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

[Turtledeluxe]

The issue isn't just the external context of genocide. It's also just reductive. Is what happened with Zodiark genocide or is it a sacrifice? It's the way things are being framed that just isn't relevant or necessary. I'm not sure why people have a hard time admitting they just want to use an inflammatory word to get attention and or falsely inflate the importance of their rhetoric.

[Xirean]

Just gonna throw out there that if people can't agree that the deliberate extermination of all life on a planet is genocide/omnicide then there really isn't any room for a conversation. That's effectively the foundation of the entire discussion. Without that terminology understood we have no common ground at least imo. That goes for both the sundering and the rejoinings. Both are genocide/omnicide as both are the complete extermination of all cultures and living things on a world. the idea that we can't agree on that is mind boggling to me.

The issue isn't just the external context of genocide. It's also just reductive. Is what happened with Zodiark genocide or is it a sacrifice? It's the way things are being framed that just isn't relevant or necessary. I'm not sure why people have a hard time admitting they just want to use an inflammatory word to get attention and or falsely inflate the importance of their rhetoric.

If by "what happened with Zodiark" you mean the initial summoning of him, then no I wouldn't call that genocide. Those were volunteers. Besides, until the WoL/Fandanial killed Zodiark, all of those people were actually still alive within him.

[Turtledeluxe]

Ok. Something fundamentally not being understood ITT is that, per Emet dialog at the end of 5.0, they were being tempered by Zodiark (not that you really need that because the walk cutscene with Venat clearly shows us this imo). Venat also became a primal via volunteers. So it's not even just Venat and they had no other option in the face of a primal who was demanding more sacrifices and tempering.

Also per the lore Venat didn't even know exactly what her attack would render in great specificity and it didn't kill everyone.

[Xirean]

Ok. Something fundamentally not being understood ITT is that, per Emet dialog at the end of 5.0, they were being tempered by Zodiark (not that you really need that because the walk cutscene with Venat clearly shows us this imo). Venat also became a primal via volunteers. So it's not even just Venat and they had no other option in the face of a primal who was demanding more sacrifices and tempering.

Also per the lore Venat didn't even know exactly what her attack would render in great specificity and it didn't kill everyone.

What lore are you referring to that she didn't know what her attack would do? We literally tell her what she does. The walk cutscene, while not a literal retelling of events, shows her doing it deliberately. Also on the mention of not everyone dying; you're right there were THREE survivors from the entire planet. It's also worth noting that the use of the term genocide is not reliant on the effectiveness of said genocide. Not everyone has to be dead for us to call it what it is.

[Lunaxia]

Hmm.

Just gonna throw out there that if people can't agree that the deliberate extermination of all life on a planet is genocide/omnicide then there really isn't any room for a conversation. That's effectively the foundation of the entire discussion. Without that terminology understood we have no common ground at least imo. That goes for both the sundering and the rejoinings. Both are genocide/omnicide as both are the complete extermination of all cultures and living things on a world. the idea that we can't agree on that is mind boggling to me.

I'm not sure what part of "Venat's actions resulted in the death of all life on Etheriys" needs a specific tag to be understood or prohibits conversation, but if you want to hold on to the term to the extent that you'll pretend as if we have nothing to agree on, then that's your rather odd choice to make.

they had no other option in the face of a primal who was demanding more sacrifices and tempering.

Also per the lore Venat didn't even know exactly what her attack would render in great specificity and it didn't kill everyone.

...did... did you play the game at all, or...?

[Turtledeluxe]

What lore are you referring to that she didn't know what her attack would do? We literally tell her what she does. The walk cutscene, while not a literal retelling of events, shows her doing it deliberately. Also on the mention of not everyone dying; you're right there were THREE survivors from the entire planet. It's also worth noting that the use of the term genocide is not reliant on the effectiveness of said genocide. Not everyone has to be dead for us to call it what it is.

The devs stated it in a Q&A. It was a gamble. I've said this several times. It was a general attack meant to shatter Zodiark.

As far as "we told her"-- the devs also have not given a definitive answer to what happened with the timelines. I understand the morbol thing and elidibus remembering us, but a. Let's be real this would be a total retcon, there's never even been a hint the WoL existed in Elpis, we were proabably in Elpis as Azem and b. Even if the devs conceded that our Elpis visit is truly part of history then they're contradicting themselves by labeling what she did a gamble.

And if the devs can't even make sense it's not worth arguing about imo because it means only your interpretation matters.

[Xirean]

The devs stated it in a Q&A. It was a gamble. I've said this several times. It was a general attack meant to shatter Zodiark.

