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

[Solarra]

I've been lurking and enjoying this thread for a while. I'm glad it's still going. I too, was disappointed by EW.


I think it made the same mistake the writers did in ARR and SB where we had a lot of telling rather than showing. Minfillia, Lyse and now Venat, the game tells us what to think about them but if you look for reasons in-game, they're either skated over far too quickly or absent.
With Venat, I cannot follow her reasoning for doing what she did. Deciding to act alone when she has the combined wisdom and powers of the convocation to call upon, seems foolhardy to say the least. Seeing the consequences of her actions I find it hard to accept her as a 'good person', even if she is sorry.
Her defeat of Zodiark and the sundering rather defies logic too, how did she do that if she was so much weaker than he was?

We have a lot of plot holes. So often I found myself thinking along the lines of,
'But if we could do that, why didn't we just...'

No real consequences for our companions was another thing I found annoying. Vitra did a great build up, telling us the awful cost to our friends of simply being associated with us, but that turned out to be 5 mins offstage with yet another fake death, or in this case a whole slew of them.

I thought there was too much filler. Meals with the Scions, visits from them, walks....
And I the only person sick of Tataru at this point? And it turns out she hasn't been keeping the Scions afloat after all, that was mammy Levellieur (and that little detail has me questioning quite a bit of what happened post-ARR).

Garelmond was rushed and somehow the Garleans were reduced to 'nice people, just a bit misguided'. When we were asked why we couldn't accept Garlean rule, our character couldn't even come up with an answer. The whole of SB gave us plenty of answers, even ARR gave us answers. But even though I don't see the Empire as a force for good, I did want to see more of it, I wanted to see how the citizens lived, I wanted to see more of Maxima and the Populares, I wanted to meet some of the miltary and political leaders we'd been hearing about.
I wanted to find out if the story of the Garleans being driven out of their homeland by the magic users was true, partly true or pure fiction dreamed up by Emet to keep the people afraid and to justify some of the things the Empire did.
And I wanted some depth and development for Zenos. It was a bit sobering to do the final ARR beast tribe quest recently and discover that Zenos had basically been given a dry run as 'comedy, fight-me cat-boy'! Exact same motivations and a similar level of depth. If I'd been given the choice to just walk away and leave Zenos instead of having that last fight, I'd have taken it.
I was also disappointed to see Garlemond looked surprisingly like our own cities, with citizens apparently owning cars, yet we have seen no wheeled vehicles besides trains in Garlean territory up to this point. It felt like a clumsy attempt to show us that the Empire's people were just like us and to make them more sympathetic, but where Amaurot succeed, this felt forced.

The theme of lying to people, or concealing facts, supposedly for their own good, was never really explored. Everyone is perfectly ok with it.
Sharlayan began as a place where everyone had an equal voice; it's ended up as somewhere where the majority are kept completely in the dark for decades, and nobody, in this highly educated population, takes issue with it.
Vitra's deception of his people I could understand far more and I felt that was well-handled.
Hydaelin lied to us right from the start and we're told it's also 'understandable' and we're not allowed to think otherwise. It's fine, end of.
Except it really isn't fine. In fact, Elidibus' words about if we had mastered the Echo, we'd be on the same side, ring far more true now. If we had known then what we know now, would we have chosen to throw our lot in with Hydaelin or would we have sided with the Ascians?
Making Hydaelin more nuanced would have strengthened the story imo, and making us tempered by her would have cleared away a lot of issues I have with us following her so blindly.

Giving us more detail about the proposed final sacrifice could have strengthed her case. Venat says she and her followers didn't want to see this new life snuffed out, but what was it exactly?
If we are talking about people born after the creation of Zodiark, I can see a serious moral dilemma and I could understand people dissenting (count me in), but if she was trying to justify leaving people dead who could have been ressurected, including her friends who had sacrificed themselves, just to save a few plants and animals, then she comes across as crazy as Hermes.
And while we are on the subject of Hermes, how come our oh-so-intelligent friends didn't see even the tiniest hint of mental instability there? Convocation material he is not.

I do suspect a little (?) tampering from the Director might have caused some of the issues I am having with EW, it was disturbing to read that the story was re-worked and only finished with days to spare.
I am hoping that the post EW quests will be more interesting and will do what the post SB quests did for that expansion

[Theodric]

I wanted to find out if the story of the Garleans being driven out of their homeland by the magic users was true, partly true or pure fiction dreamed up by Emet to keep the people afraid and to justify some of the things the Empire did.

