to indicate such aside from a desire to "entrust the future of the star" to them on the part of Venat's faction.

I was expecting to get more context behind that situation, but instead they focused on the ideology behind the action, not the morality.

---

If you dont need that why sacrifice the Ancients in the first place? They could have then just summoned countless of soulless concepts and sacrifice those right? They did not do that in the first round of sacrifices nor in the second one.

I would find it completely ironic if they managed to exchange the souls of the Ancients with mindless beasts only to have Zodiark going out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

So I have to ask, not just you but also everyone else that’s been involved in this discussion for the past month. Do you think it’s objectively true that Venat is in the wrong, that her reasons “don’t hold up to scrutiny?”.

---

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: The Ancient world was an objectively better place than the one that Venat left us with. As I see it as a moral imperative to lessen suffering for your fellow man, yes, she was objectively wrong for not helping them prevent the Final days and for the sundering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jemachu

Regardless of Venat's reasoning or justification, I do not think she had the right as a single person to decide the course for the entirety of mankind based on her own beliefs. Venat has no right to act as a higher being or some sort of messianic figure to her fellow man; who is she to pass judgement? Who is she to decide the ancients right to live because of her own fears of the Plenty? This is my issue with Venat. As Emet-Selch said to Hermes in Ktisis, "Who are you to decide our fate?".

Maybe some can justify genocidal actions to themselves with the argument of the ends justify the means, but I cannot. Hermes was wrong to set a test for mankind's right to existence. Venat was wrong to pass judgement on their fate, especially whilst she withheld the stakes and vital information regarding the situation from essentially the entirety of the population. Emet-Selch was wrong to perpetuate a cycle of genocide to undo what was done to the ancients.

---

I would argue that what Venat did was worse. By withholding that information, she is at least partially complicit in the Ardors as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: The Ancient world was an objectively better place than the one that Venat left us with. As I see it as a moral imperative to lessen suffering for your fellow man, yes, she was objectively wrong for not helping them prevent the Final days and for the sundering.

---

Except that the event that ended that perfection was not the Sundering: it was the End of Days, an event that could not be stopped (well, unless someone introduced Hermes to the concept of peer review, but for some reason that's not the idea being discussed). After that point, untimely deaths were now a thing, people were in pain, and difficult decisions were no longer unavoidable. A perfect building stops being perfect when it's felled by an earthquake; the sin is not on the demolitionist clearing the rubble, no matter how much you think it could be repaired.


Knowing that the notion of 'nobody was inherently right or wrong, because morality is not inherent and not all choices are made comfortably' was completely intentional to the point where the game directly asked it, I do think it's interesting to see exactly why people take the stances they do--including the people who take a stance that they can't take a stance. The people saying they don't have important information are perhaps the ones that I most understand without agreeing with, because from them I see an overall angle of 'I want to know I will make the right choice, and right now I don't'. Some are genuinely unsure and just want clarity, some seem to be leaning one way or the other but want some kind of green light to say that they're right before they plant their feet. I get that, but I don't think it's ever going to happen; actual proof of what the third sacrifice entailed, or the exact conscious experience of being a soul inside Zodiark, probably won't come. You might just need to make peace with the fact that you won't be perfectly happy with your answers.

Another thing I see, though, is sort of a post-hoc justification of the position someone landed on, either by claiming facts that aren't relevant (or might not be there at all) or taking swings at the character representing the other side. Essentially, to shore up the belief that you made the right choice by knocking the other side down even further. I wouldn't even say I'm free of this, even if the evidence for my stance came non-linearly; I land on Team Hydaelyn because I'm an environmentalist who will ultimately put the wellbeing of the planet over the comfort of its people, but somewhere in my greater argument will always be 'and also that guy on the other side goes on to invent fascism'. If I'm completely honest, even I don't know how relevant that part is to the argument or my eventual stance on it. But overall... I hope all the people taking this approach actually did get there through considering the situation as given, and didn't just twist, ignore or fabricate evidence to land in the camp they wanted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

If you dont need that why sacrifice the Ancients in the first place? They could have then just summoned countless of soulless concepts and sacrifice those right? They did not do that in the first round of sacrifices nor in the second one.

