[6.0 - 6.4 Spoilers] An interesting video detailing Venat's polarizing reception

[MikkoAkure]

Meanwhile Yshtola calls her an all powerful being. The Hydaelyn codex entry(presumably written by us) calls her the will of the star, and she herself refers to herself as a supreme deity. Yeah uh, she doesn’t seem to paint a good picture herself either lol.

The comment about an all-powerful being is correct about both of them though. They were made up of the souls of many beings that on their own had near-limitless power and both primals could rewrite the laws of physics and aetherology. I think they stop just short of being gods though since we know that they're just extremely complex man-made creations. And that's why I fault the Ascians because unlike the WoL, they were there when this all went down and they should definitely know better. Just as I don't agree that Hydaelyn should refer to herself as the planet's will made incarnate or a deity since she's neither, I don't think the Ascians should be declaring themselves "servants of the one true god" and treating the Rejoining like a religious crusade.

Just because "Hydaelyn did it too", doesn't vindicate the Ascians for the same thing and doesn't suddenly give them a compelling argument for doing what they're doing.

[KizuyaKatogami]

The comment about an all-powerful being is correct about both of them though. They were made up of the souls of many beings that on their own had near-limitless power and both primals could rewrite the laws of physics and aetherology. I think they stop just short of being gods though since we know that they're just extremely complex man-made creations. And that's why I fault the Ascians because unlike the WoL, they were there when this all went down and they should definitely know better. Just as I don't agree that Hydaelyn should refer to herself as the planet's will made incarnate or a deity since she's neither, I don't think the Ascians should be declaring themselves "servants of the one true god" and treating the Rejoining like a religious crusade.

Just because "Hydaelyn did it too", doesn't vindicate the Ascians for the same thing and doesn't suddenly give them a compelling argument for doing what they're doing.

No it doesn’t vindicate them. And i’m glad we came to an understanding that both of them should be held accountable. So tell me why then in Hydaelyn’s case she is treated as a hero and a primal of peace time and time again whereas Zodiark is treated as nothing other than some malevolent being and they eerily omit the fact he kept the planet shielded and protected for 12k years. Can you at least acknowledge that bias and why it might make a lot of people irritated?

[MikkoAkure]

No it doesn’t vindicate them. And i’m glad we came to an understanding that both of them should be held accountable. So tell me why then in Hydaelyn’s case she is treated as a hero and a primal of peace time and time again whereas Zodiark is treated as nothing other than some malevolent being and they eerily omit the fact he kept the planet shielded and protected for 12k years. Can you at least acknowledge that bias and why it might make a lot of people irritated?

It's treated that way because Hydaelyn's followers don't go around mass-murdering while laughing like a 1960s cartoon villain.

What Zodiark initially did was treated as a good thing in the story and Venat didn't disagree with that either. But going beyond what seemed to be the initial scope of His purpose seemed to cross a line that she, and evidently enough people to successfully oppose His power, disagreed with.

The key difference in how they're treated is because the story is told from the WoL's point of view and throughout the entire game we've been opposing Zodiark and the Ascians, who wanted to kill us and destroy the world. Hydaelyn meanwhile saved our lives and gave us the power to fight back and protect our own existence while the Ascians continued to go around killing people and sowing chaos. To most people, I would think that committing random acts of villainy while dressed in masks and black robes is short-hand for "these are the bad guys". And that's how the game was for years with nothing else to really make us question things.


That sort of stasis quo went on until 3 expansions and 6/9 years into the story when the writers sort of did a paradigm shift. While it was revealed that Hydaelyn kept the truth from us, the Ascians didn't stop to explain themselves correctly either and until after trying to kill us and failing several times. This explanation of why being revealed until many, many hours in the story's life and years in real time also makes it difficult to walk back the behavior of the Ascians from before and reconcile them as a sympathetic party.