Yes, it's true. The Reaper job quests go a little deeper into it as do some of the side quests in Garlemald itself.

The Garleans were simply peaceful farmers who settled in Corvos and worked the land yet due to it being rare for them to be able to manipulate aether, they were targeted by their magic wielding neighbours.

Bit by bit, they lost their land. It didn't happen quickly and occurred over a period of roughly eight hundred years. This is why it isn't as simple as 'getting over it' - and then even when they were forced into the bitter frozen wasteland to the north they were still under attack there as well.

It was only when Emet-Selch stepped in that their fortunes reversed - albeit briefly.

[MikkoAkure]

Yes, it's true. The Reaper job quests go a little deeper into it as do some of the side quests in Garlemald itself.

The Garleans were simply peaceful farmers who settled in Corvos and worked the land yet due to it being rare for them to be able to manipulate aether, they were targeted by their magic wielding neighbours.

Bit by bit, they lost their land. It didn't happen quickly and occurred over a period of roughly eight hundred years. This is why it isn't as simple as 'getting over it' - and then even when they were forced into the bitter frozen wasteland to the north they were still under attack there as well.

It was only when Emet-Selch stepped in that their fortunes reversed - albeit briefly.

G'raha's people held the land thousands of years ago during the time of the Allagans so I don't think it's as simple as that. Fourchenault even says as much:

Those unfamiliar with history would believe they have always resided in the bitter cold climes of northern Ilsabard, but that was only after the Corvosi invaded eight hundred years prior.

With the advent of magitek, I imagine it was all too easy for Emperor Solus to rally his people and take back what they believed to be rightfully theirs.

Yet history would tell us true─that the land they call Locus Amoenus has been known by other names, and served as home to myriad peoples.

Indeed, one need only look back to the Allagans' reign in the Third Astral Era to give the lie to Garlean claims of sovereignty.

Yet even had they such ancestral ties to Locus Amoenus, antecedence cannot justify their animosity to foreign peoples.

Animosity poorly veiled by delusions of justice, as has been the case for so many nations throughout history. Would that man had the sense and strength of will to break free from such chains of hatred.

[Raoabolic]

G'raha's people held the land thousands of years ago during the time of the Allagans so I don't think it's as simple as that. Fourchenault even says as much:

Oh, well I guess the Garlieans should move aside for all those allagans who are displaced. :^)

[MikkoAkure]

It's also possible for multiple groups of people to have a valid claim to a specific bit of land - though there's really no real reason that the game could not push for a compromise and have the Garlean survivors integrate into Corvos and return to their roots as farmers. The only reason it did not, I suspect, is because the game has ever been one sided in terms of how it goes about 'liberation' stories. An unfortunate consequence of the protagonist centred morality at play as well as the broken aesops. Incidentally, the Garleans are very similar to the Ancients in that regard. Both are races which were subjected to horrific atrocities, had to get their hands dirty in order to survive and then are blamed for not just rolling over and dying for the convenience of the self proclaimed 'heroes' of the story.

The option was presented in the game to have the Garleans relocate to Corvos, but they said that given the fact that Corvosi rebels just kicked them out in the wake of the Final Days, it wouldn't work out well for either side.

There's no chance for either the Corvosi to accept Garlean rule again, and the Garleans themselves in that questline absolutely refused to be ruled by anyone who isn't Garlean.

There's no going back to Locus Amoenus, either. Wrack and ruin... Those are our only options.

Rebuild Garlemald? No, there is no point in entertaining so lofty a dream. And we would sooner die than suffer life under the rule of another.

The Garleans lost their homeland 800 years ago and at this point the people living there had nothing at all to do with it. They lost their ties to the land and it's not theirs anymore and now they're the ones who are the bad, conquering force. The Garleans aren't some innocent force for justice taking back what is rightfully theirs, they're weaponized resentment purposefully managed by an Ascian in order to cause trouble in the world. The average citizens are victims in this to be sure, but that doesn't mean that they or the people they conquered would accept a compromise and it doesn't mean that they deserve to have space carved out for them from someone else's land. It would have been one thing to have tried to come to a peaceful agreement initially and it's a whole other thing altogether to just come in with troops and plant your flag.

