*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[vehere]

In FF12, that Venat is portrayed as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who wanted to free man from the machinations of their fellow Occuria. But even still they caused untold pain and suffering, the game's narrative leaves it ambiguous just how much Venat's efforts truly benefitted mankind, and even the characters expressed varying levels of discontent for what they did. In the end it was very much a YMMV situation that allowed players to make up their own mind on it, and it made Venat one of my favorite FF villains. Because they ARE doing what they feel is best, but the game doesn't force you to agree, and while Ashe comes to agree on the "Occuria sucks" part, she's still not praising Venat for being an awesome wonderful person.

I feel a bit... disappointed with this Venat I guess? I feel I wasn't allowed to form an opinion of Venat/Hydaelyn on my own, the game just outright says how you should feel about her and how wonderful she is. I wanted to like her, but the way the game went about it just did not really catch me.

[HappyHubris]

In short:
No, because supporting genocide is still very bad.

Venat genocided her people as well, and we would have had the dragonballs...err...Zodiark to fix everything.

[Cleretic]

Venat genocided her people as well, and we would have had the dragonballs...err...Zodiark to fix everything.

Except that using Zodiark requires sacrificing an absurd amount of life. We can't really put a name on the crime that the third sacrifice would've been, given we don't know the selection process, but we do know that the people in charge of deciding that had no compunctions about causing genocides for Zodiark's sake. ...rather a lot of them, actually.

[Rulakir]

Now, I think I could rant for several paragraphs about exactly how and why Endwalker let me down in myriad ways – and surprisingly enough, not all of them have to do with Venat – but I will try and make it short and actually relevant to this thread:

I agree with everything you said and just wanted to add that all of my reasons don't have to do with Venat either. I disliked the theme and how it was handled.

I only remember Hermes being credited as the one who discovered the method by which the Final days was targeting them. I don't remember the conception of Zodiark being solely attributed to him, though I'm probably misremembering.

You're not misremembering. Hermes is only ever credited with discovering the connection between aether currents and the Final Days by Elidibus.

Rather than having a sense that the story is giving me a choice of what to believe, it feels like the story is telling me to believe something - that a mass-murderer is a great person - I find kinda gross. It makes me want to quit the game because it feels like I'm not on the same page ethically as the writers.

This is the main reason I considered quitting as well. (I'm waiting to see what they have planned for the future.) I had to ask myself if I wanted to continue role playing in a game both written and developed by people I seemingly fundamentally disagree with when it comes to values. I also found the narrative full of platitudes and I'm certainly not interested in a game that's going to preach at me.

[Lium]

...the game just outright says how you should feel about her and how wonderful she is...

And this right here is 100% where I'm coming from with my arguments.

I'm operating under what's actually in the game. Not what could have been or what should have been. But what the writers actually put in the expansion.

These are the facts as presented to us:

1) Emet-Selch and his camp had a plan to summon Zodiark and rejoin the shards. This was shown to be wrong because it only delays the Final Days, not permanently stops them. And it does not answer Hermes' question. Endwalker, unlike Shadowbringers which was much greyer in its morality, was very much on the nose with this. It hits you over the head with it. Again and again. So much so that the writers even make Emet-Selch tell you in Ultima Thule "My way was wrong. Venat's way was right. You are to be commended. We never would have made it this far." Paraphrasing.

2) Based on what we've been shown with the way dynamis works, Venat's plan to summon Hydaelyn and sunder the world was the right way. Once again, the game hits us over the head with this repeatedly. "Learn to walk," "Through suffering comes joy," "Perfection leads to apathy." Hermes' depression. Several of the side quests in Elpis. Two-thirds of Ultima Thule hammer this point home (the Ea and the Omicrons). The final area of Dead Ends is completely on the nose in regards to the Ancients. The game straight up tells you, Venat is the tragic hero of the entire story arc.

This is not interpretation, this is not headcanon, this is not conjecture. This is the expansion.

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

The counterargument that I've seen repeated in this thread is "But what if Venat told the Ancients what she knew?" My response to that is, maybe she did? At least some. By all indications, she did communicate to a degree. There's no way of knowing what went down in those days leading up to the first sacrifice. We have some accounts from various characters and some cutscenes. But we really don't know what happened. We do know that Azem wasn't really keen on either faction. And we also know that Venat had some support.

Emet-Selch never believed a word we said even after he saw everything. So telling the Convocation what she knew still doesn't guarantee they would have changed course. And telling Hermes that his Meteion was still alive would be a non-starter. He would be dead set against Venat and everyone else. He's already shown his true colors.

Those are my opinions. But I'm basing them on what's been shown in the game. Not what I think should have been done.

[Theodric]

Such lines in the sand make strike me as worthy of a raised eyebrow given that the Convocation could not possibly have factored the Sundered into the equation when they decided to summon Zodiark. Given that, y'know, Venat didn't actually bring up any of the key points that would have allowed for alternate paths to be taken. It also doesn't address the common element brought up in response. That without Zodiark, there would be no Etheirys. Thus, the plan is only 'idiotic' if one wishes to see Etheirys succumb to the consequences of the Final Days as it was Zodiark, not Hydaelyn, who both restored Etheirys to a livable state and served as a ward against the return of Meteion's influence.

