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

[NanaWiloh]

Hydaelyn's summoning is still something that makes no sense to me. The short story says "no small number" of people were against the third sacrifice, but depending on who you talk to on the forums Venat either had a substantial following or only the 12 people with her in Anyder. The issue is that some form of sacrifice had to occur for Hydaelyn to exist and I just don't buy that 12 people were sufficient enough to give her the power to ultimately defeat Zodiark. (I also find it hypocritical, but at this point what's new with her character?)

I'd have to double check, but didn't the Watcher also mention followers who looked after Zodiark post-sundering/imprisonment?



Why Venat did it has never mattered to me. It's that one individual shouldn't have the executive authority to override an entire planet. It was a non-consensual act, even debatably among her own followers who, in the Anyder cutscene, behave as if nothing is going to happen to them once she became Hydaelyn. Not to mention that since Elidibus wasn't inside Zodiark at the time, it appears she did it while he was trying to mediate which is also a bad look.

Forget the gaslighting the game does to make you think she's great and wonderful, on paper her actions read as an ideological terrorist.

Thanks for your opinion. Dont expect you to agree with her, as just trying to establish what drove such a choice. Sadly in desperate times authority means nothing people will just do what they feel is right. Good guys dont always make the best choices and your not expected to agree with them when they make such choices.

[Anhra]

I think the Story was alright in Endwanker. If anything, i really disliked the Kingdom Hearts Arc in Elpis and what they did with the Ascians. They should have remained as a Mystery to us after the Events of ShB.

[NanaWiloh]

This doesn't make any sense either given the context of her trial being the test of whether or not the WoL could face Meteion. Zodiark would've been the more powerful encounter by far if they were both sundered. I suppose you could hand wave it by saying Fandaniel wanted the WoL to defeat Zodiark so maybe he didn't bring his full power to bear, but that makes an already unsatisfactory encounter even worse.



That is entirely subjective. One person's good is another person's evil.

(Meant to edit and not reply, hence the deletion.)

Very good point you make at the botton of your post. Something people should always keep in mind.

[NanaWiloh]

To me--and I'm sure others feel differently--there's a huge disconnect in what you outlined. I'll try to explain as best I can.

Meteion is the threat to Etheirys and the Final Days is what she's going to bring to Etheirys. You would think, then, that the thing that should be on the forefront of Venat's mind, what she is working towards, is stopping Meteion before the Final Days occurs. If the Final Days doesn't happen, then Zodiark doesn't exist.

Now, it's possible that she attempted to do this by herself, failed, and had to allow Zodiark as plan B--but there's no evidence of that in the game. What appears to happen is Venat told no one, gathered followers to oppose Zodiark (not Meteion), allowed him to be built with the lives of the people around her, and then (fundamentally) stole him for her own purposes.

Then in the 12,000 years that followed, she fanned the flames of discord between her blessed and the Ancient survivors. Surely, by the time the world was Sundered, at the beginning she could have told Emet-Selch, or Elidibus, or heck, depending on what he was like before he went nuts, Lahabrea what her plans were. Hermes was no longer there as a threat, having fulfilled his purpose to assist with the building of Zodiark as a dynamis shield. If they were still too infuriated by what they saw as betrayal to ever work with her, at least they would have made that decision while knowing there was a larger threat growing stronger and stronger as the centuries passed.

Thanks for your view and opinion on the matter. As for me I am indifferent I have seen plenty of heroes do villianous acts and villians do heroic acts. So it no longer holds shock value for me. I have witness good guys sit bye and let good people walk unknowlingly towards death or with hold dire information.

No character should so morally correct and infoulable that they wont make or take actions that go against whats expected of them. But this is my view and opinion though.

[tokinokanatae]

I agree that sometimes good characters do bad things, but I don't think I've seen a good character as untrusting as Venat is.

I'll use an example from Endwalker. Imagine if, after we killed Zodiark, we told absolutely no one that the Final Days would restart due to him no longer shielding the planet. In fact, we don't tell anyone he's dead. Even further, if we, in fact, swore the Watcher to secrecy about this, because we were "afraid the citystates would panic" or "Urianger isn't as trustworthy as I'd like, so it's better to keep him in the dark."

