Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lauront]

The sundered races had to evolve back to the point of sapience by all accounts, and even then they're still not the same thing as the ancients, and they resemble child-like beings in their eyes. Why are we assuming that their beast man creations, which themselves may have had to evolve in the world post-Sundering to the point that they eventually would grow sapient enough to form some form of society, would be seen as even remotely belonging as to the same kind of species as them back then? I mean one can say they regard certain life forms as less significant to their own, much like we humans or the sundered do (consider how humans view apes, for example, and then take this up a notch for a nigh immortal species with all the traits of the ancients), but to try transmute this into some form of "racial supremacy" is frankly just clownish and an attempt to turn this into something it wasn't and never has been hinted as for the sake of really forced, contorted comparisons to real world events, coupled with bizarre accusations that Rulakir is a cutscene skipper. As Iscah said, all we have are very vague details, so to develop the argument in this direction would require far more specificity than exists; right now, the claims in question just read as really bizarre headcanon, that the writers do not even allude to in discussing Venat's motivations...

[Renathras]

but to try transmute this into some form of "racial supremacy" is frankly just clownish and an attempt to turn this into something it wasn't and never has been hinted as for the sake of really forced, contorted comparisons to real world events,

Wow, talk about reaching!

No, it was not an attempt, much less a "frankly just clownish" one. Every story we have of Amauratians dealing with non-Amauratians has the former seeing themselves as better than the latter - no matter who the latter are. There is no case that they DIDN'T consider themselves better than whoever they were comparing themselves against.

And regarding your comment on apes - Emet can easily converse with our characters. Imagine if you could sit down with an ape and have a conversation about politics over a game of chess, and then told them that you still considered them a lesser being that wasn't alive and that killing them was no issue in your mind? While it is true that some primates can learn sign language and the like, Emet outright has plain language conversations with you about complex and abstract topics, only to tell you you still aren't even a living being in his eyes.

There's a BIT of a step up there. I know I, for one, wouldn't be dismissive of an ape able to speak perfect English and talk to me about general relativity as some "lesser" being that I could kill on a whim. Would you?

[EDIT: Though I wonder if you don't like this comparison NOT because it's faulty, but because it's a bit TOO on the nose and you don't like siding with the <race> supremacists... eh, who can say...]

coupled with bizarre accusations that Rulakir is a cutscene skipper.

Perhaps you missed where this person said they couldn't understand how I even thought what I did and it must be some headcanon of mine when I'm referencing specific events that happened in the MSQ. And you think my COUNTER accusation to that dismissive accusation, that they might not have watched the cutscenes where this was discussed outright in the game, are the bizarre ones?

As Iscah said, all we have are very vague details, so to develop the argument in this direction would require far more specificity than exists;

Which is ALSO TRUE of Venat's actions. Yet the "Venat is the villain of the story" faction seems to have no qualms in doing so. I am (now) merely addressing the other side to bring balance to the discussion. My initial post was just me laying out why I didn't see that as correct and explaining, in detail, my reasoning for it. And none of my reasoning was based on "headcanon", but rather based on actual canon.

right now, the claims in question just read as really bizarre headcanon, that the writers do not even allude to in discussing Venat's motivations...

And yet, everything I've mentioned is either from the game's MSQ itself, the conversation branches you can have with Emet, or the Tales from the Shadows, which is also official canon lore.

And you join the other poster in this bizarre insistence I'm engaging in headcanon when I'm referencing actual canon events.

Have YOU skipped cutscenes, my dude? Maybe you should be a little less quick to accuse people of headcanon when they're referencing the actual story.

Also, you seem overly fond of calling anything you disagree with bizarre. Note that the definition of bizarre is not "something Lauront disagrees with".

.

EDIT2: For reference, the cutscene point was not meant as some kind of insult or slight. It was more me saying "I'm not sure how you DON'T see what I'm saying, since it was actually expressed in the story events and you'd have to have skipped those to not have seen it..." after the person accused me of using headcanon instead of actual canon.

...the very thing you then did as well...interesting...

But note my response would have been different had the person said "Huh, well, I see your perspective, but this is mine <explains perspective>". Instead it was a dismissive "<dismissive laugh> Oh you and your silly headcanon!"

That isn't how you have a respectful discussion.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I'm not sure what this means, but if I guess correctly, I think it's a pretty grave insult you should take back...

No. No, I should not and WILL NOT take this back. You're out of line.

snip snippy snip snip

Aaaaaaaand, now we have officially devolved into literally justifying the genocide of cultures we don't agree with the moral values of. How have you not been banned yet?

snip this SHHHHHHHHIIIIEEEEET

I quite literally don't know what to say to or about you, besides yelling at you and calling you labels that frankly aren't permitted here. You need to do some rather strenuous introspection, if you believe half the things you spout this is an issue.

[Renathras]

No. No, I should not and WILL NOT take this back. You're out of line.

I'm out of line when you just called the bulk of FFXIV players history deniers on a whim?

Aaaaaaaand, now we have officially devolved into literally justifying the genocide of cultures we don't agree with the moral values of. How have you not been banned yet?

Maybe because I have not officially devolved into literally justifying the genocide of cultures I don't agree with the moral values of? I did, however, note that many people ARE in favor of that (see again: Nazis and Nazi culture/ideology), and that most people on Earth today are, in fact, in favor of that. Maybe I haven't been banned because I've broken no forum rules and am not even arguing what you think I'm arguing? I even outright pointed out how it isn't genocide to begin with.

I quite literally don't know what to say to or about you, besides yelling at you and calling you labels that frankly aren't permitted here. You need to do some rather strenuous introspection, if you believe half the things you spout this is an issue.

I can't even tell what you have issue with because all you do is insult me, not refer to anything I've specifically said, seem to have made up things that I didn't say, and then chose to attack me and question my moral and personal character.

You are out of line.

EDIT:

So tell me where does speculation and hypothesis end and headcannon begins? Also I know both sides have accused each other of leaning into headcannon, but how does it come off as those who don't agree with what Venat did only gets to have their speculation and hypothesis taken as that and the other side is the one wading in the headcannon pool? I guess the story and this quest line did its job then if people aren't able to agree on if what one or more people did was justifiable or not depending on their perspective. I chose all three were in their own right as from certain points of view one could see how each of them ended up at their decisions. I also thought about choosing none of them since they were all horrible decisions. All three lead to some form of genocide and suffering. What the problem is at least to me is how at least one side is incapable of understanding how the other is able to reach conclusions based on evidence that the story has given as having a high chance of possibility of those conclusions being probable. That are then labeled as headcannon.

