Confusion (of the highest order) about Venat and Sundering

[Kordarion]

Yes, yes it is. It is a state that was imposed upon everyone without their consent. If I nuked a country and subjected them to multigenerational radiation poisoning, for future generations that isn't "just their natural lives", that is something I did to them.


Yes, it is morally problematic to strip somebody of their agency, which is exactly what Venat did. The conditions of suffering and conflict she created is exactly what she wanted. That is not to say that in every instance nobody has any individual culpability for their own wrongdoing, but Venat created the context for all of this suffering to take place, meaning she is personally partly responsible. In choosing to create the sundered world Venat is effectively it's goddess, it's progenitor, it's "Mother" if you will, and this image of the world is the one she wished to cultivate.


I would argue that is killing them. They weren't just given a haircut, they were fundamentally altered to the point that those they once were no longer existed.

I'm not quite sure how best to respond to the first part of your statement without causing more problems with any less than properly thought out responses, so ill have to hold off on that for the moment.

For your second point the reason I would argue that your line of thinking is worse in that case is that sure Venat stole people's agency when it came to being an ancient and living in their society, which I agree is wrong, but then sort of didn't afterwards. Obviously we know she messed around occasionally, the whole hear, feel, think mantra, but other than that everyone else that comes after pretty much retains their sense of agency. Sure you could argue she has still stolen their agency but at some point it gets so far from the event that saying Hydaelyn is still stealing their agency becomes a convolutedly bad joke of what could have been to the point where you could never possibly predict it acurately. But by your line of thinking you have reduced them to never being able to have agency in their own world even by such a time where it would once more be wholly their own choice, and that is why I think your take is more morally problematic than Venat's actions.

On your third point, thinking about it, transforming them like she does is akin to killing them.

[Veloran]

For your second point the reason I would argue that your line of thinking is worse in that case is that sure Venat stole people's agency when it came to being an ancient and living in their society, which I agree is wrong, but then sort of didn't afterwards. Obviously we know she messed around occasionally, the whole hear, feel, think mantra, but other than that everyone else that comes after pretty much retains their sense of agency. Sure you could argue she has still stolen their agency but at some point it gets so far from the event that saying Hydaelyn is still stealing their agency becomes a convolutedly bad joke of what could have been to the point where you could never possibly predict it acurately. But by your line of thinking you have reduced them to never being able to have agency in their own world even by such a time where it would once more be wholly their own choice, and that is why I think your take is more morally problematic than Venat's actions.

What agency does someone have when contracting a terminal illness, or dying thousands of years before they would have previously? Where's the agency in starving to death in a famine, or being conscripted to go die in a war for resources, or being mauled by a beast and perishing from your wounds? Even the agency of the petty thief or the gluttonous oligarch is undermined in that the conditions of their existence which motivates their actions was created by someone else. Again, all intentionally.

[Kordarion]

What agency does someone have when contracting a terminal illness, or dying thousands of years before they would have previously? Where's the agency in starving to death in a famine, or being conscripted to go die in a war for resources, or being mauled by a beast and perishing from your wounds? Even the agency of the petty thief or the gluttonous oligarch is undermined in that the conditions of their existence which motivates their actions was created by someone else. Again, all intentionally.

Your right there is no agency in any of those but unfortunately that is life. Shit does happen that we can't control. You seem to have this idea that the ancients had perfect agency over every single facet of their lives, and maybe they did but that would be a pretty uninteresting story if your protagonists could do whatever they wanted no trouble, nothing getting in their way. Not to mention entirely unrealistic. My point to reiterate it is there is plenty of agency that Venat did rob from the sundered but that to blame everything on her is to steal what agency they do have left, the agency to enact change, the agency to hope and to dream and the agency to make bad choices like arguing with someone on the internet who seems to think that Venat is the root of all evil when she was left to try and deal with Hermes ill thought out mess. Was she a perfect individual and did she make mistakes, certainly in the end she is only human just like us and wanted to do what is right no matter how many mistakes she made and impossible choices she was faced with.

I don't see any of us doing a better job than she did, not when there are so many things that could go wrong that we know nothing of.

[Kordarion]

What agency does someone have when contracting a terminal illness, or dying thousands of years before they would have previously? Where's the agency in starving to death in a famine, or being conscripted to go die in a war for resources, or being mauled by a beast and perishing from your wounds? Even the agency of the petty thief or the gluttonous oligarch is undermined in that the conditions of their existence which motivates their actions was created by someone else. Again, all intentionally.

