What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

To be fair, plenty of people liked the various Garleans. It just so happens that the FFXIV community has a very vocal portion of players who attacked and threatened anyone who spoke up in favour of them because a not insignificant amount of FFXIV players seem unable to grasp the idea that the Garleans were clearly inspired by Russians and Romans rather than a certain German organisation.

---

The Russians nor the Romans were the only oppressive authoritarian regimes in history, nor were the German guys. The German guys, in fact, based a LOT of their politics and military structure off of the Romans.

What makes the Garleans unlike the Romans and slightly more like the other guys, however, was their tendency to destroy the cultures they conquered rather than assimilate them. The Romans were well known for basically allowing the people they ruled to govern themselves and keep their own systems of religion and society intact. As long as you paid taxes and didn't entertain thoughts of rebellion, the Romans basically left you alone. But the Garleans' hatred of religion and desire to automatize every other society basically meant that their empire was steeped in cultural genocide.

Wonder what those Germans and Russians had in common with the Ancients and Garleans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

Or Final Fantasy X, which was a masterful repudiation of the idea that life sucks and that we should learn how to cope with it instead of trying to solve the sources of our suffering.

---

Yeah, I recall learning that Tidus bluntly stating that he hated his father was considered shocking in Japan for its day. Speaking ill of one's parents, especially in public, is considered one of the ultimate no-nos there. But the entire point of the story was to call out how upholding tradition and respecting our parents/superiors/elders even when they're clearly wrong can be terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

I think part of the reason this flew over people's heads and/or fell flat is because we were never shown the true consequences of this outside of Hermes himself.

Instead, we were shown that it works

---

Yeah, like I said earlier, Hermes literally defeated his own argument. By abusing his position to circumvent the rules, he totally proved why those rules were justified.

This story wouldn't have happened if Hermes had tried to pass Meteion through the proper protocols. Either she would have gotten scrapped, or someone like Emet would have caught that flaw in Hermes' purpose for her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

Instead, we were shown that it works, and were never even asked if we would want to live in a society like that because we were led to believe that the guy who had a problem with it was the crazy one and that everything was fine. Ancient society was too good for the story's own good.

---

This reminded me of a ridiculous comment I saw on Reddit calling Elpis a slaughterhouse. I thought, wow, must be nice to be so ignorant of what truly happens in slaughterhouses or in animal testing. Elpis was an absolute paradise for all creatures by comparison.

https://i.imgur.com/j2M3IqX.jpg

Truly a horror show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Yeah, I recall learning that Tidus bluntly stating that he hated his father was considered shocking in Japan for its day. Speaking ill of one's parents, especially in public, is considered one of the ultimate no-nos there. But the entire point of the story was to call out how upholding tradition and respecting our parents/superiors/elders even when they're clearly wrong can be terrible.

---

I imagine it would be. The whole story was basically about how some gaijin outsider came out of nowhere and wouldn't shut up about how fucked up everything about their system was, and how correct he really was. From what I know about Japanese culture, that's literally as subversive as it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

This reminded me of a ridiculous comment I saw on Reddit calling Elpis a slaughterhouse. I thought, wow, must be nice to be so ignorant of what truly happens in slaughterhouses or in animal testing. Elpis was an absolute paradise for all creatures by comparison.

https://i.imgur.com/j2M3IqX.jpg

Truly a horror show.

---

They literally went out of their way to show that the denizens of Elpis treated most of their creations tenderly and with respect and affection. Like... why? Why undercut the points you're trying to make so much? Why undercut it at every turn? They were inches away from nailing it completely if they just chose not to include a few lines of dialogue or change the portrayal of certain characters just a little bit.

I think what it comes down to, for me, is that I really can't buy that the aspects of Endwalker that cross into "oh god what is this?" territory stem from anything actually fundamentally based in cultural expression or exploring themes. Again, I think the bulk of FFXIV and its messaging actually stands starkly at odds with the Venat Strangeness, which is part of what adds to the Titanic-levels of uncomfortable dissonance.

It's not really about culture, and it's not even about themes. Goal number one was to make you like Hydaelyn. It's that simple and that crass. Earlier plot points they established, while winging it with no real plan in mind, made it so that Hydaelyn destroyed the world and the Ancient society that the audience ended up way more in love with and sympathetic to than most of the team had expected. So if you need to be made to like Hydaelyn after that, well, she NEEDS to have a "good reason" to have killed all of those people. What would be a "good reason" to kill the Ancients? Well... we established they were good people with a good society, so what if they were... too good? And what if being too good... was bad!?

