What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Kaurhz]

.

She did state that she wanted to work indepdently of the convocation, largely in part to the dilemma that Hermes forced upon them. It was his desire for man to be given a fair trial when presented with the inevitable, and inescapable death forced upon them. She was uncertain whether her action would force Hermes to present either as friend or foe, or whether the announcement of such information to the convocation would alienate a potentially brilliant mind. Sound reasoning but a poor moral basis, sure.

It's brushed under the rug because it is not our place to give weight to her 'crimes' - That much belongs to the ancients. Those living now are not those that lived in the unsundered world. Just 'fragmented' souls, individual people. To use Hydaelyn is good because she's the one associate with our life, as such. Equally Hydaelyn is bad in the eyes of the ancients because she's the one responsible for sundering in the first place. Yet we view Zodiark as bad because he is the means with which the unsundered would restore and reclaim their world, and in so doing essentially unmaking ours. Good/Bad are just paradigms of a perspective, and the perspective you have depends on who you are. There are very few established reasons for those in the sundered age to see it otherwise, Aside from the whole "But he's protecting the star" - Which isn't really something many people are privy to in the first place. I'd like to think they done a good enough job at showing this through the cutscenes in Shadowbringers. There's no need for them to be superfluous with this, but just to show us their perspective. They've viewed Hydaelyn as a genocidal maniac essentially responsible for their undoing for ages. - I feel if they had gravitated more in the direction of trying to paint Hydaelyn in a bad image (which sure she is, I don't necessarily debate against such) then it'd just have become obnoxious.

Besides, if a civilisation is going to go through the process of sacrificing itself several times - Once for the forestalling, another for rekindling life into the star, and to my knowledge and recollection a contemplated third time to give life back to those sacrificed. At what point does one go - Enough is enough.

Besides, on the point of "created more life" we can argue that as being a fair point to make. In the days of the unsundered, they viewed themselves as having a duty to their star, their world, and that when they have fulfilled this duty they may pass on willingly and embrace death as their own choice. Comparatively and by Hermes' own admission the creations (or beasts) of their age that are deemed 'useless' can be snuffed out with little for second thought, with some scarcely born/created, being afforded but a few breathes before they are snuffed out. This was practically Hermes' entire character, why he loathes the world, why he is so depressed and why he went to such a length to have the events transpire in the first place - How do the ancients themselves cope with the self-same dilemma presented to them as to their creations. - Not to mention, to the best of my knowledge the ancients, or those of Amaurot pretty much put themselves into a non-interreference on the Final Days until it started to affect them personally, and then with how they dealt with the whole sacrifices to Zodiark in a gambit to drown out the dynamis/song of oblivion.

So yeah we can argue, "But they only did it in response", when arguably, and regardless they're still as bad.

[Lauront]

They simply had no reason to pursue that knowledge at large because dynamis wasn't predominant in Etheyris and it's also weaker than aether, so there weren't "practical" applications. Hermes's was a personal interest in learning about other worlds to try to fill his existencial voids, so think of it as his "hobby". But that doesn't mean they weren't capable of conducting such research if they had REASON to. Like preventing their race and planet from being wiped out from existance.




The flowers may have been created there but they're present in other places too. Scarce, but not exclussive to Elpis. But I don't think this is as relevant as you think it is.



And as I've mentioned before, Elpis is just one research facility. And one devoted to testing creations before letting them roam free. Its main purpose wasn't to design new creations inside it, but rather for everybody across the star to bring their creations and test them. Considering dynamis wasn't a practical avenue for them to explore it's not surprising that the only person with knowledge about it has it because of a hobby. But again, Elpis is JUST ONE RESEARCH FACILITY.


Having said all this, the "objective statements" you made afterwards crumble down except for the "other scholars" and Hythlodaeus parts. First one is explicitly stated in dialog, the 2nd can be inferred. Also, just because knowledge is scarce doesn't mean it's old, abandoned knowledge.

Yup. There is no getting around the fact that several scholars are credited with devising the solution they came up with, and not just Hermes, and so this strongly lends itself to what you're saying - and again, the scene with the Watcher premises this on Zodiark, aside from his many other functions, of being capable of using his dark aspect to reinforce those areas where the celestial currents grew weak, to create a shield of a kind, and not so much on dynamis. But certainly, all the same could be said of dynamis.

[Theodric]

As an aside, if the thread's premise isn't to someone's liking, then they're free to create one that is more suited to their tastes. I'm sure a thread praising the story would gain some traction. I'd be more than happy to weigh in on the Garlemald chapter as that was by far my favourite part of Endwalker.

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to why it is considered to be an 'echo chamber' if a thread is made to discuss perceived flaws in the finale of a decade long narrative and then posters gather to do exactly that.

[Sicno]

No, but I don’t think Emet or Hyth were as young comparatively and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t a god then.

Oh wow, that sounds an awful lot like MAKING A DISTINCTION.

[Misplaced_Marbles]

Have you considered the possibility that people who like Venat are just as discerning and sophisticated in thier tastes as you, or will you keep looking down on us as shoving the equivilent of narrative fast food into our faces while insisting that you're not?

Don't feel bad. Many people find a story of a pretty woman with a sob story that lifts them above reproach, above how people should react when confronted with whatever it is they did, the most compelling thing ever told, the sob story aiding in covering their lust in the old "my fee fees" excuse. The Japanese especially love it (at least the Japanese writers do. Don't now about the Japanese readers/players/viewers).

