*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Lauront]

So by this point, in order to defend the act of sundering, we've come to: more is always better and it's fine to destroy a species to achieve that "more".

Righto.

Sure, wouldn't particularly bother me. Constantly improving the driver (soul) but using the same car (body) seems like a bit of a wasted effort after a certain point.

Much as it may not bother you, I've the feeling the characters on the receiving end of it might have a different opinion than you.

[Jandor]

Much as it may not bother you, I've the feeling the characters on the receiving end of it might have a different opinion than you.

As far as I can recall, no-one notices or mentions getting extra soul in the wake of the 7th Calamity. It stands to reason they wouldn't notice it disappearing either.

Honestly, the most galling thing would probably be that this hypothetical villain, being a villain and all, didn't just ask.

[Lauront]

As far as I can recall, no-one notices or mentions getting extra soul in the wake of the 7th Calamity. It stands to reason they wouldn't notice it disappearing either.

And if no one notices, no crime, right? Brilliant. All our would-be villain needs to do is make sure they don't notice it. If their lifespan happens to reduce to the point that they die in say 5-10 years, become more susceptible to disease, or they lose the power to manipulate aether altogether, as hypothetical consequences, as long as they don't notice it, no harm, no foul. All the better if someone wipes their memory of it. A veritable mercy.

[Jandor]

And if no one notices, no crime, right? Brilliant. All our would-be villain needs to do is make sure they don't notice it. If their lifespan happens to reduce to the point that they die in say 5-10 years, become more susceptible to disease, or they lose the power to manipulate aether altogether, as hypothetical consequences, as long as they don't notice it, no harm, no foul. All the better if someone wipes their memory of it. A veritable mercy.

Do the people on the First live shorter lives? Are the Garleans better at using magic now they're 7 times rejoined?

[KariTheFox]

So by this point, in order to defend the act of sundering, we've come to...

I think what we've come to is a point where people are mostly just shitposting because this discussion has become so circular and toxic, what is the point in doing anything else.

One side believes the sundering was justified and there is sufficent textual evidence to support this. The other does not, how many more pages are we going to dedicate to coming to this conclusion over and over again?

[KizuyaKatogami]

I think what we've come to is a point where people are mostly just shitposting because this discussion has become so circular and toxic, what is the point in doing anything else.

One side believes the sundering was justified and there is sufficent textual evidence to support this. The other does not, how many more pages are we going to dedicate to coming to this conclusion over and over again?

There is also sufficient textual evidence that supports the opposite. So it would appear we are at a crossroads.

[MikkoAkure]

There is also sufficient textual evidence that supports the opposite. So it would appear we are at a crossroads.

If the writers wanted it to be truly debatable whether Venat was right doing what she did, then the game's story wouldn't have ended while patting her on the back.

WoL would have confronted her instead of becoming buddies. Emet-Selch wouldn't have saved us against Elidibus which ultimately doomed the Ascian plan, nor would he have admitted she was right at the end of game. At least to me, they didn't try to make WoL's or anyone else's support of Hydaelyn subjective.

In my perspective, the writers and lore masters unambiguously supported the idea of Hydaelyn's overall benevolence and that she was a portrayed as a troubled figure in a tight position who did what she thought she had to do and everyone else in-the-know in-game including our own character agreed. Considering she and the rest of the characters came out of the writers' heads, I'd have to say that they know the characters better than we do and that she is treated that way by the game for a reason.

[KizuyaKatogami]

If the writers wanted it to be truly debatable whether Venat was right doing what she did, then the game's story wouldn't have ended while patting her on the back.

WoL would have confronted her instead of becoming buddies. Emet-Selch wouldn't have saved us against Elidibus which ultimately doomed the Ascian plan, nor would he have admitted she was right at the end of game. At least to me, they didn't try to make WoL's or anyone else's support of Hydaelyn subjective.