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

They literally went out of their way to show that the denizens of Elpis treated most of their creations tenderly and with respect and affection. Like... why? Why undercut the points you're trying to make so much? Why undercut it at every turn? They were inches away from nailing it completely if they just chose not to include a few lines of dialogue or change the portrayal of certain characters just a little bit.

---

I just remember how, even in the midst of Hermes's angry rants, he still mentions that the Ancients go out of their way to make it quick and painless for the creations they put down. He's just still upset that they have to die to begin with. You'd think this would be the setup for an FFIX-ish theme where the antagonist learns to cope with and accept death, and that argument could have been made if Venat hadn't essentially taken his side, lmao.

The FFX talk is also interesting, especially when you consider FFX was voted as the most beloved Final Fantasy game of all time in Japan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

(snip)

---

I mean, this talk is basically backing up my point that the writers chose to try to portray Venat as "good" or "justified" in her genocide is with the "they couldn't accept suffering/death" card.

"Not being able to accept suffering/death is bad" is literally the main motivation of the villain of FFIII, two villains in FFIX, several villains in FFX, and the final antagonist of the FFXIII trilogy, and so on. Also, main villain of the very first FF sought immortality, the main villain of FFIV wanted to prolong his society at the expense of the Earth, and the villain of FFVI thought life was meaningless because death is inevitable.

Where they failed is by not making the Ancients or their society bad enough to justify it. Then, they even tried to throw in a few dead planets to double down on "See?! This is what THEY would have been like!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rulakir

This reminded me of a ridiculous comment I saw on Reddit calling Elpis a slaughterhouse. I thought, wow, must be nice to be so ignorant of what truly happens in slaughterhouses or in animal testing. Elpis was an absolute paradise for all creatures by comparison. Truly a horror show.

---

Or that one shade in Amaurot who talks about what an honor and a responsbility creation magic is, and how he wants to improve himself and the world around him. Noooo, stop! You're supposed to be the MUH HUBRIS MUH DECADANCE stereotype who falls in order to make me feel better about myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

I just remember how, even in the midst of Hermes's angry rants, he still mentions that the Ancients go out of their way to make it quick and painless for the creations they put down. He's just still upset that they have to die to begin with. You'd think this would be the setup for an FFIX-ish theme where the antagonist learns to cope with and accept death, and that argument could have been made if Venat hadn't essentially taken his side, lmao.

The FFX talk is also interesting, especially when you consider FFX was voted as the most beloved Final Fantasy game of all time in Japan.

---

You could probably liken Hermes' breakdown to something along the lines of Kuja destroying Terra in his tantrum as he's taunted with his eventual death... also, if FFX were written like 14, the main crew would all nod and agree with Yunalesca (who is 100% objectively right and the one hope of mankind). Yuna dies, the status quo is preserved for the Good of All. Lulu stops everyone every ten minutes to lecture. Also, Kimahri's ears are missing beneath his wig.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

To play devil's advocate, I don't think this would be the case.

FF games have a fetish for "last time, the good guys could only 'seal' the villain away, but this time, these heroes are going for broke and either the villain dies or we all die". Which is, basically, what Venat did. She decided sealing the Final Days wasn't good enough and that the objectively good thing was to sunder the world so that there was even the smallest chance killing Meteion was possible.

At least, that's the story's logic anyway. Still would've been smarter to tell people Meteion existed.

---

True, just going for the tone of making us love a certain character who would be antagonistic in any other context. Feelings are the most important thing, after all!

I mean, my fundamental objection would be the very premise, especially after Shadowbringers (not that it wouldn't be bad anywhere, but Shadowbringers explicitly went out of its way to humanize these people - they're hardly LotR orcs or such), of trying to "justify" the genocide to begin with. When you're asking "how do you justify this genocide?" in seriousness, I think it's likely you're already probably heading down the wrong path, as far as storytelling goes.

And of course, I'm sure we'd agree that the idea of "the Ancients can't accept death" gets very tripped up in the particulars of the storyline, such as their ritual ABOUT "accepting death" having the expectation of being met with horror from the audience, or Venat's motivation centering around her being unable to accept the possible end of her world, in the far future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyborne

also, if FFX were written like 14, the main crew would all nod and agree with Yunalesca (who is 100% objectively right and the one hope of mankind). Yuna dies, the status quo is preserved for the Good of All. Lulu stops everyone every ten minutes to lecture. Also, Kimahri's ears are missing beneath his wig.

---

To play devil's advocate, I don't think this would be the case.

