Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Brinne]

Completely missed my point. The level of anger direct at Venat far exceeds any other character in 14, and yet her actions are easily compared to other characters that get defended incessantly. Don't like lying or ruining the lives of others? Then never defend an Unsundered. Emet, Elidibus, Lahabrea, all individually slaughter, lie, and destroy untold lives in their quest with little regard for who they crush. Do that and I'll start to believe that there isn't an obvious double standard here.

Eara, speaking only for myself here and honestly hoping we can reach a better understanding, it's not about the actions in a vacuum. I've said multiple times that I could have been completely capable of loving Venat as a character without changing a single thing about her in word, thought, or deed. The problem is the narrative. I and those I know, at least, have extreme reactions to Venat because, unlike the other characters you named, they feel at extreme odds, or dissonant, with how the narrative then treats those characters. Emet and Elidibus are portrayed very sympathetically, but still, ultimately, as antagonists we have to put down, with their wrongdoings recognized as wrong when they are relevant or being discussed. Venat is a very, very different story, and one that is so deeply tied to the overall story and lore that if you feel dissonant with the perspective the story takes on her, it can honestly and truly break the entire game for you. And I don't want the game to be broken for me. It makes me very sad, actually.

Venat herself is fine. The story lauding her and her methods is not fine. Emet and Elidibus as characters, too, are fine. If the story started unironically lauding the creation of the Garlean Empire on Emet's part, or cheering on Elidibus's use of the wishes of the Warriors of Light rather than condemning it (like it did, in fact, do), that also would absolutely not be fine.

[thegreatonemal]

Once again:



Or if you want something directly from the game:



I understand that's sort of difficult to process that, yes, we killed a person who did indisputably try to reach out to us in good faith, in hopes for some kind of nonviolent reconciliation. But that is what happened. Obviously, as a whole, the situation is more complex - the Scions had extremely good reasons to distrust Emet-Selch given their history, his own obnoxious behavior and difficult personality wasn't exactly optimal towards beginning to win that trust, so I am absolutely not saying the Scions are bad or wrong for being reluctant to meet him at the table - Emet-Selch dug his own grave on several levels on that front. However, the truth remains, again to use Yoshida's own words, that own his intent was, indeed, "pure" and he truly did want to "trust and believe in" the new humanity.

So there's no real reason to try to distort the facts of what happened or the mindset of the person we killed or what he was actually hoping to accomplish. Shadowbringers asks us to accept the situation for what it truly was - tragic, great, and terrible all at once - and in that way, look for ways to honor and uplift the fallen, not disparage them in order to justify ourselves. Emet-Selch still drew a hard line in the sand that we had to "prove ourselves worthy" if the situation remained a question of only one group or the other being allowed to live. That caused us to need to fight him, in the end, to protect ourselves and the world we know. He also was truly, sincerely hoping to find some other way "that did not involve bloodshed" if we were able to "prove ourselves worthy" and were willing to join forces. This can be true at the same time as "we still had to kill him to survive because we didn't meet his conditions and rejected those conditions as justifications for our deaths" is also true.

That's your interpretation of what that means. It could just as easily mean "Get more people like Varis, who are willing to help with causing the calamities." Your job is to demonstrate that he means a peaceful nobody dies way of rejoining. Which you cannot do.

Again, I went over that it refers to not fighting us specifically, not bloodless rejoinings. Again your job is to show he wanted bloodless rejoining. Not your interpretations of what he the devs might have meant. Proof. Because there is plenty to the contrary, I've gone over some of it with you already.

Emet is a tragic figure that's true but we killed someone who would not, could not stop his plan of mass murder of multiple worlds. That's it. What Shadowbringers asked of us was to put ourselves in his shoes and we did but Y'stola said it best. "You've murdered millions, and that we cannot abide." You can empathize with him and in the same breath say he was wrong.