Its always that way. Its bad that someone says something mean about someone liking the Ascians/Garlemald (and I agree that discussions should be done without personal insults...), yet its perfectly fine to call the other side sheeps, tempered or mommy lovers.

Its bad to say that someone did not like the story because they did not understand it or skipped cutscenes but its perfectly fine to say that those who enjoyed it simply like easy stories or are white knights..

You are always tone policing if you say anything about way too aggressive posts but as soon as someone from "the other side" does it, its fine to tone police them.

Seemingly there are many horrible people/opinions outside of this forum yet we still get hit with all the heath here. (And some nice signature pictures that are of course totally not here to continue being passive aggressive) Its tiresome and its not surprising that a few of the veteran posters are bascially silent. I myself feel like I dont want to post something here. Maybe it will get better with time and new storylines but I doubt it.

Basically, yeah.

If you argue - using in game sources, reason, logic, and respectful argument - the pro-Venat position, you are called horrible names (I've now been accused of being pro-genocide...that's a new one!), regarded as a "simp" (explaining a position is not being a wannabe booty call), and your FACT BASED POSITIONS are derided as "headcanon". Meanwhile, if you're on the anti-Venat side, you can do no wrong, you're right about everything, even - or especially - the parts you made up as wholesale head canon, you can freely ignore in-game lore as "They didn't know what they were talking about" or "Nuh-uh!", freely ignore the writers' direct words on the topics, and ANY insult against you is beyond the pale, as is calling you out for any fallacies or insults you are employing yourself.

And the messed up thing is, almost NO ONE on the pro-Venat side is saying "Venat did nothing wrong", unlike the pro-Zodiark side that often DOES hold cases like "Emet did nothing wrong". Most on the pro-Venat side say she was faced with nothing but bad options and did the best she could, which is what both the story and the writers of it have said.

It's weird being called pro-genocide with questions about morals and how one hasn't been banned for simply expressing what the game itself largely does, and making no strong pro or con argument.

Hell, I heven't once defended what Venat did as the best option, or even a GREAT option, or even a GOOD option. But, apparently, this somehow makes me pro-cultural genocide of the Native Americans or...something. I don't even know how some of you guys' brains work, but that's a bit out there...

.

I do get some people like anti-heroes/anti-villains and moral gray/ambiguity. Some people hate "true good" characters/gods in stories. Some people hate Superman, not because he has no real challenge, but because he's not edgy, doesn't have a mean bone in his body, and in most lore is a genuinely good person with no great moral failings who also has the power to back up his goodie-two-shoes personality.

And some people absolutely hate that kind of thing, preferring worlds where there is no true good or evil, and everyone is some shade of gray.

Note the word some, not all or most or a majority, btw.

So I get how the idea of Venat NOT being a bad person is hard to take from people that had all but assumed their headcanon they came up with during ShB was that Venat was going to turn out to secretly be the Big Bad this whole time...and when the story said "No, she actually is/was a genuinely good person, just faced with horrible options", refused to accept that.

But that's no reason to abandon all civility in a discussion where people are free to argue both sides.

[Veloran]

Who did I call a Nazi?

Be specific.

[EDIT: Though I wonder if you don't like this comparison NOT because it's faulty, but because it's a bit TOO on the nose and you don't like siding with the <race> supremacists... eh, who can say...]

You created a parallel between the Ancients and the Nazis as part of your argument, inherently tying them with anybody who happens to like or agree with the Ancients. Don't come here, instantly invoke Godwin's Law, and play the semantics game trying to pretend like you never drew the comparison to begin with.

So I get how the idea of Venat NOT being a bad person is hard to take from people that had all but assumed their headcanon they came up with during ShB was that Venat was going to turn out to secretly be the Big Bad this whole time...and when the story said "No, she actually is/was a genuinely good person, just faced with horrible options", refused to accept that.

You're right that a lot of these arguments began in ShB, in that period more centered on Emet-Selch. And a lot of the argumentation made then about him is completely incompatible with the defenses of Venat now. In ShB, when Emet-Selch was derided, it was often under the logic that no matter how good the future he created or how bad the sundered might be, he simply didn't have the right to take others' lives for his own cause. At that time we weren't presented with any of this existentialist inevitable doom for the Ancients, or of some hanging threat that they couldn't deal with, the conflict was simply their world versus the current world, with the resolution that even if his actions ultimately created an eternal perfect paradise free of all the horrible things in the sundered world, it was still wrong because of how many lives he'd be destroying along the way. In other words, the ends don't justify the means.

But with Venat, all of those arguments flew out the window. Now, even though she genocided her own people, introduced millennia on untold suffering, and allowed for the destruction of multiple planets, all just to deal with a single threat, she is "at her core a good person, making the best of a bad situation", who did the only thing she could have to reach an end that was desirable.

The truth is that Venat is exactly the same as Emet-Selch. As the developers have directly stated, Venat is an embodiment of that same "Ancient way of thinking" that you yourself are decrying so much. And even though the MSQ didn't care to so much as question her (Perhaps in part because the conflict in this "conclusion to the Hydaelyn and Zodiark saga" was in fact only tangentially related to them), the Omega quests calls all of this, and her extreme similarity to the antagonists, out explicitly.

I think the real reason why there's so much vitriol on this topic is that Endwalker took a conflict that had already polarized people, and flipped the script and swapped the actor's roles into positions they'd previously been acting in opposition to. This creates so much cognitive dissonance and retroactive hypocrisy that any conversation is doomed to fail from the getgo. That's without even getting into the lore minutia or specific plot details.

[Rulakir]

Maybe they think EN players can't handle nuance?

I remember when I played through 5.0 I had no idea that Emet had any connection whatsoever to the WoL until 5.3. I thought they were just another random, reincarnated Ancient. Turns out JP is a lot more explicit. I feel like it was a milder version of what they did with Haurchefant. Going through EW dialog in other languages there's so much completely rewritten dialog and omitted context it's shocking. It's not just a matter of trying to make the script more palatable to English speakers, it's that some of the characters actually say totally different things that aren't even remotely similar. (Spoiler alert: One of those things is Emet saying mankind could never have gotten that far in UT.)

