Sundering stuff established in the Q&A

[Cleretic]

The idea that she never actually had to live in the world she created is a little ehh.


So Venat and company kill themselves forever and it's nirvana, but the Plenty kill themselves forever and it's a bad thing?

I'm not saying it's actually either/or, but I do think there was an effort in the story to suggest that existence is superior to nonexistence. Not the most Buddhist thing exactly, but the idea is there.

She literally lived to watch and guide the world she created, she didn't just ollie out of everything. She had the hardest road of all; she didn't just see her world end, she had to go on knowing it could never come back, and that the world she did make would be filled with suffering that she'd ascribe to herself.

And there's no evidence Ra-la killed souls so much as just terminated the lives they were living, which they no longer wanted to do. So yeah, Venat's death is different from the Plenty's both there and in intent; the Plenty essentially committed empty suicide, Venat and company sacrificed their life for the sake of others. Selfish versus selfless.

And yes, the game generally does consider existence to be preferable to nonexistence, which is why it initially sits weird that Emet gets to keep going but Venat doesn't. The big thing splitting Endwalker's cycle of rebirth from Buddhism's belief is ultimately that Endwalker's is just rebirth, while Buddhism includes the beliefs of karma and liberation from mortal 'poisons' that sort of govern your place and ultimate liberation from the cycle.

In Buddhist beliefs, you could see Venat's cessation as reaching that goal of nirvana, while Emet-Selch still has growing to do. But those Buddhist notions don't exist in this text, and the game generally looks at it as 'continuing to exist is good and you should generally do that if possible', so suddenly it flips; Venat faces the ultimate punishment of total death for what she did, while Emet-Selch, positioned as essentially her moral mirror, gets to keep going.

[Veloran]

She literally lived to watch and guide the world she created, she didn't just ollie out of everything.

It's a little different watching from the outside versus actually living it herself.

And there's no evidence Ra-la killed souls so much as just terminated the lives they were living,

In that case what's even the problem? It's just a willing total societal reset.

In Buddhist beliefs, you could see Venat's cessation as reaching that goal of nirvana, while Emet-Selch still has growing to do. But those Buddhist notions don't exist in this text, and the game generally looks at it as 'continuing to exist is good and you should generally do that if possible', so suddenly it flips; Venat faces the ultimate punishment of total death for what she did, while Emet-Selch, positioned as essentially her moral mirror, gets to keep going.

Related to the above, you could say it's so she could never live in the world she made. A tragedy, depending on your perspective.

[KizuyaKatogami]

She literally lived to watch and guide the world she created, she didn't just ollie out of everything. She had the hardest road of all; she didn't just see her world end, she had to go on knowing it could never come back, and that the world she did make would be filled with suffering that she'd ascribe to herself.

And there's no evidence Ra-la killed souls so much as just terminated the lives they were living, which they no longer wanted to do. So yeah, Venat's death is different from the Plenty's both there and in intent; the Plenty essentially committed empty suicide, Venat and company sacrificed their life for the sake of others. Selfish versus selfless.

And yes, the game generally does consider existence to be preferable to nonexistence, which is why it initially sits weird that Emet gets to keep going but Venat doesn't. The big thing splitting Endwalker's cycle of rebirth from Buddhism's belief is ultimately that Endwalker's is just rebirth, while Buddhism includes the beliefs of karma and liberation from mortal 'poisons' that sort of govern your place and ultimate liberation from the cycle.

In Buddhist beliefs, you could see Venat's cessation as reaching that goal of nirvana, while Emet-Selch still has growing to do. But those Buddhist notions don't exist in this text, and the game generally looks at it as 'continuing to exist is good and you should generally do that if possible', so suddenly it flips; Venat faces the ultimate punishment of total death for what she did, while Emet-Selch, positioned as essentially her moral mirror, gets to keep going.

I’d say the hardest road of all goes to Elidibus personally. Having to watch his own world and people shattered apart while trying to save them, only to spend 12000 years trying to piece it back together, only to be betrayed by another one of his own people, sealed into a tower with his sorrowful memories of his dead friends and family, and then forced to sacrifice himself and extinguish his soul completely….and then not even be mentioned or regarded once after for his deeds.