As far as "we told her"-- the devs also have not given a definitive answer to what happened with the timelines. I understand the morbol thing and elidibus remembering us, but a. Let's be real this would be a total retcon, there's never even been a hint the WoL existed in Elpis, we were proabably in Elpis as Azem and b. Even if the devs conceded that our Elpis visit is truly part of history then they're contradicting themselves by labeling what she did a gamble.

And if the devs can't even make sense it's not worth arguing about imo because it means only your interpretation matters.

What game did you play? No evidence the WoL existed in Elpis? Elidibus remembers us being there. When we confront Hydaelyn in the aetherial sea she remembers us being in Elpis. The end of the Paendamonium raid series has Eric remarking about us in the memory vision. If you did the Elpis side quests before finishing Myths of the Realm then you have special dialogue for some of the deities and the events you took part in. Believe me when I say I would love for the WoL to have not actually existed in Elpis, but that's simply what happened.

As for the sundering attacking on Zodiark. Link the specific portion of the Q&A you are referring to.

[Turtledeluxe]

What game did you play? No evidence the WoL existed in Elpis? Elidibus remembers us being there. When we confront Hydaelyn in the aetherial sea she remembers us being in Elpis. The end of the Paendamonium raid series has Eric remarking about us in the memory vision. If you did the Elpis side quests before finishing Myths of the Realm then you have special dialogue for some of the deities and the events you took part in. Believe me when I say I would love for the WoL to have not actually existed in Elpis, but that's simply what happened.

As for the sundering attacking on Zodiark. Link the specific portion of the Q&A you are referring to.

I played the game where it's casually hinted at multiple times that we were Azem. It's not possible the WoL existed in Elpis-- they're a sundered being. Argos also responded to us, doesn't mean it was literally us. Also Elidibus just conveniently remembers us despite never having his memory affected by Kairos...? I know someone's going to say "well he died and his memory was freshed"-- please. Elidibus is very familiar with our character and he would've sensed something before now. I don't think he was responding to your literal face but the fact you're a sundered part of Azem (as is Golbez imho). So by extension, there's an original past time line that exists independent of our visit.

And that goes for everything imo-- the Alliance Raid, pandaemonium, argos whatever. But it literally being our WoL vs Azem (or some Ancient) doesn't make any sense.

. I'd be interested to know how the unsundered Ascians—Lahabrea, Elidibus, and Emet-Selch—avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.
A4. https://youtu.be/WRpdIL7_NII?t=13301
Summary: Venat intentionally left a tiny flaw in her sundering attack, a "crack" for Emet-Selch to wiggle through. This was a gamble because she didn't have full control over the sundering attack, she could not be sure Emet-Selch would live.

How is it a gamble and how does she not have control if she knew she was going to it and the result because we told her? Riddle me this

[Absimiliard]

[Xirean]

I played the game where it's casually hinted at multiple times that we were Azem.

You mean where multiple characters noted the similarity of the WoL's soul to the soul of Azem.
Hythlodaus: "A bit thin in the aether, but it's soul is almost identical to Azem's"
The WoL introduces themself as "Azem's familiar" to several people.

It's not possible the WoL existed in Elpis-- they're a sundered being.

What do you think Elidibus did with the crystal tower? Send the WoL into a fever dream or a simulation? It was time travel which the tower is able to do because of Cid, explained in the sidequests for the dungeon The Twinning. It's the entire reason Shadowbringers was able to happen. It brought the tower to the first along with G'raha Tia.

Also Elidibus just conveniently remembers us despite never having his memory affected by Kairos...?

When was Elidibus effected by Kairos? He's not part of the Elpis MSQ where that device is relevant.

So by extension, there's an original past time line that exists independent of our visit.

How I wish that were the case.

I'd be interested to know how the unsundered Ascians—Lahabrea, Elidibus, and Emet-Selch—avoided being kicked into 14 pieces by Hydaelyn.
A4. https://youtu.be/WRpdIL7_NII?t=13301
Summary: Venat intentionally left a tiny flaw in her sundering attack, a "crack" for Emet-Selch to wiggle through. This was a gamble because she didn't have full control over the sundering attack, she could not be sure Emet-Selch would live.

How is it a gamble and how does she not have control if she knew she was going to it and the result because we told her? Riddle me this

A few things on this. The question is in regards specifically to how the trio escaped the sundering and not if Venat knew if the sundering attack would shatter the world or not. The "gamble" on Venat's part was if she could successfully keep those 3 unsundered or not, which she was able to do as we see in game with those 3 still being unsundered. Ironically you have actually provided evidence that goes against your claim and is one of the bigger pieces of evidence that people have used in this thread to prove that Venat did the sundering on purpose.

I ask you again. What game did you play?