Tales from the Dawn #3: "A Question of Life" (Hermes)

With how this debate has been going the past 10 months or so, what does it matter whether the third sacrifice was actual people or not though? Ultimately you can go back to saying '' ancients and the convocation bear no responsibility for their morally questionable actions because Venat didn't tell them what she knew, so all of this could've potentially been avoided if Venat revealed everything to the ancients '' so it doesn't really matter how heinous the third sacrifice could've been, as it's all Venat's fault in the end, supposedly lol. I mean, this is just what I have come to expect from this discussion, though perhaps I'm just too cynical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

With how this debate has been going the past 10 months or so, what does it matter whether the third sacrifice was actual people or not though? Ultimately you can go back to saying '' ancients and the convocation bear no responsibility for their morally questionable actions because Venat didn't tell them what she knew, so all of this could've potentially been avoided if Venat revealed everything to the ancients '' so it doesn't really matter how heinous the third sacrifice could've been, as it's all Venat's fault in the end, supposedly lol. I mean, this is just what I have come to expect from this discussion, though perhaps I'm just too cynical?

---

But where is the lie? Venat does bear some of the responsibility by not telling at the very least Lahabrea what she knew. As well as creating a hole for the three Unsundered to slip through. All in service of maintaining a closed loop which was patently not necessary as G'raha has already demonstrated that split timelines are possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redheadturk

But where is the lie? Venat does bear some of the responsibility by not telling at the very least Lahabrea what she knew. As well as creating a hole for the three Unsundered to slip through. All in service of maintaining a closed loop which was patently not necessary as G'raha has already demonstrated that split timelines are possible.

---

But G'raha doesn't know that his timeline still exist. The people from the 8th umbral calamity world didn't know if they timeline would change or not, they just decided to risk their existence to save us.
Likewise, Venat can't possibly be sure that changing events in her time would erase the WoL timeline or not.
She'd rather not risk deleting a future where she knows human have a fighting chance. She need this fighting chance if all else goes wrong and she judge her people incapable of defeating Meteion.

My issue with her is that, even if it was the last resort, she still destroyed humanity, and doomed the world to live throught Calamities, and the unsundered to have to endure this unjust duty.
The plot didn't call her out on that, and we quickly moved to the next plot point. It doesn't help that we don't have a proper representation of how the sundered actually were like when they first came into existence.

I also don't understand why she couldn't interfere more once the sundered were born. Now that the perfect fighting chance was created, why let these people suffer under the ascians's calamity for ten thousand years ?
Why wait for the Warrior of Light to be born to deal with it, instead of trusting these new dynamis powered humans ?

The devs obviously want Venat to be sympathetic, but they skimmed over a lot of things she did that the Ascians got judged for. Even if we know she had good reasons to do what she did, so did the ascians.
Personally i still like her, but they should have elaborate way more on her actions during and post sundering.

In a truly shocking turn of events, it turns out that people who don't like EW's writing don't have to be part of the one horrible, no-good hivemind of probably politically conservative Ascian enjoyers and Theodric alts. Well now! Quite upsetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

"Venat didn't tell them what she knew, so all of this could've potentially been avoided if Venat revealed everything to the ancients''

---

I know you don't want it to be true, and you intended this to be seen as absurd, but indeed where is the lie? We cannot know what might have happened had Venat told anyone what she knew. Because the evidence we do have indeed points to her not telling the Convocation, nor her own partisans. The Watcher as a human only knew what Venat had in mind involved space at best - it is interesting the short story just hammered down the point of Venat not telling people who by all means should be in the know, rather than... going a more reassuring way.

And you are also right about "what does the third sacrifice matter?", because indeed, it doesn't at all. Its contents have never been a concern for Venat herself. In the Anamnesis scene, this isn't the basis of her disagreement with the Convocation at all, in fact she acknowledges they are doing what they think is best for the planet. She is only concerned about Zodiark being a temporary fix. The problem has never been with the third sacrifice itself, but rather what it would lead to, and the February lore Q&A only ever talks about the past vs future argument and her wanting to maintain the time loop.