[Kaurhz]

As an aside, if the thread's premise isn't to someone's liking, then they're free to create one that is more suited to their tastes. I'm sure a thread praising the story would gain some traction. I'd be more than happy to weigh in on the Garlemald chapter as that was by far my favourite part of Endwalker.

I'm just at a bit of a loss as to why it is considered to be an 'echo chamber' if a thread is made to discuss perceived flaws in the finale of a decade long narrative and then posters gather to do exactly that.

A discussion by the very nature involves people that both agree and disagree with the premise of the thread. A thread such as this should not be homogenous, neither should one complementing the story.

[Lauront]

It's brushed under the rug because it is not our place to give weight to her.

But it was with Emet-Selch and the Ascians?

Those living now are not those that lived in the unsundered world. Just 'fragmented' souls, individual people. To use Hydaelyn is good because she's the one associate with our life, as such. Equally Hydaelyn is bad in the eyes of the ancients because she's the one responsible for sundering in the first place. Yet we view Zodiark as bad because he is the means with which the unsundered would restore and reclaim their world, and in so doing essentially unmaking ours. Good/Bad are just paradigms of a perspective, and the perspective you have depends on who you are. There are very few established reasons for those in the sundered age to see it otherwise, Aside from the whole "But he's protecting the star" - Which isn't really something many people are privy to in the first place. I'd like to think they done a good enough job at showing this through the cutscenes in Shadowbringers. There's no need for them to be superfluous with this, but just to show us their perspective. They've viewed Hydaelyn as a genocidal maniac essentially responsible for their undoing for ages. - I feel if they had gravitated more in the direction of trying to paint Hydaelyn in a bad image (which sure she is, I don't necessarily debate against such) then it'd just have become obnoxious.

I shall say I do not necessarily identify with the "protagonists", so I wouldn't agree with the "we" here unless you're solely referring to them. I agree with the rest but I can assure you that for the duration of SHB, those articulating such a view were very much in the minority and people just generally rolled with calling the rejoinings genocide, so this sensitivity to the term being applied to the Sundering is rather peculiar.

Besides, on the point of "created more life" we can argue that as being a fair point to make.

In which case we're stuck arguing that in certain cases, genocide can be excused - on the one hand to reinforce the aether of those lives sundered and restore them to their natural state; on the other sundering to accomplish a goal, which if inflicted on the sundered now, they would no doubt strenuously oppose if it led to their erasure, much as it did with the ancients, no matter how compelling the motives involved.

In the days of the unsundered, they viewed themselves as having a duty to their star, their world, and that when they have fulfilled this duty they may pass on willingly and embrace death as their own choice. Comparatively and by Hermes' own admission the creations (or beasts) of their age that are deemed 'useless' can be snuffed out with little for second thought, with some scarcely born/created, being afforded but a few breathes before they are snuffed out. This was practically Hermes' entire character, why he loathes the world, why he is so depressed and why he went to such a length to have the events transpire in the first place - How do the ancients themselves cope with the self-same dilemma presented to them as to their creations.

Much as the musings of a radical vegan when confronted with how we deal with animals - and we (and the sundered) do far worse things to them than the ancients did with their arcane entities, only some of which qualified (based on the star's own criteria) to gain a soul, and even then predominantly to become animals or plant life. A few other ancients shared his perspective to some degree. They did not go about dooming the entire star, alongside said creations, to destruction, as well as everything else in Meteion's path. And besides that? His own staff and even other ancients entertained his requests. We saw that they're quite willing to listen to new ideas and adjust their perspectives if convinced of the merits of what's being said during the sidequests.

- Not to mention, to the best of my knowledge the ancients, or those of Amaurot pretty much put themselves into a non-interreference on the Final Days until it started to affect them personally, and then with how they dealt with the whole sacrifices to Zodiark in a gambit to drown out the dynamis/song of oblivion.

They did not. That is a debate between two ancients on whether they ought to intervene or not, but the Convocation had already decided to research how to approach the topic, as per this. People infer a strict non-interventionist stance for Amaurot, but the Convocation was tasked with making decisions affecting the well-being of the entire star, and so it was not a universal policy of non-intervention. As best as we can tell, it was weighed up case-by-case.

So yeah we can argue, "But they only did it in response", when arguably, and regardless they're still as bad.

Provided we acknowledge that what she did is one, sure.

[KariTheFox]

A discussion by the very nature involves people that both agree and disagree with the premise of the thread. A thread such as this should not be homogenous, neither should one complementing the story.

If disagreement with a thread's premise and the arguments put forth by it, are discouraged and unwanted, then it by definition an echo chamber.

snip

I am not Earagrace's handler. I will not be minding them, or my language.

[Skyborne]

You don't understand, I must continue my slapfight with my forum nemesis. My enemy... my friend...

[Kaurhz]

If disagreement with a thread's premise and the arguments put forth by it, are discouraged and unwanted, then it by definition an echo chamber.



I am not Earagrace's handler. I will not be minding them, or my language.

Indeed. I mean provided the responses, both for an against can remain conducive to productive discussion then I don't see an issue. But I suppose I'm at a bit of a loss as to why someone would argue that if people disagree or dislike the premise of a thread then they should make one conforming to their premise whilst also subsequently trying to denounce accusations of echo chamber-ing.