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

[jameseoakes]

Yeah, I'm getting the idea that they don't want to see improvement, they want to see an antagonist.

Which itself sort of explains their behavior about the Zodiark-Hydaelyn conflict; a 'no right or wrong answers' question doesn't work in the eyes of someone who needs to see themselves as a good versus a bad. So, their argument revolves not around why their side is right, but why the other side is wrong. And no form of 'wrong' is off the table.

No, it's that Venat does the exact things the that game calls the ascians out for but when Venat does it's fine. It's not needing a right or a wrong it's that Venats as big a monster if not worse than the games villains and the story just shrugs while provinding a sick subtext of if your not the correct forms of life you don't deserve to live.

Edit Also I am getting really tired of these personal attacks where you make up stuff about the people on here posting what you don't like, It's why I don't normal respond to your points directly.

[Cleretic]

No, it's that Venat does the exact things the that game calls the ascians out for but when Venat does it's fine. It's not needing a right or a wrong it's that Venats as big a monster if not worse than the games villains and the story just shrugs while provinding a sick subtext of if your not the correct forms of life you don't deserve to live.

So what you're saying is that her actions are identical to the Ascians ('does the exact same things'), but for unstated reasons you consider her worse.

Got it.

[jameseoakes]

So what you're saying is that her actions are identical to the Ascians ('does the exact same things'), but for unstated reasons you consider her worse.

Got it.

She outright betrays her own race and personally betrays serveal people who trusted including the outright horror she inflicts on the 3 unsundered ascians by intentionally letting them witness and survive the complete extermination of the race and culture. Oh and then she creates a world of suffering a misery for some frankly vile logic of only through suffering can you know joy which honestly a vile ideology

[Cleretic]

She outright betrays her own race and personally betrays serveal people who trusted including the outright horror she inflicts on the 3 unsundered ascians by intentionally letting them witness and survive the complete extermination of the race and culture. Oh and then she creates a world of suffering a misery for some frankly vile logic of only through suffering can you know joy which honestly a vile ideology

So, to quantify, you believe Venat's crimes are:

1. Betrayal,
2. Planet-smashing,
3. Leaving survivors (I'm unclear how this is a crime but I'll run with the concept),
4. Causing suffering and misery.

I'm unclear about why this list of crimes isn't held completely equally by the Ascians. They orchestrate betrayals as part of their M.O., to cause Calamities that destroy planets, that leave at least some amount of the Source alive, and cause immense suffering and misery. In particular I would put Emet-Selch with the Garleans, Elidibus with... basically everyone he's ever manipulated, Fandaniel with the Allagans, and Igeyorhm with the Thirteenth as fitting these basically exactly.

The one thing that I can think causes a difference is that Venat did it to people she would recognize as 'like her', while the Ascians were manipulating something else? I hardly think otherizing is an acceptable or positive element, but if you do, then that still leaves Fandaniel's obliteration of Allag as Amon being equal. Emet-Selch, too, if your view is that he 'went native' at any point with us, Garlemald, or Allag.

I get that you disagree with her, and agree with the Ascians, but I don't think that even by your own logic she's actually worse.

[jameseoakes]

I get that you disagree with her, and agree with the Ascians, but I don't think that even by your own logic she's actually worse.

I'm getting really tired of you putting words in my mouth, I don't agree with ascians I just think Venat was worse. I'm also quite confused as to why it maters if Venat hadn't have have sundered the world none of the other crimes would happen and if those crimes and it really messed up how hard the game excuses Venats genocide as hard as the game does.

[Cleretic]

I'm getting really tired of you putting words in my mouth, I don't agree with ascians I just think Venat was worse. I'm also quite confused as to why it maters if Venat hadn't have have sundered the world none of the other crimes would happen and if those crimes and it really messed up how hard the game excuses Venats genocide as hard as the game does.

Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that the Sundering 'created a world of suffering and misery'--thereby implying that the world before it wasn't. But even if you take the view that the Ancient world was without suffering (a view that doesn't hold thanks to short stories and Pandaemonium), she wasn't the one that broke that. Meteion did. By the time of the Sundering, three quarters of the population was either sacrificed or dead from the Final Days, the surviving population was divided, some amount of it was tempered, and who knows what other problems had sprung forth in the aftermath; paradise had already burned. And if you do think that the Ancient world had problems, then Venat's crime was... not immediately solving them?

Venat says she 'created a world of suffering' as a condemnation of herself, but it doesn't really hold. Her reasoning is actually something akin to me thinking I'd be a terrible mother because I'd be bringing a child into a world that I don't think will treat it well; I'd feel guilt for the pain that results, but that doesn't make me guilty.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Venat says she 'created a world of suffering' as a condemnation of herself, but it doesn't really hold. Her reasoning is actually something akin to me thinking I'd be a terrible mother because I'd be bringing a child into a world that I don't think will treat it well; I'd feel guilt for the pain that results, but that doesn't make me guilty.

It was more akin to killing your neighbor, stealing their organs and Frankensteining a better person with the parts. She didn't take the Ancients anywhere, she ripped them to pieces so that they no longer had the power to improve their material conditions because she believed comfort fostered weakness. And arguing both that she was right to kill them to stop them from improving their situation, but also, their situation sucked, so it's okay to kill them because they already had it bad is a contradiction.

All that you said plus the fact that her back up plan, if all her original plans went sideways, was literally to say screw all the Reflections and save only the people of the Source. If we hadn't gone digging into the why of what was causing the Final Days (because we rightfully thought leaving the Star and letting the Reflections die was stupid), we would have been leaving without ever learning of Meteion too. That means that it only would have been a temporary fix.

I never considered the evacuation plan as anything she was serious about given she knows the actual source of the problem and that there is nowhere for people to escape to given the entire universe is being destroyed. Like maybe she did it because she wanted to give people hope, or maybe she did it cause we told her she did and she wanted to maintain the timeline, but given no one even bothered to tell the Loporrits what size we were, I can't take the evacuation plan seriously. She just needed an excuse so we'd fight her in her assisted suicide, so she didn't have to look the people in the eye whose families she murdered and civilization she destroyed after they gave their lives to protect those things. Imagine being one of those people who sacrificed yourself to protect the star only to find out moments later Venat murdered your family and used their parts to make her familiars. I'm just saying, we know for a fact combat is possible in the aetherial sea. I get why she destroyed her soul instead of facing those people.

[jameseoakes]

Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that the Sundering 'created a world of suffering and misery'--thereby implying that the world before it wasn't. But even if you take the view that the Ancient world was without suffering (a view that doesn't hold thanks to short stories and Pandaemonium), she wasn't the one that broke that. Meteion did. By the time of the Sundering, three quarters of the population was either sacrificed or dead from the Final Days, the surviving population was divided, some amount of it was tempered, and who knows what other problems had sprung forth in the aftermath; paradise had already burned. And if you do think that the Ancient world had problems, then Venat's crime was... not immediately solving them?

Venat says she 'created a world of suffering' as a condemnation of herself, but it doesn't really hold. Her reasoning is actually something akin to me thinking I'd be a terrible mother because I'd be bringing a child into a world that I don't think will treat it well; I'd feel guilt for the pain that results, but that doesn't make me guilty.

My point point with the world of suffering was that Venat actively creates a scarcity world to actively force strife and suffering on the population. That's the the whole ponit of the sundering to make a species that has to endure short hard lives where misfortunate means death (remember the children in Ishgard freezing to death)

Also with respect to Venats actions I just don't know what you are trying to get at, I mean jumping to genocide as your solution to any problem is monstrous in the extreme, I don't get how you can hate characters like Emet the way you do and then be fine saying things like genocide are solutions to problems. This is my problem with Venat, it's not so much what she does, it's how the game bends over backward to say outright one of the most heinous things possible is acceptable if you other the victims enough