I would find it completely ironic if they managed to exchange the souls of the Ancients with mindless beasts only to have Zodiark going out of control.

---

And this is mostly unrelated, but I want to point out that I just realized that this thought of 'shoving mindless beasts into Zodiark might just make him a mindless beast' isn't unfamiliar to the series--you've just come from a different direction and essentially reinvented Exdeath from FFV. (Which I can't knock, I love Exdeath.)

Except that she had information with which they could have prevented the final days and didn't share it. not even with Emet. I could have understood not sharing it with the convocation at large, but not sharing it with Emet whom though he might not have believed it at first would still have investigated and acted on it [as proven by his actions leading up to Ktisis] is something that is a hard sell for me to forgive.

Edit to add: It's also why our inaction prior to leaving Elpis bothers me so much. I would have been screaming from mountaintops what was coming so that they could have acted, even if it would have meant my erasure. "To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom, it is indolence" is a tenet I take quite seriously, both in game and IRL, and that we weren't allowed to save the Ancients when we could have conceivably done so is horrific to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

If you dont need that why sacrifice the Ancients in the first place? They could have then just summoned countless of soulless concepts and sacrifice those right? They did not do that in the first round of sacrifices nor in the second one.

I would find it completely ironic if they managed to exchange the souls of the Ancients with mindless beasts only to have Zodiark going out of control.

---

The Final Days spared no one, least of all the creations of the Ancients who presumably would've been susceptible to the influence of dynamis, with the "keening" described as triggering a change in all life by an Amaurotine.

There may not have even been enough wildlife left to fuel such a monumentally powerful act of creation at that point.

As far as the later sacrifices go, who knows how that might've played out, though I think it would've been nice for them to have offered more solid reasoning for it being "ill-fated" according to the codex. I was honestly expecting the Sundering happened because there was concrete evidence discovered by Venat's faction that something might or would've gone horribly wrong immediately if they had gone through with their plan to offer more sacrifices to Zodiark, mostly due to that 5.2 scene with them having expressed that efforts to turn the Convocation away from making that decision fell on deaf ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Except that she had information with which they could have prevented the final days and didn't share it. not even with Emet. I could have understood not sharing it with the convocation at large, but not sharing it with Emet whom though he might not have believed it at first would still have investigated and acted on it [as proven by his actions leading up to Ktisis] is something that is a hard sell for me to forgive.

Edit to add: It's also why our inaction prior to leaving Elpis bothers me so much. I would have been screaming from mountaintops what was coming so that they could have acted, even if it would have meant my erasure. "To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom, it is indolence" is a tenet I take quite seriously, both in game and IRL, and that we weren't allowed to save the Ancients when we could have conceivably done so is horrific to me.

---

And as I've mentioned multiple times now: going to Emet would have been the worst idea, because he's the one guy we're absolutely sure would have ruined everything. Hermes is needed in the seat of Fandaniel to protect against the End of Days, and also needs to be generally mentally well and unaware that he caused the bloody thing to remain on-task. Telling Emet-Selch would lead him to breaking both of those things; not only is he gonna get in the way of Hermes' appointment, but he's gonna make it damn clear about why. And we know that because we saw him do all of that when he learned it all the first time. We actually don't want him to investigate it, because him investigating it caused this mess. As to 'doing more in Elpis': remember the mechanics of time traverl in this universe. Making too much of a change creates a new timeline and orphans your old; if you were screaming from the mountaintops, not only do you go, so does everyone that was counting on you. And... again, because of the 'Hermes Needs To Help' factor, you probably can't even help.

Again, I think I understand where you're coming from; you believe in helping your fellow man, and for that reason you think Zodiark's sacrifices were the right choice. And I think what you're doing is trying to make yourself happy with that choice; to simplify it by making Venat worse, by making the problem avoidable. To take away the greys and shadows of where you landed, so that you can be completely okay with it.

Except I did want him to investigate it. I do want the game timeline orphaned and split off so both ends get happiness in the end. I'm speaking what I do because I want the timelines fractured and branched. Also, we are forgetting the old Fandaniel still exists and even if Hermes had discovered what he had done, the old Fandaniel could have stuck around much like Venat did after stepping down and kept his ass in control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Or as said by Omega it’s a combination of random environmental and emotional factors like friends, family, support systems, personal beliefs, hopes, experiences etc.

