What lore do you ignore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

I'm not saying Venat made herself into a god for personal gain. I'm saying she's wrong. What she's doing is jaw-droppingly evil. And the most fitting punishment I can imagine for her multitude of crimes against humanity is tossing her back into the aetherial sea to be reborn into the world she made. Not as a supreme deity with a bird's eye view of what she wrought, but as a regular person, helpless and confused as her child dies in her arms of a disease with no cure. If the world she built is so much better, than she should have taken a tour to the facilities.

It's one thing for the horrors of life to happen by happenstance. It's another for them to happen by design. No good, loving being invents cancer. Especially not as a bloody character builder.

---

You know, up until now I had been holding on to comfort that Venat's punishment for her crimes was to be wasted away entirely, but I like your idea better. If her world was really that much better, then she should have been forced to live in it too. Even better if she kept her memories.

Ahh, and as for her making herself a goddess, I would like to point out that not only did she do that, she also created constructs to act as even more gods for us. Gods that we have to pray to lest the broken world destabilise, because shockingly, the Star doesn't seem to like being broken into pieces. And yes, I know they are gone, but they left a machine behind that prayers are being directed to. One wonders what would happen if the population of Etheirys ever took up atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

You really can't tell the difference between "all stories need happy endings" verses "I am disturbed what this story is trying to slip past as right and good is fascist propaganda." I'd be like making Zenos the hero of Stormblood and having all the Scions look at him adoringly as he murdered people for the sake of genetic superiority. That's be weird right? It'd be okay to point out that's maybe not a good thing, right?

I've made it blatantly clear me issue with Endwalker is to agree with Venat's actions, you have to agree with some pretty horrific concepts, like some lives aren't worth as much as others, like it's okay to take everything from a people if you believe you can make better use of it and these are the exact arguments I've been seeing trying to defend the mass murder of 10 worlds. Because even if you're willing to do all kinds of backflips to act like what she did to the Ancients wasn't genocide, she unquestionably set up several shards to be destroyed, on purpose. That's a lot of death for a loving mommy to cause.

---

Oh, I'm not even talking about you at this point, although you are the most recent person I've seen raise it. I've seen it a lot. And I think it betrays something under the surface; not one of the first complaints, but one underneath. I don't know what it could be, and I'm not about to speculate for anyone; I don't have enough of a hint to even begin to guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Oh, I'm not even talking to you at this point, although you are the most recent person I've seen raise it. I've seen it a lot. And I think it betrays something under the surface; not one of the first complaints, but one underneath. I don't know what it could be, and I'm not about to speculate for anyone; I don't have enough of a hint to even begin to guess.

---

Because I assumed once the WoL was involved we'd save people. You know, like G'raha did one expansion earlier. But nope, we're just a useless pawn who stands there looking at their feet when kind, gentle people ask us about the danger coming for them. I was hoping for better because given the morals espoused even one expansion earlier, I wouldn't have imagined the necessity of culling the weak to be the next lesson for me to learn.

When Elidibus looks at us and says, "I know who you are. You are death." After Endwalker, I wanna be like, "Oh, so you do remember me?" Like you do get the WoL is now the direct cause for the Sundering? Had we not told Venat she did it, she'd likely have no motivation to do it. They put the death and suffering of millions, if not billions of people on our character...and I just wanted to fish, man.

For all this back and forth, I will admit, I envy those who can't see it. I wish I was oblivious to the many horrific implications of Endwalker. I could just fish, race my chocobo and wonder if my character would marry Aymeric or G'raha. Oh those halcyon days, I was so innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Because I assumed once the WoL was involved we'd save people. You know, like G'raha did one expansion earlier. But nope, we're just a useless pawn who stands there looking at their feet when kind, gentle people ask us about the danger coming for them. I was hoping for better because given the morals espoused even one expansion earlier, I wouldn't have imagined the necessity of culling to weak to be the next lesson for me to learn.

When Elidibus looks at us and says, "I know who you are. You are death." After Endwalker, I wanna be like, "Oh, so you do remember me?" Like you do get the WoL is now the direct cause for the Sundering? Had we not told Venat she did it, she'd likely have no motivation to do it. They put the death and suffering of millions, if not billions of people on our character...and I just wanted to fish, man.

For all this back and forth, I will admit, I envy those who can't see it. I wish I was oblivious to the many horrific implications of Endwalker. I could just fish, race my chocobo and wonder if my character would marry Aymeric or G'raha. Oh those halcyon days, I was so innocent.

---

I see what you see, I just don't agree with your take on it.

And with this one, I feel like for a lot of people, the example may be the people we couldn't save--Haurchefant, Moenbryda, Minfilia, Papalymo, Ysayle. That we aren't Superman: that sometimes, it's impossible to save everybody. And I don't think that's an invalid read, it's one that I'd certainly hear out an exploration of. But for me, the interesting echo comes from somewhere else.

I think the partner to the tale of Amaurot is actually the game's stories about necromancy: Edda's story, Palace of the Dead, Endwalker Caster, Stormblood Dark Knight, a 'weird it happened twice' amount of Alchemist stories. Bozja, in a strange form. Because no matter how many different forms of necromancy we find, the message is always the same: that death is tragic, that wanting to find a way to circumvent it is understandable and sympathetic, and that even that journey to find a way to fix death might bear important fruit, either personal or material... but that, at the end of the day, you can't bring back what was lost. That what is dead must lie, and that you have to move on. And that the living shouldn't pay the price for the dead.

To the game's timeline and characters, Amaurot is not a living friend to save: it's already dead. It's been dead for twelve thousand years. In a very real sense, the Ascians are game's biggest story about necromancy, willing to sacrifice everything to bring back what's lost. And the greatest tragedy of all is that you just can't; Amaurot will always be a graveyard, no matter if your means of necromancy is to try to change the timeline, or to sacrifice entire planets.

I don't see us as a useless pawn in someone else's game for the Ancient world. Because to me, that 'game' ended so long ago that nobody needs care about the score. And trying to replay it for a different result is only going to cause pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

I see what you see, I just don't agree with your take on it.

And with this one, I feel like for a lot of people, the example may be the people we couldn't save--Haurchefant, Moenbryda, Minfilia, Papalymo, Ysayle. That we aren't Superman: that sometimes, it's impossible to save everybody. And I don't think that's an invalid read, it's one that I'd certainly hear out an exploration of. But for me, the interesting echo comes from somewhere else.

I think the partner to the tale of Amaurot is actually the game's stories about necromancy: Edda's story, Palace of the Dead, Endwalker Caster, Stormblood Dark Knight, a 'weird it happened twice' amount of Alchemist stories. Bozja, in a strange form. Because no matter how many different forms of necromancy we find, the message is always the same: that death is tragic, that wanting to find a way to circumvent it is understandable and sympathetic, and that even that journey to find a way to fix death might bear important fruit, either personal or material... but that, at the end of the day, you can't bring back what was lost. That what is dead must lie, and that you have to move on. And that the living shouldn't pay the price for the dead.

To the game's timeline and characters, Amaurot is not a living friend to save: it's already dead. It's been dead for twelve thousand years. In a very real sense, the Ascians are game's biggest story about necromancy, willing to sacrifice everything to bring back what's lost. And the greatest tragedy of all is that you just can't; Amaurot will always be a graveyard, no matter if your means of necromancy is to try to change the timeline, or to sacrifice entire planets.

I don't see us as a useless pawn in someone else's game for the Ancient world. Because to me, that 'game' ended so long ago that nobody needs care about the score. And trying to replay it for a different result is only going to cause pain.

---

There is a difference between the inability to stop a light spear and standing next to the member of a world's governing body and not warning him of an oncoming genocide because you're afraid it might be in conflict with you benefitting from the death of everything he cares about. One is an actual "couldn't be helped" the other is the kind of "can't be helped" that is the source of my displeasure with the direction they took it. That's the kind of "can't be helped" that ends in small pox blankets and people in cages. And the fact those two are being conflated is exactly what's bothering me.

Also, why is our time the "real time" in a world with time travel? Good thing Ironworks didn't hold that position or our character would be dead. If we don't go back and tell Venat about the Sundering, the Sundering doesn't happen. We're not just witnessing the past, we're the cause of the way events unfolded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Also, why is our time the "real time" in a world with time travel?

---

Because we live there, obviously. In a story largely told within a specific time period, that time period defines what's dead and what's not. Sure, to Sokles in Elpis Amaurot isn't dead, but the story isn't about Sokles in Elpis.

It's also why G'raha's story doesn't function in the same ways as the necromancy stories: because to us, the person/places he's trying to save never died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Because we live there, obviously. In a story largely told within a specific time period, that time period defines what's dead and what's not. Sure, to Sokles in Elpis Amaurot isn't dead, but the story isn't about Sokles in Elpis.

It's also why G'raha's story doesn't function in the same ways as the necromancy stories: because to us, the person/places he's trying to save never died.

---

Oh god. You're literally saying all these people are less important because we're the main character. I give up. I have now accepted we will never see eye to eye.

