Will Sin-eaters get the Voidsent treatment?

[Iscah]

Meol was an optional dish for the rest of the Eulmorans, and if it was part of some plan, it was a terrible one. It just made some of them sleepy, and the others lurch around and mumble, lol.

The primary purpose was to make them loyal to him – mildly sedated, unperturbed by the horrors going on in the corners of society as it all lurches towards the Rejoining. Plus they were unable to rebel even if they were ineffectual as an army.

It's quite likely they were eating meol in the city as well – maybe dressed up more nicely, but still. Put a bit of it in everything and the effect will be the same over time.

[Puksi]

The only thing that gives me pause is the fact meol was an optional dish. During the encounter at Eulmore, there were a lot of people who weren't affected at all, both inside and outside the city. If it was an attempt to quell uprisings like the ones Vauthry's father apparently had, it would have missed a lot of potential rebels.

After the buildup of how frighteningly easy it was to be turned, the "time release tempering" by sin eater buns--for twenty years of Vauthry's rule--just struck me as really odd. No one showed signs like the Afflicted in Ahm Araeng when we visited Eulmore, but Ahm Araeng and Eulmore both were exposed to Sin Eaters. Would a citizen with a sweet tooth turn inside the city? Wouldn't people have eventually sickened like the Afflicted? It seems that would be a bad look for the man who promised safety from the sin eaters.

That said, I don't really count Alphinaud stating the Eulmorans were all of their own free will up until that point as concrete proof. How on earth could he know that, lmao.

But the Eulmore arc wasn't even a thing until the last minute, so deadlines may have been partly to blame for what I see as pretty glaring plotholes.

[SentioftheHoukai]

I really wish they had explained things better than that footnote of a cutscene with Emet-Selch and the Former Mayor.

Why? I daresay it wouldn't have validated or canonized this weird little "Vauthry was completely innocent and naught more than an innocent victim of the mean old Emet-Selch" fantasy you cannot seem to let go of.

The primary purpose was to make them loyal to him – mildly sedated, unperturbed by the horrors going on in the corners of society as it all lurches towards the Rejoining. Plus they were unable to rebel even if they were ineffectual as an army.

It's quite likely they were eating meol in the city as well – maybe dressed up more nicely, but still. Put a bit of it in everything and the effect will be the same over time.

The only thing that gives me pause is the fact meol was an optional dish. During the encounter at Eulmore, there were a lot of people who weren't affected at all, both inside and outside the city. If it was an attempt to quell uprisings like the ones Vauthry's father apparently had, it would have missed a lot of potential rebels.

After the buildup of how frighteningly easy it was to be turned, the "time release tempering" by sin eater buns--for twenty years of Vauthry's rule--just struck me as really odd. No one showed signs like the Afflicted in Ahm Araeng when we visited Eulmore, but Ahm Araeng and Eulmore both were exposed to Sin Eaters. Would a citizen with a sweet tooth turn inside the city? Wouldn't people have eventually sickened like the Afflicted? It seems that would be a bad look for the man who promised safety from the sin eaters.

That said, I don't really count Alphinaud stating the Eulmorans were all of their own free will up until that point as concrete proof. How on earth could he know that, lmao.

But the Eulmore arc wasn't even a thing until the last minute, so deadlines may have been partly to blame for what I see as pretty glaring plotholes.

Seems Puksi's at it again with his almighty, righteous crusade that operates under the delusion that Vauthry shares no culpability whatsoever for what Eulmore became under his rule. I guess it was too much to hope for that this bizarre crusade of yours stay back in 2019, from whence it stemmed.

Then again, congratulations Puksi! You've invented time travel! Far more of an expert on it than Eara could ever be, clearly~ ;3

[Puksi]

Why? I daresay it wouldn't have validated or canonized this weird little "Vauthry was completely innocent and naught more than an innocent victim of the mean old Emet-Selch" fantasy you cannot seem to let go of.

Do I know you? Because this is the second thread you've come from nowhere and tried to pick a fight with me.

I'm morbidly curious how you think an unborn child wasn't an innocent victim, but you do you, whoever you are. ʅ(ツ)ʃ

Edit: From 2019? That's...not creepy or anything.

[SentioftheHoukai]

Do I know you? Because this is the second thread you've come from nowhere and tried to pick a fight with me.

