On Venat's Role in the Story

[Cleretic]

This is quite doubtful given that her actions are all incredibly specific. Given her self-stated belief that nothing is impossible, why - Bereft of knowledge of the future - Would she conclude that there was no future for the Ancients, no matter what? Why would she conclude that she must work against the Convocation, rather than with them, without even having any knowledge of Hermes' involvement with Meteion? Can we really say she would have done everything exactly the same, even strange and inexplicable actions like those on the First with Ardbert much later, if she'd had no knowledge of Meteion and the cause of the Final Days at all?

On the topic of Hermes, I also believe that his involvement being a sticking point for not working with the Convocation is itself unreasonable. Firstly, because Hermes, once mindwiped, has no real reason to turn against his people and side with Meteion. He would not remember the answers she gave about the countless dead worlds, nor promising her to consider their answers whatever they might be. And even if he had, Hermes himself would be no match against the rest of the Convocation plus Venat. If he chose to stand against them and withhold his information, he couldn't possibly hinder them so outmatched as he would've been. Moreover, there is hardly any reason for things to come to that point - Venat held all the cards and Hermes had none, she could have easily tricked him into revealing all that he knew of Dynamis and Meteion, simply by questioning him about the topic of his research and his recently "failed" concept. It's hardly even a trick, it's just asking him about information that, from his perspective, he has no real reason to hide.

Personally, I run with the assumption that she would have still been in Ktitsis anyway. She crossed paths with Hythlodaeus and Emet-Selch entirely without input from us, and the general dynamic suggests she doesn't stick around purely out of obligation, so we can assume that she sticks around, learns about dynamis, Meteion has her crisis, and it all culminates at Ktitsis. Venat's actions in the finale are largely independent, she tags Meteion with the cantrip and escapes on Argos; remember that the WoL's influence on the scene is only on the platform. So she escapes with the knowledge that Meteion is bringing an apocalypse, that said apocalypse is wielding energies of a kind that only Hermes has any great knowledge of, that he specifically wipes his own memory as well to give man a fighting chance (because he knows he'll ultimately side with Meteion, or at least falter in resolve). She also has a means to track Meteion's physical location in space, although no means to do anything with it.

So, from what point, what's the plan end up looking like, and how likely is it she could've come up with it?

1. First of all, don't tell the Convocation. Fair enough, that issue comes from Hermes. He openly states that is a problem, and probably knows that better than anyone, especially given he kinda already proved it.
2. Only tell select, trusted individuals. Given the attempt to avoid hysteria, and from causing Fandaniel Problems, also fair.
3. The Sundering. Definitely the diciest part of the plan, and one she struggles with the resolve of until the second sacrifice. Ultimately multipurpose, as it doesn't just prevent further summonings and weaken Zodiark, it also ensures a population that can interact with dynamis, something that the Ancients couldn't do (and were about to sacrifice the creatures that could). That multipurpose nature does mean there's a few ways to come at it, and at this point she likely had a few allies thinking about it, so while it's an ugly solution, it's one with some clear roads to it.
4. Shackle Zodiark. Ultimately this priority likely came before the sundering, but couldn't be performed until after. Ensures that Zodiark's defenses remain, but that Zodiark himself can't be misused. Basically a given.
5. The moon as a combination Zodiark holding cell and escape pod. Zodiark does have to be kept out of the way lest unseemly people get ideas, so that makes natural sense. Escape pod as a necessary contingency; thanks to Meteion she knows habitable worlds do exist, so an escape plan in case of failure is viable, and it does need to be big. But it also plants the seed of space travel, for potential saviors to pick up on later.
6. The Mothercrystal. Actually not a part of the plan as she heard it from us, and so can't be part of the paradox anyway. It is, however, proof that she's coming up with stuff herself.

So yeah, none of that sounds like something she wouldn't have thought of, especially given she needs to think outside the box. We also don't really have any timeframes to fit anything in, so she had plenty of time to think.

As to how important it is that Hermes remain stable... I mean, putting aside that whole 'Hermes himself made the decision, so maybe respect he had good reasons', remember that he's the one that comes up with the initial Zodiark plan (opinions on the other sacrifices are unknown). Without him, there is no plan, because nobody knows more about dynamis than him, and simply 'questioning him' about the concept would probably take a LONG time and have high chances of missing important facts. Making another expert on dynamis is hard; best just try not to break the one we've got instead.

[MikkoAkure]

I don’t really get your logic here. You keep bringing up that it’s a video game character. So what? These are video game forums. These are lore forums to talk about said video game characters. It’s like you’re implying someone is lowly because they talk about video game characters.