---

Or just raw shock and incomprehension, like with the main interviewee. Omega pretty much discards the notion of any actual correlation of factors at play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Another thing I see, though, is sort of a post-hoc justification of the position someone landed on,

---

Omega specifically calls this out. Both with the player describing Emet-Selch as sort of a tragic friend, and with the innate inconsistency of viewing Venat as a hero and Hermes as a villain even though their actions and motivations in trying to forcibly change humanity are identical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Mm. I know a number of posters - Lauront included - have posts with clear sources that have been posted in response to such claims. At one point I had them bookmarked though something tells me hunting them down would prove to be a waste of time when they're deliberately overlooked and/or downplayed.

---

Yep, here for the older ones and the JP Hyth text Lurina kindly provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jemachu

Honestly I think the third set of sacrifices are a moot point come Endwalker, as we know now that the point of contention was purely ideological.

Venat was clearly scared of humanity following the path of the Plenty and believed they needed to embrace suffering and hardship. This is no doubt affected by the fact she met the WoL, where the sundered are largely forced to accept living with suffering and strife, even though this is because their only other option is death. She came to the conclusion that the ancients, who had the ability to ultimately escape their newfound situation through both their own power and Zodiark and would over time return to their previous idyllic world, had failed the test set by Hermes and passed her judgement. The test which only she knew was taking place, the test which only she knew the cause of.

Would they have been able to have the resolve to defeat Meteion and find a way to do so in the future, had they known the cause? Most likely, considering how powerful the ancients and especially the members of the convocation were. However it is clear that Venat's issue lie within the ancient way of life itself and where she believed they were headed. She took it upon herself to be the one to pass judgement, which is what I believe to be her failing.

---

I agree. My problem with the fixation on the sacrifices is this:

1. It is ambiguous as to what they are. Statements about wanting to entrust the star to them do not resolve this. Moreover, the text on Hyth in the JP version, coupled with knowledge of how the ancients create life from 6.0, is strongly pointing to these being creations, and probably their progeny once they got round to the usual "the bees and the birds" thing. Very few of these are even capable of any real degree of sapience, and those which are in a limited fashion, we're told by and large don't qualify for souls (familiars.) So was she spinning a narrative that some of these might potentially become sapient, e.g. through a process of evolution, with knowledge she gained from the WoL about the sundered world, and used to embellish a bit? Were some sapient familiars or the like? Did she just mean make do with this new life and don't restore our brethren in the Purgatory, because this would repeat our doom? Is she pulling a bait and switch to buy time through such arguments, such that she can amass more support to summon Hydaelyn? We do not know, because it's never specified, and this is one of the biggest issues many of us have with the story, along with shying away from showing the Sundering and shoving it into the Nier crossover game. Bringing me to the next point.

2. The writers do not even reference this as a motivation of hers. The in-game explanation, articulated by Y'shtola, is that she was concerned ancient man could not manipulate dynamis. The Q&A explanation given is her belief that her people would not change and thus fear that they would head the way of the Plenty. As I've noted in the sources, even discussions in her faction centre around the ancients repeating their doom and she concedes that the Convocation intended the sacrifices in their bid to secure the star's future well-being, so their motives aren't in dispute. And even the dispute over it may have centred around whether those inside Zodiark would want to be revived; something a returned Elidibus could comment on and confirm the state of purgatory the souls saw themselves in. The writers have now had ample opportunity to clarify this - to me it is now abundantly clear that her overarching concern is dealing with Meteion and avoiding the Plenty, as the evidence concerning any intrinsic concern with the sacrifices is scant, and besides this, she has no qualms sundering all life on the star.

3. If, as some argue based on the new Watcher dialogue, her faction knew about her intent to sunder all along, then what would convincing the ancients otherwise accomplish? True, they were already divided over this (and the implication seems to be support for her faction's purported viewpoint waned over time), but let's posit the scenario where all handing over the star to the new life meant is the ancients don't exchange animals, plants and familiars for those in the Zodiark purgatory - if as some argue that the ancients could not devise means to deal with her (which, like you, I don't really buy), then so what if they did stop the sacrifices? She - resolved to do so whether the rest of her faction was or not - would still need to proceed with sundering them anyway. And if she did have in mind a scenario where they contrived alternate means (thus resolving the Dynamis problem), but was concerned that based on their mentality at the time, they'd end up as the Plenty, then this is precisely the point where the debate reverts to "well what if she'd told them the truth?" and the sacrifices become irrelevant.

