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

[Lauront]

Her entire plan relies on Zodiark. In terms of what SHB tells us, it was Azem who left the Convocation out of opposition to summoning Zodiark (reasons unspecified.) The dialogue with the Watcher on the Moon does state that her faction opposed his creation, but I believe it's an error from the writers in the EN version, because the SHB dialogue from Hythlodaeus does not frame it that way (instead, it premises the opposition as stemming to the third stage of sacrifices - sources on the SHB stuff here), it's not repeated in the FR version (here), does not fit with the post-Elpis cutscene and it would make mincemeat of her entire plan (relayed by the Watcher himself just after that) which is to bunker up beneath Zodiark's shield while they identified the true cause of the apocalypse. If the 14 wiki is saying this stems from SHB, it's just wrong. That site tends to be poorly written and injects a lot of headcanon/"spin" into things, so source texts from the game are always preferable.

Venat didn't give the Ancients any context as to why they should change (not that it mattered because someone was always going to have to face and defeat Meteion, embracing suffering and despair wasn't going to make any difference in that regard). It was basically:

Ancient1: We have a plan to release those you lost.
Me: Great, do it!
Venat: No, don't!
Me: Why?
Venat: Because...! Reasons.
Me: Uh, that's not good enough, go ahead with the plan.
Venat: *sunder* That's what you get for not doing what I wanted!

As a further point here, even the Scions are left shocked by what they see in the Plenty in the Dead Ends. This is after they had you relay what you learnt in Elpis and Hydaelyn gave her lines about "suffering" and yet they struggled to believe it. Trying to convince through mere words the survivors of a civilisation that had succeeded in extinguishing many ills that this pursuit could end poorly, without hard proof of what was driving her concerns, was never going to cut it, IMO, made all the worse that the cutscene related to it shows these words being offered at perhaps the worst possible time.

[Theodric]

As an aside, player created wiki pages are not necessarily reliable as a source given that they're prone to being written in a biased manner. For example, the third round of sacrifices was to be the last and was set to involve a portion of the 'new life' rather than the 'vast sacrifices' the wiki frames it as. Terms such as 'regressive nostalgia' are also counterproductive, since it is a perfectly valid stance for the Ancients to desire the continued preservation of their species and civilisation nor are they under any obligation to go along with whatever Venat desires of them.

[Rosenstrauch]

I saw this brought up, but the part where it's mentioned that Venat opposed Zodiark's creation is in the cutscene with the Scions and the Watcher, post-Zodiark Trial. It's a bit baffling, though, because the very same conversation confirms that Zodiark was a necessity, and that the process of coming up with his creation only began after the Final Days had started.

I want to say that Venat might have been unprepared for how severe the Final Days truly were, but that last part is a real deal breaker. And it's too hard to believe Venat could be actively witnessing the death of Etheirys and go "This is fine, we don't need Zodiark".

EDIT: It also occurs to me that the story never offers a reason why Venat opposed Zodiark's creation, only that she did. While, again, acknowledging that the Ancients would not have survived without his intervention. With that in mind, I suspect it's actually a plot hole.

I also want to clarify that I'm not saying this in condemnation of Venat. As far as I'm concerned, she is a flawed character who makes understandable mistakes despite having the best of intentions. Like underestimating the impact the Final Days would have, or shouting at the survivors to move on while they're struggling to process their grief. And so on. And I'm not terribly bothered by characters looking the other way when it comes to her, save for Y'shtola—the perennial author avatar standing on her soap box—and Emet-Selch, who comes across as out of character in Ultima Thule in the moment he starts praising her.

[NanaWiloh]

Glad others can remember in better detail then me.Thank you for all the clarification. I will step out now and just observe, never been a fan of lore debates. But hard to avoid a debate as well..double edge sword.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip

I never said it was black and white, however, Zodiark and Hydaelyn themselves can be argued are innocent. It’s their hearts that dictate what they do. Zodiark didn’t do anything but good. He saved the planet not once but twice and helped it flourish. Hydaelyn, while she did sunder the world, was due to the actions of Venat, her heart. The story is pretty much morally gray barring a few outliers. The devs themselves however have stated they expect people to take the sides of the ascians/ancients and others to take the sides of the sundered. They promote this kind of debate. They also state that the ascians aren’t in all actuality villains. They’re the heroes of their own story much as we’re the heroes of our own story. It doesn’t change the fact however.Venat did countless bad and to some, evil deeds. I don’t think many would argue the ascians haven’t done bad things, but it’s the grand scheme of things, context matters. They wouldn’t have to do these things if it weren’t for one person and that person is Venat.

