Endwalker's message (spoilers!)

[Caurcas]

I side with Venat purely from a philosophical stand point, and is why I am opposed to the Emet side of the ancients. To put it briefly, that is that life is defined by one's interaction with conflict and adversity. To conquer and overcome is the point. The struggle against doom placed upon you. The ancients seemed to have a poor grasp of this and rushed into the Zodiark plan and there by falling into the trap that Meteion placed for them. Whereas the sundered had to deal with the doom placed upon them and advance through it. To overcome it. They were also better adjusted to dealing with suffering. All in all the named ancients all fall under the classical tragic hero definition. They all have their strengths, and their critical weaknesses that lead to their fall.

Sidenote, why couldn't crush Meteion's skull betwixt out iron fingers and cast her head down the stairs? She is the legit worst part of the narrative.

[Rulakir]

The Ancients had no idea what was happening, they wanted to put a stop to involuntarily creating abominations that were devouring people alive in the streets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people would jump at the first solution to that problem. :P

Also, the suffering part didn't even matter in the end. The Final Days still returned to Etheirys, and after 12k years the sundered were still unequipped to handle it. Had Meteion not been defeated, they would have had to flee into space indefinitely.

[Caurcas]

The Ancients had no idea what was happening, they wanted to put a stop to involuntarily creating abominations that were devouring people alive in the streets. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most people would jump at the first solution to that problem. :P

Also, the suffering part didn't even matter in the end. The Final Days still returned to Etheirys, and after 12k years the sundered were still unequipped to handle it. Had Meteion not been defeated, they would have had to flee into space indefinitely.

I dunno, the sundered seemed to pick up the cause of dynamis monsters pretty quick and were combating them pretty well. Atleast from the cutscenes we get on the matter.

[Garnetiferous]

I dunno, the sundered seemed to pick up the cause of dynamis monsters pretty quick and were combating them pretty well. Atleast from the cutscenes we get on the matter.

The ancients figured out exactly what the sundered people figured out. Elidibus even tells you that before he sends you to Elpis. And we literally had to time travel to figure out a permanent solution.

[Makeda]

Overall, while I was surprisingly less emotional at many points of Endwalker as compared to Shadowbringers, I think its beautiful message is deeply engraved into my heart and I won't forget it any time soon!

Yes. It's basically a pseudo-Taoist message: The purpose of life is to be. Not to reach a destination, but to just live for life's sake. To exist is not suffering like Buddhism claims, but is a blessing in and of itself. Existence is not about the destination and not about trying to end it all, but about being in the moment, about the journey. There will be pain and sorrow, but there will also be joy and remembrance. Just live in love. Be.

And maybe sit down in the hundred acre wood for a jar of honey while you're at it.

[astercantus]

It's interesting that some people see the portrayal of suffering in Endwalker as "you MUST suffer, otherwise life has no meaning". My own subjective take is that we have to accept some degree of suffering as a part of life, but by no means are we not encouraged to minimise it. In the game we encounter so many situations where we actually prevent suffering from happening (saving NPCs, protecting towns and villages etc.) By all means, if you can prevent pain and hardship from happening in the 1st place, that is the optimal solution - I think it would be highly irrational to say that yes, you are in a position to suffer and I will let it happen because that's what life is about and it will make you stronger. In fact, this mentality reminds me of Mother Theresa, who believed that suffering brought people closer to God and thus she refused to administer painkillers to the needy (big yikes).

Through our actions, we constantly improve the lives of others by minimising their suffering. In moments where the suffering was inevitable, we provided support and succor. For me, Endwalker's message was that a completely joyous life absolutely free of suffering is unrealistic, unattainable and is ultimately untenable. What we should aim to do is first alleviate suffering (if possible), and if not - then rely on your friends, family and other support systems to overcome it. I don't support the whole "you must suffer to be a better person" ideology as it can come off as real icky. But for a lot of people, finding a way through unavoidable suffering does temper them to become stronger. I do think the message was more nuanced (but perhaps it didn't come across that way for everyone?) than people thought.

[KizuyaKatogami]

It's interesting that some people see the portrayal of suffering in Endwalker as "you MUST suffer, otherwise life has no meaning". My own subjective take is that we have to accept some degree of suffering as a part of life, but by no means are we not encouraged to minimise it. In the game we encounter so many situations where we actually prevent suffering from happening (saving NPCs, protecting towns and villages etc.) By all means, if you can prevent pain and hardship from happening in the 1st place, that is the optimal solution - I think it would be highly irrational to say that yes, you are in a position to suffer and I will let it happen because that's what life is about and it will make you stronger. In fact, this mentality reminds me of Mother Theresa, who believed that suffering brought people closer to God and thus she refused to administer painkillers to the needy (big yikes).

Through our actions, we constantly improve the lives of others by minimising their suffering. In moments where the suffering was inevitable, we provided support and succor. For me, Endwalker's message was that a completely joyous life absolutely free of suffering is unrealistic, unattainable and is ultimately untenable. What we should aim to do is first alleviate suffering (if possible), and if not - then rely on your friends, family and other support systems to overcome it. I don't support the whole "you must suffer to be a better person" ideology as it can come off as real icky. But for a lot of people, finding a way through unavoidable suffering does temper them to become stronger. I do think the message was more nuanced (but perhaps it didn't come across that way for everyone?) than people thought.

See i saw the theme as that too, but i think the problem with it for me and a lot of other people is that, they didn’t do a good job portraying that line of thinking for Venat. Because of what she did etc it really seemed like her pov was these people need to suffer if they are to overcome Meteion,and the fact the game paints her as benevolent for all of this is just another nails on the chalkboard situation. People act like the Ancients saw themselves as these perfect beings who didn’t suffer but weve been shown time and time again that isn’t true. We’re even told that they’ve made imperfect creations time and time again but they work to make sure everything is done safely and securely for the betterment of their world and the people on it.

[Kozh]

I side with Venat purely from a philosophical stand point, and is why I am opposed to the Emet side of the ancients. To put it briefly, that is that life is defined by one's interaction with conflict and adversity. To conquer and overcome is the point. The struggle against doom placed upon you. The ancients seemed to have a poor grasp of this and rushed into the Zodiark plan and there by falling into the trap that Meteion placed for them. Whereas the sundered had to deal with the doom placed upon them and advance through it. To overcome it. They were also better adjusted to dealing with suffering. All in all the named ancients all fall under the classical tragic hero definition. They all have their strengths, and their critical weaknesses that lead to their fall.

Sidenote, why couldn't crush Meteion's skull betwixt out iron fingers and cast her head down the stairs? She is the legit worst part of the narrative.

But they literally summon Zodiark as last effort though. It's not "rush into Zodiark plan". The first Final Days reaches Amaurot last, and at that time they did research on how to combat it, with fandaniel manage to discover that it attacked the place with lowest aether density.

And i have to disagree with the "better adjusted". What we experienced during the second Final Days is only the tip of the iceberg, and look how much the casualties it already brought. If it manage to reach sharlayan, pretty sure people will go into panic mode not unlike the Ancients.