The Sundered being subjected to the Rejoinings is entirely upon Venat's shoulders as a result. A deliberate attempt to wipe out a race - in this case, the Ancients - is going to be understandably be met with resistance. Much in the same way as I suspect that humanity in our world would seek to priortise itself over some other, alien race.

As for the writing itself? Nobody is obligated to like or support any given character. It remains to be seen how the story elements are spoken about in various lore related interviews but back in Shadowbringers the stance was very much the case of leaving things open to personal interpretation. Some people liked Emet, others were indifferent and then there were those who disliked him. The same can be said of Venat, so it'd be rather strange if - after Shadowbringers - the writers then claimed that people have to accept what she did as heroic and entirely justified.

Venat's actions benefitted the Sundered, sure, though only indirectly and not without Venat leaning on Zodiark, the Ascians and Midgardsormr. As such, I think people are free to dislike her and even disagree with her if they so wish. After all, genocide doesn't cease to be genocide simply because the entity responsible cries, sings and declares herself to be a 'supreme deity' who shows her supposed 'love' through subjecting her 'children' to abuse and suffering.

Perhaps most importantly, however, as Lauront and a few other posters have pointed out on a number of occasions throughout this very thread Emet isn't claiming that Venat was correct to do what she did. Such is readily apparent with the French version, which a fair few of us posting here work with! Still, each to their own. Everybody's perfectly entitled to their interpretation of the story.

[Cleretic]

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

While I agree on the broad points, I disagree on this one, because Zodiark was necessary to protect the planet itself from the End of Days. Yes, it wasn't permanent, but it was the only option to hold it off until a better solution could be found. Hell, Venat's plan only succeeds with Zodiark there, because otherwise the End of Days doesn't stop, and nobody capable of stopping it can survive long enough to reach that point.

The problem wasn't then, it was after. The Ancients as a whole learned poorly from the whole thing, and instead of going 'we avoided destruction, so let's rebuild' went 'this big giant thing saved us; surely it can solve more things if we feed it more people'.

[AziraSyuren]

I don't necessarily think summoning Zodiark was a bad idea. I think it was one of the many "we had no choice" cases in the game.

However, the story was dead-set on showing us that those who cannot confront despair will unmake themselves when given the tools to do so, and that's exactly what Zodiark was. We were shown every indication that the Ancients would continue to sacrifice their people to Zodiark in the face of their suffering, which was now an intrinsic part of their world after the events of the Final Days. The first summoning of Zodiark was necessary. The second one? Possibly necessary, but more ambiguous. The potential third one, however, was a clear and obvious indicator that the Ancients had no idea how to cope with loss and were incapable of doing so. The writing was on the wall. They damned themselves to oblivion the moment they had the power to sacrifice themselves in pursuit of what they once had. Zodiark had to be stopped, and the Sundering was the only means of doing so due to how much stronger Zodiark was than Hydaelyn. I don't think it was Venat's intention all along, either. Unless I'm remembering this incorrectly, she explicitly rebuked that after our fight with her. It's much more likely that it was a desperate, last minute decision made by someone who was every bit as traumatized and terrified as the other Ancients doing whatever she could to give hope to the world.

Because there sure as fuck was no hope where they were at the time.

[Lurina]

1) Emet-Selch and his camp had a plan to summon Zodiark and rejoin the shards. This was shown to be wrong because it only delays the Final Days, not permanently stops them. And it does not answer Hermes' question. Endwalker, unlike Shadowbringers which was much greyer in its morality, was very much on the nose with this. It hits you over the head with it. Again and again. So much so that the writers even make Emet-Selch tell you in Ultima Thule "My way was wrong. Venat's way was right. You are to be commended. We never would have made it this far." Paraphrasing.

Again, this isn't quite correct. Emet admits that Venat's plan was successful at doing something his own never aspired to achieve, but this isn't tantamount to saying, "my way was wrong." He explicitly rejects that idea and says he still believes in his decisions and values.

Now, this is the opinion part: I think summoning Zodiark was idiotic because it does not address the Final Days permanently, makes the Ancients beholden to a god indefinitely, and Rejoinings removes choice for the sundered people and amounts to unfathomable genocide. In fact, multiple mass genocides.

Venat relied on the summoning of Zodiark to stop the song from reaching the planet. Without it, her plan doesn't work.

[Jandor]

I'm unsure what you mean by this. You're told in Amaurot that they intend to sacrifice the "new life" specifically, not any members of their species or pre-existing creatures.

I'm not sure of the connection between potential other civilizations and the new life, but a big chunk of life in the present is clearly from Elpis. Given how dead the planet was implied to be, it would seem that a big chunk of the new life was based on existing concepts at least.

Zodiark is stuffed to the brim with Ancient souls after all, makes sense to nab a few ideas from them.

-----

Speaking of souls inside Zodiark.

When the sacrifices were first explained back in ShB, I had assumed they were used for fuel and as a result they were dead and gone, part of me suspected Zodiark might have even been lying about his ability to revive them.

Turns out though that, yes, they are all still there. We get to the moon and they're wandering about, we even have a little chat with Hythlo again. Which raises the question, why didn't Emet just go and visit?

'You think your tattered soul of equal value to those I lost?!'

You didn't lose him bro, he's on the moon, just go visit.