Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[EaraGrace]

Nobody decided it was an "inescapable reality" except for Venat. It was two sentences of description from a hostile source with no further context whatsoever. If Venat decides that the extremely vague description of the Plenty is enough to classify as "honest" and "truthful", then yes, it's her honest and truthful opinion that the current way the Ancients live is Bad, and the Sundered is Better. And if anyone disagrees with her, that must mean they're not "looking honestly and truthfully" at their world - and took it upon herself to correct them. It's interesting that that's the fallen world Venat hooks on in particular, when many were described - but the ones that fell to war and conquest and disease don't seem to deter her from embracing a newly created world that suffers from those same afflictions. Again, it speaks to an inherent ideology - one that's probably slowly being consciously realized before our eyes - and a confirmation bias.

Except it’s not an ideology, it’s fact. No matter how many problems the Ancients solve, no matter how advanced they become, they will again find themselves suffering in one form or another. This is true of their universe and ours as well. To call it ideology is to make a grave mistake, that this truth can be avoided, and ignored. As she says, the Ancients did not eliminate suffering for all time, nor did they root out strife and conflict, instead “mankind was but spared it’s biting sting for a time.” Inevitably it would return, either from within like with Hermes, or without like Meteion and the Omicron.

Venat thinks of the ability to embrace suffering in terms of strength and weakness - those are her own terms. Those who can find "everlasting light in deepest despair" are "strong," and those who can't and succumb to the temptation of things being easier and with less sorrow, are "weak." And that the ability to not live according to that way of thinking bars one from "the path to true happiness." It's not simply about overcoming a specific obstacle. It truly is, to an extent, about virtue, about becoming strong, about a way of living. She talks about how our peoples' resilience in the face of hardship gives her heart - the condition for a strong people who "find a way forward" is, well, hardship. And, well, the suggestion her interpretation of a vague description is, to her, the equivalent of rejecting gravity or time - yeah, I think that about sums up the way she thinks, for better or worse.

At no point does she judge anyone as “weak.” The Ancients and the Convocation she outright refuses to speak badly of, even as they damn themselves and everyone else. When she compliments the Scions at the Mothercrystal, she does noting how each has felt and given into despair, yet resolved to fight all the same. And “finding a way forward” is about facing the reality of life. Once again, if suffering was not a constant she would not advocate for us to face it. But it does, and thus she we wishes us to confront it with both eyes open. To see the world how it is, and then endeavor to change it however we can. She loved the Ancient world, and there’s no indication she views the Sumdered one as preferable. In fact it’s the opposite, when we retell the story of what will happen she remarks that it will “bring death to all I hold dear.” When she does Sunder the world she states that she does so “in spite of, or perhaps because of” her love for people. She says this due to her belief that the Sundering is necessary for survival, but not a good thing given what it will do to the world she loves.

If it was about a specific action, she wouldn't be tying it to Hermes's emotional state. She relates to his anguish, not his quirky nonconformity.

She relates to his frustration with the Ancients inflexibility. But anguish? No. Understanding where someone is coming from does not mean sharing in it.

It's an interesting speech, framed in inspiring ways - it's just that in hindsight, once you sort of pull back the vague terms in which she's speaking and the narrative framing, you can absolutely see the seeds of the elements that led her to choosing the path of Sundering and the subsequent Rejoinings. She thinks our world and our struggles sound cool and incredible and she wishes she could be there, and our world is one in which mankind's potential can shine, and that she had some kind of internal revelation that let her see and feel the world in a unique way she doesn't feel most others, sadly, share.

Perhaps this comes down to perspective then. I see her complimenting our world as her expressing admiration for how humanity stands in the face of darkness, but not stating it’s a better or preferred state to be in.

We are not her people. She keeps calling us "her children" just like Garuda did Ixal...

We have to keep in mind a square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. The Unsundered were human, as are the sundered. Different yes, but still members of the same group. If someone says “us Hrothgars” or “we Ala Mhigans” they aren’t saying they aren’t part of the same people as every other race.

[Brinne]

Except it’s not an ideology, it’s fact. No matter how many problems the Ancients solve, no matter how advanced they become, they will again find themselves suffering in one form or another. This is true of their universe and ours as well. To call it ideology is to make a grave mistake, that this truth can be avoided, and ignored. As she says, the Ancients did not eliminate suffering for all time, nor did they root out strife and conflict, instead “mankind was but spared it’s biting sting for a time.” Inevitably it would return, either from within like with Hermes, or without like Meteion and the Omicron.

