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

[Xirean]

Whats hilarious is that you don't know how definitions work, can't find a better word to describe what happened, and are seemingly triggered because you operate just as much as on theory as everyone else.

So I guess you missed this part?

The sundering is the literal textbook definition of genocide.

I'd also be warry of accusing people of not knowing how definitions work when you don't know the difference between theory and headcanon.

It isn't. I've already said that several times by excessively referring to my ideas as opinions. The devs haven't confirmed or denied but rather offered "maybes" and "form your own opinion on it". So that's what I did. And I'm not the only one...it is a very common idea.

And that's different from headcanon how?

The question in that is "you did this to all living things", which again confirms it was a general attack. Although it had many effects, the target was Zodiark.

Again genocide would be doing it because she is targeting due to race or ethnicity, or even people with specific aether density perhaps. But the sundering affected all aether density of everything. You can't even really invoke eugenics here because she didn't target human reproduction but aether levels.

Sundering specifically to remove Zodiarks defiance from the equation. Sundering the people specifically to create a race of people less aethericly dence to interact with something the current race of people don't do well but can create other things that can. Is ok with catching the entire rest of the planet in the blast zone in order to achieve this.

This is all pretty in line with the definition of genocide and arguably also eugenics.

[Turtledeluxe]

So I guess you missed this part?



I'd also be warry of accusing people of not knowing how definitions work when you don't know the difference between theory and headcanon.













Sundering specifically to remove Zodiarks defiance from the equation. Sundering the people specifically to create a race of people less aethericly dence to interact with something the current race of people don't do well but can create other things that can. Is ok with catching the entire rest of the planet in the blast zone in order to achieve this.

This is all pretty in line with the definition of genocide and arguably also eugenics.

Except she didn't target a group of people, she targeted Zodiark, we can see the physical injury it inflicted on him. She targeted the temptation of man. It's literally called out in the moment. We learn later that it had the effect of lowering aether density but even then, it wasn't targetted solely on man. She also mentions this in the trial. The sundering was going to happen whether the Final Days occurred or not-- the first motivator and the primary motivator was Zodiark. Aether density, not ethnicity, is a secondary motivator and her intentions were survival. I'd also argue regarding destroying-- can we really even say anything was destroyed? You're mourning the loss of personalities in theory but humans are shards that, if rejoined, constitute that Ancient. This is another reason I find it weird to apply genocide to fantasy because it doesn't account for the physics of that fantasy world.

The phrase "it is a trial to which i subjected mankind" is just a long winded way of saying it put humanity through a rough time. It doesn't mean "I expressly did this to cause a trial for mankind". You can read it how you like but I don't agree. It doesn't make sense to me to follow a question that clearly points out it affected the star and all living things and then interpret it as an attack on man. There was also a functional use for dividing up the star and Zodiark's power.

Intention is not included in definition but it is used at large when defining genocide in say, legal cases. It is not the case that just any large scale killing is labeled as genocide.

[Theodric]

We already know that her intention was to eliminate her own species and replace them with a different species, acknowledging just that when confronted by the Warrior of Light and Scions, as per the conversation with Y'shtola:

Y'shtola: Having seen mankind brought to the very precipice of extinction, you wished for us to develop a means to overcome despair.
Y'shtola: You believed we had the potential, and sundered all creation to see it fulfilled. To deliver us to that swirling maelstrom of dynamis in which our foe hides, and grant us the power to defeat her once and for all. Is this not true?
Hydaelyn: It is as thou sayest. 'Twas the trial to which I subjected mankind, and it hath led to untold bloodshed and suffering. There was no kindness nor justice in the tragedy I wrought.
Hydaelyn: When confronted with the almighty Zodiark, my only recourse was to rend Him and the world asunder, that His power be diminished for a time.
Hydaelyn: And so it came to pass. Now you, my chosen, have surpassed my expectations. Surpassed me.

So, yeah - she's explicit in regards to it being her goal, which Yoshi confirms in the previously and repeatedly linked Q&A in addition to her fears about her people eventually becoming like the Nibirun. Zodiark was needed to maintain Etheirys' shield and had to be Sundered because he was an obstacle to Venat's plan and while she could not fully control the scope, Zodiark's power was so great she ended up having to sunder all life in addition to him, but that's collateral damage as the Ancients are very clearly stated to be the main target.

Again genocide would be doing it because she is targeting due to race or ethnicity, or even people with specific aether density perhaps. But the sundering affected all aether density of everything. You can't even really invoke eugenics here because she didn't target human reproduction but aether levels.

You can because she is trying to bring about a new mankind she believes is better suited to a specific problem she has in mind so reproduction is irrelevant because she has magical means to effect it. There is, of course this as well:

Hermes: Harboring high concentrations of aether, we ancients cannot readily manipulate dynamis─nor be manipulated by it. Therefore, rather than our selves, the calamity affected our magicks.
Hermes: In contrast, having been sundered, the people of the future are composed of but a fraction of our aether.
Hermes: Thus are they susceptible to the influence of dynamis─and its transformative potential.

