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

[Theodric]

Imagine how much easier the Sundering would've been to swallow if Ancient society was, at its core, nearly as unpleasant as the Garlean society was. It wouldn't have been morally justified but it wouldn't have been as bad as the whole "throwing away a perfect society for bad reasons" thing.

That'd just be strange to me, since the Garleans were only in the position they were in out of necessity as a consequence of being targeted for genocide throughout much of their own history. Furthermore, they didn't have the plot convenience of a Warrior of Light to wander their lands and conveniently solve every issue before it festered into something that required getting one's hands very dirty in order to deal with.

The Sundering was a stupid move in general and I don't think any society 'deserved' to be wiped out. Even the Allagan Empire had good people living within it during the height of its decadence.

Endwalker in general has a pretty weird take on the concept of 'suffering' and 'moving on', though.

More than anything, rather than hide away the nuance established for Garlemald in optional side quests they could have simply pushed more of it front and centre. Though then the writers would need to admit that the 'gOoD gUyS' aren't so perfect and are selfish when it comes to forcing their ideals onto everybody else...which is why we ended up getting the likes of that idiotic strawman scene at the end of Elpis that reduced complexities to 'I can't accept it! I won't accept it!'.

[CrownySuccubus]

That'd just be strange to me, since the Garleans were only in the position they were in out of necessity as a consequence of being targeted for genocide throughout much of their own history. Furthermore, they didn't have the plot convenience of a Warrior of Light to wander their lands and conveniently solve every issue before it festered into something that required getting one's hands very dirty in order to deal with.

The Sundering was a stupid move in general and I don't think any society 'deserved' to be wiped out. Even the Allagan Empire had good people living within it during the height of its decadence.

Endwalker in general has a pretty weird take on the concept of 'suffering' and 'moving on', though.

That's why they said "it wouldn't be morally justified". Doing bad things to stop people from doing arguably worse things create a much more decent gray area. It's still morally ambiguous, but at least it would be better than what we got. (I personally would have hated it due to personal tastes, but it would at least have been tonally consistent.)

Or, they could have just left the Ancients as "utopic" and kept the Sundering as a tragedy and not some moral statement.

[IkaraGreydancer]

On my end, I don't particularly care if a character or faction does 'bad' things. I just loathe it when there's no consistency. If something is portrayed as being unforgivable when the antagonists do it, then it shouldn't be excused when the protagonists do the very same thing. Mysteriously there's always an excuse as to why exceptions have to be made which just leads me to not give a damn about all the preachy sophistry.

The fact that not a single character directly calls out Venat is proof enough that it's not worth paying attention to whatever the game tries to pass off as 'morality' because the moment a 'fan favourite' does a terrible thing it'll be excused.

Though I don't look to video games to reinforce my moral compass in the first place. I just want a cool story that makes sense and doesn't require me to be expected to go 'oOh MoMmY' and turn off my brain.

Idk about you but EW never made me go "oooh mommy". I hold my own opinions about Venat. I don't like all of what she did but I can 100% understand it. I don't need others to call her out on it.

Hell they don't even really call Hermes evil, just misguided. Really liked that you get to tell him we can search for the answer in another life iirc. That to me proves he wasn't suppose to just be this big evil guy painted to be wrong doing. But ofc everyone's interpretation will be different. Killing to get a high (Zenos), killing to restore (Hades) and ending lives to preserve (yes because per my understanding she didn't kill anyone/Venat) are all very different. The what is bad in all 3, it's the why that matters the most and how said person goes about it. Say what you will but it's clear Venat was in deep turmoil about what she did (as was Hermes in truth). I can't say the same for Hades or Zenos. I'm not the biggest Venat fan but I can at least respect the fact she took full responsibility and paid for it with her life.

Call me odd but I think it's cool so many different opinions sparked up from this

[Theodric]

That's why they said "it wouldn't be morally justified". Doing bad things to stop people from doing arguably worse things create a much more decent gray area. It's still morally ambiguous, but at least it would be better than what we got.