It looks very much like this entire argument of what they were sacrificing is manufactured by the fan base taking the very vague canon we have and twisting it in ways to make Ancients look bad. I know what the argument is, of course: "but if they weren't sacrificing humans or human-like beings and being obviously Very Bad, then Venat wouldn't have much of a point!", and I would argue this is fallacious in and out of itself when we consider what we know about Ancient culture. We know they had a deep reverence for the planet, the natural cycle of life, and maintaining the diversity of the ecosystems (see the pamphlet in Akademia Anyder). We see Elpis employees mourn the okyupetes killed by the firemurderwolves because they returned to the planet before achieving their purpose. Knowing all this, why, then, would it be so farfetched for a number of Ancients to oppose the third sacrifice on the sole basis of killing a massive chunk of very recently restored nature, without any sort of consent and for their own benefit, and for this to be a sufficient moral quandary all on its own?

Never mind that we have no solid evidence of there being any sapient life that wasn't Ancients. At best I've seen arguments made about the tiny Matanga that would have its intelligence made better so it doesn't just run around like a headless chicken, and the notion of "handing the planet over to the new life". Again, I don't think the latter has to imply sapience, it could simply be meant in an "our civilisation is done, let nature take over the reins", which is how I've always interpreted it in the context of Zodiark remaking the natural ecosystems. As for the Matanga, we don't know what happened next - might be that it only got enough intelligence to stop running around like a headless chicken. It might be that it only evolved sapience millenia later in the context of a sundered planet. Maybe the planet, in its sundered state, simply started putting human souls into "beastmen". We don't know nearly enough about how souls work, or what happened, or what could have happened...

...which brings us back to 1. Endwalker being completely sloppy about the setting's backstory and fundations, 2. None of this even matters to Venat's motivations as we now know, why are we even discussing this anymore?, and 3. Had any of this been relevant, you would think they would have taken the opportunity of the Watcher's short story to drive the point home rather than... having it do nothing but throw even more doubt onto Venat's actions.

Blame Endwalker, not us.

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

---

Given Venat betrays and murders her own people she just as bad if not worse than them.
Edit, she makes that convocation intentionally. We see what Emet, Elidiabus and Lahabrea what like before what happens they are not the trauma riven wrecks that go on to meet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

---

Considering that she watched it happened for 12 000 without interfering while knowing they would do it, i don't think she's blameless here. Especially when she let them escape so that they could do it.
But hey, she only destroyed one civilization so i guess she has that going for her.

I know she had to do it, but she wasn't held accountable nearly enough. Despite the terrible situation and dilemmas, she did what the ascians did, except for our races instead of theirs. We should have gotten a proper acknowledgement of that, instead of it being hand waved by 2 lines from Venat and Y'shtola.
At least let my WoL voice his opinion about that outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I took their decision to use the formerly sundered as sacrifices as a cleansing of sorts because they'd inevitably become an obstacle to the Ancients asserting their "rightful" claim to the star and it's unlikely they'd be willing to just submit to living by their strict standards even if given the chance.

Cultural and societal differences would be liable to have made them inherently incompatible with one another.

---

Another point is that, as Yoshi noted in the Q&A, the unsundered souls entering the Aetherial Sea won't be reborn as ancients in full. I'd say it's likely due to the limitations of sundered bodies, hence they'd need to wipe the slate clean to circumvent this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

With how this debate has been going the past 10 months or so, what does it matter whether the third sacrifice was actual people or not though? Ultimately you can go back to saying '' ancients and the convocation bear no responsibility for their morally questionable actions because Venat didn't tell them what she knew, so all of this could've potentially been avoided if Venat revealed everything to the ancients '' so it doesn't really matter how heinous the third sacrifice could've been, as it's all Venat's fault in the end, supposedly lol. I mean, this is just what I have come to expect from this discussion, though perhaps I'm just too cynical?

