Rewritten MSQ - Garlemald and EW

[Rymi64]

I'm NGL this rewrite......isn't that good, i'm sorry to say. Especially when it comes to the ancient parts and especially especially Venats motivation (the complete lack of one rather) for her to cause all this in the first place.

[Rosenstrauch]

Can I just say I am absolutely thrilled to see folks taking the initiative to imagine/write the stories they want to see? 'cause I am. It's wonderful. It almost makes me wish there was a fan content board here. I say almost because like 90% of the community for those sorts of things exist elsewhere, so it might well end up a graveyard if it existed here.

On the other hand, it being a graveyard would save me the displeasure of having to read delusional, unhinged rants about "blood gods". Also I'd have to pay money to access it, and I'm still not doing that anymore until 6.2 at the earliest.

[Enkidoh]

If you have more than 3k characters to post you can edit them in after posting, so you don't have to spam the thread like this. Anyways, your arguments are so stereotypical of Venat simps who close their ears to basic story facts that contradict the narrative of her being some benevolent goddess that I almost feel like you're "one of us" on a troll account. Like, your argument and understanding of the story is so hilariously bad. Even the devs have openly contradicted your claims in a past q&a.

Okay, it's perfectly fine and reasonable to disagree with the story, and regard Venat as more antagonistic than she actually was (the morality of her actions really are subjective), but resorting to calling those who disagree with such ideas "Venat simps" really isn't a way of putting forward such arguements in a good light.

[Renathras]

As if we care what millions of people love. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good or that we have to like it.

No one's saying you have to like it.

People are saying you don't get to rob other people of something they like just because you don't like it.

[Renathras]

...

100% spot on analysis. People can question if the Sundering was the best course of action or the moral weight of it, but thinking that Hydaelyn was some uncaring witch of a harpy, reveling in the suffering of others is just insane and matches literally nothing we've ever been told in the MSQ, including the parts where we meet and interact with Venat herself.

Anyways, your arguments are so stereotypical of Venat simps

Objection: Ad hominem fallacy. And a very poor one at that.

Someone explaining why you're wrong isn't a "simp".

who close their ears to basic story facts that contradict the narrative of her being some benevolent goddess that I almost feel like you're "one of us" on a troll account. Like, your argument and understanding of the story is so hilariously bad. Even the devs have openly contradicted your claims in a past q&a.

Dude, where?

All that he said was from the MSQ. It's as canon as it gets. We have ZERO - none, zilch, nada - reason to think the anti-Hydaelyn narrative is true. The CLOSEST you could say is that she was a good person trying to do the right thing and mucked it up because she had no really good options and you think she could have tried a little harder. That's it..

Your arguments and understanding of the story is hilariously bad.

From meeting Venat, the impression we were given was that she was a good soul who wanted to do the right thing. This also goes along with everything else we've ever been told about her.

She's neither villain nor antagonist. She was a good person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad.

[Jojoya]

That's true but where is the line drawn between good will and ensuring your plan works? It's just called being pragmatic, pragmatism isn't necessarily a sign of a good person.

An action that is morally wrong can still lead to good (the stealing bread from the rich to feed the starving quandary).

Yes, Venat's actions did harm.

The Ancients were also about to do harm. They were going to sacrifice all the newly created life without its consent. How is that morally better than what Venat did?

Was this a no-win situation where the only way out was to do something morally wrong?

What we're lacking is the story of what would have happened if the Sundering had not occurred. Would it have had a happy outcome or would their salvation have been shortlived? We received a few hints that things may not have turned out for the better though we can't truly know what was in the minds of the writers.

[anhaato]

Okay, it's perfectly fine and reasonable to disagree with the story, and regard Venat as more antagonistic than she actually was (the morality of her actions really are subjective), but resorting to calling those who disagree with such ideas "Venat simps" really isn't a way of putting forward such arguements in a good light.

Don't care.

No one's saying you have to like it.

People are saying you don't get to rob other people of something they like just because you don't like it.

Explain how Aveyond is doing that in 20 words or less.

Objection: Ad hominem fallacy. And a very poor one at that.

Someone explaining why you're wrong isn't a "simp".-

Objection: don't care.

Dude, where?

All that he said was from the MSQ. It's as canon as it gets.

Maybe if he had accurately said that the sundering was because of the Plenty, and had nothing to do with the sacrifices because those were coming to an end (what a terrible blood god), then you could say it's "as canon as it gets," but until he stops using arguments that were debunked by the devs themselves, that won't be the case.

