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

[EaraGrace]

...or because the Rejoinings don't necessarily automatically yield ancients. We've seen this from the Source vs the First, where the life forms are more or less indistinguishable barring soul density, and very distant from an ancient. Bearing in mind that amongst the sundered are fragments of ancient souls which they very much would've wanted to restore, like Emet's old pal, Azem. Which makes arguing back from their end result and what would be required at the end of them to restore the ancients, to what would've happened before then when we're talking about vaguely specified "new lives", an exercise in futility. You're free to consider it as evidence of some prior plan but it's not very compelling, IMO.

I think it very compelling. Emet being willing to, and in fact planning on, sacrificing human rejoined souls says much about the lengths they were willing to go to to bring back those they lost. Likewise, you’re free to disregard it or insist that the plan was completely different in the past, but I think most would agree it suggest that more than small animals were going to be sacrificed in Amaurot.

Any mortal, regardless of how good, who openly states they alone will decide the future, is immediately a villain. I admit there are situations where such a statement would not burn a hole in my heart, but this was not one. We barely knew Venat as a mortal, barely knew any of them, and yet we put all of our trust in her.

If the future was to be in the hands of one person of good moral standing vs many people with evil designs, I’d choose the former every time. Not blindly, not without consideration, but if they are still right, then I guess I would choose the villain.

What if she had messed up? What if Zodiark somehow won? What if, what if. Who is she to decide the future of all things for generations to come? Why are we thus robbed of free will? Why were our parents, or our parents' parents, or so on and so forth robbed of their free will? She made the choice and we were forced to accept it.

Many of the things in our lives is this way. We are born into nation states bound with laws we didn’t have a say in, born into circumstances we had no control over. To rage against it is to rage against time itself. The simple truth is the Ancients choose to believe that paradise could be found in Zodiark, and Venat knowing what she knew, had to choose between allowing them to walk that path to oblivion, or intervene.

Make sense? You can believe and accept it if you want. There's nothing wrong with that considering it's the narrative. I won't though. Time travel and man-driven life-creation are huge no-nos in fantasy. Square broke both.

And that’s totally fair. I don’t begrudge those who didn’t like the narrative direction taken.

[linayar]

Same goes for you. You've tried to link this before. This is from 12k years afterwards, after the Sundering had fractured all souls on the star. By which point the plan had changed to glue the planet and all life upon it back together, as it had been fragmented. Given that the surviving ancients would've also been fragmented into what are now the sundered (and particularly Azem), of course the Ascian plan entails that as a component. Thus using this as any sort of evidence as to what the nature of the sacrifices was before the Sundering is a trifle disingenuous.

There's the fact that Venat and her group objected to it pre-sundering. In fact, the new life would have to be of such quality to be offered up as sacrifice to Zodiark in order to revive the lost Ancients.

[TaleraRistain]

Yes, and from Elpis we know any creation qualifying as living does, so anything from animals to monsters and maybe certain familiars. Arcane entities on the other hand generally do not. Regarding familiars, which the MC presents themselves as but which they remark upon as being exceptional in nature in the sidequests, there is a clear inference that actual familiars were not as sapient, but at least harboured some degree of this in the sense that an AI might to us. So where does this new life fall on that spectrum, from animal to full blown ancient? We've no idea at this point. You say it's new people. The truth is, we don't know what the star was sticking souls into at that point after the planet was devastated and then restored, and there is a whole spectrum of possibilities ranging from animals to monsters to beings closer to Meteion (implied to have gained a soul although Hermes wouldn't let her be examined) to beings nearer to the sundered, to ancients, and without knowing the precise answer as to which of these it is, the degree to which it was "people" in their eyes is debatable. As Rulakir notes, it is very ambiguous.

The "new life" might be ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous was that is was significant enough that the populace was divided on whether they could sacrifice it or not. So while they had the means to retrieve the souls, there was weight on the other side about just what it was costing. Otherwise, why would the populace be split? Why would members argue that the star should be left in the hands of this new life if it was not significant enough to mean just as much as the Ancients did?

[Lauront]

The "new life" might be ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous was that is was significant enough that the populace was divided on whether they could sacrifice it or not. So while they had the means to retrieve the souls, there was weight on the other side about just what it was costing. Otherwise, why would the populace be split? Why would members argue that the star should be left in the hands of this new life if it was not significant enough to mean just as much as the Ancients did?

It's not merely down to what those entities were. A possible consideration would be how those ancients inside Zodiark might have felt about being plucked out of him, which some might've viewed as dishonouring their sacrifice. You will recall that in the original source on the matter, Ere our Curtain Falls, it mentions that the dissidents formed what is described as "no small number". We know Elidibus returns at this point to mediate the dispute. By the time we see Anamnesis Anyder's scene, that support has reduced to just a few. So if I had to speculate? Elidibus conveyed the agony of those ancients caught inside the primal and unable to make a return to the star and swayed the decision on the matter. Because sapient life exists on a spectrum in the setting, and because even the killing of creations was a painful decision for some ancients, it is not possible to simply conclude they were ancients. There are also further practical questions that'd arise, such as how would we achieve this etc.? Too many unknowns, which Elidibus may have helped reduce in number through his firsthand experience of having been the primal's heart.

Once more: I am not saying the route of the sacrifices was the right option, because we lack too many specifics on it, including how they might've reframed this decision if Venat had been upfront about all the information she had. What I am pushing back against are some very frequent assumptions I've seen made on the topic, which don't really follow from the textual material available.

