*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Alleo]

So, sundered being can go to Ultima Thule and defeat Meteion, a being with an aether density similar to ours in Elpis, but actual Entelechy able to manipulate Dynamis consciously infused with the hope and will to live of the Ancient race couldn't?
Literally the issue started because one of the ancient creations went wrong, so saying "their creation is no use against dynamis" is funny.

63% of the energy in the universe is Dynamis, it doesn't mean she's manipulating 63% of the energy. Neither do ancients manipulate the rest because it's Aether.

First the problem is that at least a Entelechy like Meteion cant just be infused with one kind of emotion and be done with that. Otherwise Meteion and her sisters would have not changed after all since they were sent out by a (naive) optimistic Hermes that hoped for better answers. So as soon as these beings are outside the reach of their creators they can be changed. This is after all what happened to Meteions sisters.

And second even if they were still full of hope when reaching Ultima Thule, they would need the experience to overcome the despair of each race there. It was important who confronted the being. Would a Entelechy who might have never really suffered much really be able to understand and overcome the sorrow of the dragons? Estinien could because he himself went through something similiar.

What about the Ea? How would a Entelechy react if they found out that even the universe was finite? Meteion is still alive after 12.000 years so I guess even familiars could possibly be immortal if they survive long enough. How would such a being react when they found out that all will be gone? The scions, especially Ysthola, were able to overcome that despair because they were mortals who knew perfectly well that they will not last long.

So imo there is more to it than just either sundering some Ancients and sending them there or creating more "Meteions". They would need the experience to be able to withstand and overcome these specific despairs. After all, even we would have perished right at the start if it was not for Thancred and his will.

Alenore's point was that maybe they could've made entelechy specifically imbued with positive emotions that could counteract the negative ones the Endsinger was turning against the world. Heck, they might've not even needed Zodiark judging from how strong of a force the collective wills of just the Scions was in the finale and could've made some kind of entelechy barrier instead.

But these Entelechy would need a huuuuuge amount of positive energy to stand any chance at all. It took a big amount of the remaining Ancients and their near inifite aether reserves to bascially buy humanity time by summoning Zodiark. After all we are talking about a really big amount of destroyed worlds full of despair that Meteion gathered.

And even if somehow the Ancients were able to create beings that could shield their planet, what would be the long term solution? Meteion would still be out there gathering despair and the created Entelechy would just need one weakness and it would be over for them.

The scions were also not that strong because of just hope but because they bascially were able to overcome the different kind of despairs that Meteion was throwing at them. If Thancred had not been with us then we would have bascially died before even stepping on Ultima Thule. If we had not Estinien, none may have overcome the despair of the dragons and so on. Hope alone did not save us there, it was the luck of having the people with the right experiences with us. And if it was not for our crystal they too would have died.

[Lyth]

What I find absolutely hilarious about these 'What if' scenarios is that the power is entirely in the hands of the writers. If they're not interested in you saving Amaurot, then you can't and you won't. They can come up with any number of reasons why it won't work, because they set down the rules for this in-game world. It's a bit like arguing with your DM. 'Oh, you reminded Hermes' about Meteion? Tsk, tsk, shouldn't have done that, now. He's gone and betrayed you, and his creation, Zodiark, is now a blasphemy, so Amaurot still falls. Tooo bad. Want to try again? We can go at this all day.'

Lore is about understanding the world that the writers are creating, not trying to control it.

[KageTokage]

What I find absolutely hilarious about these 'What if' scenarios is that the power is entirely in the hands of the writers. If they're not interested in you saving Amaurot, then you can't and you won't. They can come up with any number of reasons why it won't work, because they set down the rules for this in-game world. It's a bit like arguing with your DM. 'Oh, you reminded Hermes' about Meteion? Tsk, tsk, shouldn't have done that, now. He's gone and betrayed you, and his creation, Zodiark, is now a blasphemy, so Amaurot still falls. Tooo bad. Want to try again? We can go at this all day.'

Lore is about understanding the world that the writers are creating, not trying to control it.