TLDR I consider them to be a red herring at this point, as her real beef was their stance to "suffering". And like Brinne has articulated, EW has helped explain their strong emotional motive to proceed with this third stage. I think the burden of proof required by a civilisation that had managed to extirpate or at least mitigate many forms of suffering, in light of this, is going to be greater than a few platitudes about "suffering".

I also do not really understand this fixation with Venat being "objectively" justified. For the choice I went with (yes, Emet), it was sufficient that they're justified based on their perspective and aims - i.e. restore a star and people inexplicably shattered following an apocalypse, albeit at a terrible cost to the resulting fragmented life forms. But did it need to be "objectively" justified in the sense that you have to agree this was the best or only way forward, or that all parties had to agree this was necessary? No, there is no reason the sundered had to accept his own intentions as a reason to be wiped out, and neither did it need to be the case with Venat. It was a decision she made based on beliefs she had and was a way to achieve her aim, and it came at a great cost, both for the ancients and for the sundered shards.

If the writers revert to trying to push this as some "objectively" best scenario, in spite of all the ambiguities in the game which cast doubt on this (with the Omega quest further pulling apart this notion of one "correct" stance to despair, as Veloran notes), or resume attempts at ancient bad to transmute their erasure into a "good thing", and do so with more clumsy, heavy-handed and at best superficially/tangentially relevant "themes", I'm afraid that's the point where I will check out, as I've little interest in being pushed such a narrative. I don't necessarily want something like an AU - it would be nice for the sake of exploring and I wouldn't object to it, but it's not necessary - for me the key thing is that they clarify their message on what happened to the ancients and Venat's actions being driven by her beliefs of what would be best, rather than some Objectively Best and Only Way, and they went some way to treating this as a matter of perspective in the Omega quests. So a regression would be most unfortunate.

On the topic of personal views, I will simply say that had the story premised her as annihilating her people over a dispute regarding animals, plants and maybe some rare sapient familiars, that would be an even more abhorrent reasoning to me than what they went with in the story - this viewpoint simply does not compute for me, and I am afraid I am simply at an irreconcilable impasse with anyone who would see it as sufficient - something I'd view as dimly as wiping out humans for the sake of some 'ecological' balance, or for the sake of animals, or the like. Overall, based on what we know of the sundered, vs the ancients and their symbiotic view of how they, their creations and star fit into a singular lifeforce, I am baffled that it is even argued that the ancients were somehow worse in this respect - this is at odds with everything we're shown about the sundered, whatever excuses are contrived for them. But again, even if this were the reverse, it would still not suffice for me as a good enough reason, let alone an "objective" one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Except I did want him to investigate it. I do want the game timeline orphaned and split off so both ends get happiness in the end. I'm speaking what I do because I want the timelines fractured and branched. Also, we are forgetting the old Fandaniel still exists and even if Hermes had discovered what he had done, the old Fandaniel could have stuck around much like Venat did after stepping down and kept his ass in control.

---

We don't actually know that the old Fandaniel would still be around, and I'd actually bet otherwise. I had a longer thing about this talking about the fact the timeframe was probably fairly short, and that I'd expect Old Fandaniel to vacate the seat early, but... hoenstly, I'm less interested in talking about that than I am in that first part of what you said.


The present day was relying on the Warrior of Light to come back with vital information. It is no exaggeration that if they failed in their journey, for any reason, that entire world dies. More than one world, in fact--we can't forget the shards (of which right now there's five in good state). Meanwhile, the Ancient world is unlikely to change even if you threw everything at it, for the reasons described.

What does your moral imperative to lessen the suffering of your fellow man say about the fact that your decision in this scenario is to leave six worlds to die, while trying to protect one with a slim chance of survival?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Or just raw shock and incomprehension, like with the main interviewee. Omega pretty much discards the notion of any actual correlation of factors at play.