Also on the necromancy part of things- I find the Ancient society so ridiculously failed in presenting itself as a Utopia that I wanted to stay long in gameplaywise, for the skin crawling revulsion but also because it was boring and repetitive a location, without wanting to falciliate serious societal changes as we did so in Vauthry’s Eulmore, Thordan’s Ishgard, or everywhere under Garlean occupation. And one of those key powers was the fragile monolith of their society having no healthy framework to deal with disasters or negative mental health and trauma. Pretending that they were immune to it wasn’t true and denial wouldn’t work. And leaving aside the physical mechanical problems of the plans after the Second Sacrifice and the Ascians’ plans and the moral problems- it still was going to fail because of what we learned about trauma and memories latching onto the soul. Even mindwipes don’t remove it, and that trauma that the Ancient society didn’t know how to face and thus did not want to face or acknowledge, was now a part of not just the survivors but the souls that they were looking to release from Zodiark and the souls in the Lifestream dead before Amaurot decided to act that were now reborn or about to be. Ancient society was focused on using creation magic to alter the life upon their planet in ways that their government deemed improvements. But they thought themselves and their society perfect and thus had no reason to change - so much so that Hermes had to look to the vast unknown of outer space in secret in the hopes of finding an alternative viewpoint. What would have saved Ancient Society was to change it, by being able to accept that no it was not free from blemish or suffering (Hi Erichtonios and Lahabrea) and no amount of magical power would do so. The story is framed around that fatal flaw in the Ancients. The Sundering is the extreme and desperate correction to that, per the story that is being told.

The entire game? Cuz it is dumb to lock content behind story. I only started doing story recently with ng+ after playing it for few years. The story actually doesn't feel like a chore When l get to do it at my own pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Oh god. You're literally saying all these people are less important because we're the main character.

---

The game has been told from current time perspective this entire time. The Ancients had been dead for 12,000 years. Elidibus helped us go back in time in order to fix what was going on at our current time and considered it to be his duty to save our world from the Final Days. Elidibus tells us that we cannot make meaningful change because the reality we need to return to is a result of the end of their own. Our world and theirs cannot coexist.

The Ancients weren't even written into the story until a few years ago, this story isn't about them, they're the backstory for why things are the way they are now. Even Elidibus and Emet-Selch have accepted their fate with grace and assisted us. Elidibus' last words are telling Hydaelyn that it falls to Her and us to save "our star" as in both his and our own together. The Ancients are us. The Ascians have done what it seems like you cannot. The story and all of the characters have already moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

I give up. I have now accepted we will never see eye to eye.

---

That's how I felt when you dropped this little gem:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Venat's fascist agenda

---

Even if you want to go the 'What if' route, you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.

For example, Emet makes it clear that was relatively easy for Amaurotines to identify deception. Not only did they have the power to read others' memories, but Venat gave a demonstration of how the land itself could serve as witness to a conversation that nobody else was privy to (Lv. 87, A Flower upon Your Return). We saw how quickly the Amaurotine trio on Elpis arrived at the secret behind our arrival once Venat started asking the right questions. Even revealing partial knowledge of an event effectively renders it public domain, which is quite dangerous.

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it. According to Elidibus, Fandaniel was critical to the Amaurotine defense against the Final Days. As assayer of extant phenomenon, he was the first to identify that the transformations first took root at places where the celestial currents were weakest. He also dedicated himself to developing the countermeasure. This, in conjunction with Lahabrea's experiments on Archaeotania and the subsequent development of primal summoning, gave rise to Zodiark as the 'Will of the Star' (EE(3), p.10). Without his contributions, Amaurot would have perished then and there (Lv.86, Return to the Crystarium). Accidentally refreshing Hermes' memory would have been a relatively easy trap to fall into, given the nature of their society.

In the Lv. 86 quest Lives Apart, Hermes reveals that not only was Dynamis a relatively unstudied phenomenon, but that the rest of Amaurotine society had not sufficiently advanced their technological development to the point of creating space travel. This creates a catch-22. Hermes is the only person from that time period with the knowledge to create either an entelechy or a being capable of traversing space. But the very act of unlocking those memories would have rendered him uncooperative, resulting in a bad end. In effect, the only solution was to forestall the Final Days until society had developed the technology to mount a counteroffensive.

Change was inevitable for Amaurotine society. Azem's departure from the Convocation was unprecedented and challenged the foundation of their leadership. The act was so egregious that the Convocation refused to fill Azem's seat, refused to commemorate them, and henceforth referred to them as 'the defector' (Hythlodaeus, Lv.80, Etched in the Stars). We also now know that society's views were also changing in parallel to this challenge. People lost faith in the Convocation's leadership. They began to question whether Amaurot could afford to be so reliant on Creation magic, seeing how spectacularly it had backfired on them (EE(3), p.11). Times were changing, and the Convocation failed to acknowledge this and change with it. A coup would be inevitable under such an impasse, although under any other leadership it would have likely have ended in a complete massacre in the Convocation's favour.

The final potential branch point is an unexpected one. Emet, Lahabrea, and Elidibus had to be unsundered. Emet Selch needed to be present in the lifestream with his memories intact to create a way forward in Ultima Thule. Lahabrea and Elidibus also needed to have their memories be intact within the lifestream for the resolution of Pandaemonium in the present. Deviating from this would have resulted in failure of the corresponding plotline and the destruction of humanity.

When you look at it from this standpoint, it becomes obvious that you can't just meta-game your way through the various branches. A lot of seemingly 'sensible' solutions to try to deliberately alter the future would have resulted in tragedy. This is likely also why Alexander didn't meddle in the timelines, despite having the power to do so. The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Oh god. You're literally saying all these people are less important because we're the main character. I give up. I have now accepted we will never see eye to eye.

---

This is an unfortunate issue with discussion here, as most of the regulars of the lore forums will accept their various headcanons as truth where these truths require the reader/player of the game to make a "correct" interpretation of events to reach. From there, these individuals will attempt to explain why their truth is wholly correct without compromise or without accepting the logical leaps (headcanons) required to make their truth as they see it the absolute truth intended by the writers. It's why I take an approach that is more in-line with what Yoshi-P and the writers of the game intended, which leaves a good chunk of the events of the game open to player interpretation. I find this behavior extremely troubling as it would suggest the narrative of the lore forums agrees with is heavily controlled when, in reality, there is a fair amount of open-endedness due to the writers purposely writing the story in that way.

With that being said, there exists a thread over on the General Discussion side of the forums that contains people who are airing out their grievances involving EW in particular. As it is in General Discussion, trolls are abundant so I would caution responding to everyone who is in that thread but I would recommend looking it over if you have the time and maybe contributing your issues with the plot there. The thread is currently over 900 pages long admittedly, so if you do elect to look at previous posts, just know there is a lot of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

People lost faith in the Convocation's leadership. They began to question whether Amaurot could afford to be so reliant on Creation magic, seeing how spectacularly it had backfired on them (EE(3), p.11). Times were changing, and the Convocation failed to acknowledge this and change with it. A coup would be inevitable under such an impasse, although under any other leadership it would have likely have ended in a complete massacre in the Convocation's favour.

---

No disagreements - eloquently stated - just wanted to throw into the mix for the sake of it rarely coming up that Emet-Selch said that the act of summoning Zodiark brought the Convocation members into symbiosis with the psychospiritual gravity well his emerging essence, inadvertently tempering them. One of Venat's companions later states that one of the reasons things are so dire is that the Convocation will no longer hear anyone out, and I imagine this was especially true once Zodiark re-manifested Primal Elidibus to ensure everyone stayed on the "proper course". Personally I tend to connect these two claims in my interpretations of the scenes.

Combined with the restrictions you've outlined it's hard to imagine any course of action that does not play directly into Meteion's hands, especially under the contextual constraints of time and the actions of others already in motion. It can be imagined, of course, but virtually all of the quest content, developer statements, and Encyclopaedia text supports that we're supposed to assume futility by the time the first two waves of sacrifices were made, the plan to sacrifice new life was decided, and civil war was at its climax.

I'm not saying the execution of the storytelling was clean, but I am saying that, when one knows where the developer's heads are at, rooting for one's counter-interpretation to pan out is - generally speaking - setting oneself up for disappointment.

