Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Cleretic]

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...

First of all: if we presume her plan was pure 'maintain the timeline was she knows it', she actually can't protect Azem from the Sundering, because one of the very few things she knows for real is that Azem needs to be sundered. Not only do we need to be the Warrior of Light, but so does Ardbert.

Then we have to remember that Venat's crew did reach out to Azem, and didn't hear back. That suggests that she did try to work with Azem on this and it didn't work out; combine this with one of the other answers we got, where the answer to 'what was Azem up to' was basically 'Azem is you, so they're doing whatever you would've been doing in that situation', and we can say that the reason Azem didn't help her was probably one that you would agree with.

Also, do you really think Emet-Selch would've listened to a word Venat would have said after she sundered the planet? I don't think I would've in his position, and I think she knows that. Especially because her plan really doesn't go his way; the Convocation want their world back, but Venat doesn't just believe this to be unattainable, but requires it to remain so.

[Rulakir]

The sundering only happened ~12k years ago, that's some rapid evolution. :P

I have to admit I was surprised at Yoshi-P being so straightforward about Venat given that I read he cried multiple times during her post-trial cutscene. I do find it odd that The Plenty was their vision of the future of the Ancients had they stayed their course since between the likes of Hermes and Venat it would seem they'd never make it that far due to internal treachery. There was also no mention whatsoever of continued sacrifices to Zodiark having been a factor in her decision, maybe we can finally put that headcanon to rest?

I can only assume the Japanese audience had the same thoughts we did for them to try to communicate she's not a villain, just another Ancient who had power to abuse. The Q&A certainly didn't help matters as my most pessimistic views of her were confirmed. I was pleased that he agreed Emet's question to Meteion should also apply to Venat, what right did she have to determine whether they live or die? Plus that her post-Elpis cutscene speech was haughty.

Ultimately, it doesn't change how she was portrayed in EW. However, I'm comforted by the fact they didn't attempt the same gaslighting in the Q&A and were honest about her character and actions. Aside from that, I'm disappointed that they don't go into detail with the lore as much as the players do. There doesn't seem to be any point to deep diving lore when the writers and devs themselves stay on the surface level of it.

[alibutterfly]

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...

Did she actually consider the peoples of the reflections "her children" in the same way as the peoples of the Source, though? I had the distinct impression she didn't particularly care about them when playing through the story, or at least that she didn't care about them to the same extent as the lives on the Source, since the Moon evacuation plan only applied to the Source. That seems to imply to me that she would save them if she could, but if it came down to flight in the end, they were an "acceptable loss."

Even before these live letter revelations, that part of her actions seemed really weird/hard to reconcile, to me.

[MikkoAkure]

Per Yoshi-P, the man himself (or at least notes from Oda and Ishikawa), Venat was a haughty, typical Ancient who takes matters into her own hands and did all that she did, knowing of all the millions of deaths, in order to preserve the timeline since she always knew we were going to meet her. And the Ancients never could have beaten Meteion and if they had lived or if the Ascians won, their great society would have dwindled and the last part of Dead Ends is specifically a reference to what they could have been.

Good. Now I wonder if we'll stop talking about it and move onto other things or if this thread and others will continue to hundreds of pages of arguing over whether Yoshi-P is wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about or taking different interpretations.

[Cleretic]

There was also no mention whatsoever of continued sacrifices to Zodiark having been a factor in her decision, maybe we can finally put that headcanon to rest?

...that's directly the reasoning for how they could end up like The Plenty. If every problem gets solved by more sacrifices to Zodiark, then it's inevitably unsustainable, because there is only so much planet. (And if you look down in the third part of the Dead Ends, you'll see the Plenty ran out of it.) The objection to more sacrifices was first brought up by Fake Hythlodaeus in 5.0:

"The Convocation decided thus: we would nurture our world until it was bursting with vitality. Then, when the time was right, we would offer some portion of its living energy to Zodiark... He would restore to us those brethren whose souls had fed His strength, and together we would resume our role as stewards. There were, however, those that disagreed with this plan. They argued that enough had been sacrificed to Zodiark--that this new would should belong to the lives newly born."

