What lore do you ignore?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

*snip*

Venat even describes herself as a "supreme deity."

She did not want to become a god for praise or worship. She wanted to become a god so that humanity would be shaped by her hand. The same motivation Athena had. They both believed humanity was imperfect and needed to be fixed. The only difference between them is Venat succeeded in reshaping humanity to what she deemed superior. She won. The world as we know it has been shaped entirely by her hand. There was no point in her staying alive and watching us suffer. She achieved her goals. Her legacy was secure. Why you're assuming she wanted to be a god for praise or worship and not to have complete, unilateral control over the fate of the star, which she did, is beyond me. She did what she set out to do. We're her strong little sparks. And now she can peace out never having to live in the world she created.

As for Emet-Selch destroying the Ancients by not letting Elidibus kill us. What? At that point he has recovered the memories of the future Venat never told him about. He knows it's already a lost battle and that his people will be returned to the lifestream to be reborn into the world of Venat's design. All he's doing by snapping us out of the void is sparing Elidibus any more fruitless suffering, because unlike Venat he actually does care about the suffering of people. He doesn't want to. He wishes he could be as ruthless as she is, but he just isn't. Allowing Elidibus to kill us doesn't mean that the world is restored to how it was. It means that Elidibus must continue to labor alone for thousands of years attempting to restore his world and he doesn't have all the information needed. What you're witnessing in that moment isn't a betrayal of the Ancients or their extermination, but a surrender. Venat won. His people will be reborn into the torture chamber of her design and not the paradise of his youth.

In the case of Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, and Elidibus, they were intentionally spared by Venat/Hydaelyn based on the answer Yoshi-P gave regarding this question. What you make of this is up to you.

That's what I've been saying. She spared them on purpose to ensure the rejoinings. They were controlled opposition the whole time. If you try to convince me a mother loves her children, but she takes out huge insurance policies on them and leaves them with known serial killers, I'm gonna have my doubts about that love. Like yes, the serial killers are responsible for being serial killers, but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the mother for purposely leaving her kids with serial killers, and definitely don't try to tell me she's loving and wise and simply hoped for the best. She knew what would happen.

What you're linking supports everything I'm saying. That her acts were on purpose and intentional. I even referenced you have to ignore what the producers said about their own story to come up with some of the excuses people are using to try to still read her as a good person given everything she does runs contrary to our morals.

[Cleretic]

Venat even describes herself as a "supreme deity."

Citation needed. (EDIT: Citation provided by Mikko)

[MikkoAkure]

Why you're assuming she wanted to be a god for praise or worship and not to have complete, unilateral control over the fate of the star, which she did, is beyond me. She did what she set out to do. We're her strong little sparks. And now she can peace out never having to live in the world she created.

What I mean to say is that the way you've been going on, is as if Venat did this to fulfill her own personal goals or that she's some schemer who plotted the destruction of her own race for nefarious means when there's nothing in the game itself that proves that. It's really difficult to discuss what's going on in the story when you seem to be going off of your own personal analysis of what you believe is going on in characters' heads or how you feel about the characters rather than anything presented in the game so we're on two completely different pages.

The facts are that the world had ended. Zodiark was summoned to save the survivors and to fortify the celestial aether, kill the beasts, and then later to reseed life with second sacrifice.

Then an undetermined amount of time later an amount of people "too numerous too ignore" opposed the Convocation's vision of bringing back the sacrifices and believed that humanity as it was can't survive another Final Days and that there had to be a paradigm shift in order for life to continue.

Again, the facts as presented don't say that she alone opposed the Convocation or that she lied to her supporters and they didn't know what was coming. The third encyclopedia says they knew that she planned to sunder the star. She could very well throw out the script and try something else to prevent the Final Days but the only path she knew that had a chance going forward was the one that involved the Sundering. Since the person who told her all of this came from the timeline where she chose to sunder, the other options to save all life in the universe were unknowns and to take one of them would be a gamble.

As for Emet-Selch destroying the Ancients by not letting Elidibus kill us. What? At that point he has recovered the memories of the future Venat never told him about. He knows it's already a lost battle and that his people will be returned to the lifestream to be reborn into the world of Venat's design. All he's doing by snapping us out of the void is sparing Elidibus any more fruitless suffering, because unlike Venat he actually does care about the suffering of people. He doesn't want to. He wishes he could be as ruthless as she is, but he just isn't. Allowing Elidibus to kill us doesn't mean that the world is restored to how it was. It means that Elidibus must continue to labor alone for thousands of years attempting to restore his world and he doesn't have all the information needed. What you're witnessing in that moment isn't a betrayal of the Ancients or their extermination, but a surrender. Venat won. His people will be reborn into the torture chamber of her design and not the paradise of his youth.