FF games have a fetish for "last time, the good guys could only 'seal' the villain away, but this time, these heroes are going for broke and either the villain dies or we all die". Which is, basically, what Venat did. She decided sealing the Final Days wasn't good enough and that the objectively good thing was to sunder the world so that there was even the smallest chance killing Meteion was possible.

At least, that's the story's logic anyway. Still would've been smarter to tell people Meteion existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

When you're asking "how do you justify this genocide?" in seriousness, I think it's likely you're already probably heading down the wrong path, as far as storytelling goes.

---

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

---

I'm not really interested in rehashing this for about the millionth time in the thread, so all I will say is:

You can interpret things how you like, and the story is obviously consciously avoiding saying outright that Venat "killed" the Ancients to soften her actions, but it's probably going to be a long and difficult road to come anywhere close to convincing me that destroying an individual's body, soul, memories, history, culture, civilization, relationships, and reducing the lifespan of what is left to a tiny fraction of what it once was is meaningfully different from "killing."

Here's the definition of genocide as it is typically understood:

https://i.imgur.com/sdmdd31.png

The Sundering was very much an act of genocide on many fronts. Nor is there any reason to believe that it didn't involve death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

destroying an individual's body, soul, memories, history, culture, civilization, relationships, and reducing the lifespan of what is left to a tiny fraction of what it once was is meaningfully different from "killing."

---

Where did the story say any of that happened to the actual people that experienced the sundering?

Well, except for reducing the potential life span, but no, I don't consider that killing if the shortened life span doesn't mean an immediate end, especially for a group that have different ideas about death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Here's the definition of genocide as it is typically understood:

https://i.imgur.com/sdmdd31.png

The Sundering was very much an act of genocide on many fronts. Nor is there any reason to believe that it didn't involve death.

---

There is no reason to believe that definitions A, C, D, and E occured as a motivation and/or direct cause of the sundering.

Definition B could have occurred as the loss of aether would certainly have and did change the physical being. But does that change constituted actual harm to the people experiencing it? That, I am not sure. It certainly did not outright kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Well, except for reducing the potential life span, but no, I don't consider that killing if the shortened life span doesn't mean an immediate end, especially for a group that have different ideas about death.

---

If I lock you in a room with a radioactive substance and it reduces your life expectancy from 70+ years to just 10 or less, no judge or jury in the world is not going to convict me of murder.

Likewise, the Ancients' views on death seem to have changed substantially after the Final Days. Though, I admit I'm speculating there. But even if that wasn't the case, the moment Venat sundered them, they stopped being the Ancients that even had those views about death.

Unconsensual, unplanned death was still seen as a great tragedy even among the Ancients. See: the funeral rites for the killed creations, Erich and Lahabrea grappling with Athena's death. And, hell, their very response to the mass violent deaths of the Final Days.

Also, for what it's worth, (again, as has been rehashed in this thread a million times), their memories being wiped was confirmed by Emet-Selch in Shadowbringers, and their civilization, culture, and history being lost is a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

If I lock you in a room with a radioactive substance and it reduces your life expectancy from 70+ years to just 10 or less, no judge or jury in the world is not going to convict me of murder.

Likewise, the Ancients' views on death seem to have changed substantially after the Final Days. Though, I admit I'm speculating there. But even if that wasn't the case, the moment Venat sundered them, they stopped being the Ancients that even had those views about death.

---

They might have changed, but Venat didn't. That's why Yoshida said Venat was just an Ancient. Indeed, she acted like an Ancient would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Unconsensual, unplanned death was still seen as a great tragedy even among the Ancients. See: the funeral rites for the killed creations, Erich and Lahabrea grappling with Athena's death. And, hell, their very response to the mass violent deaths of the Final Days.

---

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide. Genocide is what the Ancients tried to do with the new life post Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Also, for what it's worth, (again, as has been rehashed in this thread a million times), their memories being wiped was confirmed by Emet-Selch in Shadowbringers, and their civilization, culture, and history being lost is a given.

---

Part of that has to do with the rejoinings that the Ascians caused, as seen by the traces of the sundering that was recorded on the First.

I don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

They might have changed, but Venat didn't. That's why Yoshida said Venat was just an Ancient. Indeed, she acted like an Ancient would.

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide. Genocide is what the Ancients tried to do with the new life post Zodiark.

Part of that has to do with the rejoinings that the Ascians caused, as seen by the traces of the sundering that was recorded on the First.

