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

[Absimiliard]

Though, for real, the game is very confused about its Christian references. Are the Ancients the angels whose wings are being clipped -- which, hilariously, would mean the Sundered are demons -- or are they the first humans who ate the fruit and were expelled from paradise?

Seems far more Adam and Eve than fallen angels, if you think about it. They were mankind's original, "perfect" form. They possessed immense physical and spiritual (read as: aetherial) prowess, theoretically infinite lifespans, and a far closer personal relationship with "God" (read as: the planet) than their remnants. Even the world they lived in was like unto Eden in many ways. All of these things were lost upon being "cast out."

As you can see there are many on both sides who feel strongly and need to take potshots in tags.

Genocydaelyn comes off as more funny than a potshot. Definitely plenty of potshots too though.

[Rulakir]

I don't even know where to start, so I guess I'll just brainstorm:

1) Any event remotely similar to the sundering has been historically portrayed as 'bad', so why is it 'not bad' in this case? This isn't individual judgment, it's applying morality standards the game itself set up over the past decade and did not adhere to in the finale.

2) The audience has to accept that the sundering was the best/only way to achieve the goals of not becoming The Plenty and not dying to Meteion, which the narrative failed to do. (Note: I'm not saying individuals can't choose to believe that, but upon scrutiny the conclusion isn't there.) Every argument I've seen relies upon that acceptance.

3) It's not grey. It may be someone doing something monstrous without malicious intent, but the narrative in no way treats it as anything but good and the person responsible a hero. The only one who comments on the unkindness and injustice of it is the perpetrator herself who in game expresses no doubts or regrets about it. The Scions (and the WoL) become full on hypocrites, in fact, I could post numerous screenshots showing that they would've been adamantly opposed to everything Hydaelyn represents any other time.

4) Saying it's "Ancients being Ancients and we can't comprehend their minds" is such a cop-out and I'm loathe to even address it. All of ShB and even a decent chunk of EW was dedicated to humanizing the Ancients and showing they weren't much different than us. While I have mentioned Venat's similarities to the Christian God before, I have also noted that she's just a woman regardless of whether or not she claims the mantle of "supreme deity". She's not some unfathomable higher power nor does the scale of her crime preclude judgment as we've seen neither of those have made any difference when it comes to the Ascians or rejoinings. I think anyone who believes Venat is the exception should probably reevaluate their own biases.

[Teraq]

Man. I popped in here to see how the trainwreck was progressing, but I made the mistake of checking the tags for the first time. Saw Genocydaelyn. My drink is now all over my monitor and keyboard, and my nose feels like I stuck it in boiling water.

I'm flattered it did, but I actually stole it from someone in the early pages of this thread. I also got the Dynamis Calvinball comparison from someone else on /r/ffxivdiscussion... it's true... u_u

[Theodric]

I think it's pretty disingenuous to try and paint anyone criticising the handling of Venat in the story as being part of some great hive mind when simply reading through any of the threads that touch on the subject will reveal that there are many different reasons as to why it rubbed people the wrong way.

Furthermore, Venat isn't real. She's a bunch of pixels on a screen. Not some fair maiden who needs to be defended the moment someone so much as raises an eyebrow in her direction. So I'm not sure why any criticism of a fictional character is being treated as some grave sin.

I also think it's pretty questionable to try and accuse people of being 'misogynistic' for calling her out when absolutely nobody has suggested that they dislike on the basis of Venat being a woman. Personally, as a gay guy, I have very little patience for that sort of thing. It reminds me of how some people like to declare that any criticism of a character that happens to be gay is equal to homophobia when...that simply isn't the case.

I also think there wouldn't be so much backlash against Venat if both the game and many of her supporters hadn't spent so long insisting that no matter how sympathetic the plight of the Ascians and Garleans happened to be, genocide was too far of a moral red line to cross. I think Endwalker did an excellent job at revealing who had fixed morals on that front and who is willing to move the goalposts to be on the 'winning' side. I don't think it is at all controversial to go 'wait, what?' in response to the game refusing to hold Venat to the same standard as every other character who has attempted to partake of acts of genocide.

Finally, the people in favour of the antagonists have historically been open to agreeing to disagree. They're simply not willing to allow a bunch of posters to dictate and police who they are 'allowed' to like and dislike.

[Aluja89]

While I'm of the same mind as most of you that the story is just shoddily written, but would anyone here just sit and do nothing while people around you were sacrificing babies? If everyone started to do that to save themselves or bring a loved one back, could you still care about them? I know I wouldn't.

