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

[KizuyaKatogami]

Yeah, but he can come back in some way or another. There are probably shards of Fandaniel on the other reflections, they just won't be the Amon version we got. Venat is like the writer said, "I'm so done with you I'm going to ensure there's no way you come back unless we do more time travel shenanigans," which is pretty hardcore considering what we know of Ishikawa. One might assume that the Venat we got in EW is not the one she wanted to write.

Possibly, idk though at this point. I was tired of Ishikawa once 5.3 hit and she made what i believe to be one of the worst writing decisions in 14. Not only that though but her writing just feels very same/y. Sympathetic antagonists all with sob stories, 5.3 amaurot instance just felt like drk questline 2.0, invincible protagonists etc. How much is her writing and how much is being directed by someone higher up i don’t know but it’s hard to ignore the patterns since she’s been in charge.

[Theodric]

Most individualists generally don't want their own race to go extinct, though - nor do they like it when one person enforces their world view upon everybody else with no explanation.

If they wanted to embrace a 'might makes right' message then they already had the opportunity to do as much with Garlemald. It's pretty bizarre that the Garleans are criticised for trying to force their world view on everybody else - despite only doing as much to prevent their own extinction and oppression - but Venat inflicts genocide upon the entire world and it's pushed as a good thing with no justification.

I don't look to video games for moral preaching, at any rate. I primarily want a good story with a decent amount of consistency.

[Rulakir]

On the topic of political leaning and how that effects character perception I'd wager collectivist would steer toward the Ancients, and individualist would steer towards Venat.

I was thinking conservatives would be pro-Zodiark (preserve the status quo), libertarians would be anti-Venat (don't tread on me), centrists and classical liberals would be split, with progressives being pro-Venat (build back better).

It's just a theory though. :P

[Brinne]

It's just a theory though. :P

Speaking for myself and my friend group, who are quite critical of Venat: no, absolutely not.

So I doubt there's much of a correlation to be had there.

[Caurcas]

I was thinking conservatives would be pro-Zodiark (preserve the status quo), libertarians would be anti-Venat (don't tread on me), centrists and classical liberals would be split, with progressives being pro-Venat (build back better).

It's just a theory though. :P

The Ancients as a society were highly collectivist, (magical, post scarcity utopian communism basically) where everything was regulated by committee and generally had no self expression. Venat, and Azem were rebels to this world view and far more individualistic by nature of that.

[Lauront]

I think the error here is to fixate too much on their concrete social structure. This is largely driven by choices they made given what type of being they were - nigh immortal, in possession of the natural ability to create durable aetheric entities and altruistic in their inclinations for the most part. It's an error I would say to claim that they had no self-expression - they had plenty of it, in the form of expressing their thoughts and feelings, e.g. in plays, through their creations or via debates. What they limited was comparatively minimal: differences in clothing, and they obscured their facial features.

But that is only one way to examine it by. You can also look at it through the lens Rulakir or Theodric mentioned, i.e. inflicting radical change on their society and uprooting it at its core to achieve some ideological goal. I myself lean towards conservative/libertarian views (and that would entail upholding/preserving certain values over a status quo per se), and even so I see very little approximating any kind of individualism I care for in Venat. It reminds me more of the "romantic" revolutionary impulses of some Enlightenment scholars, who I have very little liking for, as well as some far more gruesome movements that post-dated that. Funnily enough in video games, I often prefer societal structures such as monarchy or aristocracy, and I love empires, but things do get dull if everything is the same, and with the ancients their blend of a technocratic society with traits of 7's ancients is simply a natural and very beautiful fit, focused on intellectual advancement. Also, being someone who enjoys ancient races such as elves reclaiming/retaining their position in the world, I can't say I care for the "move on" angle, either. There is simply little I can consider worth condoning in how she screwed over her own people, whatever the (forced) logic.

[Caurcas]

I mean radicalism isn't exclusive to one end of the paradigm. Furthermore, if I wanted to be more harsh on the Anicents, and especially those that became Ascians, I'd call them entho-nationlist. That aside I care little for ancient races in fiction, and usually play team human. Politically I care not for empires and feudalism in fiction for the most part. More of a small scale person myself.

[Lauront]

You could call them that, but it's much the same if humans were eradicated wholesale by reducing them to another type of life form (pick an example of something which is lesser than us) and then attempted to reverse this. This was a race of beings pre-sundering that had united under a global form of governance while retaining autonomous cities (at least from what can be gleaned from the debate between the Amaurotines), and put aside their differences towards the vision of improving their star. I don't think the label works in that context. Post-sundering, they're trying to reverse what was done to them.

It makes far more sense to refer to the sundered in such terms, precisely because they display such tendencies, and not just the Garleans by any means, than it does a race of beings which saw their kind totally annihilated and so they try to reverse it.

[Rulakir]

Speaking for myself and my friend group, who are quite critical of Venat: no, absolutely not.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. I'm curious, if you don't mind elaborating, does it have to do with her violating people's rights?

The Ancients as a society were highly collectivist, (magical, post scarcity utopian communism basically) where everything was regulated by committee and generally had no self expression. Venat, and Azem were rebels to this world view and far more individualistic by nature of that.

I'm not familiar with those terms, however, looking up the definitions I got:

Collectivism is a value that is characterized by emphasis on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritization of the group over the self.

Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the intrinsic worth of the individual.

Venat may have been individualistic, but she had no respect for anyone else's individualism (including Azem). I also wasn't trying to classify her politically as much as I thought players' political leanings might have influenced how they viewed her and her actions. Personally, I don't feel I fit the definition of a collectivist, but I still sympathized with the Ancients and felt Venat was wrong.

[Theodric]

I usually champion whichever playable or non-playable races have a sense of pride in themselves and their people as well as beautiful architecture and an interesting culture. The Garleans have a lot of Russian and Roman influence, which is something I enjoy and respect. The Ancients have a lot of Greek influence, which again piques my interest. Ishgard has a lot of French inspiration so that earns points from me as well.

I have very little interest in fawning over the Beast Tribes, however - they lack the elegance that comes from the more civilised playable and non-playable races. Much in the same way that having spikes and skulls everywhere didn't make me care for Orcs or Trolls back when I played WoW.