Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Enkidoh]

Azem had no involvment in the Sundering whatsoever - you know, they remained neutral in the whole schism between the Convocation and Venat's loyalists (why else did they end up Sundered?). So saying that Venat made them complicit in the genocide of the Ancients was hyperbole at best and outright rubbish at worst.

Saying that due to the WoL killing the Ascians, technically only Igehoyrm was outright killed by the WoL, all the others met their ends in different ways and/or by different hands:

Nabrieles was killed more by Moenbrdya sacrificing herself to power the Blade of Light, although the WoL did land the final blow, it was only due to Moenbrdya providing her aether to do so.
Emet merely faded back to the Lifestream after his defeat as Hades, having finally made peace with himself and accepted the end
Fandaniel tried to kill himself as Zodiark only to fail and end up back in the Lifestream where his memories reset back to Amon, and then he went and got dragged back to the Lifestream by Asahi's vengeful spirit (as payback for Fandaniel possessing Asahi's corpse)
Elidibus sacrificed himself to open the portal back to the past (by his own choice too), having like Emet accepted the folly of the Ascians' plan and put his trust in the WoL
Lahabrea was killed by Thordan consuming his soul as aether to power his Primal Form
Mitron was killed by the WoL in body after he was freed from Eden, but his spirit remained and returned to the Lifestream, once again having accepted defeat and changed his attitude
Venat... kind of commited suicide in a way (even if we failed and the Exodus went ahead as she had planned, she would have remained behind on the dying planet and died to Meteion's onslaught eventually anyway

And of course, Loghrif is alive and well as Gaia.

Killing one sundered Ascian and two sort-ofs hardly counts as "complicit in the genocide of an entire race."

As for being the WoL supporting Hydaelyn/Venat, well, considering the alternative was... you know... destruction and almost certain death, of course you're going to throw in your lot with the kindly mother goddess that does nothing but try to protect you without forcing you to do anything, as opposed to the black-clad sorcerers who crow on about "the one true god" and are almost invaribely belligerent (up to outright declaring that "you have to die" paraphrased, but it was said repeatedly by them), that exercise an extreme form of racial superiority ("I do not consider you truely alive. Ergo, it would not be murder if I kill you."), and care nothing for the destruction they cause.

Supporting Venat/Hydaelyn isn't even in question in that regard.

[Tehmon]

Anyway, this is the full quote of the interview about Emet's disappointment.

https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1srq41a

'' I think at this point, my interpretation might be a little different. First of all, Emet-Selch to begin with is a 'true-human' (Unsundered), because of that, one such being would have no problems controlling that amount of Light, rather, it's a given that they'd have an easy time manipulating it, at least this is my interpretation. ''

'' For that bit, my interpretation is a lil' different from yours. But that doesn't mean it's strictly correct, what truly is correct is what you feel coming out from it all. And so, this is really just 'MY interpretation'. ''

'' Meaning Emet-Selch had reached a certain conclusion..... So, I'd like you to take another look at those scenes, and perhaps you may reach a different interpretation. But of course, I can't quite say that this is THE answer.

ー So this makes up one of the many interpretations, huh.

YoshiP: Yup, one of the many. ''

The only thing I'd like to point out how many times Yoshi-P mentions that it's his interpretation of the events. One can surely argue which parts are meant to be true and canon, but it's pretty clear that a lot of this is Yoshi's interpretation of the events, and he does not deny other interpretations coexisting and being as true. So taking Yoshi-P's words as word of God, in this case anyway, don't know whether that is a convincing argument or not.

[EaraGrace]

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.

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

Secondly, not all dissonance is created equal..

With all due respect I think you are completely wrong on this. The apologism the game offers the Ancients is just as egregious. The fact that men who buried billions because they didn't believe they were human and wished to bring about their ideal world are framed as "understandable" says it all. The only response we give to Emets arguments in SHB is that we are here and that gives the right to fight. We don't argue that its wrong for him to kill and slaughter to bring back his friends. Hell, even after everything they did we are still encouraged to befriend the man possessing the corpse of dead hero who intends to slaughter an entire world for no reason other than he misses his friends! All one has to do is look at the way the Scions treat Emet in Ultima Thule to see the problem. You are understating the level of narrative dissonance the game brings about in those moments.

Frankly, in prior cases of dissonance, I didn’t bother speaking up because I didn’t care enough.

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.

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!

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. 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.

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:

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.

...Elidibus spoke in similar terms, you say? How curious.

I cherish the time I spent with you and the others. What I wouldn't give to return to those halcyon days...

Chasing ancient secrets, overcoming trial after trial with the aid of like-minded comrades...

And what remarkable comrades they were. In such company, I felt as if I were a character in the epic tales that had stirred my heart as a boy. As if my dream had come true...

It hadn't, of course, for I was no hero. Neither then nor after. Though the world to which I awakened, and the First were beset with myriad problems, I rarely knew how best to play my part.

There was, however, one thing of which I was certain: that I could not bear to let those dear to me meet a tragic end.

You are given plenty of reason to view Graha's statement as ironic or downright hypocritical.

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?

So to you the only acceptable solution would be an ally, a named and voiced character, who knows what we know, condemning Venat for what she did.

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,

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.

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.

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."

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.

[Fenral]

Didn't think actions that were morally incorrect but existentially necessary (lit. necessary evils) were that controversial an idea. If we can't agree such things exist, there's no point in continuing to discuss this.

They aren't, I think, but people wanted to be on the side of a morally grey figure and just can't quite wrap their heads around the reveal that that figure was Hydaelyn all along.

I don't feel that I necessarily have to agree with Her, but I can at least pretend to get it. We can debate to the Hells and back over if their was a "better" choice to be made, but ultimately the very debate itself, and whatever stances result, could not even exist without the resultant pain of events that have already happened.

[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.