Right. Though they're specifically the way that they are because they're the ones who lost out the most as a consequence of the Sundering, thus the example doesn't really work for me. Especially the implication that it'd be 'less morally grey' to genocide a bunch of Garleans over the Ancients as if one group is more worthy than the other of existence.

Which in turn is why my stance has consistently been that it makes sense for the Sundered to do everything possible to avert their destruction, whereas the Unsundered have the right to do the same thing.

At the end of the day, the story was perfectly willing to rewrite large swathes of the story's existing rules in order to justify keeping certain characters around. If they really wanted to go for an 'uplifting' ending for the story then they could have found some way to carve a third path forward where both sides benefitted from the resolution instead of one losing everything.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Idk about you but EW never made me go "oooh mommy". I hold my own opinions about Venat. I don't like all of what she did but I can 100% understand it. I don't need others to call her out on it.

Hell they don't even really call Hermes evil, just misguided. Really liked that you get to tell him we can search for the answer in another life iirc. That to me proves he wasn't suppose to just be this big evil guy painted to be wrong doing. But ofc everyone's interpretation will be different. Killing to get a high (Zenos), killing to restore (Hades) and ending lives to preserve (yes because per my understanding she didn't kill anyone/Venat) are all very different. The what is bad in all 3, it's the why that matters the most and how said person goes about it. Say what you will but it's clear Venat was in deep turmoil about what she did (as was Hermes in truth). I can't say the same for Hades or Zenos. I'm not the biggest Venat fan but I can at least respect the fact she took full responsibility and paid for it with her life.

Call me odd but I think it's cool so many different opinions sparked up from this

I think even Ishikawa states he was 100% in the wrong and pretty evil. Venat did kill people, that isn’t really anything up for debate. She brought illness into the world, dying to young age etc. She created the shards knowing they would be killed. The fact the game itself tries to paint her as just and benevolent and even lets her take credit for shielding the planet is baffling when we know it’s only because of Elidibus and Zodiark that the planet was shielded and kept safe, and neither of them get much credit.

[Cach]

He had a strong arc sure, but a lot of people were turned off from him after 5.3 once he was demoted to nothing more than a character worshipper and slice of life character. It’s subjective in the end i suppose,

Unpopular (eh...) maybe, but "subjective" enters the equation when you say whether you enjoyed it or not. The rest of your description is pretty accurate from what we can directly observe from the text, same with the Venat or a few of subjects we usually talk about.

Every once in a while someone crashes through a window and goes "Well, that's like... your opinion, man". What are we even supposed to do with that?
People dragging every discussion down into a mudfight of "my opinion vs. your opinion" is pretty common whenever media is discussed and it's quite tiresome. I would prefer people to engage honestly rather than pull a driveby "it's popular so f you".

[CrownySuccubus]

Right. Though they're specifically the way that they are because they're the ones who lost out the most as a consequence of the Sundering, thus the example doesn't really work for me. Especially the implication that it'd be 'less morally grey' to genocide a bunch of Garleans over the Ancients as if one group is more worthy than the other of existence.

To put it bluntly, killing the Garlean civilians would never be acceptable. As for the military, it depends on whether they stopped trying to genocide first and/or surrendered. Otherwise, if they keep trying right to the very end, it's self-defense.

Which in turn is why my stance has consistently been that it makes sense for the Sundered to do everything possible to avert their destruction, whereas the Unsundered have the right to do the same thing.

Yes. That was specifically what made the moral conflict in Shadowbringers work. And why Endwalker ruined it.

[IkaraGreydancer]

I think even Ishikawa states he was 100% in the wrong and pretty evil. Venat did kill people, that isn’t really anything up for debate. She brought illness into the world, dying to young age etc. She created the shards knowing they would be killed. The fact the game itself tries to paint her as just and benevolent and even lets her take credit for shielding the planet is baffling when we know it’s only because of Elidibus and Zodiark that the planet was shielded and kept safe, and neither of them get much credit.

