The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[Rulakir]

Yoshi-P has spoken about how the writing team reads even the English feedback here in the past and that said feedback does influence their choices, so in book, it's good for these threads to stay active and create a better shot at them actually seeing it.

I only ever see Yoshi-P mention Twitter, Reddit, and streamers for feedback, arguably the worst sources for anything that's not glowing praise (especially the latter since that's their job). I thought it was odd they wouldn't read their own forums, especially since you have to have an account to post here. It's good to see supposedly they do.

My main issue is the portrayal of Venat. It's not that they necessarily had to rewrite events as they unfolded, just don't have a character guilty of the same (or worse) atrocities as the antagonists be treated like a protagonist. It was bizarre and unsettling. Had the WoL approached it as, "I don't agree with what you did, but you've left me no choice" I still wouldn't have liked it, but I would've been a lot less angry about my character being forced to treat her positively while being gaslit that she was a good person. You can't just say she's morally grey because she has 1-2 lines of dialog where she admits what she did was cruel (no regrets though, I notice) while everyone else is like, "Nah, you're good, girl!"

On a side note, regarding this anyhow, i think the fact they needed to answer so many vital story questions in a QnA is...a good example of some of the things that this expansion missed the mark on. A lot of the story was very unclear considering how much it left many people confused about very important aspects of the story that shouldve had more emphasis.

Apparently Ishikawa was working on the script until the last minute and didn't have the luxury of fine tuning story elements, so maybe that's part of the reason why.

Not so much here, but I've found the FFXIV community to be toxic AF when it comes to criticism of the game. Reddit aggressively downvotes anything negative to the extent that critical discussion of the game is actively deterred. I've had multiple people PM me who have told me they don't feel comfortable expressing their views, but that they share my feelings and needed to vent to someone about it. There's another forum I've frequented for years and for the first time I had to contact a moderator about harassment because I was being repeatedly personally attacked for expressing my dislike for Venat and the EW storyline surrounding her. I've heard the Discords aren't any better and I won't touch Twitter. I'm used to toxicity and trolls, I played WoW for 16 years, FFXIV is a whole other level for having such a "nice" community.

[Rulakir]

I'm not sure Hermes matters anymore. Based on the Q&A, Venat's reasons for the sundering were because she didn't believe the Ancients could change or that they were capable of defeating Meteion without the ability to interact with dynamis, so it sounds like even without Zodiark she would have still sundered the world for those reasons. At no point even after he's summoned (when it wouldn't matter if Hermes fell apart one way or another) does she decide to tell her people the truth either.

[EaraGrace]

I'm not sure Hermes matters anymore. Based on the Q&A, Venat's reasons for the sundering were because she didn't believe the Ancients could change or that they were capable of defeating Meteion without the ability to interact with dynamis, so it sounds like even without Zodiark she would have still sundered the world for those reasons. At no point even after he's summoned (when it wouldn't matter if Hermes fell apart one way or another) does she decide to tell her people the truth either.

Hermes matters in the context of telling them of Meteion openly. The Sundering was not reliant on that remaining a secret. it was only to prevent both a panic and preventing Hermes from turning against the Ancients that decided to not inform the Convocation.

[Lyth]

Elidibus is gone. Time travel expends a massive amount of Aether, and he himself tells you that creating a conduit to Elpis will drain the last drops of Aether from his soul. Emet describes likewise how Lahabrea's reckless soul jumps left his soul progressively more broken, like his Phoinix, burning itself to ash. I presume this which is why his ARR/Heavensward incarnation is a hollow shell of his former power. Emet is really the only unsundered who could conceivably come back because of how stingy he's been with his bounteous reserves, and he's clearly smart enough to retire when he's ahead. I'm sure that he'll make an obligate cameo again at some point, though. I personally think that he should just possess the Wandering Minstrel and get his revenge through devious mechanics.

As for the events of Ultima Thule, they essentially confirmed the natural laws don't really apply in there, being a world driven by your internal perceptions. I think that you probably could have summoned anyone or anything in there had you the conviction to bring it forth.

[Absimiliard]

As far as we know, 100% usage of spiritual aether means soul destruction. At this point there's a reasonably large list of NPCs that won't be coming back, Elidibus and Venat among them.