CITATIONS

We summoned Him, as your kind might summon a primal─albeit an infinitely more powerful one. And like one of your primals, He tempered us. It was only natural. There is no resisting such power. And so we Ascians came to exist solely to bring about the rule of darkness. His darkness.
Ça te revient en mémoire, maintenant? Tu n'aurais tout de même pas également oublié que lorsque les hommes-bêtes invoquent leurs Primordiaux des temps modernes, ils entrent en symbiose avec leur énergie et deviennent des “subjugués”, hein? Rassure-moi, tu commences à me faire peur! Eh bien, figure-toi que le processus est exactement le même pour nous. Pour faire simple, celui qui croit pouvoir résister à l'influence psychique d'un être aussi démesurément puissant ne peut qu'être lourdement déçu. C'est ainsi que les Asciens sont devenus les courroies de transmission de l'énergie de Zordiarche, mon jeune ami! Notre existence n'a qu'un seul but: amplifier et étendre la part de Ténèbres dans l'univers tout entier."
Wir riefen ihn mit unseren Wünschen und Gebeten, so wie die niederen Völker es heute mit den Primae machen-obwohl der Vergleich angesichts Zodiarks Stärke ein Frevel ist. Und wie die Primae es mit ihren Anbetern tun, ergriff er von uns Besitz. Ein natürlicher Vorgang. Nichts kann seiner geistigen Kraft widerstehen. So kam es, dass die Ascians sein Werk taten und zu Boten der Dunkelheit wurden. Seiner Dunkelheit.
現代の人は、神降ろしをしたり、蛮神のエネルギーを身に受けることで、強制的な同調……テンパード状態になるだろう？実のところ、私たちにも、同じことは起きている。精神への干渉こそ、いくらかは防げるが、あれほどの存在を顕現させれば、どうしても引っ張られるのさ。結果、アシエンはゾディアークの有する力……「闇」とも呼ばれる、活性と激化の力に寄った存在に、ならざるを得なかったわけだ。

Nay. Should we continue down this path, our fate will be the same. said as much to the Convocation, of course, but the stubborn fools turned a deaf ear to my warnings.
Malheureusement, nous courons plus que jamais à notre perte. Cet artifice n'a fait que retarder l'inéluctable. J'ai bien tenté d'en faire part au Concile des Quatorze, mais mon avis n'a pas été pris en compte.
Einspruch. Wenn wir weitermachen wie bisher, werden wir das Ende bestenfalls hinauszögern. Alle Versuche der Kontrolle sind zwecklos. Das haben wir dem Konvent der Vierzehn bereits nahegelegt, aber unsere Einwände wurden in den Wind geschlagen.
いいや、我々が今のままで在り続けるかぎり、どれほど制御を試みたとて、終末を先延ばしにしているにすぎん…。 十四人委員会にも、そう進言したが、残念ながら、取り合ってはもらえなんだ…。

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

But he was predestined to do it. She set up the First to fall to light so that the WoL would die, so that the alternate timeline would figure out time travel, so that G'raha would come back to save the WoL, so that time travel is now available, so that the WoL can be sent back in time and tell her what she does so that she can do it. Thanking him would be like thanking a domino for falling over when pushed. Plus, I don't think she really cares about individuals. If she did she wouldn't have created seven worlds just to be smashed into the Source, not to mention what she allowed and/or instigated on the First and Thirteen.

So what would she be thanking him for? "Thank you for doing exactly what I set you up to do." If so, should she also thank the Ascians for destroying all the worlds she set them up to destroy right on schedule? Because literally everyone was unknowingly acting on her agenda. The WoL included.

---

I'm kind of late with my reaction, seeing how much debate this has sparked, but I still felt like I should reply.

I personally think you're giving Venat too much credit. She was a fighter and a friend, not a genius. She was the person who sundered the world on, what the cutscene made out to be, an impulse, with seemingly no further plans besides waiting for us to be born. She of course did know that we were going to be saved, but I don't think we told her every second of what we experienced/read/heard or that she was able to perfectly lay out a plan that would result in the Calamity being stopped. G'raha and his pals made a clever plan which Hydaelyn knew would happen, but did she, herself, personally make that happen? I personally do not think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

This is an unfortunate issue with discussion here, as most of the regulars of the lore forums will accept their various headcanons as truth where these truths require the reader/player of the game to make a "correct" interpretation of events to reach. From there, these individuals will attempt to explain why their truth is wholly correct without compromise or without accepting the logical leaps (headcanons) required to make their truth as they see it the absolute truth intended by the writers. It's why I take an approach that is more in-line with what Yoshi-P and the writers of the game intended, which leaves a good chunk of the events of the game open to player interpretation. I find this behavior extremely troubling as it would suggest the narrative of the lore forums agrees with is heavily controlled when, in reality, there is a fair amount of open-endedness due to the writers purposely writing the story in that way.

---

Yeah, it took me awhile to get there, but I understand that now. If my character's perspective is the only one that matters then yes, Venat is a good, loving mommy. After all, she eradicated her species and several planets worth of her creations just to ensure I'd be born. What's more loving than that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RavLandslide

I personally think you're giving Venat too much credit. She was a fighter and a friend, not a genius. She was the person who sundered the world on, what the cutscene made out to be, an impulse, with seemingly no further plans besides waiting for us to be born. She of course did know that we were going to be saved, but I don't think we told her every second of what we experienced/read/heard or that she was able to perfectly lay out a plan that would result in the Calamity being stopped. G'raha and his pals made a clever plan which Hydaelyn knew would happen, but did she, herself, personally make that happen? I personally do not think so.

---

Though I've seen multiple instances of her working to maintain the timeline and none of her trying to change it. She handed Ardbert and his friends those crystals knowing what would happen to them, to their world. She left Ardbert roaming the world alone for 100 years because she knew he'd be needed. Imagine how it'd feel to wander a world suffering because of your actions (even though you'd been set up) unable to talk to or interact with anyone for a hundred years. I don't know about you, but I couldn't hand out those crystals knowing what would happen to that world, to those people. But she needed the WoL to die so that G'raha brings the Crystal Tower to the past, so that we can use it to come to her and her reign of terror may continue.

Knowing the full situation, gratitude would have been insulting. "Thank you for providing the tools I need to assure my ascension in this horrific loop I've locked us in."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Even if you want to go the 'What if' route, you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.

---

To this point here, it would appear you are creating the restrictions pertaining to events related to Elpis and their consequences as the writers themselves leave anything involving how the timestream flows as open-ended, where the player/reader is the one free to interpret this however they like, be these converging or diverging timestreams:

Quote:

---

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

With that said, my personal interpretation is that the past and present were always the part of the same timeline. Although there was still a possibility for the timelines to diverge, the Warrior of Light was unwittingly acting in accordance with Venat’s plans, which unified the past and present. Another interpretation might be that Venat worked really hard behind the scenes to ensure that the timeline wouldn’t go awry.

Seeing how Argos took to us on our first meeting, I’d say that proves that the past and present were already unified. -Yoshi-P

Link to video with timestamp at（03:18:39)

Link to Forum Post

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

---

Your interpretation appears to be more in-line with Yoshi-P's which is one of convergence. With that said, Yoshi-P and the writers are not dismissive of the idea of divergent timestreams, which would allow for more potential outcomes overall. So as far as 'What ifs' are concerned, under divergence they would be allowed to manifest should this be the approach taken. Generally, convergence would have to reconcile with various paradoxes (such as the bootstrap paradox and Ex Nihilo Paradox) in order to properly function unless we are still inside of the loop itself, however that is just an opinion in terms of my thoughts on converging timestreams.

Quote:

---

For example, Emet makes it clear that was relatively easy for Amaurotines to identify deception. Not only did they have the power to read others' memories, but Venat gave a demonstration of how the land itself could serve as witness to a conversation that nobody else was privy to (Lv. 87, A Flower upon Your Return). We saw how quickly the Amaurotine trio on Elpis arrived at the secret behind our arrival once Venat started asking the right questions. Even revealing partial knowledge of an event effectively renders it public domain, which is quite dangerous.

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it. According to Elidibus, Fandaniel was critical to the Amaurotine defense against the Final Days. As assayer of extant phenomenon, he was the first to identify that the transformations first took root at places where the celestial currents were weakest. He also dedicated himself to developing the countermeasure. This, in conjunction with Lahabrea's experiments on Archaeotania and the subsequent development of primal summoning, gave rise to Zodiark as the 'Will of the Star' (EE(3), p.10). Without his contributions, Amaurot would have perished then and there (Lv.86, Return to the Crystarium). Accidentally refreshing Hermes' memory would have been a relatively easy trap to fall into, given the nature of their society.

In the Lv. 86 quest Lives Apart, Hermes reveals that not only was Dynamis a relatively unstudied phenomenon, but that the rest of Amaurotine society had not sufficiently advanced their technological development to the point of creating space travel. This creates a catch-22. Hermes is the only person from that time period with the knowledge to create either an entelechy or a being capable of traversing space. But the very act of unlocking those memories would have rendered him uncooperative, resulting in a bad end. In effect, the only solution was to forestall the Final Days until society had developed the technology to mount a counteroffensive.

---

Everything bolded here subjected to the Catch 22 argument is a false argument. Per the MSQ quest Caging the Messenger, the only memories subjected to Kairos' memory alteration are those from the point Emet-Selch arrives to Elpis (and subsequently the WoL) up to the point where he is invoking Kairos. Kairos does not affect Hermes'/Fandaniel's prior knowledge/wisdom on Dynamis or space travel, as Meteion, along with her sisters, were all created prior to Emet-Selch's arrival.:

Quote:

---

Transcript for Caging the Messenger

Transcript of events in question:
Kairos:
Memory reconfiguration system Kairos activated. Awaiting instruction.