Presenting one's ideology as fact is, in fact, what makes an ideologue. Of course suffering exists. But how one defines it, approaches it, deals with it, and processes it comes down to a personal philosophy. Venat's ideology is that suffering is to be viewed as something that makes you "stronger" and something that one must "accept" and internalize. She seems to ascribe to the idea, as per your quote, that the Ancients' society lacked suffering before the Final Days, which it demonstratably did not - it just had a lower level of suffering than the Sundered world. This is all a subjective take on her part.

At no point does she judge anyone as “weak.”

She says to the Ancients that their chosen path is "not one of wisdom, but of weakness." She saw the Ancients' decision as reflecting of them being weak. Meanwhile, she falls all over herself as both Venat and Hydaelyn to praise us for being "strong." And again, her ideology reflects on how "see how the suffering makes you strong, how it becomes scales for your armor," and what have you.

The Ancients and the Convocation she outright refuses to speak badly of, even as they damn themselves and everyone else.

You mean except for calling them weak, as Hydaelyn calling them the face of evil that must be banished, etc, etc?

Once again, if suffering was not a constant she would not advocate for us to face it.

You can't argue this and then in the same breath put forth The Plenty as a legitimate view of a world without suffering that leads to oblivion. The Plenty has been identified as Venat's fear of the Ancients' future. In other words, she sees suffering as necessary to give meaning, purpose, and once again, strength, to humanity. Without it, they would be empty. When she reacts to Meteion's two-sentence description of the Plenty, remember Meteion specifically says what damned them was that "joy lost its savor without sorrow." So no, the fact of suffering not a sad regrettable inconvenience to her - to her, it has an important, crucial place in the human experience that must be embraced for people to be their best selves, in her view. Many people adhere to a similar philosophy in real life. "Suffering builds character" and what not.

She loved the Ancient world, and there’s no indication she views the Sumdered one as preferable. In fact it’s the opposite, when we retell the story of what will happen she remarks that it will “bring death to all I hold dear.”

That quote was about the Final Days specifically. Like, she names them in the quote. Not the Sundered world. All she seems to have towards the vision we paint of the Sundered world in and of itself is wonder, excitement, and hope, really.

When she does Sunder the world she states that she does so “in spite of, or perhaps because of” her love for people. She says this due to her belief that the Sundering is necessary for survival, but not a good thing given what it will do to the world she loves.

In the same statement, she says that she will Sunder them because "she believes in mankind's potential, in his ability to find a way forward." Once again, Venat is an ideologue who thinks primarily in terms of abstract concepts. What she's focused on is "mankind" as a whole. What specific individuals "mankind" consists of doesn't particularly matter to her. And she believes in - mankind's potential for what? His ability to find his way forward through what? Implicitly, the ability to endure suffering and despair, to work their way through difficulties as a whole (yes, several [trillion?] individuals will die along the way, but MANKIND as a whole will press on! It's beautiful! Everlasting light even in deepest despair! She believes in their potential to find it! She loves mankind!) This is what she holds dearest about them.

She relates to his frustration with the Ancients inflexibility. But anguish? No. Understanding where someone is coming from does not mean sharing in it.

I mean, I'm going to be perfectly honest; I'm not sure how to respond when a fairly black and white quote is presented to someone who then says the quote does not say what it says. Venat is the one who names Hermes's anguish and connects herself to it through her refusal to return in "opposition"; the context of this statement, prior this line, is Venat mulling about how Hermes has already seen "the cracks in the veneer of perfection." The entire context of her thoughts is about Hermes's dissatisfaction with the state of the world and how he sees the Ancients' society as hollow, and Venat is contemplating how she can relate. The "Ancients' inflexibility" has literally no relevance to the conversation and never comes up. Again, I don't know what to do except repeat that she is clearly talking about an overlap between she and Hermes regarding mindset and emotional states, specifically, anguish. It's right there in the text. Right in the direct words! It's even contrasted with Emet earlier saying he couldn't understand where Hermes was coming from!

[EaraGrace]

Presenting one's ideology as fact is, in fact, what makes an ideologue. Of course suffering exists. But how one defines it, approaches it, deals with it, and processes it comes down to a personal philosophy. Venat's ideology is that suffering is to be viewed as something that makes you "stronger" and something that one must "accept" and internalize. She seems to ascribe to the idea, as per your quote, that the Ancients' society lacked suffering before the Final Days, which it demonstratably did not - it just had a lower level of suffering than the Sundered world. This is all a subjective take on her part.

She quite literally traveled the world solving the greatest problems people had. If anyone knows what the Ancients faced in terms of strife then shed be it. Her and Azem. And I suppose my question is, what other answer than acceptance and internalization is there? Rejection and externalization?

