When are we supposed to stop fighting?

[Lurina]

If you want to go send Time Cops after the Deviant Future Ironworks, sure, go ahead; you're assuming I'll jump to their defense for some reason, but to be honest I just don't care about them.

I think you're kinda missing his point there. It's not that you have to feel the Future Ironworks is bad or else be a hypocrite, or even that they're especially significant unto themselves at all. It's that the story is thematically inconsistent, which means the events that occur feel without meaning. If there is no truth conveyed in the destruction of the Ancients that is not contradicted by other parts of the narrative, then you have to ask why they had to die, beyond the arbitrary mechanical concerns of the scenario? What message are we supposed to take into our lives? Is it immature and stupid to try and bring back a lost past at the possible expense of the present, or noble and self-sacrificial? Or when is it one versus the other?

In Shadowbringers, this wasn't an issue because the story embraced its own tragic ambiguity - it wasn't that the Ascians were better than the Ironworks in terms of their core motive, just that one of their projects required doing overt murders to realize that motive. But the plot around Venat is much more traditionally moral driven; the Ancients had an original sin tied in with the core themes that doomed them, and for that they had to be cast down so that their successors could be saved. But if the story can't sell that sin as something fundamental within its own moral universe, then it all falls apart, and the writing feels dissonant and cruel.

I think the cause of a lot of these problems comes down to the fact that Shadowbringers was written as a realist narrative ("things happen based on the choices and competing needs of the characters"), while Enwalker is very much an idealist ("things happen for bigger picture, thematically-driven reasons") one. They're fine in isolation, but they go together like oil and water, which is not great since they're so inter-dependent.

2. There are no 'other civilizations' to the Ancients. It's unclear if Amaurot was the only civilization, but we do know that the Ancients were the only people. And from the fact that Zodiark involved sacrificing half the planet's population (twice), we can assume the world was making decisions in concert, even if we don't know if there was a one-world government at play. You can't just say 'and also she sacrificed other civilizations than the Ancients', because there's no evidence to their existence.

Is this actually made clear, or just a case of ascended fanon? Emet and Hythlodeus talk about half of their 'people' and 'race' being sacrificed, but that could just as easily mean just Amaurotines. And the quests in Amaurot, particularly the debate club one, make it clear that there are other nations in the world not under their control.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip

I can call her a psychopath if i so wish to. I can call her mentally ill as well which is what i attribute her to be with the way she contradicts herself and does a complete 180. Based on Hythlo, we know the ancients were going to move forward after the 3rd set of sacrifices. They werent given that chance. Strategically correct? Not in the slightest unless you mean mass genocide is ever strategically correct, in which case i guess Valens is a hero. Cant have evil if you destroy everyone on the planet and burn out the bad.

Strategically correct wouldve been believing what she preached so much about and having hope in her people.Instead, she gave up on them, didnt tell them a word of what would happen, and then shattered them because they disagreed with her. Her mindset is wrong, because as we're shown the ancients experiences suffering everyday, but they still moved on from it. It was only her and hermes that could not. Doesnt give her a right to play god and rip people apart without her consent, nor does it make her in any way right. Unfortunately the game itself did devolve it into a "Venat is totally right" and thats what people have a problem with. If they left it morally grey, where we neither agree or diagree with her actions, i dont think as many people would be up in arms as they are now as shes quite literally pampered and painted as a hero. Imagine if they did this in ShB with Emet, and we got a minion calling him a hero. You know for a fact there would be countless threatds and posts of people calling this out and ranting and raving. We basically got some of that because they strayed away from calling him a clear cut villain.

As for other civilizations, the ancients term is used to describe anyone from that period, not just the elpis members or amaurotines. Based on the short stories we know there were people who lacked in some way in the creation magicks field, who they helped, and we know of that whole island native people with the azem volcano incident. They sent azem specifically to that civilization lol.Either way it doesnt matter from my original points, its other people that didnt consent. Its funny to me people defend her for this but they raised such an incredible deal against Mitron and consent with Gaia.

In terms of Ironworks, my point is the themes it follows, which someone already pointed out so ill just point to their great post about that.

[KariTheFox]

I have to ask, what does calling Venat a mentally ill psychopath add to this discussion? It just seems like a lot of snarl words that strip her of any agency in her actions.

After all, if she's mentally ill and psychopathic, then she hardly even has the capacity to be responsible for her actions.If you want to condemn the sundering, fine. But your condemnation would actually be stronger if you insist she was an empathic person acting in good faith, who was in fact, not a deranged pyschopath.

[Lauront]

I think the cause of a lot of these problems comes down to the fact that Shadowbringers was written as a realist narrative ("things happen based on the choices and competing needs of the characters"), while Enwalker is very much an idealist ("things happen for bigger picture, thematically-driven reasons") one. They're fine in isolation, but they go together like oil and water, which is not great since they're so inter-dependent.

