*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Lium]

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.

Thank you. I guess where my "summoning Zodiark was idiotic" comes from is everything you said in your second paragraph. It's not that I was trying to gloss over the fact that he kept Etheirys alive, but that I was so focused on the consequence of it. The act of summoning Zodiark was a band-aid on a gaping wound. It couldn't possibly hold forever. Your bolded part explicitly calls out the malady infecting their society.

And this is where we get into the realm of conjecture because we really don't know what happened leading up to the first sacrifice. It's possible Venat proposed an alternative that was rejected by the Convocation. Although, I'll concede if such a thing happened we surely would have heard of it by now in some way. Hydaelyn would have probably said after our fight with her that she did try to speak out but was not heard or something.

[Vyrerus]

And this right here

You seem to have assumed that every other argument in the thread was not made with what's in the game in mind. It's what's in the game that causes it to be a Broken Aesop. It's what's in the game that causes the disagreements. The writers can self-insert all they want, and that won't change how people feel about or perceive it.

They can say Venat was right until they're blue in the face, and the characters in the game can agree with them, and they can show it to never go another way, but they only achieve these things through dubious means.

They're achieved by:

1) Ignoring that Ancients possess The Echo and can use it at will, and not merely peer into another's memories, but see them as they happened precisely. This makes Venat's excuse that she won't be believed a plot hole. How could they not believe what they could witness firsthand by peering into her soul? They don't need the environment of Ktsis Hyperboreia. Her soul escaped undamaged. The script has used the Echo in the past to pass on crucial information with such frequency that I've lost count. In every instance it has been irrefutable evidence. Yet, this time, with characters who can literally control it, it's not used.

2) Not showing the actual Sundering. By not showing the Sundering as it actually happened, they left the door wide open for people to take issue with it while simultaneously giving them very little to work with. This also served to disguise the horror inherent in it. The scene they do show goes more towards making it seem as Hydaelyn is suffering more than the people she destroyed. She's stained by their blood, black with sin, but we know full well now that she goes on being a Supreme Goddess who lies to every single one of her champions all throughout the 12,000 years until we start uncovering the truth. She may have even lied to her own faction in Ananemis Anyder, by asserting that Hydaelyn would only shackle Zodiark not Sunder the world.

3) Allowing Venat to escape Ktsis with her memory intact. This made everything she did intentional, rather than incidental, calling the morality of her actions into question. It's what makes her an Anti-Villain, not a hero. She used evil ends to achieve something ultimately good.

Zodiark could not address the Final Days' root cause, because he was not made to do that. He was made in ignorance of Meteion, because Venat would not open her soul to the Convocation. And even in his ignorance, he was twofold vital to Venat's plan.

1) The Hydaelyn faction copied his design schema and sacrificed themselves in a similar manner to imbue Venat with Hydaelyn.

2) His aether web was necessary to keep the Sundered world from being drown into dark oblivion by Dynamis.

It is absurd to allege that an entire race could not come up with a means to stop Meteion when it merely took a small coalition to stop her after she had gained power for 12,000 years. Just by having information about her. Just having scant information about Dynamis as well. Just having the slightest indication that we can even manipulate it at all.

As for the Sundering. It's been argued in this thread ad nauseum that it was not killing because people lived, but even if it killed no one, and I don't believe that in the slightest, it is still morally wrong. Essentially it nonconsensually cloned the entire populace 13 times, and then asserted that the clones not only have the right to life but a greater right to life than their donors. Who by the way "donated" every part of themselves in the "creation" of the Sundered.

By comparison the Rejoinings kill clones, which in turn returns what was, "donated" to its Source.

If that confuses you, then look at the line from Hydaelyn's speech, "Man will no longer have wings to bear himself to paradise."

Translation: I am going to mutilate what is currently a fundamental characteristic of everyone in the world, so that they have to live the way that I believe they need too.

By doing this she inflicted every real horror that we know, and some that we imagine onto Sundered mankind. Slavery. Racial discrimination. Sexual discrimination. Sexuality discrimination. War. Famine. Pestilence. Inexplicable death. That is the unfathomable genocide.

And did you notice? Hydaelyn still has wings.

[EaraGrace]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn here between moral ambiguity as a narrative device, and moral ambiguity as experienced by the player. For me, many of my issues with Endwalker don't stem from the fact that Venat was a grey character - I'd have been fine with that - but that as many people on both sides have pointed out, we are clearly meant to view her unambiguously as right and good. A lot of keys have been tapped here about how no character given any credence really speaks against her and the framing during her scenes is relentlessly positive and affirming of her perspective, but a better example might be the description for her minion, which more or less just lavishes praise on her.