[EaraGrace]

Eara, speaking only for myself here and honestly hoping we can reach a better understanding, it's not about the actions in a vacuum. I've said multiple times that I could have been completely capable of loving Venat as a character without changing a single thing about her in word, thought, or deed. The problem is the narrative. I and those I know, at least, have extreme reactions to Venat because, unlike the other characters you named, they feel at extreme odds, or dissonant, with how the narrative then treats those characters. Emet and Elidibus are portrayed very sympathetically, but still, ultimately, as antagonists we have to put down, with their wrongdoings recognized as wrong when they are relevant or being discussed. Venat is a very, very different story, and one that is so deeply tied to the overall story and lore that if you feel dissonant with the perspective the story takes on her, it can honestly and truly break the entire game for you. And I don't want the game to be broken for me. It makes me very sad, actually.

Venat herself is fine. The story lauding her and her methods is not fine. Emet and Elidibus as characters, too, are fine. If the story started unironically lauding the creation of the Garlean Empire on Emet's part, or cheering on Elidibus's use of the wishes of the Warriors of Light rather than condemning it (like it did, in fact, do), that also would absolutely not be fine.

With all due respect Brinne, I think you vastly understate the water this game carries for Emet and Elidibus, and the lengths SHB, and Endwalker as well, went to absolve them. The narrative of these two characters is not two evil villains with somewhat sympathetic motivations, but heroes steeped in tragedy that we should weep for. The dissonance you feel with Venat is no different than I felt with the Unsundered. From the comments Alisaie and the Scions make about how they'd do the same if the sides were flipped. The multiple sequences where we get cute bonding moments with them. The constant references and callbacks. The additional lore dumps tying their characters to yours. To make this comparison even clearer, let me just quote the Hades Ex description.

Hearken unto a requiem for a hero fallen. A man who lived a thousand thousand of our lives clinging desperately to faint hope, never shirking his sworn duty to his long-lost brethern. A man who stood proud and avow his true name on the threshold of the battle that would see him fall to his rival-the light to quench his shadow. Borrowing liberally from the funereal rites of the Night's Blessed, the minstreling wanderer weaves an elegy in that hero's honor - the tragic-yet-triumphant tale of a man and a battle that ne'er shall be forgotten.

So yeah I know how it feels. But I never demanded the game to completely change its narrative or rewrite descriptions to be more neutral. I never said it was bad writing. I disagreed with those defenses, and argued my position yes, but never did I react in the way that others have to Venat and Endwalker. My frustration is rooted in that.

[Tehmon]

The dissonance you feel with Venat is no different than I felt with the Unsundered. From the comments Alisaie and the Scions make about how they'd do the same if the sides were flipped. The multiple sequences where we get cute bonding moments with them. The constant references and callbacks. The additional lore dumps tying their characters to yours. To make this comparison even clearer, let me just quote the Hades Ex description.

Oh tell me about it. Whenever the game pushes me to think that what the unsundered do is '' totally logical, and if we were in the same position we'd do the same!!! '' I'm just like no game, I wouldn't go on a massive murder spree to get '' my world, my people '' back. Sorry, guess I'm not the hero the game wants me to be kek. Similarly there are so many moments in Endwalker where we longingly look at Emet, or his damn teacup, or how we reach out our hand at him as we escape Kairos' memory wipe, forcibly creating these weird emotional feelings directed towards Emet from our player character regardless of how we players truly feel about Emet. Emet's final conversation with us in UT is also pretty weird, as WoL lowers their head in dissapointment? and sadness? over Emet's departure and his fate, to the point Emet has to console us. No mate, just leave please, you just stood there and said you have no regrets about what you did and potentially would've done, you can just go, Hythlodaeus you're cool, but Emet you can just piss off thanks.

And with the Omega quest, WoL is yet again forcibly made to feel a certain type of way about Emet, and pushing us towards a narrative I might not agree with for my own WoL. A '' benevolent ally '' as Omega put it, and someone we think about with positively in the end. There's a narrative about the unsundered, especially Emet, being pushed, and it's not painting him as anything except a man who just had to do what he did, a hero to his people, and a great friend to us.

