Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Veloran]

That says nothing about whether she expected us to win or not.

"You surpassed my expectations. You surpassed me." doesn't mean that she didn't expect you to surpass her?

So this is an argumentative sleight of hand. There's a profound difference between it could come to that and it will, a fundamental seperation between believing one succeed and not believing one could but holding onto to a vague hope.

She developed the entire moon plan, even if she hoped it wouldn't be necessary she clearly did think it likely enough to create an entire race to do it.

The level of anger direct at Venat far exceeds any other character in 14,

Venat's level of importance to the story far exceeds any other character in 14. Every decision she made is fundamental to the state of the world as it is.

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.

The Ascians were our enemy. That's the difference. I should have no expectation of good treatment, fairness, honesty, or loyalty from someone that is my enemy. If an Ascian lies to, manipulates, and murders the sundered, that is par for the course. This is why Emet-Selch being conflicted over the sundered was so intriguing, because despite being our enemy he was going out of his way to show a level of concern for his opposition that his position didn't really call for. And this is exactly why Venat doesn't get that sympathy, because she was always presented as our ally, and never extended the same level of empathy as Emet-Selch did, arguably for her own people in the Ancients, her enemies in the Ascians, and for the sundered.

If Venat was an antagonist, and was presented as being against us rather than always just being out "for our own good", I can guarantee you I'd like her far more, in fact she might be one of my favorite characters. If the plot wasn't begging me to like her, having all the other characters say how great and noble she is even when it contravenes their own ideals, I'd be far more willing to accept her behavior and actions. Morally, anyway. The plot issues surrounding all the time travel is something different, but that might not even be the case if she wasn't supposed to be doing this all for us to begin with.

Completely, totally and utterly off the mark. Let me repeat myself. I view Venat's actions as wholly right, and would, if I were in this universe, do what I can to see her plan to fruition because of that. My black and white thinking hasn't changed, even if I recognize the moral complexity inherent in these discussions.

You think her actions are wholly right and that she's morally white? That's a little strange, considering the very stringent moral positions you've taken before, like insisting that you'd never kill an innocent person to save someone you loved. That's morally reprehensible, but you would also be complicit in genocides because Venat is wholly right?

As I said in November of last year

And as I responded in November last year,

The reason this comes off as a silly point is that Venat is nothing but the flipside of the Ancient coin. Someone who committed genocide and manipulates history, except where the Ascians "meant well" for themselves, she "meant well" for (supposedly) "us". So when the developers literally go as far as to explicitly state that there is no good or evil between the two sides yet there is still the insistence that she is more morally righteous, obviously there will be a reaction in the opposite direction.

I mean, to say that people "want [Venat] to have flaws" implies from the outset that there is a belief that she lacks flaws and opinions to the contrary are merely villainization.

As I've outlined numerous times before, in terms of her actions Venat is fundamentally the same as Emet-Selch. Yoshida says she's another example of "the Ancient way of thinking", and the Omega questline directly calls out what she did and parallels her with the antagonists. To argue from this black and white position where she's supposedly completely justified and righteous is utterly contradictory.

[Brinne]

So ultimately the issue you have is that Venats actions, that you feel are unjust, create dissonance not because how the narrative treats them, but because they are not in opposition to our own goals? That has no bearing on narrative dissonance.

No, because in a game like FFXIV, the responses of the protagonist - your avatar in the game - and your allies, who are generally cast as "good" and "righteous" and have spoken up as such against people in the past who have done things very, very similar to what Venat did - heavily weigh in on the question of "what the narrative does" and "how the narrative is directing its audience to see its events." When we say narrative dissonance or narrative framing, we are talking about how the story is skewed to ask us to view certain characters or events. How these things are talked about and reacted to in-universe is actually a critical part of that. Otherwise, what is your understanding of what informs the construction of "narrative tone"?

One can write Venat off as evil or wrong and still have no cause to undo her actions.