Also can we just leave this here, its clear that neither one of us is going to convince the other to back down and all we are doing now is arguing for the sake of it and hijacking this thread from its intended question.

[Veloran]

Your right there is no agency in any of those but unfortunately that is life.

That is the life Venat made, yes.

Was she a perfect individual and did she make mistakes, certainly in the end she is only human just like us and wanted to do what is right no matter how many mistakes she made and impossible choices she was faced with.

Yes, and she chose to make her choice for everybody else without their consent.

Also can we just leave this here, its clear that neither one of us is going to convince the other to back down and all we are doing now is arguing for the sake of it and hijacking this thread from its intended question.

OP doesn't seem to mind and I'd argue that this is all related to the Sundering itself, but if that's your prerogative.

[Kordarion]

The OP said he was enjoying the fun conversations, I'm not finding our argument fun instead I'm finding it frustrating. Frustrating not because your right and I'm wrong but wont admit it or visa versa, frustrating because we keep seeming to be going round in circles unable to properly strike at the heart of each others arguments and its just become draining and therefore not fun. I'd also say that we have long since moved past the how and what of sundering and onto how far reaching you, not you specifically, more like the operative you, can stretch the direct impact of an event.

[OhNooo]

"Rape is better than being a murderer"
So to a group of people interpreting the story there's just no way you're going to reconcile "morally grey" because both acts are seen as extremely offensive. It's going to be even harder to argue otherwise if people have real world experience of having consent taken from their agency or someone they know personally. Yes, this is a video game but people are likely to draw from experience that will color their interpretation of a story.

Yes, this has been my whole issue with all of them - Venat, Emet and Hermes. All of them made decisions that took away the agency of other individuals and it seems like people have been debating on which ancient's actions are more horrible and which ones are the least horrible - and the one that is deemed the least horrible that can be justified/accepted is Venat's actions.

Several times I've seen people say things like "well there was no choice when faced with the end of the world" or..."it was either that or death." I think it comes down to differences in philosophy because I'm of the opinion that there are worse things than death. I would rather live a short life with as much freedom as possible and on my own terms than to live a very long life as a slave to someone or something with my autonomy stripped from me or with someone having a lot of control over me. For others, it doesn't matter how much they have to suffer as long as they're alive. They could undergo the worst atrocities ever and still be grateful that they are at least alive. So that's why for me, I see what Venat did just as bad as what the others did whereas someone else would see it as the least horrible out of what the others did.

So, it's definitely a matter of perspective at the end of the day.

[EaraGrace]

Then it brings us to my first point -- why it was worth it to sacrifice another group of people (now seemingly big) to prevent sacrificing of another group of people. It's sacrificing anyway? x)

I also love you guys turned this thread into discussion of something irrelevant lmao but still fun to read all these theories.

When Venat sunders the world she says

Venat: So let there be no way back. From that temptation I sunder us.

The intent was not simply to stop that third sacrifice, but to separate Zodiark, a god capable of fulfilling the Ancients short term desires and isolating them from any form of struggle, from them. Given he is the literal will of the star, the result is the world also being sundered. So in short, it’s not solely about saving one group by sacrificing another, it’s about saving all life from the Song of Oblivion, with the third Zodiark sacrifice being the point of no return for the Ancients.

[Antoine_Lenheim]

When Venat sunders the world she says



The intent was not simply to stop that third sacrifice, but to separate Zodiark, a god capable of fulfilling the Ancients short term desires and isolating them from any form of struggle, from them. Given he is the literal will of the star, the result is the world also being sundered. So in short, it’s not solely about saving one group by sacrificing another, it’s about saving all life from the Song of Oblivion, with the third Zodiark sacrifice being the point of no return for the Ancients.

Wait, there were three sacrifices? I thought first one was to summon Zodiark and then with second one they wanted to bring back those who died during Final Days and those who sacrificed. What was the third one about?

[EaraGrace]

Wait, there were three sacrifices? I thought first one was to summon Zodiark and then with second one they wanted to bring back those who died during Final Days and those who sacrificed. What was the third one about?

The second is to restore the ruined world after the Final Days had been halted. The third was to bring everyone back.

Half of the Ancients were sacrificed to halt the Final Days. Half of what was left to restore the world. And an equivalent amount of new life sacrificed to bring back those from the first two.