Disappointed in one Endwalker Aspect [SPOILERS]

[Kordarion]

I don't think it's in keeping with Venat-as-Azem to do nothing and allow all her friends across the world to die. Between the end of Elpis and post-first sacrifice she appears to have done absolutely nothing. WoL certainly would not have sat back and burdened some future generation with resolving the conflict.

Just because we don't know what events happened during a period of time doesn't mean nothing happened during that time period. Because that is what you are arguing, that our lack of knowledge of what Venat did must mean she did nothing. She may have sat on her arse and done nothing but the way she has been characterised pre-sundering suggests that she wouldn't and it would be well out of character for her to do nothing instead of trying to do something. But in the end we don't know and you simply make baseless assumptions and present them as facts despite have no basis for them. If anyone is being disingenuous here it is you for pushing your personal beliefs as fact without providing any evidence or reasoning as to why that would happen.

[StealthPaladin]

Just because we don't know what events happened during a period of time doesn't mean nothing happened during that time period. Because that is what you are arguing, that our lack of knowledge of what Venat did must mean she did nothing. She may have sat on her arse and done nothing but the way she has been characterised pre-sundering suggests that she wouldn't and it would be well out of character for her to do nothing instead of trying to do something. But in the end we don't know and you simply make baseless assumptions and present them as facts despite have no basis for them. If anyone is being disingenuous here it is you for pushing your personal beliefs as fact without providing any evidence or reasoning as to why that would happen.

I mean, we actually know from lore that she was active the entire time through the Echo over generations. There may not be a lot of action going on in suppressing Zodiark, but that also required constant intervening on her part to keep aether flowing properly and dense enough to avoid the Final Days and buy WoL as much time as possible.

Less like sitting on one's butt and more like the burden of Atlas

[Kordarion]

I mean, we actually know from lore that she was active the entire time through the Echo over generations. There may not be a lot of action going on in suppressing Zodiark, but that also required constant intervening on her part to keep aether flowing properly and dense enough to avoid the Final Days and buy WoL as much time as possible.

Less like sitting on one's butt and more like the burden of Atlas

I agree with you that we do know what she was doing post sundering but the conversation we are having is over the ambiguity of Venat's actions in-between our adventure in Elpis and the start of the final days.

[Veloran]

We don't know the portal wouldn't be irreparably closed, it could stay open but that doesn't mean it WILL stay open. That's what I'm trying to point out here is that we DON'T know what would happen, it could stay open or it could close we just don't know.

And yet the argument against helping is predicated on the idea that it is impossible, when that isn't even supposed anywhere in the story. Even if someone were to think that so, how many times have we done the impossible before to save people? Since when is it accepted to give up on saving people because of the perceived hurdles to doing it? We already know with the Crystal Tower that multi-timeline time travel is possible, at the very least.

Just because we don't know what events happened during a period of time doesn't mean nothing happened during that time period. Because that is what you are arguing, that our lack of knowledge of what Venat did must mean she did nothing. She may have sat on her arse and done nothing but the way she has been characterised pre-sundering suggests that she wouldn't and it would be well out of character for her to do nothing instead of trying to do something. But in the end we don't know and you simply make baseless assumptions and present them as facts despite have no basis for them. If anyone is being disingenuous here it is you for pushing your personal beliefs as fact without providing any evidence or reasoning as to why that would happen.

A moment ago you insisted I provide evidence to support my position, so I'll ask that of you now - Where is your evidence of Venat's action during that period? I assume she did nothing because there is no evidence she did anything, and even tangential evidence she did not, such as the complete lack of any rescued outsiders among her group in Akademia and the non-element of the defenses that she suggests making at the end of Elpis. Why should I believe she acted? Because it would be "in her character"? Based on her stated beliefs I should also not think that she would reach the conclusion that her people would never change, yet that is the notion she hit upon.

[Kordarion]

And yet the argument against helping is predicated on the idea that it is impossible, when that isn't even supposed anywhere in the story.

G'raha's time travel is NOT proof of multi-timeline travel, he DID NOT TRAVEL BETWEEN BRANCHES, instead he traveled back to the past of his OWN branch and that was the catalyst for the branching timelines.
G'raha time travels to change the past = creation of the branch timeline.

It is true we regularly do impossible things , and that our characters don't like to give up on saving people if they can help it but can we really? Based on the fact that this is how our characters are framed by the writers maybe, as an entirely meta reason, it is impossible because the whole point of endwalker is to move on from the ancients and the past and to tell new stories beyond them. So it stands to reason then that it would be impossible to cross branch timelines not because of an in game reason but because the writers want to move on from the unsundered world and wouldn't be able to if they had you save it.

We don't have any proof of Venat taking action i'll admit that, there is no proof she did anything. But the absence of proof is not proof of her doing nothing. For me it makes sense for her to still have acted considering that during our goodbye in Elpis she mentions that she has plans to make a group separate from the convocation to deal with the upcoming crisis. Admittedly this could be her moving straight onto plan sundering but we don't know and as I will say again and again lack of knowledge of her actions does not mean she didn't do anything.

Also do you remember at what point she says her people will never change, I do. It happens AFTER the final days, after they have summoned Zodiark and refused to move forward from their tragedy, not before but after. She didn't give up on her people changing until after her supposed inactivity. That I believe counters your point of her inaction due to giving up on her people.

[Veloran]

G'raha's time travel is NOT proof of multi-timeline travel, he DID NOT TRAVEL BETWEEN BRANCHES, instead he traveled back to the past of his OWN branch and that was the catalyst for the branching timelines.
G'raha time travels to change the past = creation of the branch timeline.

This may not even be true, given the existence of our own timeline is retroactively predicated on events spiraling out from G'raha's arrival, before he supposedly "branched" anything. As it is time travel in XIV is so poorly fleshed out that we can hardly say whether he created a new timeline or merely traveled to one in which he was always destined to arrive. Again, I will remind you that nowhere is it ever stated that travel between timelines is impossible, this is a raw supposition.

It is true we regularly do impossible things , and that our characters don't like to give up on saving people if they can help it but can we really?

It is certainly within WoL's character to try. But as to your meta talk, there is nothing preventing the writers from having written it that way. There was no previously established rules of time travel that prevent such a thing, and what G'raha did already flies in the face of the "letting go of the past" theme.

We don't have any proof i'll admit that, there is no proof she did anything. But the absence of proof is not proof of her doing nothing.

Intuitively if she had done something we would presume for it to have been made known. But no recollection of the events surrounding the Final Days even makes mention of her until after it was over, and it's destruction appears to have gone unmitigated. And even should she had done something, I would argue that her decision to sunder the world would have ultimately made such actions pointless.

Also do you remember at what point she says her people will never change, I do. It happens AFTER the final days, after they have summoned Zodiark and refused to move forward from their tragedy, not before but after. She didn't give up on her people changing until after her supposed inactivity. That I believe counters your point of her inaction due to giving up on her people.

I was not suggesting it was beforehand. Rather I was pointing out that for someone who says she believes in mankind's fortitude and thinks that "nothing is impossible", she did in fact decide that the Ancients would never change and had to be sundered. This runs in as much contradiction to her character as not taking action beforehand, if not moreso.

In fact, I think the most telling argument against 'Hydaelyn tempered us' was always that, after we learned she was a primal, not one single person on any side of the story that would have reason to put these puzzle pieces together raised the notion that we might be tempered.

Ardbert did.