Venats status as a hero in the story is firmly rooted in her intentions and the beliefs and values she holds. But that that isn’t saying Her actions cannot be grey. While the game doesn’t outright condemn her, it does give food for thought on the nature of her actions and the morality of it. She alone is held responsible for the Sundering. She herself states that the Her defining action in the narrative, was neither good nor just. Therein lies ambiguity, it’s just that unlike Emet and the Rejoinings, our presence was limited in the narrative when it came to Venat and the Sundering. If we were playing as an Ancient, I’d see the question of the Sundering and who side to take igniting an incredible amount of discussion. The Rejoinings meanwhile, aren’t ambiguous in the slightest.

Characters might be biased and framing can be argued, but when the narration of the game itself describes a character as a wonderful person, it's pretty clear you're meant to think of them as a wonderful person. When contrasted with her actions, this creates an uncomfortable dissonance that doesn't make the story more compelling, but less. 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.

But I don’t think the gross feeling is necessarily the result you think it is. You can hold that Venat had virtue while still believing the Sundering was beyond the pale. I felt gross when the game kept explaining how these mass murdering mad men were actually motivated by love, but I recognized that grossness wasn’t a result of the messaging, but rather the result of how that information makes the situation more complicated. I fail to see how the same can’t apply to Venat. In both cases the narrative gives ample reason to empathize, while still leaving the moral question up to the player. The only difference is we know now that Venats goals were predicated on information she and ourselves were left to keep to secret, and that ultimately Venat was playing the long game. None of this changes the moral questions of the actions involved. I think it perfectly consistent to have seen everything the narrative has to show, and still go ”that wasn’t right.” I think the writers would even be thrilled at that.

Even though Emet-Selch is also a mass murderer, I never got that sense from Shadowbringers. Characters call him out, and the narrative voice about him swings from negative to neutral to positive depending on the context. Even if it produces less discourse (though certainly no shortage), I'd say that's a better example of moral ambiguity.

But there’s no ambiguity. The moral question doesn’t exist here. He’s wrong, and that’s that. On this the narrative is even more clear than with Venat.

Honestly, the existence of other nations and cultures in the ancient world is one of the biggest bugbears I have about the Sundering. It's one thing to pass judgement on your own culture, and quite another to pass judgement on all cultures, or at least consider them reasonable collateral damage.

Amaurots influence was far reaching, and given the lack of organized conflict I think it reasonable to believe that differences between the cultures of Etheirys were not pronounced, as they wouldn’t be limited by time, location or resources. The world of Etheirys seems even more interconnected than our own.

[EaraGrace]

1) Ignoring that Ancients possess The Echo and can use it at will, and not merely peer into another's memories, but see them as they happened precisely. This makes Venat's excuse that she won't be believed a plot hole. How could they not believe what they could witness firsthand by peering into her soul? They don't need the environment of Ktsis Hyperboreia. Her soul escaped undamaged. The script has used the Echo in the past to pass on crucial information with such frequency that I've lost count. In every instance it has been irrefutable evidence. Yet, this time, with characters who can literally control it, it's not used.

The issue was not whether she’d be believed, but the impact of that information on the actors involved. Summoning Zodiark involved a complex web of moving pieces, and any one being out of place could bring disaster. Informing the world that a being beyond the stars, born of the desire for death felt by countless civilizations more advanced than Etheirys, would not help handle a crisis that feeds on fear and doubt. Then there’s how Hermes would react, a necessary contributor to the salvation of Etheirys.

2) Not showing the actual Sundering. By not showing the Sundering as it actually happened, they left the door wide open for people to take issue with it while simultaneously giving them very little to work with. This also served to disguise the horror inherent in it. The scene they do show goes more towards making it seem as Hydaelyn is suffering more than the people she destroyed. She's stained by their blood, black with sin, but we know full well now that she goes on being a Supreme Goddess who lies to every single one of her champions all throughout the 12,000 years until we start uncovering the truth. She may have even lied to her own faction in Ananemis Anyder, by asserting that Hydaelyn would only shackle Zodiark not Sunder the world.

A woman who loved her world and the people in it, whose very meaning in life was to travel and help those selfsame people, is trapped in Aetherial Sea, surrounded by the souls of those who perished as a result of the world she acted to make, forced to offer more and more of her Aether in a desperate attempt to ensure it wasn’t all for nothing, all the while watching as the people she loves tear themselves apart. Yes she did suffer.

