The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[Firlont]

I feel like having the player races be the "new life" that was going to be sacrificed to resurrect and free the Ancients that summoned Zodiark would have been an elegant if dark solution to our creation. It would kind of obviate Emet-Selch's blustering about how we weren't people because we were sundered, if the Ancients didn't view us as real people to begin with, however.

[KageTokage]

I can't help but wonder if perhaps the Sharlayans are aware of the origin of the races but classified it as sensitive information that needed to be kept under lock and key in their forbidden archives.

There's a rather significant gap in recorded history prior to the fourth astral/umbral era, but they evidently do possess tomes that are believed to hail from the eras prior to that.

[Cleretic]

Confirmed what? All he said was Venat believed the ancients would probably be heading for the outcome of the other civilizations. That’s without her even intervening though. Had she let the truth out perhaps they would have flourished. Instead she allows the calamities to take place and for millions to die.

He confirmed a lot, actually, the answer to that question was LOOOOOOOONG. And part of it was, indeed, 'this was the only plan that would have worked for the end she was going for'. Venat's plan was the only way to stop Meteion.

However, then you come to the question of 'was stopping Meteion necessary', since Zodiark was essentially indefinite protection; she was a non-factor until Amon made her one. There is no one answer to this question, because both Venat and Emet-Selch were flawed and imperfect people with flawed and imperfect outlooks. Neither of them were 'right', morally speaking.

But Venat's plan was the only one that would have worked to stop Meteion. You can't just declare there to be a magic better option, going against the writer, director, and all voices in the narrative itself if you're intending to have a constructive conversation about things; Yoshi-P, with extensive information from Ishikawa, declared that to be the only plan that would've worked, and the entire story says exactly this as well. Declaring all of those sources to be wrong basically just leaves you writing fanfiction.

And that's without going into specifically how you've decided things would've turned out to be better, because 'telling everyone' is pretty much the very first thing Venat shoots down after Ktisis, for the very good reason of 'this would make people freak the hell out and not do anything productive'. The Ancients are not as a whole rational actors, or if we're honest really all that smart. They do not handle extremely bad news especially well, as we see directly in the post-Elpis cutscene.

It is not useful, productive, or even true to declare there to be a secret, better third option.

[Veloran]

He confirmed a lot, actually, the answer to that question was LOOOOOOOONG. And part of it was, indeed, 'this was the only plan that would have worked for the end she was going for'. Venat's plan was the only way to stop Meteion.

However, then you come to the question of 'was stopping Meteion necessary', since Zodiark was essentially indefinite protection; she was a non-factor until Amon made her one. There is no one answer to this question, because both Venat and Emet-Selch were flawed and imperfect people with flawed and imperfect outlooks. Neither of them were 'right', morally speaking.

But Venat's plan was the only one that would have worked to stop Meteion. You can't just declare there to be a magic better option, going against the writer, director, and all voices in the narrative itself if you're intending to have a constructive conversation about things; Yoshi-P, with extensive information from Ishikawa, declared that to be the only plan that would've worked, and the entire story says exactly this as well. Declaring all of those sources to be wrong basically just leaves you writing fanfiction.

You might want to note that Yoshida's entire response to that question was predicated with "Venat believed". And as you kindly point out, Venat is as flawed and imperfect as anyone else with her own flawed and imperfect outlook.

[Lauront]

Yep, Yoshida does not claim that it's the only plan that would've worked. It is indeed a function of Venat's belief that the ancients could not have stopped the Final Days. At most what he is saying is that had they continued as they were (a function of not being given the full story behind what was happening), their fate would probably be similar to the Plenty. Inferring from this that her plan was the only one which would work under alternative circumstances, then trying to gaslight other posters by saying that the writer and director and "all the voices" in the narrative are suggesting any other plan was doomed, is not exactly the most intellectually honest approach. And yes, you very much can (and some of us will) posit that you'd like to see how alternative scenarios would've worked out, where she had revealed the truth. The answer he is giving is to explain why she's not a villain - not to try shut down any contemplation of alternatives, which would be rather antithetical to their typical approach.

Q: Venat had good intentions and her plan worked out in the end. But as a result the world was Sundered and most of the Ancients suffered. Was Sundering the star really the only way to save it? A: This is a question that I consulted with Nacchan (Natsuko Ishikawa, Scenario Writer of Endwalker) to come up with the answer so it will make sense when we explain it. At the very least, as Y’shtola theorizes, Venat believed that the Ancients, being so dense in Aether, could not control Dynamis. So she thought they could not have stopped the Final Days and its source. So you know there were other Ancients who thought summoning Zodiark would solve everything but she saw that summoning Zodiark and using it to deflect Meteion’s “Despair Beam” and thought, “even if we were to do this and keep going as we are the rest of the Ancients will probably be unable to change as a people” when she’s looking at Hermes, or “we will always be our own undoing”. If you look at the dungeon, “The Dead Ends”, at the very end there’s a boss called Ra-la, and that’s sort of our vision for what probably would have happened to the Ancients if we just let them continue as they were. So for that reason, she chose to Sunder the star to dilute mankind’s Aether so that someday they might be able to use Dynamis and to fight back against despair and the Final Days at the Source. As she herself says, this is not a simple matter of good and evil and she is agonized over whether her decision is correct and took it all upon herself all these time. I think everyone has a lot of different feelings about Venat and we wanted to communicate to you that Hydaelyn is not evil. However this is the decision she has made and she decided to split the world into 14 parts so that humans can use Dynamis and kill Endsinger, and that decision really makes me think, “Yeah, Venat is definitely an Ancient, huh”.