(As Emet-Selch admitted, the Ascians' methods wouldn't have gotten them that far.)

Small correction, the french version highlights that when he says this, he's meaning getting to Ultima Thule. Not anything else.

[Lauront]

I thought this really undermined the arguments that her plan was "flawless".

To touch on some key points...

Hydaelyn’s summoning is stated to be different - inferior in some respects - to what the Convocation did with Zodiark, in that he could use other sources of aether aside from the soul, leaving it untouched, whereas hers consumed them wholesale. This may explain I suppose why her power waxes and wanes. Were her summoners even aware of this? They were worried about her (Venat) fading so his reference to the 5.2 scene is odd.

His answer on Venat will do little to dislodge the view that had she shared the information she had in full, a different path could’ve been forged, as it all came down to her belief about the Plenty - or more accurately, the one line summary Meteion provided. So nothing new in this respect, because the ancients continuing as they were is a function of what they were told and in turn, their reasons to believe it (or not.)

At least they concede that she agonised over the injustice of it and juxtapose it with what Emet (after 12k years of a bloody toil) did. I think it’s even worse. It confirms the supposed dispute over the morality of the sacrifices is not the main issue (indeed, this is never referenced in 5.2 or later, it is always framed by instrumentally linking these to them meeting an eventual doom) and that it came down to 1) ability to manipulate dynamis and 2) the one line she heard about the Plenty.

Mayhap she was the one really the one given to despair, like Hermes. Yoshi relates her ability to make such decisions to being an ancient and that it can be questioned in the same light as Emet’s at the end of SHB. So at least he isn’t trying to paint her as some unquestionable saint. Those ancients who had up to then had a government based on debate and reaching consensus may also disagree that her or Hermes arbitrarily deciding to end them were of a sound mind.

If the Rejoinings can be brought into question on that basis, then naturally so can the Sundering which pushed them on that path. I also dispute his claim that the ancients were so different in this regard – we see Ilberd, Vauthry, Thordan, Yotsuyu, Varis, Zenos, and yes, the 8UC Ironworks/G’raha, etc., eager to push their own vision onto mankind (or an entire timeline in the latter’s case.) As I have pointed out before, the way the sundered treat lesser life forms and their own “creations” is really not too different from the ancients, either, so let’s not be too hasty to exaggerate their differences in some key behavioural aspects.

Moreover, his answer on the timelines seems vague and non-definitive; the more interesting possibility he gives is stating perhaps Venat worked behind the timelines to avoid them going awry. How would she do this without exact knowledge? Regardless, this means she had committed to "our" timeline and she is ipso facto responsible for a lot of what happened by acting to preserve it, including the actions of the three unsundered, since she knew they’d do all this when confronted with the state of the world, with the (lack of) knowledge she left them with.

To me it makes her plan even more desperate and drastic now given that she allowed for Emet (and by extension) three unsundered to survive as part of her plan, but that this was also uncertain as part of the plan. It merely underlines that she is partly culpable for what they would do, as she knew this from the WoL and provided them zero context for it all. It is a bit frustrating that they explained their surviving their fate in this way. Ditto with the Azem question – I can say my character would’ve not damned their own people in Venat’s scheme.

At least this sounds like it’s the last of Zenos and Venat.

Some other points since they're not worth me making a separate post on:

• Their answer on the evolution of the races is all the more bizarre, because if it’s due to this, it is strange that it followed the exact same trajectory (right down to subraces) on Reflections separated through time, aetheric density and histories. But in any case, it closes off that question.
  
• The answer on the purpose of the sigils was good I thought. Aside from the general altruistic impulses of the ancients, it highlights that these seats were primarily defined by putting their power to responsible use and a signifier of the duty and responsibility they took on.
  
• It's strange that he comments that Emet and Hyth have accomplished all they wanted – surely reincarnation occurs regardless? In fact, this would suggest their souls will pass on through the cycle rather than being stuck in torment like Livia.
  
• The idea that the Blessing won’t fade is likewise odd. There are sufficient narrative devices to do away with it. Though I imagine without a primal to pour her power into it, it will now remain a simple traveller’s ward…
  
• The star’s name not spreading is intriguing – so is the intention just to wait for Y’shtola to publish her book? What will even be learnt by this all, that won’t fade in a few generations?
  
