[SPOILERS] Hermes is a hypocrite.

[Cilia]

Hermes is a hypocrite, sure... but everybody is, so I don't see why calling him out on it is so noteworthy.

Emet-Selch vilifies Venat / Hydaelyn for ending their world and destroying their civilization, despite doing the same at least two times over (and being complicit in six more) to other worlds.
Venat says nothing is impossible, but decides Amaurotine civilization cannot defeat Meteion.

Hermes was on the verge of a mental breakdown, his life's work put in jeopardy, and his surrogate daughter figure put on the chopping block; I can understand why he was acting irrationally. Besides, letting aggressive predators out of their cages gave them a window of opportunity to live their best lives, non? /s

What I like about that line is that Emet-Selch says it. The very same person who later by the time of Shadowbringers had decreed who is worthy of living and dying. It's a pretty powerful contrast between who he was and who he became.

Everything about Emet-Selch's character in Elpis is dripping with tragic irony considering his portrayal in Shadowbringers.

[Absimiliard]

Besides, letting aggressive predators out of their cages gave them a window of opportunity to live their best lives, non? /s

For about five seconds.

[MilkieTea]

What if Hermes had not only depression but also split personality disorder?

That’s not how that works.

[Manny_Maneater]

Hermes is a hypocrite, sure... but everybody is, so I don't see why calling him out on it is so noteworthy.

Emet-Selch vilifies Venat / Hydaelyn for ending their world and destroying their civilization, despite doing the same at least two times over (and being complicit in six more) to other worlds.
Venat says nothing is impossible, but decides Amaurotine civilization cannot defeat Meteion.

Hermes was on the verge of a mental breakdown, his life's work put in jeopardy, and his surrogate daughter figure put on the chopping block; I can understand why he was acting irrationally. Besides, letting aggressive predators out of their cages gave them a window of opportunity to live their best lives, non? /s



Everything about Emet-Selch's character in Elpis is dripping with tragic irony considering his portrayal in Shadowbringers.

I find it particularly interesting because there is a major focus on his philosophy (again, two speeches) which is immediately followed by him throwing it all in the trash.

Emet-Selch went back on his ideals, sure, but that was after he faced a problem so massive that literally no one else knew how to fix, after he had to make choices that no one should really have to make, and after he saw literally everything he loved being destroyed. The Emet-Selch we fight in ShB is much older and has gone through a lot more compared to the one in Elpis. Obviously, none of that excuses his atrocities (he too is a villain) but I don't think that compares to Hermes's morals lasting 30 minutes after his science project based on a flawed premise failed.

As for Venat...to be honest, I don't see the "nothing is impossible" line as conflicting with her actions. Obviously, she didn't believe that "Nothing is impossible" in a literal sense, as "all actions can provide all outcomes". I don't think she believed that it was possible for her to one day awaken as a potato. Her "nothing is impossible" philosophy is likely to be more on the terms "no problem is without solution". And she found a solution. A drastic, costly one, but she did find one, and she was right. Specially when you consider that the big problem with Amaurot isn't that they were not capable of defeating Meteion, but that they were heading the same path as all of those societies that failed and died. They wanted perfection, to the point of playing god and meddling with nature. They would end up like the Ea. Thats why Venat sundered the world. Suffering is inevitable, trying to create a perfect world is folly.

Also, if you think that "living their best life" is a) be artificially created b) be put in a cell and c) be turned into mincemeat by a mute murder machine I'm a bit worried about what your thoughts on their "worst life" would be.

[Lauront]

I find it particularly interesting because there is a major focus on his philosophy (again, two speeches) which is immediately followed by him throwing it all in the trash.

Emet-Selch went back on his ideals, sure, but that was after he faced a problem so massive that literally no one else knew how to fix, after he had to make choices that no one should really have to make, and after he saw literally everything he loved being destroyed. The Emet-Selch we fight in ShB is much older and has gone through a lot more compared to the one in Elpis. Obviously, none of that excuses his atrocities (he too is a villain) but I don't think that compares to Hermes's morals lasting 30 minutes after his science project based on a flawed premise failed.

Very reasonable view of it, IMO. Well said.

[Absimiliard]

Specially when you consider that the big problem with Amaurot isn't that they were not capable of defeating Meteion, but that they were heading the same path as all of those societies that failed and died. They wanted perfection, to the point of playing god and meddling with nature. They would end up like the Ea. Thats why Venat sundered the world. Suffering is inevitable, trying to create a perfect world is folly.

So the overarching message of Endwalker says. But what if the Ancients hadn't been eradicated? What if, instead of committing omnicide with very little deliberation, Venat gave them a fair chance? Their reactions to the calamity that befell them were perfectly reasonable. Trauma tends to make one behave irrationally for a time. Those memories would've stuck with them even after Zodiark healed the world -- even after those sacrificed to save everything were brought back. They were never given a chance. To think such an enlightened race would be incapable of learning from those awful experiences seems... shortsighted, to put it bluntly. It wasn't just Hermes' test that was rigged; Venat's was as well.

They're both massive hypocrites. But then, so is nearly every other major character in the story. The WoL is quite a hypocrite themselves.

[Lauront]

So the overarching message of Endwalker says. But what if the Ancients hadn't been eradicated? What if, instead of committing omnicide with very little deliberation, Venat gave them a fair chance? Their reactions to the calamity that befell them were perfectly reasonable. Trauma tends to make one behave irrationally for a time. Those memories would've stuck with them even after Zodiark healed the world -- even after those sacrificed to save everything were brought back. They were never given a chance. To think such an enlightened race would be incapable of learning from those awful experiences seems... shortsighted, to put it bluntly. It wasn't just Hermes' test that was rigged; Venat's was as well.

Agreed. I do wish we could see a glimpse of their world where things turned out differently after having being given the full story...

[KariTheFox]

Do we really need to do the "Venat is awful" thing in every single thread?

[KizuyaKatogami]

Do we really need to do the "Venat is awful" thing in every single thread?

Yes. Just like back in SB and ShB every thread was littered with ascians and garleans bad. Sickness must be purged.

[Cleretic]

Yes. Just like back in SB and ShB every thread was littered with ascians and garleans bad. Sickness must be purged.

I wasn't in the forums for Stormblood, but I feel like those perspectives in Stormblood were... rather different. At that point the line of 'Ascians and Garleans bad' was pretty simplistically put forward and not really refuted in the text, because the Pathos Trains hadn't come into the station yet. At that point it was like saying 'Nazis bad'; not exactly controversial.

The 'Venat bad' argument is just brutally simplifying and ignoring a genuine debate for... I dunno, the sake of being contrarian?