I’m just tired because the same people who were saying that “Venat/Hydaelyn is a big meanie and the Ascians were right” before are still saying it now and Endwalker made everyone on both sides double-down on their opinion. No amount of “debate” is going to convince anyone here to change their mind so it just comes off as a rant post. Endwalker showing Venat’s side of things as promised by the writers couldn’t do that so I don’t think mutual randos on their internet can.

As expected, Veloran already dismissed my statements where I said he misunderstood the game so my going through the rest of his post is not worth my time and will not be constructive.

[Rulakir]

You got that line. It was in the very first scene with Venat.

Whatever dialog options I had before Elpis certainly don't count and I don't know why you'd think they would. The moment at which Venat started spouting off every excuse in the book as to why she wasn't going to do anything differently despite everything I'd told her is when I needed a line about it. My character has been in situations before where they acted antithetical to me, but nothing has ever come close to being as egregious as post-Elpis. The dialog options I do get from that point forward are not only not confrontational, they're thankful to her for everything she's done.

You know what could've fixed this? Alternate timelines. I maintain that choosing a closed time loop is the single worst decision the writers made in all of EW.

I mean, putting aside that whole 'Hermes himself made the decision, so maybe respect he had good reasons', remember that he's the one that comes up with the initial Zodiark plan (opinions on the other sacrifices are unknown). Without him, there is no plan, because nobody knows more about dynamis than him, and simply 'questioning him' about the concept would probably take a LONG time and have high chances of missing important facts. Making another expert on dynamis is hard; best just try not to break the one we've got instead.

I'm still confused as to how/why Hermes was needed when by that point we had all of the pertinent information to share ourselves. His expertise would've only been helpful for Meteion, which was obviously problematic.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I’m just tired because the same people who were saying that “Venat/Hydaelyn is a big meanie and the Ascians were right” before are still saying it now and Endwalker made everyone on both sides double-down on their opinion. No amount of “debate” is going to convince anyone here to change their mind so it just comes off as a rant post. Endwalker showing Venat’s side of things as promised by the writers couldn’t do that so I don’t think mutual randos on their internet can.

As expected, Veloran already dismissed my statements where I said he misunderstood the game so my going through the rest of his post is not worth my time and will not be constructive.

I mean, it’s perspective though. I think it’s fine for people to think one side is wrong etc etc. I do think, my bias against venat or hydaelyn aside, she was thrown a very big bone. Whether or not we were supposed to see her as not wholly good, is a bit undermined in the way they wrote it, where they write it in a way where it seems they very much even if it’s indirect, painted her as this benevolent person. Not only that but she got a loooot of attention, compare that to Elidibus or Zodiark. Both done with in the span of 10 minutes. At least Venat got an entire arc and then some dedicated to her. I do want to say too, they used the name Venat for a reason. Venat in FF12 was a god who thought she was doing what was best for herself and mankind, but instead ended up dooming them and her acts are very much seen as a not good thing.

[Cleretic]

I’m just tired because the same people who were saying that “Venat/Hydaelyn is a big meanie and the Ascians were right” before are still saying it now and Endwalker made everyone on both sides double-down on their opinion. No amount of “debate” is going to convince anyone here to change their mind so it just comes off as a rant post. Endwalker showing Venat’s side of things as promised by the writers couldn’t do that so I don’t think mutual randos on their internet can.

As expected, Veloran already dismissed my statements where I said he misunderstood the game so my going through the rest of his post is not worth my time and will not be constructive.

For what little it's worth, while I am ultimately in the same position as I was before in going 'Hydaelyn ultimately made the right choice and the Ascians are ultimately terrible people', I have shifted considerably on where I stand within those points come Endwalker.

The post-Elpis Venat scene did a lot to reflect for me that the opposition to Venat had a real point, even if I disagreed with them. She did end a great civilization of caring people, even if they were on the road to destroying it by their own hands anyway.

And for the Ascians, I finally landed where I think Shadowbringers initially wanted me to, in considering them tragic, misguided figures who just want to go home, that chose to enact horrific crimes to do so. Sure, Emet-Selch was a jerk I don't want to talk to even back then, and he would go on to cause pretty much every problem and atrocity the post-Sundering Source has ever seen, but there was a time when he was a man with ultimately a good heart and intentions. He wasn't born a war criminal, he just became one.

