On Venat's Role in the Story

[EaraGrace]

On the issue of how she knew, perhaps the fact that both Hythlo and Emet would have their memories restored by returning the Aetherial Sea was impetus behind that. Now knowing what occurred Elpis, she may have correctly surmised they would want a part to play.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Technically it would, but... personally that'd be too much Amaurot for me. We're supposed to be moving on from this part of the story, and yet we've still got Pandaemonium set there. Do we really need to park another branch of the endgame into the distant past?

This, to me is just absolutely and utterly hilarious to hear. I find it suspect that the one most known for longing for the return of the all-powerful, mythical plot point that is Gelmorra to be revisited, is suddenly taking the stance "BURY IT, BURY IT, BURY IT" when a plot point that doesn't appeal to you is mentioned as possibly returning.

Anyway, my personal stance is that I agree with the actions of neither Venat nor the Ascians Three. In all honesty though, 'tis the story Square Enix wrote and I'm hardly capable of changing it. Endwalker has it's ups and downs, while I may not have liked every part and plot point I still think we got ourselves a solid expansion though for me Shadowbringers ranks slightly higher. Anyway, I lost any patience with debating sides and plot on forums a while back so I'll end my post here.

[Cleretic]

This, to me is just absolutely and utterly hilarious to hear. I find it suspect that the one most known for longing for the return of the all-powerful, mythical plot point that is Gelmorra to be revisited, is suddenly taking the stance "BURY IT, BURY IT, BURY IT" when a plot point that doesn't appeal to you is mentioned as possibly returning.

Heeeeey, that's... slightly different!

Specifically the reason I'm okay with leaving the Ancient world behind is that we've seen enough of it that even me, who gets inquisitive about dumb things, doesn't really have any questions left. We've had so much time dwelling on the Ancient world that I could write several pages about its political environment, despite nobody directly talking about its political environment. We know more about Amaurot than we do about some of the present-day nations we've visited.

But Gelmorra, we don't really have that closure. A lot of this is just inherited load from 1.0, which actually did seem to want to make Gelmorra 'A Thing', but despite being to several Gelmorran ruins we've only ever got threads that raised questions, rather than any answers for them. We've always been tantalizingly close to getting to actually talk about Gelmorra and resolve some questions, but we never actually do, and it's starting to get kinda frustrating. Hell, it's almost a per-expansion tradition to brush up slightly against Gelmorra and then move away before we actually resolve anything; Tam-Tara and Toto-Rak in ARR, PotD in HW, the Duskwight-focused Dancer quest in Shadowbringers, and the tank role quest in Endwalker.

[Rulakir]

Re: Emet & Hythlodaeus in Ultima Thule

When Meteion asks, "What are you?" Emet replies, "Half-faded souls of the dead. Isn't it painfully obvious?" So, I didn't get the impression they were fully alive, but they were plucked from the aetherial sea and given enough form to act within the realm of the living. They may have acted more as summons than resurrections.

I'm not sure about Alisaie's comment. Maybe she thought they'd stick around to help? I can't remember if she'd been returned yet when Emet said it wasn't their fight anymore.

[Denishia]

Chiming in as another person who is deathly sick of the Ancient world and hopes the Pandaemonium raid is the final wrapping up of loose ends and the stories that they want to tell with those characters (story and character-wise as oppose to mechanical structures of quests, my biggest problems with Endwalker is that Emet and the Amaurotines are the opposite of 'comfort characters' to me and the amount of spotlight hogging was actively tanking my enjoyment of parts of the MSQ) and that we move onto anywhere else with characters that have other designs.

And the lack of info and lore exploring Gelmorra - or the other city states of the 4th Astral Era, or early 5th Era, would be the mysteries and time periods that I crave more exploration for. We still don't know the other city states besides Mhach, Amdapor, Skalla, and Nym- and as they are more recent civilizations, you'd think their existence would have a heavily influence on the modern world. And the Twelve connection - maybe the Alliance Raid will start shedding some light.

