Quote Originally Posted by Veloran View Post

There's something to note here that I think hasn't been recognized very much - Emet-Selch's motives and ideals and Venat's motives and ideals appear to be exactly the same, simply flipped around. Emet believed that the Sundered were morally and physically deficient, selfish, indolent, given to the temptations of power, and both magically and ethically incapable of true fulfillment, and so they must be rejoined. Whereas Venat believed that the Ancients were morally and physically deficient, selfish, indolent, given to the temptations of power, and both magically and ethically incapable of true fulfillment, and so they must be sundered. Many of the arguments that were once applied to the Sundered, that they were inferior beings prone to self-destruction, are now being turned around and used with the Ancients to justify their destruction without a hint of irony.

It's stuff like this that makes me question whether the story was actually some kind of grand 5D meta commentary on the nature of narrative presentation and audience reception, or if everything was just a complete accident and they just unintentionally doubled back on a bunch of ideas they were trying to dispute.
I didn't get the chance to respond to this earlier, but I do think that is a very interesting point that you bring up. Venat and Emet-selch are both two sides of the same coin in terms of their ideals. Emet concluded only Unsundered life could lead to a full existence, while Venat believed that sundering it was the only way. Both go on to force their own righteousness on the entire world. Why then is Venat, the initial aggressor, considered a hero by the game's narrative, where Emet-selch is the villain to be slain? Why, when Emet-selch, at the very least, made the attempt to truly understand how the Sundered existed, and lived among them for lifetimes upon lifetimes? Conversely, Venat cast judgment on the entirety of her people and their lives, as they experienced the very first major Calamity their society has ever seen, and on a scale that dwarfs the umbral calamities of the shards. The end of the world as they know it, and she expects them to make a judgement call based on information only she is privy to. I understand there is context for her decision beyond this, but it still comes across as quite the double standard. Were we playing this game from the perspective of an Ancient, and Venat was spouting things about needing to 'divide the world and suffer, so that you can weather the coming storm,' we would absolutely see her as an antagonist to be in conflict with. She, like Emet, sees it as for their own good, but is that really her decision to make? As with Emet, I would say no, and I think the narrative would have benefitted greatly if it saw things in similar terms.