I'm morbidly curious how you think an unborn child wasn't an innocent victim, but you do you, whoever you are. ʅ(ツ)ʃ

Trust me, when you encounter an oddity that absurd you tend to remember it. I care nothing, but the argument itself sure is odd. You're right, though. Vauthry was an innocent babe, once upon a time as the Pixies and Feo Ul like to say. By canon, and many years afore that "get out of jail free" card has long since expired. He forgot to renew, who could have possibly seen the guy who openly advocates for sloth and malice doing that coming? I just think it's remarkably odd to pick Vauthry of all people to defend in this manner. He stopped being an innocent the moment he grew up and began to rule a city, I can't blame my abusive mother for all my bad habits after all. At that moment, his actions became his own responsibility and he very well could have ruled well. He was the first and only sin eater-human hybrid. The others are slavering, eternally aether-starved beasts that cannot even speak; the difference between them and him was stark. You cannot convince me that he was being mind-controlled to perform acts of evil by his Sin Eater nature. Other stories have done the "I am a monster in form, but must be a man because I have morals" the only reason this story did not is because it was Vauthry's choice to be a d-bag.

[KariTheFox]

I think it's possible to believe that Varuthy was both a victim of Emet-Selch's and his fathers machinations, and also a cruel, bullying sadist who ruled through fear and enjoyed throwing people off the balcony when they annoyed him.

Those are not really mutually exclusive ideas.

[Puksi]

The oddity here is someone has apparently been stalking me for three years.

And since you're trying to take the OP off-topic, I will place lore discussion under a snip.

Why Vauthry? Why not Vauthry? Seriously, looking at your signature alone, this is the character you choose to clutch your pearls over?

He was corrupted before birth and groomed to a very specific task.



a.k.a, to be a stopgap to keep the Light from overtaking the First before the Rejoining could happen. There's no reason to believe that Valens van Var--er, Emet-Selch would corrupt this infant, only to then say eh, grow up to do what you want, go fight those Sin Eaters. Instead, the child was brainwashed to believe he was the protagonist of the story, and anyone who came against him were "villains" who must be stopped. A lot of people love waxing on how terrible it was for their WoL to come this close to losing themselves to Lightwarden corruption. How is it any less terrible for a child who had no blessing of Hydaelyn, and was being fed lies to make sure they performed their part in the Ascians' plan?

Cylva confirms the Ascians were not passive players in Eulmore. It was the Ascians' idea to raise The Virtues, and it was the Ascians who left Gaia an orphan alone in the city.

The Virtues, who behaved in a way that completely twisted how they were in life, as Titania went from a beloved ruler to being kept in the cramped old castle. As Tesleen tried to kill us, as we would have killed our friends had we not contained the Light. Light corruption has never left the victim unscathed, but for some reason, you expect it of this character, since birth. Why?

To his dying breath, he didn't understand that he was not the hero he was groomed to believe he was. But he needed to be convinced he was doing good, twisted though it was, when he had the power to not care at all.

Even the Exarch said Vauthry's hope was "to vindicate his existence". Yoshida asked players to consider was Vauthry really a friend of the Sin Eaters, or was he controlled by someone.

Vauthry was a tragic character, and considering they had to convince him he was the good guy, he probably would have been a much better ruler than his father, if the Ascians hadn't corrupted him. But Emet-Selch never gave him a choice to be anything other than what he was created to do.

Now, I'm going to ask you to please stop stalking my posts. I don't even recall engaging you before, and I'm sure you've got better things to do.

[Iscah]

I think it's possible to believe that Varuthy was both a victim of Emet-Selch's and his fathers machinations, and also a cruel, bullying sadist who ruled through fear and enjoyed throwing people off the balcony when they annoyed him.

Those are not really mutually exclusive ideas.

Prettymuch. You can point to the others as the reason he turned out to be exactly the monster he was, but there's no guarantee that his personality would be different in other circumstances. Running the system and keeping the citizens in oblivious rapture is one thing; throwing people off balconies or forcing them to cut their own arm with a knife is not a necessary part of the plan, and if anything runs the risk of shocking the more aware and decent citizens out of their delusion.

After the buildup of how frighteningly easy it was to be turned, the "time release tempering" by sin eater buns--for twenty years of Vauthry's rule--just struck me as really odd. No one showed signs like the Afflicted in Ahm Araeng when we visited Eulmore, but Ahm Araeng and Eulmore both were exposed to Sin Eaters. Would a citizen with a sweet tooth turn inside the city? Wouldn't people have eventually sickened like the Afflicted? It seems that would be a bad look for the man who promised safety from the sin eaters.