At the end of 5.0 we find out that Emet-Selch has been making these decisions about all of humanity and its imperfection. But at the very end he did grant you one more chance to re-evaluated his judgment. Hermes is also concerned with this to the degree that he erases his memory so that he can once again re-evaluate humanity and everything. He’s really concerned with fairness and humanity’s worth. Venat herself never talks about herself in this lofty way that she is making a judgment on all of mankind but when we see her holding the sword and say “Henceforth he shall walk” and Sundering the world, that really is an ancient moment that shows you how different the wholeness of these Ancient’s worth because normally we normal humans wouldn’t be able to make such a decision for all of mankind, so when I see that I really think, yeah, Venat was really one of them. I do get that Emet-Selch is really popular but I sort of agree with Alphinaud when Emet is talking about judging people and think, “What right does he have to do that?”, and that might be applicable to Venat too, like “What right does she have to do that?” with showing various things about the Ancients and how different they were from us as people and how they were sort of the same, so I think if you go back and look at all of the different parts including the side quest including the Ancients in them, you might find them interesting.

Transcript courtesy of iluna minori on the reddit discord - minor wording differences relative to this but nothing fundamental.

(At this point I would've liked someone to remind him of all the sundered characters that tried to inflict their judgement or decisions on mankind as a whole... sometimes even an entire timeline...)

As for the poster's other claims, I'd be intrigued to see how they handled "bad news" (really, platitudes about suffering) while the world was burning/dying around them.

[EaraGrace]

Yep, Yoshida does not claim that it's the only plan that would've worked. It is indeed a function of Venat's belief that the ancients could not have stopped the Final Days. At most what he is saying is that had they continued as they were (a function of not being given the full story behind what was happening), their fate would probably be similar to the Plenty. Inferring from this that her plan was the only one which would work under alternative circumstances, then trying to gaslight other posters by saying that the writer and director and "all the voices" in the narrative are suggesting any other plan was doomed, is not exactly the most intellectually honest approach. And yes, you very much can (and some of us will) posit that you'd like to see how alternative scenarios would've worked out, where she had revealed the truth. The answer he is giving is to explain why she's not a villain - not to try shut down any contemplation of alternatives, which would be rather antithetical to their typical approach.

The Dead Ends part of the explanation feels particularly important here however. Though he did lead in with a probably, the fact that the Plenty is “our” (the dev teams) views for how the Ancients probably would have ended, lends at least a little credence to her view while I agree it does not close out alternative viewpoints entirely.

(At this point I would've liked someone to remind him of all the sundered characters that tried to inflict their judgement or decisions on mankind as a whole... sometimes even an entire timeline...)

Lauront, I’m not saying go buy a cake, but I’m just saying I’ll bring snacks and drinks to celebrate this truly auspicious day.

I think we agree completely.

This story, and human history, is filled with characters who for right and wrong reasons made decisions for others and even all of humanity, often ones of great complexity and moral weight. The Ancients are nowhere near special for that and in fact I’d say it’s one of the traits that gives the most reason to see them as human in my opinion. To say it’s a very “Ancient” thing to do is very off the mark to me.

[Cleretic]

As for the poster's other claims, I'd be intrigued to see how they handled "bad news" (really, platitudes about suffering) while the world was burning/dying around them.

I'd like to say I would do my best to help people who still live, I've been in emergency situations, done that, and would probably do so again if the scale was larger. But the difference between myself and the Ancients is that I've had a life of 'tragedies happen and we have to move on'. I've had rather a few loved ones in my life die unfairly and unexpectedly, but we as humans know that while we can and should mourn, we should also get back up and move on. The Ancients as a whole just didn't have that, so they had no coping mechanisms and no framework for how to continue. It's a tragic mistake, but still a mistake.

I assume you have lived to see loved ones die--although I would hope not many and not suddenly. But when you have, I assume that you didn't respond to it by going Dr. Frankenstein to undo the tragedy, as the Ancients did.

But let's flip the question: if the situation excuses or makes right the Ancients' actions, then surely others put into the same situation will do the same. And... well, we have examples for that. Two, actually.