But with Venat, all of those arguments flew out the window. Now, even though she genocided her own people, introduced millennia on untold suffering, and allowed for the destruction of multiple planets, all just to deal with a single threat, she is "at her core a good person, making the best of a bad situation", who did the only thing she could have to reach an end that was desirable.

Exactly this. It's the inconsistency and hypocrisy that bothers me the most.

Just going to add that her reasons were far less compelling from my point of view. She's not a prophet, there's no possible way she could know for sure the Ancients would head the way of The Plenty and there's never any explanation given as to why that particular "dead end" frightened her more than the others especially when the sundering made Etheirys vulnerable to ones it wasn't at risk of previously. Likewise, she admits she only has a basic understanding of dynamis, but it's not her field of study. So, again, she lacks the knowledge to determine whether or not the Ancients were capable of finding a way to defeat Meteion, even given 12k years of Zodiark's protection and every scholar working on it. It's stated repeatedly that it was an esoteric field, never once that Hermes was the only one with knowledge of it. Plus, it's an Ancient created problem, why couldn't Ancients fix it? Something else that's never addressed.

These two reasons are also arguably mutually exclusive. Either Venat believed the Ancients could change and wouldn't sunder them, in which case she would have to believe they could overcome Meteion without being sundered, or her "trying" to get them to change was all a ruse because even if they did they never could have defeated Metetion while being so aetherically dense.

Additionally, while we don't have a timeline, it certainly seems that Venat was impatient for the Ancients to somehow 'prove themselves' to her that they didn't deserve to be sundered, which is unsettling. She essentially agrees to the premise of Hermes' "test" and then is disappointed in the results. It comes across as less "you need to be saved" in a benevolent way than a judgmental way. There are a lot of parallels between Venat and the Christian God, which I personally didn't appreciate, but Venat is no god. She's just a woman who convinced, one way or another, 12 people to make her the closest she could get to one so that she could force a reset. All of this without knowing if it would be successful and, as has been noted numerous times, the amount of variables that had to play in her favor are astronomical. My favorite being, in regards to needing Zenos at the end to face Endsinger, "When your plan is contingent on Emet-Selch having sex, you need to think of a new plan." :P

Meanwhile, Emet has no knowledge of any of this and is simply seeking to restore his world from the crime against mankind that it was. HW overall did a much better job at depicting the mentality of immortals, particularly that the life of an Elezen is like that of a freshly cut rose. I would not expect someone who's lived for 12k+ years to care about someone not being able to live out their ~100 years of life (best case scenario), which is comparatively nothing to them. Not when all the souls within Zodiark are on the line not to mention the immortal souls of the sundered who, as someone else put it, are essentially in their own purgatory as every rebirth is an override of their original self. (And, yes, this goes both ways as we see with Fandaniel.) It also doesn't seem that any of these 'surface' personas are ultimately saved unlike the soul itself. Every Azem shard will just continually be reborn as a slightly different version of Azem and the person that they were will be lost upon death, at least as I understand it. Azem is the constant here, as such, the soul should hold more importance than the fleeting life 'borrowing' it, in theory. I think the message that each individual is their own person fails hard when the original soul is powerful enough to impart a personality and can be fully brought back to consciousness using a invocation.

I was a bit annoyed that Omega posits the Final Days somehow (paraphrased) 'toughened up' mankind while ignoring that the rejoinings would have also ultimately been of (more tangible) benefit. It doesn't change that the Ascians are the antagonists of the sundered, of course, only that if we're going to be truly objective then Omega should have also acknowledged that. The sundered being so susceptible to dynamis ultimately proved to be catastropic to the extent that their souls may have been extinguished and, unlike what we see with the Ancients, blasphemies seem to cause chain reactions. I doubt that the Source would've lasted for long without the WoL defeating Meteion, which makes the sundering look further indefensible.

[EaraGrace]

(Spoiler alert: One of those things is Emet saying mankind could never have gotten that far in UT.)

Would love to see that last bit posted (:

there's no possible way she could know for sure the Ancients would head the way of The Plenty and there's never any explanation given as to why that particular "dead end" frightened her more than the others especially when the sundering made Etheirys vulnerable to ones it wasn't at risk of previously.

The risk of extinction once one reaches the Plenty is 100%. The risk of extinction for a species like us is much, much lower. While death is a certainty in the long run for both groups, the chance of surviving longer is higher for the latter than the former.

It's stated repeatedly that it was an esoteric field, never once that Hermes was the only one with knowledge of it. Plus, it's an Ancient created problem, why couldn't Ancients fix it? Something else that's never addressed.

Hermes, the expert, is the one who really establishes the idea that the Ancients can't manipulate dynamis. A fact that leads to the creation of Meteion. And in truth the problem the Ancients faced was not an Ancient created problem, it was a cosmological constant. The only flaw in Meteions was that she couldn't separate herself from the answers she received, a product of her connection to dynamis. The real problem was in the certainty of suffering, death and extinction. That every species was either destroyed, or begging for death, or begging for death and being destroyed. When every civilization in existence is either gone or concludes that life isn't worth living, it pretty clearly highlights that something is wrong.

These two reasons are also arguably mutually exclusive.

The Sundering was likely the plan in both cases, but one inherently involves suffering the "eternal condemnation" of their brethren, as well as the necessity of burning your soul to ash. The other doesn't necessarily involve that and would be much more stable. Even if it was for emotional and ethical reasons it makes sense to try.

Additionally, while we don't have a timeline, it certainly seems that Venat was impatient for the Ancients to somehow 'prove themselves' to her that they didn't deserve to be sundered, which is unsettling. She essentially agrees to the premise of Hermes' "test" and then is disappointed in the results.

She and her group seemed to move to prevent the third sacrifice, which in their eyes is a needless and ultimately self-sabotaging waste of innocent lives. Giving her people time doesn't really work when the condition you're giving them time to adjust to is about to be undone at the cost of bystanders.

All of this without knowing if it would be successful and, as has been noted numerous times, the amount of variables that had to play in her favor are astronomical.

We ultimately can't say what her plan would look like if Elidibus and Lahabrea didn't make it through the Sundering.

