Confusion (of the highest order) about Venat and Sundering

Copypaste from Wiki:

Venat, who knew the true cause of the Final Days, opposed the Convocation and led a faction that sacrificed themselves so she can become the primal Hydaelyn. She used her ability of sundering beings to weaken Zodiark enough to imprison him within moon, simultaneously splitting Etheirys and most of its inhabitants into the Source and its thirteen reflections.

So, uhh, she wanted to stop sacrificing people by... sacrificing people?.. That's some twisted logic right here lol. I mean, yeah, proportionally speaking sacrificing a faction is nothing compared to sacrificing another half of the population but do we really want to start putting lives of the people on the weight? Why it was worth it? Were there no other way around?

Another confusion is, how come sacrificing HALF of the population is only enough to summon Zodiark and halt the spread of Oblivion Song but sacrificing of a faction is enough to literally give Venat godly, maker-like powers and abilities to impison Zodiark and manipulating of UNIVERSE and planets itself, sundering the world into 13 shards. How did she become so powerful?! Was that faction consisted of, like, super powerful ancients and such? That sacrificing mere dozens? of lives was enough to overpower combined effort of HALF the population?

So weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Copypaste from Wiki:

Venat, who knew the true cause of the Final Days, opposed the Convocation and led a faction that sacrificed themselves so she can become the primal Hydaelyn. She used her ability of sundering beings to weaken Zodiark enough to imprison him within moon, simultaneously splitting Etheirys and most of its inhabitants into the Source and its thirteen reflections.

So, uhh, she wanted to stop sacrificing people by... sacrificing people?.. That's some twisted logic right here lol. I mean, yeah, proportionally speaking sacrificing a faction is nothing compared to sacrificing another half of the population but do we really want to start putting lives of the people on the weight? Why it was worth it? Were there no other way around?

Another confusion is, how come sacrificing HALF of the population is only enough to summon Zodiark and halt the spread of Oblivion Song but sacrificing of a faction is enough to literally give Venat godly, maker-like powers and abilities to impison Zodiark and manipulating of UNIVERSE and planets itself, sundering the world into 13 shards. How did she become so powerful?! Was that faction consisted if super powerful ancients and such? That sacrificing mere dozens? of lives was enough to overpower combined effort of HALF the population?

So weird.

---

sundering doesn't kill and since hydaelyns purpose was highly specific it didnt take as much energy to work. as for it being worth it, imo yeah considering it lead to us defeating the metea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

sundering doesn't kill and since hydaelyns purpose was highly specific it didnt take as much energy to work. as for it being worth it, imo yeah considering it lead to us defeating the metea.

---

Yeah, even though it requires sacrifice, it doesn't kill, on the contrary, it creates new life on those reflected shards. But since when manipulating planets and creating life on them became a trivial thing that does not need that much energy to work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Yeah, even though it requires sacrifice, it doesn't kill, on the contrary, it creates new life on those reflected shards. But since when manipulating planets and creating life on them became a trivial thing that does not need that much energy to work?

---

life wasnt being created with the sundering, it only sprang up after zodiarks second sacrifice. plus it seems like venats group was quite big.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Yeah, even though it requires sacrifice, it doesn't kill, on the contrary, it creates new life on those reflected shards. But since when manipulating planets and creating life on them became a trivial thing that does not need that much energy to work?

---

This is just a theory I have, nothing concrete, but Hydaelyn wouldn't technically need a tremendous amount of energy to make 13 new worlds. As far as I am aware Zodiark was summoned as the "god" of the laws of reality, therefore I would argue that by splitting the "god" of reality into 14 parts then that too would split reality into 14 parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

This is just a theory I have, nothing concrete, but Hydaelyn wouldn't technically need a tremendous amount of energy to make 13 new worlds. As far as I am aware Zodiark was summoned as the "god" of the laws of reality, therefore I would argue that by splitting the "god" of reality into 14 parts then that too would split reality into 14 parts.

---

so basically a cosmic voodoo doll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

sundering doesn't kill and since hydaelyns purpose was highly specific it didnt take as much energy to work. as for it being worth it, imo yeah considering it lead to us defeating the metea.

---

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

so basically a cosmic voodoo doll.

---

I guess, I haven't really though it through much more than what I stated but your analogy does make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn. In that sense, it did explicitly kill.

