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

[Lyth]

Suffering was always a part of life because even the Amaurotians had emotions. It was never 'introduced'. It was always there. It will always be there as long as you're writing about a human society.

[Theodric]

Suffering was always a part of life because even the Amaurotians had emotions. It was never 'introduced'. It was always there. It will always be there as long as you're writing about a human society.

You seem to be misinterpreting my point. Again, please pay attention to the bolded statement:

I'd also note that suffering wasn't a natural part of life in the way in which it was introduced, either.

I'm not suggesting that suffering wasn't present in the Ancient world. We've seen that it was. I'm explicitly pointing out that both the Final Days and the Sundering were not natural events. They were sprung upon the Ancients entirely out of the blue and they had no obligation to just go along with it. Much in the same way as how if our world was reduced to ruin by a zombie apocalypse or a nuclear war, it wouldn't be reasonable to stop people from trying to rebuild what was lost.

[Lyth]

Your designation of events as 'not natural' is artificial in itself. Bad things happen. There doesn't have to be some higher meaning behind them. That's life. We pick up the pieces and we move on. People rebuilt, in their own way.

[Tehmon]

I'm not sure if anyone can come to agreement with what exactly is natural. I'd argue nuclear war, Final Days and Sundering are all natural reactions to the perceived realities of the world that stems from the nature of mankind and ancientkind, and their free will to cause atrocities if they deem it worthwhile. I'd also argue that some of these might also be completely inevitable after a certain chain of events has occurred.

[Theodric]

Your designation of events as 'not natural' is artificial in itself. Bad things happen. There doesn't have to be some higher meaning behind them. That's life. We pick up the pieces and we move on. People rebuilt, in their own way.

You're free to believe that if you so wish. I'm simply a firm believer in the concepts of consent and agency so I'm not inclined to believe that anyone has an obligation to simply go along with whatever atrocities are deliberately inflicted upon a civilisation at the hands of subversive individuals.

It's entirely possible for Venat to be a 'herois' in the eyes of some and an abhorrent, unhinged ideologue in the eyes of others. Both interpretations of the character are valid since nobody is obligated to walk away from the game agreeing with what any given character sets out to do.

[Lyth]

Sure. Except that Amaurot wasn't governed that way. They were ruled by a council of 14 self-selected and powerful individuals who made hard decisions on the basis of what they personally felt was right for the rest of their society. They did not poll the audience, and they did not phone a friend. Neither Emet nor Venat would have cared one whit what your personal opinion on their governance was. It just so happened that the Azems won the long game, and our current society is the end result. You're free to be salty about that if you like.

[Absimiliard]

To rebuild after catastrophe is as much in human nature as laying down to die. Different people will have different reactions to the same stimuli. If we use the real world as an example; I've no doubt a large portion of the population would, given the ability to do so, go to almost any length to turn back the clock after an event so cataclysmic as to leave the very planet itself teetering on the edge of oblivion. The suddenness of such a catastrophe would make it far more difficult to make informed decisions, as people would be far too discombobulated by their emotional states to form cogent thoughts.

One could easily (and at this point demonstrably) say the same of Ancient society, save that they were far more willing (and capable) to make choices that would affect the whole. The Convocation routinely made these big decisions for everyone. Venat did something similar when opting for omnicide. The key difference here is the ability to think straight. The Convocation, or at least most of it, managed to stay centered enough to think things through. Venat, meanwhile, remained fully in control of her mental faculties the entire time.

[AlexionSkyllark]

OK, let me sum up this that I've been saying here in this topic for MONTHS now and that Yoshi-P 100% confirmed, in as few words as I possibly can:

Venat's plan was the only way SHE SAW that could do those 2 things simultaneously:
1-) Diminish the Aether in Etheirys' population, allowing them to manipulate dynamis and standing a chance against Meteion
2-) Keeping Etheirys civilization from ever attaining perfection, since she realized this would lead to mass suicide after there was nothing more to attain in life.
As seen with, as an example, the civilization from the 17th end (The "Ra-La" one).

This is all there is to it. It's no more complicated than that. There is no "hidden truth" behind this. This was the clear motive, bright as day, out in the open. AND confirmed by the devs. There you go. End of discussion.

Now, we can yes argue "was that the best idea?", "Did Venat had another, better option?", "Is Venat also flawed?". And yes, those are very interesting and valid topics to discuss. But her motives and the reasons she had for doing what she did are NOT up for theorizing anymore. They just gave us a blunt, clear answer for that.

[Lyth]

Alternative solutions and 'what ifs' are entirely academic at this point. Amaurot is long gone and the last remnants of the Ascian faction are being hunted down by a Garlean. Unfortunate for them.

[EaraGrace]

OK, let me sum up this that I've been saying here in this topic for MONTHS now and that Yoshi-P 100% confirmed, in as few words as I possibly can:

Venat's plan was the only way SHE SAW that could do those 2 things simultaneously:
1-) Diminish the Aether in Etheirys' population, allowing them to manipulate dynamis and standing a chance against Meteion
2-) Keeping Etheirys civilization from ever attaining perfection, since she realized this would lead to mass suicide after there was nothing more to attain in life.
As seen with, as an example, the civilization from the 17th end (The "Ra-La" one).

This is all there is to it. It's no more complicated than that. There is no "hidden truth" behind this. This was the clear motive, bright as day, out in the open. AND confirmed by the devs. There you go. End of discussion.

Now, we can yes argue "was that the best idea?", "Did Venat had another, better option?", "Is Venat also flawed?". And yes, those are very interesting and valid topics to discuss. But her motives and the reasons she had for doing what she did are NOT up for theorizing anymore. They just gave us a blunt, clear answer for that.

No no no. The second one just isn’t true. The point isn’t to prevent perfection, but to recognize it doesn’t exist. The Plenty, the Ea, the Omicron, all reached “perfection” and realized that they could never escape from the suffering they worked so hard to leave behind. That is the point. That’s why when you do the quests in Ultima you’re given example after example of these societies finding new ways forward, and in so doing, slowly coming to accept the reality of what they face. The example with the Plenty is not a parable to stop yourself from attaining perfection, but to demonstrate that even a society that had removed all sources of strife and pain still suffered and thus was not perfect.

Again, considering the amount of blasphemies we see, it’s pretty clear a not-insignificant amount gave in to despair. We only see 2 small settlements survive, and one of them only had a few survivors remaining. The Ancients didn’t despair or give in like the sundered did, they let their hope give rise to Zodiark. My point is, as i’ve stated numerous times now had you actually read my posts, is that without the WoL or Vrtra both places we see the final days hit would be entirely doomed. Their survival depended on 1-2 people, one of which is unsundered and the other is 9/14th. The sundered didn’t do it on their own, they had help from higher up entities.

So the consistent depictions of the Amaurotines huddling in fear, the statements from those on the moon about how facing sudden and unexpected death made them cry out for salvation, and everything else the game shows the Ancients struggling with their own morality, we’re not to draw direct comparisons with what we see of the Sundered?

But lets say I agree that the Sundered did not weather despair any better than the Ancients (I don’t), I fail to see the difference in the relying on the guidance of the Fourteen and relying on the Scions.