So it was very much a deliberate act and an intended consequence. The Sundering was always about replacing her own species with something different in an effort to bring about Meteion's defeat. A combination of action and inaction resulted in a heavy cost and it strikes me as rather strange to downplay and ignore that cost to try and frame it as something completely different.

Even in real life genocide is applied with regards to intention to harm, oppress etc. I'm sorry you feel how you do but Venat's intentions were oriented around long term survival and the preservation of the star. It's another disqualifier. This is why I've said since the beginning intention matters. She didn't reduce aether levels across the star for some nefarious reason.

There's no asterisk in any definition of it that says it doesn't count if the perpetrator thinks they're acting for the greater good. In itself, there are various forms of genocide both direct and indirect, soft and hard. It can be as simple as killing large swathes of people with direct murder or cutting off supply lines in order to cause them to starve. The method matters little as opposed to the intended result and we know that the intended result was the deliberate eradication and replacement of her own species.

[Xirean]

There's no asterisk in any definition of it that says it doesn't count if the perpetrator thinks they're acting for the greater good. In itself, there are various forms of genocide both direct and indirect, soft and hard. It can be as simple as killing large swathes of people with direct murder or cutting off supply lines in order to cause them to starve. The method matters little as opposed to the intended result and we know that the intended result was the deliberate eradication and replacement of her own species.

Adding onto this for clarity/fairness. I want people to understand that this applies to the Ascians as well. This is not about hating Venat or taking one side over the other. The Ascians are called out plenty in game and the simple desire is that the same be done with Hydaelyn or failing that, be able to recognize the similarity. The sundering is genocide as are the rejoinings. Both sides have their reasons for doing what they but that changes nothing. There is no asterisk for the definition. It's just genocide.

[Turtledeluxe]

Adding onto this for clarity/fairness. I want people to understand that this applies to the Ascians as well. This is not about hating Venat or taking one side over the other. The Ascians are called out plenty in game and the simple desire is that the same be done with Hydaelyn or failing that, be able to recognize the similarity. The sundering is genocide as are the rejoinings. Both sides have their reasons for doing what they but that changes nothing. There is no asterisk for the definition. It's just genocide.

It's closer to genocide for some of the Ascians because said individuals are targeting humans and have contempt for humanity. Emet stands out here. For Ascians generally it's debatable as what they want is a rejoining to get back their world (so again its a case of targetting all living things) which has the effect of returning humans to Ancient form which is, again, effectively killing but is it bc FFXIV.

There could also be a case of genocide when it comes to who/what they're sacrificing to Zodiark to feed him post summoning (it isn't clear enough to make a definitive case).

I'm also not interested in defending Venat or the Ascians. I'm just pointing out there are better ways to describe their actions and motivations. There are genocidal characters in XIV but with the Ancients their motivations can be more complicated and "larger" than targeting people due to race or ethnicity. Yotsuyu targets people because she is cruel..Ancients are in a battle for what they believe leads to survival.

I'd also note anyone who says "dancing around it" or something similar is exposing themselves as contrarians. It's shock value because you're admitting you understand the very human and legal context of the word but you're applying it to an imaginary version of humans who are in a war for survival against a doom songstress (not downplaying EW I loved it). It screams edgelord and that's just how it seems, I'm sorry if that's insulting. I'm not implying anything about anyone's moral preferences or whatever. I find it odd people do that in relation to Venat, again it seems so specific bc no one will call me out for saying it's case by case with the Ascians and Ancients I am sure. As I've said earlier Venat not acting also destroys the future so it's a bit hypocritical as well bc if you think one thing is genocide so is her alternative. So there is no winning for Venat. I've called out some instances of it but I just don't think every single thing is up for the genocide label.

[Theodric]

Many cases of genocide have been framed as a matter of necessity and survival. It doesn't cease to be an act of genocide solely because there are those who stand to benefit from the atrocity in question. Given that the ancients no longer exist as a species it isn't really up for debate as to whether it qualifies as such because it fulfills the criteria of the definition.

Certainly, the Rejoinings are considered to be an act of genocide and those are a matter of reversing the consequences of Venat's actions. (Though I'd add that even the Rejoinings are something that Venat has an indirect hand in given that she knowingly left room for Emet-Selch to be spared despite being well aware of what that would result in...)

[Turtledeluxe]

Many cases of genocide have been framed as a matter of necessity and survival. It doesn't cease to be an act of genocide solely because there are those who stand to benefit from the atrocity in question. Given that the ancients no longer exist as a species it isn't really up for debate as to whether it qualifies as such because it fulfills the criteria of the definition.

