What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[fulminating]

This is a bit of a tangent, but did showing allag at its degenerate height (echo vision around tower of zot, 5.4 patch content in azys lla) indirectly elevate further the utopian angle of elpis/the presundered world?

[Theodric]

I use the term genocide to describe the Sundering not only because Venat's actions fit the definition perfectly but also on the basis that there's characters in the setting who use the same phrase to describe the actions of the Garleans on a narrower scale - certainly more limited than anything Venat or the Ascians did. Furthermore various protagonists are pretty stark about the harm the Ascians caused.

At the end of her day, it was her explicit goal to end the Ancients as a species to bring about the Sundered because she believed they were better equipped to cope with despair. I will leave aside how little in the story even supports that, but it describes her goal. In wanting the Sundered not to be "beholden" to the past, she also aimed to wipe away all memory of the Ancients. There are few better suited terms here than genocide.

It doesn't suddenly cease to be an act of genocide simply because the story desperately tries to portray the individual responsible as a self proclaimed 'supreme deity' or a 'herois'.

Personally speaking, as someone who has discussed the story actively since the days of ARR I never saw any reluctance to use the term genocide until it was Venat who happened to be the target. I think there's a lot that could be said about that, though everybody is free to use the forum's - admittedly dated - search function if they're curious to see evidence of the term being used freely in lore debates prior to Endwalker and Shadowbringers.

The French localisation also describes Athena's actions as genocide, as an aside - and she's a character that mirrors Venat rather closely.

[Swordsman]

At the end of her day, it was her explicit goal to end the Ancients as a species to bring about the Sundered because she believed they were better equipped to cope with despair. I will leave aside how little in the story even supports that, but it describes her goal.

Yep. It reminds me of that youtube video that criticized Venat for practicing eugenics, which is pretty much what she did by artificially altering an entire population of beings by enhancing their survivability.

[Lunaxia]

I use the term genocide to describe the Sundering not only because Venat's actions fit the definition perfectly...

Refraining from that terminology doesn't make light of her actions or detract from what she did. But these are some very charged words, with links to some very real, absolutely dreadful IRL atrocities that continue to impact people today, as does the ideology behind them, and I do not like dragging them into a debate on a fantasy world where the topic at hand involves scenarios and variables that are so vastly different from anything we experience that it is a questionable fit to apply them here. Dividing them from the baggage and background they carry is not a choice that everyone agrees with, the resulting debate and emotional response it invokes obscures the actual discussion, and they are not needed to make the argument against Venat work.

[Theodric]

Yep. It reminds me of that youtube video that criticized Venat for practicing eugenics, which is pretty much what she did by artificially altering an entire population of beings by enhancing their survivability.

Yep - and it doesn't even really enhance their survivability. They're more vulnerable to despair dynamis since they are directly transformed into blasphemies. At best you could argue that she thought that a world of suffering would make them more emotionally resilient, but that doesn't even follow from what we know of real world psychology, and in the game itself you have Thavnair's skies filled with blasphemies, and the Omega side quest in Endwalker pouring cold water on it, if the fact that enough of them survived to summon Zodiark in the face of a completely unknown crisis didn't suffice to prove as much itself.

Refraining from that terminology doesn't make light of her actions or detract from what she did. But these are some very charged words, with links to some very real, absolutely dreadful IRL atrocities that continue to impact people today, as does the ideology behind them, and I do not like dragging them into a debate on a fantasy world where the topic at hand involves scenarios and variables that are so vastly different from anything we experience that it is a questionable fit to apply them here. Dividing them from the baggage and background they carry is not a choice that everyone agrees with, the resulting debate and emotional response it invokes obscures the actual discussion, and they are not needed to make the argument against Venat work.

I respect your decision not to use the term but there is enough there for me to use it as all the crucial elements for it are met by her actions. The magical aspects of it don't change the fact that it involved the deliberate alteration and destruction of her own species, resulting in the death of its individual members and attempts by her to erase memory of them... her motives being 'good' in nature doesn't change this, much as it makes little difference with the Ascians.