This is still completely correct, and in keeping with the spirit of both Venat's crew in the Anamnesis recording and Venat's speech in the post-Elpis cutscene, just with some shifted weight and appeals in each case;
Hythlodaeus' interpretation is essentially an appeal to humanity and descendency; to make a better life for their 'children', rather than for themselves. Very heavy on the emotions and feelings, befitting Hythlodaeus. And the fact Fake Hythlodaeus was an extension of Emet-Selch suggests that this was the side of it that he heard, so it was probably a point they pressed to the Convocation directly.
The Anamnesis recording is straight to the purely practical argument of unsustainability; that this road cannot continue indefinitely. Venat's crew in that recording don't need convincing and are speaking internally, so they call the plan what it is: unsustainable. The Q&A response goes for the same view, largely because the narrative counterargument is the Plenty, where we see the end result of unsustainability.
And Venat's argument in the post-Elpis scene exists counter to the distraught Ancient she's arguing with, in the overall discussion around suffering.

This answer is extremely useful and important for confirmation! But we can't just use it in isolation: we have to remember that the game exists, and had a lot more time to discuss facets of this issue than Yoshi-P did. We can't just toss out what he didn't say because he happened not to say it.

[Lauront]

I thought this really undermined the arguments that her plan was "flawless".

To touch on some key points...

Hydaelyn’s summoning is stated to be different - inferior in some respects - to what the Convocation did with Zodiark, in that he could use other sources of aether aside from the soul, leaving it untouched, whereas hers consumed them wholesale. This may explain I suppose why her power waxes and wanes. Were her summoners even aware of this? They were worried about her (Venat) fading so his reference to the 5.2 scene is odd.

His answer on Venat will do little to dislodge the view that had she shared the information she had in full, a different path could’ve been forged, as it all came down to her belief about the Plenty - or more accurately, the one line summary Meteion provided. So nothing new in this respect, because the ancients continuing as they were is a function of what they were told and in turn, their reasons to believe it (or not.)

At least they concede that she agonised over the injustice of it and juxtapose it with what Emet (after 12k years of a bloody toil) did. I think it’s even worse. It confirms the supposed dispute over the morality of the sacrifices is not the main issue (indeed, this is never referenced in 5.2 or later, it is always framed by instrumentally linking these to them meeting an eventual doom) and that it came down to 1) ability to manipulate dynamis and 2) the one line she heard about the Plenty.

Mayhap she was the one really the one given to despair, like Hermes. Yoshi relates her ability to make such decisions to being an ancient and that it can be questioned in the same light as Emet’s at the end of SHB. So at least he isn’t trying to paint her as some unquestionable saint. Those ancients who had up to then had a government based on debate and reaching consensus may also disagree that her or Hermes arbitrarily deciding to end them were of a sound mind.

If the Rejoinings can be brought into question on that basis, then naturally so can the Sundering which pushed them on that path. I also dispute his claim that the ancients were so different in this regard – we see Ilberd, Vauthry, Thordan, Yotsuyu, Varis, Zenos, and yes, the 8UC Ironworks/G’raha, etc., eager to push their own vision onto mankind (or an entire timeline in the latter’s case.) As I have pointed out before, the way the sundered treat lesser life forms and their own “creations” is really not too different from the ancients, either, so let’s not be too hasty to exaggerate their differences in some key behavioural aspects.

Moreover, his answer on the timelines seems vague and non-definitive; the more interesting possibility he gives is stating perhaps Venat worked behind the timelines to avoid them going awry. How would she do this without exact knowledge? Regardless, this means she had committed to "our" timeline and she is ipso facto responsible for a lot of what happened by acting to preserve it, including the actions of the three unsundered, since she knew they’d do all this when confronted with the state of the world, with the (lack of) knowledge she left them with.

