Are <5.0 main villain> fanboys also supportive of <6.1-6.5 main villain>? *SPOILERS*

[MikkoAkure]

That being said, a poor sense of media literacy would suggest being unable to discern the intentions of the person who authored the post in question. It shouldn't be too difficult to identify a troll from a well to do poster on the forums. It all seems like there is a significant amount of gatekeeping going on here in terms of forums discussion if you instantly go on the offensive against someone who may actually have genuine questions.

Going into a forum and replying to multiple threads multiple times each back-to-back with posts saying things like wanting to ignore that "millions died so I could play cactpot" and comparing the systematic killing of millions of people across multiple worlds to "stealing from someone and giving it to their kid" is going to make people suspicious and doubt their commitment to have an actual, real discussion. Especially with the history of similar trollish behavior on these forums.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Going into a forum and replying to multiple threads multiple times each back-to-back with posts saying things like wanting to ignore that "millions died so I could play cactpot" and comparing the systematic killing of millions of people across multiple worlds to "stealing from someone and giving it to their kid" is going to make people suspicious and doubt their commitment to have an actual, real discussion. Especially with the history of similar trollish behavior on these forums.

I had to actually look up trolling to see how this whole discussion of if I'm a troll is even a thing. And I get it now. You think I'm saying what I'm saying in hopes of upsetting you. I'm not. I mean everything I'm saying and the snarkiness is just part of my personality and the way I speak. Until I came to find a discussion about me and not the story, it hadn't even occurred to me that what I said would be capable of upsetting you. I'm a big Emet-Selch fan, but there is no condemnation of his behavior that would upset me because it's true. If you point out he experimented on his own descendant, yep. He burned babies in their cribs, yep. He made every world he visited a worse place on purpose, yep.

So why would pointing out Venat killed millions if not billions of people be upsetting? She did. There is even a cool cinematic of it with a power ballad playing in the background. And while Shadowbringers did introduce the complicated and messy situation of if someone taking something from you and it's held by that group for generations, is it still acceptable to use violence to take it back. But comparing what Venat did to that scenario was never meant to be inflammatory, it is actually a massive downplay of what she did. She didn't just take their land. No, she took their world, their lives, their history, their bodies, their language, their sanity, even their very souls. Real people can't take from one another the amount Venat took from the Ancients due to a lack of magic power.

Endwalker haunts me more than any piece of fiction I've ever experienced. Because I liked it. I was fully on the Venat train. The Ancients had to die. Tragic, sure. But they weren't strong like the modern races. They couldn't endure suffering like the modern races. They couldn't wield dynamis like the modern races. They were genetically and culturally inferior. Useless eaters.

The horror of realizing all it takes is a pretty lady, some inspirational words and an awesome song to turn me into a full on Garlean, yeah...haunted. That's how I'd describe it.

[ZavosEsperian]

Endwalker haunts me more than any piece of fiction I've ever experienced. Because I liked it. I was fully on the Venat train. The Ancients had to die. Tragic, sure. But they weren't strong like the modern races. They couldn't endure suffering like the modern races. They couldn't wield dynamis like the modern races. They were genetically and culturally inferior. Useless eaters.

The horror of realizing all it takes is a pretty lady, some inspirational words and an awesome song to turn me into a full on Garlean, yeah...haunted. That's how I'd describe it.

This isn't an unreasonable feeling, there are many who gladly sang the tune the story provided only to realize the gravity of the actions committed later down the line. The MSQ does a good job with this in terms of how it is choreographed; paring music with powerful moments performed by an attractive character to boot to capture the mind of the person going through the game. If anything, it is a proper example at just how powerful propaganda can be as a tool against the human mind.

With that being said, I don't fault people for enjoying the story. To me, there is no point in judging someone's take of a fictional story and as such I do not mind allowing people exploring what the authors/writers were trying to convey through the story. I also don't mind letting people be critical of how a story is portrayed, particularly if there is a discrepancy between what the author was trying to convey versus what is interpreted, as that can potentially indicate miscommunication between the author and the reader.

So why would pointing out Venat killed millions if not billions of people be upsetting?

Unfortunately, people do not like it when you go after Venat for the actions she took. For whatever reason, it appears the ability for people to accept your opinion in regards to Venat is tantamount to heresy in many corners of the forums, let alone other areas where the story is discussed. I, admittedly, do understand your point of view in regards to this, as Venat's actions are undeniable in terms of what the sundering did. Mentioning this fact, however, tends to draw the ire of many individuals either because they are unable to see how you arrived at your perspective or because they themselves feel attacked when you are critical of a character who is largely liked.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

*snip*

Why wouldn't you simply skip my posts rather than question my character and my motives? Yeah, if I agreed with murdering millions of people, I wouldn't want to be reminded that murdering millions of people so you can take everything they have is bad actually. But that feeling is actually the dissonance between you trying to claim that this case is the exception and the reminder that no, it isn't. It's the exact same as every time some group is wiped out "for the best." What she did is no different than what Thordan or Athena would do. But instead of addressing how it is somehow different, it becomes about me and my desire to "upset you" because there are no real points as to why her genocide is the good one.