---

And what did he have to say after the truth sunk in?

Quote:

---

Nashvan: It all seemed so surreal...which was probably what saved me from the transformation. The truth of it didn't begin to sink in until the worst of it was over. I have not the words to describe how I felt then. The sorrow, the overwhelming sense of helplessness... I may still be wallowing in misery if not for my old friend, Djinabaha. I'd lost my will to work, and he encouraged me with kind words and odd jobs. Now, somehow, I live again. I am thankful to him, to the courageous Ahewann, and to you. If you see your comrades, please let them know their efforts were not in vain.

---

One other little line that is important in this discussion I think needs to be brought up.

Quote:

---

Omega: You were of the same mind. Resolved to the same purpose. Yet your strength of heart─of spirit─was not equal. If merely emulating the individual is insufficient, then some other unseen factor must be involved...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

1. It is ambiguous as to what they are. Statements about wanting to entrust the star to them do not resolve this. Moreover, the text on Hyth in the JP version, coupled with knowledge of how the ancients create life from 6.0, is strongly pointing to these being creations, and probably their progeny once they got round to the usual "the bees and the birds" thing.

---

Zodiark seeding life on a damaged world does not mean those souls wouldn’t have been Ancients. If the world was truly becoming impossible to live in, then humanity would also wither, even if they were Ancients. They would need the new life as much as it needed them, the star after all still needed to grant new Ancients their souls after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

2. The writers do not even reference this as a motivation of hers.

---

I would point out that it is indeed mentioned in her speech in the now “infamous” cutscene in Elpis. The Third Sacrifice was important for what it marked, the sacrifice of lives in order to restore what once was. As you yourself noted the Convocation was also divided on this action, so we can say this wasn’t a haphazard decision. They thought on this, and decided that it be best to trade those future lives for the ones in Zodiark. For a species that was on the road to destroying itself due to a belief that the old world was perfect, this is consequential. Not to mention the potential complication of having even more Ancients who had been touched by Zodiark now having to decide whether they should seal him away or continue using him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lauront

3. If, as some argue based on the new Watcher dialogue, her faction knew about her intent to sunder all along, then what would convincing the ancients otherwise accomplish? True, they were already divided over this (and the implication seems to be support for her faction's purported viewpoint waned over time), but let's posit the scenario where all handing over the star to the new life meant is the ancients don't exchange animals, plants and familiars for those in the Zodiark purgatory - if as some argue that the ancients could not devise means to deal with her (which, like you, I don't really buy), then so what if they did stop the sacrifices?

---

For one the summoning of Hydaelyn may not necessitate burning through their souls. Humanity as well may not need to be completely wiped of their remembrance of the past, as they would have demonstrated they could move forward even with the temptation of their “paradise.” Beyond that we can only speculate given we can’t exactly ask what the plan was, but I am of the belief that something similar to the Twelve could’ve been arranged. Namely that while many would be Sundered, as many could’ve been separated from the world, able to live out their lives helping and protecting the Sundered from afar. The Lunarians in FF4 is the obvious parallel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Except I did want him to investigate it. I do want the game timeline orphaned and split off so both ends get happiness in the end. I'm speaking what I do because I want the timelines fractured and branched. Also, we are forgetting the old Fandaniel still exists and even if Hermes had discovered what he had done, the old Fandaniel could have stuck around much like Venat did after stepping down and kept his ass in control.

---

Old Fandaniel knew nothing of the celestial, as per Emet Selch statements.

Note I said branched timeline. G'raha did it, there is no reason we could not have. In all likelyhood we would have either been forced back to our timeline [in which case we never would have been able to see our handiwork of saving the ancients, which I am completely all right with as long as they are alive and happy in that other branch] or have access to both timelines through Elidibus' tinkering with the tower.

Quote:

---

Old Fandaniel knew nothing of the celestial, as per Emet Selch statements.

---

I wasn't talking about using him for dynamis reasons, but for the reasons of keeping his protégé from spoiling the sauce due to the jogging of his memory of what he had done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Note I said branched timeline. G'raha did it, there is no reason we could not have. In all likelyhood we would have either been forced back to our timeline [in which case we never would have been able to see our handiwork of saving the ancients, which I am completely all right with as long as they are alive and happy in that other branch] or have access to both timelines through Elidibus' tinkering with the tower.

