*Spoilers* The Past and After the Endwalker MSQ End

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Yeah, this is absolutely the angle. Tactically, Venat's plan was ironclad (or at least, as ironclad as it could get). Ethically, it was questionable.

To a point on an 'ironclad plan' though, you have to be willing to take the authors' word on it. Actually showing to exact lengths that a plan will be successful--and more successful than any alternatives--would just get tedious and boring, as well as lessening the impact of the actual characters enacting said plan, not to mention being basically catnip to people who value being smarter than the story over enjoying it. You kinda have to accept whatever groundwork the story goes through to confirm 'this is a good plan'.

Emet-Selch specifically saying that Venat's plan worked when his wouldn't have is part of that. Emet-Selch is a trustworthy adjudicator of Plan Goodness here, both as someone who initially opposed it and someone with a uniquely wide amount of knowledge of the situation, so if he says that it's the only one that would've worked then we can safely assume that is indeed true.

---

This sort of narrative economy argument only really works when the narrative is, well, economic - when there aren't unaddressed threads that seem to contradict what it's trying to tell you is self evident.

The writers didn't have to put the line from Emet where he suggests the convocation had special means of telling truth from lies. They didn't have to leave the implication that Venat's plan evidently is not ironclad by making the plot of Shadowbringers predicated on it having gone wrong in another timeline. The issue is not merely an absence of facts supporting the premise, but the presence of facts counter to it that require the audience to find their own justifications for dismissing.

The more controversial a plot element, the tighter the plot has to be to get people to accept it in good faith, and "cultural genocide was the right call to save the world" is about as close to maximum controversy as you can get. I think the fact that these forums, the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll, and pretty much everywhere else the story is being discussed are filled with people expressing discomfort or irritation with it self-evident proof that the writers didn't quite make it.

That might change with the post-MSQ content, mind. But it's at least true for the time being.

'Which in turn, leads us to our next question: how did Hermes, in his role as Fandaniel, not recognize the subject of his own research? We must assume that he either knew and was unable to help, or that he was otherwise prevented from identifying the cause in the first place. At this juncture, all we can do is speculate.'

'To be clear, the Convocation does not tolerate acts of deception or malice. We are practiced at perceiving truth, and would have known had Fandaniel lied to us. Hermes has no conscious wish for the world to end. Of that, I am certain.' (MSQ: A Flower Upon Your Return)

I think the reason why this passage exists is pretty self-explanatory. They didn't deliberately leave it as a clue for you to write AU fanfics with.

It's wholly unsurprising that there are still elements of society out there who would be uncomfortable with the idea of a decisive, messianic female lead saving the world. That doesn't make this narrative decision at all controversial or groundbreaking. I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

---

Agreed. Really, this is more of an omnicide situation.

As for the rest, please keep that trite out of here. We are an equal opportunity community here! Female figures are just as capable to commit world spanning atrocities as males are.

Jokes aside, I'm not sure what gave you that idea. The argument so far had nothing to do with her gender and was more or less civil and reasonable.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

No, I'm just asking you politely to be respectful. If you want to dismiss that as trite, it's really not worth continuing the discussion.

---

Polite? Maybe. You did however passive-aggressively imply that some people here argue against Venat in bad faith due to some unrelated gender agenda, while also labeling a perfectly functional word used (more or less) correctly and not for laughs as problematic. Its hard not to respond to that without any hint of snark.

No, I'm just asking you politely to be respectful. If you want to dismiss that as trite, it's really not worth continuing the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

'Which in turn, leads us to our next question: how did Hermes, in his role as Fandaniel, not recognize the subject of his own research? We must assume that he either knew and was unable to help, or that he was otherwise prevented from identifying the cause in the first place. At this juncture, all we can do is speculate.'

'To be clear, the Convocation does not tolerate acts of deception or malice. We are practiced at perceiving truth, and would have known had Fandaniel lied to us. Hermes has no conscious wish for the world to end. Of that, I am certain.' (MSQ: A Flower Upon Your Return)

I think the reason why this passage exists is pretty self-explanatory. They didn't deliberately leave it as a clue for you to write AU fanfics with.

It's wholly unsurprising that there are still elements of society out there who would be uncomfortable with the idea of a decisive, messianic female lead saving the world. That doesn't make this narrative decision at all controversial or groundbreaking. I would also respectfully ask if you would avoid using the term 'genocide' flippantly to spice up your argument if you aren't entirely confident in your understanding of its historical, cultural, and racial significance.

---

A request for respectfulness rings a little hollow when the first non-quotation line of your post is basically a dig at the person you're replying to.

I find there is significant problem with demanding Venat's plan to have "ironcladness": The main conflict is not Reason versus Emotion, it's Hope versus Despair.
Portraying Hope requires some amount of irrationality and lack of completeness, for the lack of better term.
If there is very well defined plan it becomes about difficulties of performing the plan well enough which strips the Hope element. If one get too unreasonable it becomes LoLrandom, that somehow works out cause Hope.

Instead, IMO the writers chose to show Hopefulness of Venat by her placing very "expensive" bet. So Venat is placing huge personal cost of being responsible of ending her own civilization on Hoping this will lead to us being able to stop Endsinger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pofruin

Instead, IMO the writers chose to show Hopefulness of Venat by her placing very "expensive" bet. So Venat is placing huge personal cost of being responsible of ending her own civilization on Hoping this will lead to us being able to stop Endsinger.

---

The problem being, that wasn't her "money" to bet. Anything that hinges on "you can't imagine the pain I felt when I hurt other people" is going to rub a section of people the wrong way.

I think the game would have been stronger without the montage, honestly. Then you can at least come up with your own plausible justification for Venat's actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tokinokanatae

The problem being, that wasn't her "money" to bet. Anything that hinges on "you can't imagine the pain I felt when I hurt other people" is going to rub a section of people the wrong way.

I think the game would have been stronger without the montage, honestly. Then you can at least come up with your own plausible justification for Venat's actions.

---

But then people would want to know how it happened, and it wouldn't be the end of that story then because people would STILL keep asking about it. No, it was best they did what they did, else people would keep asking about it. Everybody here on the lore subforums likes to speculate, and unless they showed that cutscene, we all know we'd have kept asking questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

A request for respectfulness rings a little hollow when the first non-quotation line of your post is basically a dig at the person you're replying to.

---

Yeah…some of these comments just makes me realize why we’re getting clown outfits for all saints wake…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

the comments on Venat's entry in the JP character poll

---

Do you mean on Reddit or the JP site itself? If the latter, I'm intrigued as to what they were.