*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[OhNooo]

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.

So because one person out of a whole society of people was irresponsible, the whole society gets condemned? That's like saying because someone created the atom bomb all of humanity should be condemned. That makes no sense to me.

Listen guys, obviously as a society we're failures. We selectively breed animals just to exploit them, kill them when they have no more use for us, and cull certain species when we deem them invasive. We neglect and abuse those who we're supposed to protect. We pollute the place we live just to make more money. We kill each other in wars and think we're better than other people just because our skin is a different color. We're obviously not fit to be stewarts of this star. If we keep going this way, the world is gonna get worse and we'll eventually destroy each other with the atom bombs we created. Time for everyone to get lobotomized and cut into pieces so that we can start over and learn how to love each other again and enjoy life again.

And on that note, this is where I take my leave of the Lore forums, since I've decided it's not worth all this energy getting worked up over it. Obviously the Hydaelyn/Zodiark saga got me way more invested than I intended to get. I'm looking forward to going into the next trial not knowing what's going cause I skipped the cutscene, but knowing that the boss and mechs look cool.

Have fun guys.

[YianKutku]

You should watch the scene again. What he finds objection to isn't the morality of his actions, it's his escapist instability and self-destructive behavior at the end of Shadowbringers, where he undermines his own plans out of love for the Warrior of Light by inviting them to his underwater lair, and that he'd disrespect his loved ones by creating simulacrums of them. The idea that he'd wane in his dedication to his duty.

He says outright: "But I would never forsake my duty! I would never forsake my brethren!"

Emet-Selch forsook his brethren all the time, during his time as an Ascian. There might be an argument (which I believe has already been made in this thread, buried somewhere in the previous pages) that Emet-Selch had the option of forsaking his duty or forsaking his brethren, and he refused to think of a third option to not forsake either, but that's kind of beyond the point of the statement. Emet-Selch ignored Lahabrea and avoided Elidibus, and for the rest of the Sundered Ascians, he barely gave them any attention.

So to Emet-Selch, his own fellow Amaurotines are not his "brethren", and only the Amaurotines he constructed in his head are his "brethren".

[redheadturk]

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.

Venat intended to completely eliminate the Ancient culture, that is the textbook definition of genocide, so yeah. I did not misuse it. Just because a few remnants hung around as cave paintings doesn't change what her intent was.

[Lurina]

It is ridiculous, and it absolutely does deserve to be portrayed as such. You can only take offense to such a caricature if you see your own likeness in it.

I think there are times when it can be instructive to look at the arguments around 'what ifs', because it challenges you go back and reread the story, and there will always be details that you miss on a first pass. That can be actually pretty fun especially if the people involved are genuinely interested in the lore (sometimes even if they aren't). What gets really tiresome is when someone starts out with 'Venat killed everything on the planet!' and the next person comes along and says 'Venat sundered everyone without their consent!' Then the first poster realizes that they can add in a bit more punch to their claims and follows up with 'Yeah, yeah! She killed everything on the planet and she didn't even bother to get their consent first!' At which point you have to ask yourself, 'Where's the actual lore discussion in any of this?' You can't hear it for all the angry shouting.

I "took offense" to - or rather, was confused by - your strange comment about how I should just quit the game of I want Emet to win, when in fact I don't and have no idea how you even got that idea from my posting. I was just talking about my impression of how his character is intended to be read in that scene.

[SpectrePhantasia]

Still, I'd personally prefer if you didn't misuse the word, or try to justify your misappropriation of it after the fact.

Genocide is an act, not a slur, and the context in which it is being used is appropriate with most understandings of the word, that being the deliberate killing of a specific group of people. 'A people' such as the Ancients, who are a people. The Sundered, who from an Unsundered's point of view would be another people. It's not being used to be 'spicy,' its being used because there are few more proper words to describe the acts that took place in this fictional world. If you are not able to stand people using a word accurately that isn't even harmful by itself, in a fictional setting of all things, then I do not know what to tell you. No.