The thing is, one part of what you just outlined decidedly did not actually happen in the story alongside the other, which is the entire issue at hand here. "This is absolutely wrong and unacceptable, but there isn't justification to undo the effects" is something that FFXIV has ACTUALLY DONE in regards to other plot points. Ilberd's actions were unambiguously unacceptable, cruel, and wrong - and yet the in-universe reaction was still to go along with the intended effect of his actions, leading to the liberation of Ala Mhigo and Doma. The entire role quest in Ishgard, and a large part of Ishgard's narrative as a whole, is that the original crime and the subsequent lies about it by both Thordans and the church are unambiguously ABSOLUTELY WRONG, but one needn't go as far as to completely obliterate and undo the societal and religious structures that subsequently were born from them.

With all due respect I think you are completely wrong on this. The apologism the game offers the Ancients is just as egregious.

Once again, there is an ENORMOUS difference between "understandable" and "correct," and "motives" and "actions" in regards to either. My favorite character in all of fiction? A mass murderer who needlessly slaughtered an entire family. The story they are in revolves around the idea that their actions are incredibly, overwhelmingly understandable given their circumstances, and are deserving of understanding, but does not once argue that they are correct. (It argues the opposite, actually - because you can still do that while heavily pressing on the sympathy of what caused them to take the actions they do.) One might influence how I see an individual character, one way or another, which in a game like FFXIV is something I can get past. The other influences how I see the entire story and the values that fuel it. One makes me roll my eyes, and keep playing. The other makes me ask if I feel okay even playing this damn game.

If Venat's motives - a desperation to protect the world, being stuck in a terrible situation, were, similarly, still given utmost sympathy, I would have absolutely no problem with that. Hell, I'd want that. She was objectively stuck in a terrible position and she truly believed her ideals and convictions were best for humanity and the only way to save anything. I wouldn't even object to an approach of "if I personally knew my actions were going to determine the fate of the entire universe, maybe I would have resorted to such extremes, too" - similarly to Emet-Selch. But that is wholly separate from giving a stamp of approval to the subsequent actions and methods that she took in service to that motive, even with the allowance she was under enormous psychological pressure.

And there is the point I'm trying to make. This isn't the narrative doing something it hasn't in the past. This is about whether one personally finds the dissonance too much, which is ultimately based on subjectivity. The latitude of acceptance after all varies from person to person.

Yes. And I am trying to communicate that a person seeing dissonance within the narrative in regards to Venat and seeing her as breaking the game's story is valid and has citable textual basis. That is the reason why I try to make an effort to refer to the text and textual events as being poorly constructed and contradictory to one another in regards to the Ancients and Venat. This isn't about "I don't like Venat because I don't like her attitude/aesthetic or that she hurt my favorite characters, so I'm going to reach for any justification possible to dislike her." (Her attitude and aesthetic is great, by the way, and people should honestly hurt my favorite characters more. Do it!) This is about "oh god, she broke the entire story, the intended values of the story, and the heroism of the protagonists, on which the heroic fantasy of the entire game hinges upon."

Now, someone is obviously allowed to still like Venat and state: "these things didn't particularly bother me, personally." On a subjective level, that's fine. I have characters and situations I feel similarly to - where I say "mmhm, your perspective is totally valid and probably correct based on the actual text, although I can't really personally get super worked up about it." But that doesn't mean that there is not discussion to be had about what objectively exists in the text and building criticism based on that - otherwise all discussion of any story, anywhere, would be ultimately pointless. I can't argue against someone who says that, for example, the recovery of Ishgard is super idealized and sort of irresponsible in that fact, especially in how it treats the corrupt nobility with Kid Gloves. They're objectively right. But personally? Eh. I also can't argue with someone who argues the wrap-up with the Nanamo assassination plotline was ridiculous and cheapened the ending of ARR. But once again? Eh.

Which was immediately preceded by a moment where the game draws a direct parallel between Graha himself and Elidibus in all the ways you mentioned.

I mean, you've done nothing more than continue to illustrate my point, which is that yes, both Venat and the Unsundered are extended a lot of sympathetic, positive description and dialogue from the game. One, however, is completely lacking the flip side of that, while the other absolutely has it. None of what you just quoted undoes what G'raha then condemns Elidibus for: for being blind, that he failed, that his power was ill-begotten, obtained from exploitation from good people who didn't deserve to be used like that.

I don't need you to justify your feelings, your allowed to feel as you wish. But understand that the extensive changes others advocate for, that I believe you to argue for, run counter to what I wish to see from this game and would in fact run counter to the things others would as well.

