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

[EaraGrace]

No matter how many times you post it, cherry-picking one sentence where she uses the word that encompases both "you" and "me/we" together when talking about something that refers to all of us won't make the other instances where she treated us as "her childs", like she's our mother who gave us birth, go away. I don't think she spoke to the other ancients in the same way when she was still Venat. Do you ever see her address Emet or Hythlodaeus as "my child"?

No, but I don’t think Emet or Hyth were as young comparatively and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t a god then.

I see a pattern. You're putting too much weight on words like "we" and "our" which are SUPER common in regular coversation to refer to multiple subjects including the speaker. Is that all you got to make your point? Do you make such a distinction when speaking about "we and our dog"? Is that natural to you?

What is “we” and “us” and “our” referring to in those screenshots in your opinion? What group?

Also, in those last 2 screenshots she's still talking as Venat, the sundering is far away from happening yet, why would she talk in a funny way to make a forceful distinction at that point?

Because whether she’s Venat doesn’t matter??? It’s about how she viewed the relationship between the sundered and unsundered, of course I’m going to use her direct quotes.

Addressed in my previous points, but regardless, she has said many things, some which have been backpedaled explicitly in the story (like the convo with the Watcher) but actions speak louder than words. She didn't believe in humanity so she took it upon herself (without prior consultation) to sunder and create a new one that she believed would fare better. So much for unity.

She sundered them because she believed they could overcome suffering. If she gave up on humanity, then what would the sundering do? It didn’t make them more moral, or inherently smarter or stronger. It just forced them to confront suffering with their own strength, the same strength the Ancients possessed.

Also, that "humanity" that was in the other shards was gonna get abandoned in her escape plan. Guess they weren't humanity enough, as she was only concerned with the ones on the Source.

You’re right, she should’ve just nixed the backup plan. If we failed to beat her the Sources inhabitants should also rot in solidarity.

You can repeat it until you go blue in the face. It won't change the fact that it is not him alone who is credited with the design of Zodiark. Worse comes to worse? Strip mine any pertinent knowledge from his mind. He is a criminal at that point anyway.

Ask Elidibus or Emet how they felt about his contributions. I wonder how they would describe him.

And the question is whether he was an integral part of Zodiarks creation, not the only one. Many I’m sure contributed, without him however things would get dicey.

[Sicno]

No, but I don’t think Emet or Hyth were as young comparatively and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t a god then.

Oh wow, that sounds an awful lot like MAKING A DISTINCTION.

[EaraGrace]

I just genuinely enjoy discussing the game's story and characters, personally. I simply feel as though the game compromised itself in order to have what it thought would be 'broad appeal'. Fast food might be the most popular cuisine in the world but that doesn't mean it measures up to a juicy Wagyu burger.

Venat strikes me as the equivalent of a Happy Meal and for some, that's more than enough. My tastes are a bit more refined than that, though - so I resonate more with characters who have deeper, more consistent motives and personal stakes. Each to their own, of course.

Once again, if you’re going to repeatedly try and question someone’s “toxicity,” you should apply the same to miss Eara was being equally as toxic when she referred to our opinions as an echo chamber.

My sincere apologies.

I will endeavor to only snark when snarked upon in the future!

They simply had no reason to pursue that knowledge at large because dynamis wasn't predominant in Etheyris and it's also weaker than aether, so there weren't "practical" applications. Hermes's was a personal interest in learning about other worlds to try to fill his existencial voids, so think of it as his "hobby". But that doesn't mean they weren't capable of conducting such research if they had REASON to. Like preventing their race and planet from being wiped out from existance.

Ok. Do you agree then that Hermes was the sole expert then? We can move on after that but that is the question we were discussing.

And as I've mentioned before, Elpis is just one research facility. And one devoted to testing creations before letting them roam free. Its main purpose wasn't to design new creations inside it, but rather for everybody across the star to bring their creations and test them. Considering dynamis wasn't a practical avenue for them to explore it's not surprising that the only person with knowledge about it has it because of a hobby. But again, Elpis is JUST ONE RESEARCH FACILITY.

Ok, that doesn't change the fact that all research facilities must submit concepts to the Bureau, and the Bureau wasn't aware of Dynamis creations from anywhere else. Thats the reason I brought that up in the first place after all, to highlight that Elpis specifically is special in regards to Entelechies.

Having said all this, the "objective statements" you made afterwards crumble down except for the "other scholars" and Hythlodaeus parts. First one is explicitly stated in dialog, the 2nd can be inferred. Also, just because knowledge is scarce doesn't mean it's old, abandoned knowledge.

I'm gonna disagree. But hey I respect your right to an opinion.

Oh wow, that sounds an awful lot like MAKING A DISTINCTION.

Ok.

Lets try this again from the beginning.

After Venat sundered Etheirys, do you think she distinguished between the sundered and the unsundered as different peoples entirely, or do you think she views them as part of the same group? This is the distinction we are discussing, yes? After all its this and only this one, that has a bearing on whether she gave up on humanity when she sundered it.

Rich coming from you, miss "the Ancients has reached their perfection and are stagnating".

Yes that is a theme in the story we played. And maybe a slight quibble, but my point wasn't that they were "perfect," but that perfection in their eyes would be a false dream that would damn them.

Except his real contribution is figuring where the final days will hit first, not about Zodiark. They could have substitute him with anyone else if they have the knowledge of meteion beforehand.