[tokinokanatae]

If you object to the word "genocide" being used in this fictional context, the time to object was approximately three years ago when it entered common vernacular in the FFXIV fandom. The horse, cows, and sheep have long since left the barn. Instead, just be thankful you don't have "genocide apologist" lobbed at you for being supportive of a character that enacts one.

[Cilia]

Players who liked the Ancients are dissatisfied with Endwalker because they did not get a happy ending, and despite doing something just as heinous Venat is not vilified by the narrative. On the contrary, her actions are vindicated by what Meteion's been up to over the past 12,000 years (speeding up the heat death of the universe and hoarding souls in her nest) and the fact both of those are stopped by her plan.

Venat's not vilified by the story because the story's told (mostly) through the Scions' eyes, and they don't concern themselves overmuch with what happened 12,000 years ago beyond what it has to do with the present crisis they're dealing with; and they exist as a consequence of the Sundering and very much enjoy being alive, so don't concern themselves with (literally) ancient history. The Ascians are vilified because they're trying to erase the here and now, and the infinite possibilities of the future, in order to bring back and perpetuate a past that never was and never will be - killing all the protagonists and defying the underlying theme that's been present since 2.0. Or 3.0, at the very latest. ("Those who live in the past risk losing sight of the future.")

... but it's easier to strawman her into a crazy environmentalist who valued the lives of chickens over her own people, and took the PC's tale as gospel truth to adhere to. Not that it mattered what her reasons were to begin with ("If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?").

There's no point in continuing this argument, because there are irreconcilable differences in peoples' thoughts and feelings on the matter. That's fine, but carrying on ad nauseam in every thread is, well...

[Theodric]

Forum participants are possessed of the ability to pick and choose which threads they opt to read and respond to. I think it's rather disingenuous to frame the concerns raised in response to the story as belonging to one big hive mind. Simply reading through the responses to this thread will show that there's quite a lot of different opinions as to what portions of the story were weak and lacking in satisfactory levels of detail/plausibility.

I would also note that most of the arguments stem as a result of someone expressing their thoughts in regards to Venat and then immediately being attacked if they paint her as anything other than perfect and righteous. I'd note that it isn't fans of the antagonists who go around subtly or not so subtly implying that if someone likes or dislikes a specific character or faction then they are wrong to do so and/or a bad person.

The assumption that everyone is either part of 'Team Hydaelyn' or 'Team Zodiark' is also rather strange to me. I saw that sort of tribalism present in WoW and it didn't interest me then, either. A lot of people just like and dislike specific characters and it's really just as simple as that.

[Rosenstrauch]

As much as I think it's ridiculous that this argument has been going on for... five weeks? Six? I don't see admonishing anyone for continuing it as conducive to actually ending the argument. Everyone involved seems just a touch too stubborn to agree to disagree, and all it would really take to fire it up again is the subject coming up even adjacently in another thread.

That said...

"If my motives met with your approval, would you no longer resent the outcome?"

This quote honestly pisses me off. Good intentions go a long way in forgiving people for the consequences of their actions—at least in this story, if not in reality. Just off the top of my head, the people of the Crystarium did a complete 180 on their views of Ardbert and friends once it came to light that they weren't villains who condemned them to death via the Flood of Light, but were instead heroes who gave their lives to halt its advance after accidentally causing it.

[Kordarion]

This quote honestly pisses me off. Good intentions go a long way in forgiving people for the consequences of their actions—at least in this story, if not in reality. Just off the top of my head, the people of the Crystarium did a complete 180 on their views of Ardbert and friends once it came to light that they weren't villains who condemned them to death via the Flood of Light, but were instead heroes who gave their lives to halt its advance after accidentally causing it.

To me that is what that quote, while annoying repeated too much, is trying to say that if the motivation/intention is seen as good then people can more easily sweep the bad actions taken with good intention under the rug so too speak. Take your example the Crystarium though Ardbert and Co have bad intentions and bad actions, when they learnt that their intentions were good the Crystarium began to change their minds on Ardbert and co, the cherry on top being that Ardbert and co then proceeded to try and rectify their mistake.