*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[redheadturk]

My issues with what Venat did have to do with the massive lack of consent on the part of the people she sundered. I take huge issues with that. I do not have an issue with the initial 2 sacrifices to Zodiark because the people who were sacrificed consented to being sacrificed. I do not have an issue with the third because I still hold that it was likely non sentient life being sacrificed and there is no consent necessary if the life in question is not sentient. We kill cows and pigs and chickens for meat all the time and I certainly do not consider that morally questionable. I have a huge problem with thinking, feeling people being sundered against their will.

There is no rightness in actions taken without the consent of the people you are acting upon.

[Absimiliard]

On Venat, yes the story does make a statement on whether her actions were right or wrong. I can certainly understand why someone, who feels she was in the wrong, would be upset by the story taking sides. But that is indeed what the story did and it has done, in ARR, Heavensward, Stormblood, Shadowbringers and elsewhere again and again.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The story in ShB was very clearly gearing up to paint Venat (or rather Hydaelyn, since we didn't yet know Venat) and her actions as being more morally grey than anything else, then Endwalker's writing comes zooming along to whitewash it.

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug. At least the sacrifices to Zodiark were wholly voluntary, yeah? And the third set of sacrifices were just going to be a portion of the Ancients' own creations after they'd had time to spread out and multiply across the world.

[redheadturk]

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. The story in ShB was very clearly gearing up to paint Venat (or rather Hydaelyn, since we didn't yet know Venat) and her actions as being more morally grey than anything else, then Endwalker's writing comes zooming along to whitewash it.

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug.

Exactly! as noted above, my issues both with what Venat did [and yes, I take that issue with the Ascians as well] was the lack of consent. That bugs the heck out of me and I can't get fully aboard team Hydaelyn because of that lack of consent.

[Slatersev]

Just gonna quote myself

Honestly while we don't actually know I have no idea how anyone could actually think the third sacrifice would just be like, regular animals and such.

Like on a very basic narrative level making it the Convocation just wanting to use literal cattle undermines the themes of both ShB and EW massively. It doesn't give the story shades of gray or anything close to that.

The convocation wanting to sacrifice new sapient life because they want back what they lost vs Venat sundering her own people partly in defense of that new innocent life is a compelling and interesting narrative element.

Having her do it to protect literal chickens makes both her and Emet look like idiots. Like why the fuck would Emet beat around the bush so much with us if the original end goal was something that simple?

Regardless of who you like more making it literal animals would just make both sides look really dumb, not tragically compelling.

It needs to be stated again, Emet spends the entirety of Shadowbringers trying very hard to convince the Scions that he is justified. If the original plan for the 3rd sacrifice was just a bunch of plants, chickens or otherwise non sapient life, then Emet not mentioning that at any point makes him the biggest idiot in the games history.

It would be the single most compelling argument for his cause that he had, and he just left it out? When he was perfectly happy explaining everything else in exhaustive detail? Widely OOC for Emet, thematically OOC for Shadowbringers. Easily the worst writing decision possible.

All it accomplishes is making both sides of the divide worse characters, sure it makes the OG convocation plan more sympathetic, but at the cost of making them all massive morons in the present for not having it be there opening pitch.

It also wouldn't make since for Venat's side because her people wanted to entrust the world to that new life and why would any of them think a turkey or plant would be able to do that?

Yes its true that its never been explicitly said, but I don't think that's because they didn't want to make it clear or changed directions, I think the writers assumed like most of the audience did that a sacrifice of sapient life is literally the only conclusion that makes any actual sense and they didnt need to spell it out in big bold letters.

[EaraGrace]

There’s a trend in the forums I’m noticing. When there’s moral ambiguity for the heroes, suddenly any justification must be argued and debated, even if it’s dependent on someone’s personal moral system.

When it’s the villains, the statements on the flexibility of moral systems and the inherent difficulties with judging others actions start flying.

How interesting.

My issues with what Venat did have to do with the massive lack of consent on the part of the people she sundered. I take huge issues with that. I do not have an issue with the initial 2 sacrifices to Zodiark because the people who were sacrificed consented to being sacrificed. I do not have an issue with the third because I still hold that it was likely non sentient life being sacrificed and there is no consent necessary if the life in question is not sentient. We kill cows and pigs and chickens for meat all the time and I certainly do not consider that morally questionable. I have a huge problem with thinking, feeling people being sundered against their will.

There is no rightness in actions taken without the consent of the people you are acting upon.

Let’s turn this around. What evidence do you have that the sacrifices weren’t human beings?

And that last statement could easily pull us into a debate on irl issues, so I’m gonna hold off on the hypotheticals I want to ask.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here…

Regardless of the outcome of Venat's actions, the reality of the situation is that they were undeniably cruel, callous, and displayed a level of disregard for free will that, for a being in her stated position, practically defies reason. A net good outcome does not mean her decision to commit omnicide should simply be swept under the rug. At least the sacrifices to Zodiark were wholly voluntary, yeah? And the third set of sacrifices were just going to be a portion of the Ancients' own creations after they'd had time to spread out and multiply across the world.