Yet, whether I agree how the story paints the WoL's feelings towards Emet, and the narrative surrounding Emet and unsundered in general, I still think it's a great story and understand why the narrative is what it is, and the game isn't necessarily worse for it. But my opinions will never truly align with the greater narrative, and that is okay. At the end of the day, the parts I don't necessarily jive with that the game forces me into, I am able to roleplay it differently in my head and think of other approaches and outcomes. That is half the fun of RPGs anyway. I don't need the game's story and narrative to always be in line with my own thoughts, values and morals, as long as the story is compelling and fun to go through, and that's what FFXIV manages to do even when I don't completely agree with everything my WoL does.

[Iscah]

I understand that's sort of difficult to process that, yes, we killed a person who did indisputably try to reach out to us in good faith, in hopes for some kind of nonviolent reconciliation.

No, we killed someone who previously tried to reach out to us in good faith (though we couldn't confirm that at the time) but has since apparently abandoned that approach, shot all our friends in front of us and is now directly trying to kill us. Past good faith doesn't count for much at that point.

[Brinne]

Emet is a tragic figure that's true but we killed someone who would not, could not stop his plan of mass murder of multiple worlds. That's it. What Shadowbringers asked of us was to put ourselves in his shoes and we did but Y'stola said it best. "You've murdered millions, and that we cannot abide." You can empathize with him and in the same breath say he was wrong.

Ah, okay. We’ve reached the point, especially with Yoshida’s quotes, especially in their full context, of “there’s no common ground in what we believe these words to literally point blank mean,” so I guess we’re at an agree-to-disagree impasse. I don’t think Yoshida’s statement about Emet’s hopes leaves any ambiguity with the specifications “different from the methods the Ascians have taken so far by joining hands with humans.” Gaining human cooperation to continue performing the Rejoinings as they always have is exactly the methods they have taken so far, so that reading makes no sense to me, and I don’t really want to get engaged in a “what is the precise definition of this translated word” drag-out, exhausting fight.

snip

I would disagree entirely on the "level of dissonance" being the same, on a few levels.

Fundamentally, I would again repeat that there is a huge inherent framing difference between “an antagonist we fight and kill because we oppose and want to stop their plans” and “a protagonist we fight and kill out of her own wishes, in accordance to her plan.” Even if you argue they are sympathetic and the WoL is given reactions that indicate sympathy the player may not feel, they are still opposed to the Ascians. They are not, and never are, opposed to Venat. They are happy to go along with her goals and methods.

Secondly, not all dissonance is created equal. This is not the first time I have felt dissonance toward the story – by all means, ask me how I felt about the Scions in ARR, or Hien in Stormblood (spoilers: they’re terrible.) But those were still, when it came down to it, things I could accept and still have fun with the game. Venat crosses a threshold in both the sheer atrocity she committed, the story’s naked apologism regarding it, the impact on the other characters, and once again, how utterly foundational and inescapable it is to the very fabric of the lore and setting. The WoL liking a character I might not feel the same way about isn’t a big deal, even if I might roll my eyes at it and move on. The WoL actually apparently being on board with “genocide was the right decision and actually necessary for the greater good, and the person who committed it is a good person I feel warmth for specifically because they did it” is in a completely different universe altogether.

The suggestion that “I felt some form of dissonance and I was still fine and didn’t complain, so no one else should complain either” is also pretty disingenuous in and of itself. If something about the story bothers them – again, speaking for myself, to the point where the game is in danger of completely breaking for me, storywise – they have the right to speak up and provide the information about their response to the team, even if you didn’t feel inclined to. Frankly, in prior cases of dissonance, I didn’t bother speaking up because I didn’t care enough. Maybe there are others who feel differently, but I love this game and want to be able to keep loving the game. That’s it. I never wanted to be this uncomfortable with the Hydaelyn plotline. As I’ve posted before, I was practically begging and was eager to LOVE her as a character. I guarantee I am not singling out Venat for any particular reason, whether it because she was opposed to the Ascians (G'raha Tia's visceral dislike for Emet-Selch is literally my favorite thing about him, and I was cheering on Tiamat for basically cussing them out, because both characters absolutely have the right to feel that way), because she is a woman, or any other reason. I promise that I really, really did not want to end up here!