As for the death thing, i’ll be generous. Let’s say only 25% of the age deaths count towards hydaelyn’s sundering. That is still trillions of lives lost because of her. We know illness was a foreign concept to the ancients based on Emet’s short story. We know they lived for a much much greater lifespan than the sundered, so yes, that death can indeed be pinned on her. The sundered are sundered shards of the ancients. As far as your comments about them just basically needing to roll over and die, i find extremely amusing. You realize the scions themselves agreed they’d do no different were they in the ascians’ shoes. So it seems you’re the outlier here. Again i bring up Ironworks, who didn’t just give up and die. They placed all their hopes in one person just like the ancients placed their hope in the convocation and Zodiark. They were willing to sacrifice millions of people to bring us back. Guess they’re evil for not rolling over and accepting fate? Even though in the final trial of this expansion both Alphinaud and Alisaie acknowledge they will fight against fate no matter what.

[NanaWiloh]

I never said it was black and white, however, Zodiark and Hydaelyn themselves can be argued are innocent. It’s their hearts that dictate what they do. Zodiark didn’t do anything but good. He saved the planet not once but twice and helped it flourish. Hydaelyn, while she did sunder the world, was due to the actions of Venat, her heart. The story is pretty much morally gray barring a few outliers. The devs themselves however have stated they expect people to take the sides of the ascians/ancients and others to take the sides of the sundered. They promote this kind of debate. They also state that the ascians aren’t in all actuality villains. They’re the heroes of their own story much as we’re the heroes of our own story. It doesn’t change the fact however.Venat did countless bad and to some, evil deeds. I don’t think many would argue the ascians haven’t done bad things, but it’s the grand scheme of things, context matters. They wouldn’t have to do these things if it weren’t for one person and that person is Venat.

As for the death thing, i’ll be generous. Let’s say only 25% of the age deaths count towards hydaelyn’s sundering. That is still trillions of lives lost because of her. We know illness was a foreign concept to the ancients based on Emet’s short story. We know they lived for a much much greater lifespan than the sundered, so yes, that death can indeed be pinned on her. The sundered are sundered shards of the ancients. As far as your comments about them just basically needing to roll over and die, i find extremely amusing. You realize the scions themselves agreed they’d do no different were they in the ascians’ shoes. So it seems you’re the outlier here. Again i bring up Ironworks, who didn’t just give up and die. They placed all their hopes in one person just like the ancients placed their hope in the convocation and Zodiark. They were willing to sacrifice millions of people to bring us back. Guess they’re evil for not rolling over and accepting fate? Even though in the final trial of this expansion both Alphinaud and Alisaie acknowledge they will fight against fate no matter what.

This whole post just brought me closure. *slips away in darkness*

[Kozh]

You realize the unsundered didn't suffer more about their final days because we kinda stopped them, right?. Had we stopped them too late, they would be at the exact same point as the amaurotians. Not to mention the Amaurotians didn't get 7 Calamities (8 if we count those in the alternate timeline) unlike the sundered did, thanks in no small part to the remaining Ascians that were suffering severe withdrawal on copium.

But let's keep the competition? Why would we make like, um, sharks with legs? Well, because sharks. With legs. Shark. With. Legs. Peak caring for life. And the colliseum drives it home, because it shows that anyone who's living the good life care very little about what's below him. Just like Ul'dah rich people do, so do Amaurotians. That's why Fandaniel goes full ape shit to begin with. Remember his flashbacks? In his mind, then and now were the same to him. C

And the funeral rites... who do you think they learned them from? From us. The sundered heros who come from the future.

The hell does shark with leg do with the discussion Jesus christ. Next you gonna complain about horse having wings, I presume?

This is what happen when you argue with someone who's relating the game every little thing to real life situation. And also seems to have basic misunderstanding of the discussed topic.