When you suggest that Venat is singled out and disliked disproportionately to other characters, that is a form of asking people to justify their feelings, because you're suggesting there's an unfair bias at play, that people are singling her out for invalid or dishonest reasons - which, yes, is asking me to justify my feelings. I'm allowed to clarify what my position is when it's misconstrued. Once again, I've whole-heartedly loved characters that have done things just as bad as Venat. I've loved characters explicitly BECAUSE they hated the Ascians, oppose them and had no qualms expressing it. I am absolutely pro-strong female characters, and was unbelievably hyped for Venat partially on that basis before Endwalker.

So what, to your mind, is the reason I single Venat out "excessively" in my "level of anger," beyond any other character?

I'm sure an understanding can be met, and believe me I actually do appreciate the way the Omega quests try's do just that. But the extent of change to which you apparently feel is necessary would take away a huge part of the story that I enjoy.

Also, yeah, "others" are not "me." I don't expect anyone to extensively follow my post history, but I've made it clear, and posted as such in the past, that I probably strongly disagree with most of the points raised on A Certain Thread. I am not speaking for anyone other than Me, and How I Read Things, and likewise, nobody else speaks for me, either. It's a little frustrating when I see the positions of people who are Definitely Not Me used to generalize and undermine my own thoughts and positions. You may not intend it, but it's basically poisoning the well.

Ok. I'm not opposed to that. If that's all then I think that's personally fine. Renaming minions, rewriting the Unending Codex however, is too much,

Cool! I'm glad we can find common ground in this. Personally speaking (because I am not a hive mind with other people in A Certain Thread), I don't think the minion and Codex description are that big a deal either way. Do I think as they exist in the game they're dumb? Well, yeah - probably similarly to how you feel about the description of Hades EX. Do I think they need to be changed or the game is ruined forever? Eh. Not really. Seems a relatively minor thing to get super hung up on.

We get an entire short story saying just that. Do you genuinely believe that the scene where we are informed of his dead son, who died to the Sundered's "fraility," wasn't the writers "emphasizing how hard and sad it was for him to build and enact imperialism for the sake of the those he loved." Hell the whole Nier side plot is exactly that as well! Nothing but I do what I do for the ones I love to which characters give sad faces to.

No, this is something entirely different - building sympathy for Emet based on loss of family and subsequent internal conflict over his own actions, questioning if he should stop continues to be an entirely different ballpark from hyping up the actual spread of Imperialism as "hard but ultimately necessary and Correct." If anything, in regards to Emet's outlook on "the Garlean Empire", it reinforces that he was cruel and callous - he's indifferent to the point of falling asleep during his duties, reminds himself that these fragmented souls are disgusting and not his brethren.

And yet the game did just that by giving a voiced character the opportunity to say they would do the exact same thing as Emet if they were in his shoes.

No, once again, absolutely not. "I would probably do the same in that situation" is NOT the same thing as "I think that action is correct." It is a concession that under extreme emotional pressure and trauma, it is understandable and human to make certain harmful decisions or adopt certain harmful mindsets. What Alisaie is saying is that if she had ALSO endured losses and tragedy on the level of Emet-Selch, she can't honestly say she'd do any better.

For another example: look at the Garleans in Endwalker. My stance on them has always been that the zone is incredibly harrowing and well-written because of its stark, brutal illustration of the effect of nationalist propaganda on a population. Because anyone can be vulnerable to that. The Garleans are not uniquely bad or weak in that regard. It could happen to anybody, any group of people. The fact of the propaganda and its effects are starkly, nakedly, flat out, Wrong. But that doesn't mean I'm going to fool myself and say that Only Bad People and Definitely Not Me can be susceptible to such things.

As you yourself and others have said, having empathy is different from having approval - so I know for a fact that you understand this.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Cool! I'm glad we can find common ground in this. Personally speaking (because I am not a hive mind with other people in A Certain Thread), I don't think the minion and Codex description are that big a deal either way. Do I think as they exist in the game they're dumb? Well, yeah - probably similarly to how you feel about the description of Hades EX. Do I think they need to be changed or the game is ruined forever? Eh. Not really. Seems a relatively minor thing to get super hung up on.