This is... certainly something and I'm not sure where to start with this one, but where in the story is it said that Emet-Selch is attempting to spare Elidbus suffering and that he "wishes he could be as ruthless as she is"? Where are you getting that Emet-Selch's act was a surrender to Hydaelyn and anything other than saving the WoL? Is this written somewhere in the script or is this your conjecture that you're presenting as fact?

[MikkoAkure]

Citation needed.

In the context of preparing the Scions ahead of their fight, Hydaelyn says "should you lack the strength to best a supreme deity, I cannot allow you to make the journey".

The encyclopedia also refers to the concept used to create Zodiark and Hydaelyn as the "deity concept"


Where I disagree with that poster though is that the way they worded "rise to godhood" and everything else looked to me as if they believe Venat becoming Hydaelyn was purposefully trying to make herself into a god for her own personal gain rather than anything altruistic and that she wanted to become a goddess for its own sake.

There have been posters in the past who believed that Hydaelyn was worshiped despite evidence to the contrary.

[Cleretic]

In the context of preparing the Scions ahead of their fight, Hydaelyn says "should you lack the strength to best a supreme deity, I cannot allow you to make the journey".

The encyclopedia also refers to the concept used to create Zodiark and Hydaelyn as the "deity concept"

Thanks, that's one of the few cutscenes that Gamer Escape hasn't transcribed and that I haven't recorded. (Go figure, I don't talk about this enough to need the backing visual.) I think 'supreme' is sort of the operative word here, 'deity' was kind of a given on the Ancient side; like you said, that's just what they called that concept.

It really does show the need to cite your sources, though. The fact Silvermoon just constantly posts completely unverifiable claims without evidence means that even the stuff that is true starts to sound tenuous.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

In the context of preparing the Scions ahead of their fight, Hydaelyn says "should you lack the strength to best a supreme deity, I cannot allow you to make the journey".

The encyclopedia also refers to the concept used to create Zodiark and Hydaelyn as the "deity concept"


Where I disagree with that poster though is that the way they worded "rise to godhood" and everything else looked to me as if they believe Venat becoming Hydaelyn was purposefully trying to make herself into a god for her own personal gain rather than anything altruistic and that she wanted to become a goddess for its own sake.

There have been posters in the past who believed that Hydaelyn was worshiped despite evidence to the contrary.

Meteion is attempting to prevent all suffering in the universe by stopping the cycle of life and death. Her motives are altruistic. We still punched her in the face though.

I'm not saying Venat made herself into a god for personal gain. I'm saying she's wrong. What she's doing is jaw-droppingly evil. And the most fitting punishment I can imagine for her multitude of crimes against humanity is tossing her back into the aetherial sea to be reborn into the world she made. Not as a supreme deity with a bird's eye view of what she wrought, but as a regular person, helpless and confused as her child dies in her arms of a disease with no cure. If the world she built is so much better, than she should have taken a tour to the facilities.

It's one thing for the horrors of life to happen by happenstance. It's another for them to happen by design. No good, loving being invents cancer. Especially not as a bloody character builder.

ETA: Most the villains in FF14 were well-meaning. Thordan, Athena, the Ascians, all attempting to do what they believed to be the greater good.

They were wrong.

She is wrong.

The difference that disturbs me to no end though is while the game recognizes the others were wrong, it doesn't seem to realize that Venat's fascist agenda was also wrong. When Zenos is drawing in the lifeforce of all those people to give himself the resonance, we get that's wrong. But when Venat sets up entire worlds to be smashed back into the Source so that her super soldier can be born, for some reason people can't follow the exact same logic and realize that's also wrong. She made worlds of people for the purpose of being destroyed to feed our strength, both of character and of spirit.

[Iscah]

If we're going to count Venat letting Emet-Selch go as her being responsible for the deaths of those killed in the Rejoinings, then what about when Emet-Selch himself doomed Elidibus and the whole plan he and Emet had worked 12,000 years on by letting us free when Elidibus had us dead to rights and was on the cusp of knocking down the last barrier to bringing back Zodiark? By that measure it was Emet-Selch who killed off the Ancients, not Venat. If Emet-Selch wanted the Ancients to come back, all he had to do was to do nothing but his involvement was the final nail in the coffin that killed the last Unsundered and relegated the Ancients forever to history.

This is another point where it's important that they acknowledge modern humanity is a continuation of the ancients.

Emet's story arc is that he progresses from rejecting this prospect, to accepting it at the end of 5.0, to actually choosing to side with "new humanity" rather than "old humanity" at the critical moment because if he has accepted it as a basic premise then the next step is to ensure that the winner of this conflict is the one best equipped to carry some form of humanity forward.