The Ancients isn't "playing" Gods. Because they are the gods of ethyris. Unlike the sundered who sometimes kill creatures just because they can, the unsundered hates mindless violence. They literally said it on one of the sidequest. They have such moderation in lifestyle that sometimes they don't eat because they think it's an indulgence.

Those "creature" they let dissipate are concepts. It's sad to kill them, but compared, like, 20-50 creatures killed versus the whole species (can be hundreds or thousands individue) died if they were released to the wilds, what the Ancients did is more "humane". And they mourn those loves lost, hence the spot called "mourning dew". And yes, this has been the way even before the WoL come.

Frankly, as researcher, if I have that "delete" spell, I would use it instead of inflicting more pain to my mice even in they're under anesthesia.

[BokoToloko]

The hell does shark with leg do with the discussion Jesus christ. Next you gonna complain about horse having wings, I presume?

This is what happen when you argue with someone who's relating the game every little thing to real life situation. And also seems to have basic misunderstanding of the discussed topic.

The Ancients isn't "playing" Gods. Because they are the gods of ethyris. Unlike the sundered who sometimes kill creatures just because they can, the unsundered hates mindless violence. They literally said it on one of the sidequest. They have such moderation in lifestyle that sometimes they don't eat because they think it's an indulgence.

Those "creature" they let dissipate are concepts. It's sad to kill them, but compared, like, 20-50 creatures killed versus the whole species (can be hundreds or thousands individue) died if they were released to the wilds, what the Ancients did is more "humane". And they mourn those loves lost, hence the spot called "mourning dew". And yes, this has been the way even before the WoL come.

Frankly, as researcher, if I have that "delete" spell, I would use it instead of inflicting more pain to my mice even in they're under anesthesia.

What any decent researcher would've done to begin with is not starting to create new species left and right from the start. And regarding shark with legs, it's not any more contrived than going with "See that species of a forgotten area no one cares and how they died to bad adventurers? Boom. Ancients 1 - Sundered 0"

And for a species that hates violences, the Ascians would have a word with you. The species renounce violence is a flawed statement because they don't even NEED to, at the given time. But when push comes to shove, you just need to look at Ascians, who are STILL Ancients (or part of one) or how they're willing to sacrifice half a planet's life just because they can't cope with a sacrifice they themselves made and prefer other life to pay the price, and are so hellbent on restoring things the way the were and act like nothing happened. Does that suddenly make the sundered better? Hell, no. But seeing this then arguing the Ancients are the idyllic creatures we take them for is just delusion.

They have such "moderation", because they just CAN'T deal with those situations. Remember the dragons in Ultima Thule and how they deal with conflict? That's the kind of "moderation" you see, just more extreme and in a suicidal way. And it doesn't end at eating, they also hide their own individuality to avoid conflict. That's not moderation, that's self-renounciation. Rather than solve conflicts as they appear, they prefer to sacrifice in order to run away from them.

And the mourning dew falls flat once you look back at Hermes and when he critizices this very thing, the answer he get is, in short, "It is what it is, it's a pity, but it's not a big deal".

[Lauront]

I saw this brought up, but the part where it's mentioned that Venat opposed Zodiark's creation is in the cutscene with the Scions and the Watcher, post-Zodiark Trial. It's a bit baffling, though, because the very same conversation confirms that Zodiark was a necessity, and that the process of coming up with his creation only began after the Final Days had started.

I want to say that Venat might have been unprepared for how severe the Final Days truly were, but that last part is a real deal breaker. And it's too hard to believe Venat could be actively witnessing the death of Etheirys and go "This is fine, we don't need Zodiark".

Correct, that's the scene I'm referring to - coupled with the fact that it's not worded that way in the FR version, I can only wonder if there was some confusion between Azem, who was stated to have left over the issue (and now I wonder if this was encouraged by Venat given her knowledge of what would happen), and her faction's opposition (which in SHB is stated to occur before the third stage of sacrifices), which survived into the MSQ writing. But like you say, it's flatly contradicted by the Watcher's following lines. Very strange.