Sadly the game shies away from showing the immediate aftermath of the Sundering's atrocities enacted on the Ancients, instead shoving them into the NieR crossover. It is again starker when dealing with the fallout of the rejoinings. Although ultimately that's a false dichotomy, seeing as she ensured those would come to pass as well.

[Vyrerus]

Refraining from that terminology doesn't make light of her actions .

Actually it does. When you refuse to call something what it really is, then you are caving into euphemisms. It's a subtle manipulation tactic that shies away from the truth. Kind of like you can refer to someone murdering another person by stabbing them to death as an, "impassioned knife incident." Or a couple of teens running over an old man on a bike a, "Biking Accident." Or you can refer to domestic violence as, "They had a falling out as a couple." While true you don't need to invoke specific words to describe an event, to shy away from them obscures the discussion just as much as any emotions (and causes emotions in turn, anyway).

The only persons spared by shielding people from their emotions and the truth are the perpetrators of the crime. Never the victims.

What they wrote with The Sundering was an atrocity, fictional though it may be. Why do you seek to put on the kiddie gloves with Venat?

We don't need a 1 to 1 to be able to call a magical spade a spade. Nor a magical genocide a genocide.

And do note that the term genocide is only 79 years old. Would you prefer older terms that mean the same thing? Völkermord? Other terms altogether, like Racial Extermination? They do not get any prettier. There is no way to truthfully depict Venat's actions while denying what they are.

[Turtledeluxe]

The sundering is the literal textbook definition of genocide.

I never said it wasn't. But you're not considering that it was genocide either way and at least hers left some room for an untempered. future. You're basically a Zodiark stan so, I don't know. I'm sorry the story didn't go in that direction. But for the record I'm glad it didn't. It's an MMOROG with ten hands on the story-- to be blunt things won't always make total sense and your expectations are insanely bloated. If Venat campaigned against Hermes it may seem logical yes, but it's messy storytelling that distracts from what the game is (a game about you and your time).

And despite arguments to the contrary, Elidibus straight up told us you cannot change fate. So although it seems like everyone had choices as with every single Final Fantasy there was a grand overarching fate that was bound to happen. It is cliche but that was the whole point..to stand against fate.

And yes, you can scream into the void until your lungs are dry that the story isn't constrained by the genre and the format except it is. Most stories are. There's so many factors at play-- a 10 year running MMO with different teams and different writers. Again we are lucky the plot makes what sense it does make.

[Theodric]

Ah, I had a hunch that was your angle in terms of attempting to present false insinuations. It's good to see confirmation.

Someone desiring equal accountability for the protagonists and antagonists hardly equals 'stanning'. Numerous sources have been provided to you outlining the inconsistencies in the morality and world building of the setting. That - and the numerous retcons - is why there is so much backlash towards Endwalker throughout this thread.

Tempering was not presented as the problem that Venat was concerned with. In addition to it not amounting to an awful lot, it was localised to the Convocation. It is an aetheric problem with an aetheric solution. It could also be avoided entirely had she given them enough information about Meteion beforehand to devise a better solution before all available sources of aether on the star - other than their own bodies - were atrophied. Plus she knew how to apply a ward against aetheric corruption on top of it. At no point in the story, in any supplementary materials or in interviews, is tempering once presented as the issue. It is solely presented in terms of her fear of them becoming like the Nibirun and their inability to directly wield dynamis.

The development team likes to brag to the high heavens about its story as does large swathes of the community - if it doesn't hold up under the most basic amount of scrutiny then it is liable to be called out for that.

[Absimiliard]

And despite arguments to the contrary, Elidibus straight up told us you cannot change fate.

I recommend you go back and watch that scene again. You're omitting a lot of context to support your point.

[Turtledeluxe]

The premise of the argument that Venat wasn't faced with tempering and didn't do anything is visually represented in Game and disproves the argument. We see in the infamous "walk" sequence a roundabout portrayal of the situation where the Ascians were unwilling to focus on anything other than summoning. As far as tempering, you can't say "she had access to the futurre information" only when it's convenient for your trolling. If she knew tempering was going to occur at any time, obviously her response would be based on that. Her reasons for sundering are boiled down to stopping Zodiark but obviously that isn't just a personal grudge-- it's because of how he affects people and what he represents. That's what you're glossing over to make some weird argument about EW.