To me it makes her plan even more desperate and drastic now given that she allowed for Emet (and by extension) three unsundered to survive as part of her plan, but that this was also uncertain as part of the plan. It merely underlines that she is partly culpable for what they would do, as she knew this from the WoL and provided them zero context for it all. It is a bit frustrating that they explained their surviving their fate in this way. Ditto with the Azem question – I can say my character would’ve not damned their own people in Venat’s scheme.

At least this sounds like it’s the last of Zenos and Venat.

Some other points since they're not worth me making a separate post on:

• Their answer on the evolution of the races is all the more bizarre, because if it’s due to this, it is strange that it followed the exact same trajectory (right down to subraces) on Reflections separated through time, aetheric density and histories. But in any case, it closes off that question.
  
• The answer on the purpose of the sigils was good I thought. Aside from the general altruistic impulses of the ancients, it highlights that these seats were primarily defined by putting their power to responsible use and a signifier of the duty and responsibility they took on.
  
• It's strange that he comments that Emet and Hyth have accomplished all they wanted – surely reincarnation occurs regardless? In fact, this would suggest their souls will pass on through the cycle rather than being stuck in torment like Livia.
  
• The idea that the Blessing won’t fade is likewise odd. There are sufficient narrative devices to do away with it. Though I imagine without a primal to pour her power into it, it will now remain a simple traveller’s ward…
  
• The star’s name not spreading is intriguing – so is the intention just to wait for Y’shtola to publish her book? What will even be learnt by this all, that won’t fade in a few generations?
  
• It does seem like my hunch on the elder primals was correct – i.e. that different parts are on different reflections, so that with Zodiark’s core gone, he is finished – ditto with Hydaelyn.
  
• I found the answers on the sundered Ascians a little weak - one of the masks is a lion's. Apparently they're still around. Hopefully as something other than mere two bit villains. The time for that is past. Additionally, it's interesting that they have the names etc. for all the Convocation seats worked out and may get them one day. Hope for an unsundered AU expansion rising a bit.
  

Overall, I found some answers weak, but I was pleased that they're not forcing some "Venat is a saint" interpretation. We'll see what the short stories and Pandaemonium bring.

[Alleo]

- The player races are descended from Sundered Ancients. Non-Hyur developed their inhuman traits over time to compensate for deficiencies created by their essence being broken unevenly and trying to recover - for example, Miqo'te grew bigger ears because of loss of hearing.

- Unlike Zodiark, Hydaelyn drained all the souls used in her summoning of Aether completely, destroying them forever. By the time we fight her, only her soul remains, which is also destroyed after the fight.

So some interesting new informations though I am not so sure on all of them.

Her being "very much an Ancient" goes with the points a few users here have made. That she basically reacted like others of her race would. I think its nice because it imo fits with how she was shown and I still like her. It absolutely saddens me that her soul was completely destroyed...and that even those of her "summoners" ended that way too. So they are not the twelve. Yet when we first saw Venat and her followers didnt they discuss that they would miss Venat? Why would they think that way if they would end up destroyed?

The part with the races is interesting too but I wonder how it would be possible to just get some new ears? So if someones ears just turn into cat ones they suddenly get their hearing back? Also why would there be Non-Hyurs anyway? So did the sundering already create different races and those races just got improved traits with time? Honestly I dont really get his answer...

[SpectrePhantasia]

This Q&A was enlightening on a few fronts, but I knew it was never going to really satisfy anything on the front of the nitty gritty details of the Sundering. It's upsetting we still got absolutely nothing in the way of Elidibus during his time after disconnecting from Zodiark. Would it not stand to reason that additional sacrifices would not take place without him in the driver's seat? This alone clearly paints the Ancients as far from the absolute collective that the Plenty was. Why did his attempts to make peace in the conflict fail? Did Venat just ignore him and do the Sundering regardless of his pleas? Given that she intentionally let him live, I'm going to assume that's exactly what happened, meaning that even when a vitally important Convocation member like him was receptive to diplomacy, she decided it wasn't worth it and proceeded with her plans.