She says to the Ancients that their chosen path is "not one of wisdom, but of weakness." She saw the Ancients' decision as reflecting of them being weak. Meanwhile, she falls all over herself as both Venat and Hydaelyn to praise us for being "strong." And again, her ideology reflects on how "see how the suffering makes you strong, how it becomes scales for your armor," and what have you.

Yes facing suffering can make you strong, which is distinct from people being strong and weak inherently. And you cut off a very improtant piece of context in that quote.

To try and reclaim those lives we lost by sacrificing yet more isn’t wisdom, it is weakness.

You mean except for calling them weak, as Hydaelyn calling them the face of evil that must be banished, etc, etc?

Friend we both know the context for that statement now and know it’s not the full story.

You can't argue this and then in the same breath put forth The Plenty as a legitimate view of a world without suffering that leads to oblivion. The Plenty has been identified as Venat's fear of the Ancients' future. In other words, she sees suffering as necessary to give meaning, purpose, and once again, strength, to humanity. Without it, they would be empty. When she reacts to Meteion's two-sentence description of the Plenty, remember Meteion specifically says what damned them was that "joy lost its savor without sorrow." So no, the fact of suffering not a sad regrettable inconvenience to her - to her, it has an important, crucial place in the human experience that must be embraced for people to be their best selves, in her view. Many people adhere to a similar philosophy in real life. "Suffering builds character" and what not.

No, this is a matter of interpretation. Once again, you say she makes a moral claim about suffering, while I say she simply points out that even in the Plenty suffering existed. Different in form but still no less potent, and that suffering was despair and the loss of joy. A perfect world devoid of struggle doesn’t kill itself. That is Venats point.

That quote was about the Final Days specifically. Like, she names them in the quote. Not the Sundered world. All she seems to have towards the vision we paint of the Sundered world in and of itself is wonder, excitement, and hope, really.

That distinction doesn’t change anything though? What does she love is the point. If she so loved the Sundered world then the Final Days were a prerequisite to get what she wants. Not exactly the death of all she holds dear.

In the same statement, she says that she will Sunder them because "she believes in mankind's potential, in his ability to find a way forward." Once again, Venat is an ideologue who thinks primarily in terms of abstract concepts. What she's focused on is "mankind" as a whole. What specific individuals "mankind" consists of doesn't particularly matter to her. And she believes in - mankind's potential for what? His ability to find his way forward through what? Implicitly, the ability to endure suffering and despair, to work their way through difficulties as a whole (yes, several [trillion?] individuals will die along the way, but MANKIND as a whole will press on! It's beautiful! Everlasting light even in deepest despair! She believes in their potential to find it! She loves mankind!) This is what she holds dearest about them.

And yet for someone uninterested in the individual she weeps and cries for them, as individuals.

Mired by a plague of doubt the land she mourns.

Tell me why create, a circle none can break. Why would you let go, of the life you were bestowed. This I fear I’ll never know.

One kingdoms fall is another kingdoms freedom. One sovereigns war, is another sovereigns peace. One mothers pride is another mothers sorrow. Their tears both soak the land they love.

Stand tall, my friend. May all the dark lost inside you find light again.

I can go on.

I mean, I'm going to be perfectly honest; I'm not sure how to respond when a fairly black and white quote is presented to someone who then says the quote does not say what it says.

Because your read isn’t perfect? Because I interpreted differently? Did we forget what a disagreement is.

Venat is the one who names Hermes's anguish and connects herself to it through her refusal to return in "opposition"; the context of this statement, prior this line, is Venat mulling about how Hermes has already seen "the cracks in the veneer of perfection." The entire context of her thoughts is about Hermes's dissatisfaction with the state of the world and how he sees the Ancients' society as hollow, and Venat is contemplating how she can relate. The "Ancients' inflexibility" has literally no relevance to the conversation and never comes up. Again, I don't know what to do except repeat that she is clearly talking about an overlap between she and Hermes regarding mindset and emotional states, specifically, anguish. It's right there in the text. Right in the direct words! It's even contrasted with Emet earlier saying he couldn't understand where Hermes was coming from!

A lot of this I agree with! It’s the anguish piece I disagreed on. She chafed under the Ancients rules. But the suffering she faced was not similar to Hermes, she could understand his position, but not agree. That’s why she says she’s understands after a fashion.

[Theodric]

She quite literally traveled the world solving the greatest problems people had. If anyone knows what the Ancients faced in terms of strife then shed be it. Her and Azem. And I suppose my question is, what other answer than acceptance and internalization is there? Rejection and externalization?