[Theodric]

Most of it is a matter of perspective, at any rate. As an aside, I believe the argument from the mythical 'Zodiark Crowd' has always been that although it makes sense for the Sundered to not just roll over and die, it makes sense for the Unsundered to take the same path. Such as it often is when two opposing forces clash and common ground cannot be attained.

With the way in which the story was written, very few characters truly get a proper resolution because so many different elements could have been handled very differently.

To me, it's pretty clear that the writers are terrified of the idea of actually having meaningful stakes for the Scions and their ilk, so they simply force the tragic elements onto every other character and faction instead.

Ultimately the idea of 'moving on' and 'not bringing back the past' rings hollow to me when the Scions are laughably able to return from the dead with zero lasting complications...and it isn't the first time that it has happened in some cases, either. Y'shtola, obviously, being the most jarring example.

I think the worst part was that it was played completely straight. I don't know about anyone else, but I realised pretty quickly that they weren't actually dead so it just felt like pointless drama, baiting and rather narcissistic. The message may not have been intended, but it sure does feel like it was implying that other people should never try and bring back their loved ones even if they have the opportunity to do so...but it's perfectly fine for the 'heroes' to do just that. Then again, the story frequently flip flops between considering sacrificing one's life for a greater cause to be a good thing and a bad thing.

At the end of the day, though, I don't personally consider Venat to be a hero on any level. Others are free to think as much themselves, though the cynic in me suspects it was deliberately written this way in lieu of a proper conclusion so that heated debate could continue for as long as the game remains relevant. Unfortunately such tactics were exactly what turned me off of World of Warcraft's storytelling.

[MikkoAkure]

I do think, my bias against venat or hydaelyn aside, she was thrown a very big bone. Whether or not we were supposed to see her as not wholly good, is a bit undermined in the way they wrote it, where they write it in a way where it seems they very much even if it’s indirect, painted her as this benevolent person. Not only that but she got a loooot of attention, compare that to Elidibus or Zodiark. Both done with in the span of 10 minutes. At least Venat got an entire arc and then some dedicated to her.

From a meta perspective, we were always going to get more on Hydaelyn since she’s been the mysterious force that we’ve known about and been familiar with the longest. Usually in stories, the good guys are less interesting since they only exist to stop the bad guys. FFXIV was no different for a long time and fueled more to this in ShB when they added more explanation to the villain side of the story and I think that’s when a lot of people suddenly jumped on the “Emet is a soft boi who needs to be protected” train. Before that, the Ascians were mustache-twirling villains who literally say things like “we must needs destroy the Light and plunge the world into Darkness! Mwahahaha!”

What EW did was add more nuance to that and make it to be that Venat was more or less the plan maker the whole time and she’s not wholly benevolent since she created suffering (which we’ve known about since 1.0 beta from the song Answers). Now it feels like people are making Venat call-out posts like we’re on 2010 Tumblr.

The points I will concede to are:
1. The time travel was badly written and only Venat not losing her memory was a dumb idea since it ultimately changed nothing in my opinion and didn’t add to the story.

2. The explanation of the Blessing of Light didn’t make sense to me based on basically the entire game that came before it and unblessed people like Fordola being immune to tempering.

Where I feel like I disagree begins on the point of whether or not you think that the Ancients lived a “perfect” life and if you agree with the choices they made. The game spends some time hammering into your head that they weren’t ideal, which starts with the fact that they’re named after characters and places from a 500 year old book called “Utopia” which is itself arguably about how it’s not an ideal place. If after all of that, you think that the Ancients were right, then there’s no amount of discussion about everything that comes after that will convince you otherwise and you’re just searching for a reason to be upset that the writers didn’t agree with you and deliberately misunderstanding things to suit your opinion.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip.

I mean i don’t see how these venat call-out posts are any different than when people made posts calling out emet selch or the ascians or zodiark’s, comparing their fans to Nazi’s, or calling zodiark a blood god etc etc. Just seems interesting it’s now an issue purely because it’s Venat. Again it’s why i raised a point before that i doubt so many people would like venat or even Meteion if they looked more like Emet or Varis lol. Yes they took inspiration from Utopia but it’s not a 100|100, it never is, even with their other inspirations like the name Venat or Zodiark etc. While they didn’t live a perfect life, because i don’t think that even exists, they were far closer to it than the sundered people and world is. The devs themselves have said time and time again the sundered vs unsundered argument is a matter of perspectives. Some will agree with the ascians and some wont. Also, i think saying the ascians before shb were mustache twirling villains is a bit disingenuous. They had fans far before that and it’s because there very obviously was more to it, all the way back in 2.x when Elidibus first made his appearance. Shb just spelled it all out for people who aren’t too keen on lore or don’t read into things. Irregardless though, they’ve gone back on their own themes time and time again and they did so yet again in EW in favor of the protags so it’s kind of hard to really gauge the story at this point. They just seem to write whatever makes the community happy and unfortunately that’s low stakes and convoluted mess that equals happy endings for the protags.

