Sharlayan origins and the Endwalker Trailer

[Cilia]

Because the Exarch was intended as a direct parallel to the Ascians generally and Emet-Selch specifically.

I feel like this one is forcing the evidence to fit the idea; and G'raha / Exarch never joined the "Dark" side anyway. Regardless, this is an argument made in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20.

That did happen though. In the end WoL was saved by Emet-Selch's darkness and goes on to defeat Elidibus' Warrior of Light as the Warrior of Darkness.

Not per sé - the argument was that the PC would be abandoning the Light / Hydaelyn and joining with the forces of Darkness due to a "tyranny of the Light" situation. That's... not exactly what happened: yes, there was a tyrant of the Light (Vauthry) but he was created by the Dark (Emet-Selch). Hydaelyn was in no way responsible for the Flood of Light or using it to her advantage. We did defeat Elidibus as the Warrior of Light, but that whole situation was crafted to emphasize the moral greyness of the situation - Light with the trappings of Dark (PC / Azem) vs. Dark with the trappings of Light (Elidibus).

Certainly there's no small cross-section of the playerbase who wishes to turn on the Light / Hydaelyn... but the story hasn't gone there. (Yet, at any rate.)

Not exactly the most accurate characterization. Neither of them renounce their plans.

No, but they do come to the acceptance their fights were somewhat futile and pointless - particularly Elidibus, who in his final moments finally understands the schism in Amaurotine society he summoned himself to mend couldn't be fixed. "We had disagreements in the past before, always fleeting. But not this time. Not this time." or somesuch. As for Emet-Selch, one of the short stories shows him questioning whether the fight's worth continuing after 12,500 years, and it's implied he knows what he's doing is wrong, but he soldiers on because he's unwilling or unable to accept the world as it is and to help Elidibus (who, being a primal, is bound to carry out that directive regardless).

[Anonymoose]

Certainly there's no small cross-section of the playerbase who wishes to turn on the Light / Hydaelyn... but the story hasn't gone there. (Yet, at any rate.)

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

they do come to the acceptance their fights were somewhat futile and pointless - particularly Elidibus

I think most of my perspective actually comes from interactions with Elidibus. Emet-Selch was more focused on us not validating his Azem headcanon. Y'shtola tells Elidibus that "Remember us..." was as much a message to him as the Warrior of Light: Emet-Selch was throwing in the towel, conceding the future to the Warrior of Light and their kind and, at least in my interpretation, saying, "We just wanted to be saviors. We never intended to become the monsters we became. I know how unfair it is to ask, but please remember us for who we were, and tried to be, as much for what we've done in the end."

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

But when Elidibus dies, he has a very different tone. Pulling lines from multiple languages here: "I thought that if I gave myself over to Zodiark, I could save everyone." (I read: "I was mistaken about that assumption.") "I believed that if I did everything right, I would look upon their smiling faces, and this nightmare would finally end." (I read: "I was mistaken about that assumption.") "My friends, how could I have been the last to go? To abandon you for this early realm as you went on alone..." (I read: "I was mistaken to keep fighting.")

[EaraGrace]

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

Even in English, Elidibus' conviction and inflexible perspective was clear. It's odd, but in 5.3 he sounded more like Lahabrea then Emet, where earlier he seemed to dip his toes in the same kind of approach that Emet would later try with the WoL. Of course, like you point out, in the end he came to the same realization as Emet.

[YianKutku]

Not exactly the most accurate characterization. Neither of them renounce their plans.

I would say they came much closer than Lahabrea, who died still in disbelief that his Perfect Plans were flawed. Elidibus certainly expressed doubt near the end, and I'm quite certain Emet-Selch's last words were an admittance that his plans had failed, so he needed to at least go out with something worthwhile in the short time he had before dissipating.

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

I see this as an extension of the primary message FFXIV has throughout its entire story arc: that life is painful and difficult, and we can never know the truth for certain, and we will make mistakes that have repercussions beyond ourselves, but for all of that, we must still live on. It was a little subdued in ARR, but definitely slammed into our faces in Heavensward and Stormblood.