---

G'raha orphaned his timeline, he can't go back. And we had the exact same time machine as we did. You would not be 'forced back to our timeline', you would be unable to access it. This doesn't mean you have a chance to save both timelines; it means that the present day dies in darkness, waiting for you to come back with crucial information that never comes; they can never find Meteion because they never know she's there. This is not speculation: this is STATED, by Elidibus.

It is not possible to save both worlds. I was going to compare this scenario to a trolley problem, but in truth, it's worse; the trolley problem presumes that if you act, less will die but those who do will be on your hands. In the scenario you've invented, to stay on the course is to save more lives; diverting is the cruelest possible choice, by all metrics.

At which point I decide which lives hold more value to me, and to be honest the Unsundered Ancients hold more value to me than the Sundered, who seem to have quite a bit of skill at destroying themselves than the Unsundered ever did. The sacrifices they made were ones made out of necessity due to Venat not telling them the truth. Also, as it has already been stated by Word of God that the Sundered were shards of the Ancient World, in all likelihood we could find and befriend the Unsundered forms of all of our friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

Note I said branched timeline. G'raha did it, there is no reason we could not have. In all likelyhood we would have either been forced back to our timeline [in which case we never would have been able to see our handiwork of saving the ancients, which I am completely all right with as long as they are alive and happy in that other branch] or have access to both timelines through Elidibus' tinkering with the tower.

---

If we did it the exact way G'raha did it, we would be stuck. We would create a new course of time while we are in it, and be carried along into a different future to the one we travelled from – leaving all our friends and our entire world to die without the precious information we learned. (And whatever you may personally think of the Scions, they are clearly the generic-WoL's dear friends, and I would doubt that the WoL is the sort of person who would leave them to their fate.)

It's possible that Elidibus's portal would work differently and create a bridge across the two branches, but perhaps we didn't want to risk it, or didn't think of it, or the writers didn't think of it.

Ultimately, the ancients ARE doomed to go through the suffering of the Final Days in at least one timeline, and creating a second better one won't actually fix it for the first lot. And we do need to get back to our own timeline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

I wasn't talking about using him for dynamis reasons, but for the reasons of keeping his protégé from spoiling the sauce due to the jogging of his memory of what he had done.

---

You’d be hoping his despair at Meteions report and his love for her isn’t outweighed by the affection he has for his mentor. Given he already attacked a member of the Convocation, the Head of the Bureau of Creation, the former Azem and their guest, threw Elpis into chaos and used Kairos to manipulate human memories, all while knowing that his former mentor would still be around to hear about it, I’d say that’s not likely to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

At which point I decide which lives hold more value to me, and to be honest the Unsundered Ancients hold more value to me than the Sundered, who seem to have quite a bit of skill at destroying themselves than the Unsundered ever did.

---

You've said exactly that you value the unsundered more than the sundered, a few times before this, in fact. So I'm not sure why I ever expected you to choose otherwise.

Ironically, despite what you were always saying, you never were choosing to save your fellow man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

You've said exactly that you value the unsundered more than the sundered, a few times before this, in fact. So I'm not sure why I ever expected you to choose otherwise.

Ironically, despite what you were always saying, you never were choosing to save your fellow man.

---

Except I was, because I consider the Ancients much closer to "my fellow man" than I ever considered the Sundered.

I just find it incredibly convenient that the writers managed to make it work where the protagonists are able to not only create a branching timeline but do so where both timelines people(main cast that is) are effectively safe and fine. Yet now fast forward to this expansion and all of a sudden all of this just….isn’t possible. All of a sudden it’s the ancients are doomed no matter what and there’s no way time travel would help. Which is a bit ironic considering one of the main themes in not only this game but also the ff series as a whole is defying fate. This is something even the twins reference in UT saying “they will defy fate no matter the cost.” Well….why doesn’t this apply twofold?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

No, the idea is correct. When we're dealing with a moral quandary which entails the destruction of one world for the sake of creating another one, inevitably everything that happens in that latter world is relevant to the question. For an example related to your hypothetical, look at Yotsuyu, someone who resorted to countless horrible deeds after being abused by the people and circumstances she was born to. Obviously, the conditions that made her who she was never would have happened in the ancient world. Similarly, anytime in the future there's some evil done by mankind against itself, there will always be the lingering sentiment that something else was destroyed specifically to enable this to happen. So whenever we look back and judge the ancient conflict, we're weighing it against the consequences of the world we have now.