I don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

---

By your logic the new life wouldn’t have been genocide though, because the souls of that new life would have still been inside Zodiark just like the ancient souls were…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

---

I feel as though a lot of this dissonance was born from the writers trying WAY too hard to make every character except Zenos and Fandaniel (guess who I feel as though are the high points of the story) morally justified in their own way without considerations for cases in where the morality is 100% incompatible, i.e. Venat's actions aren't morally justifiable precisely because the Ancients' actions WERE. Almost every character is either morally or logically justified for their actions, or not entirely morally culpable for them, like Meteion- and arguably Zodiark and Hydaelyn themselves, depending on how much individuality was lost in the process of becoming a primal (it doesn't seem consistent)- as they were just following their programming.

Even Garlemald, who I don't feel like the story makes any yikesy apologetics for, can easily point to the actions of the Alliance in both past and present for reasons why they've either done such atrocities or refuse to play along with their attempts to help. In their case, even the contradictory morality is 100% resolved because the story doesn't bother (unless you take the words said at complete face value) painting them as correct so much as entirely understandable. But when it comes to Venat, the story goes through great lengths to attempt to paint both her and the Ancients as correct even though the story makes very little effort to justify Venat's actions relative to how unbelievably heinous they are, and much more importantly, how little the Ancients actually did wrong.

I mean, shit, they could've leaned much harder on the supposed flaws in Ancient society and portrayed them as heinous in their own right and they wouldn't have had to justify the Sundering nearly as much as they did(n't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

TI don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

---

They were literally stripped of their identities and split into 14 different parts. The idea that they were still themselves is an unfathomable stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

By your logic the new life wouldn’t have been genocide though, because the souls of that new life would have still been inside Zodiark just like the ancient souls were…

---

Their souls might be, but not their lives, unless you think that being inside Zodiark is living, in which case the Ancients are condemning their own people to what seems like a hellish existence only to then wanting to replace them with others who are not their friends and families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AziraSyuren

They were literally stripped of their identities and split into 14 different parts. The idea that they were still themselves is an unfathomable stretch.

---

Not really, as seen by the records of the First, even the reflections still had knowledge of the sundering. As I understand it, the way it works is that the shards started out as copies of the Source, meaning the only change is the loss of aether, but everything that was in the source remained at that instance until the loss of aether caused changes over time, through generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Where did the story say any of that happened to the actual people that experienced the sundering?

Well, except for reducing the potential life span, but no, I don't consider that killing if the shortened life span doesn't mean an immediate end, especially for a group that have different ideas about death.

---

Emet-Selch mentions that memories of the sundered were fragmented and unable to recall specifics of anything.

It's not really made clear exactly how badly mankind regressed in-game, but the lorebook mentions that creation of stone tools and the discovery of fire were among the defining attributes of the "age of gods" which suggests they were in an extremely primitive state.

I have a hunch that the Twelve were part of a post-Sundering contingency plan from Hydaelyn to ensure mankind could actually get back on their feet and recover instead of simply going extinct in the face of their newfound shortcomings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Their souls might be, but not their life, unless you think that being inside Zodiark is living, in which case the Ancients are condemning their own people to what seem like a hellish existence only to then wanting to replace them with others who are not their friends and families.

---

Okay….then you should agree what Venat did was Genocide. The ancient lives were no more, she even says herself she is the last of her kind. She ripped them apart, and then removed as much of their history as she could and kept it all secret. Even if we don’t count the ancient lives themselves, she introduced much shorter lifespans and sickness to living beings, all those deaths are on her hands, which is indeed genocide. Not to mention her backup plan in case we failed was also allowing the shards to all be killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide.

---

It does not, but this one sure did!

Quote:

---

I don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

---

No. He confirms it in the cave scene where he reveals Hydaelyn and Zodiark are primals. "And the worst part? No one could remember it." Elidibus also talks later, on the moon, on how all knowledge and memory of the Ancients being wiped from history without a trace was Hydaelyn's intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Emet-Selch mentions that memories of the sundered were fragmented and unable to recall specifics of anything.

It's not really made clear exactly how badly mankind regressed in-game, but the lorebook mentions that creation of stone tools and the discovery of fire were among the defining attributes of the "age of gods" which suggests they were in an extremely primitive state.

I have a hunch that the Twelve were part of a post-Sundering contingency plan from Hydaelyn to ensure mankind could actually get back on their feet and recover instead of simply going extinct in the face of their newfound shortcomings.

---

I think that has to do with the loss of creation magic, which of course would be a big deal.

In fact, creation magic is such a big difference that it became a crutch for their society and why they wanted to return to that prior state when their magic was not being turned against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Okay….then you should agree what Venat did was Genocide. The ancient lives were no more, she even says herself she is the last of her kind. She ripped them apart, and then removed as much of their history as she could and kept it all secret. Even if we don’t count the ancient lives themselves, she introduced much shorter lifespans and sickness to living beings, all those deaths are on her hands, which is indeed genocide. Not to mention her backup plan in case we failed was also allowing the shards to all be killed.

