Endwalker Story sucked and it's time to admit it

[AwesomeJr44]

If you consider Venat to be genocidal, then you must concede that Emet-Selch is also genocidal, despite motivations. If the former "glorifies suffering", the latter cares nothing when causing suffering through calamity after calamity. This speaks of a great disregard and disdain for any creature who does not possess an Ancient's soul. A far cry from the idyllic dreaming of players about the True Goodness of the Ancients. What a god creates, a god can destroy, and, as we learn in both Amaurot and Elpis, they show a distinct lack of empathy for created beings. Even beings that have a soul.

The actions of Emet-Selch are also tainted by their knowledge that not a single Ancient soul that is brought back will ever be whole, given the mess they made of the Void.

So, continue to despise Venat, but you must also provide the same level of that feeling for Emet-Selch as well.

Not necessarily. Nuance is a thing, so although I do dislike that Emet is so eager to commit genocides without any care for if he kills people, I find it to be less despicable than Venat's similar actions. At least in Emet's case, he's the equivalent of a human killing monkeys. Yes, it's bad to go around killing monkeys but when compared to killing other full humans en masse, it's not as evil. Are both genocide? Yes, but one is clearly worse.

(Plus, Venat spared Emet knowing what he'd do, so she's an accomplice to everything he did)

[DPZ2]

Not necessarily. Nuance is a thing, so although I do dislike that Emet is so eager to commit genocides without any care for if he kills people, I find it to be

So, there are apparently varying 'degrees' of genocide now, right. And you liken the Ancients' attitude toward the New Life as justified in its genocide. In Real Life, genocide is always justified in that way.

We also have justification in destroying the remaining Ancients ... monkeys can retaliate. There is nothing morally wrong with the monkeys overwhelming and killing their hunters.

I now feel justified that the last of the conscious Ancients has been eradicated, Venat or not ...

[AwesomeJr44]

So, there are apparently varying 'degrees' of genocide now, right. And you liken the Ancients' attitude toward the New Life as justified in its genocide. In Real Life, genocide is always justified in that way.

I never said Emet's genocide was justified (although I didn't say it wasn't either), I said that it was slightly less bad than Venat's because he wasn't killing full people. In addition, contrary to real life examples, the ancients actually ARE superior beings compared to the sundered who are literally inferior by nature of being sundered, thus comparing the sundered to monkeys is an accurate comparison. The sundered are not complete people, they are only partially so. If you find offense to this, too bad. The story itself shows that the unsundered are superior beings. Facts don't care about your sundered feelings.

We also have justification in destroying the remaining Ancients ... monkeys can retaliate. There is nothing morally wrong with the monkeys overwhelming and killing their hunters.

I don't disagree. You're arguing with a strawman argument that I never made. If you try and kill a monkey, the monkey can retaliate. This is why I don't see a moral issue with the scions attempting to stop Emet in SHB. From an outside perspective as someone from neither race, the unsundered have more of a right to life (keep in mind the souls inside Zodiark were still there and intact meaning they had a chance to return) than the sundered do, but that doesn't mean the sundered have to just roll over and accept death quietly.

I've seen this so often, but never actually read anything concrete to support this belief, other than some words of Emet-Selch, who has been tempered by Zodiark and, while he might believe what he says, there is no signed (or even verbal) contract I've found in-game to support that belief.

The 'Emet was tempered' argument is thrown around quite a bit and I find it pretty stupid. It honestly seems less like a genuine attempt at understanding the lore and more of trying to discount parts of the story they don't like. The souls inside Zodiark were mostly intact when we arrived at the moon. There's no reason why the souls could not be exchanged, nor why Zodiark would have an issue with trading an Ancient soul for aether equivalent of said soul. Zodiark was made with the purpose of saving the ancients, betraying them and refusing to hand over the souls would be betraying his purpose for existence.

Using this logic, can we assume that anything Krile says in the future is bullcrap as she MIGHT be tempered by Hydaelyn due to her possession?

[DPZ2]

There's no reason why the souls could not be exchanged, nor why Zodiark would have an issue with trading an Ancient soul for aether equivalent of said soul. Zodiark was made with the purpose of saving the ancients, betraying them and refusing to hand over the souls would be betraying his purpose for existence.

And the source from this dearly held belief is ... what? A gut feeling? The story line as I've seen it does not allow for any such assumptions about Zodiark.

Be specific in your quotes/references where this was all explicitly laid out as a contract between the Ancients and Zodiark.


As an aside, if there was always an understanding that Zodiark would return the souls of those who sacrificed themselves, so that they could be rebuilt whole, at the cost of any or all of the new life created through the process, what does that say about the morality of the sacrifice of the Ancients to preserve their planet and the remaining population? (I wanted to say "nobility" but having and using a "Get Out of Jail for Free" card at hand does not make for a noble sacrifice, or any sacrifice at all).