Well, that wasn't very nice of you. Singling people out like that. You're not as clever as you believe yourself to be, Brinne.

Also, the Unending Codex is ABSOLUTELY egregious to the very max. We, the Warrior of Light, are erasing history by writing the Ancients and their deeds out of history. The Star's true name? Nobody will ever learn it, because we'll never tell them. Seems we WERE taking notes from dear old Mommy, because if you'll recall withholding the truth is what she was best at.

The Will of the Star? Hydaelyn was never that. How dare she take that title from who it truly belonged to. She has NO RIGHT, titles are given not taken. Those who take titles upon themselves they were never deemed worthy of by others are typically referred to as tyrants. Like declaring oneself King out of nowhere, having not earned the throne. How dare us for giving her a title she doesn't deserve, and how dare Square for making this canon. They spit on what little good they left post-Endwalker. THAT IS egregious, make no mistake.

[EaraGrace]

"You surpassed my expectations. You surpassed me." doesn't mean that she didn't expect you to surpass her?

She developed the entire moon plan, even if she hoped it wouldn't be necessary she clearly did think it likely enough to create an entire race to do it.

You are making unjustified logical leaps. We know her whole plan rested on us succeeding. We know that from the moment the Sundering occurred she was waiting for humanity to come and defeat her. None of that makes sense if we believe, as you do, that she never expected us to win. The Sundering would be pointless, her faith in us pointless, all of the sacrifices pointless. As she says to Alisaie when asked if their only option was to flee:

Far from it my child.

Venat's level of importance to the story far exceeds any other character in 14. Every decision she made is fundamental to the state of the world as it is.

And the Ascians aren't also?!

And this is exactly why Venat doesn't get that sympathy, because she was always presented as our ally, and never extended the same level of empathy as Emet-Selch did, arguably for her own people in the Ancients, her enemies in the Ascians, and for the sundered.

Emet killed himself rather than live longer by Venats magic. Venat meanwhile empathized with the Convocation even as she worked against them. To say she didn't extend the same level of empathy as Emet, whose care for us was contingent on a subjective and ultimately meaningless test, is ridiculous.

That's a little strange, considering the very stringent moral positions you've taken before, like insisting that you'd never kill an innocent person to save someone you loved. That's morally reprehensible, but you would also be complicit in genocides because Venat is wholly right?

Yep, I would never kill an innocent in exchange for the life of someone I care about. My moral consideration isn't contingent on whether I find them personally appealing. Pulling the trolley lever in order to avert the death of all life in exchange for saving those we can? I will every single time.

You gonna continue to try to tell me what my moral system is Veloran?

And as I responded in November last year,

As I've outlined numerous times before, in terms of her actions Venat is fundamentally the same as Emet-Selch.

So treat her as Emet then. I don't remember this level of backlash to him do you? There was some for sure, but the lore forums could at least discuss anything without it reverting to that topic.

So what, to your mind, is the reason I single Venat out "excessively" in my "level of anger," beyond any other character?

You believe you have an objective reason to dislike the narrative surrounding her, one that exists regardless of subjective tastes. As you say:

Now, someone is obviously allowed to still like Venat and state: "these things didn't particularly bother me, personally." On a subjective level, that's fine. I have characters and situations I feel similarly to - where I say "mmhm, your perspective is totally valid and probably correct based on the actual text, although I can't really personally get super worked up about it." But that doesn't mean that there is not discussion to be had about what objectively exists in the text and building criticism based on that - otherwise all discussion of any story, anywhere, would be ultimately pointless.

Yes. And I am trying to communicate that a person seeing dissonance within the narrative in regards to Venat and seeing her as breaking the game's story is valid and has citable textual basis. That is the reason why I try to make an effort to refer to the text and textual events as being poorly constructed and contradictory to one another in regards to the Ancients and Venat. This isn't about "I don't like Venat because I don't like her attitude/aesthetic or that she hurt my favorite characters, so I'm going to reach for any justification possible to dislike her." (Her attitude and aesthetic is great, by the way, and people should honestly hurt my favorite characters more. Do it!) This is about "oh god, she broke the entire story, the intended values of the story, and the heroism of the protagonists, on which the heroic fantasy of the entire game hinges upon."

