Tales from the Dawn

[Lelila38]

How would that have helped? Venat's actions in the Sundering are the most morally grey part of the whole resolution.

What are you actually envisaging we would have gotten instead? What characterisation has changed in your view?

Venat did a horrible thing, she thought she did the right thing at the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was horrible.
And it should have been treated as such. If the scions had stayed true to their ideals they keep preaching at every chance they get, they'd have called her out on it.
Instead, they keep praising her all the time.
Worse, my WoL does it too. It's this difference between what's presented in the game, what I'm forced to answer to it and what I'm actually feeling that causes me an incredible disconnect with my character and the story.

And just don't start with "she managed to get results that way" - no! The ends do NOT justify the means.

[Alleo]

There is actually precedent for this post Sundering too - past Astral Eras had automata doing most of the fighting in wars like golems in the War of the Magi, or mammets like the Onion Knights in Allag, so the Ancients doing the same thing wouldn't be too unbelivable. Of course this is all speculation based on a few ambigious lines, but it does go some way to explaining why things ended up how they did. And that was despite the warm glow of paradise ancient Etheirys appeared to be, there was very much a dark side to the ancient Unsundered world that ultimately festered and rotted through once the flaking 'perfection' broke away. So really all Venat did was force the blinders off. After all, Venat herself stated "that there has always been sorrow", all the Ancients did was shove it under the rug and pretended it didn't exist.

Yeah Azem as a position is also a hint that not all was well. We know from this tale what Venat did and even there its mentioned that for some things, she needed the help of others. Our Azem too needed to summon friends to their side. Why would that be necessary if its mostly just some wild monsters? Why would someone like Emet get to their side if it was easy?

The raid also mentions that Azem loved to look for treasures and stuff like that. Why would something like that even be buried? Honestly its sounds like Azem was basically a adventurer.

And the raid also shows that Ancients can be evil. That they can put their own (bad) interest before the others. Or in the case of Lahabrea even kill for the "greater good".

Venat did a horrible thing, she thought she did the right thing at the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was horrible.
And it should have been treated as such. If the scions had stayed true to their ideals they keep preaching at every chance they get, they'd have called her out on it.

She is the reason why the scions (and the rest of the people) even exist. And when we do get to her she even says that this has brought suffering, that this was not kind. Not only that but we as the WoL can tell her to her face in the beginning that we dont trust her anymore. I dont see why we needed more than that. Of course they would be more positive towards the person that bascially created them and that also ensured that the sundered people have a way out if we fail. (With the Moon being a ship)

Next to that we do get the Omega quests where the WoL can say what they do think about it.

Honestly why should the scions react way more with someone that is bascially on their side, while they still were nice enough with Emet in Shadowbringers and more with him in Ultima, where Alisaie even seemed sad that he would move on instead of coming with them. The same with our character who is written as really liking him and even reaching out to him in Elpis. To someone that destroyed whole planets.

If the scions should behave hostile toward Venat than the Ascians should have been threated much worser too.

[Tehmon]

Venat did a horrible thing, she thought she did the right thing at the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was horrible.
And it should have been treated as such. If the scions had stayed true to their ideals they keep preaching at every chance they get, they'd have called her out on it.
Instead, they keep praising her all the time.
Worse, my WoL does it too. It's this difference between what's presented in the game, what I'm forced to answer to it and what I'm actually feeling that causes me an incredible disconnect with my character and the story.

And just don't start with "she managed to get results that way" - no! The ends do NOT justify the means.

Guess what, they do that same exact thing with Emet.

I look at his tea cup when he leaves all depressed.
I stretch out my hand at him as his memories are getting erased.
I look all upset that he is returning to the aetherial sea finally for good.
I think of him as a tragic hero and a formidable ally whom I think fondly of as per Omega quest.

In general the game is pretty clear with the WoL thinking of ascians, namely Emet and Elidibus, as tragic heroes. The last Red Mage job quest you can say just that, that you were fighting heroes turned villains in the First.

All of these are forced upon me despite what I personally feel about Emet, and what my character would feel. But I don't really care because roleplaying doesn't start and end with what happens and is said in the game.

She is the reason why the scions (and the rest of the people) even exist. And when we do get to her she even says that this has brought suffering, that this was not kind. Not only that but we as the WoL can tell her to her face in the beginning that we dont trust her anymore. I dont see why we needed more than that. Of course they would be more positive towards the person that bascially created them and that also ensured that the sundered people have a way out if we fail. (With the Moon being a ship)

Next to that we do get the Omega quests where the WoL can say what they do think about it.

Honestly why should the scions react way more with someone that is bascially on their side, while they still were nice enough with Emet in Shadowbringers and more with him in Ultima, where Alisaie even seemed sad that he would move on instead of coming with them. The same with our character who is written as really liking him and even reaching out to him in Elpis. To someone that destroyed whole planets.

If the scions should behave hostile toward Venat than the Ascians should have been threated much worser too.

Hydaelyn also clearly states, in front of the scions, that she knows what she did was awful and there is no justice in it. That's something none of the ascians ever, EVER admit to. In truth, none of the scions seemed especially interested in starting a Hydaelyn fanclub either, and were ready to just beat her up. They came out of the trial without much grief of sorrow, if any, and were just happy to have a way to Meteion above all. Not sure how much more you need beyond that.

[Theodric]

The difference between Emet and Venat is that the former is called out, repeatedly throughout the story. This is even despite him helping the Scions directly from time to time - or are we conveniently forgetting that he is the reason Y'shtola is even still around?