Hermes:
Command: universal memory alteration. Target area: Ktisis Hyperboreia.

Starting point: arrival of Emet-Selch of the Convocation at Propylaion. End point: the present.

Erase the memories of all events, and replace with a vague recollection of the following:

I was here, preparing to demonstrate the functionality of Kairos to Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus.

Meteion's shared consciousness became unstable. She and her sisters could not sustain their existence, and all dissipated with a burst.

The resultant shockwave accidentally triggered Kairos, which erased several days of memories from all present. Execute.
Kairos:
Command acknowledged. Initializing... Three processes remaining to execution

YT video with timestamp 8:25

-MSQ Caging the Messenger

---

With the timespan set, it would be impossible for him to wipe out his knowledge of both Dynamis and space travel unless all of these things occurred while Emet-Selch was present, which is contradicted by the fact Meteion has already been in existence prior to Emet-Selch's arrival. This based on her constitution paired with her ability to traverse space, and solidifies Hermes' knowledge of these fields prior to the events in Elpis. And given the timeframe Kairos affects, the claim memories/knowledge pertaining to those two fields was affected by the invocation of Kairos cannot be substantiated outside of someone inventing/headcanoning those effects.

As such, I am unable to view things from the standpoint you have presented them as they are contradictory to how the story portrays events. You have directly contradicted yourself with your argument via inventing/headcanoning information and presenting it as fact while maintaining a stance where people have an obligation to follow restrictions based on previous storytelling. In addition, to enforce rules on individuals for how people interpret events in the story while, at the same time, failing to abide by that selfsame standard is extremely hypocritical. I am relatively lax on many things, particularly if they involve sections of story the writers openly state to be able to be subjected to interpretation on behalf of the player, but I do not tolerate misrepresentation of events that are clearly depicted in ways that leave no room for any other interpretation.

Quote:

---

The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends along the way.

---

To peddle back a bit to the whole timestream thing, in a convergence scenario, this would be a correct interpretation of events. In the instance of Divergence, particularly if the idea of Infinite Alternate Timelines/Universes is invoked, this is just one of many permutations of the timestreams that, based on invoking infinity, would allow for this to happen, it just so happens we are in that timestream, which is also a bit of luck just like how it would work in terms of convergence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RavLandslide

I personally think you're giving Venat too much credit. She was a fighter and a friend, not a genius.

---

Quick correction. She was Azem and described as a scholar of singular brilliance who uncovered many truths about the star in her travels. So she's very, very smart. But at the same time, it's as you said, there's no way WoL can exposit about everything, much less the the 11970ish years before they were born. We do know that Venat's first measure was to try and mitigate the Final Days' devastation as a whole, but that failed. She only resorted ot Hydaelyn and the Sundering as a last resort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dikatis

We do know that Venat's first measure was to try and mitigate the Final Days' devastation as a whole, but that failed.

---

What actions did Venat take to mitigate the devastation of the Final Days? Name one.

Her speech about preparation would lead a decent person to assume she means preparation to help and protect the Ancients because that's what they'd do, but reading or listening to it in hindsight, with full knowledge of what happens after, it's clear she's preparing to eradicate her people and replace them. The Sundering wasn't a last option, it was the plan from the moment she heard about the Plenty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

...

---

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur. This is a thought experiment to determine if a divergent timeline was viable (i.e. one that does not result in the destruction of humanity).

I'm treating the timeline like a black box. Imagine a Radiant Historia style timeline map of the decision nodes. I don't know where all the individual decision nodes are or what choices were made at those nodes. I can't brute force a solution like Alexander can because I can't run tests of every possible outcome. All I can do is identify any constraints that would limit the 'form' of a viable solution. There may be additional constraints that I haven't identified that may restrict the range of viable solutions even further beyond what I've stated. These are entirely at the discretion of the writing team, should they ever elaborate further.

On the subject of space travel, Hermes cannot be directly used in any solution against Meteion. Hermes believes that the activation of Kairos was triggered by Meteion's shared consciousness becoming unstable, resulting in her destruction (Lv.87, Thou Must Live Die and Know). Venat elaborates further:

'As for Hermes... I think it unlikely he will create more entelechies. He poured much of himself into Meteion, and now that she and her sisters are gone - dissipated, in his mind - the grief must be unbearable. He will blame himself. He will believe that, had he never acknowledged his dissatisfaction with the world, then the Meteia would have never been born to suffer and die. The offer to join the Fourteen will be a welcome distraction, and one day hence, he will face the advent of the Final Days in the role of Fandaniel...' (Lv. 87, Caging the Messenger).

If you want Hermes to develop either space travel or entelechies further for you, you'd need to take him into your confidence and tell him what actually happened. We already know that leads to a bad end. As a result, any solutions which depend on Hermes developing these technologies further are non-viable. We also know that Hermes was miles ahead of his peers in his development in these fields, as I had established previously. As a result, you can't pin your bets on anyone else spontaneously developing those solutions in parallel. A means to forestall the Final Days is necessary. And we know the outcome of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

Combined with the restrictions you've outlined it's hard to imagine any course of action that does not play directly into Meteion's hands, especially under the contextual constraints of time and the actions of others already in motion. It can be imagined, of course, but virtually all of the quest content, developer statements, and Encyclopaedia text supports that we're supposed to assume futility by the time the first two waves of sacrifices were made, the plan to sacrifice new life was decided, and civil war was at its climax.

I'm not saying the execution of the storytelling was clean, but I am saying that, when one knows where the developer's heads are at, rooting for one's counter-interpretation to pan out is - generally speaking - setting oneself up for disappointment.

---

Your final statement here is succinct and spot on. It's a bit like arguing with a DM/GM/storyteller in a pen and paper roleplaying game. They control the entire decision tree. We can propose whatever solutions that we like, but the downstream consequences of those decisions can render the proposed solutions non-viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur.

---

More exactly (and speculatively), if the timeline split in some way due to the information we gave Venat at Elpis, we are not part of that timeline and have no way to detect it, just like we have no direct evidence of G'raha's original timeline even though it must now be playing out parallel to ours. So for functional purposes, even if an alternate timeline did exist, it does not exist in any way that we need to consider it.

We can confirm that we are living in the same timeline that we visited in Elpis even before we go there because the after-effects of what happened there can be seen in the present day. Argos trusts us because he already met us; Hydaelyn is already aware that we are approaching the "confluence" where the time loop will be completed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No. We know that a divergent timeline did not occur.

---

see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

These are entirely at the discretion of the writing team, should they ever elaborate further.

---

You have contradicted yourself again, which renders everything stated in between those two points in your argument moot. Due to how the writers are allowing people to take either approach in terms of timelines, it causes there to be a Schrödinger's cat-like paradox, where both states are able to be accepted as true from the outside observer's perspective. You cannot declaratively state one is true over the other without going against the writers’ intent at the moment. I am not inherently dismissive of converging timeline interpretations, the problem is that without clear clarification of the paradoxes that have to exist for a converging timeline to be true, it is extremely difficult to accept this interpretation in its current state. Divergence allows for the events to all play out as they have in the way they have been depicted without the need to deal with these paradoxes as they would not exist. That being said, I do not want to give myself carpal tunnel discussing something where the writers have clearly indicated it is up to your own interpretation, thus I will agree to disagree with your overall position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Venat elaborates further: 'As for Hermes... I think it unlikely he will create more entelechies.

---

This statement does nothing to enhance your previous argument and arguably makes it worse. The quote used is based on Venat's opinion and, on top of that, uses language that is not entirely dismissive of the possibility of Hermes creating more entelechies as the term 'unlikely' is not 'never'. In addition, you have failed to refute any of the points in my former post in regards to negating your argument, thus I find the continuance of your argument with the points you are currently making otherwise to be strictly headcanon/personal opinion, as none of these things are directly stated inside of the story or any other source material. Do understand, this is not me arguing Hermes will ever end up doing what is deemed unlikely above, it is refuting the complete dismissal of that possibility as something that can still be viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

More exactly (and speculatively), if the timeline split in some way due to the information we gave Venat at Elpis, we are not part of that timeline and have no way to detect it, just like we have no direct evidence of G'raha's original timeline even though it must now be playing out parallel to ours. So for functional purposes, even if an alternate timeline did exist, it does not exist in any way that we need to consider it.

---

From the perspective of the WoL, this is an accurate interpretation. Any viewpoint related to how the WoL interprets events will seem to them as being convergent, as there is no way for them to have an omniscient view where they can see how time streams twist and turn and potentially branch and parallel each other. In the case of G'Raha (Crystal Exarch) in particular, he did not cease to exist upon averting the 8th Umbral Calamity, which suggests his actions did not remove/overwrite the conditions required for him to exist, which is proof his original time stream is still intact and running parallel to our own, where our own time stream is diverged from his original time stream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

We can confirm that we are living in the same timeline that we visited in Elpis even before we go there because the after-effects of what happened there can be seen in the present day. Argos trusts us because he already met us; Hydaelyn is already aware that we are approaching the "confluence" where the time loop will be completed.