Going more into the text itself, though, the idea that the game "carries water" in a similar way for both sets of characters (Venat vs the Unsundered) only holds if we're looking purely at sympathetic, “positive” signifiers in the text. Yes, the Warrior of Light has positive responses to both of them. Yes, both sides are described as heroic and sympathetic, only doing what they believe is right.

However, there is also the question of the other direction a story can communicate its framing of a character’s actions: not just how it comments on them positively, but also negatively. The in-game criticisms in terms of making room, narratively, for you to understand the situation and how the story wishes for you to see them. Looking at what the Unsundered get after their equivalent "reveal" as Elpis in Venat and learning she had good intentions, knowing basically all the information about them, what they were trying to do, and why, we still get:

Elidibus's actions, methods, and mindset being condemned in very strong terms:

Elidibus. So fixated were you on my memories of the future, you failed to heed the lessons of the past.

Your obsession blinded you to the true nature of this tower─this beacon of hope for mankind.

Created to serve as a reservoir for the limitless energy of the heavens! To harness and bind the boundless─not unlike white auracite!

Your ill-begotten power, obtained by exploiting that which is best in us... I shall have it, your soul and all!

In-game characters who we are meant to see as sympathetic/heroic allies being able to voice (completely understandable) hatred, antipathy, and skepticism toward them:

Accursed Ascians! Vile minions of Darkness! Again you would profane the memory of my beloved, and strip our children of their freedom, their dignity! Are there no depths to which you will not stoop!?

To which Estinien chimes in:

Your children’s pain means nothing to them. They laugh at your kind’s suffering. But tears will not right this wrong. Nor will lamentations see the perpetrators punished.

Estinien had also, prior to this, pointed out the various wrongdoings of the Ascians:

When Tiamat and her kin fought against the Allagan Empire, both sides were but dancing to the tune of the Ascians. And it was the same in Ishgard, where they stoked the fires of conflict between man and dragon from the shadows. All that the Ascians touch turns to ash, and thus have you made it your mission to fight them.

When did anyone in the game, especially relative to the equivalent period where we already understood the Ascians’ sympathetic motives, extend this kind of language and criticism towards Venat, let alone coming from our allies and friends as we recruit them to continue opposing the Ascians?

Once again, the comparative "sympathy" toward their actions would be glorifying Emet-Selch's creation of the Garlemald empire, emphasizing how hard and sad it was for him to build and enact Imperialism for the sake of the those he loved. That building the Garlemald Empire and then abusing it was "a hard, but necessary decision for the greater good." The game does not do this. Garlemald is not glorified; it continues to be portrayed as horrific and harmful, and Emet’s cruel sabotage and then abandonment of them continues to be left exactly what it was. Emet's process in doing harm in general is not glorified, the way he leaves victims behind - only the genuine love for his people that fuels his feeling the need to go that far, and his hopes in finding a way to not have to continue going down that path.

I would also make a distinction between "the reasons for [x] are sympathetic" and "most people would do [x] if they were in the same position" - and "choosing to do [x] is right and necessary." The story takes the former approach with Emet and Elidibus, while still portrayed their actions as wrong and needing to be stopped, that people have the right to protest against and stop them. It takes the latter with Venat – at least up until the Omega quests. A mass-murderer I can easily find to be "sympathetic," but you're going to have a hell of a time selling me on "they were right."

No, we killed someone who previously tried to reach out to us in good faith (though we couldn't confirm that at the time) but has since apparently abandoned that approach, shot all our friends in front of us and is now directly trying to kill us. Past good faith doesn't count for much at that point.