But yeah it's weird how there was not a single word of regret uttered or how the walk portrayed her as a hero while she was drenched in blood.

The time travel stuff though, makes me want to bash heads.

[anhaato]

Killing everyone is like, totally better than killing not everyone.

[Lauront]

While I'm of the same mind as most of you that the story is just shoddily written, but would anyone here just sit and do nothing while people around you were sacrificing babies? If everyone started to do that to save themselves or bring a loved one back, could you still care about them? I know I wouldn't.

I put together the sources on this a while ago here. The TLDR short of it is there was nothing indicating they were sacrificing babies as such, because the story does not elaborate. Here's a theory on what may have been the case.

Basically, I am not convinced the conflict was anything but a pretext to get them to stop sacrificing in order to avoid what she thought was going to be their ultimate fate, i.e. the Plenty, if they restored their civilisation fully. Secondly, as other posters have raised, if manipulation of dynamis is a core concern of hers, and she believes she had to sunder her people anyway, what difference would it even have made if they did as she bade them to?

[Teraq]

While I'm of the same mind as most of you that the story is just shoddily written, but would anyone here just sit and do nothing while people around you were sacrificing babies? If everyone started to do that to save themselves or bring a loved one back, could you still care about them? I know I wouldn't.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning babies though? Is this referring to the third sacrifice? I'm sure people like Lauront (*) could bring up the relevant screenshots of ShB Shade Hythlodaeus explaining it, but it certainly did not involve babies.

And yes, personally I would give a portion of wildlife and plant life to bring back the people stuck inside a giant mecha.

(*) wow look at him go

[Rulakir]

The 3rd sacrifice appears to have been a red herring. The LL Q&A clarified Venat's primary concerns were the Ancients becoming The Plenty and not being able to defeat Meteion due to their inability to interact with dynamis. My theory is it was likely the pretense she used to amass followers. There's no indication she ever spoke to anyone about what her true motives were.

I feel it important to note that Venat consistently shows no care for souls or even the lives of those outside of the Source. As far as we're told, the 3rd sacrifice would've been the last regardless of what was being sacrificed. The sundering ultimately didn't stop the Final Days from returning in a substantially worse form and seemingly permanently destroying the people who became blasphemies. Her maintaining the time loop also meant that 7 rejoinings + the Flood of Darkness + the Flood of Light had to occur. While I understand the concerns about the 3rd sacrifice, Venat's methods led to exponentially more death in the long run.

[Aluja89]

I put together the sources on this a while ago here. The TLDR short of it is there was nothing indicating they were sacrificing babies as such, because the story does not elaborate. Here's a theory on what may have been the case.

Basically, I am not convinced the conflict was anything but a pretext to get them to stop sacrificing in order to avoid what she thought was going to be their ultimate fate, i.e. the Plenty, if they restored their civilisation fully. Secondly, as other posters have raised, if manipulation of dynamis is a core concern of hers, and she believes she had to sunder her people anyway, what difference would it even have made if they did as she bade them to?

I'm not sure why you're mentioning babies though? Is this referring to the third sacrifice? I'm sure people like Lauront (*) could bring up the relevant screenshots of ShB Shade Hythlodaeus explaining it, but it certainly did not involve babies.

And yes, personally I would give a portion of wildlife and plant life to bring back the people stuck inside a giant mecha.

(*) wow look at him go

That doesn't sound right though, it was clearly mentioned that the 3rd time they were planning a sacrifice it would be the "new life". I thought it was pretty clear what they meant with that.

Edit:

The 3rd sacrifice appears to have been a red herring. The LL Q&A clarified Venat's primary concerns were the Ancients becoming The Plenty and not being able to defeat Meteion due to their inability to interact with dynamis. My theory is it was likely the pretense she used to amass followers. There's no indication she ever spoke to anyone about what her true motives were.

I feel it important to note that Venat consistently shows no care for souls or even the lives of those outside of the Source. As far as we're told, the 3rd sacrifice would've been the last regardless of what was being sacrificed. The sundering ultimately didn't stop the Final Days from returning in a substantially worse form and seemingly permanently destroying the people who became blasphemies. Her maintaining the time loop also meant that 7 rejoinings + the Flood of Darkness + the Flood of Light had to occur. While I understand the concerns about the 3rd sacrifice, Venat's methods led to exponentially more death in the long run.

Nevermind I was wrong, it's even more shoddily written than I thought.