---

Except we don't actually know if it destroyed the original identities of the unsundered, it very well could have mind you, but I don't think it did because if everyone died and was reborn without their old memories then how would they still have memories of the unsundered world like the makers of the Qitana Ravel cave paintings and the sun deities Azeyma and Azim having celestial, the sun, and naming similarities to the seat of Azem. Sure you could write it off as just being the echo but that just doesn't seem to be a satisfying conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Except we don't actually know if it destroyed the original identities of the unsundered, it very well could have mind you, but I don't think it did because if everyone died and was reborn how would they still have memories of the unsundered world like the makers of the Qitana Ravel cave paintings and the sun deities Azeyma and Azim having celestial, the sun, and naming similarities to the seat of Azem. Sure you could write it off as just being the echo but that just doesn't seem to be a satisfying conclusion.

---

Emet explicitly says, "No one could remember it (the original Ethirys). Just fleeting recollections of an all-too-familiar world."

"Fleeting" means "momentary" or "almost nonexistent". As in, the memories of their previous lives were almost completely gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn.

---

I think the difference is that Hydaelyn's summoners were voluntarily giving up their own lives to achieve what they thought was important, whereas the people planning to sacrifice "some portion of life on the planet" may have been trying to sacrifice sentient life without their agreement.

We still don't have enough answers about what really happened then. Just one unsatisfactorily allegorical scene that doesn't line up with Emet's account in Shadowbringers, and arguably paints Venat in a worse light than he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

Emet explicitly says, "No one could remember it (the original Ethirys). Just fleeting recollections of an all-too-familiar world."

"Fleeting" means "momentary" or "almost nonexistent". As in, the memories of their previous lives were almost completely gone.

---

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

---

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

Primal summoning is a derivative form of Creation Magic. Zodiark and Hydaelyn are essentially still Creations powered by Aether, except merged with an Ancient at their hearts. I wonder if this isn't all that different on principle from Hesperos' experiment as a hemitheos in Pandaemonium.

I think if you wanted to make a powerful Creation as a base for a primal, you shouldn't need to rely on a large number of individuals as long as you had an appropriately large stockpile of Aether, much like the Beast Tribes did. Perhaps someplace where there's a massive repository of concept crystals would do, such as, I don't know, the institute for creation magic, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

---

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

---

If you want to define death in FFXIV as "the total destruction of the physical body and the returning of the soul to the Aetherial sea", instead of "the loss of ones memory", then the Rejoinings, which the story repeatedly frames as acts of mass-murder, fail to meet that definition. In an interview, Yoshi-P clarified that when a Rejoining takes place, the aetherial energies of the body and the soul are directly re-fused with their counterpart of the Source. It's just a reversal of what happened in the Sundering - nothing is destroyed or banished to the afterlife, and the essential self of both versions of the person is undamaged because it's identical in both. As shown with Ardbert, traces of the rejoined person are even retained in the process, much like in the Sundering.

So my argument would change from "you must accept that either both Sundering and normal death is death, or that neither are, to be logically consistent" to "you must accept that either both Sundering and Rejoining is death, or neither are, to be logically consistent", I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

If you want to define death in FFXIV as "the total destruction of the physical body and the returning of the soul to the Aetherial sea", instead of "the loss of ones memory", then the Rejoinings, which the story repeatedly frames as acts of mass-murder, fail to meet that definition. In an interview, Yoshi-P clarified that when a Rejoining takes place, the aetherial energies of the body and the soul are directly re-fused with their counterpart of the Source. It's just a reversal of what happened in the Sundering - nothing is destroyed or banished to the afterlife.

So my argument would change from "you must accept that either both Sundering and normal death is death, or that neither are, to be logically consistent" to "you must accept that either both Sundering and Rejoining is death, or neither are, to be logically consistent", I suppose.

---

That's interesting, I didn't know about the Yoshi-P quote on the rejoinings. You've given me something to think about here so I'll have to get back to you latter about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

That's interesting, I didn't know about the Yoshi-P quote on the rejoinings. You've given me something to think about here so I'll have to get back to you latter about this.

---

No problem. Here's a link to the interview if you'd like it. (I guess it was actually a mix of him and Banri Oda, but same difference.)