---

This reads like Yoshi-P's interpretation, which he has described as his own opinion/interpretation. This above statement can exist in all time stream types, and much like I argued above, due to how the writers intended to leave this open to interpretation, it creates a Schrödinger's cat-like paradox where both interpretations of how time travel works and how time streams work both exist at the same time, which causes a whole assortment of issues when discussing anything related to the time travel portions of EW. As I have indicated to Lyth above, I don't feel like developing carpal tunnel over this so I will agree to disagree with any approach that is dismissive of either of the two time stream types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

In the case of G'Raha (Crystal Exarch) in particular, he did not cease to exist upon averting the 8th Umbral Calamity, which suggests his actions did not remove/overwrite the conditions required for him to exist, which is proof his original time stream is still intact and running parallel to our own, where our own time stream is diverged from his original time stream.

---

I know that, but that would be indirect proof – we can logically reason that because G'raha still exists, the timeline he came from is likely to still exist.

I specifically wrote "direct proof" to mean confirmable evidence that the timeline exists: some way to look across the high-degree dimensional split and actually observe the existence of the other timeline. To our knowledge we have no device that could do so and assure G'raha that his friends' reality continues.

On a pedantic sidenote, "G'raha" (as for all Seeker names) doesn't have a capital on the start of the given name when the tribe letter is used. I assume it might be a limitation of forcing player names to start with a capital and then lower case for the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

I know that, but that would be indirect proof – we can logically reason that because G'raha still exists, the timeline he came from is likely to still exist.

I specifically wrote "direct proof" to mean confirmable evidence that the timeline exists: some way to look across the high-degree dimensional split and actually observe the existence of the other timeline. To our knowledge we have no device that could do so and assure G'raha that his friends' reality continues.

On a pedantic sidenote, "G'raha" (as for all Seeker names) doesn't have a capital on the start of the given name when the tribe letter is used. I assume it might be a limitation of forcing player names to start with a capital and then lower case for the rest.

---

But we're talking about allowing millions of people to be murdered and an entire civilization to be destroyed on the grounds we only have circumstantial proof that divergent timelines are possible. To me, that level of selfishness is not the trait of a hero. G'raha risked it with no proof at all. We have proof and we're just standing there taking quests from these people knowing they are all about to die and doing nothing to help them.

And as ZavosEsperian has pointed out, attempting to lock us into a loop where nothing can possibly be done causes a paradox because if we always went back in time and caused the Sundering which causes our creation which leads to us going back in time, how/why did the first Sundering happen? And if nothing can be done or changed, why are we actively, and shamefully not helping? We look down in sadness and shame like we know we're doing wrong every time these people ask us about their future and we condemn them to their deaths with our inaction. It seems to me that is a choice. If nothing can be done to change their fate, then we should be able to shout from the rafters what's coming their way and our actions simply won't change things.

Earlier I explained there are two kinds of "can't be helped." Situations where there is no action that could be taken at the time to change things, like most of the deaths that happen in the story. And situations where things could be changed, but doing so goes against your self-interest, so you do nothing no matter how much pain and suffering it will cause someone else. What we're doing in Elpis is the latter "can't be changed." We are purposely condemning a people for the (possible) benefit of our own which was something the game was against when Emet-Selch, the Warriors of Darkness and Golbez attempted to do it. And the only argument I've seen that makes us the exemption is we're the sacred timeline with the only "chance of survival" while all other timelines are "dead ends" which means it's only wrong to sacrifice us because our lives are simply worth more due to some terrifying Darwinist ideal.

Seeing as this has turned into the debate space for the Sundering again, I have to note that the EE3 page on alphabets (page 52) and renewed discussion of it in light of the "hypothetical" proto-alphabet popping up in Dawntrail, if it is accurate that both worlds' writing systems came from a common ancestor then that seems to be a strong point in favour of the Sundering not wiping out all knowledge even if precise memories were lost, and thus leans more towards "same people with weakened aether" over "reverted to primordial slime".

Edit to add: This seems to fit in conjunction with other elements leaning that way within FFXIV's actual canon, like Emet demonstrating the concept of sundering with an illusion of two identical Rynes, and that he makes no effort to horrify us with tales of people being physically reduced to something inhuman, and seems to imply that the worst of the effects was a loss of memory but not so much that they couldn't still draw an accurate and sequential history of the conflict.

Not my own lore that I ignore, but one that my husband does.

He refuses to think that the gunblade came before the gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Seeing as this has turned into the debate space for the Sundering again, I have to note that the EE3 page on alphabets (page 52) and renewed discussion of it in light of the "hypothetical" proto-alphabet popping up in Dawntrail, if it is accurate that both worlds' writing systems came from a common ancestor then that seems to be a strong point in favour of the Sundering not wiping out all knowledge even if precise memories were lost, and thus leans more towards "same people with weakened aether" over "reverted to primordial slime".

---

If they wish me to understand the Sundering as a nerf and not annihilation, then this shouldn't exist: https://youtu.be/YC0U_aTv0EI?si=RtpFmgcB6u09PZwi&t=244

What Emet-Selch saw was malformed creatures incapable of speech when he comes from a species that can understand any language due to knowing the intent of your soul. Their intelligence was reduced 13/14ths. A person with an IQ of 100 would have an IQ of 7. A chimp has an IQ of 20-25. What they were reduced to was something he could no longer recognize as a person.

ETA: Based on my understanding of the Sundering, the Ascians would have found 14 copies of their world. Which meant that the cities and books would all still be there. And beings that looked like the people they knew would also be there. But those beings wouldn't have the comprehension necessary to maintain the cities and would die of old age before the Ascians could even come up with a plan. "They die and die and die." So I wouldn't be surprised if the different writing systems all evolved from a single source as the books would just be sitting there...but without anyone knowing what a book was or how to read...

The more I think of it, the more horrified I am. And in this case, my horror isn't for the people she did this to, but for those she left to witness it. To labor for thousands of years, going crazy, as they attempted to restore their people. And she put them in this position knowing they'd never succeed...

ETA2: And now that this has started me thinking about it even more. Do you know what we call a world created by a god to make their inhabitants suffer? We call that hell. Sure in this case their hell is on par with our normal world, but it still holds true. We view heavens as worlds with no or less suffering and hells as worlds with more suffering. Which means not only did she set them up to go crazy watching their people die off and be replaced. They are now being recycled to endure the hell of her design over and over. A fate she got to opt out of.

But hey, she didn't destroy the books. Sure the people were too devolved to use the books for anything but toilet paper for a millennia, but she didn't destroy them...

Well yeah. Of course, the tempered thrall of Zodiark would think everyone else is less than a person and a husk. He's evil. The video is in his tempered scrambled brain's viewpoint. And he's being a hypocrite because his own people were also having a civil war and his own member council wanted the death of everybody for nothing before he got amnesia, so he shouldnt view himself as better than the generations to come, but you shouldn't expect that because he's tempered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JepMZ

Well yeah. Of course, the tempered thrall of Zodiark would think everyone else is less than a person and a husk. He's evil. The video is in his tempered scrambled brain's viewpoint. And he's being a hypocrite because his own people were also having a civil war and his own member council wanted the death of everybody for nothing before he got amnesia, so he shouldnt view himself as better than the generations to come, but you shouldn't expect that because he's tempered

---

All data we have in game references the First Astral Era as being prehistoric, so no, it wasn't that he was so brainwashed by a dark god he imagined the people reduced to 1/14th of their intelligence as animals. It was that she turned them into animals.

And even if she hadn't devolved the species. Even if the one and only thing she did was remove their immortality, she'd still be a mass murderer. If you reduce my lifespan from 70 years to five minutes, you are a murderer.

ETA: On Ultima Thul Emet-Selch says, "My ideals are inviolate, invincible."

If he was simply tempered not only would he have not been able to take actions to end his own life, like telling the WoL where to find him after kidnapping G'raha, which his Elpis self recognized as a suicide attempt, he also wouldn't have stood there long after Zodiark was dead, say, "I regret nothing." Refuse Hydaelyn's apology by being resurrected and turn around and go right back to the aetherial sea.

Even after all is said and done, he refuses to believe the salvation of the star HAD to be bought with the blood of his people. And I believe that too. Hydaelyn was a sociopath. That is the only way she could have done half the things she did. My sense of empathy would never allow me to amass the pile of bodies she did no matter the reward.

At least Emet-Selch has the defense that what we were turned into wasn't human and he was trying to put us back together so that we were people again. Even though I'm sure that excuse got harder and harder as time passed and we re-evolved.

But Hydaelyn looked at a world of people just as human and she was and thought, "Yeah, I should kill them all and assume complete control of their world." That action passed the "morally correct" sniff test for her. And for anyone who tries to argue it was transformation, not murder, well, she knew the Ascians would kill her "transformed" children in droves and set them free to perform that duty for her. So...still the most villainous character in the FF14 universe. Thordan? Pfft, he wanted to bring an end to war, Hydaelyn wanted to make more wars. Nidhogg? He actually left Ishgard standing and gave them a chance to come over to his side. She killed all her allies. Athena? Failed Hydaelyn, get gud scrub. The Ascians. Literal pawns. They labored for 12k years in an attempt to repair what she destroyed only to discover she was just using them to up her kill count.

