*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[RyuDragnier]

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.

I've seen the opposite as well, people who will constantly state she's a villain and will badmouth people who see her as anything but. I hate the "both sides" nonsense, but both sides are pulling this crap. I'd like to have one bloody thread in this gods forsaken subforum not devolve into this nonsense. The fact that I came this close to cussing should tell you how much it has been getting on my nerves. And before anybody pulls the "you don't have to respond to stuff" nonsense, that goes for everybody who keeps derailing threads into this. Take your owned bloody advice.

[Cleretic]

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.

The thing with Ardbert and company there, though, is that his crimes against Norvrandt were always very abstract, and not exactly his fault in the first place. They didn't just learn that Ardbert's reasons were good, they also learned that he wasn't the real culprit. ...also it all happened before most people listening to it were alive, so it's hard to put a personal grudge to it.

Zenos, on the other hand, basically destroyed Jullus' entire life. He did this personally, he did this directly and unambiguously, and he did this like, two months ago. Zenos is right, not a single reason in the world would have made Jullus resent his actions any less.

Interestingly, around the Venat argument in-universe, we see both facets. To the Ascians, who were personally wronged by Venat, not a single reason would've been good enough--even Emet, who's relieved from the responsibilities of life and given all information about this, doesn't claim her to be right to do it. But to the Scions, to the Sharlayans, to the other nations of the sundered planet who live long past the wounds caused by her have stopped bleeding, a good reason is enough to affirm their faith.

[KizuyaKatogami]

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...

Tbf, this doesn’t change the fact that the devs have stated time and time again that both sides are the same essentially, neither good nor bad, but then have the narrative paint the opposite. What’s the point of even making a statement like that then? If you aren’t going to show it in the story. Even so, look at someone like Elidibus who sacrificed himself for us and he gets basically 0 recognition even for that. I get that it’s different for the scions perspective, but even if we look back at the dragonsong war, they kept it fairly neutral there and we saw both sides and agreed and disagreed with both.

[Kordarion]

I get that it’s different for the scions perspective, but even if we look back at the dragonsong war, they kept it fairly neutral there and we saw both sides and agreed and disagreed with both.

Except that's not at all what I got from Heavensward. Sure it certainly gave the ascians more depth, but I remember at the time assuming the sundering was a direct result of something bad that Zodiark did. In hindsight we know differently but at the time we didn't know of the final days, only that Hydaelyn sundered Zodiark and the world into 14 shards. Nothing we knew of Hydaelyn showed her as anything but the "good guy" and out only knowledge of the ascians and Zodiark was that they destroyed planets in order to make their god whole again, not something that could be seen as morally ambiguous on its own. Up until shadowbringers the story clearly said, ascians = bad and Hydaelyn = good.

Unless of course you are talking about the dragons vs Ishgard and then that's not immediately clear that's the case but I digress. If it is, it is also different circumstances, none of the scions have an existential stake in who is right or wrong, their is no question surrounding the validation of their existence. Their perspective is the same as ours when it comes to Endwalker, people whose very existence isn't tied to one outcome being just and are instead outside observers interacting with an unfolding story.

[Vyrerus]

Every time I see this thread has several more new pages I think to myself, "It's still going..."

My only conclusion from this is that, despite what we claim, we must enjoy arguing with one another to some degree.

It just makes me sad though, because a good amount of lore heads don't like discussions that rage on like this, that truly are about plot elements/characters/writing rather than Lore.

I still haven't been able to decide if it's because this is lore in the making, or if it's just the easiest thoughts to write about.

Looking at it as Lore as erudition, have we really broken any new ground within the last 40 pages? What constructive things have we learned?

Will we really be served to make our same points using different words again and again?

I think I learned from this thread that people do not actually desire that the story be morally grey. Whether it's protagonists or antagonists. I think that's why the writer's ran away from it, too.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Except that's not at all what I got from Heavensward. Sure it certainly gave the ascians more depth, but I remember at the time assuming the sundering was a direct result of something bad that Zodiark did. In hindsight we know differently but at the time we didn't know of the final days, only that Hydaelyn sundered Zodiark and the world into 14 shards. Nothing we knew of Hydaelyn showed her as anything but the "good guy" and out only knowledge of the ascians and Zodiark was that they destroyed planets in order to make their god whole again, not something that could be seen as morally ambiguous on its own. Up until shadowbringers the story clearly said, ascians = bad and Hydaelyn = good.

