/r/ffxivdiscussion: Has FFXIV had any major retcons or plot holes in the story?

[Jeeqbit]

Everything you've said is headcannon

Doubtful. I tried to avoid my headcannon and just say the story SE was obviously trying to tell.

that is not supported by anything told in the story that you've made up in order to justify the atrocity committed by Venat.

This idea of an atrocity is what is made up. Obviously, SE has not portrayed it that way in the slightest and it's because the story they are telling is that she was saving them from the self-destruction that happened to all the other stars, as I explained.

If the Ancients are all tempered why is there disagreement over the third sacrifice?

Because Emet-Selch literally admits that were all tempered in optional dialogue.

Player: Tell me about Zodiark.
Emet-Selch: As I told you before--Zodiark is the creation of my people. The first people.
Emet-Selch: We summoned Him, as your kind might summon a primal--albeit an infinitely more powerful one.
Emet-Selch: And like one of your primals, He tempered us. It was only natural. There is no resisting such power. And so we Ascians came to exist solely to bring about the rule of darkness. His darkness.

Hydaelyn refers to them all as "servants of Zodiark" in 3.2. After Emet-Selch dies, Y'shtola refers to him as a servant of Zodiark. Because he was tempered.

Why do the Loporits explain that tempering was added by the Ascians after the sundering?

What they explained was that they are only primals if you summon them with the desire to recruit others to ones' cause. Normally, the Ancients summoned without this desire, but given the above information, it is quite clear that they summoned Zodiark with the "desire to recruit others to ones' cause". Most likely because it was an emergency and they wanted everyone to be on board with their plan.

How Venat avoided being tempered was probably her travelers ward, something that she told us was uniquely hers. SE consistently said the rest of them were tempered dating back to the start of 2.0 to all the way through Shadowbringers.

Why did Venat not warn them that Zodiark would temper them?

They already seemed to be tempered in the cutscene we watched. As for telling Emet-Selch this, maybe it was intentional, based on the dialogue above. He wanted everyone on board, but he didn't have the hindsight of what that would do to all the beast tribes, and his own people.

If primals are made based off the desires of the creators, why would a being created from the desire to save the world instead destroy it?

Well of course, the purpose of Zodiark was to use the Aether to restore darkness to an area that was lacking it and to use the Ascians' aether to create trees, plants, vegetation, then restore them. But as we know, primals crave an endless supply of Aether because they were created with a desire to recruit others to their cause. Once they are recruited, it isn't long before they want to sacrifice themselves to their god, until all of them have done so and they have annihilated themselves. In other words, there was a flaw in its creation.

Venat needed the human race to suffer in order to pass Meteion's test. When she sunders the world she says, "No longer shall man have wings to bear him to paradise."

That's because in order to know how to overcome Meteion's despair, people need to experience it on a regular basis, otherwise they won't know how to. The Ascians didn't know how to because they had only known perfection. In order to make them experience despair on a regular basis, their "wings" were removed as she put it. They would experience hardship and despair constantly, so that when they were finally confronted with a Final Days event, they would know how to deal with it and remain positive, which allows us to progress through Ultima Thule and remain hopeful enough to defeat her.

Even on the Source, the amount of people that actually succumbed to the Final Days wasn't that great. How many people that we normally see in these city states were missing? How many people in our quests vanished? Barely anyone. Because they had known hardship their whole life and most of them didn't just immediately struggle to deal with it.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

*snip*

It's not that the atrocity didn't happen. It's that I'm not supposed to view erasing everyone's memory, breaking all familial connections, tearing apart their souls, and introducing them to a dramatically short lifetime of suffering as an atrocity. I do though. I am incapable of seeing the sundering as anything other than an atrocity built on the flimsy excuse it made humanity "strong."

Emet-Selch is committing suicide in Shadowbringers. The Elpis version of himself recognizes his actions as a suicide attempt. If by tempering he is a mindless slave, then nothing he did was his fault because he's a mindless slave. Who knowingly let him become a mindless slave? Venat. Who failed to warn him he'd become a mindless slave? Venat. Who had a traveler's ward that could have protected him from becoming a mindless slave? Venat. Who built her own god design off Zodiark's? Venat. So either she had the knowledge to make a primal without the tempering and the absorption of aether which she didn't give to the Convocation or like the Lopporit said those were negative effects added by the Ascians. The Lopporits said that with a being as powerful as Zodiark, you might feel a tug, which would explain why Emet-Selch would feel love and gratitude towards Zodiark, but he still spent an entire expansion acting against Zodiark's interests.

