*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Kordarion]

Except they didn't. Endwalker did a hard turn away from the moral ambiguity ShB did all that work to establish, in my opinion. Having completed every side-quest, role quest, FATE, raid, and everything in between, I saw absolutely nothing that indicated to me the writers wished to portray Venat as having committed an unforgivable sin. Quite the contrary. It very much appeared to myself and seemingly many others that an inordinate amount of whitewashing occurred. Even some of the previously established lore was disregarded in favor of this outcome.

Really? The fact that we went back to Elpis to begin with, by making us directly experience a slice of ancient society makes those people and their culture more a tangible reality and less an abstract concept. This "humanisation" of the ancients by making them real characters gives the human cost of the sundering an interactable face. What's the Stalin quote, One death is a tragedy but a million is a statistic, by making us interact with the ancients it turns a statistic into a tragedy, after all isn't that what your arguing, that its a tragedy?

Hydaelyn/Venat even outrights tells us, in our conversation in the aetherial sea, that what she did wasn't morally right decision, wasn't an ethical action but that it was a necessary one. Now you can argue that of course she would say that, she needed to say that to make us do what she wanted and fair enough, but she still admits her actions weren't morally right but were necessary. That is one definition of morally grey, doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.

In the end that is the problem, not moral ambiguity, but that, as far as I can tell, you and others like you don't see it as a necessary act and therefore only see an "evil" individual not being brought to justice.

Edit: This doesn't mean your not allowed to have your opinion, just that for some people the game hasn't done enough to justify Venat's actions.

[Absimiliard]

The story says it was necessary. That is, however dumb, irrefutable. It was written how it was written. I am of course well aware of this, as are the vast majority of the others currently taking umbrage with this portion of the story. In spite of this, I still view it as an act so utterly terrible that seeing it swept under the rug somewhat poisoned the entire story for me. It's every bit as bad as what the Ascians were planning. Rather than being genocide, which some have referred to it as, the proper word is omnicide. She unilaterally consigned every species living on Etheirys to oblivion with one fell swoop. They never had a single hope of passing Hermes' test, let alone Venat's. One seldom passes a test for which the testers have knowingly and willfully left them totally unprepared, after all.

One could try to argue that she "saved" these beings by sundering them, but the truth of the matter is that they ceased to be the individuals they were. They became wholly new lifeforms, complete with new identities and little to no memory of their previous existences. This is so much worse than just dying. No afterlife, no chance of being remembered -- nothing. Complete erasure. The aetherial, spiritual, and material components of what had previously been the inhabitants of Etheirys became something completely new. That isn't salvation. That's eradication.

[Vyrerus]

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

The entire Meteion situation was unjust with no real mote of fairness in it after Ktsis Hyperboreia. What the story of FFXIV shows us again and again is that when conflict becomes unavoidable it is always regrettable.

It lead Venat to make war on her own people after they unwittingly parried Meteion's first blow. The rub comes from the story glossing over the greyness in Venat's actions, hiding it behind allegory and powerful speech. Draping another layer over it using the fan favorite cast as a mouthpiece. The author stands by Hydaelyn not by embracing her totally, but by fleeing from the specifics.

This is done to the point where so very many people do not believe Venat did anything wrong, and will go on, belief unaltered.

A similar story can be found in 1986's Watchmen, as well as its 2009 movie adaptation. Ozymandias operates on a similar morality to Hydaelyn in order to prevent nuclear holocaust.

For a closer to home reference, without as much emotional investment, we can look back at Gration and the Kuluu in FFXI. Together with the terrestrial avatars they waged war on the Zilart to prevent them from opening the Gates of Paradise with the Crystal Line. The Kuluu were successful, but it caused the planet to fall into ruin for a long time. The alternative was planetary erasure, because Paradise is perfect and Vana'diel is imperfect, and all imperfections would be erased. Of course, the Kuluu take responsibility for their actions as an almost faceless collective that is long dead. Venat has a much greater impact, and lives far more rent free in my head.

[Kordarion]

Rather than being genocide, which some have referred to it as, the proper word is omnicide. She unilaterally consigned every species living on Etheirys to oblivion with one fell swoop.

I don't get how it is omnicide. Genocide certainly but omnicide? The fact that Elpis shows that many different species of animals that exist on the source in the present originated on the unsundered world disproves this, those species cannot have been consigned to oblivion if THEY STILL EXIST. The birds of Elpis, Behemoth, Spriggans, Goobbues and other species all clearly survived the sundering, albeit with different names but then again the game shows they have different names on the first and in othard and ilsabard.