I mean...that's kind of a given, but I'm still left feeling unconvinced there was really no better option then the Sundering just because "the writers said so"; particularly when it still took significant amounts of intervention both direct and indirect on the part of the Ancients for us to succeed in the first place. A story's lore shouldn't be leaving you with feelings like that in the first place if it's well written and cohesive.

They explained enough about the nature of dynamis that it came across as a force that could be reasonably harnessed in a variety of ways given proper understanding of it...and the Ancients had geniuses like Elidibus who was able to simulate the Crystal Tower's time travel functions though magick simply via analysis.

[Lurina]

What I find absolutely hilarious about these 'What if' scenarios is that the power is entirely in the hands of the writers. If they're not interested in you saving Amaurot, then you can't and you won't. They can come up with any number of reasons why it won't work, because they set down the rules for this in-game world. It's a bit like arguing with your DM. 'Oh, you reminded Hermes' about Meteion? Tsk, tsk, shouldn't have done that, now. He's gone and betrayed you, and his creation, Zodiark, is now a blasphemy, so Amaurot still falls. Tooo bad. Want to try again? We can go at this all day.'

Lore is about understanding the world that the writers are creating, not trying to control it.

It will never stop being strange to me that people interpret, or choose to interpret, criticism of the mechanical construction of stories as an attempt to usurp authority from the writers instead of what it is, which is commentary on the work. It's like the "why didn't they just fly the eagles to Mordor" question. It's not that people believe that by pointing out this apparent contradiction between the actions of the protagonists and the resources established as being at their disposal, they can somehow defeat Tolkien and force him to re-write the saga in a way where it ends two thirds into Fellowship and prevent Boromir from dying. Rather, they're illustrating that he forgot to wipe up some spit off the narrative windshield, and it took them out of the experience and made the struggles of the characters feel less meaningful. Because if it's never made clear why the eagles could not easily resolve the central conflict, Boromir's arc can feel less like the cathartic tragedy of a man's personal weakness and his noble attempt at redemption, and more like a senseless series of events caused by the characters being too stupid to have Gandalf talk to some giant birds.

That's a very hyperbolic example, and likewise, I think a lot of this conversation on the textual realism of the Ancients creating an anti-Meteion to beat Meteion is a little silly - of all the things that felt strange about Endwalker, I'm not sure the story never addressing the possibility even makes the list for me. It's basically fluff, you know? It doesn't have any connection to the actual themes of the story.

But regardless, neither criticism is an attempt to "control" the fictional world. It's judgement. Even if you're only interested in discussing the lore literally and not meta-critique on it as a product, that's clearly not the scope of the conversation.

[KageTokage]

It will never stop being strange to me that people interpret, or choose to interpret, criticism of the mechanical construction of stories as an attempt to usurp authority from the writers instead of what it is, which is commentary on the work. It's like the "why didn't they just fly the eagles to Mordor" question. It's not that people believe that by pointing out this apparent contradiction between the actions of the protagonists and the resources established as being at their disposal, they can somehow defeat Tolkien and force him to re-write the saga in a way where it ends two thirds into Fellowship and prevent Boromir from dying. Rather, they're illustrating that he forgot to wipe up some spit off the narrative windshield, and it took them out of the experience and made the struggles of the characters feel less meaningful. Because if it's never made clear why the eagles could not easily resolve the central conflict, Boromir's arc can feel less like the cathartic tragedy of a man's personal weakness and his noble attempt at redemption, and more like a senseless series of events caused by the characters being too stupid to have Gandalf talk to some giant birds.

That's a very hyperbolic example, and likewise, I think a lot of this conversation on the textual realism of the Ancients creating an anti-Meteion to beat Meteion is a little silly - of all the things that felt strange about Endwalker, I'm not sure the story never addressing the possibility even makes the list for me. It's basically fluff, you know? It doesn't have any connection to the actual themes of the story.

But regardless, neither criticism is an attempt to "control" the fictional world. It's judgement. Even if you're only interested in discussing the lore literally and not meta-critique on it as a product, that's clearly not the scope of the conversation.

Thanks for spelling that out better then I did.