The writers wrote themselves into a corner trying to make things grey despite things being pretty black and white before. They attached complexity to a story that was previously "light good, darkness bad" and I think they fumbled the attempt. I don't think that suddenly makes Zodiark and the Ascians right and Venat wrong though. Hydaelyn is still very obviously painted in a much more sympathetic light but I don't think that's "bias" when that's intended by the game's creators. I just think it means that they stink at explaining their intent through the writing, changed too much of the secret backstory compared to our expectations and understanding, and didn't make Venat as sympathetic and as much of a popular character as Emet-Selch.

The game's story isn't a series of real events being portrayed "improperly" with "bias" by the writers. They created the whole thing, and very obviously intended Hydaelyn to be the main side we're supposed to be on from the beginning.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip.

So just to make sure im getting this correctly, you believe they had a strict good vs evil story going on until around ShB where they decided to shift to a greyer narrative. If i read that correctly then good because we’re in agreement, then. My issue doesn’t necessarily lie with anything prior to that though. I understand retcons and things like Zodiark just being referred to as bad and evil back then. I have 0 issue with that. My issue is after* the devs specifically state in interviews etc that they’re writing the story to center around grey morality and neither side being right or wrong, they then come out with heavy, yes I’m going to use the word again, bias, towards Venat.

I somewhat understand the explanations of the scions or WoL not questioning her even if i personally don’t agree with it myself. However, when you have things like her minion specifically calling her a hero, that isn’t grey. When you have things like the Codex which is meant to serve as a lore guide for new players specifically showing heavy bias towards her side and calling her a primal of peace (she objectively is nothing of the sort and i think even she would agree with that,) there is an issue.

But we can even look at the smaller things as well. Interesting how she gets all this development and time even if it wasn’t that much yet both Elidibus and Zodiark got minuscule screentime in comparison. I don’t see a minion for either of them calling them heroes for standing for what they believe in. Or even the bare minimum of at least bringing up in Zodiark’s codex entry or realistically any of the scions offering any form of gratitude or thanks to Zodiark or Elidibus for saving us and the world. Literally if it wasn’t for either of them, we’d be dead. Zodiark with the shield and Elidibus with sacrificing himself to send us back in time. Yet neither of these deeds are even mentioned. It’s strictly Hydaelyn who has kept the world still spinning as the codex refers to it. This to me, is strict dev and writing bias.

[Cleretic]

Frankly, I can't wrap my head around how people look at the complete destruction of an entire species as not controversial. Just the mere concept of taking all those people and effectively killing them. Yeah, their biological matter and souls weren't entirely eradicated, but their identities were stripped away by the Sundering process and all the building blocks that comprised them instead went on to become wholly distinct organisms. That is in many ways worse than just being outright dead. Then there's the matter of how things went in the time period immediate following the Sundering, which we're lead to believe was positively horrific for all involved.

Whether or not it was justified is an entirely separate matter.

The thing there is that 'controversial' can be taken in two fundamentally different ways with characters like Venat and Emet.

1. 'This character stands for and acted on things that aren't inherently agreeable and cause split emotional responses as people have different reactions to them. This is both true and intentional for Emet and Venat, and are a huge partof their joint popularity; neither would be nearly as popular if Emet were just a sassy boy with depression, and Venat was just a nice wine mom. Even Harchefant's popularity is falling off over time.

2. That a character actually has a split response among the fanbase in terms of 'like' or 'don't like', to the point of significant divides. FFXIV doesn't actually have many of these on a large scale, and the best I can think of (for VERY different reasons) are Lyse and Hildibrand.

I'd prefer to use the term 'polarizing', because neither is actually, by dictionary definition, 'controversial'; none of those characters caused controversies.

These are entirely separate definitions, and one doesn't inherently cause the other. Again, Emet and Venat are two of the most popular characters in the game, in very large part because of their emotionally and morally complex stories and deeds. (Granted, this isn't exactly a perfectly repeatable formula; Ysayle didn't exactly see the same bump, and I have some largely unrelated thoughts on why.) And on the other side of that coin, the reasons Lyse and Hildibrand get hate is in no way related to their views and actions, that range from ineffectual to nonexistent. I think using terms like 'controversial' or 'polarizing' relating to Venat (doesn't really happen around Emet) is basically an attempt to conflate the two as the same, when they absolutely aren't.

