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

[EaraGrace]

I have to say I am not entirely convinced you want to hear it.

But the answer is knowledge and creation magic. Elpis's #1 resident depressed edgelord is stated not to be the only one with expertise in Dynamis.

So let me lay out why I personally believe this to be untrue.

First, there the fact that the existence of Dynamis is not widely known at all. Emet and Hythlo, both scholars and experts in their own right, lack any knowledge of its existence until Hermes explains it to them. Venat as well didn’t know until we told her. It’s rational to conclude then that the vast vast majority of the Ancient world possess no knowledge of Dynamis.



Second, there’s the fact that as far as has been said entelechies have only been created in Elpis, with both the flower and Meteion hailing from there. Meteion as well is the most special between the two, being the only one possessed of a will or the ability to effect change in Dynamis.



Third, even in Elpis the researchers we speak too lack any understanding of how Meteion or Dynamis functions.

Ismene: I understand that she is able to able to read emotions and communicate directly with one's mind. Exactly how she was created with that talent, however, is a mystery to me.

Timaios: Dynamis and...entelechies?
Those terms do sound vaguely familiar... Was there not a flower made here in Elpis which exhibited properties of one or the other?
It must have been centuries since I last heard anyone speak of such things. Has there been a resurgence in interest?

Timaios: Despite my admiration for Meteion as a concept, I have never delved too deeply into the inner workings of her nature.
I know that she has a gift for communicating via emotions, but otherwise, her abilities are a mystery to me.

Hermes, being Meteions creator, is thus unique for both knowing of and having experience working with Dynamis. He’s in fact the only one we know of.

With this we can make objective statements.

1. Dynamis’ existence is known only by a handful of scholars.
2. Hermes is the only one to have created a being able to control Dynamis on a massive scale
3. There are no Entelechies outside of the Elpis Flower (an accident) and Meteion known to us
4. Interest in Dynamis may have existed in a limited way at some point, but much time has passed since then, and no other concepts have been submitted using it since Hythlodaeus began working at the Bureau

Thus I think it’s fair to conclude that Hermes is the only expert on Dynamis.

Is it so far-fetched to imagine working together and researching Dynamis-capable familiars, refining them so they don't go nuclear when encountering negative emotions perhaps? This isn't taking into account a system like they have in Ktisis, which seemingly gives Ancients access to Limit Break, but that might just be a contrived integration of a gameplay mechanic.

The exact nature of the Limit Break post Endwalker is complicated. We have reason to believe, based on previous lore statements, that it is aether. But now, we have a potential Dynamis connection. Hell, it’s still possible that it’s both, with the ratio changing depending on the fight and context of it’s use.

On whether the Ancients could use it, Hermes says outright that they can’t “make practical use of it.”

[KariTheFox]

I don't agree with your assessment and I don't think that there's anything particularly 'toxic' when it comes to my previous post.

I'm merely expressing my deep concern given the prior history of Hydaelyn fanatics resorting to personal attacks, tone policing other horrid tactics whenever someone successfully points out that, actually, the Unsundered aren't wrong to want to avoid being subjected to genocide by an unhinged saboteur who fancied masquerading as a 'supreme deity' and 'mother'.

It would be nice if it was possible to have a discussion about Venat without you posioning the well with an interpretation of her character that not everyone agrees with. The implication of your post is that you and people who agree with you are 'sucessfully seeing that the writing is bad, and 'correctly' pointing out that Venat is a genocidal monster'."

Don't you see that with language like that, there is no room for disagreement or different intrepretation? Just you and the people who agree with you, who are definitely right, and the foolish, misguided people who like the story and Venat (because they want to simp for thier crystal mommy or refuse to acknowledge genocide, or something. Not because they looked at the same story that you did and came to a different conclusion.)

[EaraGrace]

For someone who claims to understand the lore well, the poster doesn't even do that particularly well:






Dynamis does not factor into their solution because said solution is designed without knowledge of the underlying cause, instead being designed to buffer the celestial currents where they are weak. Nowhere is it attributed solely to Hermes (as opposed to scholars, in the plural, as per the source), nor is an understanding of dynamis mentioned as relevant - for all we know they could've simply inferred the pattern in question, with Zodiark able to bolster it as required. And I am not familiar of any sources that attribute Zodiark to him specifically.

Do we want to argue whether Hermes was special for his knowledge of celestial currents again Lauront?

Timaios: Chief Hermes's work? A worthy subject, indeed...
Those beings which soar through the clouds, majestic and graceful, are ever a favorite of creators. Even now, with so many varieties in existence, the flood of newly imagined concepts continues unabated.
What sets the chief's creations apart, however, is how they benefit from his boundless knowledge of the celestial realm.
Birds that climb so high that they disappear from view. Others which traverse the boundless sky in moments, and all without riding the currents...
I know of none save he who can conceive of such marvels. Even we who prize elegance of form above all else are dumbfounded by his genius.

I hope people won't be subjected to more horrific personal attacks and defamatory comments from certain posters. That's usually the next step after the latest round of 'NOOOO, U MUST LIEK AND AGREE WITH CRYSTAL MOMMY' begins.

Yes I was being very defamatory when I got compared to a rape apologist in the last thread we discussed Venat in. Yes I’m the one with the personal attacks.

[Lauront]

All this talk of Venat/Hydaelyn being genocidal. To be frank those that survived the sundering were just as bad..

