*Spoilers* Anyone feel joining Emet would have been better

[Lyth]

He says outright: "But I would never forsake my duty! I would never forsake my brethren!"

Yeah. That's why I said that he'd do the exact same thing again if given a second chance, and we'd still be forced to kill him to stop him. You always have the option to agree with him, you know. Just get up to the end of Shadowbringers, die to Hades, and then close down the game for good. Congrats, you're done. You've experienced Emet's plan.

I'm tired, in all honesty. I love talking lore, but over the past month-and-a-half a lot of 'talking lore' has been focused on a single part of the story and people not really getting it. I really want us all to just... move on, but it isn't exactly happening very fast.

I think part of the problem is that a few people here are very heavily invested in that Shadowbringers prediction of Hydaelyn as the final boss. The starting premise is always going to be that Venat was evil all along regardless of what she did, and every thing else, be it values, ethical systems, and so on are adopted on convenience to suit that one belief retrospectively. Because apparently the most dreadful insult for a 'lore expert' is to be told that their predictions are wrong, and this at least partially allows them to save face.

What's particularly silly is that as ideas get bounced around in this echo chamber, the story in here gets more and more distorted with each iteration. Presently, Venat is part of a rogue environmentalist faction that was opposed to the Convocation sacrificing a collection of stones, leaves, marbles, Triple Triad cards, and shiny things which we all know are equivalent in value to their friends' souls. She then kills everything on the planet and replaces them all with doppelgängers that happen to have the same soul fragments with the same memories. She also conceals the truth about the future from the world out of pure spite to allow more Rejoinings to happen, which are her fault and not the Ascians causing them. Meanwhile, she secretly embezzles the planet's Aether fund, before faking her own death in the Aetheric Sea. A loremaster exclusive aftercredits cutscene shows her enjoying drinks on the beach of a small floating island off the coast of the New World, before Azem shows up and kills her after saying 'The Convocation sends its regards' and lighting a cigar. If people don't believe that or refute it with common sense, the nuclear salt option is to hurl vitriol at the writing team.

A part of me wonders if what reactions people would have if they wandered into this subforum after playing through the story normally. 'What game are these people talking about?'

[Lurina]

Yeah. That's why I said that he'd do the exact same thing again if given a second chance, and we'd still be forced to kill him to stop him. You always have the option to agree with him, you know. Just get up to the end of Shadowbringers, die to Hades, and then close down the game for good. Congrats, you're done. You've experienced Emet's plan.

I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of your post, but also this was weirdly condescending and out of nowhere. I don't even agree with Emet, and have never said I did.

Evidently lot of people in this argument are being quite silly - though this is an official forum for an MMO, so I'm going to guess that at least some are literal kids - but if you create a bizarre caricature based on a generalized impression and apply it to everyone who holds some flavor of opposing perspective to you, the environment will just become even more ridiculous.

[Kordarion]

The problem people have though is that, although venat herself what she did wasn’t just or good or what have you, the narrative paints that in a very different light and paints her as some benevolent hero meanwhile actual benevolent heroes who did what they could to help get 0 recognition.

I think it once again comes down to whether you think her actions are justified or not, sure the game tries to convince the audience, us, that Venat's actions, as horrible as they are, are justified by the outcome. Clearly it hasn't done that job with everyone, as I mentioned, and as such that creates a dissonance with the story. For some of us the game has sufficiently justified Venat's actions and therefore we don't see a problem with the story placing her in a position where her viewpoint is considered "right".

There is also the fact that as the player we don't have the same pressure on our opinions that the in-game characters would, namely that without the sundering said characters and everyone they know and love wouldn't exist. So from their perspective, which is narrative proposing Venat as a hero, they have a real incentive to take a justification for the sundering at face value, as it is necessary for their existence. Of course this requires taking the fact that the writers would have thought of this at face value as I doubt we'll ever know if they did for certain.

[Kordarion]

A part of me wonders if what reactions people would have if they wandered into this subforum after playing through the story normally. 'What game are these people talking about?'

That was exactly my reaction when I decided to look at the forums for the first time after finishing Endwalker and seeing a mostly positive reception everywhere else I looked.

Edit: That's not to say that the people opposed to Venat don't have some valid points, I particularly enjoyed a conversation I had about what exactly constitutes death in a world with proven reincarnation, but that some of their arguments are grasping at straws, see the omnicide argument that Venat destroyed all life on Etheryis as a part of the sundering yet clearly species created in Elpis survived the sundering therefore all life cannot have been wiped out.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I think it once again comes down to whether you think her actions are justified or not, sure the game tries to convince the audience, us, that Venat's actions, as horrible as they are, are justified by the outcome. Clearly it hasn't done that job with everyone, as I mentioned, and as such that creates a dissonance with the story. For some of us the game has sufficiently justified Venat's actions and therefore we don't see a problem with the story placing her in a position where her viewpoint is considered "right".

There is also the fact that as the player we don't have the same pressure on our opinions that the in-game characters would, namely that without the sundering said characters and everyone they know and love wouldn't exist. So from their perspective, which is narrative proposing Venat as a hero, they have a real incentive to take a justification for the sundering at face value, as it is necessary for their existence. Of course this requires taking the fact that the writers would have thought of this at face value as I doubt we'll ever know if they did for certain.

That’s the thing though. It’s supposed to be morally grey, and it’s supposed to be up to the player to dictate who’s truly a hero and it’s a matter of perspective etc etc. Like i said before, you don’t see the story going and staying Emet to be a hero, however they now did that for Venat. It’s heavily biased in her case.