Many of us have actively stated a desire for more tweaking to how our character can react to the game's characters and narratives. A lot of you have even responded to these requests in the past, from what I recall, so it strikes me as rather disingenuous to try and pretend otherwise.

Back to Venat, though? When your plan involves genocide and it is framed as the 'correct' route forward that's a pretty big thing to spring on the player. It didn't go down well when World of Warcraft made Horde players complicit in genocide and it certainly didn't go down well over here when the same thing happened in FFXIV.

I'm also not going to pretend as if the 'other side' would not be vocally opposed to the story decisions if, for example, the story had decided that the First was a lost cause and would be Rejoined to the Source.

There's also those of us who do not self insert in the first place and simply want a consistent, logical story that doesn't throw away established rules and morals when it comes to the protagonists but actively applies them to the antagonists without exception.

[Lelila38]

Yet we do call Emet out on his crimes.
We don't agree with him or tell him what a poor person he is, who suffered so much. We don't excuse his actions with "he had no other choice".

But we do all these things for Hydaelyn.

And that is all I wanted. For Hydaelyn to be called out on her crimes, the same as the Ascians are called out on theirs.

[Iscah]

Venat did a horrible thing, she thought she did the right thing at the time, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was horrible.
And it should have been treated as such. If the scions had stayed true to their ideals they keep preaching at every chance they get, they'd have called her out on it.
Instead, they keep praising her all the time.
Worse, my WoL does it too. It's this difference between what's presented in the game, what I'm forced to answer to it and what I'm actually feeling that causes me an incredible disconnect with my character and the story.

And just don't start with "she managed to get results that way" - no! The ends do NOT justify the means.

I'm not in the camp of justifying what she was shown to have done.

My point is that what she did was badly written, and I lay the blame at the writers' feet for making her actions so at odds with how they want us to think of her.

It comes down to a difference between fiction and real life, because in reality what a person did is absolute, while what other people think of that person's actions comes second. But this is a story, so if the facts between two scenes clash and create a continuity error (for lack of a better phrase here) then that error can be in the scene of what "really happened" just as easily as it can be in the characters' judgement of her actions.

If Venat acted as she did, the Scions should be bothered by it.

If the Scions are not bothered by her actions, then the writer(s) must not have properly considered how bad Venat's actions were, and the rightful repercussions.

Therefore I am inclined to trust the accuracy of the many times Venat is consistently treated as "good" versus the one scene where she is shown to be "bad".

I don't condone her actions. But I think it was a misstep by the writers, and unless the story comes back to dwell on them again then it doesn't actually affect anything in the long run. Even if the scene of Venat's actions is true and the Scions' reaction is the error, all that would change is that they might have said a few less-complimentary things to her in that one scene, and everything else would continue on in the same direction that it did anyway.

[Tehmon]

Emet barely gets called out. All the scions can say is '' you are an annoying poopoohead ascian (mostly Thancred) '' or '' ughhhhh it is completely logical for you to oppose us, we completely understand you, we are of the same mind, but you're trying to kill all the people of the sundered world so we need to stop you ''

And then you have WoL whose '' calling out '' consists of...

'' I am have things to say to you/I am here for my catboy! ''
and
'' This ends here ''

And then rest of the ShB and Endwalker the '' hero turned villain, tragic hero '' storyline ramps up for Emet.

It's pretty weak my guy. But I'm also not saying they should change it to anything else.

[Theodric]

Emet barely gets called out. All the scions can say is '' you are an annoying poopoohead ascian (mostly Thancred) '' or '' ughhhhh it is completely logical for you to oppose us, we completely understand you, we are of the same mind, but you're trying to kill all the people of the sundered world so we need to stop you ''

And then you have WoL whose '' calling out '' consists of...

'' I am have things to say to you/I am here for my catboy! ''
and
'' This ends here ''

And then rest of the ShB and Endwalker the '' hero turned villain, tragic hero '' storyline ramps up for Emet.

It's pretty weak my guy. But I'm also not saying they should change it to anything else.

He's called out repeatedly during the course of Shadowbringers and never quite becomes a 'friend' to the group. He's there to explain his side of the story - and yes, to his people he is a tragic hero given that he was forced into the position by Venat's horrific campaign of genocide. It isn't reasonable to expect him to just roll over and give up when his loved ones are at stake and as you'll note, a lot of people who support him not only accept that but also accept that the same applies to the Sundered. They, too, aren't obligated to roll over and die for the sake of the Unsundered.

Thus Shadowbringers was widely praised for being a story of two sides with unenviable responsibilities and potential consequences to deal with.

I don't believe you missed the part where the player character fights and kills Emet-Selch, either. Which easily qualifies as 'calling out'.

Furthermore, when we travel to Elpis the characters we interact with are not actually responsible for anything they did in the future at the time. Unless you want to go down the slippery slope of pre-emptively punishing people for things they will or might do in the future.

[Rulakir]

Y'all need to replay ShB and not skip cutscenes this time. Anyone who thinks Emet was treated as amicably as Venat was clearly not paying attention.

[Tehmon]

Y'all need to replay ShB and not skip cutscenes this time. Anyone who thinks Emet was treated as amicably as Venat was clearly not paying attention.

I didn't say that. Emet is clearly a villain, and he gets treated as such, but considering how big of a monster he is IN MY OPINION, he gets a pretty good edit at the end of everything that I do not think he deserves, but nevertheless accept.