Then we watch, silently, as the Final Days begin again. We watch as people die, forever parted from the aetherial sea and the cycle of rebirth. We watch as the Scions desperately try to figure out what could have possibly started the Final Days up again, wasting time and covering ground we already have intimate knowledge of.

But, since we're not Venat, we did what we did instead.

[KizuyaKatogami]

I agree that sometimes good characters do bad things, but I don't think I've seen a good character as untrusting as Venat is.

I'll use an example from Endwalker. Imagine if, after we killed Zodiark, we told absolutely no one that the Final Days would restart due to him no longer shielding the planet. In fact, we don't tell anyone he's dead. Even further, if we, in fact, swore the Watcher to secrecy about this, because we were "afraid the citystates would panic" or "Urianger isn't as trustworthy as I'd like, so it's better to keep him in the dark."

Then we watch, silently, as the Final Days begin again. We watch as people die, forever parted from the aetherial sea and the cycle of rebirth. We watch as the Scions desperately try to figure out what could have possibly started the Final Days up again, wasting time and covering ground we already have intimate knowledge of.

But, since we're not Venat, we did what we did instead.

This is an incredibly well done comparison and i think it really cements just why Venat seems so…wrong about everything.

[EaraGrace]

I've no doubt people disagree about what's subjective. The past two years have taught me that individuals have fundamentally different beliefs on what is right with some feeling fully justified in forcing others to adhere to their version of it. It doesn't, however, give them an excuse to act against others. Near as I can tell, the Amaurotines had a democracy that was overthrown by Venat.

If morality is subjective, then wouldn’t it be impossible to say that someone is wrong for acting against others? After all, if I’m simply following my subjective moral principles, then am I not acting in the right as much as anyone else? What right would you have to judge anyone, if it’s all subjective?

I agree that sometimes good characters do bad things, but I don't think I've seen a good character as untrusting as Venat is.

I'll use an example from Endwalker. Imagine if, after we killed Zodiark, we told absolutely no one that the Final Days would restart due to him no longer shielding the planet. In fact, we don't tell anyone he's dead. Even further, if we, in fact, swore the Watcher to secrecy about this, because we were "afraid the citystates would panic" or "Urianger isn't as trustworthy as I'd like, so it's better to keep him in the dark."

Then we watch, silently, as the Final Days begin again. We watch as people die, forever parted from the aetherial sea and the cycle of rebirth. We watch as the Scions desperately try to figure out what could have possibly started the Final Days up again, wasting time and covering ground we already have intimate knowledge of.

But, since we're not Venat, we did what we did instead.

Wouldn’t that depend entirely on the why though? This comparison only works if you believe that telling anyone would compromise the response to the Final Days, as was the case during the first one.

Not to mention, most people didn’t know about Meteion or despair or dynamis. Going through the role action quests you see the citizenry by and large ignorant to things. I just did the Ishgard one, and the citizens believed the blasphemy to just be another transformed heretic.

What calamity? Once zodiark is summoned and shield ethyris, they're fine. Even after sundered for 12k years the barrier still hold fine. And they manage to be solve their own challenges and problems just fine before zodiark, so why would they need him for something trivial? The Ancients were sad by the fact that the sacrificed souls could not return to the star, so much so that they intended to sacrifice new lifes in order to free them. It's not a simple "oh no, my concepts isn't working as intended, better summon lord zodiark to fix it lol".

Pandaemonium? The Omicron? Ultima? Some other alien race? Whatever the hell we’re gonna be working against for the next 10 years?

And just because they’ve managed so far says nothing about what the future holds. The Ea did just fine for longer, until they didn’t. The Omicron did just fine, until they didn’t. The dragons did perfectly fine, until they didn’t.

It’s inevitable they’ll face another challenge.

That's a possibility, true. Just fyi, what I meant by first explanation is the writer intentionally make things vague to keep us in the dark.