---

I disagree with the way this is framed. The contention of those making this point is that it's unclear how "morally questionable" the sacrifices were because the writers left this vague and the lore on this does not help narrow it down decisively, one way or another and that, in any case, it would not suffice as an excuse to genocide them. Particularly when her side's concern had to do with civilisational stagnation (and hers, specifically, is the Plenty and Meteion.) They would also argue that the ancients were in a position of extreme duress at the time, having nearly lost their entire damn planet and 75% of their remaining people, and that the arguments her side was using to convince them were likely not adequate to alter their minds in such a case - whereas the information she did have could've been more persuasive in this respect. Bearing in mind, once more, that the point her faction wished to convince them of was to move on without restoring their own kind; not that the sacrifices themselves, by virtue of what they were, were "immoral". Hence it's less to do with moral responsibility in the respect you outlined, and more to do with them being given the information needed to make a decision on how to react to the truth of the cause of the Final Days.

I have been abundantly clear, for my own part, that any "themes" that try to demonise the ancients in service of justifying their annihilation would sit poorly with me, and yes, if the writers had been less shy in using the third sacrifice in advancing such a theme, be it of "hubris" or something in a similar vein, I'd probably leave my thoughts, and say farewell to the game. The theme I took away from SHB was of a reconciliation achieved through putting aside grievances from the past, even if they arguably had legitimacy to them, and finding a way to move forward from there and make peace with matters to avoid further bloodshed and finally rest. This does not mean I wanted Venat to be a villain - I simply had little appetite for them attempting to "objectively" justify what was done to the ancients. I'd have been fine with her being a character like Yunalesca, operating on a set of beliefs that she may have been misled into/come at a considerable cost etc., who genuinely meant well but nonetheless is confronted for her forceful methods.

As it stands, they were not shy in pushing those themes that were central to EW, even taking a preachy tone with it, mostly revolving around "accepting" the purported necessity of suffering and reconciling the will to persevere and sense of purpose with death that is often pointless and also inevitable, coupled with what I'd consider to be a somewhat weakly argued stance against the bludgeon of "perfection". By contrast, they have continued to remain silent on the third sacrifice while making it abundantly clear that the motivation behind the Sundering is in service of the themes I just outlined. As Lurina has said, it's not even entirely clear that the writers are on the same page on this front. So I consider it something of a fool's errand to try force an answer to this vexed question through what is a tangled knot of "themes". Themes where it isn't even clear, in each case that it can be pointed to, that it is being employed here. A point the writers themselves have to some degree left it open to the audience to introspect upon based on past interviews, rather than forcing a singular answer.

Lyth can fulminate all she likes about how "obvious" things are based on the Ascians (even though the story goes to no small lengths to show how they changed over time from their ancient selves), and try paint what I consider to be an extremely disingenuous portrayal of the ancients as "psychopathic villains", but the fact is, other than her caricatures of the lore that she routinely refuses to back up with sources other than by exception, there is a lot of ambiguity here around the sacrifices, and the act it's all in service to justifying (=ending the ancients for the purported goal of defeating Meteion/avoiding a feared self-annihilation) is one that is extremely controversial.

This for example?

Quote:

---

We come in to the story of Amaurot knowing full well that the majority of their leadership were a group of murderous psychopaths who looked down on non-Amaurotine societies with delusions of racial supremacy. You should not require any additional help from the writers to spell out for you that these are not lawful good exemplars of virtue or to be able to grasp the fact that they always were going to be written as a fallen civilization.

---

Yeah, I am not obligated to accept this portrayal, and the poster can rage and name-call all they like over it, because what I read into this is not a theme as such (other than in this person's posts), but a derangement towards the ancients pushed through highly motivated reasoning, partly wed to her none too thinly veiled dislike of fans of the ancients. In case there is any doubt that she's trying to push this interpretation in what she's saying? See here.

As I stated, the Sundering is itself divorced from the content of these sacrifices, and is concerned with their outcome. So in that sense? Yeah, the content of the sacrifices does become quite a bit less relevant as the pivotal point, and I think it's clear by now that the writers don't want to touch that topic further, and have given us other motives to consider. I'd also echo every point Teraq made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RukoBoshi

But G'raha doesn't know that his timeline still exist.