We have ZERO - none, zilch, nada - reason to think the anti-Hydaelyn narrative is true. The CLOSEST you could say is that she was a good person trying to do the right thing and mucked it up because she had no really good options and you think she could have tried a little harder. That's it..

She had options. She literally had options. We have been over this ad nauseum. The "anti Hydaelyn narrative" is that her actions - hiding the truth and giving ridiculous excuses for doing so, not attempting to prevent the final days, letting the ancients ruin themselves with the little info they had, giving up faith in her own people, choosing omnicide over a belief that they may end up like the Plenty someday, punishing them for their near-godly creation powers while at the same time ascending to the position of a supreme deity (no more shall man have wings... except meeeeee :3), sparing three who she knew would go on to kill off half of the resulting worlds, creating new worlds of disease (dead ends 1) and war (dead ends 2) (At least they're not the Plenty though, amirite? Better to die screaming than to go out peacefully!), doing everything because of a gamble on one singular person's ability to kill Meteion (who could've been killed long before she became so powerful), and being fully willing to abandon the remaining worlds to their doom should the one singular person fail (and we almost did if it wasn't for Zenos Ex Machina out of nowhere!) - can only be read as antagonistic if you're looking at it through an unbiased lens. The game wants me to believe that this is what a good person does; deciding an entire species is unfit to carry the future of the star and summarily exterminating them (wow, sounds familiar) in favor of someone she didn't even know would succeed. I don't buy it, sorry.

Your arguments and understanding of the story is hilariously bad.

From meeting Venat, the impression we were given was that she was a good soul who wanted to do the right thing. This also goes along with everything else we've ever been told about her.

"BUT THE WRITERS SAID-" oh don't even start with that. They can try to tell us she's a lovely individual all they want, but her actions speak louder than their words. It's bad writing.

She's neither villain nor antagonist. She was a good person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad.

Emet is a person trapped in a no-win scenario where every option was bad. Venat had a good option and a bad option. She chose the bad one, all because she was more enamored with the idea of mankind than the actual individuals that made it up, and because she took Meteion's report to heart in the end.

[Lauront]

I'm NGL this rewrite......isn't that good, i'm sorry to say. Especially when it comes to the ancient parts and especially especially Venats motivation (the complete lack of one rather) for her to cause all this in the first place.

Not deferential enough to Mommy? Aw, diddums.

[aveyond-dreams]

Thank you all for your comments! Though this thread has gone in...directions...I do still want to know what felt handled properly and what parts felt weak? Also to expand upon a previous critique:

Especially when it comes to the ancient parts and especially especially Venats motivation (the complete lack of one rather) for her to cause all this in the first place.

I do recognize this a weakness in my writing that didn't get as deep of an explanation compared to other things, the key thing about this Venat is that she is a deviant in that she profanes and delights in things like chaos and destruction - despite keeping up appearances and pretending otherwise. The closest analogy would be like a writer who enjoys torturing their own characters, except this version of Venat views everyone as playthings for her entertainment. She also bores easily without a care in the world for the concepts she creates and unleashes onto the world (abandoning the Loporrits, etc), so a question indirectly asked in my story is how dare someone like this take on the mantle of a goddess? That role should go to someone who truly cares and values life, rather than nurturing it only to destroy it for her entertainment and vanity.

When someone asks “goddess, why am I suffering or why are you doing this?” The answer for this Venat isn’t “I’m trying to make you stronger” it’s “Because I enjoy this.” There’s something about this twisted logic that I find both scary and compelling, especially when juxtaposed against my rewritten version of Meteion who places a high value on “extant phenomena” and genuinely believes in and loves all life forms. Deliberately torturing them is an unthinkable concept to her, with these characteristics all making her a better candidate for the world’s true goddess. Spending more time with her from the start of the expansion and watching her grow physically and emotionally would also help the player be more open to her character, rather than the rushed way in which she was originally introduced.

Also, I deliberately refused to leave the world without a goddess or supreme supernatural entity because I did not want to “kill magic” so to speak.

[Rymi64]

Not deferential enough to Mommy? Aw, diddums.

If one is gonna make a villain do something you give a reasoning for why they did it, thats simple story writing. Couldn't care less if it wasn't putting venat in a good light or not since this is a AU situation. Zenos does what he does because he wanted to feel something, Hades and the unsundered do what they do to bring back their lost civilization, Meteion does what she does because of all the sadness she absorbed from the countless lost stars they visited and the twisted answer she got from it.

Also, I deliberately refused to leave the world without a goddess or supreme supernatural entity because I did not want to “kill magic” so to speak.

Could you elaborate what you mean by "kill magic"