*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Absimiliard]

I suspect they wouldn't be that much different from the WoL. Even Sundered, the WoL's reserves of aether are absolutely ridiculous. Whether this means Azem was obscenely powerful even by Ancient standards or it's just the WoL's mountain of plot armor striking again is anyone's guess. Individuals with pure, Ancient souls and the amount of aether that comes therewith will likely simply be able to freely change between jobs as "we" do, whereas normal people are limited to 1-2 jobs at the very most due to how hard it taxes their aether reserves. I imagine an individual born with an Ancient's aether levels might also be able to freely employ extremely taxing magic without fear of depletion.

If, on the other hand, the introduction of the Ancients' souls into the system begins the process of restoring the greater whole of mankind to the state they were originally in, we might eventually (but probably not within the WoL's mortal lifetime) see such things as creation magick again. Interbreeding between the normal population and their excessively powerful counterparts is bound to eventually raise overall levels to something a bit closer to where they were, although very likely not all the way there.

[Steelpapercranes]

Sorry- the 14th shard got destroyed, along with all the soul fragments in it, and while the first didn't get completely destroyed, all the souls turned into light-beasts were lost as well. Ironically, the souls inside Zodiark were better protected. The other half could never be restored even with all the rejoinings possible complete, because all of them would be missing a shard, and 90% or so (how much of the first got scoured with light) would be missing two.

Hell, since we (WoL) rejoined with ardbert and there's been 7 other rejoinings, we were 8/14 shards of a "whole" person when we went back in time. And it wasn't even enough to be seen as a child or weak person by the ancients: they all thought we were just a familiar. The half that weren't put into Zodiark can never be restored, ever. The ascian's plan fucking up 2 of the shards they needed to do it ensured that, sadly.

[Absimiliard]

We don't know for a fact the souls in the Void were destroyed. The voidsent (which I will note are what the people of that shard became) retained their complete sapience after transformation, unlike the knock off angels we saw in ShB. The shard itself is wrecked, but research is being conducted into ways that it might be restored.

Incidentally, the Flood of Light occurring on the 1st wasn't actually a mistake. That was planned for.

[RyuDragnier]

We don't know for a fact the souls in the Void were destroyed. The voidsent (which I will note are what the people of that shard became) retained their complete sapience after transformation, unlike the knock off angels we saw in ShB. The shard itself is wrecked, but research is being conducted into ways that it might be restored.

Incidentally, the Flood of Light occurring on the 1st wasn't actually a mistake. That was planned for.

Considering how Tesleen acted in the fight against her in Holminster, it may be that the Sineaters are in a similar category, just that the "Order" is forcing the "Chaos" of the mind still. Hopefully our work with Eden will help free them back into the Lifestream as they're destroyed.

[SpectrePhantasia]

I've said it before, but the writing's decision to leave the actual precise events of the Sundering as vague and indirect (Transparently done in pursuit of making both sides sympathetic) is what's led to these headaches. And I don't even mean what constitutes the 'new life' intended for the 3rd sacrifice. In my personal opinion it likely meant actual people with souls, but that is the least of my concerns. Where was Elidibus in all of this? He saw the resistance that Venat's faction took a stand for, and listened to them, disconnecting himself from Zodiark to reconcile things. Surely a 3rd sacrifice would not have taken place with the Heart himself vacant? Did Venat ignore him and use his departure as the chance she needed to sunder Zodiark? Did she not realize he'd left in an attempt to parley?

Debating the ethics of the 3rd sacrifice is all well and good, but this presented information is telling me it may not have happened at all, had things run their course. Speaking in inevitabilities like what would have become of the Ancient society is useless because we just don't know. We don't have enough details and we can't peek into what might have happened. All we have is stemmed from what Venat believed was right at that moment, and right now with Elidibus having done what he did, relayed to us in his dying words, I can only see Venat as the initial aggressor, in taking agency away from the entire world, and making a decision for all of reality that was not and never was hers to make.