Certainly, the Rejoinings are considered to be an act of genocide and those are a matter of reversing the consequences of Venat's actions. (Though I'd add that even the Rejoinings are something that Venat has an indirect hand in given that she knowingly left room for Emet-Selch to be spared despite being well aware of what that would result in...)

Uh this may be the case for fiction but I am not aware of any cases IRL as such. Although intent is considered that doesn't mean there have been cases where good intent has been found, it just means it's complicates proving it as intent can theoretically be hard to prove IRL.

And again what led us to this discussion is the nature of time in XIV and, although many of you are in denial the director's answer and game make it clear that the characters are locked into a timeline of their own making. Even if you're arguing over technical criteria of X and y being genocide, it's ultimately meaningless in the absence of choice..and again I think that is part of why a lot of what is discussed in game is conveyed in the tone that it is. Honestly the blame for most things is Hermes and then the player.

This is why the worst thing about EW is the time travel and imo, not the base story. Without the time travel the base story would not be as vilified as it is, we would just be taling about Primals fighting and deciding the fate of man. With the writers not being clear about the time travel it leaves the door open for you to interpret many things however you want.

[Xeronia]

Uh this may be the case for fiction but I am not aware of any cases IRL as such. Although intent is considered that doesn't mean there have been cases where good intent has been found, it just means it's complicates proving it as intent can theoretically be hard to prove IRL.

And again what led us to this discussion is the nature of time in XIV and, although many of you are in denial the director's answer and game make it clear that the characters are locked into a timeline of their own making. Even if you're arguing over technical criteria of X and y being genocide, it's ultimately meaningless in the absence of choice..and again I think that is part of why a lot of what is discussed in game is conveyed in the tone that it is. Honestly the blame for most things is Hermes and then the player.

This is why the worst thing about EW is the time travel and imo, not the base story. Without the time travel the base story would not be as vilified as it is, we would just be taling about Primals fighting and deciding the fate of man. With the writers not being clear about the time travel it leaves the door open for you to interpret many things however you want.

My apologies for interrupting but if the timeline is as you say it should be present in the game itself and not hidden away in some interview, I would also like a citation of this interview(apologies if you already posted it and I missed it) as the game and short stories on the site itself do not back your view of how the timeline is.

[Turtledeluxe]

My apologies for interrupting but if the timeline is as you say it should be present in the game itself and not hidden away in some interview, I would also like a citation of this interview(apologies if you already posted it and I missed it) as the game and short stories on the site itself do not back your view of how the timeline is.

It was in a live letter. I wish I had noted the number. 58 perhaps?? I will edit when I find it. It's 68 during the portion when the translator is with him for fan q and a.

Also time travel is not irrelevant in any aspect of story discussion. As it turns out XIV is the story of a meddling time travel who instigates two Primals whose battle results in the sundering. If the major events don't occur in Elpis we don't exist. Let's say laws of causality collapse and its just whatever you want buffet of casuality (which is what people want with these 'give them a choice' takes). If Venat gets to the point of choosing sunder vs don't sunder, she has no way of knowing if another choice othrt than sunder wipes out the future or not.

So your choices are Venat (and everyone else) lacks agency because the loop is self-sustaining and the future must come to exist so we can play the game OR

Venat gives the Ancients more choice than we already know she does (as it is shown), finds an alternative, and the game collapses.

There's no magic situation where Venat finds a solution and the future still persists. None. Zero. So decide what you want, either way it's problematic for Venat whether by the players choice or your story take which leads her to kill off the reflections.

Also we know from the conversation in Elpis the Ancients had NO concept of the primals. We are the ones who brought it into their plane of thought. Saying "they could have chosen not to" just brings us back to the same loop. You cannot ignore it.

So no, her culpability doesn't matter. No one's does except Hermes and WoL. There could have been Athena with a gun to Venat's head saying "sunder them" or Venat blood faced and laughing as she drew her sword to sunder. Either way the result is the same and it must be the same for the future to occur.

And if you think Venat can just willy nilly the future with zero consequence, guess who has joined me on the train to alternate timelines? Because that's the only way she can change events with no effect on the MSq timeline.

[fulminating]

So your choices are Venat (and everyone else) lacks agency because the loop is self-sustaining and the future must come to exist so we can play the game OR

Venat gives the Ancients more choice than we already know she does (as it is shown), finds an alternative, and the game collapses.

There's no magic situation where Venat finds a solution and the future still persists. None. Zero. So decide what you want, either way it's problematic for Venat whether by the players choice or your story take which leads her to kill off the reflections.
.

The warrior of light dies to black rose, as the world collapses the ironworks free graham from the tower, combine the raid series and send him to the first. Crystal graham then pulls the warrior of light to the first, averting the 8th umbrella calamity with the defeat of hades. Yet crystal g’raha doesn’t die nor disappear from existence when that time line is dodged, rather surviving bodily until he turns himself into a statue, and spiritually by sticking his mind in a rock and being ferried to the source.