[Lauront]

You should watch the scene again. What he finds objection to isn't the morality of his actions, it's his escapist instability and self-destructive behavior at the end of Shadowbringers, where he undermines his own plans out of love for the Warrior of Light by inviting them to his underwater lair, and that he'd disrespect his loved ones by creating simulacrums of them. The idea that he'd wane in his dedication to his duty.

He says outright: "But I would never forsake my duty! I would never forsake my brethren!"



This is also a little reductive. There are a lot of ways you interpret the moment at the end of 5.3. It could be that his love for Azem specifically surpasses the rest of the Ancients, and he chooses to save them over loyalty to his cause. It could be that he realizes that the plan is doomed without him and wants to put Elidibus out of his misery rather than condemning him to suffer on completely alone. It could be that, even if he still would have done things differently, he believes that by defeating him and holding the convictions they do so strongly, the Warrior of Light has earned a chance to create a different future.

That third idea is emphasized in his final lines in Endwalker, where he accepts that you have won and therefore the world belongs to you, but that he will never let go of his ideals and belief in the future he wanted to create.



Yeah, I know. I was just paraphrasing in saying he admits that his plan would not have given mankind this chance to defeat Meteion.

Your paraphrasing is more or less what it says in the French version ("set foot here"). I'm inclined on that basis (but not only) to say that the sweeping reading given to it isn't particularly apt. We'll see what the other versions say and see if they shed further light.

On Emet-Selch, this is of interest.

[Kordarion]

That’s the thing though. It’s supposed to be morally grey, and it’s supposed to be up to the player to dictate who’s truly a hero and it’s a matter of perspective etc etc. Like i said before, you don’t see the story going and staying Emet to be a hero, however they now did that for Venat. It’s heavily biased in her case.

And the game never will say Emet was right, not because of his, understandable and sympathetic, motivations or because of his, contemptable and genocidal, actions, but because the characters telling the story (the scions, the eorzean alliance, heck even our player characters) will always have more to lose if Emet is "right" than if Venat is "right". Those characters would need to die for Emet to be victorious so they find every excuse for him not to be, as is only human.

As outside observers with less existential stakes we can sit back and, rightfully, call out the moral ambiguity of all sides of the story.

tldr: To me it is good story telling when the fictitious characters with the most theoretical stakes in a fictional story choose to fight for what allows them to survive/their existence to be justified. That doesn't make their reasoning necessarily right and it doesn't validate/invalidate any real person's opinion either.

[Lauront]

I can't. She's a hawt wine aunt T_T!

Liking grapes, and anything they can be turned into, is just part and parcel of the seat of Azem.

[KizuyaKatogami]

And the game never will say Emet was right, not because of his, understandable and sympathetic, motivations or because of his, contemptable and genocidal, actions, but because the characters telling the story (the scions, the eorzean alliance, heck even our player characters) will always have more to lose if Emet is "right" than if Venat is "right". Those characters would need to die for Emet to be victorious so they find every excuse for him not to be, as is only human.

As outside observers with less existential stakes we can sit back and, rightfully, call out the moral ambiguity of all sides of the story.

tldr: To me it is good story telling when the fictitious characters with the most theoretical stakes in a fictional story choose to fight for what allows them to survive/their existence to be justified. That doesn't make their reasoning necessarily right and it doesn't validate/invalidate any real person's opinion either.

However the scions always go on and preach how all life matters, so should they not apply the same logic to either side? Regardless though, in the end it’s writers writing the story. Not the fictitious characters. They could have made it 100% grey. They could have given options for us to remain neutral. If you’re going to go on record and specify that both sides are the same, neither are good nor bad but then go back on that and have in game canon be that one side is actually good and a hero and benevolent…you’re contradicting your own statements. That’s never good.

[tokinokanatae]

The problem people have though is that, although venat herself what she did wasn’t just or good or what have you, the narrative paints that in a very different light and paints her as some benevolent hero meanwhile actual benevolent heroes who did what they could to help get 0 recognition.

As much as I have my issues with Venat, this isn't factually correct. Even as early as Hades EX, the game frames Emet-Selch as a hero who fought nobly for the lives of his people. The game has the Scions expressing sympathy for his cause all through your exploration of Amaurot, with Alisaie even outright saying that she would have done the same thing in his shoes. In 5.3, the Scions even evidence bittersweetness over Emet-Selch's passing when they plan to leave the Ocular one last time, pointing out that he would have been with them in there through their Shadowbringers journey, too. You are also given the option to mourn Elidibus and apologize for what happened to him in EW.

So, to me, the issue is less that Venat is painted as a hero and more that her actions don't get the in-game scrutiny that Emet-Selch's did. Now, it's logical that Emet-Selch was met with hostility and skepticism on behalf of the Scions. Emet-Selch was a part of your opposition whereas Venat had been assisting you with your goals as far back as ARR. However, ShB brought up several facts about the shady manipulation that "Hydaelyn" engaged in that needed better answers than, "yeah, it's weird that she lied about that lololol." Emet-Selch really had to prove himself to us--with several of the Scions, like Thancred, never giving him even an iota of trust--but when our confidence in Venat was badly shaken, it's as though the game didn't think she would be obligated to do anything to win it back. It was enough that she was lonely and sad because her actions left her isolated for millennia.

Nope, that doesn't work for me.