I also agree with your take on Venat - my issue is more with a lot of the writing surrounding her, including them making use of time travel yet again right after SHB (in ways that IMO constrained her own agency), and the potential use of this to explain mysteries like why the three unsundered escaped the Sundering. I'm reserving judgement until I see if they have any commentary on it to see what to make of it but overall I wasn't very satisfied with it. I would've liked the ability for a dialogue option to at least have my character distance themselves from her actions and refuse to condone what she did to the ancients. Acknowledge they (the character) benefited as a result but at a terrible cost to the ancients. Something to convey mixed feelings. Overall, I get why people dislike her, but a lot would agree this is due to what they see post-Elpis, so how they wrote it seems to be a culprit - bending over backwards to try paint her in a good light when it's not that simple. I think this poster put it very well:

People tend to have a disproportionately negative response to controversial components of media which offer no room - within the text - for disagreement, because it feels like the writers are demanding you abandon your values and accept their own, or else become an 'unwanted reader' for whom the story isn't for. If you've been around fandom circles for long enough, you'll know this is the soil from which a lot of big discourse storms sprout. People might hate characters who are framed more ambiguously, like Emet, but the narrative being mixed in terms of how he's presented serves as a release valve for the reader-author tension, letting people feel like they have permission to draw their own conclusions (though admittedly, Endwalker was also unkind to outright Emet haters, which is another flaw it has, IMO). But if a writer chooses to insist that a character is objectively righteous, or objectively reprehensible, then if there are people they can't bring on board with those outlooks, a lot of them will go crazy. It's the same reason people often hate hypocrites more than actual unrepentant murderers in the real world. The mind is revolted by any dissonance between what it is being told is true and what it knows to be true. (In this case, Venat being a loving goddess worthy of our love and the fact she murdered like a billion people for reasons that were presented kinda ambiguously respectively.)

I think a lot of people on the hardcore Venat hate-train are kinda wrongheaded about the whole thing, because ultimately, she's just a device. How she ended up coming across in Endwalker could just as easily be a product of the too-many-cooks and gameplay/story balance issues endemic to all game writing, or just more general messy writing, rather then the result of intentional choices by the Main Scenario Team. And even if it was wholly intentional, it's pointless to be angry at her and want retribution, because none of this junk is even real. But it's not hard to understand why it makes some people act sorta over the top. Intentionally written injustice within a story has the hope of eventual catharsis, but unintentional injustice feels like it might be there forever. People want some kind of release for their feelings that isn't just dumping the whole game.

[Kozh]

What any decent researcher would've done to begin with is not starting to create new species left and right from the start.

Just from this sentence alone it's clear you don't even understand the Ancients society. Sure, let's let the earth untamed, unhabitable place. Stellar idea.

And regarding shark with legs, it's not any more contrived than going with "See that species of a forgotten area no one cares and how they died to bad adventurers? Boom. Ancients 1 - Sundered 0"

What...?

Hell, no. But seeing this then arguing the Ancients are the idyllic creatures we take them for is just delusion.

No one said they're incapable of violence?? They have different standard than the sundered and are more peaceful, that's a fact. And yeah ofc they have flaws when being cornered, just the same as us. That's called being human. Nothing exactly wrong with that.

They have such "moderation", because they just CAN'T deal with those situations.

No? Their way of living is already like that from the start way before the final days. Avoiding conflict and self moderation are important to them because each of them basically can nuke their civilization if they aren't careful. Remember when a single stray thought can turn a creation magic result into something else?

Rather than solve conflicts as they appear, they prefer to sacrifice in order to run away from them.

Oh yeah, that's why the Azems travel around the world to ignore those in need. Just run away from them. Cool.

They only resort to sacrifice because it's absolute requirement for summoning zodiark. Speaking of sacrifice and run away, are you going to belittle every sundered person who do the same?

And the mourning dew falls flat once you look back at Hermes and when he critizices this very thing, the answer he get is, in short, "It is what it is, it's a pity, but it's not a big deal".

If you can't deal with this mindset, I suggest you turn away from biology major/works. Because that's literally how researchers work. You said it yourself. We don't take pleasure from it, yet it had to be done.

Speaking of hermes, his personality is believable, but what unbelievable is how this guy manage to become chief overseer of a research facility where you have to deal with creatures every day. If even Twitter can recognize how stupid the idea is and how weird no one said anything about meteion, then it's just bad writing.