I get it. I feel awful about the pile of bones they decided to sit our characters on top of which is actually why I talk about it so often. It really does haunt me. I can't phantom why they made such a decision as to have the Sundering be something done on purpose with full knowledge of the result. And every time I peel back the layers I am even more shaken by the implications.

So what do you want me to do? Go away so you aren't reminded how horrific her actions were? Lie in my answer to every post so that the reality that hit me after the credits rolled doesn't upset anyone else? Sounds like you want to keep living in the Garden and ignore the darkness in the world. And we all know how mommy goddess deals with those types...

*snip*

I like her too. That's what makes that story so scary. But as Matsya would say, "Do not avert your eyes. See the world for what it is."

If they have evidence she didn't murder millions if not billions of people in a eugenics program, I'd like to see it. If I was convinced she didn't do what it seems to me she very obviously did, I'd actually feel better. But if they'd like me not to point out she murdered millions of people in a eugenics program because it makes them feel bad, well...I'm new here and I don't know exactly how these forums work given I was doing each reply as a separate post the other day, but I assume there is a block function. Averting your eyes is actually an option regardless of the morals of the game saying you shouldn't. The morals of the game also said we shouldn't sacrifice a world to save our own, soo clearly there are exceptions to the rule (especially when it comes to Venat).

[Cleretic]

Why wouldn't you simply skip my posts rather than question my character and my motives? Yeah, if I agreed with murdering millions of people, I wouldn't want to be reminded that murdering millions of people so you can take everything they have is bad actually.

So what was your feeling on the third sacrifice to Zodiark?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

So what was your feeling on the third sacrifice to Zodiark?

I feel that people invent a sentient race never seen or heard of before or after the Sundering to justify Venat's actions because the truth is so horrific, headcannon has to makeup people for her to save to live with it. It's the same way people say that the Ancients deserve to die because they didn't respect life, they were willing to turn a butterfly into a robe to my level 90 leatherworker...

Every excuse we ever give to justify the eradication of these people, the sundered races do the same but worse. So in the case of the third sacrifice people tell themselves that the Ancients wanted to sacrifice sentient people because they can't grasp how noble these people were in comparison to us. They viewed themselves as the stewards of the star. Their disagreement was one over duty.

If my mom ended up in purgatory to save me and I can sacrifice some cows to get her back, call me Burger King. We invent a sentient race because there would be no disagreement among humans or the sundered races if we could sacrifice animals to get our loved ones back. It would be more like if someone kidnapped some of the Viera from Fanow and wanted the secrets of Ronka in exchange for their release. Some would be like, yeah, let's give it to them and get our people back while others would be like, no, it's our sacred duty to protect that information, and the people they have hostage have made that same vow. That's why Emet-Selch is abhorred at the suggestion he'd try to free the people in Zodiark because based on his value system they are doing their duty.

Both sides are perfectly reasonable stances to hold and the solution to resolving them isn't murder everyone. She allowed Zodiark to happen because she needed him as a shield for her new world and then used his existence as an excuse to get 12 people to give up their lives and more of their souls than they seem to know they will be losing so she can kill everyone they know and love.

But let's say I'm wrong and the lesser life isn't animals. Let's say that it's sentient beings, us even, let's say they wanted to sacrifice cat boys and bunny girls. Well, whatever life they were fighting over was sundered, so RIP. And the people who wanted to protect that life and agreed with her? Also sundered. So attempting to humanize the third sacrifice to dehumanize the Ancients doesn't work because whatever the third sacrifice was she destroyed it in the Sundering. You can't save anyone by ripping them to shreds and mutilating them to the point where they are no longer recognizable and reducing their lifespan by a factor of hundreds. That's not how saving works.

Her goal was not to save the third sacrifice, her goal was to make sure the future was shaped by her hands and hers alone.

[MikkoAkure]

Both sides are perfectly reasonable stances to hold and the solution to resolving them isn't murder everyone. She allowed Zodiark to happen because she needed him as a shield for her new world and then used his existence as an excuse to get 12 people to give up their lives and more of their souls than they seem to know they will be losing so she can kill everyone they know and love.

But let's say I'm wrong and the lesser life isn't animals. Let's say that it's sentient beings, us even, let's say they wanted to sacrifice cat boys and bunny girls. Well, whatever life they were fighting over was sundered, so RIP. And the people who wanted to protect that life and agreed with her? Also sundered. So attempting to humanize the third sacrifice to dehumanize the Ancients doesn't work because whatever the third sacrifice was she destroyed it in the Sundering. You can't save anyone by ripping them to shreds and mutilating them to the point where they are no longer recognizable and reducing their lifespan by a factor of hundreds. That's not how saving works.