Far from being on the cusp of defeating the "last obstacle" to Zodiark's revival, with multiple rejoinings and resolution of the Thirteenth still to go, what Elidibus is on the cusp of is his mind unravelling completely. If he had defeated us at the Seat of Sacrifice, he might have lost the last threads of his memory soon after, and would be in no state to continue the work to revive Zodiark himself while also having wiped out the other viable option for ensuring the ancients' legacy continues.

[SannaR]

ETA: Most the villains in FF14 were well-meaning. Thordan, Athena, the Ascians, all attempting to do what they believed to be the greater good.

They were wrong.

She is wrong.

The difference that disturbs me to no end though is while the game recognizes the others were wrong, it doesn't seem to realize that Venat's fascist agenda was also wrong. When Zenos is drawing in the lifeforce of all those people to give himself the resonance, we get that's wrong. But when Venat sets up entire worlds to be smashed back into the Source so that her super soldier can be born, for some reason people can't follow the exact same logic and realize that's also wrong. She made worlds of people for the purpose of being destroyed to feed our strength, both of character and of spirit.

You might feel that you're not saying that Venat made herself into a god for personal gain, but that is how it is coming off to others. Many in this discussion have said now and in the past that the sundering was a horrible act. Yet due to the world we play in and the type of game we are playing they have chosen to come to terms with how it happened in their own way. You and the others aren't wrong in wanting or wishing for an AU where they might have gotten a better ending or lasted longer. Or for wanting the characters to react the same way they did in the past to other events. Yet that isn't what we have been given. Does it suck that for some there is a disconnect that varies in how severe that disconnect is? Well yeah.

It's not the characters fault if the writer(s) didn't stick the landing on how readers should interpret their actions. The same way that people shouldn't get mad at an actor when they're dealing with a bland, lackluster or subpar script. Or a voice actor gives a deadpan performance if they're not given any indication of how their character is supposed to be feeling.

Venat did something that she knew would mean the star could continue. As it didn't look as though there was any way to convince the convocation to not sacrifice soul endowed life to Zodiark for a third time. Especially if we are to assume that everyone at the time still held firm the belief that souls should always be able to return to the sea. You don't replace souls with more souls.

[Cleretic]

It's not the characters fault if the writer(s) didn't stick the landing on how readers should interpret their actions. The same way that people shouldn't get mad at an actor when they're dealing with a bland, lackluster or subpar script. Or a voice actor gives a deadpan performance if they're not given any indication of how their character is supposed to be feeling.

I'd also argue that it's not a fault of the writers that they didn't create a world with an unambiguous happy ending for everyone. Which really does seem to be an argument being made: that the Ancients deserved a happy ending, and so them not getting it is from varying angles both the other characters' fault for not giving it to them, and the writers' fault for not doing it.

Whereas the truth is that there's a hell of a lot of stories that just don't and shouldn't end with 'the villain is dead and the good guys all live happily ever after'. Amaurot's story is one of a tragic death of a society that doesn't deserve it, and Endwalker's story is one of grappling with death and grief in all its facets. Sure, maybe not all of those elements of either story stuck the landing, but the fix isn't to take away the fact that Amaurot died in the first place.

Is Heavensward bad for not letting us revive Harchefaunt?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I'd also argue that it's not a fault of the writers that they didn't create a world with an unambiguous happy ending for everyone. Which really does seem to be an argument being made: that the Ancients deserved a happy ending, and so them not getting it is from varying angles both the other characters' fault for not giving it to them, and the writers' fault for not doing it.

Whereas the truth is that there's a hell of a lot of stories that just don't and shouldn't end with 'the villain is dead and the good guys all live happily ever after'. Amaurot's story is one of a tragic death of a society that doesn't deserve it, and Endwalker's story is one of grappling with death and grief in all its facets. Sure, maybe not all of those elements of either story stuck the landing, but the fix isn't to take away the fact that Amaurot died in the first place.

Is Heavensward bad for not letting us revive Harchefaunt?

You really can't tell the difference between "all stories need happy endings" verses "I am disturbed what this story is trying to slip past as right and good is fascist propaganda." I'd be like making Zenos the hero of Stormblood and having all the Scions look at him adoringly as he murdered people for the sake of genetic superiority. That's be weird right? It'd be okay to point out that's maybe not a good thing, right?

I've made it blatantly clear me issue with Endwalker is to agree with Venat's actions, you have to agree with some pretty horrific concepts, like some lives aren't worth as much as others, like it's okay to take everything from a people if you believe you can make better use of it and these are the exact arguments I've been seeing trying to defend the mass murder of 10 worlds. Because even if you're willing to do all kinds of backflips to act like what she did to the Ancients wasn't genocide, she unquestionably set up several shards to be destroyed, on purpose. That's a lot of death for a loving mommy to cause.