So the characters who had absolute certainty that they were right has always had that faith questioned, and whether they admit to doubt and retrospection is the divide between hero and villain. Which doesn't even mean they have to change their actions: Estinien knows that his nation is built on a lie, and humans and dragons can live together in peace, but that doesn't mean his duty of slaying (or at least permanently stopping) Nidhogg has changed.

So I can see where Venat and the Convocation both come from: both had very limited time and information to work with, and both needed to make a decision now (albeit at different times for different reasons). The difference, in my view, is that the Unsundered became rigid in their dogma, where their way must be the one way and no other, to the detriment of their own fellows in the Sundered Convocation.

Meanwhile, Venat via Hydaelyn has expressed humility and contrition, while still also believing that what she needed to do hasn't changed. She accepts that she could be wrong, but absent any convincing evidence of such, she remains on her course.

So everyone, from Alphinaud to Fordola to Hraesvelgr to Hydaelyn, need to accept that choices are necessarily made without perfect knowledge, and so these choices may be the wrong choices. But the choices need to be made nevertheless, and if it turns out to be wrong, to accept the consequences thereof. Alphinaud and Fordola never demanded forgiveness from those they wronged, only humbly asking for it. If no forgiveness was given, they just had to live with that.

And that is, in the message of FFXIV, simply life.

[Vyrerus]

Meanwhile, Venat via Hydaelyn has expressed humility and contrition, while still also believing that what she needed to do hasn't changed. She accepts that she could be wrong, but absent any convincing evidence of such, she remains on her course.

When did she do that? I mean, Venat expressed some humility in the Anyder hologram scene, but when did Hydaelyn do any of that?

[YianKutku]

When did she do that? I mean, Venat expressed some humility in the Anyder hologram scene, but when did Hydaelyn do any of that?

Good call. I was conflating Venat as Hydaelyn, and also Minfilia talking to the Warriors Of Darkness as Hydaelyn, and I shouldn't have. I do believe Venat is Hydaelyn enough that they can be considered the same being, but I should not have assumed the same for Word Of The Mother Minfilia.

And double-checking the dialogue, it's also not explicitly contrition and humility, so I must have inserted that reading into my memories. It's certainly more humble than anything the Ascians have ever said, so I do think my reading is accurate, but I've made lore arguments using exact quotes before, so it would be unfair for me to rely on personal interpretation here.

[Vyrerus]

Good call. I was conflating Venat as Hydaelyn, and also Minfilia talking to the Warriors Of Darkness as Hydaelyn, and I shouldn't have. I do believe Venat is Hydaelyn enough that they can be considered the same being, but I should not have assumed the same for Word Of The Mother Minfilia.

And double-checking the dialogue, it's also not explicitly contrition and humility, so I must have inserted that reading into my memories. It's certainly more humble than anything the Ascians have ever said, so I do think my reading is accurate, but I've made lore arguments using exact quotes before, so it would be unfair for me to rely on personal interpretation here.

\[T]'/ This is why I like you, Yian Kut Ku lizard cat person.\[T]'/

The thing I look forward to most is getting to the bottom of everything, and Hydaelyn no longer being allowed to be vague imperative exposition generator.

[Veloran]

I feel like this one is forcing the evidence to fit the idea; and G'raha / Exarch never joined the "Dark" side anyway. Regardless, this is an argument made in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20.

In terms of the staff, yes. But the parallelism is basically spelled out in the story itself.

Hydaelyn was in no way responsible for the Flood of Light or using it to her advantage.

Maybe. Back in Heavensward she said that she would go to the First to absorb the Light and save the world, but in Shadowbringers we learn that she merely sent Minfilia and forestalled the Flood. And the fact that she seems to demonstrate some amount of futuresight in regards to Ardbert renders the entire situation somewhat questionable. But, that's just an aside. It's true that people presumed a turn against Hydaelyn on the basis of "Light = Hydaelyn", but ultimately Shadowbringers was about combating the Light and WoL was saved by Darkness in the end. Note that nowhere in the section I'm responding to there was Hydaelyn mentioned, it was merely talking about the relation to Darkness.

particularly Elidibus, who in his final moments finally understands the schism in Amaurotine society he summoned himself to mend couldn't be fixed. "We had disagreements in the past before, always fleeting. But not this time. Not this time."