[Veloran]

Personally, I run with the assumption that she would have still been in Ktitsis anyway. She crossed paths with Hythlodaeus and Emet-Selch entirely without input from us, and the general dynamic suggests she doesn't stick around purely out of obligation, so we can assume that she sticks around, learns about dynamis, Meteion has her crisis, and it all culminates at Ktitsis. Venat's actions in the finale are largely independent, she tags Meteion with the cantrip and escapes on Argos; remember that the WoL's influence on the scene is only on the platform.

But Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus open the way out for WoL? Why and how could they open the way for her yet neither of them escape themselves? And if she didn't know about the events of the future, why not just immediately tell Emet and Hythlodaeus what had just happened? Not to mention that the overall events of that day and investigating Hermes was partially prompted by WoL as well.

First of all, don't tell the Convocation.

But she could just tell them and they could arrest Hermes...?

Only tell select, trusted individuals.

But one of the people we know she trusts the most is on the Convocation.

it also ensures a population that can interact with dynamis, something that the Ancients couldn't do (and were about to sacrifice the creatures that could).

But the Ancients COULD interact with Dynamis, hence why the flower reacts to their emotions. And if we believe that LBs are a Dynamis reaction, all of the Ancients could do it. Moreover we have no reason to think that the creatures they were going to sacrifice were any more capable of using Dynamis than they themselves - To our knowledge we can only presume this was wildlife, plants and animals. And, given the existence of Meteion, it is obvious that the Ancients are capable of creating beings that can interact with Dynamis. As such the sundering is an extreme solution with even less justifications from the mind of a future-unknowing Venat.

Shackle Zodiark. Ultimately this priority likely came before the sundering, but couldn't be performed until after. Ensures that Zodiark's defenses remain, but that Zodiark himself can't be misused. Basically a given.

But why? Why would she think that was necessary? The notion of the third sacrifice doesn't justify the idea of misuse.

The moon as a combination Zodiark holding cell and escape pod.

But she herself says that she would never choose to flee, and that instead she would devote everything to stopping the threat.

The Mothercrystal. Actually not a part of the plan as she heard it from us, and so can't be part of the paradox anyway.

We do tell her that she becomes the Mothercrystal, so...

Without him, there is no plan, because nobody knows more about dynamis than him, and simply 'questioning him' about the concept would probably take a LONG time and have high chances of missing important facts. Making another expert on dynamis is hard; best just try not to break the one we've got instead.

But Hermes' knowledge of Dynamis wasn't even used during the Final Days. And you just previously said that Venat had "plenty of time to think" her way into this misshapen box, but they didn't have "plenty of time" to research Dynamis themselves or trick/convince him to give his knowledge? They only didn't have more time because Venat insisted on sundering the world and destroying their society completely. Again this is the same woman that insists nothing is impossible.

[TheRod]

This reminds me of Return of the Jedi, when some were really disappoint Luke didn't turn to the dark side, while promising that would not harm his friends - and George Lucas had to remember in an interview: "some people still need to understand: this is a fairytale, but in space". Famous words back then.

More or less, same applies here. Though, it wasn't like Yoshida himself didn't in prompto announce the story was going to play like that. From the very first announcement of Endwalker he was very open about it (and I suggest any reader glossing over this post to look for the announcement thread in this very same lore forums) - and to be honest and fair to him, it played exactly like he said it would. Ally that with most classical Final Fantasy themes and we have a very typical game of the series. Yes, some were a bit more grey or darker, but in general, the brand is like that, as we gotta concede.

Still, one lesson the Star Wars example also demonstrates is how we often may dive into mixing our favoritism for a character with being frustranted if they do not prosper - I love Darth Vader. Do I want him to win? No.

Sometimes it's difficult to deal with these aspects, especially in an era fandoms become even more estrident, and we nearly turn out into sports fan, faithfully wishing "our side" wins in the end. Alas, may we rest reminded of that for the future.

One thing as well is that it's always necessary to bring the perspective of the creator, the writer, etc... as we may discuss the characters in some sort of living beings when we need always to remember, they are not. It's always the sole intention of the creator behind the reasons for an action of a character. Even though it may be not satisfactory, it is what it is.