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

[Tama-Kanzashi]

Yes, the Rejoining is the same. I would have liked it if it did come to pass since I like the Ancients and the unsundered world. I think it never happened because theoretically speaking our WoL should not be able to maintain their race through the Rejoining as they are a fragmented being. A miqo'te will no longer be a miqo'te and a lala - a lala.

Then I am happy that there is at least a tiny bit of something we can agree on.

[Lauront]

They absolutely care about us! I don't think everyone thinks non-Ancients are as worthless as ShB-era Emet. But... they ultimately see the animals as animals. It's sad when an animal doesn't meet its metrics and has to be destroyed, but it's just how it is. (They also seem to have planned to destroy Meteion - thus why Hermes grabs her and runs into Ktisis Hyperboreia, and says at one point that he needs to get the information out of her "before they're erased from existence" - but I'm not sure about that. Hythlodaeus and Emet don't object that no one wants to erase her. It is, however, possible they didn't think it would help. He didn't seem to be entirely rational at that point.) The entire structure of Elpis shows that they don't think living things have an inherent right to keep living. I think the "you have to meet your performance metrics to justify your continued life" thing also explains why people keep asking Venat when she plans on dying when you're in Elpis. She's done with her job. She's not meeting her metrics because she doesn't even have them any more.

Hermes was applying that logic to a group that it wasn't meant to be applied to - obviously no one ever intended for the Ancients to be required to justify their own existence to some external force on pain of death. But the logic itself didn't entirely come out of nowhere. If Hermes believes that the animals he works with are on the same level as his own people (which he seems to - I'm not saying it's rational or correct, but I think that's where he's coming from), then establishing performance metrics, a "supervisor" who can decide whether we've met those metrics (Meteion), and the usual consequences for failure (destruction of the entire species) is a logical extension. It's not a good one, but it does follow a chain of logic.

They are not mere "performance metrics" - they relate to the ability of the species to integrate into the star's broader eco-system, and it is abundantly clear from the lykaones why that is. As for treating animals as animals? Sure. But then I don't see the particular problem with this, especially since both the sundered and RL humans treat them far worse, in comparison to the ancients who even try and ensure they're put down gently if needed and where possible; and I'd consider Hermes's "judgement" as ridiculous even in the former two cases, nevermind the ancients. Hermes may follow a "chain of logic", but it's still one in service to a spite-driven execution that will encompass all life, and one where, as Amon, he is still not happy with any answers he receives.

That's the point of the Rejoining, though. You're a failed lifeform who shouldn't exist as you are, and thinking you want to live is presumably one expression of that. Emet wants to fix you and make you into the corrected version of you.

With the caveat that he is dealing with beings that exist as a result of genociding his people and thus also exist at their expense, yes. Enabled, of course, by Venat 'allowing' him to escape to fulfill her plan.

...they put flowers with them and were genuinely saddened by their deaths. They asked us how we say goodbye to the dead to incorporate that into that rite. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Neither does he, to be fair.

[Kazelus]

Except that if the last sacrifice had gone through as planned, being composed of non-human entities in exchange for the return of the human life given to Zodiark, humaniy would also have been preserved.

I really need a hint on this, I saw nowhere in MSQ where it was stated that ancients wanted to sacrifices non-human entities to resurrect Zordiark's sacrifices ? It may be a localization problem but in all my dialogue with either Emet or Venat, it's the half remaining ancients that plans to sacrifices themselves to bring back the first sacrified...

And with that version, it makes sense that Venat sunders the people right before they sacrify themselves. (Considering Azem is parts of the new sacrifices, she had to do it now to maintain the timeloop in place.)

[Lauront]

Refer to this and this on that topic. The sources are contained in the first link, and are all vague. It's not the second set of sacrifices and Azem was never intended to be a part of them - no source points to that, anyway. It is worth noting that even after the WoL re-tells their understanding of events in Elpis, she does not understand why she'd become Hydaelyn and oppose her people. It is only with the context of Meteion and the fate of the other worlds (especially, the Plenty) that this decision later makes sense to her. As per Vyrerus's post below, all indications suggest that to her faction, this was a pretext to buy her time/gain support, without truly spilling the beans, allusions to which exist in the Anamnesis scene.

Unfortunately that post-Elpis cutscene really muddies the waters. It makes it seem as though she enacted the Sundering during the second set of sacrifices, when they still hadn't been completed to restore the star to a functioning state. With that said, the scene is not literal in nature, and even during the Q&A Yoshi was referring players back to earlier scenes, like the Anamnesis Anyder one, and the totality of those sources do not point to plans for interminable sacrifices but one final set to restore/release those in Zodiark.

[Vyrerus]

The desire to depict

No. What we perceive as a villainous act was crafted by people from our world. Our storytellers.


The goal of Venat was to beat Hermes's judgment. She did not give a flying rip about the means or ends to do that. Sacrifices to Zodiark was the scapegoat lie she told her followers, and what would make sense to the general populace without giving away the secret she wanted to needlessly keep.

The Sundering was an act of Genocide in every way. It destroyed the entirety of the Ancients' nations. It destroyed all of their culture. It destroyed all of the identities. It also destroyed all of their lives. It also split souls yet to be vested in flesh by the planet. They have Sundered descendants, yes, but those descendants choose to deny that heritage (or are entirely ignorant of it, or don't have it due to being sundered souls living for the first time). Look at Amon. He knows of and acknowledges his life as Hermes, but he also resents it. He says, "I have those memories, but that's not who I am!"

By your logic there's no genocide in the real world. By your logic there are also no stories with morals (which is actually a large impetus for tons of stories).