Her goal was not to save the third sacrifice, her goal was to make sure the future was shaped by her hands and hers alone.

This isn't all just Venat's vanity project like you keep trying to insinuate. The movement against Zodiark also seems to have started without her initially as well.

This undertaking, however was not without its opponents. There were those who contended that the volitile failure of creation magicks was a clear sign that mankind could not continue as it always had. Whether the calamity had eroded faith in the Convocation, or the grim glimpse of despair had simply woken people up to a new perspective, the fact remained that the anti-Zodiark sentiment was growing, and had found a champion in a woman by the name of Venat. Her followers were too numerous to ignore, but the Fourteen would not be dissuaded from their plans. A schism formed in the ancients' society, and conflict between the tow factions erupted in earnest.
[...]

The faction lef by Venat feared that the world would not survive a second coming of the Final Days. To prevent this calamity from ever happening again, they arrived at a disconcertingly familiar solution
[...]
Venat convinced her followers that Hydaelyn and Her sundering was the only path forward.

According to the 3rd Encyclopedia, her faction knew about the Sundering and the whole reason they did what they did is because they didn't believe that the world would survive a second coming of the Final Days. The faction was also more than just The Twelve and it was sizable among the surviving population of Ancients.

Another thing to remember is that the people who were killed during the Final Days would not come back and that didn't look like any small number. The original world pre-Final Days was never coming back and if the third act had gone on and those sacrificed did indeed get their bodies and individuality back, then the Ancient world would still be forever altered with a tempered convocation and a literal god of their own creation at the center of their society as the rest of the universe collapsed around them over millennia and Endsinger speeding up the heat death of the universe.

[ZavosEsperian]

I feel that people invent a sentient race never seen or heard of before or after the Sundering to justify Venat's actions because the truth is so horrific, headcannon has to makeup people for her to save to live with it.

There is a lot of headcanon to go around on the forums unfortunately. Per EE3 page 11:

"Once the star was duly returned to vitality, they would offer a portion of its living energy to Zodiark in turn, thus allowing them to resurrect their sacrificed brethren whose souls slumbered within the deity."
-EE3 page 11, section 'The Schism'

Within EE3, there is no distinction as to what is being given up to Zodiark for the purpose of resurrection as the term "Living Energy" is rather vague and could mean a whole assortment of life forms. Anyone stating there is any specific lifeform, be it sentient or not, being sacrificed is directly contradicted by EE3. It should be noted the sacrifice back to Zodiark to attempt to resurrect the sacrificed Ancients in question would likely not work for any souls fully consumed in totality and it is unclear whether or not any Ancient whose soul was not fully consumed could be resurrected either.

As I have previously stated in a previous post, your viewpoint is one where people tend to become rather vitriolic, rude, or just plain old mean when it is encountered. I personally do not have qualms with anyone with differing opinions whereas others here clearly do and will not admit to their biases. If you are interested, I might be able to introduce you to individuals I know who also are of my mindset where people are able to discuss their various interpretations of the story without fear of ridicule or, at the very least, with the ability to agree to disagree . I personally am more of the opinion neither side was morally correct as both sides are various blends of grey to me.

[Cleretic]

So why would pointing out Venat killed millions if not billions of people be upsetting? She did. There is even a cool cinematic of it with a power ballad playing in the background. And while Shadowbringers did introduce the complicated and messy situation of if someone taking something from you and it's held by that group for generations, is it still acceptable to use violence to take it back. But comparing what Venat did to that scenario was never meant to be inflammatory, it is actually a massive downplay of what she did. She didn't just take their land. No, she took their world, their lives, their history, their bodies, their language, their sanity, even their very souls. Real people can't take from one another the amount Venat took from the Ancients due to a lack of magic power.

So, imagine how this sort of talk feels to people who took the viewpoint of 'both sides faced difficult choices and there is no clear moral right answer, but I personally feel that I would side with Venat'. This isn't incorrect by what the game puts forward, and in fact is a broadly very popular take outside of these forums; it's hard to say if it's a majority, but it's certainly very popular and there's very little in the way of vicious argument about it, and Venat's routinely in the upper echelons of character popularity polls during Endwalker. You might realize, that sort of crowd isn't especially happy to hear these things, especially given we've been hearing them fairly constantly for the past two years.

Now, imagine how it feels to not just have that sort of view of 'in this difficult hypothetical, I would side with Venat', but also have the feeling of 'I would prefer to move on and talk about any other part of the game'. There's a lot of other parts of the game, after all! Venat is actually only a small part, and speaking personally, isn't even a part I especially enjoy; I find all of Elpis fairly dull. I'd prefer if we were instead talking about Thavnair, or the Thirteenth, or primals, or that new expansion we're getting more info about this weekend. And yet, it keeps getting relitigated, by people who at best aren't very nice about it, and at worst are actively looking to start a fight or derail ongoing conversation.

Now, with all that in mind, look at your post history the past day or so.

I think you'll understand why we aren't especially warm to the subject.