---

He does theorise upon the implications of his persistence in the timeline. I'll grant you this point, though, that it's far from certain insofar as the characters are concerned and it'd require further research/interrogation to definitively establish, but at the same time, the ancients seemed to at the least have a theoretical conception of time travel and the WoL did spill the beans to her, no doubt accounting for this fact given how pivotal it is, so there is, I'd say, food for thought for her in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I took their decision to use the formerly sundered as sacrifices as a cleansing of sorts because they'd inevitably become an obstacle to the Ancients asserting their "rightful" claim to the star and it's unlikely they'd be willing to just submit to living by their strict standards even if given the chance.

Cultural and societal differences would be liable to have made them inherently incompatible with one another.

---

So bascially that they are willing to kill real people because they believe that their race is superior. Not a great look of them either. Especially since they outright know that Ancients have been reborn too. But I guess since the unsundered died to sundered ones I really doubt that they would win at the end anyway. After all they would go against those that have become whole again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

---

And here we see the world's most disengenious take ever. Stay tuned folks to see how this is topped in the future!

Last I checked, certain posters now feigning concern had absolutely nothing to say when the poster in question was wishing death on those of us who like the antagonists, insulting our intelligence and peddling conspiracy theories about us being alts of one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Last I checked, certain posters now feigning concern had absolutely nothing to say when the poster in question was wishing death on those of us who like the antagonists, insulting our intelligence and peddling conspiracy theories about us being alts of one another.

---

Indeed. If the mods were to show up, I don't think it'd bode awfully well for the poster in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I think that if Venat was given every last detail about what happened, she would also know that the entire Convocation outside of Azem was made up of a group of murderous psychopaths that slaughtered countless civilizations across seven worlds, and rendered an eighth completely uninhabitable. Not the sort of people anyone would typically trust.

---

I've refrained from commeting in this thread given the sort of discussion that was taking place - but by merely playing through the MSQ and side content that isn't the impression I got from the Convocation members prior to...the destruction of their world and people. Which, naturally, had an effect on them. They were certainly more human and had more to like than Venat, who despite her being not as insufferable as some of the other female party members we've had, wasn't exactly the sort of person I expect could relate with people on a deeper level.

Venat's primary experience with suffering has been watching other people go through things. That isn't the same as experiencing them first hand, like people like Lahabrea had to. I would sooner trust pre-Sundering Lahabrea as a confidant than her.

Regarding "Venat is morally culpable for not telling any of the ancients anything" I think, other than the pracitical concerns about Fandaniel that have already been pointed out, I think a couple points always get overlooked.

1, Venat is not choosing between say something, and help save the civilization of the ancients, and say nothing just because. It's say nothing to save the people of the future, who are confirmed to exist by the WoL, so it's not a hypothetical second group of people. They very much exist and are doomed if Venat does not enact her plan to help them, a plan that requires not saving the ancients.

Venat, is essentially being placed in front of an enormous trolley problem where on one track is her own people, and on another track are the future generations that she has explicit future knowledge about. Not exactly an enviable position to be in.

2, any Venat we meet in our time necessarily has to be the one who decided to choose us over her own people, or we wouldn't be meeting her. In other timelines, where Venat makes different choices that don't lead to the sundering, we don't exist.

Ib4 someone reiterates that genocide is genocide while maybe or maybe not calling Venat a few choice names and how dare you not care about the plight of the Ancients or state even though you didn't bring it up that they wouldn't have had a chance to try n deal with Meteion if they had been told UwU.

After a bit of thought, it occurs to me that Hermes was extremely abusive toward Meteion. He disregarded her very obvious distress at several points in the pursuit of information. He was in many ways treating this rare sapient familiar, something he himself was most directly responsible for the creation of, with far less care than those around him were shown to give ordinary familiars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

After a bit of thought, it occurs to me that Hermes was extremely abusive toward Meteion. He disregarded her very obvious distress at several points in the pursuit of information. He was in many ways treating this rare sapient familiar, something he himself was most directly responsible for the creation of, with far less care than those around him were shown to give ordinary familiars.

