Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[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.

[jameseoakes]

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.

I don't see any reason why the sundering was needed to fight Meteion, I see no reason why the Ancients could not of fought Meteion, they could work with Dyanamis. So once the nature of the threat was made clear to them there seems to be no reason why they couldn't have done something about Meteion with time.

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.

She needs multiple rejoinings to happen so we can be sufficiently re-joined to kill the unsundered acians so most of the shards were nothing but fodder and the people on the source exposed to the full horror of multiple cataclysms by her actions. The rejoinings are part of her design

[KizuyaKatogami]

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.



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.



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.



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.

She relied on said rejoinings though, that’s one of the major flaws in her plan. She required events to play out in such a specific manner. If not, who knows what would have happened. She needed Elidibus,Emet, etc to play their specific roles. Hell, had Elidibus not been on the First, her entire plan would be screwed as we needed him to even give us that time travel in the first place.