---

Fair point. I do agree that Venat - and Hermes - are to blame for pretty much everything bleak that has every happened in the game's story. It's a consequence of trying to tie everything together instead of allowing each piece of the puzzle to thrive as its own thing. It rids various characters and factions of their agency.

I'd also note that nobody is under any obligation to approve of Venat's actions and the strange insistence that Venat is being 'attacked' for engaging in genocide is - quite frankly - bizarre to me. More so the deceptive attempt to pretend as if those of us criticising her have not consistently said 'let's agree to disagree'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I just find it incredibly convenient that the writers managed to make it work where the protagonists are able to not only create a branching timeline but do so where both timelines people(main cast that is) are effectively safe and fine. Yet now fast forward to this expansion and all of a sudden all of this just….isn’t possible. All of a sudden it’s the ancients are doomed no matter what and there’s no way time travel would help. Which is a bit ironic considering one of the main themes in not only this game but also the ff series as a whole is defying fate. This is something even the twins reference in UT saying “they will defy fate no matter the cost.” Well….why doesn’t this apply twofold?

---

Because traveling through time does not by itself mean that you have solved the problem. Graha didn’t just go to the last and tell everyone what was going to happen, he followed an exact plan. One that leveraged the knowledge he had to allow for maximum impact. Going back to the Ancient world doesn’t surmount the inherent problems that make untangling the Meteion-Dynamis knot difficult. That’s why people are saying it’s not going to work out like that. And on thr theme angle, that’s your opinion and I respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Fair point. I do agree that Venat - and Hermes - are to blame for pretty much everything bleak that has every happened in the game's story. It's a consequence of trying to tie everything together instead of allowing each piece of the puzzle to thrive as its own thing. It rids various characters and factions of their agency.

I'd also note that nobody is under any obligation to approve of Venat's actions and the strange insistence that Venat is being 'attacked' for engaging in genocide is - quite frankly - bizarre to me. More so the deceptive attempt to pretend as if those of us criticising her have not consistently said 'let's agree to disagree'.

---

Not even Venat herself discounts that a lot of suffering in the world is due to her actions. Our problem with you and the others trying to criticize her is the notion that she committed genocide in a world where souls are recycled over and over. That's bizarre to the rest of us since those people also believe that had Venat said more, because she did tell people they would have somehow found a way around the fact that they can't even reach Metion to stop her, and can't fight her due to their own biology. You can not like what she did, but the world and the universe itself is alive because of what she did. The majority of the people on her world chose a slow death, hiding behind their newly created god. Should they decide the fact of everyone left in the universe or even their own world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Not even Venat herself discounts that a lot of suffering in the world is due to her actions. Our problem with you and the others trying to criticize her is the notion that she committed genocide in a world where souls are recycled over and over. That's bizarre to the rest of us since those people also believe that had Venat said more, because she did tell people they would have somehow found a way around the fact that they can't even reach Metion to stop her, and can't fight her due to their own biology. You can not like what she did, but the world and the universe itself is alive because of what she did. The majority of the people on her world chose a slow death, hiding behind their newly created god. Should they decide the fact of everyone left in the universe or even their own world?

---

How were they hiding? They thought the threat was gone. Venat was the only one with the knowledge that it wasn’t and she said nothing to prevent it all. What would you have them do exactly? Somehow figure out that there was still some intergalactic space flea? They didn’t choose a slow death. It wasn’t a choice. That’s beyond bizarre thinking. Literally look up the definition of genocide. Because by your description, the rejoinings are in the same boat. They aren’t genocide because the souls are recycled LOL.

Yeah, both the Rejoinings and the Sundering fit the definition of genocide on multiple levels. It's also pretty strange to deliberately force people into a corner where the lives of their loved ones are at stake only to blame them for...doing everything possible in order to survive.

