Tales from the Dawn

[Lauront]

I can no more disprove your speculation than you can prove it. However,



by the logic you use to theorize such a situation, you're inadvertently making the argument that actually the blinders aren't off and sundered people are openly guilty of the same things you're surmising about the Ancients.

It's a good thing those Rejoinings were there to keep things fresh by forcing a hard civilisational reset. Wouldn't want things to stagnate, after all. Life is getting too comfortable. If only every realm had a Zenos to keep it from becoming complacent and enthusiastically forge ahead with gusto.

[Iscah]

Emet was definitely treated well in Shadowbringers. Not from the start – and the Scions certainly had no reason to be welcoming towards him, between his background and how overtly suspiciously he was acting – but by the end we've learned he's actually our long-lost friend and he has significant reasons for what he's doing, and he's really quite a sensitive soul in his own way, and he gets a big sparkly farewell and then two Tales From the Shadows from his viewpoint.

The difference in amicability largely comes from the fact that he's trying to kill us on multiple occasions, and practically encouraging us to doubt his sincerity the rest of the time.

[jameseoakes]

Emet was definitely treated well in Shadowbringers. Not from the start – and the Scions certainly had no reason to be welcoming towards him, between his background and how overtly suspiciously he was acting – but by the end we've learned he's actually our long-lost friend and he has significant reasons for what he's doing, and he's really quite a sensitive soul in his own way, and he gets a big sparkly farewell and then two Tales From the Shadows from his viewpoint.

The difference in amicability largely comes from the fact that he's trying to kill us on multiple occasions, and practically encouraging us to doubt his sincerity the rest of the time.

I wouldn't say he was treated well, he was just very well written. Venat on the other hand is one of the worst written characters I have seen in a game for a long time, we're never really told anything about her other than how utterly amazing she is and the narrative is twisted to continentally tell us she is right and wonderful and how much she gave sacrificed for us while never really showing this and at worst showing the opposite (the whole making herself the god of the world thing doesn't do much for her giving anything up).

[Theodric]

I don't think it really matters that Hydaelyn isn't trying to actively kill our character or the Scions. If they're honest about their lines in the sand regarding morality, then they should be disgusted by the idea of genocide aimed not only at themselves but other groups even if they stand to indirectly benefit.

I'll showcase this lovely panel from a certain manga that recently concluded and dealt with similar themes:



We have a very large cast of characters in this game. The idea that not a single one of them could be fiercely opposed and angered by the knowledge of what Venat did feels like a stretch.

It also isn't mutually exclusive. A character can be thankful that a serial killer pushed them out of the way of an incoming train but also be disgusted by the fact that the serial killer is...well, a serial killer.

This is how things operate with Emet-Selch. At various points, they're thankful for the aid he provides in terms of reviving Y'shtola or offering up valuable information. Yet they never forget or pretend as if lacks a lot of blood on his hands.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Venat to be treated similarly with all that in mind.

[WellGramarye]

I see a lot of talk about the Scions v Emet, and how they should acknowledge things about Venat.

Question: When did ANY Scion other than the player character spend any time with Venat? Pre-ritual into a primal Venat?

Question 2: What did the Scions immediately do after they meet Hydaelyn for the first time?

[Rulakir]

The difference in amicability largely comes from the fact that he's trying to kill us on multiple occasions, and practically encouraging us to doubt his sincerity the rest of the time.

Venat did succeed in destroying Azem, condemned Ardbert because she needed him to rejoin with the WoL, and was deceitful to everyone ever since the end of Elpis. The difference is that if it's Venat anything questionable she's done is glossed over or excused.

Frankly, the only way it all makes sense to me is if she was originally written as an anti-villain and everyone wasn't on board with it (as Lurina has discussed). When all the events are in place and you're on a time crunch, what else can be done except for gratuitous gaslighting to try to make bad seem good?

[Iscah]

Frankly, the only way it all makes sense to me is if she was originally written as an anti-villain and everyone wasn't on board with it (as Lurina has discussed). When all the events are in place and you're on a time crunch, what else can be done except for gratuitous gaslighting to try to make bad seem good?