Thavnair faces the rather direct parallel, also facing the End of Days. But while they struggle, they ultimately find the strength to stand; in listening to their beliefs built up in the face of life and tragedy, they move on, and they recover. Matsya is their Venat, and... honestly, his words are both no less true and no more inherently convincing. But they work, because those around him already know the message.

Garlemald, too, faces their own reckoning, although by different hands. They also face the death of all they know, the shattering of their worldview. They do not have a Venat, at least not in a singular person, but they do have the Distressed Ancient in the form of Quintus; the man convinced they can turn back the clock. But in Garlemald's case, it's that the crowd doesn't side with him; the other Legions recognize what's ahead of them, and ultimately, Garlemald realizes they have to move on.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip

Then let’s look at the black rose calamity. Where they did exactly that, turning back the clock, willing to sacrifice millions to save us. This is portrayed as a rather heroic act. The interesting anomaly here in both thavnair and garlemald is that the WoL was present for all of this, a more rejoined sundered individual that was there to assist them time and time again. Were it not for this said individual, they all would have perished and given up, as we see in Thavnair, only a small amount of people seem to survive, the skies riddled with blasphemies and that very dark scene showing just how susceptible the sundered were in turning. The same in Garlemald.

Venat attempted to confront a group of people only after the calamity had already struck. I actually remember another poster’s analogy here that seemed to fit quite well. Imagine if we had gone up to that group of panicking people in thavnair, and said stop, you need to learn to suffer. Suffering is natural! You truly think they would have stopped to listen? The fact is whatever her horrible excuses for not intervening beforehand may be, she intervened after the calamity had already struck, when she had knowledge of it beforehand. Just as the ancients are said to be wrong for placing all their beliefs in one “god”(Zodiark), Venat placed all of her beliefs in the WoL. A single person. The move on theme is rather hollow when there is yet hope in saving those who are not truly lost. The WoL didn’t simply move on from the first, they stayed and went through Eden to help it slowly grow back. The WoL didn’t simply move on from Ishgard. He stayed and slowly helped it rebuild itself. The ironworks didn’t simply move on and accept their fate in the world of the calamity. They worked to turn back the clock and give themselves another chance. The Ancients were trying to do no different. They just didn’t conform to Venat’s views, so she played god.

[Cleretic]

Then let’s look at the black rose calamity. Where they did exactly that, turning back the clock, willing to sacrifice millions to save us. This is portrayed as a rather heroic act. The interesting anomaly here in both thavnair and garlemald is that the WoL was present for all of this, a more rejoined sundered individual that was there to assist them time and time again. Were it not for this said individual, they all would have perished and given up, as we see in Thavnair, only a small amount of people seem to survive, the skies riddled with blasphemies and that very dark scene showing just how susceptible the sundered were in turning. The same in Garlemald.

Venat attempted to confront a group of people only after the calamity had already struck. I actually remember another poster’s analogy here that seemed to fit quite well. Imagine if we had gone up to that group of panicking people in thavnair, and said stop, you need to learn to suffer. Suffering is natural! You truly think they would have stopped to listen? The fact is whatever her horrible excuses for not intervening beforehand may be, she intervened after the calamity had already struck, when she had knowledge of it beforehand. Just as the ancients are said to be wrong for placing all their beliefs in one “god”(Zodiark), Venat placed all of her beliefs in the WoL. A single person. The move on theme is rather hollow when there is yet hope in saving those who are not truly lost. The WoL didn’t simply move on from the first, they stayed and went through Eden to help it slowly grow back. The WoL didn’t simply move on from Ishgard. He stayed and slowly helped it rebuild itself. The ironworks didn’t simply move on and accept their fate in the world of the calamity. They worked to turn back the clock and give themselves another chance. The Ancients were trying to do no different. They just didn’t conform to Venat’s views, so she played god.

Okay?

This is explicitly meant to be a question with no clear right or wrong answer, that falls to you to decide on, and I will clearly not be convincing you away from your stance (your signature honestly already made that crystal-clear). You have very clearly looked at the facts as they lie and decided that Venat was the greater evil; meanwhile, I'm looking at her opposition and going 'you know what, the lady that needs to have a dedicated shampoo and conditioner budget is the one I am more comfortable with'.

...and now that I describe her like that, I wonder if Venat is meant to share a resemblance with Ysayle in terms of both general character design and concept. Ysayle is also a morally ambiguous character taking a strong stance that I ultimately consider the greater good in that situation. ...who also just so happens to turn into a giant lady with a monumentally powerful kick/stomp.

[EaraGrace]

Venat attempted to confront a group of people only after the calamity had already struck. I actually remember another poster’s analogy here that seemed to fit quite well. Imagine if we had gone up to that group of panicking people in thavnair, and said stop, you need to learn to suffer. Suffering is natural! You truly think they would have stopped to listen?

…yeah, actually I think they would’ve.