Azem is the constant here, as such, the soul should hold more importance than the fleeting life 'borrowing' it, in theory. I think the message that each individual is their own person fails hard when the original soul is powerful enough to impart a personality and can be fully brought back to consciousness using a invocation.

This is actually a great distillation of the problem of the Ancient perspective. By associating the moral weight of a souls with how ephemeral they are, one necessarily creates a hierarchy of being with more stubborn souls at the top and fleeting souls at the bottom. This creates an issue. If all lives are fleeting and ephemeral in the long run, with everything that that person accomplished, experienced and is remembered for destined to fade away entirely, then does any soul really have value? If our belief is that the only lives worth considering are those that last the longest, then does that not necessitate the creation of a society like the Plenty or the Ea, especially like the latter who rooted their existence in the infinite? One would have to argue that ephemeral lives do have meaning, in which case reconsidering the original premise would be priority one.

was a bit annoyed that Omega posits the Final Days somehow (paraphrased) 'toughened up' mankind while ignoring that the rejoinings would have also ultimately been of (more tangible) benefit.

Or Omega recognizes that the real important factor was the introduction of mortality and strife. What form it then takes is irrelevant as it could be a calamity or a failed business, the point was to force humanity to face despair.

The sundered being so susceptible to dynamis ultimately proved to be catastropic to the extent that their souls may have been extinguished and, unlike what we see with the Ancients, blasphemies seem to cause chain reactions. I doubt that the Source would've lasted for long without the WoL defeating Meteion, which makes the sundering look further indefensible.

Not exactly. The Amaurot dungeon also describes how the appearance of a blasphemy led to the creation of many more as the Ancients became overwhelmed by fear and despair. From a purely strategic perspective, I'd actually say the Sundered are in a better spot. A single despairing Amaurotine may give rise to untold horrors, while a Sundered soul could be limited to one.

[Renathras]

You created a parallel between the Ancients and the Nazis as part of your argument, inherently tying them with anybody who happens to like or agree with the Ancients.

FALSE!!!

How DARE you even suggest that.

No part of saying "thing you like is bad" is saying "you are bad for liking it". That may be a moral judgement on YOUR part, but it was not one that I made. Believe me, I'm not the passive aggressive type. If I intended to call any of you Nazis, I'd do so outright. So you need have no confusion on THAT point.

Now, with THAT nonsense out of the way (it really IS weird so many of you want to die on that hill, though...touched a nerve, perhaps...):

You're right that a lot of these arguments began in ShB, in that period more centered on Emet-Selch.

...

But with Venat, all of those arguments flew out the window. Now, even though she genocided her own people, introduced millennia on untold suffering, and allowed for the destruction of multiple planets, all just to deal with a single threat, she is "at her core a good person, making the best of a bad situation", who did the only thing she could have to reach an end that was desirable.

This is nonsense, because most people saying that of Venat also say that of Emet. My position on Emet is not dissimilar. Based on what he knew, he made what he thought were the right calls in a terrible situation. Do you believe Emet would feel that sacrificing Hythlodeus was a good move? Sacrificing one of his best friends (Hyth) while his other best friend (Azem) very clearly disagreed with the entire plan to the point he/she refused to even take part in it or even TAKE A SIDE in the Convocation vs Venat debate? People making the pro-Venat argument - at least me personally - also feel that Emet was not a bad person, and was a good person faced with horrible options.

I'll note here that the narrative ALSO basically says this in several ways. Hydaelyn retrieving Emet's soul. Emet's annoyance in UT at having been a pawn/puppet, and grudgingly liking you (the WoL) while playing at not doing so. The entire Elpis arc showing that Emet wasn't a bad person inherently. The scene of the Sundering where Venat walks by Emet and Hythlodeus parting where it's clear Emet wasn't pleased with things going down that way, even though Hyth was putting on a brave face for him. Even in ShB, it lets you talk to Emet and see things through his eyes, and he even bucked the Convocation to make Azem's stone and leave it for you, AND it was Emet that brought you back from the abyss that Elidibus sent you to, even after his death - and before we got to the point in the 6.0 story to realize that 5.3 Emet...might have had his memories back....... [Huh...this was the first time I've actually put that together...]

Where most people draw the line of distinction is that Emet could actually talk with us, see that we were intelligent and sentient beings striving for a better future, and decided that wasn't good enough anyway, vs Venat talking to the Ancients, trying to convince them to turn from their path of destruction, and them insisting to make a WORSE future instead. And even still, most people on the Venat side would place her and Emet in rough parity as good, well meaning people faced with impossibly difficult choices that had no right answers.

The truth is that Venat is exactly the same as Emet-Selch.

Congratulations! We, more or less, agree.

I think the real reason why there's so much vitriol on this topic is that Endwalker took a conflict that had already polarized people, and flipped the script and swapped the actor's roles into positions they'd previously been acting in opposition to. This creates so much cognitive dissonance and retroactive hypocrisy that any conversation is doomed to fail from the getgo. That's without even getting into the lore minutia or specific plot details.

I'm not sure this is really accurate. The scene where Venat sunders the world showed she clearly didn't want to do it and was trying to find another way. We don't really see that with Emet in ShB at any point OUTRIGHT. The closest is one may interpret that he MIGHT have entertained another option if the WoL could have overcome the Warden's Light, but that's not really all that clear in the narrative, nor is it clear what alternative path he might have pursued - for all we know, he might have decided it justified Rejoinings as a 7 times Rejoined soul would have re-attained such power.

It is also a bit odd to me that people were so polarized on this to begin with (whether Emet was good or evil - the narrative seemed pretty clear to me that he was a good person at heart, especially by the conclusion of 5.3, who was entertaining horrible ends because, in his mind, they (a) were the only means available to him and (b) that he didn't exactly feel they were so horrible - "I do not believe you are alive, ergo, it is not murder if I kill you.")

But then, I've always been the type to judge people by their viewpoint, "what they know", which is something I get from a really old reference I was taught as a kid. I try to avoid the historian's fallacy of judging people from different eras by our modern standards, and in fictional stories, I try to do the same - based on THEIR viewpoint, both what they knew personally/were aware of and what their overall worldview was (e.g. gods will think differently of death than mortals will), was what they were doing right or wrong to them? Now, I don't hold to a relativistic moral system where there IS no right or wrong, but if I'm to judge someone, I'll judge them based on what they knew and thought, not what I or someone else might have known or thought in their place.