You're allowed to not be okay with what Venat did, just as I'm not okay with what Emet did, and we don't have invalid opinions in thinking such. But this doesn't make these characters a failure, and it's wrong to approach them as if they did; it makes them successful. Nor does it make them unpopular; the thing I saw in that Twitter and Reddit dive, far more than actual dislike, were people talking about that part of Venat as a big reason why they like her.

[Absimiliard]

You're allowed to not be okay with what Venat did, just as I'm not okay with what Emet did, and we don't have invalid opinions in thinking such. But this doesn't make these characters a failure, and it's wrong to approach them as if they did; it makes them successful. Nor does it make them unpopular; the thing I saw in that Twitter and Reddit dive, far more than actual dislike, were people talking about that part of Venat as a big reason why they like her.

I don't think I can truthfully say my position on the matter has much to do with being "not okay" with Venat's actions or those of Emet-Selch. It is after all just a story, and I do think both characters were written adequately in their respective roles. Both had their perceived justifications, and both found themselves in what most would consider impossible positions. Neither really had a means to bring about an end that would satisfy everyone. Both of them also have an unfathomable amount of blood on their hands. Neither of them were, in my opinion, "good." They were flawed people whose actions lead to flawed outcomes. In other words, they're both guilty as can be of omnicide.

What I'm not overly fond of is the lack of in-game negative response to the truth of what she did. It's the sort of thing the Scions would normally find positively revolting, but they seemed quite willing to just overlook it. The closest thing we really see to it being called out proper is in one of our responses to Omega on the matter. Quite frankly, I don't think I would have even become embroiled in the numerous conversations on the subject were it not for this particular thing. It just didn't jive with me for whatever reason. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as they say.

Ultimately, I suppose I can attribute some of it to the impression I was left with by Endwalker; that the writers tried to walk back some of the "morally grey" ShB brought to the table. I like nuance, intrigue, and moral quandaries with no right answer. I've got no particular need to feel like my character is "right" in a given situation, and I definitely don't mind if it sometimes turns out their actions have horrible consequences. Sometimes doing what you think is right turns out be the opposite, and sometimes you find out the person or entity you believed in is just as flawed and broken as you are. Hell, sometimes you wind up just being flat out wrong and get a bunch of people killed -- or, for an example that befits the topic at hand, realize your story about the future was in part the inspiration for what transpired on Venat's end. It's fine for bad things to happen in fiction, but if they do, I'd much prefer to see the resulting social and/or emotional fallout. Consequences and emotional substance are very important parts of a story to me.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I don't think I can truthfully say my position on the matter has much to do with being "not okay" with Venat's actions or those of Emet-Selch. It is after all just a story, and I do think both characters were written adequately in their respective roles. Both had their justifications, and both found themselves in what most would consider impossible positions. Neither really had a means to bring about an end that would satisfy everyone. Both of them also have an unfathomable amount of blood on their hands. Neither of them were, in my opinion, "good." They were flawed people whose actions lead to flawed outcomes. In other words, they're both guilty as can be of omnicide.

What I'm not overly fond of is the lack of in-game negative response to the truth of what she did. It's the sort of thing the Scions would normally find positively revolting, but they seemed quite willing to just overlook it. The closest thing we really see to it being called out proper is in one of our responses to Omega on the matter. Quite frankly, I don't think I would have even become embroiled in the numerous conversations on the subject were it not for this particular thing. It just didn't jive with me for whatever reason.

Ultimately, I suppose I can attribute some of it to the impression I was left with by Endwalker; that the writers tried to walk back some of the "morally grey" ShB brought to the table. I like nuance, intrigue, and moral quandaries with no right answer.

Yup. Especially when now you have the scions saying things like “how dare you destroy one world in favor of the other.” It’s the hypocrisy and double standards that do it for me. They had no problem calling out Emet in ShB. It’s absolute delusion to think Venat gets even a fraction of that amount of flak. The story contradicts itself numerous times so yeah, in the end it absolutely is character failure, and to think it isn’t is again, delusion and willful ignorance.