---

I agree that the resulting situation is worse, but I don't agree with genocide. Venat calling herself the last of her kind refers to being unsundered, but that doesn't change the fact that she still sees the sundered as continuation of mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

It does not, but this one sure did!

---

Well, that's the point of contention.

Quote:

---

No. He confirms it in the cave scene where he reveals Hydaelyn and Zodiark are primals. "And the worst part? No one could remember it." Elidibus also talks later, on the moon, on how all knowledge and memory of the Ancients being wiped from history without a trace was Hydaelyn's intent.

---

Actually, that cave showed that they remembered and recorded it. Being wiped from history means no record was kept, not that the people who experienced it first hand had their memories wiped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

Emet-Selch mentions that memories of the sundered were fragmented and unable to recall specifics of anything.

It's not really made clear exactly how badly mankind regressed in-game, but the lorebook mentions that creation of stone tools and the discovery of fire were among the defining attributes of the "age of gods" which suggests they were in an extremely primitive state.

I have a hunch that the Twelve were part of a post-Sundering contingency plan from Hydaelyn to ensure mankind could actually get back on their feet and recover instead of simply going extinct in the face of their newfound shortcomings.

---

Most "copies" of Amaurot were actually unharmed if the First is anything to go by, so I think the implication is that the destruction and worldwide trauma caused by the Sundering rendered Amaurot either wholly inaccessible or useless, so to speak. With that in mind, it seemed like what little was left of the Ancients themselves only had a world that was mostly just wilderness to work with, and even if they retained their knowledge and memory, their lack of Creation magic would've forced a hard reset anyways if most of Ancient society was built upon it.

Not trying to make a point or anything, just saying what I think happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

They might have changed, but Venat didn't. That's why Yoshida said Venat was just an Ancient. Indeed, she acted like an Ancient would.

---

Except Venat was an Ancient who didn't agree with her fellow Ancients. Venat did not choose to die after she left her office, and stated that she probably never would choose to. She specifically sundered her fellow Ancients because she disagreed with their fundamental values.

She is the one Ancient (besides Hermes) for whom a callous attitude toward death would be hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

She preaches constantly the entire game about having hope, never giving up, making the impossible possible yet doesn’t apply any of these things to her own people, and effectively gives up on them and murders them all.

---

And for what? Because WoL sounded cool when speaking about her adventures...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

I'm already dreading the idea of Alphinaud and Alisae seeding the idea that Garlemald should do away with the idea of an Emperor so it can instead become a democratic republic again.

---

Why? Garlemald became an empire solely because of Solus. It was a republic 80 years ago, or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrightfulNight

Garlemald has been reduced to Rubble, its residence huddling in a subways (and it was hinted at that a large amount of citizens and soldiers were un tempered and are undergoing treatment after the tower of babel so they need a more viable living location soon) and it has no current leader or government that people can turn to.

You think this would be the prime concern for the WoL due to how they like helping those in need

---

What do you want WoL to do? Build some houses? That was always side content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

She is the one Ancient (besides Hermes) for whom a callous attitude toward death would be hypocrisy.

---

Not really, part of that is due to Meteion's revelation of how the Ancients' paradise is not shared universally (or at least) might be temporary. Again, there is no reason to think she killed anybody. So shortening life spans is not that great a price to pay if it meant mankind can learn to live through the suffering.

Also, it is not like she intentionally intended for their life spans to be shorter. So it is not a motivating factor. The sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Venat calling herself the last of her kind refers to being unsundered, but that doesn't change the fact that she still sees the sundered as continuation of mankind.

---

What Venat thinks doesn't matter. She's the one who inflicted the violence upon others, and believed it was for the greater good. Emet-Selch obviously does not see it that way. The Ancient souls held on the moon, from all evidence, do not see it that way. "Well, the killer says their victim lives on through their children! They really believe that! So that makes it better!"

Quote:

---

Well, that's the point of contention.

---

Nah. As far as common "apologism" techniques, along with things like the abstraction and usage of symbols like the montage, coding the action of violence behind finicky, cowardly language is also typical. It's not killing, it's cleaning--I mean, uh, "retiring"--I mean, uh, "Sundering".

