On Venat's Role in the Story

[KizuyaKatogami]

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, 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.

They lived through suffering though. They were trying to undo the calamity that was wrought against them, which is no different than what the Ironworks did when they were willing to erase their entire timeline to bring the WoL back to life. Should they have just stopped and instead suffered then? Or sacrifice themselves so that others may live.

[Tehmon]

They lived through suffering though. They were trying to undo the calamity that was wrought against them, which is no different than what the Ironworks did when they were willing to erase their entire timeline to bring the WoL back to life. Should they have just stopped and instead suffered then? Or sacrifice themselves so that others may live.

They weren't just trying to undo the calamity, they were trying to undo the suffering and to reject it once more. Not only that, they would do so by sacrificing innocent lives who had no say in the matter of ancients' selfish pursuit of their own glory and happiness. That is what tipped the scale for Venat.

The timeline of the dead WoL was as good as gone for the denizens of the Source and potentially the rest of the shards. I'm not sure why exactly you are trying to compare the two. I guess you're trying to imply that there might've been good people still trying to fix the situation in that timeline, but it seemed to me that anyone worth a damn in that setting was on team WoL. I'm not sure if that timeline is even erased from existence either. Regardless, the Ironworks didn't work tirelessly for generations for their own benefit. They were ready to sacrifice themselves and not see the fruit of their labor for another reality to have a better chance at combating the suffering that was to come. I don't really see the '' it's no different '' argument, because the cases are different.

[Slatersev]

The ironworks comparison doesn't work because the Ascians fully intended to get to be part of there remade "perfect" world if it worked out.

They very much expected to benefit from it all.

The Ironworks did not, there assumption was they would just straight up stop existing and even if that didnt happen they weren't going to materially gain anything from what they were doing. Very different mindsets with similar goals.

[KizuyaKatogami]

0

They weren't just trying to undo the calamity, they were trying to undo the suffering and to reject it once more. Not only that, they would do so by sacrificing innocent lives who had no say in the matter of ancients' selfish pursuit of their own glory and happiness. That is what tipped the scale for Venat.

The timeline of the dead WoL was as good as gone for the denizens of the Source and potentially the rest of the shards. I'm not sure why exactly you are trying to compare the two. I guess you're trying to imply that there might've been good people still trying to fix the situation in that timeline, but it seemed to me that anyone worth a damn in that setting was on team WoL. I'm not sure if that timeline is even erased from existence either. Regardless, the Ironworks didn't work tirelessly for generations for their own benefit. They were ready to sacrifice themselves and not see the fruit of their labor for another reality to have a better chance at combating the suffering that was to come. I don't really see the '' it's no different '' argument, because the cases are different.

As we know from the story, they were able to continue surviving, so theoretically they didn’t need to resort to time travel or the possibility of the timeline disappearing, and no they didn’t ask every single person in the world for their consent to be eventually erased. The ancients had unselfishly sacrifices themselves twice to save the planet and everyone on it. But again, this is all moot because in the end, Venat had the knowledge of what would happen. She kept it a secret and let her people be slaughtered and then did the very thing your criticizing the ancients for. She shattered them and ripped them apart, innocent people who had no say in the matter whatsoever.The ancients werent working tirelessly fo rthemselves either though. They literally sacrificed themselves to save the planet and its people.

The ironworks comparison doesn't work because the Ascians fully intended to get to be part of there remade "perfect" world if it worked out.

They very much expected to benefit from it all.

The Ironworks did not, there assumption was they would just straight up stop existing and even if that didnt happen they weren't going to materially gain anything from what they were doing. Very different mindsets with similar goals.

Ironworks had the salvation of the star and its people as their mindset. Thats what drove the ancients to do what they did as well. Bring their people back so they could then resume their duties as stewards of the star and continue to steer it in the right direction. Hythlodaeus tells us as much in Amaurot.

[Slatersev]

0

As we know from the story, they were able to continue surviving, so theoretically they didn’t need to resort to time travel or the possibility of the timeline disappearing, and no they didn’t ask every single person in the world for their consent to be eventually erased. The ancients had unselfishly sacrifices themselves twice to save the planet and everyone on it. But again, this is all moot because in the end, Venat had the knowledge of what would happen. She kept it a secret and let her people be slaughtered and then did the very thing your criticizing the ancients for. She shattered them and ripped them apart, innocent people who had no say in the matter whatsoever.The ancients werent working tirelessly fo rthemselves either though. They literally sacrificed themselves to save the planet and its people.



Ironworks had the salvation of the star and its people as their mindset. Thats what drove the ancients to do what they did as well. Bring their people back so they could then resume their duties as stewards of the star and continue to steer it in the right direction. Hythlodaeus tells us as much in Amaurot.

Yes and they expected to be there to enjoy it. The Ironworks didn't. like I said. Not hard to comprehend

[KizuyaKatogami]

Yes and they expected to be there to enjoy it. The Ironworks didn't. like I said. Not hard to comprehend

It doesn’t really matter in the overall grand scheme of things. According to this logic, they should just accept suffering. Apparently trying to change it or prevent it is wrong. As per Venat’s MO at least. She could have potentially prevented the final days and didn’t. She instead allowed suffering to happen. Imagine if we as the WoL had been on the moon, knew the final days was coming, and said nothing to the inhabitants of thavnair or garlemald. Even while it’s going on, imagine if we pretended we didn’t know what was happening. Would we still be a hero? Would that be seen as good? Didn’t think so.