That was indeed a contribution he made, an extremely important one, but both the dialogue with Elidibus and what we know of Hermes background show that he did much more than that. The underlying mechanism behind Zodiarks protection rested in his ability to change celestial aether currents, a topic Hermes was a foremost scholar in.

[Sicno]

Ok. Do you agree then that Hermes was the sole expert then? We can move on after that but that is the question we were discussing.

...No. We can't say for certain because we barely know anyone outside of Elpis. You're trying to extrapolate WAY too much about the ancients from our brief visit to their crash dummy testing facility.

Ok, that doesn't change the fact that all research facilities must submit concepts to the Bureau, and the Bureau wasn't aware of Dynamis creations from anywhere else. Thats the reason I brought that up in the first place after all, to highlight that Elpis specifically is special in regards to Entelechies.

Edit: as a research facility they should, but since dynamis had no practical applications in their society it's very likely those who did anything with it kept it as personal projects (like Hermes did) and not as "a product of the facility", so they wouldn't be submitted to the Bureau and they wouldn't get tested in Elpis either.

Ok.

Lets try this again from the beginning.

After Venat sundered Etheirys, do you think she distinguished between the sundered and the unsundered as different peoples entirely, or do you think she views them as part of the same group? This is the distinction we are discussing, yes? After all its this and only this one, that has a bearing on whether she gave up on humanity when she sundered it.

Lets hear it!

For starters there's a difference in treatment towards our character. Remember when I mentioned how she keeps calling us "my child", "my champion", "beloved children", etc.? And how she wouldn't address her peers back in ancient days the same way? She doesn't regard us as a fragment of the Azem who succeeded her in the Convocation. She addresses us in a very "maternal" way, like she thinks of us as her creation, rather than the Azem we once were. In fact when she grants her power to the crystal of Azem she speaks of "the crystal's original bearer". Maybe she speaks about the very first Azem, before herself and not about our former self, but keep in mind she never addresses us as the being we once were nor the seat we held, only about "the crystal we possess".

Then as someone else pointed out, she refers to herself as "the last of my kind". So she recognizes "her kind" is different than ours. Call that "kind" whatever you want. Humankind, unsundered, whatever. Point is she makes a distinction that of what they once were she's the only one left. So we're not the same.

That said I don't completely blame you for being confused. She speaks about "mankind" in various instances but then she also makes a differential treatment in others, so it can be confusing to tell if she views the former and sundered humanity as the same thing. She seems to contradict herself a lot through the story, does she not? Not only on this regard. I'd say they just mold her views, her goals and her phrases (and not just hers, really) to "whatever sounds better for the particular scene". She even contradicts herself back to back on the same cutscene. She first says "yeah Y'shtola, it's as you say, I sundered creation so you'd be better equipped to confront dynamis" and then IMMEDIATLY follows with "when confronting Zodiark he was too powerful so my only choice was to sunder creation to diminish his power." So, which is it?

Honestly I can't take anything she says seriously.

[KariTheFox]

She even contradicts herself back to back on the same cutscene. She first says "yeah Y'shtola, it's as you say, I sundered creation so you'd be better equipped to confront dynamis" and then IMMEDIATLY follows with "when confronting Zodiark he was too powerful so my only choice was to sunder creation to diminish his power." So, which is it?

Why can't it be both? Characters can have more than one motivation and reason for their actions. Neither of those reasons for the sundering contradict each other.

[Sicno]

Why can't it be both? Characters can have more than one motivation and reason for their actions. Neither of those reasons for the sundering contradict each other.

Indeed, but it kinda kills it when you say "yes, it's as you say" and then follow with a completely different reasoning for your actions.

Actually no. She says "my only recourse was to rend him asunder to diminish his power". She says she had no choice. So in this particular case you can't have your hand forced and also try to play smart like "yes, I had this clever idea about how to handle dynamis so that's why I did it".

[SpectrePhantasia]

I don't think Eara was being particularly toxic at the time. I guess 'echo chamber' is a bit of a brash way of putting it, but it was at a point in the thread where most everyone around had the same opinion on the plot, so I don't think it was necessarily inaccurate, and I don't even agree with her.

As for the Dynamis introduction, I too was really not okay with how convenient and out-of-nowhere it felt for appearing at the end of a saga like this. 'Esoteric' or not, the idea that there is an essence that comprises MOST of the universe and exists alongside aether, (which was previously known to account for everything) yet is entirely unknown to all but a 'select few scholars' is unbelievable to me. An entire society of curious academics who essentially exist solely to further their knowledge and nurture the star, and no one seems to care about a UNIVERSE-spanning energy?

[KariTheFox]

Indeed, but it kinda kills it when you say "yes, it's as you say" and then follow with a completely different reasoning for your actions.

Actually no. She says "my only recourse was to rend him asunder to diminish his power". She says she had no choice. So in this particular case you can't have your hand forced and also try to play smart like "yes, I had this clever idea about how to handle dynamis so that's why I did it".

I feel like you're getting too caught up in the particulars of her phrasing. "Yes, creating life that can interact with dynamis was one motivation - also, the battle with zodiark necessitated the sundering to diminish his power so he could be bound"

Is this particular to the english translation? iirc the Japanese dialogue her answer to Y'sthola was more along the lines of ,"Well, yes, but..." and Y'shtola's dialogue came off more like she was theorizing rather than asking a direct question.