And once again, the fact that one of those Anyder argued to the Convocation that they didn’t stop the Final Days shows they knew. The fact that Zodiark was the literal will for the star meant that to harm him meant harming the star. All of this is clear.

3) Allowing Venat to escape Ktsis with her memory intact. This made everything she did intentional, rather than incidental, calling the morality of her actions into question. It's what makes her an Anti-Villain, not a hero. She used evil ends to achieve something ultimately good.

Much in the same way as a doctor who amputates a leg to prevent the person from dying, she acted to prevent the world from dooming itself. There are various ways to look at her actions and see it just, the Principle of Permissible Harm, The Double Affect, all are perspectives that make her more than an “anti villain.”

If that confuses you, then look at the line from Hydaelyn's speech, "Man will no longer have wings to bear himself to paradise."

Translation: I am going to mutilate what is currently a fundamental characteristic of everyone in the world, so that they have to live the way that I believe they need too.

This misses the whole point of this scene. She does not act out of the belief they should simply follow her “way of life” but rather that Zodiarks power makes all other paths incredibly hard. If I knew a benevolent deity would solve all my problems with a flick of his finger, that I wouldn’t need to suffer ever again (or at least think I wouldn’t), why would I do anything but worship him.

By doing this she inflicted every real horror that we know, and some that we imagine onto Sundered mankind. Slavery. Racial discrimination. Sexual discrimination. Sexuality discrimination. War. Famine. Pestilence. Inexplicable death. That is the unfathomable genocide.

And did you notice? Hydaelyn still has wings.

It is undeniable that the Ancient world experienced less suffering and it’s a shame when faced with the barest evidence of mortally and loss they were prepared to do anything to escape. Let’s be clear, the Sundered do not have any less virtue or moral fiber than the Ancients, they just face more desperate circumstances. As we see in Pandaemonium, conflict, strife, and injustice exist as well in the Unsundered World. They just could afford to shove it deep underground and forget about it.

I’d prefer if she got the chance to walk the world she helped save, got to meet and help the people she loved. Wings are a poor prize for a hero such as she.

[Jandor]

I believe it was only possible for us to interact with the trapped souls on the moon because Fandaniel and Zenos had already broken some of Zodiark's seals.

Hmm, I could see that being the case. Works for me.

-----

Still not really sure why He had to keep hold them though, guess it was just bad design, first proper summoning and all that.

[Lurina]

Venats status as a hero in the story is firmly rooted in her intentions and the beliefs and values she holds. But that that isn’t saying Her actions cannot be grey. While the game doesn’t outright condemn her, it does give food for thought on the nature of her actions and the morality of it. She alone is held responsible for the Sundering. She herself states that the Her defining action in the narrative, was neither good nor just. Therein lies ambiguity, it’s just that unlike Emet and the Rejoinings, our presence was limited in the narrative when it came to Venat and the Sundering. If we were playing as an Ancient, I’d see the question of the Sundering and who side to take igniting an incredible amount of discussion. The Rejoinings meanwhile, aren’t ambiguous in the slightest.

There's no real way to say this softly, so I'll be blunt: I don't agree that it gives any food for thought at all. Venat's brief statement - immediately denied by Y'shtola - that she did something unkind does not offset the universal positivity in which she is framed by the characters, quest log dialogue, the aforementioned minion dialogue, and the range of responses given to the player character, all of which are unabashed in positivity towards her at all occasions. Regardless of whether they end up on our side or not, this is not a treatment that any other NPC who is intended to read as morally complicated (eg: Lolorito, Ysayle, Estinien, Regula, Yotsuyu, Emet, Elidibus, Fourchenault) gets.

This is so self-evident to me that I don't think there is any point in discussing the subject if we can't agree. We might as well have played different games.

[EaraGrace]

There's no real way to say this softly, so I'll be blunt: I don't agree that it gives any food for thought at all. Venat's brief statement - immediately refuted by Y'shtola - that she did something unkind does not offset the universal positivity in which she is framed by the characters, quest log dialogue, the aforementioned minion dialogue, and the range of responses given to the player character, all of which are unabashed in positivity towards her at all occasions. Regardless of whether they end up on our side or not, this is not a treatment that any other NPC who is intended to read as morally complicated (eg: Lolorito, Ysayle, Estinien, Regula, Yotsuyu, Emet, Elidibus) gets.