There need not be a desire to depict Venat as a villain. The issue lies in the storytellers writing her to do villainous deeds, but then trying to say they weren't villainous by using the game's narrative cast as a mouthpiece.

But if you really wanna throw down the, "social construct" gauntlet, then look at the societies constructed by our storytellers within the story. They largely hold similar values to societies in the real world. Then look at Venat's actions. Even within her own society, she enacted civil war, and broke a lot of their customs before that, to boot. In other words, Venat did things that many people within our story world should take issue with, but don't, because the scriptwriters wrote them to not. She destroyed her own society, violating what you have specified is the reason to have social constructs in the first place.

The Ancients were sundered, and afterwards their sundered souls and flesh allowed life to continue. Not Ancient life. Sundered life, with all of the differences, disadvantages, and singular advantage that comes with it. Most of which caused most of that life to immediately die. Leaving all life vulnerable to other ends of which Venat was not aware of or afraid.

[Sarkany]

They are not mere "performance metrics" - they relate to the ability of the species to integrate into the star's broader eco-system, and it is abundantly clear from the lykaones why that is. As for treating animals as animals? Sure. But then I don't see the particular problem with this, especially since both the sundered and RL humans treat them far worse, in comparison to the ancients who even try and ensure they're put down gently if needed and where possible; and I'd consider Hermes's "judgement" as ridiculous even in those cases, nevermind the ancients. Hermes may follow a "chain of logic", but it's still one in service to a spite-driven execution that will encompass all life, and one where, as Amon, he is still not happy with any answers he receives.

They're not necessarily bad performance metrics, and given the sort of nonsense these people are coming up with, I agree they need something to thin out the worst ideas. But they are absolutely performance metrics - does this thing meet its ecosystem's needs, does it fill a niche, is it going to hurt people and so on. If Hermes believes that animals, like people, don't need to do anything special to justify their continued life, then that whole idea is going to be repugnant. I think it would feel like killing people who the government felt weren't going to contribute enough to society.

And yeah, I don't think he was ever going to get an acceptable answer. Barring some higher being imposing them (like the Ancients did to their creations), we just don't have that sort of standard. The question is irrelevant and has no actual answer; every person has to decide why they should keep going with life on their own. But that's what depression logic is like, in my experience. You fall down rabbit holes chasing non-existent answers to questions no one actually cares about and arrive at "logical conclusions" that are nightmarish.

[Kazelus]

Refer to this and this on that topic. The sources are contained in the first link, and are all vague. It's not the second set of sacrifices and Azem was never intended to be a part of them - no source points to that, anyway. It is worth noting that even after the WoL re-tells their understanding of events in Elpis, she does not understand why she'd become Hydaelyn and oppose her people. It is only with the context of Meteion and the fate of the other worlds (especially, the Plenty) that this decision later makes sense to her. As per Vyrerus's post below, all indications suggest that to her faction, this was a pretext to buy her time/gain support, without truly spilling the beans, allusions to which exist in the Anamnesis scene.

Unfortunately that post-Elpis cutscene really muddies the waters. It makes it seem as though she enacted the Sundering during the second set of sacrifices, when they still hadn't been completed to restore the star to a functioning state. With that said, the scene is not literal in nature, and even during the Q&A Yoshi was referring players back to earlier scenes, like the Anamnesis Anyder one, and the totality of those sources do not point to plans for interminable sacrifices but one final set to restore/release those in Zodiark.

Okay, looks like it was the dialogue with Hytlo before the final fight against Hades that contains what I was looking for on this topic.

About Azem being parts of the new sacrifices, it was an understanding from Emet saying that the remaining half wanted to sacrifices themselves to bring back Zordiark's sacrifices and Azem was part of that remaining half, that's all.

I still don't think that EndWalker is a lackluster story but you have answered my concerns about the new-life sacrifices thanks.

[Lauront]

But if you really wanna throw down the, "social construct" gauntlet, then look at the societies constructed by our storytellers within the story. They largely hold similar values to societies in the real world. Then look at Venat's actions. Even within her own society, she enacted civil war, and broke a lot of their customs before that, to boot. In other words, Venat did things that many people within our story world should take issue with, but don't, because the scriptwriters wrote them to not. She destroyed her own society, violating what you have specified is the reason to have social constructs in the first place.

After all, we can just refer to the cast's mouthpieces and their own pronouncements...



...and...

“To ignore the plight of those one might conceivably save is not wisdom─it is indolence.”

Guess they just need to be confronted with a supreme deity ready to sunder them, for their memories to be jogged a little.

Excellent post.

[Graeham]

I agree with the posts. I do not understand why the Ascians did not genocide all the humans in the 14 world and bring back the friends. I am sad that the Ascians have died and the survivors are hunted down and kill by the angry Gaius. Why can we not use the time travel to bring them back and have revenge on the lesser race. If we help them then they will make us become the beginner Ascians once they are able to summon the God Rala with help of the God Meteo.

[Rulakir]

After all, we can just refer to the cast's mouthpieces and their own pronouncements...

Don't forget:



At any rate, wow, looks like I missed a lot of fun! I just want to add, Hermes read like he was written by someone who is blissfully unaware of what animal testing is actually like. Elpis was a dream scenario as far as that is concerned. It was impossible to take any of it seriously as being 'scary' or 'wrong' when humans are guilty of far, far worse. (The message is Hermes was in the wrong line of work.) If you want me to morally condemn an entire civilization you're going to have to make them beyond salvation, not actually better people than both the sundered and RL mankind.

You're also going to have to not have one of the Scions do the exact same thing one patch later to humorous effect.