Unless of course you are talking about the dragons vs Ishgard and then that's not immediately clear that's the case but I digress. If it is, it is also different circumstances, none of the scions have an existential stake in who is right or wrong, their is no question surrounding the validation of their existence. Their perspective is the same as ours when it comes to Endwalker, people whose very existence isn't tied to one outcome being just and are instead outside observers interacting with an unfolding story.

I was indeed talking about the dragons vs ishgardians, i thought it was clear when i mentioned the dragonsong war but my bad. The scions didnt exactly have a stake in it but we did as the WoL, especially when we grew attached to people like Estinien or Ysayle. Thats my point as well, it isnt only the scions that treat venat as some hero or benevolent but we as the wol dont even have the option to really call out or question Venat, whereas we did so consistently with the ascians. Again, why bring up as a dev that both sides are essentially the same, neither are good nor bad, but then completely contradict that in this expansion? It doesnt make much sense.

[Kordarion]

I was indeed talking about the dragons vs ishgardians, i thought it was clear when i mentioned the dragonsong war but my bad. The scions didnt exactly have a stake in it but we did as the WoL, especially when we grew attached to people like Estinien or Ysayle. Thats my point as well, it isnt only the scions that treat venat as some hero or benevolent but we as the wol dont even have the option to really call out or question Venat, whereas we did so consistently with the ascians. Again, why bring up as a dev that both sides are essentially the same, neither are good nor bad, but then completely contradict that in this expansion? It doesnt make much sense.

To be fair I'm not the best at working out shifts in topic that are less blunt than, "lets talk about X now instead of Y", so that doesn't help. I don't think that at this point either of us is going to convince the other to change their minds about whether the story supporting Venat is a bad thing or not, so how about we amicably agree to disagree.

It just makes me sad though, because a good amount of lore heads don't like discussions that rage on like this, that truly are about plot elements/characters/writing rather than Lore.

I still haven't been able to decide if it's because this is lore in the making, or if it's just the easiest thoughts to write about.

I could be wrong, but I thought that part of discussing/exploring the lore of a franchise/work of fiction was about discussing plot elements and characters so we could create a comprehensive view of the particular setting.

I think part of why it is a popular topic of debate is that it is quite controversial and as such it is easy for people to get into detailed discussions as opposed to asking a question, getting the answer and then the discussion is done.

I think I learned from this thread that people do not actually desire that the story be morally grey. Whether it's protagonists or antagonists. I think that's why the writer's ran away from it, too.

I think it depends, in darker, more single player games people can definitely want more morally grey stories but in an MMO where a lot of people's motivation to play is to log on with some friends and slay some bad guys there is only so much you can do, especially when it comes to ending an arc when the game still has to progress afterwards.

[Rulakir]

Looking at it as Lore as erudition, have we really broken any new ground within the last 40 pages? What constructive things have we learned?

Will we really be served to make our same points using different words again and again?

It's a cycle. Several new(er) posters have found their way to this thread*, possibly because word has been getting around that if you didn't like EW the official forums are one of the few places you can discuss it. Reddit is still aggressively downvoting anyone who doesn't lavish it with praise. At any rate, they post, the usual defenders show up, then the usual detractors have to show up to counterbalance, and then we end up back at square one.

* It's a shame out of all of them this is the thread that persisted. Both "On Venat's Role in the Story" and "[Spoilers] Venat's motive" were much better.

Some of it is probably also a remaining need to rant about it. Personally, I was so disappointed with EW I considered for weeks whether or not I wanted to quit. It's not like venting about it once was enough to work through everything I was thinking and feeling. I think we can all relate to disliking something so much it feels good to ruminate with others who felt similarly. Due to how social media works, you can't post "I hate this" and only attract like-minded people, you will attract people who disagree and then proceed to detail every which way you are wrong and the cycle continues.

[SpectrePhantasia]

While the topic could certainly stand to remain in it's own boundaries without leaking into more tangentially related threads, I personally (for the most part) am not feeling any of the animosity or irritation that other people are citing in discussing the morality of these things, and their own interpretations of the characters actions. I actually quite enjoy the deliberation a lot, and a lot of posts, even those that are contrary to my own views have given me new ways to consider how plot and lore elements were structured, and the meaning behind them.

All of which is to say that I'm sorry for those who find the topic to be growing tiresome, but speaking for myself, I only bother to critique things this deeply when I truly care about the source material and the world therein. I've been having a lot of fun, but I understand others thinking it has run its course. That being said, the Sundering is still probably the single most important Lore event in the game right now, so I don't think it should come as a surprise that debate and threads about it have a lot more longevity than other things.

[Jandor]

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.

Venat and Emet both use the term Mankind at certain points as an umbrella for both groups, implying they (come to) view the sundered as a continuation rather than a replacement.