But hey, Answers, am I right?

ETA2: Also the Lopporrits explain that tempering was something added to the magic when the Ascians taught it to us and it's possible to create a primal without being tempered. And that with a being as powerful as Zodiark you might feel a tug. That does not sound like someone who was so brainwashed he couldn't judge people who couldn't form words anymore or became part cat to fill the gaps left in their genetic code were in need of rejoining. And Venat attempting to "stop" Zodiark's creation really isn't an act of trying to help because without informing them of the real problem, if they agreed with her and didn't summon him they would have all died in the Final Days. She needed to create discord over Zodiark so that she'd have the excuse necessary for people to sac themselves to make her a god. If she really wanted a solution besides Zodiark, she would have told them what the problem was, but she didn't. With the one and only person with knowledge of the future, she set them up to suffer and die every step of the way. People assume she tried to do good because they are assuming she's a good person and are working backwards. But her primary concern was survival and she believed the only way for her familiars to survive was if they got good at enduring suffering, which meant that every step of the way increased suffering was her goal, not decreased suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

If he was simply tempered not only would he have not been able to take actions to end his own life, like telling the WoL where to find him after kidnapping G'raha, which his Elpis self recognized as a suicide attempt, he also wouldn't have stood there long after Zodiark was dead, say, "I regret nothing." Refuse Hydaelyn's apology by being resurrected and turn around and go right back to the aetherial sea.

Even after all is said and done, he refuses to believe the salvation of the star HAD to be bought with the blood of his people. And I believe that too. Hydaelyn was a sociopath.

---

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

Hades both stands by his dedication to his people and admits that he never would have succeeded. (Twice accepting his defeat as valid in just Ultima Thule.) At the same time that he says he has no desire to live as Hades when the world he loved is gone and will never return, he also - after being reminded of the true threat beyond the stars and seeing you on the cusp of victory over it - finally accepts the ancients and the sundered as one humanity with one voice, and looks forward to returning to see the world you have won for life (that is, as a mortal). (Hythlodaeus extends this to "I hope we meet again in that life!" but Hades grumbles at that one.)

CITATION 1

Quote:

---

So, here I am, Venat. I suppose you needed me to tie it all together, these frayed threads of our history─but knowing you, I suspect there's a joke in it too. Oh yes, I can imagine you gloating over my forgetfulness. Were I feeling charitable, I might assume you had left room for the possibility of this outcome. Still, you must be commended. Our methods would not have brought mankind this far. And so, as a show of respect to the last of us, I make this declaration. You will not end our journey! That is our answer! The answer of all lives of Etheirys, past and present!

---

Here's the Japanese, as well, as sometimes people suspect they might be different:

Quote:

---

ヴェーネス、あの負けず嫌いめ。私をこの時代まで残しておいたのは、歴史を繋ぐためか、終末の真相を忘れていたことへの当てつけか……。
Venat, you always did hate to lose... Why am I still here? To ensure history connects properly? Or did you just want me to remember the true face of the apocalypse...?

至極好意的に解釈するのならば、こんなオチが生じる可能性を残したのだろうが。
If I were to afford you an supremely generous interpretation, I suppose I left myself open to this punchline.

何にせよ、その程度で掌を返すほど、私の人生は軽くなかった。礼などくれてやるものか。
But my existence has not been so easy that I will change my mind for that. You'll get no thanks from me.

……しかし、人をここに至らせたこと。この結末は、確かに私たちのやり方では掴み得なかったものだ。
...But that it has brought humanity to this point. We would never have grasped this result with our methods.

ならば賛辞と、最後の旧き人への手向けとして、口上のひとつくらいは垂れてやろう……！
So that being the case, as a compliment and final gesture to the last of us, I deliver this message...!

終焉を謳うものよ、私たちはお前によって終わらない！
You who sing of the end, we will not end here!

それが、あの星の過去に生き、今を生きる者からの答えだ……！
From the lips of one who lived in both the worlds of the past and present, this is our answer!

---

And the French for this one, too, since it's even more explicit:

Quote:

---

Venat a toujours eu trop de suite dans les idées. M'aurait-elle épargné pour faire de moi la clef de voûte de son pont à travers les âges? À moins que ce ne soit un reproche voilé, ma punition pour avoir oublié bien malgré moi la cause de l'apocalypse...
Venat always was single-minded... But would she really have spared me to make me the keystone upholding her bridge through the ages? Unless this is a veiled reproach... My punishment for having forgotten the cause of the apocalypse despite myself...

Quoique, si je n'étais pas mauvaise langue, je dirais qu'elle a simplement cherché à orchestrer cet ultime coup de théâtre...
Although, if I was free to give a generous interpretation, I would say that she deliberately orchestrated this final little plot twist...

Si elle s'attend à des remerciements, elle sera bien mal servie. Ma vie ne fut pas un long fleuve tranquille, et ce revirement de cœur n'y changera rien.
If she expects me to be grateful, she will be sorely disappointed. My life was no long, tranquil river, and this change of heart affects that not one bit.

Je dois néanmoins lui reconnaître un certain don d'entremetteuse. Ce n'est pas avec nos méthodes qu'un être humain serait parvenu à mettre les pieds ici.
Nevertheless I must recognize in her a certain...gift as a matchmaker. It is not with our methods that humanity ever would have managed to set foot here.

Soit. En guise d'éloges à Venat, et d'ultime offrande à l'humanité originelle, je peux bien me fendre d'un préambule!
That is to say... By way of praise/eulogy to Venat, and as a final offering to the original humanity, I can well provide a preamble!

Chantre de l'anéantissement, nous ne serons pas défaits par tes vœux funestes!
Singer of annihilation, you will not be our undoing!

Telle est la parole des peuples de jadis et d'aujourd'hu! La réponse qu'ils t'opposent en chœur!
These are the words of the people of the past and the present, the answer we give you as a single choir!

---

CITATION 2

Quote:

---

The encore is finished, and I will not suffer myself to live again by Hydaelyn's magick. But more than that, the future you seek is not the past we loved. That is why we fought. And why I lost. But though you defeated me, my ideals are inviolate. Invincible. Spare me your pity. I have no use for it. If you would do something for me─save our star. See this tale to a triumphant conclusion, and with elation in your hearts, bid the final curtain fall. Only then may it rise again and a new tale begin─with new parts for all to play.

---

Quote:

---

ハイデリンの術に生かされるなど、願い下げだからな。
I have no desire to be sustained by Hydaelyn's power.

……何より、お前たちが進む未来は、私の愛した過去じゃない。だからこそお前たちと本気で、命を懸けて戦ったんだ。
...After all, the future on the horizon is not the past I so dearly loved. That's why I fought you. Fought with everything I had.

その結果ならば、敗北であれ、覆すものか。私が今の私であるかぎり、この想いは砕けない。
Would I change that, knowing it ends in defeat? Never. As long as I am who I am, my sentiments will never be broken.

間違っても哀れんでくれるなよ。お前たちに望むことがあるとすれば、あの忌々しい終末を打ち払うことだけだ。
Do not pity me for my mistakes. I have but one wish - stop this damned apocalypse.

そして勝鬨を喝采に代え、万感の想いとともに、幕を下ろせ。
See the sounds of triumphant battle through to thunderous applause and - with all your heart and soul - bring the curtain down.

それでこそ、次の公演が始められるのだからな。新たな舞台と新たな役で……お前たちも、私たちも。
Only then can a new performance begin. A new stage, with new roles. For you... and for us, too.

---

Personally, I find it very difficult to reconcile these lines and that tone with some of the perspectives people assign to him. Especially without removing half of the meaning, "Remember us," was supposed to convey. But, again, I'm the kind of person to accept the intent and critique the execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

Also the Lopporrits explain that tempering was something added to the magic when the Ascians taught it to us and it's possible to create a primal without being tempered. And that with a being as powerful as Zodiark you might feel a tug.

---

This one however appears to just be sarcasm on the part of Livingway which often gets mistaken for being sincere. The "little tug" appears to be an English-only under-exaggeration akin to the "teeny-tiny toy boat". All 3 other language just say, "Well if it was Zodiark, you'd still be tempered, of course, but it's not, so you won't."

CITATION

Quote:

---

In contrast, our creation magicks─the original and the best, accept no substitutes─don't incorporate any of that rubbish, so there's no risk of tempering. I mean, if the being was on the scale of Zodiark, you might feel a little “tug”...but I think we'll be safe enough.

---

Quote:

---

けれど本来の創造魔法に、その概念はありません。さすがにゾディアーク級を創れば引っ張られるでしょうが、今回の規模であれば、ご心配には及ばないかと。
However, original creative magic does not have that concept. Of course, if we were to create something of Zodiark caliber, that would drag you in, but at this scale, I don't think there is any need to worry.

