*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Cleretic]

That left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth as well. The least they could've done was maintain a moral grey area. I could live with the story embracing "Venat did the correct thing for the wrong reasons" just fine, but that whole sweeping omnicide under the rug thing is uh... not the best path they could've taken. There was no need for all the mental gymnastics used to attempt justification. They could simply have gone with "what is done is done, and this is just the way it is" and left it at that.

They did go with that, though. Just with the extra sprinkiling of 'it turns out she was factually correct'. Not morally, but factually.

You're asking for the reverse of what they actually went with: Venat didn't do the right thing for the wrong reasons, because she did the wrong thing for the right reasons. The Sundering was bad, no bones about it, it was a horrible act that she wishes she didn't have to do, but it was the lesser evil (albeit on a scale of '7/10 is technically less than 9/10') and a decision she would stand by. It's just that's also mixing in with 'it turns out her math was right' and most of the characters being of a perspective of 'this is the world we've been given, let's make the most of it'.

Another thing worth taking into account, because I know it's coloring things for people: remember that the Scions' response of approval of Hydaelyn in Mare Lamentorum was less of a whole-hearted lift of ideals, and more of a return to their natural equilibrium after Shadowbringers shook their faith in her. Before Emet-Selch decided to do some monologues they were all pretty pro-Hydaelyn, but learning but learning what she is and what she did shook that, leaving them cautious to a level that you're actually essentially forced to say to Hydaelyn's face. Their reaction in Mare Lamentorum isn't so much joy as it is relief, as they learn that the figure they still on some level want to respect indeed did have the best intentions for what she did.

It's giving you exactly the complexity you want, just not in the direction you were expecting. And personally, I think that's interesting; I don't remember the last time I've seen a story that, essentially, stands by its justified extremist to the point where they stand on their own rather than flatly condemning them. Even FFVII backed away from giving that to Barrett.

[Nilroreo]

They did go with that, though. Just with the extra sprinkiling of 'it turns out she was factually correct'. Not morally, but factually.

You're asking for the reverse of what they actually went with: Venat didn't do the right thing for the wrong reasons, because she did the wrong thing for the right reasons.

She was neither morally nor factually correct, it was a gamble. She did A thing for A reason she alone believed to be right. The fact it worked out was pure happenstance.

The Sundering was bad, no bones about it, it was a horrible act that she wishes she didn't have to do, but it was the lesser evil and a decision she would stand by.

Hmm, could this possibly be because WE stand to gain from her decision? I'm not so convinced that there isn't a smidge of personal bias that's prompting this choice of words. We're the ones that get to enjoy the fruits of her labor and live on after all, but I wonder how those during the moment of the sundering who had their memories along with every fiber of their being irreparably warped and perverted beyond all recognition would've taken the news that their sudden state of being was "a necessary evil."

The rejoining was "bad". No bones about it. It was a horrible act that they may or may not have wanted to do, but it was a decision the ancients would have stood by. Whether it was an act of good or evil is of little concern to those who were forced to stare death in the face.

"War does not determine who is right-- only who is left." - Bertrand Russell

This.

[Cleretic]

Hmm, could this possibly be because WE stand to gain from her decision? I'm not so convinced that there isn't a smidge of personal bias that's prompting this choice of words.

Yes, absolutely. You can argue that as 'it's because she won', or that it's because we ended up benefiting from it, and yes, neither of those are wrong.

But the main evidence I put forward on this one is that Emet-Selch comes back from the literal dead and says that her plan worked and his wouldn't have. If you want an unbiased, in-universe testimony as to the relative strengths of both plans, that's the best you'll find: that the guy pushing the other plan, when liberated from the shackles of his own life and granted effective omniscience on specifically this subject, directly says that hers was better, even if he's still mad about it.

I keep being told that Emet-Selch always told the truth. So presumably his words have a lot of weight, and in his final moments, he put them on her side.

EDIT: ...Ironically, that does provide an answer for the topic title. We did join Emet, it's just that we weren't the one crossing the floor.

[Lurina]

Yes, absolutely. You can argue that as 'it's because she won', or that it's because we ended up benefiting from it, and yes, neither of those are wrong.

But the main evidence I put forward on this one is that Emet-Selch comes back from the literal dead and says that her plan worked and his wouldn't have. If you want an unbiased, in-universe testimony as to the relative strengths of both plans, that's the best you'll find: that the guy pushing the other plan, when liberated from the shackles of his own life and granted effective omniscience on specifically this subject, directly says that hers was better, even if he's still mad about it.

I keep being told that Emet-Selch always told the truth. So presumably his words have a lot of weight, and in his final moments, he put them on her side.

EDIT: ...Ironically, that does provide an answer for the topic title. We did join Emet, it's just that we weren't the one crossing the floor.

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene a bit. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions, with quite a bit more emphasis than the former sentiment.

Admitting a plan is effective at accomplishing its ultimate objective isn't the same as endorsement. If someone rounded up everyone with a criminal record in a city and shot them, then you could certainly say that other means wouldn't have been as effective at preventing crime, but I doubt you'd agree with it. Emet would evidently prioritize the survival of the Ancients and trusting some future generation to solve the Final Days problem another way, over a definitive resolution at the total expense of his people.

[Cleretic]

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions.

Honestly, the thing is that there's two arguments being had, and it's never entirely clear which one any one person is having.