I was speaking in the sundering itself. The AFTERMATH yes she did in turn indirectly kill people. Thing is she never said otherwise, in fact she even admitted as such. But she did explain why she did this. To some the reason is justified, to others it isn't. My interpretation was that the final world in the Dead Ends is what would've happened to the Ancients at some point. Once you reach perfection there's nothing else left

And bias aside the game doesn't state she kept things protected far as I remember. That was attributed to Zodiark many times. I'd only agree that Elidibus didn't get the recognition he deserved. But I can wave that considering the raid arc is about him. To me that's enough.

You may not agree with what she did nor do I fully. I CANT however say she didn't care for her people sundered or unsundered. Her being painted a just is how she is to the other Scions and by extention the World. You the player/WoL can formulate you own opinion as we have here. To me it's brilliant

[KizuyaKatogami]

I was speaking in the sundering itself. The AFTERMATH yes she did in turn indirectly kill people. Thing is she never said otherwise, in fact she even admitted as such. But she did explain why she did this. To some the reason is justified, to others it isn't. My interpretation was that the final world in the Dead Ends is what would've happened to the Ancients at some point. Once you reach perfection there's nothing else left

And bias aside the game doesn't state she kept things protected far as I remember. That was attributed to Zodiark many times. I'd only agree that Elidibus didn't get the recognition he deserved. But I can wave that considering the raid arc is about him. To me that's enough.

You may not agree with what she did nor do I fully. I CANT however say she didn't care for her people sundered or unsundered. Her being painted a just is how she is to the other Scions and by extention the World. You the player/WoL can formulate you own opinion as we have here. To me it's brilliant

The sundering itself did kill people though.Also are we just going to forget about all the people she let die by not telling them the truth about meteion and that the final days was coming? It literally killed an entire race of people, which is ironic because Alphinaud makes a quote based on this very thing. Alphinaud once said in Shadowbringers that living in a Rejoined world would be against his beliefs, saying, "But what value is there in surviving when all our history, all our struggles will be erased? I cannot conscience such an act." Yet this is exactly what Venat did,which goes against his and the scions beliefs and somehow all the scions are fine with it and dont call her out on it. The codex entry i believe implies she was the one keeping it protected, and even labels Zodiark, the one who protected the planet and a being her entire plan hinged upon, an "ill-fated wish."

[IkaraGreydancer]

The sundering itself did kill people though.Also are we just going to forget about all the people she let die by not telling them the truth about meteion and that the final days was coming? It literally killed an entire race of people, which is ironic because Alphinaud makes a quote based on this very thing. Alphinaud once said in Shadowbringers that living in a Rejoined world would be against his beliefs, saying, "But what value is there in surviving when all our history, all our struggles will be erased? I cannot conscience such an act." Yet this is exactly what Venat did,which goes against his and the scions beliefs and somehow all the scions are fine with it and dont call her out on it. The codex entry i believe implies she was the one keeping it protected, and even labels Zodiark, the one who protected the planet and a being her entire plan hinged upon, an "ill-fated wish."

Did she not say she was waiting until humanity was ready for it? And if thats what it says I thought her plan was for him to keep the planet protected until we were ready to take on Meteion or long enough for us to flee. Clearly she knew it wouldn't last or at least had a hunch hence why she put the moon plan in place. I don't take that as Zodi being her plan from the start, moreso something she worked into her plan.

As far as Aphi goes. One can say what they will and won't accept until it's presented to them in a way that changes their outlook or perception of it. There's views I held before that changed based on my stage in life or the context surrounding it. Thats not a taboo occurrence. That argument basically boils down to you being upset someone didn't have an issue with something they previously did. People change, simple as that.

And while it's an obvious statement what's implied will vary person by person based on their own biases