In my perspective, the writers and lore masters unambiguously supported the idea of Hydaelyn's overall benevolence and that she was a portrayed as a troubled figure in a tight position who did what she thought she had to do and everyone else in-the-know in-game including our own character agreed. Considering she and the rest of the characters came out of the writers' heads, I'd have to say that they know the characters better than we do and that she is treated that way by the game for a reason.

I mean for all we know the higher ups could’ve had a say in the story. We have seen other characters who have performed far more pure benevolent acts than Venat and got 0 recognition so there isn’t much to say regarding that, and there are many things pointing to the fact that what Venat did wasn’t the right nor good course of action. With even the devs stating before that the sundering has never been regarded as a good thing and is a bad thing as a matter of perspective. If they didn’t want it to be debatable then they wouldn’t have left so many plot holes around Venat’s entire plan that can easily be surfaced. It’s either they wanted it to be debated or they just half assed the writing. Up to anyones interpretation really. Considering though that the devs themselves have stated that neither side is good nor bad and they’re both gray, i will argue that their stance on her benevolence and title of a hero is poor writing. Especially if they aren’t going to place that same emphasis to the opposing side. Then again i think many people now have realized the weak points in the story and it seems even people who enjoyed the story have realized this as well, as many people are now saying not to look to deep into it or to stop talking bad about Venat. Clearly the writing wasn’t done well enough to answer these debatable questions and statements.

[Lurina]

If the writers wanted it to be truly debatable whether Venat was right doing what she did, then the game's story wouldn't have ended while patting her on the back.

WoL would have confronted her instead of becoming buddies. Emet-Selch wouldn't have saved us against Elidibus which ultimately doomed the Ascian plan, nor would he have admitted she was right at the end of game. At least to me, they didn't try to make WoL's or anyone else's support of Hydaelyn subjective.

In my perspective, the writers and lore masters unambiguously supported the idea of Hydaelyn's overall benevolence and that she was a portrayed as a troubled figure in a tight position who did what she thought she had to do and everyone else in-the-know in-game including our own character agreed. Considering she and the rest of the characters came out of the writers' heads, I'd have to say that they know the characters better than we do and that she is treated that way by the game for a reason.

Well, implicitly, people are posting and keeping the conversation going here in the hope that the writing team will see it and react in some way - Yoshi-P has talked in multiple interviews about how they try and write a story that won't leave people feeling weird and that they do read feedback, after all. Even if the overall thrust doesn't change, which is fine, it wouldn't be the first time they've expanded on something or shifted the framing for that reason. They discussed how the positive feedback towards Emet influenced his depiction in Endwalker just recently, for example, and he just said the other day that there are going to be several articles by the team discussing people's interpretations of the story, which I don't think has ever happened before in such explicit terms.

While I think it's normally be a bit tacky to expect a writer or team of writers to shift direction based on ones opinion, this is an MMO, which cultivates a constant financial and emotional investment in a way many other mediums don't. So I don't think it's wrong for people to put their feelings of dissonance with the narrative out there.

Of course, it's also possible something is already planned that will solve a lot of these issues and has been since the start, and we'll all look like a bunch of over-reacting dorks in a few months. But that's just how it goes.

[Kordarion]

Of course, it's also possible something is already planned that will solve a lot of these issues and has been since the start, and we'll all look like a bunch of over-reacting dorks in a few months. But that's just how it goes.

In that vein I've seen a few people theorise that what's going on with Pandaemonium will lead into an explanation of Lahabrea introducing our contemporary understanding of tempering into Zodiark, based on Hesperos' fanatic devotion to Lahabrea. If that is the case then it would at least explain why Venat would be unable to reason with the convocation post-Zodiark summoning. It could also explain why she didn't mention it earlier if she felt that Zodiark was an unavoidably necessary action to take. She would be damned if she stopped the summoning and damned if she didn't.

Of course we'll need to see how Pandaemonium plays out to see if that is the case.

Edit: It would also reconcile Emet claiming the convocation was tempered in Shb and Livingway, I think, claiming that Zodiark would only provided a small tug on the summoners souls, but not tempering them like the primals do.