Oh, well I guess the Garlieans should move aside for all those allagans who are displaced. :^)

The Allagans are gone but G'raha's Miqo'te tribe were still there and came there after being displaced themselves. The Garleans aren't even from there either and came from somewhere else before they were displaced. At least one of the proto-Garlean tribes created the city of Goug before the city exploded and they had to move.

[Raoabolic]

The Allagans are gone but G'raha's Miqo'te tribe were still there and came there after being displaced themselves. The Garleans aren't even from there either and came from somewhere else before they were displaced. At least one of the proto-Garlean tribes created the city of Goug before the city exploded and they had to move.

Then if we allow everyone to claim land on a first come first serve basis then Limsa has some 'splanin to do. Besides, if that is how things worked then we would have a sweet game of musical chairs with land, lol. At this point the Garleans are displaced and the Miqo'tes can claim their land back. Would that give the existing Garleans casus belli to then take back said land? Now that I think about it, that sounds like a pretty sweet new storyline the game can go but I know the current writers won't touch this angle of the story with a ten foot pole, lol.

[MikkoAkure]

Then if we allow everyone to claim land on a first come first serve basis then Limsa has some 'splanin to do. Besides, if that is how things worked then we would have a sweet game of musical chairs with land, lol. At this point the Garleans are displaced and the Miqo'tes can claim their land back. Would that give the existing Garleans casus belli to then take back said land? Now that I think about it, that sounds like a pretty sweet new storyline the game can go but I know the current writers won't touch this angle of the story with a ten foot pole, lol.

I never said that the Corvosi were right in kicking out the Garleans just like the Limsans weren't right in kicking out the Kobolds but at this point hundreds of years later, the people living there have nothing to do with it. My point in bringing up G'raha is that his people were there before the Garleans were but the Garleans still claim it as solely their homeland, which is not true. The entire Garlean motivation was to take back the "homeland" from the aggressors who took it 800 years ago but the people who took it 800 years ago have been dead for centuries, just as the people who were wronged have been dead for centuries. On top of that, the Garleans didn't stop there and started conquering nations that had nothing at all to do with their original motivation so you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who backs the Garleans anyway.

Considering Fourchenault and Sharlayan are as neutral as you're going to get and the comments he made on the Garleans, I don't think a neutral party would agree that the Garleans have a proper casus belli and right to take back Corvos considering they were the occupying and invading force this time around. Sharlayan was a nation for hundreds of years before the Garleans fled Corvosi aggression so I'd trust their neutral take on things since they're been recording history since before that time as observers.


Like Theodric said, it's possible that the role quest storyline was rewritten after the events going on in the world right now since they're eerily similar to events in the game, but unless it's asked and they actually answer, we won't know. I don't think they would have had the time to redo bits of it in a hurry, but who knows.

[Lauront]

And I the only person sick of Tataru at this point? And it turns out she hasn't been keeping the Scions afloat after all, that was mammy Levellieur (and that little detail has me questioning quite a bit of what happened post-ARR).

No, you're far from alone.

Giving us more detail about the proposed final sacrifice could have strengthed her case. Venat says she and her followers didn't want to see this new life snuffed out, but what was it exactly?
If we are talking about people born after the creation of Zodiark, I can see a serious moral dilemma and I could understand people dissenting (count me in), but if she was trying to justify leaving people dead who could have been ressurected, including her friends who had sacrificed themselves, just to save a few plants and animals, then she comes across as crazy as Hermes.

The sources point towards (living) creations seeded by Zodiark, but by all indications, it was a ruse to bide time/draw support, AFAIC. Her primary (and only) motivators as given by the devs are 1) dynamis manipulation and 2) avoiding the fate of the final Dead End. She confirms 1) to Y'shtola in-game but 2) is evident in her cutscene and arguably, Anamnesis. It's telling that even after the WoL re-tells the tale of the conflict between the two sides as they know it, she still was puzzled as to why she'd become Hydaelyn and stand against her people in that way. Even if she had convinced them to stop, the problem of them being unable to easily manipulate dynamis (from her perspective) would continue to exist. So I don't think the sacrifices mattered other than at most an instrumental sense for objective 2).

Anyway, totally agree on the lack of any critical comment on how much deception she perpetrated and with the majority of your points. As to how she defeated Zodiark in spite of being much weaker than him? Why, by dragging the entire star into it, according to her post-defeat section.