Endwalker was a great mess(SPOILERS)

[AnotherPerson]

Time travel isn't real, there is nothing to understand. They can make up whatever rule they want, like you can only travel back in time to any Tuesday where a Loporrit used a green hat but not any other day. The thing is the bare minimum you have to do if you want to use a lazy plot advancing tool like time travel is to stay consistent to those rules you yourself established.

In ShB we have cat husband traveling back in time to avert the apocalypse. He stays in the past for 100 years and never once mentions the fact about going back to his time or being on a timer to fulfill his mission. After he succeeds he does mention that he is surprised he didn't poof into non existance and arrives to the conclusion that they created a separate timeline, while his own post apocaliptic timeline still exists somewhere.

Then in EW time travel is suddenly a 2-way rotating door but you can't remain in the past for too long and also also you can't change the past to create a separate timeline where the world didn't explode because uuuh..."hey mark, why are we using time travel in the plot again??" "Idk we needed an excuse to shoehorn more Emet Selch into the plot because twitter made a lot of yaoi with him".

No, in ShB, he never mentions about going back in his time because he wants to change the future - to avert the calamity. This is fully understood as creating a separate timeline - because the calamity that changed many lives and caused a shard to be rejoined never happened.

In the Endwalker timeline, the only main thing that changed is the events that led up to the Final Days. The Final Days itself never changed.
The way SE tells the story, Time travel really works in 2 ways. If you know about the butterfly effect, many small things can change the future. That's the multithread theory that doesn't agree with the story.

However, there's also the other theory that if a major event in the timeline doesn't change, the events that led up to it is inconsequential and falls within that timeline. This would be either the "converging point" or " pivot point". This pivot point would be the Final Days - as it pretty much leads to the sundering of everyone at that time. If that pivot point never changes, the future which leads to the present cannot change, and thus the timeline will remain stable. Thus, it leads to Hyadelyn to make sure she doesn't change anything that diverges the timeline to our present point. Hence, our timeline "converged" later on when we came back to the present. In reality, she simply lived through the time we traveled.

This also works inline with Hyadelyn's power - as her laws reside over stability. She could also forced a convergence and stabilized the timeline at the point of sundering too, and it makes sense that sundering actually merged the timelines together as it did a hard reset to the past.

[lezard21]

Thus, it leads to Hyadelyn to make sure she doesn't change anything that diverges the timeline to our present point.

You haven't answered my previous point as to WHY

At the end of Elpis:

- The WoL has gained the knowledge as to how the Final Days happened and he goes back to his own timeline to make use of said knowledge
- Venat can then make use of what she learned to PREVENT the Final Days and save her oh so beloved people, knowing that in doing so she would just create a separate timeline where everyone is saved and the WoL's timeline would remain intact
- She chooses not to. Because (?)

[Raven2014]

You haven't answered my previous point as to WHY

- The final day to her is a known catastrophe.
- She also has the assurance that it would be deal with temporary (by Zodiak), and thus the world have time to prepare for it.

Basically by ensuring the timeline does not change, she has a few millennia to prepare both a counter and a contingency plan, which she did, again with the knowledge that the world while suffer greatly during the first Final Day would not risk facing a permanent end. And eventually man kind will grow to a point that they can deal with the threat permanently. If she does anything to change the timeline, then those are no longer guarantee. The threat could have come in a different one where she would be completely blinded side, and world would risk a permanent end.


tl;dr: She wants to deal with a known disaster, and thus can be planed for, rather risking an unknow one.


For example, let's say Hitler could travel back in time and know about D-Day, would he try to make sure it doesn't happen? I would think not, 'cause even if the Allied somehow don't strike on D-Day, it would just mean they would spend all those resources to strike somewhere else, one that he would have no knowledge of. Rather, Hitler would prefer to make sure the D-Day invasion still gonna happen, but he will use that knowledge to make sure his force can counter it.

[Shuuli]

-

tl;dr: She wants to deal with a known disaster, and thus can be planed for, rather risking an unknow one.


For example, let's say Hitler could travel back in time and know about D-Day, would he try to make sure it doesn't happen? I would think not, 'cause even if the Allied somehow don't strike on D-Day, it would just mean they would spend all those resources to strike somewhere else, one that he would have no knowledge of. Rather, Hitler would prefer to make sure the D-Day invasion still gonna happen, but he will use that knowledge to make sure his force can counter it.

What do you mean known future for unknown? She has no idea if WoL is going to succeed after WoL returns to their timeline... this as much a 50 - 50 as it was before... WoL came to ask for help, we got more info, but not more power. If she knew the future is safe with us, she would not needed to put us through a final test.

The Ancients seemed very open about whatever we were saying to them. I doubt if the retired Venat would have said her story they would not even try to be open to the opportunity. Even Emet, who was being all angry about him being protrayed as the baddy, even he did try to help figure out the truth.

This whole issue could have been solved, if they made a cutscene where Venat talks to the convocation and explains the situation to them but after a through investigation they decline her or stamp her as "crazy" or something. But even then, when the final days would approach they would surely remember her words...

