Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Lyth]

Just as a side note, Emet does mention getting married while in Solus' body in 'Through His Eyes'. He seems to have briefly formed an attachment to a son of his that passed away from a childhood illness, but he by and large sees even his own Garlean family as 'malformed creatures'.

...

Humans themselves vary in their ability to empathize with others, true. It's still critically important, however, which is why there are societal standards in place. You can air the same views that Emet did about murder being simply 'a matter of opinion' out in a public space if you like, but you'll encounter censure fairly quickly. One of the hallmarks of antisocial personality types is a demonstrated lack of empathy for others. People in positions of power can, perhaps unsurprisingly, demonstrate some of those personality traits as well.

As you rightly pointed out, the Amaurotians are very much focused on abstract concepts, why is why empathy frequently takes a backseat to logic and blind utilitarianism in their reasoning. Part of it is also due to the fact that, similar the Greek deities that are their namesakes, they're used to wielding power however suits their own personal preferences. It's just interesting to observe the difference in their thinking.

[Mortex]

The short story hints he wasn’t quite broken at that point yet. It hints that his whole having a child there was his way of giving the sundered a chance. But when he saw just how fragile the sundered beings are after his son dies of illness(which is something that never existed in the ancient world, thanks Venat!) It basically cemented his resolve to strive forward towards the rejoinings.

Ah cool. But wait did we ever had a information if you could heal congenital diseases in the world of final fantasy 14 ? Like the man can warp matter and space as we saw in amaurot so I don’t think it’s not out of the question too change the body aether properties and safe him. I mean it wouldn’t change his soul aether in anyway.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Ah cool. But wait did we ever had a information if you could heal congenital diseases in the world of final fantasy 14 ? Like the man can warp matter and space as we saw in amaurot so I don’t think it’s not out of the question too change the body aether properties and safe him. I mean it wouldn’t change his soul aether in anyway.

You have to keep in mind it was something foreign to him. He probably wouldn’t even know where to start despite how smart he is. It’s a completely new phenomenon.

[Brinne]

As you rightly pointed out, the Amaurotians are very much focused on abstract concepts, why is why empathy frequently takes a backseat to logic and blind utilitarianism in their reasoning. Part of it is also due to the fact that, similar the Greek deities that are their namesakes, they're used to wielding power however suits their own personal preferences. It's just interesting to observe the difference in their thinking.

No, not "Amaurotians." Venat. Specifically Venat. Almost every other Ancient character we meet actually specifically contrasts her in this regard. Hythlodaeus does not extol the abstract concept of "friendship" and claim the purpose of his life is furthering it, his thinking is grounded in his love of his two specific, concrete, real friends, Azem and Emet-Selch. Elidibus focuses on "duty" while still lacking his memories, but it's revealed as that is fixed - and foreshadowed when confusedly talking about him swearing to "someone" - that his true core of motivation stems from love of, again, specific people whom he wanted to see smile and be happy, his friends and brothers on the Convocation. Emet-Selch is very specifically driven by a far more "human" and grounded love and duty toward his people in Amaurot, as opposed to Venat's love for "mankind," and the need to protect/save them, like the DRK he is. As he's on the brink of defeat, he cries out about the emotional reasons why he cannot yield. As Ishikawa said, however, his downfall was his kindness - kindness that caused that caused him to empathize with the Sundered even though he very very very much did not want to, and it was counter-productive to his goals. Kindness that resulted in his becoming so twisted with exhaustion and self-loathing and cognitive dissonance over what he nonetheless believed he "had" to do that, deep down, he sought a way out, as his past self quickly identified and was repulsed by.

Venat is the one who stands out as so vehemently expressing, and forcefully acting, upon her love of "mankind" and "the world," and yet no specific person exists whom you can pin down as the target of this love. There is no individual person she wouldn't sacrifice in the name of for her love of "mankind." Close, yet so distant. Akin to a force of nature, as her protege said, when describing her - you know, as these traits about her stand out, within the context of Amaurotine society, to the point of being unusual and worth noting, even by her own student.

[Lauront]

I mean, I hate to tell you this, but the tendency to Otherize and dehumanize different groups of people to either justify violence against them or justify a lack of empathy or willingness to help them is absolutely no stranger to non-Ancient humans, whether in the real world or the Sundered one. Real people like Venat, ideologues who think in abstractions that means they don't really prioritize what harm their ideals may cause actual living individuals, absolutely exist. People like Emet, who are reflexively uncomfortable with cruelty but will resort to thin excuses as a coping mechanism to make it easier to go through with it anyway, in order to to advance their agenda, also exist. Anyway, how about Ul'dah and those "Beast Tribes," am I right?

Or Ul'dah and Sil'dih. Or the Allagan Empire, which Amon himself reflects on. Or the treatment of the Garleans leading up to their empire. Or the war of man and dragon. The list goes on and on. There is virtually no sense in which the sundered are shown to be more empathetic, and this is even more acutely the case with lesser/monstrous life forms. Meanwhile in one of the Elpis sidequests, with respect to the ancients, while the game does offer the option for you to respond that you view them as gods (and I think that this is certainly true to a degree), it also allows one to say we're not that different, or that they're inscrutable. All three are true to some extent. They do share base human traits, and that very much includes empathy, but they also have traits which make them something a bit more than human. To me the reading that they lack empathy is utterly bizarre, at complete odds with what we see both in the MSQ and in Elpis sidequests, and the only real evidence adduced for it is, shall we say, "eccentric" Venat, mentally unstable Hermes and Hades after the world and his people are sundered by Venat, turning them into something entirely different - and still he makes efforts to find some measure of hope within them, even if it ended up until his defeat in disappointment.