...but I may be somewhat unusual in this respect.

Other people do exist on this forum, I'm not sure why alts is the most likely scenario here.

Did I say they did not?

Alts as the most likely scenario is because his posts gained the likes instantly. Most posts here take scores of minutes or hours to get likes, because, let's be honest, not many people frequent these forums. No one is sitting hitting refresh just to LIKE a post by someone else. I can barely be bothered to hit refresh to see if my post has been responded to by someone to have a discussion with. In fact, I generally just come back later. A post getting 2 likes within 5-6 minutes being posted in the middle of the night with no one else actually making posts IS a bit suspect. It happening several times in a row during the middle of most people's night with, again, not one of those likers posting, is quite a bit more suspect. Especially since his post after I noted that...got no likes in that same timeframe. (It did get some a day later, which is especially odd since it was a post of him admitting he was wrong.) And no one to date has even made the claim of being the 2 likers - despite how it would have been impossible to disprove them, no one even bothered to make the claim.

But as I said, it's not productive, so it's whatever.

As for your posts, a lot of it is based off of your own further speculation and musings rather than what we are shown in game, which is admittedly easily done.

Tell me what I "speculated and mused rather than was shown in the game"? You say "a lot of it", so you should be able to provide several examples of me "speculating and musing" on things that weren't shown in the game.

The Nazi argument however is frankly offensive and in very poor taste, I don't think something as sensitive as an oppressive dictatorship and the real world genocide of actual people should be being used to justify your argument about dubious, poorly written plot devices in a video game.

Hello! Welcome to the 2000s! People have been using that "frankly offensive and in very poor taste" comparison for everything from pandemic lockdowns to holding a military parade on a national holiday by a political leader they disliked. Moreover, in this case, it's highly applicable. I'm a fan of history, meaning I tend to draw on history when considering fictional topics to think "How would we view this if it was in our actual history?" I also presented the same argument without using the Nazi term - but THAT didn't get any attention nor rebuttal, other than one person saying that the Ancients being cultural/racial supremacists was an inapt comparison (they used considerably less respectful wording), and then didn't answer when I justified the position. In fact, several people who quoted PART of that left off that part instead of trying to offer a rebuttal, because all the canon we have shows them as being that, so there really isn't a counter-argument.

That said, the main issue I took with your posts was such; the ancients we are actually presented with are compassionate enough to carry out funeral rites for the creations that must be unmade, ... It is not that the ancients are indiscriminately killing anything they want without reason or with some sort of malice, nor is it 'racial superiority' as these are quite literally different species and most of which are arcane entities as far as we know. Beyond a passing mention that the star grants souls to certain creations and that the Lykaon was bid return, we have no reason to believe that a majority of these creations have souls.

So several things to unpack here.

We see the Ancients BEFORE the Final Days. Not during them. We also see them, as the Ascians, AFTER the Final Days, when they are not so kind. Can you show me any bit of canon lore, from 1.0 to 6.1, of an Ascian performing funeral rites for any of the Sundered? Or even doing more than a generalized pity (when we only really got from Emet) at their overall situation? I can't think of any other than Emet's general pity, which was still insufficient to stay his hand. Where is the compassion? You can argue they MIGHT have felt mass death Rejoinings were some kind of mercy, but they persisted in carrying them out even once the victims made clear they were not in favor of that "mercy". And I know you don't like the comparison, so I'll be more generalized; all real world dictatorships have had people in them that "were just following orders" that didn't REALLY want to do the things they were asked to do. That doesn't exactly make them less bad (or the comparison you dislike being less applicable). If anything, it makes the Ancients kind of seem more like irl past totalitarian regimes, not less.

Good people exist in bad societies. That doesn't mean the societies and their overall trajectory weren't bad. As I've said, I feel Emet was a good person forced to make bad decisions.

Though for reference, I never said their killing was indiscriminate.

I have said that it WAS killing. And it was killing classes of, in some cases, sentient beings, against their will. I'm not sure what to call that other than genocide. And they were killing them explicitly because they considered them lesser beings (racist, or if you prefer, specist, supremacy); sure, it was to further some end, but that's hardly been a distinction in real world history, so I'm not sure why it should be here. Some people of a race thinking they were superior to others and harming them in some way for what they felt was a positive overall end for society/the world is hardly justification, to us now, of such actions. Why should it be with the Ancients?

If we are in the realm of speculation; you previously linked the Tales from the Shadows featuring the Phoenix, during that story Emet-Selch is shocked to see the creation has a soul. My interpretation of that particular aspect was that it must be somewhat rare for a creation to gain a soul for Emet to be as taken aback as he is, though admittedly those circumstances were not the norm.

For my part, I wasn't in the "realm of speculation". Though I'll note that the way Hylthodeus describes it, it wasn't exactly uncommon. The issue in this case was that an angsty soul was stuck in an undying body, and that was what was more shocking. Though I will grant you THAT is up to interpretation, what is NOT is that many lesser beings do have souls, and many of their constructs did, as Hermes specifically talks to Emet about that in Elpis as part of the reason he feels uneasy with their cultural status quo on deleting created beings, which Emet simply rebuffs.

Some of their creations went on to be the Beast Tribes, which we can reasonably say have souls, so it can't be considered that uncommon.

And when it comes to the Ascian treatment of Sundered, the Sundered beings very clearly have souls.

So at no time did that seem to be an issue with them, or, at least, we've never been told so canonically.

Honestly I believe a lot of EW's issues are down to inconsistent writing and a disparity between what we are meant to think about the ancient society and what we are actually presented with in the game. You can assert that Venat took the correct actions without trying to justify or twist the fact that she committed genocide, I'm not sure why this is so difficult.

That's...what I did, though?

I presented several points that, collectively, had me reach my overall conclusion. Only one of them was "if you felt your society was about to follow in the footsteps of [REDACTED BAD SOCIETY], would destroying your society be worth it to you to prevent that?", and that's not really "justifying" genocide either, since my overall presentation was, as I've continued to say, that Venat seemed a good person who had no good options and did the one she thought was least bad.

I'm not sure how this is so difficult.

Ah, no, that doesn't exist here.

Fair enough. This is still the internet, I suppose...

Also, I wouldn't say you entered in good faith.

Well, then you'd be wrong.

Much of your original statement was your own personal interpretation and conjecture.