I also added a little bit more to the argument in my last post, if you care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

---

That might make a technical difference, but I'd argue not a moral one. Depends on where you draw the line on what constitutes an individual I guess?

In the lore we only really have one direct example where memories were wiped but not the physical form: Yotsuyu. The story didn't make explicit judgment (she regained her memories before it could), but it was leaning in the direction of Tsuyu and Yotsuyu not being the same individual (and as such, there would be no meaning in punishing her).

Even if we don't categorize the sundering as death, I would argue it very much did wipe out the individuals involved on a level, where morality most of our moralities wouldn't really differentiate between the two.

According to the interview, all living things have their souls rejoined. Living being the operative word. Otherwise, why wouldn't the Ascians not have simply repeated what they did to the 13th on every reflection by trying to kill off Lv.1 Azem, turning those respective reflections into a barren Void? Recall that they must needs only bring about 'a chaotic confluence of untold proportions' to cause said rejoining. That's not necessarily an unethical aim in itself, but the methods employed to achieve this, such as dispensing a deadly alchemical toxin to wipe out entire an entire continent, are what most people find reprehensible.

The means by which people inherit memories from past lives is unclear. Amon and Hermes are presumably different people, even if Amon retains Hermes' memories and influence. I suspect that the soul crystals have something to do with this, but I'll wait and see what comes of that plot thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

whereas the people planning to sacrifice "some portion of life on the planet" may have been trying to sacrifice sentient life without their agreement.

---

In what way is that any different from Venat sacrificing every living thing X14*12,000 years without their consent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

In what way is that any different from Venat sacrificing every living thing X14*12,000 years without their consent?

---

Are you seriously still trying to blame Venat for every death that ever happened after the sundering? I can understand considering the sundering to be killing people, even if I don't agree, but to actively blame every death after the sundering on Venat because she took away the ancients god powers is insane, especially when you take into account the fact that if the sundering is murder then the rejoinings are also murder and that quite a large number of those deaths you attribute to Venat are actually not her fault but the acsians. Not to mention the death count from the Allagan and Garlean empires, the catastrophe on the 13th, the deaths caused by the environmental effects of the rejoinings and, probably, the many acsian built murder empires on other shards. She may have sundered their world but THEY CHOOSE TO MURDER OTHER PEOPLE when they could have tried to move on, not forget but move on. Are you really going to blame those murders on her too?

Do you also blame your furthest in the past tracible ancestor for the death of every other ancestor you have because your first ancestor gave birth to the beginning of the rest of your line and humans are destined to die? Because that's the impression you are giving.

It’s my understanding that we have two options for working theories on the post-sundering inhabitants.

Theory One:
Venat sunders the original planet - making 14 identical reflections (including the Source). On each reflection we have identical people, animals, plants, and continents. (Thus ruins under the ocean. Those ruins would be on each reflection, in the same spot). All the people sundered lose their creation magic powers - because their original self was split apart to make these identical, but less-powerful copies.

From the moment after the sundering - each reflection then begins to “act” of its own accord. A Spriggan on one reflection gets bopped on the head and dies - while on another reflection, it evades the head-bopping, trains in warfare, and becomes a cruel, tyrannical ruler. This theory most closely follows Emet’s own description of the sundering… if we are to take him literally.

You could think of each reflection as an alternate universe or timeline (although they technically are not, even though the passage of time differs on each reflection it seems). After the Sundering, the identical reflections all begin to differ - people die and are reborn at different times and in different ways - and eventually (over thousands of years) the reflections all become very dissimilar from each other.

According to this theory - everyone right after the Sundering, on each reflection, has a “fuzzy memory” of what just happened. I find this theory compelling, but also confusing. Wouldn’t there be books and letters and all manner of things left over to tell people what just happened? If so, is this what lead to cave paintings? This seems plausible - but also deeply distressing. We’d have whole planets of wildly unhappy people who all find out they were stripped of their creation powers - unwillingly.

Theory Two:
Venat murders everyone. In this theory - Venat doesn’t spilt everyone into identical copies, but instead uses her planet to create 14 brand new planets. In this case, one Spriggan from the original planet gets chopped up into 14 lesser pieces - and these pieces are each used to “power” new life - one piece for each reflection. If this is the case, Venat kills everyone, the same way a re-joining might “kill” all the people on a reflection. She obliterates the original to make 14 new things. I’m not sure this theory is correct. But it would be a doozy if so.