Both her and the Convocation with that plan can be simultaneously wrong.

[Absimiliard]

That is kinda the crux of the matter. Both were pretty clearly in the wrong for a multitude of reasons, but the bulk of the playerbase appears to be too stuck on "lol Venat good, Ancients bad" to comprehend the inherent wrongness in the Venat half of the equation.

[KariTheFox]

I've said it before, but the writing's decision to leave the actual precise events of the Sundering as vague and indirect (Transparently done in pursuit of making both sides sympathetic) is what's led to these headaches.

I don't know, I believe the ancients fully intended to sacrifice sentient beings with souls for the third sacrifice, but I still find them to be sympathetic. They had lost so much, and were willing to go to desperate and extreme lengths to get thier loved ones back. Ambiguity was never necessary for me to find them sympathetic, and indeed I think the ambiguity disappears if you engage directly with the themes and symbolism of the story.

As many people have stated, Venat's choice was not an ethical one. It is a symbolic and thematic one, the narrative sets up the dicothemy between the ancients, clinging to the past and desperate to return to the glory days of eld, and Venat, who has hope and belief in the generations that come after her. Venat's choice is ultimately the only way forward, because what the ancients represent (returning to the past) is impossible.

[SpectrePhantasia]

I don't know, I believe the ancients fully intended to sacrifice sentient beings with souls for the third sacrifice, but I still find them to be sympathetic.

I'm not going to fight you on what the presented themes are, as you say they are readily apparent. However, 'themes' being apparent is not a valid excuse for being needlessly murky on what is pretty inarguably the most important event in the entire world's lore. To put all the Ancients in a box and tuck them away to be forgotten by history because the themes said so does not make for anything even approaching compelling. The Ancients were not a hivemind. They were not some embodiment of the past. Our past was their present. They were living, breathing people with friends, families, hopes and aspirations, and certainly not all of them thought in the way the Convocation and Zodiark's faithful did. It was described as the biggest divide in their history. Even Elidibus himself lost the will to continue fighting for the thing you say they represent absolutely. What of these people? We know full well the Convocation was misguided, but what gave Venat the right to strip everyone of the lives they had?

Just because a choice is symbolic or thematic, does not make it right. And we should not have to accept it as absolute just because we're told we should.

[KariTheFox]

For the purposes of narrative theming, the ancients do exist to be a window into hypoborean past. They are, like any piece of a story, intended to fufill a thematic and symbolic purpose. I know pulling back the curtain and getting at the nuts and bolts of a story can kill the magic a little, but I feel like what you are talking about is a desire for the story to be something it was not intended to be.

You are free to reject the themes put forth by a narrative, but I do not think it's fair to call something intentionally misleading or murky just because you happen to reject the narrative themes put forth.

[SpectrePhantasia]

You are free to reject the themes put forth by a narrative, but I do not think it's fair to call something intentionally misleading or murky just because you happen to reject the narrative themes put forth.

What you are telling me is essentially 'don't think about it too hard or it will start to come apart.' This much I understand can be a consequence of having so long running a narrative, and I'm not inherently in rejection of the one posed by Endwalker. I think such a message can be conveyed in a way that absolutely works. The problem arises when there exists information that counters the very message that it's attempting to pedal. Too much information flies in the face of what the Ancient's are 'supposed' to be for the sake of this expansions themes, and it suffers for it. That being said, my qualms with this have nothing to do with how vague the Sundering is described as. Again, it is the most important event to ever occur in the games lore, it should not be left to thematic interpretation, otherwise you run into problems exactly like this. Themes are not going to explain to me what Venat decided to do about Elidibus essentially surrendering. Themes are not going to make me forget that there was a whole other faction of Ancients who in fact did not want the past that Zodiark promised. Themes are not sufficient here, for them to be compelling and to be fulfilling, we need the proper context to mend the many glaring holes in what they are symbolically supposed to represent.