---

He literally didn't even let her think she liked a flippin' candied apple. Poor kid.

"Oh, that's just my preferences imprinting on you." Like Gods, what a douche.

Between that and his unhinged crusade where he sacrificed all his animals to get his answer from Meteion's report, I'm sometimes forced to doubt the integrity of any who might defend him. Seems to me some people would defend a dude ending the world with every life on the planet at risk because he was apparently "fighting the Fascist power!"

I'm here envisioning a scenario where they argue with the authorities on his behalf, and the wretched serial killer slips out the back door as their distracting the authorities that came to put the batshit fucker down.

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

And this really is a recurring theme in the story of most of the Amaurotines. It's this pervasive hubris, a sense that they are somehow entitled to more than everyone else, that perpetually sets us at odds with their leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

...

---

Theodric. Referring to me as 'the poster in question' in response to a post where I've been directly named doesn't conceal that I'm the specific target of the witch hunt that you've incited. I'm not sure what your issue with me is, or why you seem so intent on incriminating yourself on an issue that I took great pains to keep open-ended and non-specific, but I would politely ask that you stop in the interests of not derailing this thread further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

And this really is a recurring theme in the story of most of the Amaurotines. It's this pervasive hubris, a sense that they are somehow entitled to more than everyone else, that perpetually sets us at odds with their leadership.

Theodric. Referring to me as 'the poster in question' in response to a post where I've been directly named doesn't conceal that I'm the specific target of the witch hunt that you've incited. I'm not sure what your issue with me is, or why you seem so intent on incriminating yourself on an issue that I took great pains to keep open-ended and non-specific, but I would politely ask that you stop in the interests of not derailing this thread further.

---

Lyth, I don't know how to say this politely. It's both hilarious and insulting that you think you're being witch-hunted, you who accused people of being alts because they played the same bloody race in a video game. For once in your life, and your career with tenure on these forums..... TAKE THE L AND GO HOME. Any defending what you said earlier in this thread are..... equally guilty. Stop being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith and misrepresenting people's stances and perhaps people would be more likely to entreat you with respect.

Also, as for the Y'shtola point.... Well, frankly that stands to prove more of our points than the Fora Knights. That cutscene is actually prime materiel of the Scions being either selfish hypocritical pricks or heavily out of character in Endwalker. Because Venat is guilty of the same sins Y'shtola and Thancred attempt (and fail gloriously, in hindsight) to grill Emet-Selch for, but she's treated as a herois instead of a perpetrator. It's VILE, to repay a genocider with a pedestal and veneration. Your "point" has shown us little and less. Unless, of course your intent was to showcase yet more of this forum's double standards and inability to apply nuance to both sides of a moral conflict. In which case, you may feel free to consider us enlightened and elucidated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

Thank you for standing up for me, Eara. I think that the reason why targeted bullying goes unchecked on this subforum because people are afraid to speak out when they see malicious behavior. It's the bystander effect.

I wouldn't have thought that stating that Emet destroyed the civilizations on seven worlds would be a controversial or 'bad faith' statement. It's explicitly stated in the game text. Let me show you:

Y'shtola: 'From a purely Ascian standpoint, it could be said that what you want to do is purely logical.

But that would be to ignore the immeasurable destruction wrought with each rejoining. You have murdered millions. And this we cannot condone.'

Emet: 'By your fragmented existence, you continue to give rise to tragedies far crueler than any calamity. But yes, moral relativism and all that. Case in point - I do not consider you to be truly alive. Ergo, I will not be guilty of murder if I kill you.'

There is no ambiguity in the game text. There's a fundamental difference in values between our society and theirs. Emet genuinely believes that the Amaurotines are superior to other races on the planet. And that mistaken presumption leads him to perform all manner of atrocities against us. You can like him as a character, but I think that you need to be able to separate that out from what he did.

