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

[Theodric]

For a character to be a villain they need only engage in villainous acts. Deliberate acts of genocide qualifies as such and the only reason the game pretends otherwise is because the protagonists stand to benefit from the arrangement. However, if someone else with the same motivation were to target the Sundered with the exact same end result then by their own admission they would oppose it and consider it to be a villainous act.

It's also up to the player themselves to decide who is a villain and who is a hero. Especially when dealing with heavy issues - certainly, I find myself reluctant to believe that the typical MMO player or video game developer has the correct stance on exceedingly complex moral issues.

Though this thread is very long for a reason and many people have clearly outlined why they felt that the writing around Venat simply wasn't up to scratch and failed to make much sense/induce sympathy.

[Katoar]

...

First of all, moral values and morality are social constructs created by humans. Their primary goal is to ensure the survival and perseverance of humankind. Objectively speaking, once the self is removed from any situation nothing is good nor evil because no point of reference exists.

Needless to say, nothing about the social constructs is permanent or inherently true. As a result, we as humans of modern-day society can observe and study old civilizations and tribal communities that abided by moral values that had starking differences from ours.

In light of this, what you preserve as a villainous act is constructed by a world that does not exist in the game. Games cannot perfectly reconstruct our world and since characters are set in a fantasy universe, some of their decisions which are based on what is deemed to be logical and rational will inevitably misalign with in real-life moral values of some players.

The goal of Venat was to prevent the extinction of humankind through meaningless sacrifices to Zodiark. She succeeded by sundering the world. The Sundering is not an act of genocide. A Genocide leads to the absolute death and end of a certain group. The Ancients, although fragmented, continued their existence. Indisputably, some of the decisions made conflict with the moral values of the consumers of the story. However, this does not make them irrational, nor immoral in the game world.

The desire to depict Venat as a villain is driven by one's extreme reluctance to let go of what they perceive to be right.

[aveyond-dreams]

The goal of Venat was to prevent the extinction of humankind through meaningless sacrifices to Zodiark. She succeeded by sundering the world. The Sundering is not an act of genocide. Genocides lead to the absolute death and end of a certain group. The Ancients, although fragmented, continued their existence. Indisputably, some of the decisions made conflict with the moral values of the consumers of the story. However, this does not make them irrational, nor immoral in the game world.

The desire to depict Venat as a villain is driven by one's extreme reluctance to let go of what they perceive to be right.

Except that if the last sacrifice had gone through as planned, being composed of non-human entities in exchange for the return of the human life given to Zodiark, humaniy would also have been preserved.

In sundering the star she left only 3 ancients remaining. The rest were changed irreversibly as has already been described at length in previous posts. What do you propose we call this then? Because I struggle to find any other appropriate terminology befitting of these actions or that of a character who chose to act in the way she did.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Except that if the last sacrifice had gone through as planned, being composed of non-human entities in exchange for the return of the human life given to Zodiark, humaniy would also have been preserved.

In sundering the star she left only 3 ancients remaining. The rest were changed irreversibly as has already been described at length in previous posts. What do you propose we call this then? Because I struggle to find any other appropriate terminology befitting of these actions or that of a character who chose to act in the way she did.

and then the Ancients get wiped out by Meteion's Song of Oblivion million of years from now........hooray???

[aveyond-dreams]

and then the Ancients get wiped out by Meteion's Song of Oblivion million of years from now........hooray???

Or alternatively given enough time as was afforded to them by Zodiark, they create concepts capable of being sent out to battle Meteion. Though to be honest, the introduction of both Dynamis and Meteion at the last minute was something that should not have happened, given all the problems it caused for the story.

[Atelier-Bagur]

Or alternatively given enough time as was afforded to them by Zodiark, they create concepts capable of being sent out to battle Meteion. Though to be honest, the introduction of both Dynamis and Meteion at the last minute was something that should not have happened, given all the problems it caused for the story.

Not really, I dont think concepts developed by people who were "perfect" and lacked meaningful growth would've been able to combat aeons of despair that Meteion and her sisters witnessed throughout the universe. This was a clear given to the mass panic and chaos of despair that happened with the ancients during the first Final Days.

I mean sure Meteion was of course a last minute thing but the idea of dynamis actually explains a lot of the things our character and others just so happen to have done throughout the course of the game and even the in the meta-sense in terms of gameplay.

[Theodric]

and then the Ancients get wiped out by Meteion's Song of Oblivion million of years from now........hooray???

That simply would not happen if Venat had actually shared the knowledge of Meteion's existence with her people instead of coming up with excuses as to why she could not have a conversation with the Convocation. It was also simply outlined as her belief of what would happen to the Ancients based on a third party account of an event that happened on a distant planet. It was never declared to be a certainty - and with forewarning of the risks in mind, I have my doubts that someone such as Emet-Selch would allow such to occur if armed with that knowledge.

Who knows? Maybe if she bothered looking hard enough, Venat might have found a way to combat Meteion without inflicting genocide upon her own people. The game sure did seem fine with the idea of having her pick up a fancy 'never before seen power' in the form of the Sundering.

Even then, she couldn't even accomplish her goals without leaning heavily on Zodiark which makes her look even more petty and spiteful given her outright lies about the circumstances surrounding his summoning and nature.

[Kazelus]

Except that if the last sacrifice had gone through as planned, being composed of non-human entities in exchange for the return of the human life given to Zodiark, humaniy would also have been preserved.

I really need a hint on this, I saw nowhere in MSQ where it was stated that ancients wanted to sacrifices non-human entities to resurrect Zordiark's sacrifices ? It may be a localization problem but in all my dialogue with either Emet or Venat, it's the half remaining ancients that plans to sacrifices themselves to bring back the first sacrified...

And with that version, it makes sense that Venat sunders the people right before they sacrify themselves. (Considering Azem is parts of the new sacrifices, she had to do it now to maintain the timeloop in place.)

[Tama-Kanzashi]

The goal of Venat was to prevent the extinction of humankind through meaningless sacrifices to Zodiark. She succeeded by sundering the world. The Sundering is not an act of genocide. A Genocide leads to the absolute death and end of a certain group. The Ancients, although fragmented, continued their existence. Indisputably, some of the decisions made conflict with the moral values of the consumers of the story. However, this does not make them irrational, nor immoral in the game world.

Except she deliberatley erased all traces of their former existence from the face of the world. Never told anyone. On purpose. Which does qualify as cultural genocide.

But since according to you sundering is just "existing in a different form", I say that Rejoining is the same. The Sundered will not disappear, they will just continue to live on in a different form, so we should definitely do it.

[Katoar]

But since according to you sundering is just "existing in a different form", I say that Rejoining is the same. The Sundered will not disappear, they will just continue to live on in a different form, so we should definitely do it.

Yes, the Rejoining is the same. I would have liked it if it did come to pass since I like the Ancients and the unsundered world. I think it never happened because theoretically speaking our WoL should not be able to maintain their race through the Rejoining as they are a fragmented being. A miqo'te will no longer be a miqo'te and a lala - a lala.