Ysayle is actually a great example, as she has a similar presentation to Venat. She commits morally ambiguous acts for a good reason and despite the ambiguity that game doesn’t focus on her moral failings, and instead all parties, even those violently opposed to her, give her praise.

And that statement want “refuted” at all, Y’shtola simply observes a reason for her actions. Hell Hydaelyn immediately follows Y’shtolas statement with the “there was no kindness nor justice in the bloodshed I wrought” line. So no, the narrative never errs from including that point.

This is so self-evident to me that I don't think there is any point in discussing the subject if we can't agree. We might as well have played different games.

I find myself feeling similarly. I think some people just don’t like Venat. And I think some people like Venat. It seems like that’s all this truly comes down to.

[Lurina]

Ysayle is actually a great example, as she has a similar presentation to Venat. She commits morally ambiguous acts for a good reason and despite the ambiguity that game doesn’t focus on her moral failings, and instead all parties, even those violently opposed to her, give her praise.

And that statement want “refuted” at all, Y’shtola simply observes a reason for her actions. Hell Hydaelyn immediately follows Y’shtolas statement with the “there was no kindness nor justice in the bloodshed I wrought” line. So no, the narrative never errs from including that point.

If you read the quest log annotation for Ysayle, her minion dialogue, or the reactions the characters have to her throughout the story and upon her death, she couldn't be more different to Venat. All of them are neutral or acknowledge that, even though she ultimately did something heroic, she was a complicated character. They do not straight up tell you she is a hero. I understand that if you were comfortable with the story of EW to begin with you might not have gone trawling around looking for this stuff to check whether or not you've gone crazy for disliking it, but it really does feel like night and day.

As for Y'shtola, I didn't mean her comment in the cutscene, but rather what she says if you speak with her afterwards. She says (paraphrasing) that though Venat might have thought of herself as cruel person, she just couldn't see how much good she'd truly done for the world. Again, in terms of what the story wants you to feel, it comes across as about as subtle as a sack of bricks.

I find myself feeling similarly. I think some people just don’t like Venat. And I think some people like Venat. It seems like that’s all this truly comes down to.

I've said this before, but I earnestly don't dislike Venat's character in isolation. She's very charming in Elpis, and if you ignore the framing of the game, you can read the Sundering as a coldly utilitarian act, or as an fallible ideological decision that framed strength and embracing suffering as pivotal to the expense of all else - I could go on.

The issue isn't with her, it's with the game itself. My strong impression is that it doesn't want me to think she's interesting or analyze her actions critically, it wants me to love her and think of her as a savior and also my mom. I find that really uncomfortable.

[Pofruin]

The issue isn't with her, it's with the game itself. My strong impression is that it doesn't want me to think she's interesting or analyze her actions critically, it wants me to love her and think of her as a savior and also my mom. And that's weird.

Where is the issue then? That game shows her as what she specifically IS (mom and savior) for each and every character present when meeting her?

Does the fact that your progenitor Diety is not Unfallable, Omniscient, doesn't share your moral values, has committed atrocities, was Duplicious and Hasardous to You yourself and was generaly pshychopatically autoritarian somehow change the fact that she WAS in fact responsible for your creation and focused every effort in continued survival of you and yours?

There is so much Zenoism going around here. Where people judge the story from their own personal moral towers, without adjusting for POW of the characters present. Can you give good reason Why Alisae or Yshtola would not feel at least somewhat grateful to Hydelyn?

[Lyth]

There's no such thing as a neutral viewpoint. Characters express their own views, not some "objective" abstraction.

The Watcher: 'Like Zodiark, Hydaelyn's purpose is a reflection of her creators'. They wished to look to the future, and not linger in a prison of the past.'
Y'shtola: 'The Ascians set in motion seven Rejoinings before we came to oppose them. How many more worlds would have been lost had we not placed our faith in Her? How many more souls living in the present would have been snuffed out for the sake of those long dead?'

Now you can turn around and say that the Ascians' counterpoint to Hydaelyn is unfairly represented in the current era. Which makes sense, because most people still alive would consider it to be a really uncomfortable viewpoint. That doesn't stop you from rooting for whichever side you like.

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.

Your supporting quote:

世界を育み、それが再び十分に満ち足りたときに、いくらかの生命をゾディアークに捧げる……。

That when the time was ripe, and the world bountiful with life, they would sacrifice a portion of it to Zodiark...

The reason why I asked for a citation was because I knew that it wasn't supported by the in-game text. You knew this as well. The reason why the lore discussion in these forums gets progressively more distorted with each retelling is because people like sprinkling in partial truths on their fiction.