A lot of you are making this charge, yet not one of you has actually justified it with outright examples. What - and be specific now - did I offer that was "personal interpretation and conjecture" that I didn't outright say so in some way (e.g. "I think..." or "The way I see it...")?

Then you insinuated if I didn't agree with your assessment that I must've skipped cutscenes.

NO!

At least get your order of events right!

YOU said to me, and I quote:

This is so wildly different than frankly any interpretation I've seen I'm kind of fascinated how you arrived at it. (Not to mention full on veering into headcanon, but that's par for the course around here.)

Our first interaction - that is, you and I - was saying you were "fascinated" at how I arrived at a "wildly different than frankly any interpretation I've seen" position, implying my position was absurd and not based on any facts or conon.
...which you then cemented by saying "Not to mention full on veering into headcanon", even though I did no such thing.

You didn't even mention what in my post you thought was headcanon so I could respond.

You used "headcanon" as a blanket insult so you could dismiss my entire argument (which, so we're clear, was not "headcanon" to begin with) so you could keep believing what you want to beilive.

Now, don't mistake me, I don't mind you believing whatever you want to believe. But you effectively belittled and maligned me to do so. That I do take issue with. As I said before, you COULD have just said, "Huh, well, I see your perspective, but this is mine <explains perspective>", instead of your dismissive "<dismissive laugh> Oh you and your silly headcanon!"

Don't play the victim now.

YOU attacked me and my post first. And as I've said since, the reason I even made the "skipped cutscenes" comment was because some of the things I said - ALL of which you called headcanon since you didn't single out anything specific as such - was in the actual canon cutscenes. So the logical conclusion is that you must not have watched them.

But note YOU derided ME first. Not the other way around.

There's nowhere for a discussion to go at that point, which is why I had nothing else to say.

That much may be fair and correct, but likely not for the reason you think it is...

Likewise, this is almost identical language to other posters. Are you an alt?

lol, show me ONE other person in this forum that posts like I do. I'm long-winded, PAINFULLY detailed, and don't mind pushing character counts in posts. I'm trying to use the hb tag now that I've been introduced to it to make my posts easier to read, I'll capitalize some words for emphasis though I'm trying to use b and i tags more for that, and I go into extensive, Urianger-length discussions about specific components of arguments just to make sure I'm sufficiently beating the horse to death to avoid people misintepreting or caricaturing what I'm saying (not that it matters, as people do it anyway)

I'm probably a PITA for anyone who doesn't think like I do to read my posts, but one thing is certain for better or for worse:

There's no one here that posts like I do.

That's a pretty laughable attempt at a "I'll use your insult against you". Of all the things you could accuse me of that I've accused others of, you picked the one that has so little merit anyone reading that would laugh at the absurdity of it. XD And I don't mean this to belittle you, it's just that's the ONE thing you can accuse me of that there's no way you can actually justify or present evidence to support.

And I say this in the most self-depreciating way possible - though I've decided that no Human is ENTIRELY unique from the rest of us, my debate style and presentation in text form is pretty damn unique, lol

(Incidentally, your previous post about lies getting likes, yes, absolutely, and it's been that way for as long as I've been here.)

Fair enough.

Doesn't make it a good thing.

Not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean?

It means some people want nuance and shades of gray, and when they don't get it (instead getting "true good" characters), they get upset that said characters DON'T have a dark streak or skeleton in their closet or so on. Indeed, ironically, if your argument is true (10/10 would sunder again), the Venat was the figure you wanted - a person that admitted she did wrong but would do it again anyway because she thought it was the right choice. But the thing is...if she thought it was the RIGHT choice...

Zodiark doesn't have a side? His purpose is in my sig: Salvation. I perhaps picked an inconvenient time to start repping Elidibus with all this conspiracy talk of alts, but I am weary of the narrative which couldn't have happened if he hadn't sacrificed himself to save the world, a protection that the sundered continued to enjoy for 12k years while Hydaelyn is attributed with forestalling the Final Days. I've since been told it's but one of many translation errors in EW. Particularly frustrating because much of what this forum takes as canon is actually worded so differently in FR, DE, and JP that my foreign friends have started mocking the EN translation for being so ridiculously bad. I'm beginning to understand why when I talk to some people about EW it's like we played different games.

You're also conflating what characters knew based on what they were aware of. For example, the Y'Shtola quote is not from a person sitting outside of the narrative looking in. Remember the scene where the WoL returns to the present and we see Venat do the sundering, there was (imo, a brilliant) scene with her walking her path flashing to the WoL confronting Hades (seriously, even if you HATE the narrative, that framing and presentation on those interchanging shots was fantastic)? We, the player, sees what she said and what she did (though it was likely stylized since it appears she talks to a crowd of a dozen or so people and that was LIKELY supposed to represent a much larger group overall), and then we see her walking the ages (though we don't really see what she DID other than that she was injured over the course of them and eventually even dropped her sword)

Y'Shtola didn't see that.

So why would she talk in a way as if she had?

As far as she and most of the races alive today that see Hydaelyn as a goddess and based on what she read (that we, the player, did NOT) of Venat and the End Days in the archives of Anydas (where she hung out from, what, 5.1 to 5.3 or so?), she may have a different position than we do based on having different facts and knowledge than we, the player, have had access to.

This would be akin to grumbling that a stone age man didn't have an adequate appreciation of Evolution.

I enjoyed reading your posts and I agree that your big post itself was not provoking in such a way to "deserve" all these attacks. Sadly this is just how the lore forum is now. :/

Well as a female gamer who likes Venat as a character, I am seemingly now a simp too. Maybe one day I will learn to like the right characters and not such bland ones! (And yes this is ironic)

Hey, more power to you.

Honestly, I have no issue with people liking what they like. As I said to that other person, I don't mind them believing whatever they want to believe. What I take issue with is them lying about me, lying about what I've said, making out like I'm a horrible person who is arguing in bad faith and calling people Nazis, and feeling they need to belittle my posts, insult me - or anyone else who doesn't agree with them - as "simps" or the like, and so on, just so they can keep believing what they want.

If a person wishes to believe something that is untrue, that's fine by me. But they should at least say "Okay, it's clearly debatable that I may be wrong, but this is the choice I wish to make anyway". THAT I can at least respect. I once had a person tell me, in discussing a topic, that as far as they could tell, my arguments were sound, my facts were indisputable, and they could find no fault with my position...but they really wanted to believe in the opposed position, and so would continue to do so. My response was, what I hope was, mature and straightforward. "Fair enough. I can respect that." They acknowledged the reality, and made a conscious choice of will. That I can respect, even if I feel it's wrong.