[CrownySuccubus]

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.

The Ancients' society did not "reject" suffering. They actively worked to make things better and to eliminate sources of strife where they existed. They still mourned dead loved ones, still had problems (such as exploding volcanoes), and still had need for skilled combatants (every Azem, for instance, is a one-man army). There is basically no difference between the Ancients' world and the world that the Sundered races wish to build. You'll note, for example, that Hermes' biggest complaint about the Ancients was how callously they threw away the lives of concepts and familiars, and yet in the present day, Uldah has fight pits where you slaughter similar creatures for sport. The story makes a big deal about Hythlodaeus transforming a couple of butterflies into robes, but my WOL is a Level 90 Leatherworker who's literally killed thousands of things merely for profit, and uses Relic weapons that required me to repeatedly slaughter every single living thing on various maps.

Again, the story's narrative just does not add up under basic scrutiny, because if Venat did the same thing to the current world that she did to the Ancients, we'd DEFINITELY be trying to stop her with everything we've got. But, because her actions benefit the modern races and only screw over a species nobody remembers anymore, the morality comes across as: "Sucks to be them, but I got mine."

[EaraGrace]

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.

I don't believe the stories message is saying that all suffering is unavoidable, but rather that suffering can and will find ways into the world despite our best efforts. When the Plenty and the Ea eliminated what they considered suffering, they in fact gave rise to it in other forms. Existential terror, ennui, purposelessness and apathy are in themselves forms of pain and when faced with it they came to the conclusion that the only true way to avoid suffering was to die. The problem isn't the desire to reduce suffering by itself, but rather the belief that life isn't worth living if one cannot eliminate it. Discovering a cure for tempering is an amazing development, and I'm sure Venat would agree. It's when a world mistakenly believes that suffering won't return, or that its not worth facing, that problems emerge.

Looking at the Ancients we see just that. Their desire to return the world to the way it was at any cost, to return to that "perfect paradise," that was what necessitated action. If the Ancients had come to accept that they're existence was not going to continue for perpetuity, that sacrificing others was not the way to reclaim their loved ones, and that it was not possible to eliminate suffering forever, then I do not believe the Sundering would occur. Venat's debate with them says as much I think.

The Ancients' society did not "reject" suffering. They actively worked to make things better and to eliminate sources of strife where they existed. They still mourned dead loved ones, still had problems (such as exploding volcanoes), and still had need for skilled combatants (every Azem, for instance, is a one-man army). There is basically no difference between the Ancients' world and the world that the Sundered races wish to build. You'll note, for example, that Hermes' biggest complaint about the Ancients was how callously they threw away the lives of concepts and familiars, and yet in the present day, Uldah has fight pits where you slaughter similar creatures for sport. The story makes a big deal about Hythlodaeus transforming a couple of butterflies into robes, but my WOL is a Level 90 Leatherworker who's literally killed thousands of things merely for profit, and uses Relic weapons that required me to repeatedly slaughter every single living thing on various maps.

Again, the story's narrative just does not add up under basic scrutiny, because if Venat did the same thing to the current world that she did to the Ancients, we'd DEFINITELY be trying to stop her with everything we've got. But, because her actions benefit the modern races and only screw over a species nobody remembers anymore, the morality comes across as: "Sucks to be them, but I got mine."

I think you overestimate how much the Ancients faced. Venat and Azem were exceptions for a lot of reasons, and theres nothing to indicate that anything on Etheirys could threaten them. Speaking with the spirts on the moon, they make clear that a forced death isn't something they thought about, and the questline with the researchers burying their creations lends credence to that. Looking at the Ancients in our interactions with them, and taking into account Emet's descriptions of the Ancient world, I think we can surmise that scarcity, conflict, disease, natural disasters and age did not pose a mortal threat to them. Even with the volcano story there's no mention of the inhabitants being in danger, just that they were going to have to move. In a society with the capacity to generate objects out of thin air, I'd say that's actually little more than an annoyance.

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't believe the stories message is saying that all suffering is unavoidable, but rather that suffering can and will find ways into the world despite our best efforts. When the Plenty and the Ea eliminated what they considered suffering, they in fact gave rise to it in other forms. Existential terror, ennui, purposelessness and apathy are in themselves forms of pain and when faced with it they came to the conclusion that the only true way to avoid suffering was to die. The problem isn't the desire to reduce suffering by itself, but rather the belief that life isn't worth living if one cannot eliminate it. Discovering a cure for tempering is an amazing development, and I'm sure Venat would agree. It's when a world mistakenly believes that suffering won't return, or that its not worth facing, that problems emerge.