I guess what really bugs me is that the story tries its hardest to hammer home that the Ancients were utterly hopeless in the face of despair when they were never even given a fair chance to fight back in the first place. Musing over ways they might've been able do that if they were given the chance comes as a natural extension of that.

While Emet-Selch does claim that "our methods would never have gotten us this far", I always took that as the Ascians' methods, not the Ancients and more just an admittance that they would've never addressed the actual cause of the Final Days had they succeeded in following their course.

[Lauront]

It is frankly bizarre to me as well. The developers have gone on record in interviews now multiple times, stating they take player reception and feedback into account - Yoshi even commented on the fact that the way the ancients were received was different to what he (reasonably or not) expected. They also invite the player to think on how their character would react to various situations, no less through Azem, a character that whilst separate to the MC, has been tied to them. There are points within the lore that lead one to question the viewpoint that the ancients had no way of resolving the situation. Whatever their true intentions, they are there.

People are also perfectly within their rights, as consumers of a product, to say both 1) if this was the message, I did not like it and/or 2) the game did not do too good a job at conveying it... for xyz reasons. All the feedback offered is with the foregoing in mind. None of us can or hope to "control" the writers, but if they are listening to feedback, as any business awake to the commercial reality it operates within will be doing, then what is the issue with pointing out perceived writing inconsistencies in the product as presented? Even if it is not being presented as feedback, and is simply discussion for its own sake, it very much is a case of discussing whether the lore as presented supports a point or not, and it is very ambiguous as things stand, and that is regardless of whether the writers could've achieved it another way. I eagerly await some vague, badly ageing red herring to be offered up, about some posters telling them to change the story in the submissions for the lore Q&A, as if it makes the slightest bit of difference to the parties involved to this specific discussion or to the offering up of feedback more generally, as opposed to being little more than concern trolling.

We'll see how the writers address the feedback received in future writing, if they choose to.

Thanks for spelling that out better then I did.

I guess what really bugs me is that the story tries its hardest to hammer home that the Ancients were utterly hopeless in the face of despair when they were never even given a fair chance to fight back in the first place. Musing over ways they might've been able do that if they were given the chance comes as a natural extension of that.

While Emet-Selch does claim that "our methods would never have gotten us this far", I always took that as the Ascians' methods, not the Ancients and more just an admittance that they would've never addressed the actual cause of the Final Days had they succeeded in following their course.

Agreed.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Thanks for spelling that out better then I did.

I guess what really bugs me is that the story tries its hardest to hammer home that the Ancients were utterly hopeless in the face of despair when they were never even given a fair chance to fight back in the first place. Musing over ways they might've been able do that if they were given the chance comes as a natural extension of that.

While Emet-Selch does claim that "our methods would never have gotten us this far", I always took that as the Ascians' methods, not the Ancients and more just an admittance that they would've never addressed the actual cause of the Final Days had they succeeded in following their course.

It doesn’t help when you play through past expansions and see things like characters specifically saying, even if they die or their cory dies they’re going to fight against whatever threat they’re facing(HW). Or then, you look at Dragonsong’s lyrics said to be from Hydaelyn’s perspective where one line is:”Tell me why break trust, why turn the pst to dust?” Talk about being tone deaf and hypocritical lol. She did both of those things.

"Frail, weak beings" like Zenos scared Elidibus enough to make him abandon Zenos' own "frail" body rather than face Zenos himself. "Frail, weak beings" like WoL triumphed over multiple Unsundered beings like Nidhogg, Omega, Emet-Selch, Ultima, and Elidibus. The ancients' creation magics can be considered "godlike", but they're not truly perfect, immortal beings. The ancients were flawed people who often used their powers irresponsibly and were not insurmountable. The whole point of Elpis is to show that Emet-Selch's account is being filtered through his immense sentimentality for his people in a way that covers up their flaws. Hence why the phantom Amaurot has the ancients all be mature, wise, and kind when the actual ancients were often pompous, arrogant, forgetful, and suffering from their self-imposed isolation in a way that stifled their creativity.

