What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Kozh]

You literally rejoin with Ardbert, and Emet saw a vision of your whole soul. The Rejoining itself is what they were doing to bring back all of the ancients, which means they weren't gone...

Uh huh, and yet seto and other characters keep saying "you're still you despite you soul being rejoined". Emet only saw that vision because he's already being sentimental enough since we're reincarnation of Azem.

The sundered souls may still retain its previous "color", hence why they can uplift sundered being into ascian (mitron, loghriff, etc.), but they are still not the same person as the original one due to the reincarnation.

Ancients soul that arguably can be brought back 100% are the ones trapped inside zodiark since they retain their "self". The rest have been reincarnated many times. Rejoining only allows them to make the sundered to be whole again soul and aether wise.

[lulunami]

The story in Endwalker is lackluster if you have taken any Philosophy 101 class or read any philosophical books. I do not understand why some people are so obsessed with Friedrich Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Existentialism. It almost feels like Deus Ex Machina in terms of another villain coming out of nowhere invalidating the previous plot too.

I like the parts where they tried to make you care about the other Scions, the artistic setting, and what emotional formula they were trying to convey to the player. The logical part of my brain just cannot accept the plot holes and lack of rationale thought by the character's actions and belief systems. The story and plot just became melodramatic fluff to me.

[linayar]

Oh so now we're strictly talk about world as in the planet ethyris? Not the people? If venat is concerned about the planet, she doesn't even need to sunder her own people since zodiark protection will be able to shield them until the end of universe probably, had she not sundered Him.

It's not about the world or the people. It's about what the sundering actually did. If it was killing people, then it wouldn't make sense for Venat to think that "mankind" continued on, and even the concept of the source is unclear from that perspective.

And who let those destructions to happen? She knew about it beforehand due to our story, and yet she allowed it because "suffer™" and because it will lead the WoL to reach her eventually (timeline stuff).

As if knowing means being able to stop them.

What the ascian did is wrong, full stop. But at least I'm not pretentious enough to act otherwise. Unlike some people who keep claiming "sundering isn't killing, guys"

No, you're just pretentious enough to think it's better to be mad on behalf of long dead people against the being that ensured our survival.

As I've said, though, you can disagree with Venat's choice, but she made it, and we've benefitted from that decision made in the past.

[KageTokage]

Honestly, I'm kind of hoping they add some additional context to the pre-sundering events via the alliance raids or some such just to put an end to the tired morality arguments getting brought up all the time.

Though I reckon there'd still be a camp of people who would be frustrated if it turned out that the Sundering was undeniably a net positive vs. allowing a world governed by Zodiark to continue.

[Lurina]

Honestly, I'm kind of hoping they add some additional context to the pre-sundering events via the alliance raids or some such just to put an end to the tired morality arguments getting brought up all the time.

Though I reckon there'd still be a camp of people who would be frustrated if it turned out that the Sundering was undeniably a net positive vs. allowing a world governed by Zodiark to continue.

Personally, I will find a "necessary evil" on that kind of scale being framed as heroic in the way it was kinda creepy and offputting no matter what. Doing a bad thing to prevent a worse thing don't make you a morally better person, just a more pragmatic one.

[linayar]

Doing a bad thing to prevent a worse thing don't make you a morally better person

It depends. Preventing someone from unjustly killing someone else is a moral good regardless of whether, in the process, the would-be murderer is killed.

[Lurina]

It depends. Preventing someone from unjustly killing someone else is a moral good regardless of whether, in the process, the would-be murderer is killed.

That's incredibly subjective. A lot of the US is really lenient about it, but in most legal and ethical systems there's a concept of warranted self-defense or defense of others. If in preventing a crime you use excessive and unnecessary force, or cause collateral damage, then that's still a moral evil. Especially if it isn't an accident and you premeditate it, and especially especially if it's on a grand scale.

[linayar]

That's incredibly subjective. A lot of the US is really lenient about it, but in most legal and ethical systems there's a concept of warranted self-defense or defense of others. If in preventing a crime you use excessive and unnecessary force, or cause collateral damage, then that's still a moral evil. Especially if it isn't an accident and you premeditate it, and especially especially if it's on a grand scale.

It is indeed subjective, especially when it comes to beings who literally made it their mission to direct the fate of the star. Beings who can just offer up prayer to have others be killed. What is "excessive and unnecessary force" in that case?

[Lurina]

It is indeed subjective, especially when it comes to beings who literally made it their mission to direct the fate of the star. Beings who can just offer up prayer to have others be killed. What is "excessive and unnecessary force" in that case?

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

[linayar]

The collateral damage is what's important in this case. I only brought up the idea of excessive force in referencing concept of unwarranted defense generally.

We don't know what the collateral damage, if any, is. And collateral means they are unintended, so it has nothing to do with the morality of the perpetrator

Though if you wanted to be picky about it, it's bizarre and excessive in retrospect that Hydaelyn sundered the world into 14 parts instead of just, like, 2, presumably causing far greater damage to the selfhood of the people currently living on the planet as a result. We beat Meteion while 9/14 rejoined, so that would have been fine.

I wasn't aware Hydaelyn planned for there to be a specific amount of parts. Where did you find this information?