Which still does not add up. Take The Plenty for example. Their entire despair was based on the idea that, since they no longer suffered, they had nothing left to live for or achieve. But I agree with your statement: isn't that, in itself, a form of "suffering"? Why didn't they try to overcome that one? Why is this supposedly all-powerful and all-wise race completely unable to fathom the idea of finding new purposes or challenges in life, but the Scions can do it almost instantly? Because the Scions have overcome despair and suffering? Once again: isn't that LITERALLY what the Plenty did?

Looking at the Ancients we see just that. Their desire to return the world to the way it was at any cost, to return to that "perfect paradise," that was what necessitated action. If the Ancients had come to accept that they're existence was not going to continue for perpetuity, that sacrificing others was not the way to reclaim their loved ones, and that it was not possible to eliminate suffering forever, then I do not believe the Sundering would occur. Venat's debate with them says as much I think.

Which is again part of the problem. The post-Final Days Ancients we see "debating" with Venat are such blatant strawmen that it loses all credibility. No Ancients behaved or acted like they did pre-Sundering. They didn't believe they lived in a problem-free society, that nobody ever suffered, or so on. Sure, they were proud of the fact that they'd overcome many of life's problems, but who isn't proud of that? Does modern humanity deserve Sundering because we learned to cook food instead of eating everything raw and hoping to live through the salmonella? Are we the epitome of hubris because we've learned to domesticate animals and farm instead of risking our lives hunting mammoths and gathering nuts? Should we eliminate all forms medicine like insulin and penicillin and go back to the days when childbirth or syphilis were basically death sentences?

Again, the entire story is extremely heavy-handed in the way it tries to portray "Venat Right; Everyone Else Wrong".

I think you overestimate how much the Ancients faced. Venat and Azem were exceptions for a lot of reasons, and theres nothing to indicate that anything on Etheirys could threaten them. Speaking with the spirts on the moon, they make clear that a forced death isn't something they thought about, and the questline with the researchers burying their creations lends credence to that. Looking at the Ancients in our interactions with them, and taking into account Emet's descriptions of the Ancient world, I think we can surmise that scarcity, conflict, disease, natural disasters and age did not pose a mortal threat to them. Even with the volcano story there's no mention of the inhabitants being in danger, just that they were going to have to move. In a society with the capacity to generate objects out of thin air, I'd say that's actually little more than an annoyance.

Even if this were true...so what? Why is this a "bad" thing?

They overcame problems on their star with effort, wisdom and slow progress. I repeat: how is this different from developing a cure to things like disease or Tempering? Where is the golden line between "Helping people and making their lives better is a good thing" and "You've overcome too many problems and become the face of pure hubris"?

[EaraGrace]

Which still does not add up. Take The Plenty for example. Their entire despair was based on the idea that, since they no longer suffered, they had nothing left to live for or achieve. But I agree with your statement: isn't that, in itself, a form of "suffering"? Why didn't they try to overcome that one? Why is this supposedly all-powerful and all-wise race completely unable to fathom the idea of finding new purposes or challenges in life, but the Scions can do it almost instantly? Because the Scions have overcome despair and suffering? Once again: isn't that LITERALLY what the Plenty did?

Because to a race of beings who had achieved what they believed perfection, why bother? If you have already mastered life, what else is there to do but die? To them the idea of starting down a new path was beneath them, an epiphany that would come from understanding that they haven't created perfection and that that goal is in itself a false promise. The Scions response was essentially that it wasn't only the end goal that mattered, but the journey to that point. That, and their willingness to accept the possibility of a life unfulfilled, a death unchosen, was what allowed them to face Meteion.

Which is again part of the problem. The post-Final Days Ancients we see "debating" with Venat are such blatant strawmen that it loses all credibility. No Ancients behaved or acted like they did pre-Sundering. They didn't believe they lived in a problem-free society, that nobody ever suffered, or so on. Sure, they were proud of the fact that they'd overcome many of life's problems, but who isn't proud of that? Does modern humanity deserve Sundering because we learned to cook food instead of eating everything raw and hoping to live through the salmonella? Are we the epitome of hubris because we've learned to domesticate animals and farm instead of risking our lives hunting mammoths and gathering nuts? Should we eliminate all forms medicine like insulin and penicillin and go back to the days when childbirth or syphilis were basically death sentences?

Again, the entire story is extremely heavy-handed in the way it tries to portray "Venat Right; Everyone Else Wrong".

I don't think they shouldn't have been proud of their accomplishments, just that they shouldn't have come to believe that they could solve all. If the Ancients had said "we wish to build our paradise knowing its ephemeral, knowing its not perfect, and knowing that we will all face strife at some point," then the Sundering wouldn't have happened. Instead, they made a god that would answer any call for salvation, one that would return their loved ones and put everything exactly back where it was. As Elidibus said, even after saving the world they still "cried out in rage and despair," drawing him back out and giving rise to the idea of the third sacrifice. Learning to cook doesn't prevent me ever facing hunger. Building a god that would make it so I never felt hunger again would.

Perhaps why I don't view that conversation as a strawman is reliant on the fact that I could understand not wanting to accept suffering if I was Ancient. They're born immortal masters of creation, and from the moment they came to exist the world opened itself to them. Why would I ever accept that there is something outside of my control?