I think this is a basic issue with time travel stories. They used it inconsistently. Graha could change the future of his past by creating a new one, we could not change the future of the past of Elpis cause story needed to be sad and ending...

It does not mean that it was not a good story, it just has holes that could have been filled in that would perhaps better cover the questions asked.

[Raven2014]

I doubt there's much logic to be attributed to Venat's actions. At the end of the day, she caused her entire race to be wiped out based on her own misguided, biased judgement and because she decided to fawn over an individual who gave her a very biased account of what happened in the future.

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).

What do you mean known future for unknown?

She may not know the "exact" future, but she had plenty "evident" for form her decision.


I think people are focusing on the wrong thing. The Final Day is simply ONE of the MANY ways a star can meet its end, the Endsinger is not really the final boss. In another word, they are not the point of the story. Think about it, by the time Venat sundered the world, the final day was already stopped. What she was trying to averse isn't the final day, but the ultimate end of mankind.

Elpis story was there wasn't merely for us to learn the nature of final day, but also to show us (the players) the fatal flaw of the Ancient society that would serve as the basic for Venat decision. Specifically, that flaw is the apathy toward life. While their indifference toward the creation is obvious, the subtext also showed it applies to all life. Here are the key moment:

- Meltion asked you to demonstrate your "sorrow" to "cheer up" Herme (as ironic as it sounds) because he is like the only ancient possess that emotion (which came from his cherish of life).
- Emer-setch said while he understand the "rationality", he can not work out the emotion why you have to be sad when someone die. He also considered the fact Venat didn't end her life after leaving the office is an act in tune with her rebellious personality.
- When accompanied you, a research literally tell Venat "hi there lady Venat, I can not wait for the day you finally kill yourself and it will be beautiful!". Her reaction is clearly uncomfortable about it.


Herme and Venat actually share a common trait: they both cherish lives. But this strait is making them the outcast of their society. And the last straw is during the sundering scence, when given the choice between "suffer and live" or "die", we saw the ancient pick the latter without much thought. Basically, even if the ancient was spared the final day, their society in its current trajectory will arrive at a deadend anway, that's what Venat was trying to stop. That's the point of the story.


Then, before her trial she told the party Meltion is a place where emotion and memory reign supreme, to which Alisae ask if mankind is truly powerless. She answered by address each of the Scion. On the surface, it looks like she merely recounting their lives, but once you put it together with the report by Metion and what she showed you in the final dungeon, Hydalyn was also drawing parallel of the struggle that spelled the end of those dead world, and how now the scion (as representative of mankind) had shown the will to overcome those.


Of course, there is nothing taken for granted. That's why the moon was created as a contingency. Even during the trial, she said we either show the will to overcome the trial or they must leave and never look back. She sacrified everything not for "assured" victory, but to make a bet on mankind's potential. Now, if you want to argue the merit of her decision, or whatever it's justifiable then that's up for debate. But I want to point out it's plenty logical, and definitely not simply based on her bias about our 1-side story.

[AnotherPerson]

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).



She may not know the "exact" future, but she had plenty "evident" for form her decision.


I think people are focusing on the wrong thing. The Final Day is simply ONE of the MANY ways a star can meet its end, the Endsinger is not really the final boss. In another word, they are not the point of the story. Think about it, by the time Venat sundered the world, the final day was already stopped. What she was trying to averse isn't the final day, but the ultimate end of mankind.

Elpis story was there wasn't merely for us to learn the nature of final day, but also to show us (the players) the fatal flaw of the Ancient society that would serve as the basic for Venat decision. Specifically, that flaw is the apathy toward life. While their indifference toward the creation is obvious, the subtext also showed it applies to all life.

Then, before her trial she told the party Meltion is a place where emotion and memory reign supreme, to which Alisae ask if mankind is truly powerless. She answered by address each of the Scion. On the surface, it looks like she merely recounting their lives, but once you put it together with the report by Metion and what she showed you in the final dungeon, Hydalyn was also drawing parallel of the struggle that spelled the end of those dead world, and how now the scion (as representative of mankind) had shown the will to overcome those.

Of course, there is nothing taken for granted. That's why the moon was created as a contingency. Even during the trial, she said we either show the will to overcome the trial or they must leave and never look back. She sacrified everything not for "assured" victory, but to make a bet on mankind's potential. Now, if you want to argue the merit of her decision, or whatever it's justifiable then that's up for debate. But I want to point out it's plenty logical, and definitely not simply based on her bias about our 1-side story.

That's actually great points I forgotten about. The ancients were a society focused towards perfection, but we also know all societies fixated on perfection eventually met its demise. To live is to suffer, but suffering is required to be continue existence. The Ancients didn't want suffering, but they were fine about returning to the star at the end when it reaches perfection. In that case, wouldn't their end be when they finished making the perfect world like the other civilizations that achieved what they wanted? They'd just go kill themselves after because they achieved their goal. Yeah, it actually makes sense why Venat did what she did now. She cherishes life, not just the dedication to making a better life.

[Lauront]

No, there are plenty logic to it. (I'll explain down below).