It's funny how little it takes to turn Venat into a sinister villain. Just adding that she had a deep seated hatred of Azem (or Emet) is enough then change the post-Elpis dialog to, "I'll destroy you, everything you love, and then manipulate your reincarnation into killing your best friend who I purposely left unsundered and made your enemy." :P

To further underscore this, one can compare what Fandaniel does in that lone soldier scenario with what the sundering does to mankind as a whole. Of course his is a rather more sinister act of cruelty, purely intended to torment... but it's not exactly that different in the end. Personally, I think they ought to have gone with the idea of her faction being manipulated (for plausible reasons) into paranoia, especially by whatever (helped) cause the Final Days. It would avoid either side needing to be portrayed as villainous... rather than the writing tripping over itself to remind you she's a "hero" but the actual story having her destroy her own people.

I think it worked for the people they were able to convince that the Ancients were doomed no matter what (or who were never attached to the Ancients). Those of us who saw numerous alternate paths that weren't explored are the ones left frustrated. Also, as an unabashed fan of the Ancients, I can say this did not work for me at all. Venat is directly responsible for condemning my favorite characters, in some cases to fates worse than death, and I'm supposed to like or be thankful to her? I'm instantly reminded of any given stalker film where the person commits unspeakable atrocities and then tells the object of their affection, "Can't you see? I did this all for you!" Not to mention that in order to get the WoL you have to slice, dice, and julienne fry Azem, her protegee. It's seriously messed up.

Just to clarify, I get what you're saying and I agree that's probably how they viewed it, I'm just pointing out how it came across to me (and others). Part of the problem is I personally found Emet to be the most sympathetic and arguably tragic (although Elidibus is up there) figure in the story. The post-Elpis cutscene with Venat's pity walk through the ages did nothing for me. She made her bed, she had to die in it. My heart broke for her victims. As such, was there not one person on FFXIV's team that thought presenting her as a "good guy" might have some issues?

Agreed 100%. I don't like fixation on "us"/"you" in the first place, so having her act on such a basis only further alienated me from her actions.

The short story hints he wasn’t quite broken at that point yet. It hints that his whole having a child there was his way of giving the sundered a chance. But when he saw just how fragile the sundered beings are after his son dies of illness(which is something that never existed in the ancient world, thanks Venat!) It basically cemented his resolve to strive forward towards the rejoinings.

I also suspect that the size of his son had something to do with it. In the sense that he thought after the Rejoinings, maybe we're seeing man come closer to his ancient form again. Then the son dies at such a young age, reminding him of how frail they are in his ancient eyes. I think seeing the aftermath of the Sundering play out is what further differentiates him from the Elpis researchers, who only see your character at a point in time, and are somewhat puzzled because they resemble a familiar, but are a bit more than that, and yet aren't quite ancient, either. Emet's seen the full cycle. Nonetheless, he still gives it one last shot with Azem's shard. Coupled with what Lurina mentioned (the shift (?) in his perspective), I'd say it's plausible that the work of the rejoinings did take its toll on him.

[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.

[EaraGrace]

And I hate to be the one to point this out but yes, if you disagree with an important premise in the story, a premise that’ll inform character actions and decisions, then you aren’t going to like the story.

[Skyborne]

...

Couldn't have said it better myself. I was kind of hoping for the same sort of tight writing as in ShB, and I got the impression we'd be working together with 'the enemy'... one of my favorite dumb jRPG cliches. Of course, we semi-got that with Zenos right at the end, but still...

EW I got the impression from day 1 was all in on the big, bombastic feels, the 'uplifting'. But emotions are fickle things that can change or fade... and when that troublesome, pesky brain begins to activate and it all falls apart, especially when you quite like some of these characters who got screwed over the hardest. It worked on the majority, though. Personally the whole setting/lore has lost much of its appeal to me -- I felt like a hero for saving a baby from drowning, but that all just went away after Elpis and the realization of it all dawned on me. Someone waiting 12,000 years for me? Would normally be very touching, but not this time... I'd applaud Yoshi for his brilliant deconstruction of the 'powa of friendship!' trope, but he seemed genuinely taken aback at the Q&A by a not-insignificant number people reacting like myself.

EDIT: I didn't much like the G'raha parts of ShB either, with the Adoring Fan levels of hero worship. But perhaps I'm just not the intended audience for this, and don't really want a game to butter me up, prop up my self-esteem, tell me I am a good good girl who is worth it, and so on... I found Ardbert, Emet, and their independent struggles and anguish to be much more interesting.

My hot take: I hate Answers, I have always hated that song. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but ugh. I also hate Flow. Meanwhile, I've had any version of the Garlean theme from the radio to the dungeon stuck in my head on infinite loop.

Agreed... I liked Answers back in ARR, and especially the remix in T12, when it applied to that specific situation. But now that it's associated with.... well, what we got? It's soured and curdled just a little. I prefer Dragonsong... ironically, the lyrics she sings very much apply to herself now. Why turn the past into dust, mom?

[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.

[KizuyaKatogami]

And I hate to be the one to point this out but yes, if you disagree with an important premise in the story, a premise that’ll inform character actions and decisions, then you aren’t going to like the story.

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