A game for 4 year olds

[Brinne]

And this is where you lose me. Well, not the last sentence; that is true. Misery builds character is an old adage that has some truth to it. It's less about what the suffering being good and what we take from the suffering. Yes, it's unavoidable, but wallowing in it doesn't do jack.

"Wallowing" in it also often allows one to call attention to injustice and unnecessary suffering, and thus address it and initiative positive change for the better. There are countless places in history where people initiated positive social change for countless people because they absolutely refused to just "grin and bear with it" and "just make the best of what we have" and "move on" from their stations in life and the suffering that came with it. This is something you cannot generalize on the level that Endwalker did, and it's one of the reasons Endwalker feels incredibly irresponsible when it comes to this topic. There's a degree of truth to this when applied to individuals who may be harming themselves unnecessarily via personal grief or grievances, but Endwalker itself is the voice here overwhelmingly tell us to apply this on a societal, existential level.

Hence, Lurina is right. It's nonsense and garbage that, regardless of intention, manifests as affirming the status quo and that if we try to imagine anything better, it's actually probably bad.

We learn our limits, and we learn how to push past them. We learn about ourselves. We grow from suffering just as much as we grow from good things.

Once again, this is something that "sounds good" as a general platitude, but I have a feeling - as has been cited in previous posts - that when you say you can grow from suffering, you're thinking of smaller, personal (not trying to minimalize, just in context of how Endwalker approaches it) affairs like the "I had a fight with a friend, I had some money stolen from me by someone I trusted, I lost a family member" that were mentioned earlier in the thread. Endwalker, once again, is the voice here that isn't putting small-scale conflicts like that as what is necessary for self-reflection and self-growth - Endwalker puts forth that what is 'necessary' to inflict upon the populace to force them to be 'strong' is more along the lines of war, starvation, disease.

Maybe some people "grow" in some nebulous way to being exposed to hatred and war. At least the people who aren't broken or killed from it - omelettes and broken eggs, I guess. But hey, Social Darwinism XIV.

We learn that the world is unfair, and we want to make it better for our progeny. They'll have a better life and better living conditions, hopefully, but they'll still face suffering; it'll just be a different kind. Suffering is unavoidable, and yes, it's not good. But good things can come from it.

And once again this all falls apart once you try to apply it to the specifics of the scenario; you cannot closely evaluate the text and seriously put forth that the Ancients, for example, did not "still face suffering, just a different kind" from the modern in-game world. But they were still punished for not enough suffering. I would truly like to know the threshold.

However, I do think you misunderstood what's trying to be said. In no way did I see the Scions say, 'let's accept this' when facing the Endwalker. They went to meet that threat, and have, throughout the game's expansions, went kicking and screaming to stop injustices. At no point were they passive.

Well, this is also one of the criticisms leveled toward the messaging of the game and why there's a lot of pondering and words written about if we can ascribe this to writer mistakes and criss-crossed priorities - the theme is inconsistently applied and to some of us feels like the result of a desperation to justify Hydaelyn's action or cast it in a heroic light than a deliberate, definitive statement on humanity. Because they really, really did not want you to hate Hydaelyn (but had cornered themselves into her committing a heinous act that they hadn't planned taking into account from the onset), keeping you from hating her became more important that coherency of the message. Which is a bit grim in its own way, in terms of writing quality.

Endwalker is not about passively accepting suffering. It's about accepting that it happened and moving on with life to be better. Isn't that what the scions are doing now? Aren't the twins in Garelmald right now trying to help Jullus rebuild their home? Aren't we trying to help the Void now? In the game right now, with the lessons we learned from Endwalker and all that came before, we are still doing our best to right wrongs and triumph over evil.

And Endwalker also suggests that there's a threshold of things becoming "too good" or "not enough suffering" that would necessitate something like the Sundering to restore suffering levels back to where they need to be to be "strong" and "learn to move forward."

Because the reason Venat sundered the Ancients was not to force them to accept their suffering. It was to stop them from wallowing in it, and inflicting suffering on others. Let's remember that when the ancients sacrificed half and half again to stop the Final Days and begin to heal the world, they were planning on sacrificing the new life that sprung up afterward to bring back what they had lost. Inflicting more suffering because they wanted to stop their own. And that's unhealthy.

Probably not as unhealthy as someone killing them all, though.

And I continue to be baffled at the stance some people take that the necessary self-sacrifice the Ancients make to save the world - which is in-game cast in nothing but a positive and admiring light, even throughout Endwalker itself - being yet another piece of evidence as to why it was necessary or earned in any way that they all be eradicated.