Addendum:

My main concern with both of these theories is what happened to Azem.

In one version we get 14 less powerful Azems each running around their own planet (with plenty of time to realize what’s happened and try to undo or mitigate the problems caused by the Sundering).

In the other, Azem, (and everyone else), gets poofed out of existence - to make way for completely new people, powered by sundered souls.

I think I prefer Theory #1. It leaves a lot of possibilities open. For example - what if Emet attempts a rejoining very soon after the Sundering - which leads to the destruction of the 13th, and the creation of the Void? Not only is he down a planet - but he’s down an Azem! He’s only got 12 left (not counting the one on the source). So he gathers them up, and plops them on the source to create a new convocation. The original 12…

I know that’s a bit far-fetched - but with 14 copies of everyone running around post-sundering… things could get weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Are you seriously still trying to blame Venat for every death that ever happened after the sundering? I can understand considering the sundering to be killing people, even if I don't agree, but to actively blame every death after the sundering on Venat because she took away the ancients god powers is insane, especially when you take into account the fact that if the sundering is murder then the rejoinings are also murder and that quite a large number of those deaths you attribute to Venat are actually not her fault but the acsians. Not to mention the death count from the Allagan and Garlean empires, the catastrophe on the 13th, the deaths caused by the environmental effects of the rejoinings and, probably, the many acsian built murder empires on other shards. She may have sundered their world but THEY CHOOSE TO MURDER OTHER PEOPLE when they could have tried to move on, not forget but move on. Are you really going to blame those murders on her too?

Do you also blame your furthest in the past tracible ancestor for the death of every other ancestor you have because your first ancestor gave birth to the beginning of the rest of your line and humans are destined to die? Because that's the impression you are giving.

---

Its not a completely unreasonable stance to take. There is an argument to be made about her not being directly responsible for all the deaths since the sundering, but she is very much at least partially and indirectly responsible. Her actions directly lead to an increased amount of death, suffering and greatly shortened lifespans of sentient life on the planet and shards. She herself feels responsible and states as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lersayil

Its not a completely unreasonable stance to take. There is an argument to be made about her not being directly responsible for all the deaths since the sundering, but she is very much at least partially and indirectly responsible. Her actions directly lead to an increased amount of death, suffering and greatly shortened lifespans of sentient life on the planet and shards. She herself feels responsible and states as much.

---

I agree that she is indirectly to blame and that there is an ethical grey area in that but what I have repeatedly taken from Veloran's comments on the matter is that they seem to hold Venat personally responsible for those deaths, as if she walked up to those people and stabbed each and every one of them to death. And so far they have said nothing to the contrary and in fact seem to keep reinforcing their view.

How people read the specifics of the Sundering vis-a-vis human lifespan is going to differ depending if they view FFXIV's universe as only existing meaningfully as a contrast to our own - as fiction defined by what it says about reality - or if they view it as a world meant to stand on its own as well.

If it only exists in relation to our world, then the Sundering only creates the status quo, where people live normal length lifespans. This is hard to judge as super terrible, since, well, we deal with it every day. It's just how it is, barring any revolution in biological science.

However, if we treat Etheirys as its own reality, it comes across as a pretty abominable act, regardless of whether or not it was justified. The natural state of affairs was one where humans, and probably all beings, lived a much, much longer amount of time... And now an unnatural status quo has been created where everyone dies incredibly young. If would be like if, in order to solve some existential problem real-world mankind was facing, somebody permanently lowered our lifespans to only 20 years, forever. If I did that to anyone in this thread right now, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't hold back in calling me responsible for their impending death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Are you seriously still trying to blame Venat for every death that ever happened after the sundering?

---

Why should we not think that? If someone were to reduce my natural lifespan to a tiny fraction of what it would be I'd consider that murder. Not to mention the Unsundered world was generally peaceful and without death by war or disease either. This level of death and suffering was literally Venat's intention in doing the Sundering. And then there's the fact that Venat never told the Ascians about the threat of Meteion, so they were trying to rejoin the worlds while ignorant of the threat that was potentially posed to them in the process.