It also "all make sense" if you strike out that one scene of the Sundering – the only scene in the whole game that paints her in a villainous light – and rewrite that event to play out differently. There are ways to write a scenario where Venat did not choose the Sundering but it happened as an unforeseen effect of what she was actually trying to do.

Rewrite lots of things or rewrite one thing. Which seems more likely?

[MikkoAkure]

Venat did succeed in destroying Azem, condemned Ardbert because she needed him to rejoin with the WoL, and was deceitful to everyone ever since the end of Elpis. The difference is that if it's Venat anything questionable she's done is glossed over or excused.

Frankly, the only way it all makes sense to me is if she was originally written as an anti-villain and everyone wasn't on board with it (as Lurina has discussed). When all the events are in place and you're on a time crunch, what else can be done except for gratuitous gaslighting to try to make bad seem good?

I think what makes sense to me is that she was never written to be an anti-villain, SE saw that Emet-Selch's grey morality was well-received by players, and they tried to write Venat the same way as "a good person who had to make a hard decision" and it fell flat. There were a thousand and one different ways to do the Sundering and they wrote it in a way to specifically tie it to Answers and to Dynamis, which wasn't necessary. As Iscah has mentioned before, the fact that it's not touched upon shows that the writers weren't thinking about the repercussions about what they wrote and that she wasn't supposed to be viewed as a horrible genocider.

[Lurina]

It also "all make sense" if you strike out that one scene of the Sundering – the only scene in the whole game that paints her in a villainous light – and rewrite that event to play out differently. There are ways to write a scenario where Venat did not choose the Sundering but it happened as an unforeseen effect of what she was actually trying to do.

Rewrite lots of things or rewrite one thing. Which seems more likely?

The issue with presenting the Sundering as an accident is that it's rendered impossible by us giving her foreknowledge of the event, which in turn can't really be removed as a plot point without compromising the whole part of the story where Venat leads us to travel to Elpis to begin with, and everything to do with the Meteion tracker.

When I actually start thinking about how to 'fix' the Sundering and make Venat come across the way the writers (or at least Yoshi-P) probably wanted, I realize that it becomes incredibly hard without breaking something or re-doing half of Endwalker's plot. It is a mess in a very complicated way where the aggressive handwaving done in the story becomes sorta understandable.

[Hurlstone]

I don't think it really matters that Hydaelyn isn't trying to actively kill our character or the Scions. If they're honest about their lines in the sand regarding morality, then they should be disgusted by the idea of genocide aimed not only at themselves but other groups even if they stand to indirectly benefit.

I'll showcase this lovely panel from a certain manga that recently concluded and dealt with similar themes:



We have a very large cast of characters in this game. The idea that not a single one of them could be fiercely opposed and angered by the knowledge of what Venat did feels like a stretch.

It also isn't mutually exclusive. A character can be thankful that a serial killer pushed them out of the way of an incoming train but also be disgusted by the fact that the serial killer is...well, a serial killer.

This is how things operate with Emet-Selch. At various points, they're thankful for the aid he provides in terms of reviving Y'shtola or offering up valuable information. Yet they never forget or pretend as if lacks a lot of blood on his hands.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Venat to be treated similarly with all that in mind.

That is the major point where I do agree with the anti-Vanet lot. It would have been great and understandable had at least one of the Scions be more shocked by the revelation, even if they grudgingly came to understand it. Alphinaud would have been an effective candidate give as he is the ‘moral’ heart of the group in many ways. Thancred too as Minfilia, someone he cared about so deeply, gave all she is to Hydaelyn and her cause. Its kinda strange/funny that the one character who seems to bring this up is Omega! Perhaps the WoL too.

Its not something that I feel poisons the chalice, probably because I do feel they did a good enough job showing the horrors of the Sundering and why she did it ect, but its certainly the most prominent aspect of EW’s narrative that I have issues with.