---

It's not a witch hunt your just being a hypocrite. With what you said being the case fir Emet, Venat is as bad (in mu opinion worse) than him so she should be treat at least the same as him but the game fawns over her.

The game fawns over Emet as well. Enough of this nonsense. Endwalker was basically '' Emet is our best friend he did nothing wrong please don't go we'll be sad '' expansion. Venat barely got anything. The time that was put into fleshing out Emet and Hythlodaeus should've been put into fleshing out Venat and Hermes instead.

So fully justifying both Venat and Hermes despite their deplorable actions isn't a form of fawning? Interesting. Venat definitely didn't get a ton of love in the codex, and she and Hermes were not interacted with at length in Elpis. Oh, and short stories. Can't forget those. Those didn't happen either.

If you think it's saying Emet-Selch was right, you might want to play through the entirety of Endwalker again, though I suppose you could save some time and just go through Ultima Thule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tehmon

The game fawns over Emet as well. Enough of this nonsense. Endwalker was basically '' Emet is our best friend he did nothing wrong please don't go we'll be sad '' expansion. Venat barely got anything. The time that was put into fleshing out Emet and Hythlodaeus should've been put into fleshing out Venat and Hermes instead.

---

Yeah our character reaching out to him when we ride away really cemented that they really like him even after what he did. Also we have Alisaie being a bit sad that Emet would not stay in Ultima Thule. This one was quite surprising since I could understand that our character has mixed feelings about him going away (we have gone around with the old him a bit) but one of the scions? They have not meet the other him and he still bascially tells them that he holds true to his convictions.

So if the Scions can feel sad for someone that bascially wiped out planets full of life and who was the enemy in Shadowbringers, why should they be horrible towards Venat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Yeah our character reaching out to him when we ride away really cemented that they really like him even after what he did.

---

Technically at that point, it's more about liking him before everything he did. But still, yeah. The writers were pushing the "you were friends with Emet and should feel a connection with him" angle since Shadowbringers, but it felt dropped on us too late in that story, and while it has a bit more room to breathe here, it still feels like a connection we're told about more than one I actually feel.

Aside of anything else, he's just too prickly in the short time we know him to develop any real affection for him (though Hyth is a much more natural friendship) and his relationship with Azem must have been forged over far more time than we have to spend on it here.

One of them is reaching out to claim Mjolbanir at this very moment.

Just report them people. They can go back to their private discord to plan their next cringe witch hunt.

Are we even in the lore subforums anymore? This has devolved into shitposts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

Are we even in the lore subforums anymore? This has devolved into shitposts.

---

I'm not presently at my PC to be able to do so, but do pretend I posted an "always has been" meme here. It's been a very long time since meaningful discussion could be had without it devolving into a bunch of bad faith and sithposting. It wasn't always like this. Long ago, before the dark times, reasonable conversation could be had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

Are we even in the lore subforums anymore? This has devolved into shitposts.

---

That would make a lot more sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

I'm not presently at my PC to be able to do so, but do pretend I posted an "always has been" meme here. It's been a very long time since meaningful discussion could be had without it devolving into a bunch of bad faith and sithposting. It wasn't always like this. Long ago, before the dark times, reasonable conversation could be had.

---

It's been about a year at least. It's really sad too, I remember all the discussions we had about things, where the slightest new info or changed thinking on a subject tended to get everybody dissecting it, coming up with new theories for things to come or why things worked. Now it's just...well, you know. I can't say I blame Anonymoose for leaving these subforums, he saw the writing on the wall a while back on what it was devolving into.

Only a year? Hm, I suppose that checks out. It seems like there's some manner of cycle to it. Right now we're on the upswing, but things will probably die down again once current subject matter grows stale for all involved. It's never been quite this rife with salt, but there have been plenty of other periods in the past where the forums really started to resemble an asylum.

It's just tiring. I don't really bother discussing the game's story around these parts as often as I used to simply because even polite calls to simply agree to disagree result in this sort of thing happening.