Zodiark protected the sundered for 12,000 years without doing any harm to the world, and all the souls of the dead were also safely protected all that time to be released back into the lifestream after he was destroyed. If he was the hungry, hungry baby eating hippo you guys like to make him out to be, why did he hurt not a single solitary person while Venat lied and manipulated, set up people to fight over something she knew wasn't dangerous, so she could make herself a god in order to torture people for 12k years. All the pain and death happens on her watch. All Zodiark did was prevent pain and death, and so she destroyed him because she didn't want that pain prevented. She wants people to endure suffering so they can know whatever she calls "true happiness." She never saved anyone. Only maimed and broke things while taking credit from the people and beings that actually did the saving.

*Sigh* Here we go with the genocide nonsense again, Can we let it rest for god's sake?

I wish I could, but this forum is like dating Shaggy, "You gone believe me or your eyes?"

[Jeeqbit]

It's that I'm not supposed to view erasing everyone's memory, breaking all familial connections, tearing apart their souls, and introducing them to a dramatically short lifetime of suffering as an atrocity. I do though.

The alternative is they all sacrifice themselves to Zodiark hoping he will make the world perfect again. This doesn't seem a good alternative. For as much as we can argue "they were only going to sacrifice a certain %", they were tempered and not completely themselves. They were devoted to empowering Zodiark, not necessarily following the original plan.

Emet-Selch told us that an initial sacrifice was made to summon Zodiark and stop the Final Days, but then another one was made to allow vegetation to grow and that they would all be restored afterwards.

There is not necessarily any proof that the ones in the cutscene with Venat were part of that. They did not even seem to succeed in sacrificing themselves to Zodiark because of her actions. They were just trying to sacrifice themselves to Zodiark because they didn't know how to cope with hardship and were not really themselves either because of being tempered.

Emet-Selch is committing suicide in Shadowbringers. The Elpis version of himself recognizes his actions as a suicide attempt.

Not quite. I think he was genuinely fighting to restore the version of the world he loved and would accept the outcome of the fight whatever it was.

It seemed like he thought he could get the Warrior of Light to carry all the Light to the source to speed up the Rejoining, but then determined they couldn't handle all the Light so he would do it the slow way, with the Warrior of Light as a Light Warden. He thought he would easily win the fight but did not expect Ardbert to join the Warrior of Light and have to face a warrior holding all that Light, nor did he expect the other heroes from across the rift.

But I think just as he said when he entered the Amaurot dungeon, that if we wanted to prove ourselves worthy to inherit the star then we must prove it and that was what the fight was about.

If by tempering he is a mindless slave, then nothing he did was his fault because he's a mindless slave.

There was obviously a lot of truth and freedom that he had because even the scions admitted what he was doing was "only logical" from a purely Ascian point of view, but he obviously wasn't entirely himself. His non-Elpis self is clearly not the same as the Elpis version. Wanting to restore his people was no doubt genuine, but perhaps a good example is Louisoix being tempered by Bahamut. He seemed to have a lot of freedom to be himself but certain actions were bias toward Bahamut and its restoration.

Who knowingly let him become a mindless slave? Venat. Who failed to warn him he'd become a mindless slave? Venat.

Maybe she didn't know that would happen. She was going off of a story that we told. And what if she couldn't convince Emet of this? She also expressed worry (in a cutscene) that if she did explain it to the Convocation, that she might not be believed. Emet wasn't believing our story for the time that he did know it, so how would Venat convince him of this crazy story she heard from a "time traveler"?

Who had a traveler's ward that could have protected him from becoming a mindless slave? Venat.

Well, true, but it seems like such a small detail. I actually don't think small details like that would be passed down via a story, so it always throws me off that the MSQ will show me explain an Echo vision, then the scions will know little details that happened in the background that nobody would realistically include in a summary.

[ZavosEsperian]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

There is a lot of stuff for me to go over between all the posts I have mentioned above, most of the issues overlap with each other and as such I believe can be addressed in one post.