Quote:

---

Actually, that cave showed that they remembered and recorded it. Being wiped from history means no record was kept, not that the people who experienced it first hand had their memories wiped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emet-Selch

And the worst part? No one could remember it. Not really. Just fragments and fleeting memories of an achingly familiar world…

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elidibus

The origins of the world remain hidden and its inhabitants ignorant of their broken existence, just as You and Your creators desired.

---

People can, and often do, paint things they saw in fragments of dreams they don't understand. Fragments of memories persist through soul aether, as Amon demonstrated. This does not change that their memory was intentionally wiped by Venat and that her strategy to "remove temptation" was to annihilate the Ancient civilization and all memory of it from history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Not really, part of that is due to Meteion's revelation of how the Ancients' paradise is not shared universally (or at least) might be temporary. Again, there is no reason to think she killed anybody. So shortening life spans is not that great a price to pay if it meant mankind can learn to live through the suffering.

Also, it is not like she intentionally intended for their life spans to be shorter. So it is not a motivating factor. The sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark.

---

What do you mean the sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark? She needed Zodiark for her plan. It seems they rewrote it to be instead of Zodiark to be because she thought only the sundered could manipulate dynamis.

Also,so mankind can learn to live through suffering? The ancients did that. They didn’t give in to the final days, they handed together and put a stop to it and restored the planet. Compare that to 90% of the sundered who give in and succumb to the final days and turn into blasphemies. Getting rid of peoples memories of an entire race, ripping them apart, and keeping it all a secret is the equivalent of genocide. This shouldn’t even really be up for debate. If it is, then i guess the rejoinings aren’t genocide either, since the sundered are all just fractured versions of complete people, rejoining them would just make them whole and themselves again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

"Well, the killer says their victim lives on through their children! They really believe that! So that makes it better!"

---

Yep, the victims of the killer lived through their children, whom they conceived after being killed... uh...

Quote:

---

Nah. As far as common "apologism" techniques, along with things like the abstraction and usage of symbols like the montage, coding the action of violence behind finicky language is also typical. It's not killing, it's cleaning--I mean, uh, "retiring"--I mean, uh, "Sundering".

---

Great, than let's call it what it is instead of "coding" behind the language. Killing is ending one's physical existence. They're not dead? They're still alive and able to reproduce? Then they weren't killed.

Quote:

---

People can, and often do, paint things they saw in fragments of dreams they don't understand. Fragments of memories persist through soul aether, as Amon demonstrated. This does not change that their memory was intentionally wiped by Venat and that her strategy to "remove temptation" was to annihilate the Ancient civilization and all memory of it from history.

---

Yes, they can, but Hydaelyn not wanting the sundered to keep the knowledge of the pre-sundered world is not saying the sundering caused a loss of memory. You're taking a general statement and attributig a specific cause and mechanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

What do you mean the sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark? She needed Zodiark for her plan. It seems they rewrote it to be instead of Zodiark to be because she thought only the sundered could manipulate dynamis.

---

To stop Zodiark from being used for more sacrifices to return the society to as it was.

Quote:

---

Also,so mankind can learn to live through suffering? The ancients did that. They didn’t give in to the final days, they handed together and put a stop to it and restored the planet. Compare that to 90% of the sundered who give in and succumb to the final days and turn into blasphemies. Getting rid of peoples memories of an entire race, ripping them apart, and keeping it all a secret is the equivalent of genocide. This shouldn’t even really be up for debate. If it is, then i guess the rejoinings aren’t genocide either, since the sundered are all just fractured versions of complete people, rejoining them would just make them whole and themselves again.

---

They didn't give in because they had creation magic. Everything can be solved with creation magic. Tragedies can be undone. That's not living through suffering.

Also, even you comparing it to the sundered shows that the Ancients merely escape the worst of the suffering because they were not affected by dynamis, only their creation magic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Not really, part of that is due to Meteion's revelation of how the Ancients' paradise is not shared universally (or at least) might be temporary. Again, there is no reason to think she killed anybody. So shortening life spans is not that great a price to pay if it meant mankind can learn to live through the suffering.

Also, it is not like she intentionally intended for their life spans to be shorter. So it is not a motivating factor. The sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark.

---

No, Venat was well aware that the effects of the Sundering would cause mankind to suffer more, die horrible deaths they otherwise would have, and would also cut their lives to a fraction of what they were. That was the entire PURPOSE of the Sundering, and she had ample knowledge of what it would cause thanks to receiving a heads-up about the future.

The sundering also had nothing to do with Zodiark. It was Meteion that the Sundering was ultimately supposed to defeat by teaching mankind to "live through suffering". But honestly, that's taking the logic of the story at face value, and I've already gone through pages and pages of explanations about why it doesn't work even after the story tried to bend over backwards to make it work.