Yup, well said. I particularly dislike how it took a lot of the more finely detailed nuance on the topic of her faction and the Convocation's disagreement and squashed it down to that arguably very misleading fast-forward cinematic, which has caused no small amount of confusion.

Is this actually made clear, or just a case of ascended fanon? Emet and Hythlodeus talk about half of their 'people' and 'race' being sacrificed, but that could just as easily mean just Amaurotines. And the quests in Amaurot, particularly the debate club one, make it clear that there are other nations in the world not under their control.

It's not confirmed explicitly, but I'd say the inference is correct based on the information we know. The extent of the Convocation's authority over other habitations is not defined in exact terms, but they are ultimately the body charged with overseeing the star's well-being (e.g. here or here by searching "institution") and so this is highly suggestive of some manner of global (con)federation of city-states under its watch, and reading between the lines, it seems like it calculated its interventions based on what it considered to be best for managing the star's future. In terms of the sacrifices, Venat does state that mankind gave half their number to summon Zodiark. While it's not outright stated that the inhabitants of the other areas would be "mankind", they do use terms in the debate quest like "friends", which to me suggests it.

Personally I would say that there's little need to even bring other civilisations into this. It adds little and isn't the issue with what she did, which to me is the erasure of her people through her unilateral judgement, after not sharing the information she had as to why she had the concerns she did (except through what amounted effectively to platitudes about 'suffering'), whatever the story-based constraints resulting in that decision.

[thegreatonemal]

I have to ask, what does calling Venat a mentally ill psychopath add to this discussion? It just seems like a lot of snarl words that strip her of any agency in her actions.

After all, if she's mentally ill and psychopathic, then she hardly even has the capacity to be responsible for her actions.If you want to condemn the sundering, fine. But your condemnation would actually be stronger if you insist she was an empathic person acting in good faith, who was in fact, not a deranged pyschopath.

Just sounds like an excuse to hate on a character because they don't like her for other reasons that they'd rather not say out loud. She freely admits it was a cruel thing to do and it gave only a chance at victory but that's better than the zero percent chance they had before.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I have to ask, what does calling Venat a mentally ill psychopath add to this discussion? It just seems like a lot of snarl words that strip her of any agency in her actions.

After all, if she's mentally ill and psychopathic, then she hardly even has the capacity to be responsible for her actions.If you want to condemn the sundering, fine. But your condemnation would actually be stronger if you insist she was an empathic person acting in good faith, who was in fact, not a deranged pyschopath.

Its just my opinion of her. I wasnt just saying that, i also gave reasons as to why i believe it and the overall discussion.Funny how no one ever called this out when people called the Garleans nazi's or what have you. Seems like theres a heavy case of bias people have for their favorite character.

Just sounds like an excuse to hate on a character because they don't like her for other reasons that they'd rather not say out loud. She freely admits it was a cruel thing to do and it gave only a chance at victory but that's better than the zero percent chance they had before.

Except we dont know whether it was 0% chance or no, thats speculation. What other reasons do you think there could be? I already gave reasons as to why i dislike her, backed by the actual in game lore. She admits it was a cruel thing, the game itself paints a different picture and bashes you over the head with the fact shes 100% right, shes great, benevolent, such a hero.The grey morality they promised us isnt there, especially not if you compare it to the grey morality of ShB.

[Theodric]

I've seen far worse said about the likes of Emet, including from some of the same posters now choosing to express 'concern' over the wording used to describe Venat. Given that they're fictional characters and not actually real, I daresay it's utterly bizarre to try and claim that people are somehow flawed, wrong or bad for liking or disliking specific characters.

[Slatersev]

I am going to argue we do not know, and until we do we have no argument about the third sacrifice to be had. I assume it is non sentient life, you assume it is sentient. We don't know, and until we do all we have is assumptions, and until we have definitive proof they wished to sacrifice sentient life [and even then if it is their own creations I would argue yes, they had the right, as that life's creators] then yes, they were justified in order to do so. Once we have evidence they were sentient [we don't at present] the calculation changes. But until then, yep, justified.

Lmaooooo, by that logic any parent has the right to kill there kids if they want to. There desires supersede there childs right to live?

[KizuyaKatogami]

Lmaooooo, by that logic any parent has the right to kill there kids if they want to. There desires supersede there childs right to live?

I mean, theres a very sensitive irl topic that falls along the lines of that if you know what im talking about.

[KariTheFox]

The issue is that "pyschopathic genocide loving Venat who killed her own people because she hated thier culture so much" is not really a valid or insightful reading of the text. It requires asbcribing motivations and character traits to Venat that are not there. It can be your headcanon, sure. But it's not supported by anything in the game.

If you want to debate the morality of the sundering, you can do that. But it becomes wholly unproductive when all the discussiom keeps coming back to is mudslinging against Venat.

Also we're not talking about the Garleans or Emet-Selch right now, why does the fact that in unrelated conversations some third parties said things about Garleans/Emet-Selch have any bearing on how this conversation is conducted?