I have said before and will continue to say I do not blame the Scions whatsoever for not trusting Emet, that he went about trying to communicate he was acting in good faith like an absolute idiot, and they had every right to fight back and kill him once things had gone to shit. What is frustrating is seeing the arguments, because it did come to that, that Emet-Selch obviously never was extending good faith and never truly had hopes for humanity and wasn’t really interested in finding another way, which is completely untrue. Once again, “he was genuinely hoping for another way and was truly, sincerely rooting for us to pass his judgment” and “we still had to kill him because we didn’t accept his conditions and judgment as valid (even if he was being sincere about them and his hope we would meet them)” can both be true.

We absolutely had every right to fight back against and kill Emet-Selch to protect ourselves. That is also part of why I loved Shadowbringers and its invocation of the bitter tragedy of having to commit a “great and terrible thing” to protect what’s important to us. He did a lot of horrific things in the name of saving his people, and no one is obligated to give him a pass for that. But that means there’s no need to try to further muddy things by pretending Emet-Selch was worse and more malicious than he actually was. As harshly as I criticize Venat, it's textual that her intentions were good, she was acting out of a sense of love, and she truly did not believe there was any other way to save the world. Anyone who argues she did what she did out of actual malice is wrong.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Once again, it seems like it would be most prudent to bring this up. You know, since we're comparing the Scions' reactions and treatment of various "heroes" and "villains" in game. So, like.... I noticed this little tidbit of Thancred's words which seemed MOST CONSPICUOUS post-Endwalker:



Why, how undeniably hostile of you, Thancred! Not at all as lionizing as a certain Warrior of Light Eara Grace would have you resemble, eh?!

Then, we have this:



Where was this attitude of Thancred's when we finally met Hydaelyn face to face, after learning of all she'd done?!

Or what of this:



Ah, but you DID countenance such an act Alphinaud! Why has your stance shifted so rapidly, and why? The circumstances are largely the same, and certainly the outcome is. So why? Why is Venat so justifiable, so redeemed despite possessing nothing to show for it?

All I'll say is that the difference is telling and palpable, despite my view likely being the opposite of some posters here.

[Lyth]

Emet and the Ascians did not 'seek cooperation' with humanity to annihilate their worlds and their people. They deceived the people of each shard and pitted them against each other. After Igeyorhm destroyed the Thirteenth and transformed its people into Voidsent, Elidibus set to work on using the survivors as his pawns under the pretext that they could 'save' the other shards. Cylva was used to betray Ardbert's team in order to try to create the Flood of Light, although the plan backfired and resulted in Loghrif's death and Mitron's transformation into Eden. When the First was on the verge of destruction, Elidibus tried to pit Ardbert and his team against the Source with false promises.

The Ascians show no mercy to their own kind, either. When Mitron was left in a debilitated state after his transformation, unable to move or do anything other than whisper for help, Emet left him to rot for a hundred years because his soul fragment was replaceable and freeing him would set back their plans.

I think Emet is charismatic. And it does sound like he was a good person at one point. But I think it's a massive stretch to characterize his actions in Shadowbringers as 'benevolent'. I think the Hades Ex fight says it best:



Throw in an Ancient Double down for good measure.

[Vyrerus]

Didn't think actions that were morally incorrect but existentially necessary (lit. necessary evils) were that controversial an idea.

No, no one is saying that.

The controversy doesn't come from the obviousness of evil sometimes being necessary.

It comes from said evils being painted as noble. It comes from questioning whether or not they were indeed, necessary.

[Enkidoh]

Once again, it seems like it would be most prudent to bring this up. You know, since we're comparing the Scions' reactions and treatment of various "heroes" and "villains" in game. So, like.... I noticed this little tidbit of Thancred's words which seemed MOST CONSPICUOUS post-Endwalker:



Why, how undeniably hostile of you, Thancred! Not at all as lionizing as a certain Warrior of Light Eara Grace would have you resemble, eh?!

Considering Thancred had his body stolen by an Ascian and very nearly died as a result of said possession (and still gets suspicion and resentment towards him from small-minded people), I think he can be forgiven for not being exactly jovial towards Emet.