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

[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?

[Brinne]

I am not arguing that it is not a tragedy, but a tragedy does not have to involve genocide.

It does not, but this one sure did!

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?

No. He confirms it in the cave scene where he reveals Hydaelyn and Zodiark are primals. "And the worst part? No one could remember it." Elidibus also talks later, on the moon, on how all knowledge and memory of the Ancients being wiped from history without a trace was Hydaelyn's intent.

[linayar]

Emet-Selch mentions that memories of the sundered were fragmented and unable to recall specifics of anything.

It's not really made clear exactly how badly mankind regressed in-game, but the lorebook mentions that creation of stone tools and the discovery of fire were among the defining attributes of the "age of gods" which suggests they were in an extremely primitive state.

I have a hunch that the Twelve were part of a post-Sundering contingency plan from Hydaelyn to ensure mankind could actually get back on their feet and recover instead of simply going extinct in the face of their newfound shortcomings.

I think that has to do with the loss of creation magic, which of course would be a big deal.

In fact, creation magic is such a big difference that it became a crutch for their society and why they wanted to return to that prior state when their magic was not being turned against them.

Okay….then you should agree what Venat did was Genocide. The ancient lives were no more, she even says herself she is the last of her kind. She ripped them apart, and then removed as much of their history as she could and kept it all secret. Even if we don’t count the ancient lives themselves, she introduced much shorter lifespans and sickness to living beings, all those deaths are on her hands, which is indeed genocide. Not to mention her backup plan in case we failed was also allowing the shards to all be killed.

I agree that the resulting situation is worse, but I don't agree with genocide. Venat calling herself the last of her kind refers to being unsundered, but that doesn't change the fact that she still sees the sundered as continuation of mankind.

It does not, but this one sure did!

Well, that's the point of contention.

No. He confirms it in the cave scene where he reveals Hydaelyn and Zodiark are primals. "And the worst part? No one could remember it." Elidibus also talks later, on the moon, on how all knowledge and memory of the Ancients being wiped from history without a trace was Hydaelyn's intent.

Actually, that cave showed that they remembered and recorded it. Being wiped from history means no record was kept, not that the people who experienced it first hand had their memories wiped.

[Brinne]

Venat calling herself the last of her kind refers to being unsundered, but that doesn't change the fact that she still sees the sundered as continuation of mankind.

What Venat thinks doesn't matter. She's the one who inflicted the violence upon others, and believed it was for the greater good. Emet-Selch obviously does not see it that way. The Ancient souls held on the moon, from all evidence, do not see it that way. "Well, the killer says their victim lives on through their children! They really believe that! So that makes it better!"

Well, that's the point of contention.

Nah. As far as common "apologism" techniques, along with things like the abstraction and usage of symbols like the montage, coding the action of violence behind finicky, cowardly language is also typical. It's not killing, it's cleaning--I mean, uh, "retiring"--I mean, uh, "Sundering".

Actually, that cave showed that they remembered and recorded it. Being wiped from history means no record was kept, not that the people who experienced it first hand had their memories wiped.

And the worst part? No one could remember it. Not really. Just fragments and fleeting memories of an achingly familiar world…

The origins of the world remain hidden and its inhabitants ignorant of their broken existence, just as You and Your creators desired.

People can, and often do, paint things they saw in fragments of dreams they don't understand. Fragments of memories persist through soul aether, as Amon demonstrated. This does not change that their memory was intentionally wiped by Venat and that her strategy to "remove temptation" was to annihilate the Ancient civilization and all memory of it from history.

[linayar]

"Well, the killer says their victim lives on through their children! They really believe that! So that makes it better!"

Yep, the victims of the killer lived through their children, whom they conceived after being killed... uh...

Nah. As far as common "apologism" techniques, along with things like the abstraction and usage of symbols like the montage, coding the action of violence behind finicky language is also typical. It's not killing, it's cleaning--I mean, uh, "retiring"--I mean, uh, "Sundering".

Great, than let's call it what it is instead of "coding" behind the language. Killing is ending one's physical existence. They're not dead? They're still alive and able to reproduce? Then they weren't killed.

People can, and often do, paint things they saw in fragments of dreams they don't understand. Fragments of memories persist through soul aether, as Amon demonstrated. This does not change that their memory was intentionally wiped by Venat and that her strategy to "remove temptation" was to annihilate the Ancient civilization and all memory of it from history.

Yes, they can, but Hydaelyn not wanting the sundered to keep the knowledge of the pre-sundered world is not saying the sundering caused a loss of memory. You're taking a general statement and attributig a specific cause and mechanism.

What do you mean the sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark? She needed Zodiark for her plan. It seems they rewrote it to be instead of Zodiark to be because she thought only the sundered could manipulate dynamis.

To stop Zodiark from being used for more sacrifices to return the society to as it was.

Also,so mankind can learn to live through suffering? The ancients did that. They didn’t give in to the final days, they handed together and put a stop to it and restored the planet. Compare that to 90% of the sundered who give in and succumb to the final days and turn into blasphemies. Getting rid of peoples memories of an entire race, ripping them apart, and keeping it all a secret is the equivalent of genocide. This shouldn’t even really be up for debate. If it is, then i guess the rejoinings aren’t genocide either, since the sundered are all just fractured versions of complete people, rejoining them would just make them whole and themselves again.

They didn't give in because they had creation magic. Everything can be solved with creation magic. Tragedies can be undone. That's not living through suffering.

Also, even you comparing it to the sundered shows that the Ancients merely escape the worst of the suffering because they were not affected by dynamis, only their creation magic.

[CrownySuccubus]

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.

Except Venat was an Ancient who didn't agree with her fellow Ancients. Venat did not choose to die after she left her office, and stated that she probably never would choose to. She specifically sundered her fellow Ancients because she disagreed with their fundamental values.

She is the one Ancient (besides Hermes) for whom a callous attitude toward death would be hypocrisy.

[linayar]

She is the one Ancient (besides Hermes) for whom a callous attitude toward death would be hypocrisy.

Not really, part of that is due to Meteion's revelation of how the Ancients' paradise is not shared universally (or at least) might be temporary. Again, there is no reason to think she killed anybody. So shortening life spans is not that great a price to pay if it meant mankind can learn to live through the suffering.

Also, it is not like she intentionally intended for their life spans to be shorter. So it is not a motivating factor. The sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark.

[CrownySuccubus]

Not really, part of that is due to Meteion's revelation of how the Ancients' paradise is not shared universally (or at least) might be temporary. Again, there is no reason to think she killed anybody. So shortening life spans is not that great a price to pay if it meant mankind can learn to live through the suffering.

Also, it is not like she intentionally intended for their life spans to be shorter. So it is not a motivating factor. The sundering was primarily to stop Zodiark.

No, Venat was well aware that the effects of the Sundering would cause mankind to suffer more, die horrible deaths they otherwise would have, and would also cut their lives to a fraction of what they were. That was the entire PURPOSE of the Sundering, and she had ample knowledge of what it would cause thanks to receiving a heads-up about the future.

The sundering also had nothing to do with Zodiark. It was Meteion that the Sundering was ultimately supposed to defeat by teaching mankind to "live through suffering". But honestly, that's taking the logic of the story at face value, and I've already gone through pages and pages of explanations about why it doesn't work even after the story tried to bend over backwards to make it work.

Also, no. This notion you have of "well if I didn't end your life today, then I didn't kill you" is nonsense.

Again, if I stab you, and this injury directly leads to your death even in an indirect way (you wander into the street looking for help and get hit by a bus), I will STILL get arrested and convicted of murder. "Killing", neither legally nor ethically, is limited to directly ending someone's life with one act.