Confusion (of the highest order) about Venat and Sundering

[Lurina]

sundering doesn't kill and since hydaelyns purpose was highly specific it didnt take as much energy to work. as for it being worth it, imo yeah considering it lead to us defeating the metea.

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn.

[Kordarion]

so basically a cosmic voodoo doll.

I guess, I haven't really though it through much more than what I stated but your analogy does make sense.

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn. In that sense, it did explicitly kill.

Except we don't actually know if it destroyed the original identities of the unsundered, it very well could have mind you, but I don't think it did because if everyone died and was reborn without their old memories then how would they still have memories of the unsundered world like the makers of the Qitana Ravel cave paintings and the sun deities Azeyma and Azim having celestial, the sun, and naming similarities to the seat of Azem. Sure you could write it off as just being the echo but that just doesn't seem to be a satisfying conclusion.

[Lurina]

Except we don't actually know if it destroyed the original identities of the unsundered, it very well could have mind you, but I don't think it did because if everyone died and was reborn how would they still have memories of the unsundered world like the makers of the Qitana Ravel cave paintings and the sun deities Azeyma and Azim having celestial, the sun, and naming similarities to the seat of Azem. Sure you could write it off as just being the echo but that just doesn't seem to be a satisfying conclusion.

Emet explicitly says, "No one could remember it (the original Ethirys). Just fleeting recollections of an all-too-familiar world."

"Fleeting" means "momentary" or "almost nonexistent". As in, the memories of their previous lives were almost completely gone.

[Kordarion]

Emet explicitly says, "No one could remember it (the original Ethirys). Just fleeting recollections of an all-too-familiar world."

"Fleeting" means "momentary" or "almost nonexistent". As in, the memories of their previous lives were almost completely gone.

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

[Lurina]

Ok fair enough, that is true that emet said that and they wouldn't remember most of their lives, but it also doesn't necessarily mean they lost who they were and effectively became new people. Using a really life comparison, would you consider someone who has amnesia and can only occasionally remember parts of their past in brief and confusing flashbacks to have died and become a new, unique, person?

And to use an in-game analogy what about the people of Eorzea after the seventh umbral calamity? They were only able to vaguely remember the events surrounding Bahamut's return and yet they are still the same people. I know its not the same scale, not even close, but the principle is still the same assuming that is what happened with the sundering.

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

[Kordarion]

In the world of FFXIV, everyone reincarnates repeatedly by having their memories wiped in the Aetherial Sea, but maintains the core of their personality and inner self between reincarnations. So, other than the incredibly rare cases of soul destruction that happen with things like the Blasphemies, all "death" means at any point is the loss of ones memory. It's also shown that people can experience fleeting flashbacks to their previous lives even if they die in this conventional sense.

So there are two choices here. Either we acknowledge that we cannot apply our real-world definition of death to the setting, and accept that within it's internal logic, loss of memory=death (and so Sundering=death)... Or we reach the conclusion that almost nobody actually dies at all in Etheirys compared to our own world, including during the Sundering. Those are the only ways to interpret what we know that isn't internally contradictory.

Under this same logic, it would also be inconsistent to not consider the events of the Seventh Umbral Calamity a sorta partial death. (Though they do get their memories back later, if you play a 1.0 character.)

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

[Lurina]

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

If you want to define death in FFXIV as "the total destruction of the physical body and the returning of the soul to the Aetherial sea", instead of "the loss of ones memory", then the Rejoinings, which the story repeatedly frames as acts of mass-murder, fail to meet that definition. In an interview, Yoshi-P clarified that when a Rejoining takes place, the aetherial energies of the body and the soul are directly re-fused with their counterpart of the Source. It's just a reversal of what happened in the Sundering - nothing is destroyed or banished to the afterlife, and the essential self of both versions of the person is undamaged because it's identical in both. As shown with Ardbert, traces of the rejoined person are even retained in the process, much like in the Sundering.

So my argument would change from "you must accept that either both Sundering and normal death is death, or that neither are, to be logically consistent" to "you must accept that either both Sundering and Rejoining is death, or neither are, to be logically consistent", I suppose.

[Lersayil]

I understand where you are coming from and a world with a proven method of reincarnation does make the concept of death a murky topic but doesn't death require you physical body to die as well as that is what facilitates the return of a person's soul to the aetherial sea so they can be reborn as a new person? That's how you can consider the wiping of memory not death, because the person's soul is still within their bofy and hasn't returned to the aetherial sea.

Considering the fact that emet-selch said when explaining the sundering that it simply split each person into fourteen identical yet aetherically weaker beings and not that their souls were returned to the aetherial sea that the sundered ancients didn't technically die.

That might make a technical difference, but I'd argue not a moral one. Depends on where you draw the line on what constitutes an individual I guess?

In the lore we only really have one direct example where memories were wiped but not the physical form: Yotsuyu. The story didn't make explicit judgment (she regained her memories before it could), but it was leaning in the direction of Tsuyu and Yotsuyu not being the same individual (and as such, there would be no meaning in punishing her).

Even if we don't categorize the sundering as death, I would argue it very much did wipe out the individuals involved on a level, where morality most of our moralities wouldn't really differentiate between the two.

[Iscah]

While it's debatable if the Sundering killed the Sundered (I would argue it did, at least to the same degree as the Rejoining, since in both cases no "soul essence" is destroyed, just divided or re-assimilated at the expense of the original identity) I think they're talking about the sacrifices. People were still sacrificed to summon Hydaelyn.

I think the difference is that Hydaelyn's summoners were voluntarily giving up their own lives to achieve what they thought was important, whereas the people planning to sacrifice "some portion of life on the planet" may have been trying to sacrifice sentient life without their agreement.

We still don't have enough answers about what really happened then. Just one unsatisfactorily allegorical scene that doesn't line up with Emet's account in Shadowbringers, and arguably paints Venat in a worse light than he did.