---

Quote:

---

Fort heureusement, ce danger n'existe pas si l'on respecte les rituels originaux. À moins que l'on parle de puissantes entités comme Zordiarche, bien sûr, mais les nôtres seront bien plus modestes.
Fortunately, this danger does not exist if we respect the original rituals. Unless we're talking entities as powerful as Zodiark, of course, but ours will be much more modest.

---

Quote:

---

Aber ihr könnt ganz unbesorgt sein. Die Schöpfungsmagie kommt ohne diesen gemeinen Zusatz zurecht. Außerdem beschwören wir ja keinen zweiten Zodiark, oder? Es besteht also kein Anlass zur Sorge, kann ich euch versichern. Es wird schon schiefgehen!
But you can set your worries aside. Creation magic can do without that nasty little addition. Besides, we're not summoning a second Zodiark, are we? So there is no need to worry, I can assure you.

---

(As always, corrections welcome on translations, I am by no means a fluent speaker of anything but English.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

Hades both stands by his dedication to his people and admits that he never would have succeeded. (Twice accepting his defeat as valid in just Ultima Thule.) At the same time that he says he has no desire to live as Hades when the world he loved is gone and will never return, he also - after being reminded of the true threat beyond the stars and seeing you on the cusp of victory over it - finally accepts the ancients and the sundered as one humanity with one voice, and looks forward to returning to see the world you have won for life (that is, as a mortal). (Hythlodaeus extends this to "I hope we meet again in that life!" but Hades grumbles at that one.)

CITATION 1

Here's the Japanese, as well, as sometimes people suspect they might be different:

And the French for this one, too, since it's even more explicit:

CITATION 2

Personally, I find it very difficult to reconcile these lines and that tone with some of the perspectives people assign to him. Especially without removing half of the meaning, "Remember us," was supposed to convey. But, again, I'm the kind of person to accept the intent and critique the execution.



This one however appears to just be sarcasm on the part of Livingway which often gets mistaken for being sincere. The "little tug" appears to be an English-only under-exaggeration akin to the "teeny-tiny toy boat". All 3 other language just say, "Well if it was Zodiark, you'd still be tempered, of course, but it's not, so you won't."

CITATION
(As always, corrections welcome on translations, I am by no means a fluent speaker of anything but English.)

---

Him admitting that her torture machine did in fact work is not the same as saying I'm fine with you eliminating my species. People grab so hard on that Emet-Selch admitted their tendency to just plow through any problem with overwhelming strength probably wouldn't have gotten them to the edge of the universe to teach emotional regulation to a bird and jump from that to therefore it must have been okay to eradicate his race and create a new species specifically to be tortured...

Given us mere mortals can come up with a dozen ideas better than Venat's torture machine, had the Ancients been given the actual information about the problem, I believe they would have figured something out. But unlike Venat, I actually believe in man's potential and their ability to find a way forward.

Also, even if that was the one and only way to save the universe, I still wouldn't have condoned it because respecting a person's autonomy is my highest moral value. Perpetuating the species isn't even on the list. If all humanity decided to stop making babies tomorrow and I had the power to magically change it, I would not override their will and force them to have kids just so "something" exists. We all know that the universe will eventually end. Taking away people's right to choose just so there is something there to see the heat death of the universe runs contrary to my morals. Especially when making sure 'something' survives involves crippling the people in question.

"Our plan to save humanity involves three month lifespans that you'll spend in agonizing pain." If the species decided it wasn't worth it and to just peace out, I'd let them. But that's because I value people's rights to make decisions about their own lives. She butchered her species and ran them through her despair machine without consent. And given this was a species where half of them volunteered to sacrifice themselves to save the other, I feel like if she explained her plan and the reason for it to them, she'd have probably gotten enough volunteers to be run through her torture machine that she wouldn't have had to take them by force.


ETA:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

There's plenty of room to interpret the story in different ways and find flaws in the presentation without giving selective (in)attention to certain lines to gild the lily, imho.
(Maybe that's a silly sentiment in the "What lore do you ignore?" thread, though, lol.)

---

The only way I can reconcile what the game and other sources are telling me happened with how they want me to feel about what happened is that tone and details are being decided by two different people. More specifically, I theorize that Natsuko Ishikawa had been setting Venat up to be a villain since Shadowbringers and Yoshi P overrode it and decided he wanted her to be a hero and so they presented her that way without changing any of her actions. This is the only way I can make sense of what I'm looking at because I can't believe they'd try to sell me on Venat's actions unless someone, somewhere doesn't full get what she did.

I have considered the possibility that it's me that is misunderstanding her actions. But even if I accepted every contradictory claim made by those arguing with me. That she tried to help the Ancients, even though they have to die for her plan to handle Meteion to work. That the Ancients weren't killed, though any transformation that extreme counts at death to me. That it was the one and only possible way to save the universe...so basically, a being made by one guy couldn't possibly be defeated by anything of his species all working together? That the one and only way to save the world was for one woman to decide the fate of everyone for twelve thousand years? That's antithetical to everything in the story including Endwalker where the entire world comes together to defeat Meteion. So we could do it, cause we're superior, but they had no chance being the inferior species...seriously, I can't believe this was done on purpose...

Even if I were to accept everything at face value and hit myself in the head until I forgot about all the glaring contradictions, we end up at Gilead. A situation where it's okay to do literally anything to people if it means preserving the species...I play FF14 to relax. I want to fish and marketboard PVP without thinking about the horrors upon which this world is built. I am rooting for someone to somehow make it all make sense without my WoL being a mutated catalyst for genocide in an unending torture loop. But I mostly just get comments about the Ancients unworthiness to live or assurances their massacre was the only way cause the story says so.

Even if they retconned it and told us that we're actually volunteers that agreed to be sundered and run through her torture simulator and that the rest of the Ancients were outside of time and space waiting for us to fix the problem, I'd feel better.

In the interests of quickly wrapping up a few loose ends (the new lore stuff is much more interesting):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

What Emet-Selch saw was malformed creatures incapable of speech when he comes from a species that can understand any language due to knowing the intent of your soul.

---

When you first arrive in Propylaion, both Emet and Hythlodaeus are incapable of understanding what you are saying, despite the fact that you are able to follow their entire conversation. From their perspective, you're 'literally too intangible to form words'. It's only after Emet spares a snifter of his bounteous aether to bring you to their size that they gain the ability to understand what you're telling them (Lv. 86, Hope Upon a Flower).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

...

---

Rebuttal can't happen without refutation. You seem to be misreading my points, which results in the 'counterpoints' not offering any clash for me to engage with.

You can take it as given that the timelines did not diverge in a meaningful way. If they had, the past would have changed when we left Elpis to return to the present. Why this is the case is left open to interpretation. In particular, it is not explicitly stated whether this is a stable time loop, or one that simply converged back on the same sequence of events to keep the future unchanged. It's also unclear about whether this was by design (i.e. Venat attempting to preserve the timeline) or incidental. I'm more inclined to think the latter:

'Until a moment finally arrives, we cannot know for certain what will come to pass - regardless of our supposed foreknowledge. So you needn't worry for us.' (Venat, Lv.87, Travellers at the Crossroads)

I'm not offering a specific interpretation on what happened between our departure from Elpis and the time of the Sundering. I'm just pointing out that there are pre-existing facts from the adjacent story that place limitations on what could have happened in that time period. So when you say it's 'open to interpretation', it's more accurately 'open to interpretation, but within the bounds of the facts of the story'. There are some solutions that are not viable. There are likely more non-viable solutions than we can predict, because we can't test every possibility. Your strategy would likely be more conservative on a single playthrough than one in which you can reset or undo your decisions to test what works.

I'm not sure why you think that enlisting Hermes' aid to create additional entelechies is a viable solution to fighting Meteion. I think the problem with this should be self-evident.

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

That is because you've just been sent 12k years in the past and are too thin to even press against the door. They weren't failing to understand you because of you sundered status but because of you are literally paper thin. If that had been the same issue, Emet-Selch could have simply given people aether and saved his species...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

---

Anything you say? I dislike restating myself, or requoting stuff I have quoted earlier, but for the sake of time I will leave out Yoshi-P's personal interpretation as that is his own opinion and only state what the writers’ intent was as fact, as Yoshi-P says this initial response on behalf of the writing team.

Quote:

---

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

---

Any extra constraints added are invented by you, and thus make your argument invalid to the writers’ point of view, which is leaving everything open to interpretation. In addition, the argument I am stating is on the basis of possibility, whereas yours requires absolutes.

The task you have in proving your statement with the writers' given constrains is not provable. You can only prove it based on contrivances of your own making by adding your own view of various story points into the writer's vision. Under those contrived constrains, you can prove yourself correct, but under the constraints the writers laid out, you can never be correct for sure, which means your argument is always false unless the writers explicitly say yours is correct.