Which is acknowledged - albeit with the caveat that they are doing so to reverse the very act she performed in the first place, while failing to give them a proper explanation of why, so much so that they saw it as their duty to restore both the star and their people. Yet few of us would say the rejoinings not genocides in their own way. The fact that she is genocidal, though, is often brushed under the carpet or contested, even to the point that it's claimed that the sundering did them no harm and just "created more life".

Do we want to argue whether Hermes was special for his knowledge of celestial currents again Lauront?

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

[Sicno]

Posting these again.
“Our journey” doesn’t exactly scream “we’re different groups of people.”

No matter how many times you post it, cherry-picking one sentence where she uses the word that encompases both "you" and "me" 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"?

And in Elpis she repeatedly uses “we” when discussing our plans for what to do next, referring to her and us.

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?

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?

Venat and Hydaelyn consistently make clear we are united and while different in nature, both are of mankind.

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. 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.

[dapperfaffer]

But the answer is knowledge and creation magic. Elpis's #1 resident depressed edgelord is stated not to be the only one with expertise in Dynamis. Is it so far-fetched to imagine working together and researching Dynamis-capable familiars, refining them so they don't go nuclear when encountering negative emotions perhaps? This isn't taking into account a system like they have in Ktisis, which seemingly gives Ancients access to Limit Break, but that might just be a contrived integration of a gameplay mechanic.

Speaking of Ancients and Dynamis, we have Seat of Sacrifice too. Yes, he was drawing power from Dynamis-capable beings. But then, this fact opens up the possibility to consideration at all. After all, a Primal is, again, a twist on creation magic, with souls. Areas of expertise of Lahabrea and Emet-Selch.

There is just... a lot that could have been done and explored.

Just as an aside and to add to:
Outside of explaining Dynamis and the 3 levels of aether, which may or may not come in later patches, everything you posted is what Hydaelyn did when she created the Source and the Thirteen shards, the blessing of light, and the story behind EW.

[Theodric]

All this talk of Venat/Hydaelyn being genocidal.

Yes. It's an apt descriptor for the deliberate act of wiping out the Ancients and whatever other species did not survive the Sundering.

To be frank those that survived the sundering were just as bad..

As much strife as the Sundered have sown themselves, they largely did as much as a direct consequence of the Sundering itself. Often in an act of desperation to preserve their lives and territory.

It would be nice if it was possible to have a discussion about Venat without you posioning the well with an interpretation of her character that not everyone agrees with. The implication of your post is that you and people who agree with you are 'sucessfully seeing that the writing is bad, and 'correctly' pointing out that Venat is a genocidal monster'."

Don't you see that with language like that, there is no room for disagreement or different intrepretation? Just you and the people who agree with you, who are definitely right, and the foolish, misguided people who like the story and Venat (because they want to simp for thier crystal mommy or refuse to acknowledge genocide, or something. Not because they looked at the same story that you did and came to a different conclusion.)

You're free to draw whatever conclusions you so wish. You can go through my post history and see that I have consistently urged people to agree to disagree when it comes to these 'debates'. I'm a little lost as to how that is equal to 'poisoning the well'.

If you or anyone else happens to like Venat? Cool. Good on you - plenty of people like Zenos so it can't be said that characters with few, if any, redeeming qualities in the eyes of many cannot be popular.

Yes I was being very defamatory when I got compared to a rape apologist in the last thread we discussed Venat in. Yes I’m the one with the personal attacks.

I daresay that would be something to take up with the poster who supposedly did as much. It has nothing to do with me.

[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.

[KariTheFox]

If you or anyone else happens to like Venat? Cool. Good on you - plenty of people like Zenos so it can't be said that characters with few, if any, redeeming qualities in the eyes of many cannot be popular.

You're doing it again, right now. "You can like Venat, it's fine. Even though she has no redeeming qualities, just like Zenos"

Are you actually confused about how what you're doing is toxic? If your position was to just agree to disagree, your posts wouldn't be filled with constant asides about how Venat defenders want to be apologists for genocide because they love thier crystal mommy.

[Kaurhz]

Yes. It's an apt descriptor for the deliberate act of wiping out the Ancients and whatever other species did not survive the Sundering.

Which I never argued otherwise.

As much strife as the Sundered have sown themselves, they largely did as much as a direct consequence of the Sundering itself. Often in an act of desperation to preserve their lives and territory.
.

That is still genocidal, regardless of how you view the matter. In this case 2 wrongs do not make a right. Besides Emet-Selch has openly viewed us in contempt in that he doesn't even view us as Human. So yes, still as genocidal as Hydaelyn, and this is not taking into an account that they elect the best course of action to address the final days (Their own fault btw) was to sacrifice themselves, and then to carry out a second sacrifice in attempt to rekindle the world itself, and then a final sacrifice to the new life in attempt to restore those originally sacrificed. Then we get onto Hermes himself, he who defended and stopped Emet, Hythlodaeus, the WoL, and Venat all from getting hold of Meteion, who is essentially responsible (what with her song of oblivion and all) for what happens.

Not sure about you mate but it seems pretty clear cut that they're equally as genocidal. Find it a little funny and ironic that you were here calling out people for being Venat/Hydaelyn fanatics when there's arguably just as many people here presenting fanaticism for what the Ancients done or were trying to do.