1. If Hydaelyn was factually wrong, that her plan was flawed and bad and she should've gone back to the drawing board.

2. If Hydaelyn was morally wrong, that her plan made her perform an evil act that cannot be forgiven.

...except that, in truth, point 1 is not actually in contention according to the story itself. It's made clear in no uncertain terms that her plan worked and no others would have, and that scene with Emet is part of that. The argument of 'was she right to do it' is the intended and still open point of debate, and is an interesting one when taken as it's supposed to be, but because of a number of people--to be completely frank--not actually reading the story they said they finished, or just flat-out trying to pick fights, it gets difficult to have that discussion because it's not clear when we're having it versus when we're dealing with someone who's decided they can outsmart the story itself.

I'm tired, in all honesty. I love talking lore, but over the past month-and-a-half a lot of 'talking lore' has been focused on a single part of the story and people not really getting it. I really want us all to just... move on, but it isn't exactly happening very fast.

[Lurina]

Honestly, the thing is that there's two arguments being had, and it's never entirely clear which one any one person is having.

1. If Hydaelyn was factually wrong, that her plan was flawed and bad and she should've gone back to the drawing board.

2. If Hydaelyn was morally wrong, that her plan made her perform an evil act that cannot be forgiven.

I'm not sure how this connects with my post, because I wasn't arguing either of these. I was just saying that your read of Emet saying her plan "was better" was reductive, because the opinion he expresses is that it was effective at its specific goal but still unacceptable to him. This is completely distinct from any commentary on other characters or the story itself.

I guess you might've seen it before the edit and got the wrong idea; sorry about that if so.

[RyuDragnier]

I'm tired, in all honesty. I love talking lore, but over the past month-and-a-half a lot of 'talking lore' has been focused on a single part of the story and people not really getting it. I really want us all to just... move on, but it isn't exactly happening very fast.

Which may be part of why Yoshi-P is doing those interviews on story interpretations. He may be attempting to set the record straight so we can all move onto a different topic of focus. Because I agree, it's been getting really tiring. There's loads of other things we can talk about, but we keep ending up on this one subject across multiple threads.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Which may be part of why Yoshi-P is doing those interviews on story interpretations. He may be attempting to set the record straight so we can all move onto a different topic of focus. Because I agree, it's been getting really tiring. There's loads of other things we can talk about, but we keep ending up on this one subject across multiple threads.

Tbf, theres nothing forcing people who are tired of this topic to keep commenting on it, but people do. It's their own decision. If theyre truly tired they can step away and take a break or go to other posts. It's like people who enter threads that are very clearly showing some criticisms for the story and getting offended and complaining about criticism. Just leave the thread lol. But yes i agree, im curious to see how yoshi p explains some things as there are many unanswered questions.

This has been pointed out before multiple times by several different people, but genocide is a hate crime with intent to systematically destroy part or whole of a group of people who have been targeted on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, and so on. The root 'genos' in this case doesn't simply mean 'people', but rather 'a people', such as in a racial group. The reason why it shouldn't be thrown around flippantly to 'spice up an argument' is because while you personally might be privileged enough to live a life unaffected by persecution, not everyone reading your posts might be so fortunate. I understand that in most cases this comes from a place of ignorance rather than malice. Still, I'd personally prefer if you didn't misuse the word, or try to justify your misappropriation of it after the fact.

What you consider to be 'right' as far as the story is concerned is largely up to you, be it the Ascians, Venat, or some middle ground between the two. No amount of in-game lore can answer that question for you, and you don't need a consensus, moral argument, or even a rationale to rubber stamp your opinion.

I'd just like to say, again, that none of this was ever an issue before when it was used for the ascian side of things, or when people continuously called garleans nazi's. It seems its only now become a problem because it affects a character some people like. I think theres different definitions of words that vary all around the world, so its difficult to dictate specific versions that can or cant be said. However, i dont thin we should really be policing it so long as it isnt something harmful directed to another player here, i think using the term in question to describe specific acts in the game is fine as the definition varies, nazi on the other hand is far less bendable, and i think thats far more insulting than whats being said here. But like i said, how convenient no one brought it up as an issue before when it was issued against antagonists.

Time to drop a scalding hot take.

Mankind showed it didn't have the intelligence or the wisdom to wield creation magic responsibly when one sad boi researcher proved capable of launching an experimental universe threatening hive mind side project into the depths of space in order to satisfy his own curiosity. Venat was right to sunder the world, Etheirys was a ticking time bomb, ready to blow up and take the rest of the Universe with it at a moments notice.

Its a good thing the devs themselves kind of stated the sundering was a bad thing then.You can argue this about any society really. Everyone is a ticking time bomb. The sundered world isnt any different, in fact in a way its kind of worse. Once the source goes, so too will the shards follow and be doomed due to other peoples mistakes.

[MikkoAkure]

Emet would evidently prioritize the survival of the Ancients and trusting some future generation to solve the Final Days problem another way, over a definitive resolution at the total expense of his people.

If Emet-Selch wanted the Ancients back, then he would have let Elidibus finish the Rejoinings instead of directly interfering and allowing us to permanently kill him.

[Jandor]

I think people have started to overhype Emet's 'agreement' with Venat in that scene a bit. He says that his plan wouldn't have taken humanity to Ultima Thule. He also says that he still disagrees with Hydaelyn and that he stands by his actions, with quite a bit more emphasis than the former sentiment.

He says: 'Our methods would not have brought mankind this far.'