Ah my apologies then I misunderstood what you meant.

[Kozh]

If morality is subjective, then wouldn’t it be impossible to say that someone is wrong for acting against others?

With all these philosophy debate, I think we inherited the spirit of the Ancients, or at least Sharlayan's students XD

Jokes aside, personally for me, yes morality is subjective. Just like any other things which values are determined by human perception. Unlike us human, animals do not have "right" or "wrong". All they follow are their biological needs and instinct to ensure the survival of their species. I'm not a philosopher, far from it in fact, but if I were to use an example it would be our law system. Law is supposed to represent or based around general consensus of society's morality, but as we know it law can (and did) change over time, and can be different across different culture. What is wrong in one country can be innocent in others. Of course, there are things that the majority of humans can agree upon, yet there will always a minority who thinks otherwise.

To be completely honest, I think even our so called "morality" isn't that much different from animal's tendency to ensure their species survival. One of morality function's is to keep society from falling apart even if the action is against our best interest. In order to make sure of peaceful time, it's important for the people to have their needs (basic and emotional) to be fulfilled, otherwise sooner or later there will be conflicts among society. Might that be the reason why "morality" seems like it is on "our side" and "the right thing to do"? This is just a personal musing though, not really related to the discussion.

Pandaemonium? The Omicron? Ultima? Some other alien race? Whatever the hell we’re gonna be working against for the next 10 years?

We don't even know what really happen in Pandaemonium, except for Hesperos going mad over his devotion to Lahabrea. And considering we only do Pandaemonium because Erich ask Themis to not contact the convocation for their help, I doubt it is something that requires them to use Zodiark.

Omicron was already on their way having existential crisis over being the strongest race, or was at civil war. Plus the only contact we got from them are thousand years later after the sundering, and it's because omega followed midgarsomr to Etheirys, not because the Omicron intentionally going at war with us.

Ultima, as in Ultima the High Seraph? It was summoned by Ajora in order to defeat Mullonde, something that may never happen if Venat didn't sunder the world.

And "whatever the hell we're gonna be working against for the next 10 years" is a feeble argument considering we don't really know what kind of other aliens existed, whether they're violent or no, or if they're that powerful either that the Ancients need to use Zodiark.

And just because they’ve managed so far says nothing about what the future holds. The Ea did just fine for longer, until they didn’t. The Omicron did just fine, until they didn’t. The dragons did perfectly fine, until they didn’t.

I could ask the same for the sundered. After the walking plot-armor that is the WoL (a.k.a us the players) died, hundreds or thousand years later, what stopping them from making the same mistake as the Ea/dragons/omicron? Or the Ancients themselves even. We know from the Allag Empire era that the sundered isn't that much different from the Ancients. They seek prosperity, then they stagnated. Or perhaps they will go in the direction of the second world of "Dead Ends".

[NanaWiloh]

I agree that sometimes good characters do bad things, but I don't think I've seen a good character as untrusting as Venat is.

I'll use an example from Endwalker. Imagine if, after we killed Zodiark, we told absolutely no one that the Final Days would restart due to him no longer shielding the planet. In fact, we don't tell anyone he's dead. Even further, if we, in fact, swore the Watcher to secrecy about this, because we were "afraid the citystates would panic" or "Urianger isn't as trustworthy as I'd like, so it's better to keep him in the dark."

Then we watch, silently, as the Final Days begin again. We watch as people die, forever parted from the aetherial sea and the cycle of rebirth. We watch as the Scions desperately try to figure out what could have possibly started the Final Days up again, wasting time and covering ground we already have intimate knowledge of.

But, since we're not Venat, we did what we did instead.

Trust is measured by ones willingness to honor it. What more can be said, there is a old saying keep your friends close and enemies closer.

[Berteaux_Braumegain]

That brings up a point I'm curious about: Meteion mentions that she has an egg that she's storing souls in so they won't be reborn. Does getting rid of the Endsinger allow the Blasphemies to actually go to the afterlife? The egg thing did crack before the final dungeon.