Also, no. This notion you have of "well if I didn't end your life today, then I didn't kill you" is nonsense.

Again, if I stab you, and this injury directly leads to your death even in an indirect way (you wander into the street looking for help and get hit by a bus), I will STILL get arrested and convicted of murder. "Killing", neither legally nor ethically, is limited to directly ending someone's life with one act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Great, than let's call it what it is instead of "coding" behind the language. Killing is ending one's physical existence. They're not dead? They're still alive and able to reproduce? Then they weren't killed.

---

Hey, good to know if somebody deliberately hits me with a car to render my body and mind nonfunctioning, naturally simultaneously destroying my memories, and giving me a final life expectancy of about six months out, that so long as my heart beats and my womb works, they didn't kill me! Pack it in, folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

No, Venat was well aware that the effects of the Sundering would cause mankind to suffer more, die horrible deaths they otherwise would have, and would also cut their lives to a fraction of what they were. That was the entire PURPOSE of the Sundering, and she had ample knowledge of what it would cause thanks to receiving a heads-up about the future.

---

She knows what will be the result in terms of the bad things that can happen, but the result was not why she sundered mankind. That's why she pled with the Ancients. If they didn't choose to go with their plan of sacrificing the new life to return their old lives, I don't think she would commit the sundering.

Quote:

---

The sundering also had nothing to do with Zodiark. It was Meteion that the Sundering was ultimately supposed to defeat by teaching mankind to "live through suffering". But honestly, that's taking the logic of the story at face value, and I've already gone through pages and pages of explanations about why it doesn't work even after the story tried to bend over backwards to make it work.

---

Of course the sundering had to do with Zodiark. The sundering happened because she couldn't kill Zodiark, so she had to weaken him somehow, and yes, it also had to do with Meteion as an action does not have to have only one purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrownySuccubus

Also, no. This notion you have of "well if I didn't end your life today, then I didn't kill you" is nonsense.

Again, if I stab you, and this injury directly leads to your death even in an indirect way (you wander into the street looking for help and get hit by a bus), I will STILL get arrested and convicted of murder. "Killing", neither legally nor ethically, is limited to directly ending someone's life with one act.

---

Your examples still do not apply because they are about specific injuries. The sundering is not about specific injury as the whole world was sundered. If what you say is true, then the planet itself is injured and dying.

Also, another factor contributing to the shortened life spans is the loss of creation magic, meaning mankind had to work harder to exist and not rely simply on creation magic. Quality of life changes alone can change life spans. That is not a direct comparison to actually stabbing an individual because the indivual was not injured. All the resulting problems happened because life is harder for them, so conflicts can arise more easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

Hey, good to know if somebody deliberately hits me with a car to render my body and mind nonfunctioning, naturally simultaneously destroying my memories, and giving me a final life expectancy of about six months out, that so long as my heart beats and my womb works, they didn't kill me! Pack it in, folks.

---

I still don't see where any of that was said in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

She knows what will be the result in terms of the bad things that can happen, but the result was not why she sundered mankind. That's why she pled with the Ancients. If they didn't choose to go with their plan of sacrificing the new life to return their old lives, I don't think she would commit the sundering.

The sundering also had nothing to do with Zodiark. It was Meteion that the Sundering was ultimately supposed to defeat by teaching mankind to "live through suffering". But honestly, that's taking the logic of the story at face value, and I've already gone through pages and pages of explanations about why it doesn't work even after the story tried to bend over backwards to make it work.

---

Of course the sundering had to do with Zodiark. The sundering happened because she couldn't kill Zodiark, so she had to weaken him somehow, and yes, it also had to do with Meteion as an action does not have to have only one purpose.

Your examples still do not apply because they are about specific injuries. The sundering is not about specific injury as the whole world was sundered. If what you say is true, then the planet itself is injured and dying.

Also, another factor contributing to the shortened life spans is the loss of creation magic, meaning mankind had to work harder to exist and not rely simply on creation magic. Quality of life changes alone can change life spans. That is not a direct comparison to actually stabbing an individual because the indivual was not injured. All the resulting problems happened because life is harder for them, so conflicts can arise more easily.

I still don't see where any of that was said in the story.[/QUOTE]

She even says in ShB, it’s not the sacrifices so much that is the problem for her. It’s the fact that she thinks Zodiark isn’t a permanent solution. She says as much in her Anamnesis dialogue. Also….Venat gave her rabbits creation magic lmao. Another example of her hypocrisy. Either way, it is living through suffering. We see even before the final days people suffered, they dealt with grief. Venat actually made things worse in the end. The sundered’s souls were completely erased during the final days. The ancients thankfully didn’t have this happen to them. But that’s another side effect of her sundering. Can we then call that genocide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I still don't see where any of that was said in the story.