In addition, to prove my argument correct, all I would have to prove the existence of an alternate timeline inside of the story as to show it is consistent with the writers’ constraints (I don't actually have to do this since their interpretation is open, I am doing this just for you), which we know of existing thanks to G'raha Tia's jump from his timeline where the 8th Umbral Calamity occurred and its continued existence via Tales from the Shadow: An Unpromised Tomorrow. It does not matter whether the timeline survives to the end or not, the only thing that matters in my argument is if the possibility exists, which due to the existence of this timeline and its continued existence, thus proving my argument as always true.

Hermes is a different issue altogether. Neither one of us can definitively prove their answer. The difference is the scope of the proof. Yours requires Hermes to turn out bad every time, whereas mine only requires him to do as I have said one time for it to be true. My original argument did invoke an infinity when discussing Hermes as its only contrivance because you are using an argument that also invokes infinity as you directly state the following:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

We also know that any branch histories in which Hermes regains his memories prematurely are bad endings, as are any branches in which he does not join the Convocation or is ousted from it.

---

By invoking the term ‘any’, you are creating a scenario where there are a possible infinite number of timelines and you would have to go and prove for all timelines this being true. Additionally, the information you gate with his memory loss is not subject to the effects of Kairos as I have explained earlier. With those memories freed from your contrived example via proving your statement regarding those memories as false, I can then use them in my argument which, thanks to you using the term ‘any’ is also subject to this infinity, and since my statement is existential, proving it would simply take the writers adding in one scenario where he takes the actions you said he won’t do. Please note us arguing our points doesn’t make one more valid than the other, as neither of these events have been proven to exist or have never been stated to occur in every case, thus both of our arguments are false. The point I am making is you using false information/restrictions via headcanon/interpretation causes your arguments to be extremely poor arguments due to how you frame them in the face of the writers’ point of view as well as invoking terms and conditions you may not intend to. As such, it is rather pointless for either of us to get held up on this argument.

I would suggest in the future to heed your own advice at the beginning of this discussion, it will help you in the future as you appear to defy your own expectations by placing artificial constraints on the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

(…), you have an obligation to follow the restrictions placed by previous story telling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian

...

---

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No, the burden of proof is yours. If you believe that Venat should have created a divergent timeline, then the burden of proof is on you to show that it's viable (i.e. a solution that doesn't result in Meteion and Hermes winning). I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

If your proposed 'solution' was to tell Hermes what has happened and enlist his help, then no further input is required from me. I can safely rest my case here.

---

How do you reconcile your belief that nothing could be done to change the timeline with your belief that Venat released the Ascians hoping the change the timeline (even though she didn't give them any information that would perhaps lead them to behave differently and the producers have stated she's attempting to maintain the timeline.) https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6397195

You've contradicted yourself from post to post. You ignore the ample evidence being quoted at you. And people applaud while nothing you're saying is consistent even with other things you've said in this thread.

I've come to realize the amount of denial I'd have to be in to see Venat's actions as something besides genocide is a level of doublethink I'm incapable of. I was hoping discussing things here would give me new insights that might make me doubt my interpretation. But now I see what would be required of me to view her acts as good.

War is peace.

Emet did overturn the prophesied outcome that we recounted in Poieten Oikos. It is true that he became a tyrannical despot. But it is also true that he proved to be more than just that, in the end, by coming to our aid in Ultima Thule. Had Venat judged him only based off of what we told her, rather than what she knew about him, then we would have lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No, the burden of proof is yours.

---

See my previous post. Everything I stated is logically sound in terms of how logic is understood around the globe (if there are any faults in my logic, you are free to point them out and I will admit to it). My argument and your are fundamentally different, and as far as the burden of proof is concerned, mine is already met for the type of argument I made, which is existential. The type of statement you made is universal and has a higher burden of proof than an existential statement. If you cannot show your statement is universally true, you have failed to make a logical argument and thus the argument should be disregarded. An example of a failed universal proof looks like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I'm just pointing out a few obviously non-viable routes that constrain the type of solutions that you can come up with.

---

Proof by example is a logical fallacy whereby the validity of a statement is illustrated through one or more examples or cases and, as such, is unable to be used as proof for a universal statement

The divergence possibility cannot be ruled out because you want to ignore the existence of the timeline G'raha originated from and its continued existence, which goes against arguments you hold everyone else up to. I will remind you again what your previous statement was paired with what the writers' think on this issue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

When I say that additional constraints are at the discretion of the writing team, I'm gently reminding you that trying to prove that the writing team are wrong with their own story is a futile task, as anything they offer in response is fact.

---

and here is what the writers say about this issue:

Quote:

---

Q: I don’t really understand why the Warrior of Light messing around in Elpis didn’t create any alternate timelines. Can you explain what happened?

A: First of all, we’ve left that part up to interpretation.

-Letter from the Producer LIVE Part LXVIII (03/03/2022)

---

As far as Hermes is concerned, I have already stated neither of us have any way to prove our arguments as true, nor have I ever taken a stance where I am personally invested in proving this point true for headcanon reasons. You are free to assume what I believe in terms of the story, but you cannot deny the logic of the argument. From a logical standpoint, the burden of proof is higher on universal statements than it is on existential statements due to the nature of the two statement types. No amount of arguing will ever change this fact. As such, you have no way to prove what Hermes would do outside of conjecture, which is not sufficient to prove a universal statement true. Similarly, I have no way to prove Hermes' involvement either because there does not exist a case to prove me true. As such, it is pointless to keep doing this unless you are enjoying learning about logical proofing for our arguments here, in which case I do not mind continuing to show you how to argue using logical statements.

In any case, there is one true universal statement you have made in your posts on the subject from all viewpoints based on the circumstances:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The fact that we reached an ending where humanity survived at all was, in all likelihood, a lot of blind luck in dodging the multitude of bad ends.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Emet did overturn the prophesied outcome that we recounted in Poieten Oikos. It is true that he became a tyrannical despot. But it is also true that he proved to be more than just that, in the end, by coming to our aid in Ultima Thule. Had Venat judged him only based off of what we told her, rather than what she knew about him, then we would have lost.

---

He didn't do anything differently. By the time you reach Ultima Thule either he helps Venat's super soldier made from pieces of his best friend or the universe ends. Given Emet-Selch's goal was always, always to reduce the suffering inflicted by the Sundering by putting people back together again, helping the universe not end is completely consistent with his character. He didn't change. He just got tired. Lost and gave up attempting to undo a genocide given he'd be at it for 12k years and by this point we'd re-evolved to something close enough to what he understood as a person, he'd just have to deal with it.

And yes, Emet-Selch is required not to be bitter about being used, tortured and his people massacred--or we lose. He had to produce a child with beings he believed less than human--or we lose. That child's descendant had to grow up to be a psychopath that's willing to stalk us to the edge of the universe--or we lose.

It's almost like a single person shouldn't take it upon themselves to decide the fate of the universe given it was barely saved. It's almost like Venat should have played through the 6.x content and learned the importance of teamwork...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady_Silvermoon

...

---

I'm not saying that Emet did anything 'differently'.

If Venat had acted entirely based off of the story that we told her in Poieten Oikos (i.e. the information about Emet's misdeeds that we knew from Shadowbringers), then Emet-Selch would have lived out his days as an ordinary human being and died thousands of years ago, his memories and knowledge along with it. The story that we told her was only half of the picture, because even we didn't yet know that he had a redemption arc at that point. It just goes to show you how precarious it can be to try to metagame a predicted future event when you don't fully understand how the timeline is constructed.

You can act like Emet didn't have a choice in any of this, but either everyone has free will or nobody does at all. He chose to become a villain, but he also chose to try to redeem himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

You can act like Emet didn't have a choice in any of this, but either everyone has free will or nobody does at all. He chose to become a villain, but he also chose to try to redeem himself.

---

You are correct. Because of this stupid time loop, no one has free will besides the WoL and Venat because without awareness of the time loop, what you did the first time and the results, you do not have the ability to choose another path. The only two people with agency in this world are Venat and the WoL and they both chose genocide. And I am supposed to feel good and right about that based on the framing.

I do not.

As for Emet-Selch, he did not redeem himself. His motivations and actions remain consistent. He labored to save the world, as he always have, because that's who he is. Defining things that benefit the main character personally as good, and things that are a detriment to the main character as bad is the exact kind of dumbing down of morality that makes Endwalkers morals pure hypocrisy. Genocide is bad when it's against us, but genocide is good when it's for us. WHAT?!

Also, since all the people supporting this have completely contradictory readings of what happened, if you're one of the ones that believes Emet-Selch is tempered then you're contradicting yourself again. If that's the case, he didn't have free will at any point and there was nothing to redeem himself for as he was mentally enslaved. Also, I've caught yet another contradiction in what you've stated you believe. If you think Venat spared Emet-Selch *hoping* he'd do the right thing and not put his butchered people back together, then if she was right and he didn't, then the WoL would never be created. So even if he somehow did something he doesn't have the power to do because he doesn't know he's in a time loop, that would simply mean the end of the universe.

She can't both not want the rejoinings because wanting millions of people murdered is bad, but also want the rejoinings to build her super soldier who will ensure her godhood and save the universe. It's one or the other. She's Schrodinger's God.