The main issue at hand concerns whether a genocide occurred due to Venat’s actions and whether she herself is guilty as the perpetrator. Genocide as a crime is defined inside of what is known as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide or more simply the Genocide Convention. The parts of the convention we are most concerned with would be those pertaining to Articles 2 and 3, which both define the crime of genocide as well as define those who are able to be charged. We shall start with Article 2. I will bold all sections of article 2 pertaining to Venat’s actions and the argument will be contained below the definition, but hidden to prevent the post from being too long:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-Genocide Convention, Article 2

Article 2 sections c and d should be relatively straightforward to understand. By sundering the Ancients, and with it the world, the physical destruction of the group is assured, and this was done in a calculated fashion, as it has been previously indicated in Q&A sessions Venat purposely allowed for Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, and Elidibus the ability to avoid the sundering attack. Section d is also relatively straightforward as well since the measure she took, which was sundering the world, would ensure no more births could occur from the population and, in the case of Emet, his children also would be sundered despite the obvious ancient lineage.

Article 2 section b is a bit more complicated but is shown inside of the Nier ReIncarnation crossover event where previous life was unable to understand language and had to relearn how to speak. In addition, upon sundering the world, Venat introduced to the new life suffering which the Ancients had not suffered prior, which would include decreased resistances to the elements as well as other agents related to illness and pestilence, both can only occur if there is a change in the constitution to the Ancients that made them weaker as a species significantly and the reduction of their lifespans from countless millennia to, at best, 500 years in the case of Viera, but somewhere near normal human lifespans for all other races. These would constitute significant harm both mentally and physically, and I only need one of these to have the basis for the argument.

Finally, there is the intent issue. Genocidal intent can be determined either directly, which would be someone admitting to it or evidence to directly prove the elements described, or through circumstantial evidence, which has been used to determine intent involving genocide IRL multiple times. Venat outright says she is going to sunder the ancients and has the forethought to also be careful to not sunder very specific ancients as to avoid causing issues related to a perceived timeline that she was told, as such I would not need to go much further beyond that. Were circumstantial evidence be needed, she unleashed untold amounts of suffering onto the lifeforms created after the sundering occurred, and would these individuals be treated as shards of the original ancients, would also constitute the ancients as well. This callousness would be great enough to also fulfill that requirement were it needed.

If it isn’t obvious from the above, KILLING OR MURDER IS NOT A REQUREMENT FOR GENOCIDE TO BE CHARGED AGAINST SOMEONE. This is intentional as it is possible to destroy a group without killing a single person from said group, and the UN recognized this back when the convention was first drafted up.

Article 3 describes who can be charged with genocide via the definition provided via Article 2:

The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

-Genocide Convention, Article 3

I do not think it necessary to go over this section in as much detail, but technically we are an accessory to the act due to telling Venat about it, which would be an act of conspiracy. Venat is guilty of committing the acts that define Genocide, so I do not believe it to be necessary to go into a full dissertation on that.

Whether you want to determine Venat as evil or not is on the person consuming the media, I won’t enforce a view here as I am trying to remain as objective as possible while presenting this argument. I will say excusing genocide using an excuse of saying it prevented another one would not be sufficient of a defense in court. You would likely cause the party you are accusing to come under scrutiny, but you yourself won’t be absolved of the crime just for saying that.

I should note the acts the Ascians committed also would constitute genocide, this has nothing about absolving their actions as they fully own what they are doing and thus would also be guilty by definition and would have the intent to be considered guilty without the need of circumstantial evidence. The point of this is to show Venat herself is guilty of the same thing levied at the ancients, particularly the Ascians, yet treatment of Venat tends to be more positive over the Ancients due to who we role play as in the story directly benefiting from Venat’s actions more so than the action of the Ascians, who won’t hesitate to kill you for getting in the way and disrupting their plans.

If we are to take the definitions above, it would be clear Venat would be guilty of the act of genocide. Whether you determine her as evil, good, or some shade of grey in between, is up to you the reader. I would argue determining Venat as wholly good would be foolish unless you believe there are real life examples where you are able to justify genociding an entire or part of a group of people for your own benefit. All other interpretations I believe could be reasonably justified.

[Jeeqbit]

If we are to take the definitions above, it would be clear Venat would be guilty of the act of genocide. Whether you determine her as evil, good, or some shade of grey in between, is up to you the reader. I would argue determining Venat as wholly good would be foolish unless you believe there are real life examples where you are able to justify genociding an entire or part of a group of people for your own benefit. All other interpretations I believe could be reasonably justified.