One of the more monstrous details that doesn't get dwelt on for very long but is really quite key to the whole system is ascension – that free and bonded citizens alike anticipate being chosen by the sin eaters to ascend to eternal paradise.

With a lie like that ensconced as truth, anyone beginning to turn or anyone beginning to suspect the truth can equally and conveniently vanish, and far from questioning their absence, the others would think it a good and happy thing.

[Puksi]

One of the more monstrous details that doesn't get dwelt on for very long but is really quite key to the whole system is ascension – that free and bonded citizens alike anticipate being chosen by the sin eaters to ascend to eternal paradise.

With a lie like that ensconced as truth, anyone beginning to turn or anyone beginning to suspect the truth can equally and conveniently vanish, and far from questioning their absence, the others would think it a good and happy thing.

Agree 100%, it seemed too important a plot device for the writers to not feature it more fully.

As it stands, in the original MSQ it was only mentioned twice: first during the Warbler chain, and later by Vauthry himself with "the passion of his Ascension", implying that yes, the character really did believe it was a good thing himself.

The Warbler chain also implied there were some sort of conditions for even the free citizens to seek it, as her patron lamented "he almost wished he could hasten his own" to hear her sing again. I'm still not sure why he went straight for Ascension when Thoarich implied she could be saved, she just may lose her voice.

Prettymuch. You can point to the others as the reason he turned out to be exactly the monster he was, but there's no guarantee that his personality would be different in other circumstances. Running the system and keeping the citizens in oblivious rapture is one thing; throwing people off balconies or forcing them to cut their own arm with a knife is not a necessary part of the plan, and if anything runs the risk of shocking the more aware and decent citizens out of their delusion.

As you said in a previous post here, though, there is no way to really tell how much of that behavior was the character's human side. From the very first scene, it was clear he was unstable. The fist-slamming tantrum mode, in hindsight, reminded me a lot of Philia's ground-pound attack.

The game dialogue seemed to imply that sort of violence was a recent development, as an NPC in Wright describes a group of local bandits who previously lived in Eulmore, but were exiled after being caught stealing from the free citizenry. Stealing from the free citizenry, like Kai-Shirr was charged with fraud? That should have guaranteed a one-way trip out of a window, or a pound of flesh or five. But they were exiled and fit to rob unlucky travelers.

It also seems reasonable that there would have been more awareness in the city of such cruelty, if it were an ongoing regular thing. But there was nothing. Not even the other workers telling us "hey, be careful".

Then there is Amity--where workers fled cruel patrons, not Vauthry. Amity feared Vauthry would send the army there, but he never did.

The Derelicts uses tropey imagery, but the actual NPC dialogue doesn't back up the "poor" were actually poor. There's this guy:



At least two people are there to sell the fixtures and whatnot dumped around the city proper, one lady wants to get in to be a famous singer, a Viis from the Crystarium is there out of curiosity, one guy wants a "pretty partner" on each arm and fancy food. Wright and Stilltide residents further confirm "the hopefuls" left their reliable lives for a gambler's chance in Vegas. This was no enforced famine or such, Eulmore was still purchasing produce from the neighboring villages, mentioned by an NPC in Stilltide.

The Brume was a more genuine example of the trope they were trying to use here, imo.

The Minstreling Wanderer stated he couldn't say whether Vauthry was always like that. While it's nothing concrete, that they added this little extra bit of info made me wonder. No one in Eulmore referred to Vauthry as a "god", either, he was "a great man", with a vague gift to calm Sin Eaters. The god talk only began at the Exarch's visit.

I prefer to think positive, because of all the characters in this series with blood on their hands, this one in particular is held to a far more unforgiving standard, even though the game clearly showed he was compromised before birth, with a corruption literally no other character in the game was able to fight.

Maybe if the Sin Eaters could turn out the way OP is speculating, we could get some answers, lmao.

[Cleretic]

I'm a fiend for cut content, and while I always hazard not to assume things we didn't get were better than what we did (sometimes things got cut because they sucked, after all), we do know that some things around Eulmore were chopped and screwed; the assault on Eulmore was originally intended to be a dungeon rather than a solo instance, with some sort of sea monster sin eater as a boss with the other two being the still-there jongleurs and Ran'jit. Chances are it was just cut for space allocation considerations; Shadowbringers is pretty dense. But it probably explains why some parts of Eulmore feel unexplored despite hooks and potential.

...like Ran'jit. They specifically mention in an MSQ quest that his body went missing, how was that NOT a hook for some future events?