Again, I realize to expect answers for everything is foolish, obviously we're never going to be completely satiated, but, I'm gonna be honest, I don't much like it. And I'm not just saying it to be contrarian. In letting the Unsundered live, Venat knew the exact risk she was taking in doing so, and it implies she very much wanted them to be this adversarial force to the Sundered world so that they could create the circumstances she desired. If she wasn't complicit in the Rejoinings before, she absolutely is now. The former narrative ideas that she 'tried to stop them' are now worthless because now we know she INTENTIONALLY left them with all their memories and power, to do as she knew they would.

If they're standing on the hill that Venat is no different than the other Ancients who judged the world by their own standards and let lives fall by the wayside to do it, akin to Hermes and Emet, it certainly was not portrayed as such by the MSQ or anything in it. Someone complicit in this much tragedy should not ever be portrayed as a hero, and it is undeniable that is how she is seen. I have a feeling this is more something they landed on in reaction to the reception she's gotten. ...And uh, whoever wrote that minion description didn't get the memo.

[Lauront]

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...



I call BS on that one. the races of the First look exactly the same as on the Source. yet almost all other living things are different.

At the same time he recently said highlander males just have really thin eyebrows... as opposed to the prior (head?)canon that they just shaved them. This sort of answer seems equally "well" thought. These sort of questions are best left to Oda, IMO.

This Q&A was enlightening on a few fronts, but I knew it was never going to really satisfy anything on the front of the nitty gritty details of the Sundering. It's upsetting we still got absolutely nothing in the way of Elidibus during his time after disconnecting from Zodiark. Would it not stand to reason that additional sacrifices would not take place without him in the driver's seat? This alone clearly paints the Ancients as far from the absolute collective that the Plenty was. Why did his attempts to make peace in the conflict fail? Did Venat just ignore him and do the Sundering regardless of his pleas? Given that she intentionally let him live, I'm going to assume that's exactly what happened, meaning that even when a vitally important Convocation member like him was receptive to diplomacy, she decided it wasn't worth it and proceeded with her plans.

Again, I realize to expect answers for everything is foolish, obviously we're never going to be completely satiated, but, I'm gonna be honest, I don't much like it. And I'm not just saying it to be contrarian. In letting the Unsundered live, Venat knew the exact risk she was taking in doing so, and it implies she very much wanted them to be this adversarial force to the Sundered world so that they could create the circumstances she desired. If she wasn't complicit in the Rejoinings before, she absolutely is now. The former narrative ideas that she 'tried to stop them' are now worthless because now we know she INTENTIONALLY left them with all their memories and power, to do as she knew they would.

If they're standing on the hill that Venat is no different than the other Ancients who judged the world by their own standards and let lives fall by the wayside to do it, akin to Hermes and Emet, it certainly was not portrayed as such by the MSQ or anything in it. Someone complicit in this much tragedy should not ever be portrayed as a hero, and it is undeniable that is how she is seen. I have a feeling this is more something they landed on in reaction to the reception she's gotten. ...And uh, whoever wrote that minion description didn't get the memo.

I don't think the answers we got flattered her at all, and I suspect it's deliberate that they're leaving out the debate and division over the sacrifices (as well as what they were of), plus Elidibus's attempts to mediate. If they did show all that and the lack of any attempt to really give the ancients an answer... it might make her seem less reasonable and the Plenty to be something of a caricature.

[Jandor]

The part with the races is interesting too but I wonder how it would be possible to just get some new ears? So if someones ears just turn into cat ones they suddenly get their hearing back? Also why would there be Non-Hyurs anyway? So did the sundering already create different races and those races just got improved traits with time? Honestly I dont really get his answer...

I just put it down to residual magic from the sundering. The world was split, the ancients were depowered and left with some particular deficiency, and their new forms were vaguely related to what deficiency needed patching up.