Arguably, the scions are guilty as well. Before they were able to reverse tempering, they had a dark practice that involved killing those that were tempered because they could not be saved.

We can even argue the Warrior of Light does not care about the fact they would kill animals with a painful weapon for sidequests or underdo a court case every time they "kill" an enemy that held a weapon against them.

But none of these things are the point of the story, and trying to focus so much on this idea that we or Venat did things wrong seems like a way for people to intentionally try and ruin the story for themselves, because many of the people making this argument seem really unhappy with the story.

[ZavosEsperian]

Arguably, the scions are guilty as well. Before they were able to reverse tempering, they had a dark practice that involved killing those that were tempered because they could not be saved.

We can even argue the Warrior of Light does not care about the fact they would kill animals with a painful weapon for sidequests or underdo a court case every time they "kill" an enemy that held a weapon against them.

Broadening the scope of my argument to fit characters where the argument is considerably more debatable or using vastly incorrect logic in regards to the Genocide Convention makes your argument seem extremely foolish, ill thought out, and makes any argument you try to throw later down the line more likely to be brushed off because of the poor form here.

The WoL could be considered guilty, but not for the reason you gave. The WoL is an accessory to the Sundering Venat committed and thus did engage in conspiracy, particularly upon not telling anyone after the memory wipe scene what happened as an attempt to stop the sundering.

But none of these things are the point of the story, and trying to focus so much on this idea that we or Venat did things wrong seems like a way for people to intentionally try and ruin the story for themselves, because many of the people making this argument seem really unhappy with the story.

The point of the story is an extremely ill thought out one since it did not consider alternate views to the story where it could be easily misinterpreted, which is a failure of media literacy between author and audience in part of the authors/writers. Displeasure in regards to the story is mostly related to the above situation which is not helped by the fact open interpretation of specific events is encouraged by the writing team, which causes headcanon to be accidentally added to events that transpired.

[Ryvick]

The main issue at hand concerns whether a genocide occurred due to Venat’s actions and whether she herself is guilty as the perpetrator.

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

[ZavosEsperian]

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

Please reread the argument I stated. In regards to the Ancients, your arguments without proof have no bearing and thus can be discarded without hesitation. I will have you ponder the following question:

If no genocide occurred as a result of the sundering, where did all the Ancients go after the sundering?

Stating they are sundered, thus creating new races, indicates they were fundamentally changed which would be indicative of them ceasing to exist which is tantamount to their destruction, and as it was targeted into them would constitute argument C. This fundamental change resulted in the new life created being unable to give birth to their progenitor race even when the progenitor race is involved, which constitutes D. B is the weakest, but if you believe no genocide occurred, would mean the Ancients that did survive the sundering would have been subjected to significant reductions in quality of life and mental acuity, which would mean B can be argued as plausible if not true.

Reinventing the definitions of genocide specifically to avoid calling someone who is a genocider a genocider is extremely dangerous, foolish, and makes me concerned about any watch lists you may be on. Arguing there is no genocide via sticking your head in the sand saying it doesn't exist exposes your posterior for all to see and ridicule, particularly when your defense to it is extremely flimsy and falls apart under any scrutiny when it is applied. I suggest rereading what I have stated and perhaps what constitutes genocide before making any more posts as to not expose yourself again.

[Eisi]

There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered.

You are such an empath ♥

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

How does reducing your IQ to 7 and your lifespan to 5 minutes not harm you? Our world starts prehistoric. They had cities, families, societies, cultures. She devolved them to apes. There is no way to get from the near immortal Ancients to my cat girl without doing something horrific to the species and the devs flat out explain what was done to them, even their immortal souls were shredded.

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

If we say what she did was genocide and you say no it's not. How can we show it's genocide without using the definition of genocide? She at best mutilated her species to the point where they could no longer be recognized as the same beings. How that does not fit any and all definitions of genocide is beyond me. It is actually one of the most horrific genocides I've ever heard recounted given the Ancients have observable immortal souls...which she sundered. Because of magic, she was able to do worse to the Ancients than real people can actually do to each other. For all the horrors we've committed against each other, we don't have the ability to rend each others souls apart. And all the horrors we do commit against each other were included in the sundering package--war, disease, famine. Thanks, Venat.