---

There comes a point to where when I read point blank black and white text provided in the story, and a different person says the text does not say what it says, I'm left at a loss for how to respond. If we can't agree on the basic premise of what the Sundering did - their bodies did not exist as they once were, they "existed" as maimed 1/14 pieces, same with their souls - the Ancients in their original identities, bodies, and souls do not exist anymore - their memories were stated to be wiped, and of course their lifespans were smashed into a tiny tiny fragment of what they once were - it feels like there's no common ground for discussion, unfortunately.

I mean, yes. You're on a similar page as the story, which did threw everything it could at the way it portrayed the situation to soften Venat's actions, which were explicitly intended to - and did - annihilate an entire race of people from the face of the planet. I am happy for you that you are not struggling with the moral dissonance, that the familiar coding and abstraction techniques to obscure the violence and identity violation Venat inflicted worked for you, and you can fully enjoy the story. Hey, that's great.

It was admittedly really confusing because she said both "it was the only way to defeat almighty Zodiark" and "yes, it is as you said" to Y'shtola questioning if giving us the potential to manipulate of dynamis was the purpose of the Sundering in the same line. Was that her purpose all along? Or was that just her trying to make the best out of the bad situation? It's not nearly as clear as anyone in this thread would tell you. I'd be really interested in learning how that line was in the original Japanese and how it was translated in other languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

She knows what will be the result in terms of the bad things that can happen, but the result was not why she sundered mankind. That's why she pled with the Ancients. If they didn't choose to go with their plan of sacrificing the new life to return their old lives, I don't think she would commit the sundering.

---

No, the result is exactly why she sundered it. We are specifically told by Venat herself that the entire purpose behind the Sundering was to induce mankind to death and suffering so that they could learn to overcome it rather than deny its existence. Sacrificing the lives to return to their old lives was an example of the Ancients denying the existence of suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Your examples still do not apply because they are about specific injuries. The sundering is not about specific injury as the whole world was sundered.

---

You're really trying to stretch the definition of "killing" if you think "specific injuries" is a requirement. But, regardless....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

If what you say is true, then the planet itself is injured and dying.

---

Yes. You are literally correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Of course the sundering had to do with Zodiark. The sundering happened because she couldn't kill Zodiark, so she had to weaken him somehow, and yes, it also had to do with Meteion as an action does not have to have only one purpose.

---

Weakening Zodiark was a methodology to forestall the Final Days, but Venat is very clear when she sunders the world that the primary purpose was to teach mankind suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

Also, another factor contributing to the shortened life spans is the loss of creation magic, meaning mankind had to work harder to exist and not rely simply on creation magic. Quality of life changes alone can change life spans. That is not a direct comparison to actually stabbing an individual because the indivual was not injured. All the resulting problems happened because life is harder for them, so conflicts can arise more easily.

---

Dude, are you serious?

If I permanently break one of your arms, and you die because you, say, later fall from a high ledge that you ordinarily would have been able to catch and pull yourself up from if you still had both working arms, then I killed you.

I don't know what you think an "injury" is, but reducing the health, the physicality, and the ability of person to defend themselves from harm is basically what an injury is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

She even says in ShB, it’s not the sacrifices so much that is the problem for her. It’s the fact that she thinks Zodiark isn’t a permanent solution. She says as much in her Anamnesis dialogue.

---

Yes, though I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

Quote:

---

Also….Venat gave her rabbits creation magic lmao. Another example of her hypocrisy. Either way, it is living through suffering. We see even before the final days people suffered, they dealt with grief. Venat actually made things worse in the end. The sundered’s souls were completely erased during the final days. The ancients thankfully didn’t have this happen to them. But that’s another side effect of her sundering. Can we then call that genocide?

---

Sure, genocide on the part of Endsinger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brinne

their bodies did not exist as they once were, they "existed" as maimed 1/14 pieces, same with their souls - the Ancients in their original identities, bodies, and souls do not exist anymore - their memories were stated to be wiped, and of course their lifespans were smashed into a tiny tiny fragment of what they once were

---

As far as I know, this is describing the current beings, meaning over time through the generations as they live in a post-sundering reality. I am asking where it was said that this happened to the actual Ancients who were sundered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linayar

I am asking where it was said that this happened to the actual Ancients who were sundered.

---

What. What? I... what?