[Absimiliard]

Yup. Especially when now you have the scions saying things like “how dare you destroy one world in favor of the other.” It’s the hypocrisy and double standards that do it for me. They had no problem calling out Emet in ShB. It’s absolute delusion to think Venat gets even a fraction of that amount of flak. The story contradicts itself numerous times so yeah, in the end it absolutely is character failure, and to think it isn’t us again, delusion and willful ignorance.

I'd have been satisfied with something so meager as a single scene depicting the Scions being truly disturbed by what they learned. These people found out the goddess some of them spent all that time in reverence of was responsible for an incomprehensibly large loss of life, after all. It stands to reason they wouldn't take it well.

[Cleretic]

What I'm not overly fond of is the lack of in-game negative response to the truth of what she did. It's the sort of thing the Scions would normally find positively revolting, but they seemed quite willing to just overlook it. The closest thing we really see to it being called out proper is in one of our responses to Omega on the matter. Quite frankly, I don't think I would have even become embroiled in the numerous conversations on the subject were it not for this particular thing. It just didn't jive with me for whatever reason. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as they say.

I think an important part to remember is that the game keeps Venat and Emet's crimes at a distance. Venat did her thing twelve thousand years ago, and nobody who meets Emet is really personally victimized by anything he did. This is very much intentional, because it puts the question forward without providing an answer or letting it derail the story. With Venat, part of that is absolutely that nobody who learns about this is impartial, and nobody who was hurt by it is alive anymore; the only people hearing this and being available to cast judgement on it are the people who were (very, very distant) results of her actions, but more importantly who kinda have something more important to do. They're not going to weigh in on this--which, again, is intentional, because in a story with well-liked main characters, any word they'd say on it would hold more weight than any on-paper fact. The Scions being 'truly disturbed' would become the only evidence on the table, because we consider the Scions and their feelings that much more important than any other source in the game. Trying to use that fact in putting forward two different sides seems to be something they're doing with Dawntrail, but in Endwalker, it would've just been an unwelcome distraction at the climax of the story. (And I suspect won't work well with Dawntrail because people will pick according to their favorite Scion to the exclusion of all else, but we're a good year away from knowing that for sure.)

It actually makes complete sense, and works very well, that Omega's the only one facilitating anything resembling a discussion on this, not just because it's a relatively minor character that wouldn't really sway that debate, but because it's kinda the only figure anywhere on the Source who actually doesn't have stake in it: it was neither a victim or beneficiary of Venat on even the most abstract and tangential level. Omega is the most outsider one can be to the subject... and as a result I think it's interesting that from that perspective, Omega doesn't limit the conversation to her. It actually puts forward all three of the sides I mentioned way back in my first post, even considering Hermes to be a valid perspective, because from its perspective Venat's only part of a debate that has no clear right answer.

You want the game to take the stance you agree with, or at least provide stronger evidence in favor of it than all alternative views. And it's just not going to, in the same way that it consciously avoided taking the stance I wanted it to with Emet. And all of this is deliberate.

[Absimiliard]

You want the game to take the stance you agree with, or at least provide stronger evidence in favor of it. And it's just not going to, in the same way that it consciously avoided taking the stance I wanted it to with Emet. And all of this is deliberate.

I wouldn't even say I'd have to agree with the stance. If I'm honest, I'd be pretty okay with the pendulum swinging the other way as well. As you've said, the Scions aren't impartial, and they are well and truly removed from Venat's part in the tale. I could also have lived with a scene of them acknowledging it and writing it off as a "necessary act" or what have you. Even should the Scions be fine with it, the acknowledgement of "WTF" in and of itself (during the lull after the dust settled, not at the height of the action) would've at least made sense. The Scions are just people at the end of the day, and people have a tendency to be perfectly fine with things that don't directly affect them even if those things are pretty messed up.