[Theodric]

In Hythlodaeus' case we're talking about a character who was selfless enough to sacrifice himself to Zodiark in order to help restore Etheirys after the Final Days struck. By his own admission, he wasn't a 'fighter' in the same way as Venat or Emet. He also states in Elpis that he sees the willing return to Etheirys as a beautiful moment.

[Theodric]

It ties rather readily into a post I made on the subject a while back:

At the end of the day, it's just a video game. One many of us are varying degrees of passionate about, certainly, though I personally don't care for rivalries to form over something that is entirely fictional. As such, my stance has ever been to agree to disagree where common ground cannot be found. I don't care for endless arguments over morality and I'd like to think I've made it perfectly clear that if anyone has a problem with me, then they're very welcome to come and talk it out in a civil manner.

I like working out and discussing the 'how' and 'why' things happen in the way that they do in any given story or historical event, though my personal preferences drift towards characters and factions that have lofty stakes over those that have everything work out to their benefit most of the time.

One thing I noticed, however, was that some pretty spiteful and nasty accusations were aimed at anyone who ever dared to speak up in favour of the antagonists. This included death threats, homophobic comments and other unpleasant elements. Given that the offending posts were deleted, however, then such will have to be taken with a pinch of salt - though I'd like to think those who are being genuine and who have been around for a while will be aware of what I'm speaking of. Especially since some of the offending comments leaked into Reddit, Twitter and certain Discord servers.

The most fascinating thing I observed was that certain posters would repeatedly launch thinly veiled attacks and sometimes direct personal attacks at fans of the antagonists, implying all manner of horrible things about their person and real world morality. When finally those being assaulted had enough, even a minor quip in response would be treated as some deeply horrific crime and personal attack.

I will say that things have improved somewhat since then. Right around the same time that the game itself revealed that, yes, actually there was more to the Ascians and Garleans all along.

Ultimately any given individual is going to have their personal preferences and interests. I've never suggested that anyone has to like specific characters or factions. I only ask that the same courtesy is extended to others in turn.

In closing, I'd also note that the game attracts players from many different countries, cultures, backgrounds and belief systems. We all have different life experiences, so that is going to influence what we like and we don't like.

I think it's telling that there's so much concern being expressed over Venat being called a 'psychopath' when that's simply the opinion of an individual poster and more importantly...Venat isn't real.

It should go without saying that death threats, harassment and gatekeeping of opinions are far graver a problem than that.

How interesting that the trend of raising concern only arises when someone decides to push back against unsettling threats and personal attacks that they receive over something as trivial as their personal tastes in fictional characters.

[KariTheFox]

I think it's telling that there's so much concern being expressed over Venat being called a 'psychopath' when that's simply the opinion of an individual poster and more importantly...Venat isn't real.

Okay, for the last time. I do not care if someone dislike Venat or disapproves of her actions. Insult her all you want, call her a bitch, a miserable little worm, or a horrible person - I do not care.

What I objecting to is the specific claim about her as a character and her motivations that comes with calling her a "mentally ill psychopath". That isn't an 'opinion' - it is a claim about Venat as a character, and the text. It is a claim that is inaccurate because there is zero indication that Venat is mentally ill, or motivated by psychopathy. The reasons cited for her being a mentally ill psychopath "She told lies, she contradicted herself, she thinks she knows what is best for everyone" are not only not signs of mental illness - but also things that apply to all the ancients, and to sundered people as well. The fact of the matter is that Venat was perfectly sane, and acting in good faith doing what she thought was the best course of action. You are free to disagree that her chosen course was the best possible one, but we can't even start to have a discussion about that if we cannot agree on basic points of fact about the text.

If I were to say, "Emet-Selch is a mentally ill sadist, he causes rejoinings because he enjoys watching the sundered peoples suffer and die," you would rightfully object, because it is an inaccurate claim about his character and motivations, it does not suddenly become better if I say "In my opinion, Emet-Selch is a mentally ill sadist, he causes rejoinings because he enjoys watching the sundered people suffer and die." instead.

I also fail to see how it is relevant that other, unrelated people acted in bad faith regarding Garleans and the Ascians. So what if some people on twitter insulted you for liking Gauis and Emet-Selch or whatever? - that has nothing to do with my point. Nor do I think it's terribly mature to say 'well in some other discussions in the past, people I associate with being on 'your side' acted in bad faith, so there's nothing wrong 'my side' doing it now.'