What? Do you mean to say that you took that quote to suggest he's talking about still fixing that conflict now, in the modern day? It seemed to me very clearly to be his reminiscence of how he felt all the way back then, which he is recalling because his memories were finally restored. And the "But you are not here to see it" struck me as referencing his fellow Convocation members who had been lost, as he was clutching their crystals, not the opposing Hydaelyn faction.

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

The reason this comes off as a silly point is that Venat is nothing but the flipside of the Ancient coin. Someone who committed genocide and manipulates history, except where the Ascians "meant well" for themselves, she "meant well" for (supposedly) "us". So when the developers literally go as far as to explicitly state that there is no good or evil between the two sides yet there is still the insistence that she is more morally righteous, obviously there will be a reaction in the opposite direction.

I mean, to say that people "want [Venat] to have flaws" implies from the outset that there is a belief that she lacks flaws and opinions to the contrary are merely villainization.

Good call. I was conflating Venat as Hydaelyn, and also Minfilia talking to the Warriors Of Darkness as Hydaelyn, and I shouldn't have. I do believe Venat is Hydaelyn enough that they can be considered the same being, but I should not have assumed the same for Word Of The Mother Minfilia.

And double-checking the dialogue, it's also not explicitly contrition and humility, so I must have inserted that reading into my memories. It's certainly more humble than anything the Ascians have ever said, so I do think my reading is accurate, but I've made lore arguments using exact quotes before, so it would be unfair for me to rely on personal interpretation here.

Frankly, I would not say that any incarnation of Hydaelyn has expressed humbleness all that much. Regret maybe. But whether Hydaelyn herself, Venat, or Minfilia as the Word, every time it's a full belief in the cause, no matter the consequences, and her servants must serve and her enemies must die. Of course you can say "well, she had good reasons", but I can hardly say it's ever in the realm of humility.

[Cilia]

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

My read on it is the aforementioned cross-section doesn't much care; Hydaelyn / Venat sundered the world (all but annihilating Amaurotine civilization and drastically reducing the lifespan of mortal beings) and lied about the origin of her conflict with Zodiark, which is enough to make them irredeemable monsters. Never you mind that Shadowbringers took pains telling us we should at least try to understand people before passing judgment on them, or the possibility the whole thing was an accident.

Flawed characters are necessary for good stories. I'm fine with Venat / Hydaelyn being flawed, but vilifying either to make the Ascians look good in comparison doesn't really fly with me - not least because we haven't heard her side of the story.

[Cleretic]

My read on it is the aforementioned cross-section doesn't much care; Hydaelyn / Venat sundered the world (all but annihilating Amaurotine civilization and drastically reducing the lifespan of mortal beings) and lied about the origin of her conflict with Zodiark, which is enough to make them irredeemable monsters. Never you mind that Shadowbringers took pains telling us we should at least try to understand people before passing judgment on them, or the possibility the whole thing was an accident.

Flawed characters are necessary for good stories. I'm fine with Venat / Hydaelyn being flawed, but vilifying either to make the Ascians look good in comparison doesn't really fly with me - not least because we haven't heard her side of the story.

I've found much the same. A lot of them, when you're resistant to the 'but the Ascians are/were good people' line, will eventually try to go for the 'if you were in that position you'd do the same thing' well. Which apparently works very well for a lot of them, but is personally a total miss for me; if I put myself into the view of someone who actually is living and seeing those final decisions that were eventually cut short by the Sundering*, I don't see it as a conundrum: I'm jumping into the Hydaelyn Hole, no question. I see the Hydaelyn position as the unquestionable right one compared to unsustainable angle of constant sacrifices to Zodiark.

This is apparently the worst possible answer to these people, because they've so obviously already decided that Hydaelyn is an irredeemable objective evil that siding with her is actually worse than siding with the guys who would go on to cause fourteen planet-wide genocides.

*And as an unrelated point, it's statistically extremely unlikely that the people posing this hypothetical would have been alive to make it to that point in the Ancient world; at that point half the population had been sacrificed to Zodiark twice, so reasonably speaking only 25% of the population is living to make that call between the two. ...even less, actually, given we can reason the End of Days themselves probably had a bodycount.