And the big problem is that regarding the Plenty, she had a summary of a couple of lines of what happened to that star. She had little reason at that point to attribute it to "apathy towards life" as such (which does not appear to have been the ancients' view tbh, nor were they lacking for emotions), but rather apathy towards it because joy became meaningless in the absence of sorrow. The problem people have here is how she is connecting this to her people outside of that singular cutscene - bearing in mind not all of us have suffered amnesia regarding the events of SHB and their recounting of events leading to her faction's summoning of Hydaelyn. It is possible that, one day, they too would meet that fate - it's possible they might not. The issue is that the scene in question shows her sundering the star at a point where her people are still mourning the loss they suffered, of the state of their beautiful star, to which they were devoted. And the problem people have with that is that they were not given the necessary information as to what she was basing her concerns on, as opposed to being provided rather glib platitudes when they express a desire to reclaim their former way of life. So her people were never really given a proper opportunity to consider it and make adjustments if necessary, once a proper understanding had been achieved. So for Ms "Nothing is impossible", apparently a conversation with her people about what Hermes had learnt via the Meteia was too difficult. There may be logic there that would make sense to her or Hermes with the knowledge they'd acquired, but not so much anyone else. Hermes's own mindset was to foster life even when it became inimical to the broader balance of the star. He is not exactly reasonable.

That's actually great points I forgotten about. The ancients were a society focused towards perfection, but we also know all societies fixated on perfection eventually met its demise. To live is to suffer, but suffering is required to be continue existence. The Ancients didn't want suffering, but they were fine about returning to the star at the end when it reaches perfection. In that case, wouldn't their end be when they finished making the perfect world like the other civilizations that achieved what they wanted? They'd just go kill themselves after because they achieved their goal. Yeah, it actually makes sense why Venat did what she did now. She cherishes life, not just the dedication to making a better life.

It goes beyond that even, because the dragons had attained something like a state of perfection and their star's destruction was not due to the incoherence of such a society but for no other reason than it was invaded by the Omicrons. Stars mired in suffering perished, those without it perished, those anywhere in between perished. So there's that. A fate that may befall the Source too, in any case, in the future, once the "lessons" the Scions supposedly learnt are gone. The poster here made a good list of all the issues with her thinking.

What she did makes sense to her, maybe. Not to anyone asking well why not give your people this knowledge to give them a chance to adapt, rather than just mouthing off some platitudes about suffering that in the moment, seem vacuous?

If you consider it reasonable to sunder your own people, based on a half-baked understanding of what happened to another star, which you never even tried to explain properly to your people, based on what was shown so far, then so be it... I certainly don't.

[Raven2014]

And the big problem is that regarding the Plenty, she had a summary of a couple of lines of what happened to that star.

And here is the problem with people taking cutsceen literally instead of abstractly. I remember going through Elpis in a matter of hours, whence the game implied it took days. Also, the Hydalyn vs Zodiak war is understood as a big civil war between 2 supreme entities ... do you think the sundering happens just like that, she talked to a few random ancient, and sunder them on the spot in her human form!?

The "characters" definitely would have a lot more detail form in all story elements that are abstracted into a few line to be delivered to the players, that's just how it is in a video game ... unless someone decide to write a book.

They weren’t really obsessed with perfection

not yet anyway, but it's clear they're on the road there, seeing how easily they willing to cast away "imperfection".

This is even what the scions and the main cast strive for. It’s what numerous npc’s regard as well. Striving for the best in the future.

The difference is ... the Scion pursuit the cause while weep for any life that is loss. The ancient putting the perfection of the start at the foremost and everything else (including life) is a distant second.

[HappyHubris]

and Venat actually share a common trait: they both cherish lives.

Venat literally slaughtered her entire world - the ancients, the other peoples, their creations...everything, because she met a cool guy. She traded her world for numerous ones where life had much less worth. On Source, civilizations are massacred in conquest, for profit (beast tribes/dragons), or for pleasure (Zenos and Gar Empire racists).

And that's not even bringing up how she was only interested in a tiny minority of the lives on Source (that little ark would barely fit a large town's worth of people in a handful of trips) and was more than willing to let the other shards die to the end days. Whereas if she worked with the ancients they could have saved incredible amounts of death, giving her an infinite lifetime to spread her views and develop a more empathetic faction.

The writers ignored Venat's characterization and decided that she would choose horrible suffering for all creation over memory wiping her, which was a poor decision.

[Mortime]

Venat literally slaughtered her entire world - the ancients, the other peoples, their creations...everything, because she met a cool guy. She traded her world for numerous ones where life had much less worth. On Source, civilizations are massacred in conquest, for profit (beast tribes/dragons), or for pleasure (Zenos and Gar Empire racists).

And that's not even bringing up how she was only interested in a tiny minority of the lives on Source (that little ark would barely fit a large town's worth of people in a handful of trips) and was more than willing to let the other shards die to the end days. Whereas if she worked with the ancients they could have saved incredible amounts of death, giving her an infinite lifetime to spread her views and develop a more empathetic faction.

The writers ignored Venat's characterization and decided that she would choose horrible suffering for all creation over memory wiping her, which was a poor decision.

And let's not forget that Venat's actions also led to Meteion singing her song of oblivion for 10000 years leading countless worlds to their destruction.