The logic deployed by Hermes and Venat isn't too different to that of the guy responsible for the chaos in the Saw movies. Placing people in horrific situations where they are only considered 'worthy' if they claw their way out of some gruesome trap, albeit only in a narrow and contrived 'correct' solution to the puzzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EaraGrace

Given this entire discussion requires dismissing that whole cutscene you’re quoting. Maybe not wise to bring that up as an example of “accepting reality.”

---

Do you believe:

1) Venat strolled through Amaurot during the Final Days and did nothing as she watched others being slaughtered in the streets?
2) That the Final Days were still occurring after the second sacrifice?
3) That Venat sundered the world before her battle with Zodiark and not as Hydaelyn?

If none of these things are accurate, then why would I believe her interaction with the Ancient strawmen is? There are reasons that cutscene is dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Since the Omega quests just come out and say that the resistance to the Dynamis transformation is almost totally random and not strongly correlated to one's life conditions or strength of character, the entire idea that the sundering was necessary to create a world of people that could withstand despair and existential oblivion through their inurement to suffering basically becomes moot.

---

I hadn't even thought of this. The Social Darwinism messaging needed to be walked back, but in doing so Venat's actions become even further unjustifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Our problem with you and the others trying to criticize her is the notion that she committed genocide in a world where souls are recycled over and over.

---

Good to know the rejoinings are no longer considered genocide!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Yeah, both the Rejoinings and the Sundering fit the definition of genocide on multiple levels. It's also pretty strange to deliberately force people into a corner where the lives of their loved ones are at stake only to blame them for...doing everything possible in order to survive.

The logic deployed by Hermes and Venat isn't too different to that of the guy responsible for the chaos in the Saw movies. Placing people in horrific situations where they are only considered 'worthy' if they claw their way out of some gruesome trap, albeit only in a narrow and contrived 'correct' solution to the puzzle.

---

Do you want to play a game Emet?
You have 59 minutes, and 59 seconds to secure a solution to Meteion and the Final Days
Each second that ticks by brings the chained up hydaelyn one step closer to sundering the planet and ending your people as you knew them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegreatonemal

Our problem with you and the others trying to criticize her is the notion that she committed genocide in a world where souls are recycled over and over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

Do you believe:Good to know the rejoinings are no longer considered genocide!

---

That's actually a good point. If souls are recycled, why are the rejoinings wrong? If a rejoining kills someone, they'll be back anyways so why not just rejoin everything? Seeing as no one actually dies, it would only be a net positive once they come back. The only two conclusions that can be drawn from this is 1) killing is still wrong, and Venat committed genocide or 2) killing' ISN'T wrong and the rejoinings were justifed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

I just find it incredibly convenient that the writers managed to make it work where the protagonists are able to not only create a branching timeline but do so where both timelines people(main cast that is) are effectively safe and fine. Yet now fast forward to this expansion and all of a sudden all of this just….isn’t possible. All of a sudden it’s the ancients are doomed no matter what and there’s no way time travel would help.

---

Time travel will not help them in this current timeline, where the events they lived through have been lived through. They happened. We cannot make them un-happen to this timeline's Ancients.

The only thing we could achieve is creating a second copy of those people who might have a happier life than the ones we know. And as I said above, whether you want it or not, the basic character of the WoL as written by the devs has gone to the past to observe what happened and come back to their present day to apply that knowledge.

I forgot to mention that, as far as I know, Venat is also the only one confirmed to have destroyed souls. Not only those of her summoners (and herself), but every soul lost to the second Final Days as the sundering made mankind more susceptible to the Song of Oblivion. Even worse if the theory is true that if a Source soul is destroyed then all of its shards are too. It makes me wonder if people were just getting Thanos dusted on the shards with every blasphemy that manifested on the Source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Time travel will not help them in this current timeline, where the events they lived through have been lived through. They happened. We cannot make them un-happen to this timeline's Ancients.

The only thing we could achieve is creating a second copy of those people who might have a happier life than the ones we know. And as I said above, whether you want it or not, the basic character of the WoL as written by the devs has gone to the past to observe what happened and come back to their present day to apply that knowledge.

---

We didnt just observe though. We directly interacted with them. We werent some invisible entity or viewing this through the echo. We were literally there, interacting with them, and we are still doing so now in pandaemonium.