That’s certainly an interpretation of SHB. One I don’t agree with but I respect different perspectives of the same story can and should exist. But makes you think that SHB grayness wasn’t just the result of foreshadowing? Don’t you think it’s possible you may have been intended to feel that way, only to have it be subverted in Endwalker?

And disagree entirely in the last paragraph. Just as I don’t think it’s immoral to stop someone from harming themselves, stopping the Ancients from becoming dependent on Zodiark, to the extent that it would lead to their doom, was neither callous or cruel. It was a hard choice, but one needed to be made, especially given the limitations to other options.

And please can someone show me a reason to believe they were gonna sacrifice chickens. This is getting ridiculous.

[thegreatonemal]

There’s a lot of axes people have to grind with Venat. It becomes clear when we get to the core of things, which is why Venat would take such drastic measures and Sunder the world she loves. She is either a woefully incompetent idiot who didn’t bother with trying to save the Ancients and instead subjected people to untold suffering for no reason, or she is a narcissistic sociopath who lies every time she speaks and simply wished to play goddess.

Both require an incredible amount of leaps, in the text and out of it.

What part of aether dense beings have absolutely no hope of facing a being who controls dynamis are people having a hard time understanding. As mankind was they had no chance against stopping the Final Day, nor stopping the heat death of the universe from being sped up. Sundering gave us a chance to fight back. She wasn't even sure it would work but even a .01% chance is better than the 0% chance they had before the sundering.

[redheadturk]

Let’s turn this around. What evidence do you have that the sacrifices weren’t human beings?

And that last statement could easily pull us into a debate on irl issues, so I’m gonna hold off on the hypotheticals I want to ask.

And what evidence do you have they were? And even if they were what evidence do you have that they would not have consented? What Venat did was unequivocally without the consent of the ones she sundered. We don't have enough information about the third sacrifice to know if there was a consent issue or not. Which is why I take a firm stance against Venat's actions, but don't really have a stance on the third sacrifice.

[Theodric]

Nobody is obligated to like or root for specific characters.

It's pretty fascinating to me that certain posters are completely silent whenever someone pops in to suggest that the Ancients deserved to be wiped out, though the slightest poke at Venat's expense results in utter chaos.

I think a lot of people gave her a fair chance and they simply didn't find her reasons for doing what she did to be particularly compelling, relatable or justified.

Much in the same way as how many felt the same way about Emet-Selch, Yotsuyu or any other antagonist. Agreeing to disagree strikes me as the prudent course, especially since it's unlikely that anyone involved is going to suddenly change their mind.

[EaraGrace]

And what evidence do you have they weren't? And even if they were what evidence do you have that they would not have consented? What Venat did was unequivocally without the consent of the ones she sundered. We don't have enough information about the third sacrifice to know if there was a consent issue or not. Which is why I take a firm stance against Venat's actions, but don't really have a stance on the third sacrifice.

We’ve rediscovered the god in the gaps arguments folks.

If you want why I believe they were meant to be human, few things.

1. Like mentioned by Slatersev, the new life to be sacrificed was also said to be entrusted with the planet, an odd statement for plants and animals.
2. The Ascian plan was to sacrifice the inhabitants of the Source post rejoining to replace the souls in Zodiark, a plan that is stated multiple times to not be changed from the beginning.
3. For them to be an equivalent exchange for the souls in Zodiark, logically they could not be creations or familiars, as those are mentioned to be less aetherically dense.
4. The shade of Hythlodaeus uses the phrase “life energies” to describe both the sacrifice done to create Hydaelyn, and the planned third sacrifice.
5. If such an option to use other forms of life existed, then it stands to reason that the Ancients would’ve used as much of that life in the initial sacrifices as possible, yet not a single example of such a thing exists


Evidence for it being anything but humans:


Please insert here.

Nobody is obligated to like or root for specific characters.

It's pretty fascinating to me that certain posters are completely silent whenever someone pops in to suggest that the Ancients deserved to be wiped out, though the slightest poke at Venat's expense results in utter chaos.

I think a lot of people gave her a fair chance and they simply didn't find her reasons for doing what she did to be particularly compelling, relatable or justified.

Much in the same way as how many felt the same way about Emet-Selch, Yotsuyu or any other antagonist. Agreeing to disagree strikes me as the prudent course, especially since it's unlikely that anyone involved is going to suddenly change their mind.

Don’t think many of those people suggested that the narrative for Emet or Yotsuyu was objectively bad, or the equivalent of mindlessly consuming fast food did they Theodoric?

[RyuDragnier]

It's pretty fascinating to me that certain posters are completely silent whenever someone pops in to suggest that the Ancients deserved to be wiped out, though the slightest poke at Venat's expense results in utter chaos.

I'll be honest...I haven't seen that.