What I can't respect is when people lie about others and lie to themselves so they can keep believing something instead of coming to that rational realization.

I'm not even contesting people wanting to believe Venat is a villain - as I said in my first post, I simply don't understand it, based on what we actually have as canon that says otherwise.

Not sure what is going on behind closed doors, but I am hesitant to put it down to mere incompetence. Maybe they think EN players can't handle nuance?

It wouldn't be the first time parts of the company didn't think part of its Western fanbase couldn't handle some things. It's how we ended up with Final Fantasy Mystic Quest.

That is true (FF6->3's original English translation/version - heck, FF4->2's where they thought the game was "too hard" for Westerners, which also happened with the original Mario Bros 2, later ported to the West as "The Lost Levels")...but if that was the case, why would it just be the English version and not the French and German as well? You can't even make a US vs UK/Europe argument here, since they could have a separate English version for Europeans if they thought it was uniquely Americans. I'm not sure this position can be argued so well since they didn't do it with all non-JP languages.

Well considering they don’t think the EN players can handle any character deaths….you aren’t too far off.

Wait...are there character deaths in the non-English version of FFXIV where that same character DOESN'T die in the English version of FFXIV...? o.O

It's not like we're actually playing a different game, they're not killing off characters left and right in the JP version.

Okay, good. I was kinda confused there for a second. XD

Not funny! Didn't laugh!

Wasn't a joke, so...good?

I think part of your problem is you assume a LOT of things about other people/what they're saying, then get mad about the things you ASSUMED about them/what they were saying, weather they're actually true or not.

Maybe... People like his posts... cause they like his posts... and they happen to be here...

Maybe, but I didn't mention any issues with people liking his posts. I mentioned issue with his posts all getting exactly two likes just as they're posted no matter what, and immediately after mentioning this, his next post did not get said likes.

But let's go with the less likely option as it lets you accuse the opposition of being bots thus invalidating their argument.

What part of "You have alts to make it look like your position has more support" is saying "You're an AI scrip someone is running making artificially generated replies"? o.O

Indeed, I didn't say nor did I imply it invalidated his argument. If I was implying anything, it was that his arguments have less support than their like counter suggests. And I wasn't even implying that, I was simply musing at the time that his replies to me all seemed to instantly get two - only and exactly two - likes immediately on being posted, even though we're in a somewhat inactive forum and no one else was posting in the thread at the time, and it was an off-time of night for people to be posting in the first place, meaning an off-time for people to be browsing just to like posts immediately as they were posted, several in a row.

You implied the Ancients were becoming nazis...

Would become, but yes.

You were called out for calling the Ancients nazis...

No, I was not.

I was "called out" for calling forum posters Nazis, something I never did. I was "called out" for something I was innocent of. The person trying the "call out" was wrong.

You asked for proof...

I did. Which is a good policy when someone makes up slander about you.

You were given proof...

No, I wasn't. I was given a half-quote single sentence out of context that I had ALREADY quoted myself (edited previous post for length to add) and explained, and then I explained it again, to which the person "calling me out" apologized and admitted they were wrong.

But yeah, people are making stuff up about you?

The dude LITERALLY admitted he was wrong about it and apologized!

Ok then I was mistaken. Sure. Sorry.

Granted, he followed that up with insisting I was picking fights, implicitly admitting that he didn't like me, and then pulling a Golum "Nobody likes you!" (THIS, btw, IS a joke - he wasn't saying no one, he was just saying he didn't like me and likely others don't as well, something I fully accept is probably true, though we likely disagree on the reasons.)

B R U H

B R U H

The dude literally said he was wrong and apologized.

Comes in, proceeds to call characters nazis,

A society, but sure. But I wasn't calling any person here commenting one.

gets upset when called out for doing so,

Except I wasn't "called out" for calling the Ancients Nazis (initially). I was "called out", falsely, as calling forum posters Nazis, a position that the person who "called me out" realized was wrong on further discussion and apologized for.

calls people alts

I didn't call anyone an alt. Why do you like making up lies and saying them as if they're facts?

I mused that someone might be using alt accounts to like their own posts. I didn't suggest the person HIMSELF was an alt.

to shut down discussion.

Oh, look, you accusing me of yet ANOTHER thing that I DIDN'T do!

You're really good at making things up, aren't you?

At BEST, I was questioning the likes on his post, but I even said it wasn't relevant and didn't matter to the discussion. That's like the exact opposite of using it "to shut down discussion". If anything, I was trying to get him (if he was doing this) to stop liking his own post to get a vainer of "consensus" fallacy and, instead, engage me on the facts and merits of the discussion.

Indeed, I was doing it to push the discussion BACK TO discussion instead of meandering through unfounded insults, not to shut discussion down. I was literally doing the exact OPPOSITE of the thing you're accusing me of doing.

Ah yes, I love a good faith discussion.

I do, but based on your post and how many outright lies you just made up in one post to derail the thread and attack me with, I highly "Press [X] to Doubt" that you do...

It's not, but it let's him shut down any discussion from anyone who disagrees with him. After all, they're just alts/bots, they don't have real opinions.

SEE: The entire last half of the post above this where I point out this is yet another abject lie on your part. You are REALLY GOOD at making up lies. If only you were as good and as interested in good faith discussions...

You don't come into lore forums calling characters nazis,

Again, I didn't, but whatever.

and then call anyone who asks why an alt

I didn't do that, EITHER, as noted above.

if you want a good faith discussion.

Except I didn't do the first of those things, did a more generalized version in passing, didn't do the second of those things, and only even mentioned that a person might be using alt accounts to like their posts to make them seem more supported, also in passing, after that person made several posts in a row that immediately got the exact same number of likes, was insulting me with a made up lie at the time, and even I said it wasn't relevant to the overall discussion.

UNLIKE you, I DO want a good faith discussion.

He came in here, and provoked bad faith discussion

Except he didn't...

and got surprised when he got it.

Because he didn't provoke it.

Don't pretend like he didn't just because you agree with his points.

No one needs to "pretend like" I didn't...because I actually DIDN'T. No "pretending" required.