Also she can't have totally eradicated everything that came from the ancient's culture, after all it is one of the Elpis side quests that appears to show that our time travel is the sources of burial markings and the use of Nymeria Lilies at funerals. Not to mention the Azem/Azeyma/Azim connection in mythology or the cultural legacy of both the summoning of Zodiark and Hydaelyn per the Qitana Ravel paintings and meteor showers that appear to be linked to the final days triggering the echo in sundered individuals.

Also the no afterlife thing doesn't really hold up, if they were obliterated instead of killed, as has been argued, how the hell do we have a fragment of Azem's soul? If all life on Etheryis was consigned to oblivion and therefore erased from existence how can we be a reincarnation of the final Azem? Or for that matter how would any of the sundered convocation be able to have their memories restored?

Not to mention the unsundered, Emet-Selch, Lahabrea and Elidibus would also have to have been rendered non-existent for every aspect of their existence to have been destroyed.

tldr: there are plenty of reasons to say that every trace of the ancients and all life pre-sundering was not obliterated from reality.

Edit: Wouldn't Venat have to off herself as well to ensure nothing of the pre-sundered world existed period?

[Lelila38]

The story says it was necessary. That is, however dumb, irrefutable. It was written how it was written. I am of course well aware of this, as are the vast majority of the others currently taking umbrage with this portion of the story. In spite of this, I still view it as an act so utterly terrible that seeing it swept under the rug somewhat poisoned the entire story for me. It's every bit as bad as what the Ascians were planning. Rather than being genocide, which some have referred to it as, the proper word is omnicide. She unilaterally consigned every species living on Etheirys to oblivion with one fell swoop. They never had a single hope of passing Hermes' test, let alone Venat's. One seldom passes a test for which the testers have knowingly and willfully left them totally unprepared, after all.

One could try to argue that she "saved" these beings by sundering them, but the truth of the matter is that they ceased to be the individuals they were. They became wholly new lifeforms, complete with new identities and little to no memory of their previous existences. This is so much worse than just dying. No afterlife, no chance of being remembered -- nothing. Complete erasure. The aetherial, spiritual, and material components of what had previously been the inhabitants of Etheirys became something completely new. That isn't salvation. That's eradication.

I completely agree with you there.
And what destroys my enjoyment in the rest of the story is, that there is no closure to this. One side is just utterly eradicated, while the other keeps being praised.

From a narrative standpoint, you can't first make me care for characters and then just finish them off like that.

[OhNooo]

Edit: This doesn't mean your not allowed to have your opinion, just that for some people the game hasn't done enough to justify Venat's actions.

Yes. For me, the game has not done enough to justify her actions. From my point of view, it really feels like the team wanted to hurry up and finish this arc and move on to other things.

This post from another thread made me laugh but I kind of agree:

Emet is a lovable little psychopath. Venat is a pretentious psychopath. I'm not sure why anyone would think either of them isn't a megalomaniac. When you and only you can save the whole world (allegedly)... you are in crazy territory.

I don't mind them being crazy... I just think the game's glorification of Venat/Hydaelyn is.... unwarranted and inappropriate.

I liked fighting her.... maybe it would have been better during the fight if she did come unhinged and show more of her crazy. I think I might have enjoyed that.

[Lauront]

This highlights an interesting contradiction in Venat's ideology. Namely that she was fiercely opposed to her people thinking to return to their ideal past, to the point of destroying them for the notion - Yet her solution was just that. She sacrificed the Ancients in order to force them into what was, to her, a more "ideal" state of being, free of the moral decay and unsustainable nature that she perceived was their future.

In essence Venat is an extremist Primitivist.

And in time, lessons - or better yet, viewpoints - from the past can/will fade/fall out of favour/be seen as dogmas to be overcome, and given the still remnant impulses in man to minimise suffering and seek better, brighter tomorrows, the star may go on a similar course, particularly with the calamities out the way... or something from the distant reaches of the universe may decide to wipe it out and then decide to wipe itself out.

Yes. For me, the game has not done enough to justify her actions.

I am in that camp, too.

Venat has a much greater impact, and lives far more rent free in my head.

Time to serve an eviction notice!

[Vyrerus]

Time to serve an eviction notice!

I can't. She's a hawt wine aunt T_T!

[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.