If your response to everything the story tells you is "la la la la Protags have PLOT ARMOR la la la la" then I don't know what to tell you other than that you're purposefully not engaging with the narrative to satisfy your headcanon.

I'm sorry...but this is just so hilarious to me. Another person who has an immense ego with their WoL. I hate to inform you, but 99% of WoL's wins are the result of having higher up help. Nidhogg? We had the eye of another dragon. Omega? Hydaelyn's blessing and the help of Midgardsormr. Emet? 5 Light Wardens worth of aether and the only reason we even win is confirmed to have been because of his sentimentality. Ultima? The help of 3 other people and Hydaelyn's blessing. Elidibus? He literally would have killed us had Emet not intervened. Hell, even Lahabrea slaughters us in Prae now. We have to rely on our mommy to pick us up and re-temper us LOL.

[Rulakir]

Quoting one of Lurina's older posts: "The more controversial a plot element, the tighter the plot has to be to get people to accept it in good faith, and 'cultural genocide was the right call to save the world' is about as close to maximum controversy as you can get."

We never see Venat try anything else, in fact, when presented with the opportunity for a do over she decides that the future the WoL has described to her (which should horrify rather than fascinate her) is the way to go. We're also not presented with satisfactory evidence Hermes' inclusion was necessary based on what we learn from Elidibus. Add to this Venat says she has a "basic understanding" of dynamis though it's not her field of study, but this is apparently enough for her to make a judgment call that nobody would be capable of figuring out a means of dealing with it even with all the greatest minds and several millennia to do so.

The LL Q&A also emphasized these were Venat's beliefs. Her fear of The Plenty, her crisis of faith in her people. She's not Dr. Strange who viewed 14 million potential future outcomes and the WoL's is the only successful one. She's one woman who decided she knew better than anyone else and it didn't matter how many lives were lost in the process as long as no Plenty and no Meteion. Her ideology further falls apart when the Ancients as a whole are not depicted as she viewed them. It's quite telling that the "Zodiark cultist strawmen" in her cutscene is her perspective.

Venat's characterization is fully in line with multiple villains throughout the series ranging from Thordan, to Emet, to Hermes. Yoshi-P even compares her to the Ascians. It was going to take a lot more than gratuitous gaslighting to convince people like myself that she was not a "bad guy". Not only did the narrative fail to do it, but made hypocrites out of the main cast in doing so.

[KariTheFox]

I'm glad someone brought up the old "why didn't Frodo ride the Eagles to Mount Doom" argument, since it's a great example of people thinking they found a plot hole without actually stopping to consider factors like:

1. The mission to destroy the ring was being undertaken in utmost secrecy, eagles are pretty conspicious

2. The victory of the Free Peoples was dependant on redirecting Sauron's gaze to Aragon by misleading him into beleiving the ring was with him. The eagles making a beeline for Mount Doom would have ruined that.

3. Sauron had Nine Ring-Wraiths on flying Fell Beasts that would have ripped any Eagle over the skies of Mordor to pieces.

4. The Eagles are a proud and independent creatures who are not going to risk thier lives as a taxi service.

5. The Eagles are a representation of divine providence, and bring deliverence to Sam and Frodo after they completed thier quest. There wouldn't have been a story if you had God take care of the conflict before it started.

Plenty of Tolkien scholars and Tolkien himself have made these points, but they are apparent from reading the text itself.

Similarly, there are plenty of reasons why "Venat didn't just tell people about Meteion" - a major one being that telling the convocation means telling Fandaniel, a character who at this point, we already know was willing to play an incredibly long game until he was able to get into a position where he could hijack Zodiark and try to kill everyone and everything, and that was without him knowing that his beloved creation agreed with him about the futility of life.

[Lyth]

You can pick apart any fictional work that you like by questioning it. That's why Coleridge phrased it as 'that willing suspension of disbelief'. 'Willing' being the operative word. If you're unwilling to take the writers' statements about the story at face value because you choose not to believe them, well, there's no story in here for you. That's truly unfortunate, but I'm sure you'll get over it. That's not a lore problem.