I think it's worth noting that Hythlodaeus points out in Elpis that Emet-Selch did the same thing, travelling far and wide in order to help those in need. Furthermore, in Emet's case he was described as doing so in a humble manner and didn't seek out praise or gratitude for doing so.

[EaraGrace]

I think it's worth noting that Hythlodaeus points out in Elpis that Emet-Selch did the same thing, travelling far and wide in order to help those in need. Furthermore, in Emet's case he was described as doing so in a humble manner and didn't seek out praise for doing so.

Because Venat just did so for vainglory right?

Honestly, people here approaching parody with how much they want to make her evil.

If only the story itself didn’t contradict said premises and themes just to make specific characters look good or to keep them alive

Yes, Kizuya, Graha ruined everything. You’re doing great.

[jameseoakes]

Because Venat just did so for vainglory right?

Honestly, people here approaching parody with how much they want to make her evil.

I'm still struggling to see how she was not evil for what she did to her own people.

Edit: I might be being a bit flippant with this but I struggle with how Venats actions were good, the actions she takes is beyond extreme with both how she treated her own people and what she did to the people she left in the wake of her actions.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Because Venat just did so for vainglory right?

Honestly, people here approaching parody with how much they want to make her evil.



Yes, Kizuya, Graha ruined everything. You’re doing great.

She took it upon herself to try and give her the holy title of a “supreme deity,” seems like quite the ego. Also for once i wasn’t even reference Graha heh. Just the contradictions and double standard with the scions.

[Theodric]

Because Venat just did so for vainglory right?

Well, given that she was compelled to inflict genocide upon her own people and then declare the shattered remnants to be her 'children' whilst masquerading as a self declared 'supreme deity' then it's certain something that can be taken as such.

Honestly, people here approaching parody with how much they want to make her evil.

Given that Venat is ultimately responsible for both the Sundering and the Rejoinings, it's a pretty fair reading of her character.

[jameseoakes]

Well, given that she was compelled to inflict genocide upon her own people and then declare the shattered remnants to be her 'children' whilst masquerading as a self declared 'supreme deity' then it's certain something that can be taken as such.

Given that Venat is ultimately responsible for both the Sundering and the Rejoinings, it's a pretty fair reading of her character.

That's another part of the issues she set herself up as a god and while pushing that the peoples that inhabited the world are her Children while they were nothing more than fodder for her plans (especially the ones on the reflections who were nothing but fodder for the rejoinings she needed)

Edit: I know I've picked quite biased wording for this but I do feel the game did a very poor job fleshing out the other side with how they have depicted Venat in Endwalker

[EaraGrace]

I'm still struggling to see how she was not evil for what she did to her own people.

Edit: I might be being a bit flippant with this but I struggle with how Venats actions were good, the actions she takes is beyond extreme with both how she treated her own people and what she did to the people she left in the wake of her actions.

Both are extreme by necessity. Zodiark was the most powerful being to exist in Etheirys and Meteion the universe (that we know of, there’s of course other the chance future developments change things). Accomplishing both restraining Zodiark and giving humanity the chance to fight against Meteion we’re both solved but the Sundering. If she succeeds humanity and all life flourishes. If she fails, the universe ends. To me, I see her actions as not kind or particularly good (as in fun, enjoyable, etc.) , but necessary. Sundering the planet, and I know I’m not popular for saying it, was to help humanity. In this way it’s not evil.

She took it upon herself to try and give her the holy title of a “supreme deity,” seems like quite the ego. Also for once i wasn’t even reference Graha heh. Just the contradictions and double standard with the scions.

Yes it was very ostentatious. And yknow what, I’d say find someone who wouldn’t refer to themselves like that. Whether out of necessity or a simply a product of becoming a primal. Elidibus certainly didn’t pass that test.

Well, given that she was compelled to inflict genocide upon her own people and then declare the shattered remnants to be her 'children' whilst masquerading as a self declared 'supreme deity' then it's certain something that can be taken as such.

Either Sunder or accept death, which is better to you Theodoric. If the latter is more moral to you I’ll respect that. But let’s lay the dilemma out on the table.

Given that Venat is ultimately responsible for both the Sundering and the Rejoinings, it's a pretty fair reading of her character.

Oh now she’s responsible for the Rejoinings! Leaving a crack for Emet somehow means that she’s the one responsible, despite resisting the Rejoinings and failing seven times. She totally forced Emet and Lahabrea and Eldiibus to kill those people. She totally knew Emet would be with Lahabrea and Elidibus at that moment, knew they would escape and manipulated them to kill billions.

Totally.