What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[linayar]

When you're asking "how do you justify this genocide?" in seriousness, I think it's likely you're already probably heading down the wrong path, as far as storytelling goes.

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

[Brinne]

I don't think the story is trying to justify genocide.

Yoshida said that the current playable races are descendants of the Ancients, their current forms did not take shape until afterward, meaning the Ancients were not killed in the sundering.

That's why Venat speaks of mankind's future, meaning she sees both the unsundered Ancients and their sundered descendants as being the same people.

I'm not really interested in rehashing this for about the millionth time in the thread, so all I will say is:

You can interpret things how you like, and the story is obviously consciously avoiding saying outright that Venat "killed" the Ancients to soften her actions, but it's probably going to be a long and difficult road to come anywhere close to convincing me that destroying an individual's body, soul, memories, history, culture, civilization, relationships, and reducing the lifespan of what is left to a tiny fraction of what it once was is meaningfully different from "killing."

[Theodric]

Here's the definition of genocide as it is typically understood:



The Sundering was very much an act of genocide on many fronts. Nor is there any reason to believe that it didn't involve death.

[linayar]

destroying an individual's body, soul, memories, history, culture, civilization, relationships, and reducing the lifespan of what is left to a tiny fraction of what it once was is meaningfully different from "killing."

Where did the story say any of that happened to the actual people that experienced the sundering?

Well, except for reducing the potential life span, but no, I don't consider that killing if the shortened life span doesn't mean an immediate end, especially for a group that have different ideas about death.

Here's the definition of genocide as it is typically understood:



The Sundering was very much an act of genocide on many fronts. Nor is there any reason to believe that it didn't involve death.

There is no reason to believe that definitions A, C, D, and E occured as a motivation and/or direct cause of the sundering.

Definition B could have occurred as the loss of aether would certainly have and did change the physical being. But does that change constituted actual harm to the people experiencing it? That, I am not sure. It certainly did not outright kill them.

[CrownySuccubus]

Well, except for reducing the potential life span, but no, I don't consider that killing if the shortened life span doesn't mean an immediate end, especially for a group that have different ideas about death.

If I lock you in a room with a radioactive substance and it reduces your life expectancy from 70+ years to just 10 or less, no judge or jury in the world is not going to convict me of murder.

Likewise, the Ancients' views on death seem to have changed substantially after the Final Days. Though, I admit I'm speculating there. But even if that wasn't the case, the moment Venat sundered them, they stopped being the Ancients that even had those views about death.

[Brinne]

Unconsensual, unplanned death was still seen as a great tragedy even among the Ancients. See: the funeral rites for the killed creations, Erich and Lahabrea grappling with Athena's death. And, hell, their very response to the mass violent deaths of the Final Days.

Also, for what it's worth, (again, as has been rehashed in this thread a million times), their memories being wiped was confirmed by Emet-Selch in Shadowbringers, and their civilization, culture, and history being lost is a given.

[linayar]

If I lock you in a room with a radioactive substance and it reduces your life expectancy from 70+ years to just 10 or less, no judge or jury in the world is not going to convict me of murder.

Likewise, the Ancients' views on death seem to have changed substantially after the Final Days. Though, I admit I'm speculating there. But even if that wasn't the case, the moment Venat sundered them, they stopped being the Ancients that even had those views about death.

They might have changed, but Venat didn't. That's why Yoshida said Venat was just an Ancient. Indeed, she acted like an Ancient would.

Unconsensual, unplanned death was still seen as a great tragedy even among the Ancients. See: the funeral rites for the killed creations, Erich and Lahabrea grappling with Athena's death. And, hell, their very response to the mass violent deaths of the Final Days.

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide. Genocide is what the Ancients tried to do with the new life post Zodiark.

Also, for what it's worth, (again, as has been rehashed in this thread a million times), their memories being wiped was confirmed by Emet-Selch in Shadowbringers, and their civilization, culture, and history being lost is a given.

Part of that has to do with the rejoinings that the Ascians caused, as seen by the traces of the sundering that was recorded on the First.

I don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

[KizuyaKatogami]

They might have changed, but Venat didn't. That's why Yoshida said Venat was just an Ancient. Indeed, she acted like an Ancient would.

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide. Genocide is what the Ancients tried to do with the new life post Zodiark.

Part of that has to do with the rejoinings that the Ascians caused, as seen by the traces of the sundering that was recorded on the First.

I don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

By your logic the new life wouldn’t have been genocide though, because the souls of that new life would have still been inside Zodiark just like the ancient souls were…

[AziraSyuren]

So in the end, the route they hit upon to make Hydaelyn sympathetic and worthy of your support was making it so the Ancients were "bad" for being "too good," and thus we end up with "suffering good, bettering societal conditions bad, bam, Hydaelyn justified. Now look at how hard it was for her to kill all those people."

I honestly think, at this point, it's that simple - and it bears out with the sort of baffled "look we were kinda just winging this, okay?" tone the writers have taken when pressed further about the story. I would not say "theme" in the sense EW tried to pursue was a strong point - or even seemed to be a primary concern - for FFXIV up until Shadowbringers, which seems to have been largely Ishikawa's individual effort that largely slipped under Yoshida's notice, given his confusion to its reception.

I feel as though a lot of this dissonance was born from the writers trying WAY too hard to make every character except Zenos and Fandaniel (guess who I feel as though are the high points of the story) morally justified in their own way without considerations for cases in where the morality is 100% incompatible, i.e. Venat's actions aren't morally justifiable precisely because the Ancients' actions WERE. Almost every character is either morally or logically justified for their actions, or not entirely morally culpable for them, like Meteion- and arguably Zodiark and Hydaelyn themselves, depending on how much individuality was lost in the process of becoming a primal (it doesn't seem consistent)- as they were just following their programming.

Even Garlemald, who I don't feel like the story makes any yikesy apologetics for, can easily point to the actions of the Alliance in both past and present for reasons why they've either done such atrocities or refuse to play along with their attempts to help. In their case, even the contradictory morality is 100% resolved because the story doesn't bother (unless you take the words said at complete face value) painting them as correct so much as entirely understandable. But when it comes to Venat, the story goes through great lengths to attempt to paint both her and the Ancients as correct even though the story makes very little effort to justify Venat's actions relative to how unbelievably heinous they are, and much more importantly, how little the Ancients actually did wrong.

I mean, shit, they could've leaned much harder on the supposed flaws in Ancient society and portrayed them as heinous in their own right and they wouldn't have had to justify the Sundering nearly as much as they did(n't).

TI don't remember Emet-Selch confirming actual memory wipes for the Ancients. Does that have anything to do with Elidibus's memory as well?

They were literally stripped of their identities and split into 14 different parts. The idea that they were still themselves is an unfathomable stretch.

[linayar]

By your logic the new life wouldn’t have been genocide though, because the souls of that new life would have still been inside Zodiark just like the ancient souls were…

Their souls might be, but not their lives, unless you think that being inside Zodiark is living, in which case the Ancients are condemning their own people to what seems like a hellish existence only to then wanting to replace them with others who are not their friends and families.

They were literally stripped of their identities and split into 14 different parts. The idea that they were still themselves is an unfathomable stretch.

Not really, as seen by the records of the First, even the reflections still had knowledge of the sundering. As I understand it, the way it works is that the shards started out as copies of the Source, meaning the only change is the loss of aether, but everything that was in the source remained at that instance until the loss of aether caused changes over time, through generations.