Why does this matter? This does not impact anything whatsoever unless you're trying to play the sexist card. I'm gonna assume you're not as that's more charitable.

She's probably not. She's simply saying she's a female, here was a female character that was genuinely a good person, but she and everyone who agrees with her is called a simp for liking her (and if she's a straight cis female gamer, that would mean that it's kind of impossible for her to be a simp for a female character to begin with...)

You have to admit that it'd be easier to not call Venat enjoyers simps if

...if...you were engaged actual in good faith discussion?

It's funny you say that if a poster says someone's a Nazi (even imaginary societies), then they aren't interested in good faith discussion...but then act like calling people simps is perfectly acceptable in said, presumably good faith, discussion when your side does it. Do you even read your own posts? o.O

Venat didn't commit textbook genocide

Except she didn't. We don't really have a textbook genocide definition that applies to gods. When Zues overthrew the Titans and locked them away, was that "textbook genocide"? When Yahweh cast out Lucifer and 1/3rd of the Angelic Host from Heaven into Hell, was that "textbook genocide"? It's funny that calling fictional characters Nazis is apparently beyond the pale, but accusing fictional characters of genocide is completely acceptable. Very interesting, that double standard...0

for REALLY shady reasoning, and was never called out on it sufficiently by the game.

Maybe because that's now how the writers wrote the story? I doubt Ishkawa or Yoshi P would say "Oh yeah, Venat committed genocide. We think she's Lawful Good, though."

That makes her very unlikable.

I mean, if you make up things to not like about characters, it kinda indicates they aren't likeable - by you - because you entirely don't want to like them...

Clearly, people who do not agree with your interpretation like her just fine.

(Meanwhile Shb makes it VERY clear that Emet is not a objectively good perfect hero)

Because he wasn't meant to be? Hell, Emet even says it HIMSELF!

"This world is not yours to end...
"This is our future. Our story."

...

"Very well. The we shall proceed to your final judgement. The victor shall write the tale, and the vanquished become its villain."

SEE: https://youtu.be/3MFYXNc76nc?t=1137 <- Timestamp of him saying the line.

Emet, himself, saw himself as the hero and the WoL his villain; the WoL saw it the other way, and was the victor who would write the tail and whose interpretation would be the "reality" of recorded history. And, they even let you make your own judgement in the Omega quests - the topic of this very thread.

Moreover, ShB went to great pains to show you that Emet was not an objective perfect VILLAIN, by letting you see how he saw things, from his perspective, and giving you room to believe that he wasn't, in fact, a horrible heartless monster.

ShB was never presenting the argument that Emet WAS A HERO. It was presenting an argument that he was NOT a VILLAIN.

There's no 'right' character to like, but when your favorite character is unliked by a good portion of the community

EVERY character is unliked by "a good portion of the community". There are a lot of people that hate Alphinaud. Hell, there are some people that hate Hauchefant. There are some people that hate Edmont. There are people that hate G'Raha. There are a few people that even dislike the WoL. I'm not sure there's a single character in the story overall that you can say "a good portion of the community" don't dislike.

for very understandable reasons,

See above.

Also: Understandable...to you.

(I can kind of understand them, but they don't make sense given the narrative. That is, I can see how people might dislike Venat for those reasons, but the narrative doesn't say those reasons are accurate.)

people hating on them is going to be something you have to get used to. People don't like that Venat killed her own species off (with few exceptions) with horrible reasoning for doing so, and that the characters in the game act like she did nothing wrong. Especially after the Omega mini questline in 6.15 where the sundered's chance at resisting Meteion's dynamis was concluded to be near random. Like whoever you like, but Venat just wasn't a well-written character and if you're gonna like her, you're gonna have to accept that many other won't.

Venat was written fine. You don't like what she was written as. Those are two different things.

You can not like Venat if you want, no one's telling you otherwise. People are saying that the narrative doesn't entirely support your positions and questioning your assertions of how well written characters/stories are. No one's saying you can't keep holding your opinions.

Seriously, I know you don't like me, but at least read this:

You can like or dislike whoever you want - no one's telling you you can't.

People are disagreeing with your interpretation of events, but no one is telling you that you can't hold your opinions.

[Veloran]

How DARE you even suggest that.

it really IS weird so many of you want to die on that hill, though...touched a nerve, perhaps...

You'll excuse me if I find your insistence lacking sincerity.

Where most people draw the line of distinction is that Emet could actually talk with us, see that we were intelligent and sentient beings striving for a better future, and decided that wasn't good enough anyway, vs Venat talking to the Ancients, trying to convince them to turn from their path of destruction, and them insisting to make a WORSE future instead.

Ignoring the fact that there is evidence that the sundered were not always so intelligent and sapient as they are now, these situations are no different from each other whatsoever. Emet could talk to the sundered and observed them over millennia, and didn't like their proclivities as a species, their weakness, foolishness, and selfishness leading them to damn themselves and others, and so he made a value judgement and decided that their future wasn't valid and that they weren't worthy of living over the Ancients. Venat did the exact same thing in reverse. She decided that the Ancient's own weakness, foolishness, and selfishness meant that they had failed her test, that they weren't worthy of living, and that they should be sacrificed to bring about the advent of a new race which could live up to her ideals. If you want to erroneously claim that the Ancients were "racial supremacists", I don't see any way to not extend that same logic to Venat and have any semblance of consistency.

I'm not sure this is really accurate. The scene where Venat sunders the world showed she clearly didn't want to do it and was trying to find another way. We don't really see that with Emet in ShB at any point OUTRIGHT.

The plot of Shadowbringers is literally Emet-Selch desperately searching for an alternative to the rejoining plan through WoL. He DID want to find another way, and all of his actions leading up to the climax were pushing WoL towards that end in search of hope for a future without so much bloodshed. The fact that we have past-Emet in Elpis outright saying "WHY WOULD I EVER JUST INVITE YOU TO KILL ME AND DESTROY ALL MY PLANS, THAT MAKES NO SENSE", and people still don't understand this, is absolutely baffling to me.

I try to avoid the historian's fallacy of judging people from different eras by our modern standards, and in fictional stories, I try to do the same - based on THEIR viewpoint,

And yet you do judge them by modern standards enough to ignore whatever their concept of life might be and label them with the same terms and ideology as a pseudo-modern political organization?