As to the Sundering - Yes it clearly killed everyone. This is very obvious by the non-existence of the Ancients as a race today and the existence of newly created races housing their souls. Even on a basic level taking beings that had lived for millennia and cutting their lifespans down to 100 years would have instantly killed all of them. This isn't even getting into the self-death aspect that is stripping everyone of their memories and interpersonal connections. Even if we were to assume that they somehow survived the initial shock of the sundering, they would have awoken as entirely new people in a hostile world with no clue who they were or where they had come from, and soon thereafter proceeded to die off for various reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I agree that she is indirectly to blame and that there is an ethical grey area in that but what I have repeatedly taken from Veloran's comments on the matter is that they seem to hold Venat personally responsible for those deaths, as if she walked up to those people and stabbed each and every one of them to death. And so far they have said nothing to the contrary and in fact seem to keep reinforcing their view.

---

True, but how much of a difference does that make in the grand scheme of the argument though? Even if she was only fully responsible for the "death" of everyone during the sundering, and only held partial responsibility in the death and suffering that followed for thousands of years... thats still a lot she's responsible for.

In the end, I don't think there is much difference between Emet and Venat. They both did terrible things for what they perceived as the greater good and made no excuses about it. There are a number of differences of course (some pros and cons on both sides), but when it comes down to it, neither of them were truly villainous, nor heroic. And as far as I recall neither really proclaimed themselves as either.

That being said, I do think Endwalker kinda pulled punches with Venat (intentionally or not) to make sure she's seen as sympathetic. A reverse Emet issue from Shb if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I agree that she is indirectly to blame and that there is an ethical grey area in that but what I have repeatedly taken from Veloran's comments on the matter is that they seem to hold Venat personally responsible for those deaths, as if she walked up to those people and stabbed each and every one of them to death. And so far they have said nothing to the contrary and in fact seem to keep reinforcing their view.

---

hmm to put it in this perspective because people are talking about consent due to it being a violation upon themselves - while people argue otherwise.

"Rape is better than being a murderer"

So to a group of people interpreting the story there's just no way you're going to reconcile "morally grey" because both acts are seen as extremely offensive. It's going to be even harder to argue otherwise if people have real world experience of having consent taken from their agency or someone they know personally. Yes, this is a video game but people are likely to draw from experience that will color their interpretation of a story.

This is the best way I can think of why this particular argument tends to resurface so much and both sides refuse to reconcile over the interpretations of said story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidurgu-12

life wasnt being created with the sundering, it only sprang up after zodiarks second sacrifice. plus it seems like venats group was quite big.

---

Then it brings us to my first point -- why it was worth it to sacrifice another group of people (now seemingly big) to prevent sacrificing of another group of people. It's sacrificing anyway? x)

I also love you guys turned this thread into discussion of something irrelevant lmao but still fun to read all these theories.

I have to say I really don't understand why the writers chose the route of "Venat deliberately caused the Sundering" when there were other neater and less questionable (and more consistent with past information) ways to have it happen. It could have been an accident or an unexpected result of sundering Zodiark or it really was cosmically necessary for some reason, and once it had happened, the suffering that would be wrought to repair the world would be worse than the effects of being sundered in the first place.

I feel like the writers may not have had enough of a clear idea of what happened when they set out the earlier parts of the plot, and now haven't been able to bring the answers together successfully. Either that or the original idea got changed and lost in a lot of workshopping and they failed to notice that it doesn't really work in the larger scheme of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veloran

Why should we not think that? If someone were to reduce my natural lifespan to a tiny fraction of what it would be I'd consider that murder.

---

Yes but after the initial life span shortening, which as I have said I understand why you think that is murder, it is no longer a reduced life span, it simply is their life span. Once they have returned to the aetherial sea and their memory is separated from their soul, they are now a different person in a different race that has that new lifespan. Therefore after that initial reduction any further deaths are just that deaths.

I would also say your line of thinking is very morally problematic for a different reason, it strips the sundered people of agency and culpability. No longer can you say their actions are their own when every action taken as a consequence of the sundering is directly Venat's fault, that their choice to love or to hate is their own. That a murderer is no longer to blame for killing someone, because by your logic Venat stopping the ancients from hiding from suffering is to blame. No longer is it THEIR fault because THEY chose to commit murder when they didn't have to, it is someone else's and they are free to keep murdering because they can't be held accountable for those deaths. It also means that a sundered persons choice to love someone else isn't their own, because by your logic every action post-sundering is Venat's direct fault, effectively making them puppets and not real people, at least that's the impression you give me.