With that said, let's not forget that the viera poster being discussed is on record fantasising about the deaths of fans of the antagonists, directly insulting their intelligence and peddling conspiracy theories related to alt accounts even after being politely asked to stop. So by all means, call people out for being a little too aggressive in response to that but please don't turn this into another example of trying to rewrite history to assault those who finally have had enough and decide to push back.

I'd strongly suggest that people make use of the ignore function to hide the posts of those they cannot stand at any rate. I can't say I come here for Mean Girls style drama and catfighting. Or people asking for sources, receiving them, then proceeding to claim they're saying something completely different to what is being outlined.

A large part of the issue, I suspect, is that the game is very quickly burning through a lot of established story threads and not really seeding much in its place - so other than speculation about what might happen next or discussing stuff that has already happened there isn't a lot to actually go over these days.

Hopefully we can get some new lore soon, not just from these Tales, but from the new stuff coming in 6.25 so we have better things to talk about. As insane as Hildibrand is, the relic questline may not be as goofy and might have some grounded info for us to use, especially if both Godbert and Geralt are working together on it. Godbert may be goofy in Hildibrand, but outside of it he's a rather serious figure who knows what he's doing as a businessman.

We definitely need to see Godbert suplex a train. Very important SE have him do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

We definitely need to see Godbert suplex a train. Very important SE have him do this.

---

Godbert Vs Doom Train when SE!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

Godbert Vs Doom Train when SE!?

---

They missed out on it back during our fight in the Omega raids against the Phantom Train. The fact they didn't even bring it up as a joke as seen as a ridiculous story still irks me.

If Lyth and other posters have been doing what you guys are saying they have, the appropriate thing to do would be to report them and thier posts, not engage in further targeted harassment and derailment of a thread that actually, I thought was going in an interesting direction even if I ultimately disagreed with Lurina and Brinne. I wish it's stayed there instead of turning into five pages of dogpiling on Lyth and Eara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KariTheFox

If Lyth and other posters have been doing what you guys are saying they have, the appropriate thing to do would be to report them and thier posts, not engage in further targeted harassment and derailment of a thread that actually, I thought was going in an interesting direction even if I ultimately disagreed with Lurina and Brinne. I wish it's stayed there instead of turning into five pages of dogpiling on Lyth and Eara.

---

So, she gets to crow on and on about distorting the canon of the game's characters and y'all stay conspicuously silent on it (imo because y'all agree with her but are far too craven to join her in her chorus) but we must simply let it slide, be quiet and just report it to mods who have shown themselves to be as lazy as biased towards Venat worshippers as the ones here have?

https://i.imgur.com/3cRkxlH.gif

This is all some of us have, to be able to say things we like or dislike without being drowned under a sea of downvotes. I can only speak for myself of course, but like hells am I letting this turn into another ResetEra. Hold Lyth to the same standards, then we can talk. I'm talking receipts, proof you've ever told her off when she distorts the facts.

I literally don't even know what you're talking about with Eara, literally nothing bad was said about her here.

Maybe some of us are more silent because we know that this goes nowhere? That both sides can be absolutely horrible but since there is not much done against it, some see no reason to post more about it. You guys have at least four other people on your side. Its not like you need "help". And honestly why should some of us even defend you? Personal insults are flung quite often around here on the forum.

Also interesting how now even the mods are somehow Venat lovers. If that would be, why are those that hate her still here? Really this is getting worse by days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Maybe some of us are more silent because we know that this goes nowhere? That both sides can be absolutely horrible but since there is not much done against it, some see no reason to post more about it. You guys have at least four other people on your side. Its not like you need "help". And honestly why should some of us even defend you? Personal insults are flung quite often around here on the forum.

Also interesting how now even the mods are somehow Venat lovers. If that would be, why are those that hate her still here? Really this is getting worse by days.

---

I don't even think most of their opposition even know each other. Heck there are times when we even disagree with each other. And yeah a lot of the time I don't try and back others up is because it won't go anywhere. Or I don't know maybe I'm old enough to know that they either are smart enough to drop something and move on or don't need the calvary to come in and defend them.