[TaleraRistain]

It's not merely down to what those entities were. A possible consideration would be how those ancients inside Zodiark might have felt about being plucked out of him, which some might've viewed as dishonouring their sacrifice. You will recall that in the original source on the matter, Ere our Curtain Falls, it mentions that the dissidents formed what is described as "no small number". We know Elidibus returns at this point to mediate the dispute. By the time we see Anamnesis Anyder's scene, that support has reduced to just a few. So if I had to speculate? Elidibus conveyed the agony of those ancients caught inside the primal and unable to make a return to the star and swayed the decision on the matter. Because sapient life exists on a spectrum in the setting, and because even the killing of creations was a painful decision for some ancients, it is not possible to simply conclude they were ancients. There are also further practical questions that'd arise, such as how would we achieve this etc.? Too many unknowns, which Elidibus may have helped reduce in number through his firsthand experience of having been the primal's heart.

Once more: I am not saying the route of the sacrifices was the right option, because we lack too many specifics on it, including how they might've reframed this decision if Venat had been upfront about all the information she had. What I am pushing back against are some very frequent assumptions I've seen made on the topic, which don't really follow from the textual material available.

I'm not arguing it was necessarily full fledged Ancients. There could have been new sentient life or new people that weren't the same as the Ancients. I just see a lot of people argue that the 3rd sacrifice was okay because we don't know that it wasn't just plants. Even if it was plants, the life was important enough to make people in society hesitate to sacrifice it.

It also doesn't sit well with me especially after Elpis that the Ancients are the arbiters of what happens on the planet. As far as I understand in lore, they didn't create the star. So...who...put them in that position exactly to decide for the planet what was beneficial and what wasn't? And thus putting them into a position where they can even consider sacrificing new life? We also don't know if there were other types of beings on the star already since we just see these small slivers of Ancient society. I'd love to see some flashbacks of our Azem's forays into the world and what they found.

[EmpyreanHelios]

I would like to thank the frequent posters in this thread for articulating and discussing the numerous problems I had with Endwalker’s lore far better than I could possibly have done. In the midst of everyone’s praises for EW, it felt really suffocating to have a different opinion. So, thank you for giving my feelings some validation.

My sub has run its course so I can no longer give y’all the votes that I feel y’all so rightfully deserve. There’s been some fantastic discussions so far and hopefully y’all will continue to do so without anyone resorting to personal attacks no matter what your opinions might be.

[Stachiko]

At this point, I was only trying to defend my opinion. Answering the why when asked. If you want to convert me, I can say for certain that most likely won't happen.

I by no means want to convert anyone here, just putting my opinion out there.

[linayar]

At this point, I was only trying to defend my opinion. Answering the why when asked. If you want to convert me, I can say for certain that most likely won't happen.

I by no means want to convert anyone here, just putting my opinion out there.

I'm not asking you to convert anyone, but in trying to defend your opinion, you're showing why it does not make sense. Your opinion is basically based on a mischaracterization of our relationship with Venat.

[Stachiko]

I'm not asking you to convert anyone, but in trying to defend your opinion, you're showing why it does not make sense. Your opinion is basically based on a mischaracterization of our relationship with Venat.

Our long-term relationship with her is based on a primal and wisps of her personality. Surely, her sacrifice is meaningful, but we come to find out she made the decision all of her own whim as a singular mortal.

I'll play devil's advocate with myself and admit she had a lot on her plate. If she still intends to let the future play out how it did (Assuming this isn't a time loop and she's newly meeting us for the first time), then how she communicates doing so is absolutely critical.

"I will do this all on my own" may come off as grateful and understanding for you, but it doesn't for myself, or for others from what it may seem. It shocked me, appalled me even. Her wording could've been put a hundred different ways in order to prevent anyone such as myself from taking action against her.

I generally call it politics but I'm sure there's a better term. What is said, when it's said, how it's said are all important factors for convincing someone to take or allow action. Her wording would've invoked me to take action against her.

[ApolloGenX]

Our long-term relationship with her is based on a primal and wisps of her personality. Surely, her sacrifice is meaningful, but we come to find out she made the decision all of her own whim as a singular mortal.

I'll play devil's advocate with myself and admit she had a lot on her plate. If she still intends to let the future play out how it did (Assuming this isn't a time loop and she's newly meeting us for the first time), then how she communicates doing so is absolutely critical.

"I will do this all on my own" may come off as grateful and understanding for you, but it doesn't for myself, or for others from what it may seem. It shocked me, appalled me even. Her wording could've been put a hundred different ways in order to prevent anyone such as myself from taking action against her.

I generally call it politics but I'm sure there's a better term. What is said, when it's said, how it's said are all important factors for convincing someone to take or allow action. Her wording would've invoked me to take action against her.

Simply put- If we were an ancient... and we heard of Venat's plan (as well as the sacrifice of people for Zodiark)- undoubtedly we would try to stop her crying "there has to be another way" the entire time. So, yes she is a villian- we are just the result and back written into benefitting from her plan. I am sure if there was a rejoining and we were an ancient that had returned, we might think of the Ascians the same way.

-Oops it happened in the past, so we didn't have to see it is no excuse. Basically, we act just like tempered beings. We enforce and rationalize her will, ignore the massive damage she did and assume what she did is best for us. She manipulated all of the world and history to serve her purpose without anyone knowing why. Don't love it.