Onto the topic of the ancient race going extinct, sort of? Obviously they no longer are as they once were but seeing as we know that they were stripped of their aetheric density and life span I'd argue it was more they were transformed rather than killed in that regard. Still it isn't a morally right thing to do, necessary but not morally right. We also don't know that the reason their souls went back to other ancients wasn't simply that they were the only sentient life for most of their history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Then it brings us to my first point -- why it was worth it to sacrifice another group of people (now seemingly big) to prevent sacrificing of another group of people. It's sacrificing anyway? x)

I also love you guys turned this thread into discussion of something irrelevant lmao but still fun to read all these theories.

---

I'm sorry, I probably should have just corrected his misunderstanding instead of commenting on it and starting the derail...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antoine_Lenheim

Then it brings us to my first point -- why it was worth it to sacrifice another group of people (now seemingly big) to prevent sacrificing of another group of people. It's sacrificing anyway? x)

I also love you guys turned this thread into discussion of something irrelevant lmao but still fun to read all these theories.

---

Back on point then! My read on this is that Venat was making a philosophical judgment here, not a moral one. It wasn't really the sacrifice of lifes she had her main issue with, but what it represented in her mind: a return to the old ways, which she deemed invalid in face of recent events.

Everything else technical about the sundering is just for (retroactive) plot convenience. Probably why we don't get too much specific information about it and its immediate aftermath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm sorry, I probably should have just corrected his misunderstanding instead of commenting on it and starting the derail...

---

I'm not sure misunderstanding is the right word to use when having a philosophical debate over what constitutes dying outside of the physical sense, but I also apologise for derailing this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

I'm not sure misunderstanding is the right word to use when having a philosophical debate over what constitutes dying outside of the physical sense, but I also apologise for derailing this thread.

---

No, I mean the original misunderstanding was when sidurgu-12 thought that the OP was talking about Hydaelyn having killed people when the Sundering happened, rather than in the sacrifices to summon her, which is what they meant. And then I replied to correct them, and you replied to the side-comment I put in parenthesis, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

No, I mean the original misunderstanding was when sidurgu-12 thought that the OP was talking about Hydaelyn having killed people when the Sundering happened, rather than in the sacrifices to summon her, which is what they meant. And then I replied to correct them, and you replied to the side-comment I put in parenthesis, and so on.

---

Ah, ok I get it now. All good, thank you for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Yes but after the initial life span shortening, which as I have said I understand why you think that is murder, it is no longer a reduced life span,

---

Yes, yes it is. It is a state that was imposed upon everyone without their consent. If I nuked a country and subjected them to multigenerational radiation poisoning, for future generations that isn't "just their natural lives", that is something I did to them.

Quote:

---

I would also say your line of thinking is very morally problematic for a different reason, it strips the sundered people of agency and culpability. No longer can you say their actions are their own when every action taken as a consequence due the sundering is directly Venat's fault, that their choice to love or to hate is their own.

---

Yes, it is morally problematic to strip somebody of their agency, which is exactly what Venat did. The conditions of suffering and conflict she created is exactly what she wanted. That is not to say that in every instance nobody has any individual culpability for their own wrongdoing, but Venat created the context for all of this suffering to take place, meaning she is personally partly responsible. In choosing to create the sundered world Venat is effectively it's goddess, it's progenitor, it's "Mother" if you will, and this image of the world is the one she wished to cultivate.

Quote:

---

I'd argue it was more they were transformed rather than killed in that regard.

---

I would argue that is killing them. They weren't just given a haircut, they were fundamentally altered to the point that those they once were no longer existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

No, I mean the original misunderstanding was when sidurgu-12 thought that the OP was talking about Hydaelyn having killed people when the Sundering happened, rather than in the sacrifices to summon her, which is what they meant. And then I replied to correct them, and you replied to the side-comment I put in parenthesis, and so on.

---

yeah that was my misunderstanding, sorry about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurina

I'm sorry, I probably should have just corrected his misunderstanding instead of commenting on it and starting the derail...

---

It's okay, I don,t mind it much. Like I said I actually enjoyed reading all the fun theories.