[Absimiliard]

Definitely of the opinion that Venat's act is not justifiable in the least. She effectively rendered her own race extinct because she happened to disagree with a path she thought they would take. She had no actual evidence that sundering the world and its inhabitants would allow them to interact sufficiently with Dynamis to be able to stop the endsong, either. We know Zodiark had enough power to protect the world from its end indefinitely, and we also know the world during that age had more than enough aether to sustain Zodiark without issue.

Given the sheer intelligence of many Ancients, it is extremely likely they would eventually have both identified and solved the Meteion problem. Ultimately, Venat did what she did based off nothing more than conjecture and some vague idea of the future she gained from a very biased time traveler.

[Cleretic]

Given the sheer intelligence of many Ancients, it is extremely likely they would eventually have both identified and solved the Meteion problem.

Emet-Selch directly refutes this point.

[ZeraSkiratea]

While i agree that The act of sundering was not necesserly "right" in a moral sense
I disagree that it was unjustifiable, nor that it was necesserly wrong either.


Its a complex issue, of which we simply dont know all parts of to find a "correct" answer.






Her sundering caused countless lives to vanish, it gave birth to suffering, and also despair, but it also gave rise to new life, to hope and dreams, fleeting as they may be. She herself admits that what she did caused suffering.
But something causing suffering isnt necesserly "bad" nor is something that dosnt cause suffering necesserly good.

[CrownySuccubus]

While i agree that The act of sundering was not necesserly "right" in a moral sense
I disagree that it was unjustifiable, nor that it was necesserly wrong either.


Its a complex issue, of which we simply dont know all parts of to find a "correct" answer.






Her sundering caused countless lives to vanish, it gave birth to suffering, and also despair, but it also gave rise to new life, to hope and dreams, fleeting as they may be. She herself admits that what she did caused suffering.
But something causing suffering isnt necesserly "bad" nor is something that dosnt cause suffering necesserly good.

I don't agree with the story's overall argument that life requires suffering to find "true happiness" or that suffering inherently makes people stronger. (These were stated as the reasons why the Sundering was necessary. And we are shown examples of stars such as that of the Ea and the Plenty which supposedly "ended" all forms of suffering and strife and then completely lost the will to live.) This logic relies on the fallacy that all suffering, in general, is completely unavoidable, that suffering always serves a purpose, and that most suffering results in similar consequences. For example, if suffering is so essential, then why did we bother curing Tempering? Let people get "stronger" or find meaning in whatever results from their freinds and family or entire nations and tribes being Tempered.

Like I said, the logic is just nonsensical...but the problem is, without that, Venat's Sundering becomes much less justifiable.

[Tehmon]

I don't agree with the story's overall argument that life requires suffering to find "true happiness" or that suffering inherently makes people stronger. (These were stated as the reasons why the Sundering was necessary. And we are shown examples of stars such as that of the Ea and the Plenty which supposedly "ended" all forms of suffering and strife and then completely lost the will to live.) This logic relies on the fallacy that all suffering, in general, is completely unavoidable, that suffering always serves a purpose, and that most suffering results in similar consequences. For example, if suffering is so essential, then why did we bother curing Tempering? Let people get "stronger" or find meaning in whatever results from their freinds and family or entire nations and tribes being Tempered.

Like I said, the logic is just nonsensical...but the problem is, without that, Venat's Sundering becomes much less justifiable.

To accept suffering and understand it as an unavoidable part of the laws of nature and existence does not mean humankind shouldn't combat suffering and try to alleviate it.. Although we can make small strides towards a better tomorrow (and often those strides can cause us immense suffering by itself), we cannot mold society and existence into the paradise ancients lived in that rejected suffering, because we are mortal, extremely diverse and weak in magical powers. We do not have the time, unity or powers to accomplish such feats. But there also lies the power of the sundered: resilience and hope in the face of dark, uncertain times.