I obviously disagree with that. But truthfully, relitigating this will be just us engaging in the same arguments we have both already heard. We can go through it again, if you want to.

You may not intend it, but it's basically poisoning the well.

Ok, let me ask you something. Why do you think I feel like the well was poisoned long before this conversation?

Cool! I'm glad we can find common ground in this. Personally speaking (because I am not a hive mind with other people in A Certain Thread), I don't think the minion and Codex description are that big a deal either way. Do I think as they exist in the game they're dumb? Well, yeah - probably similarly to how you feel about the description of Hades EX. Do I think they need to be changed or the game is ruined forever? Eh. Not really. Seems a relatively minor thing to get super hung up on.

Others would disagree and argue that they have objective reasons to demand its change.

No, once again, absolutely not. "I would probably do the same in that situation" is NOT the same thing as "I think that action is correct." It is a concession that under extreme emotional pressure and trauma, it is understandable and human to make certain harmful decisions or adopt certain harmful mindsets. What Alisaie is saying is that if she had ALSO endured losses and tragedy on the level of Emet-Selch, she can't honestly say she'd do any better.

If one of the world's greatest heroes says "I wouldn't do differently" I take that as a pretty serious statement, especially if the narrative also frames him in similarly glowing ways. If I said "I'd do similarly" when talking about a historical figure I wouldn't be able to claim that I simply empathize no?

[Rulakir]

I don't have the time to dedicate as much as I'd like to this topic at the moment, I just wanted to throw this quote into the ring because Venat did remind me a lot of Thordan.



I thought Thordan's goals had noble intent, but the execution was problematic and that's why we had to stop him. The difference is with Venat no one was able to stop her, she was allowed to make herself a god, reshape the world in her image, and the only 3 people who could remember what she did (and were in a position to do anything about it) are routinely dismissed (how convenient to disregard victim testimony) because they're Ascians (who only exist due to Hydaelyn).

Emet killed himself rather than live longer by Venats magic.

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

[EaraGrace]

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

Oh god this is definition of splitting hairs. They could’ve hung out longer but choose not to because Emet didn’t like that it was Venats magic that sustained him. Distinction with little difference.

[Iscah]

EN localizers making things unnecessarily confusing since 5.0! Neither Emet or Hyth are "alive". Hydaelyn's boost allowed the WoL to give their souls form when they were summoned, but it's not like they were resurrected. Emet (even in EN) says they're "half-faded souls of the dead". So, they didn't kill themselves, their souls simply returned to the aetherial sea.

So did the English script fail to clarify that they weren't truly resurrected, or make it clear by having Emet state it in a different line?

I've meant to respond to this specific claim when I saw you post it before, but the discussion moved past it.

Just because it doesn't say in the exact same line between Japanese and English that they're only half-alive, the fact is still conveyed within that scene, and that's all it needs.

[Rulakir]

So did the English script fail to clarify that they weren't truly resurrected, or make it clear by having Emet state it in a different line?

It's more that the Mothercrystal cutscene clarifies what Hydaelyn adds to the Azem crystal and what that will allow it to do, so when the UT cutscene comes up you're already aware that Emet and Hyth weren't resurrected they were merely called from the aetherial sea and given form.

The forces I have control over as Hydaelyn are those of stagnation, of calmness. That which steadies life, you could say it like that.
Combined with the power of Azem you should be able to call that which is hidden and give form to it. But it is limited.
Even those who don't even have a body anymore will answer your call...just like the souls in the Aetherial Sea.
But you need to be aware of one thing. Azem's art is not simple magic. Rather, it is based on your own will that will only take form once you carry a heartfelt wish within you.

Emet is also a lot more direct when he answers Meteion saying, "I'm just a dead man on the verge of disappearing." But, like I said, even in EN he says he's a "half-faded soul of the dead" so there's already acknowledgment he hasn't been resurrected there. His saying that he doesn't wish to live again/kept alive by Hydaelyn's magic is a consistent line, but without the previous context can be confusing. It's why I wanted to clarify that he didn't 'kill himself', he was and is already dead throughout that whole sequence. He just chose not to remain there any longer than necessary. (May be splitting hairs for some, but I've seen plenty of people confused by this!)