• It does seem like my hunch on the elder primals was correct – i.e. that different parts are on different reflections, so that with Zodiark’s core gone, he is finished – ditto with Hydaelyn.
  
• I found the answers on the sundered Ascians a little weak - one of the masks is a lion's. Apparently they're still around. Hopefully as something other than mere two bit villains. The time for that is past. Additionally, it's interesting that they have the names etc. for all the Convocation seats worked out and may get them one day. Hope for an unsundered AU expansion rising a bit.
  

Overall, I found some answers weak, but I was pleased that they're not forcing some "Venat is a saint" interpretation. We'll see what the short stories and Pandaemonium bring.

[MikkoAkure]

If the Rejoinings can be brought into question on that basis, then naturally so can the Sundering which pushed them on that path. I also dispute his claim that the ancients were so different in this regard – we see Ilberd, Vauthry, Thordan, Yotsuyu, Varis, Zenos, and yes, the 8UC Ironworks/G’raha, etc., eager to push their own vision onto mankind (or an entire timeline in the latter’s case.) As I have pointed out before, the way the sundered treat lesser life forms and their own “creations” is really not too different from the ancients, either, so let’s not be too hasty to exaggerate their differences in some key behavioural aspects.

I think the difference is that the first 6 people you mentioned are megalomaniacal villains who wanted to change the world for selfish reasons and not for anything altruistic and the last did it in a context of a ruined and dying world. Also, it's 6 people and 1 group out of a population of millions. He made a point to speak of the "wholeness" of being an Ancient and from what we can gather from the story, the Ancients were much more connected to both each other and the world as a whole and were overall more inclined to be able to truly feel that they were able to make a decision that affected everyone than the average person today would.

Yoshi-P, emphasis mine:

That really is an ancient moment that shows you how different the wholeness of these Ancient’s worth because normally we normal humans wouldn’t be able to make such a decision for all of mankind, so when I see that I really think, yeah, Venat was really one of them.

I don't think those 6 are normal humans and I don't think what the Ironworks did was a normal situation.

[KageTokage]

I can't help but wonder how long of a time passed before the sundered Ancients had finished developing into the myriad races.

Logically it would've taken several generations for such drastic differences to manifest, but the circumstances weren't exactly normal. It still makes me question whether or not there's any recorded history of their common origin, though.

[KageTokage]

It really does not sit well with me that the unsundered were allowed to escape in spite of foreknowledge that they'd both potentially jeopardize the plan and cause the death of multiple worlds. That detail just makes Venat look all the worse, even if it was necessary to preserve the timeline.

It kind of loops back to my initial feelings that the single biggest mistake they made with Endwalker and the story arc overall was adding the element of time travel/predestination into the mix again, but on a far greater scale then what happened in Shadowbringers. It comes across to me as a rather short-sighted decision done mostly to give Emet Selch, Hythlodaeus, and other Ancients time in the spotlight but at the expense of the story's integrity.

[Starkbeaumont]

- Venat left Emet, and ambiguously the other Unsundered, alive on purpose because of their utility in bringing about her plans.

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...

- The player races are descended from Sundered Ancients. Non-Hyur developed their inhuman traits over time to compensate for deficiencies created by their essence being broken unevenly and trying to recover - for example, Miqo'te grew bigger ears because of loss of hearing.

I call BS on that one. the races of the First look exactly the same as on the Source. yet almost all other living things are different.

[Cleretic]

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...

First of all: if we presume her plan was pure 'maintain the timeline was she knows it', she actually can't protect Azem from the Sundering, because one of the very few things she knows for real is that Azem needs to be sundered. Not only do we need to be the Warrior of Light, but so does Ardbert.

Then we have to remember that Venat's crew did reach out to Azem, and didn't hear back. That suggests that she did try to work with Azem on this and it didn't work out; combine this with one of the other answers we got, where the answer to 'what was Azem up to' was basically 'Azem is you, so they're doing whatever you would've been doing in that situation', and we can say that the reason Azem didn't help her was probably one that you would agree with.

Also, do you really think Emet-Selch would've listened to a word Venat would have said after she sundered the planet? I don't think I would've in his position, and I think she knows that. Especially because her plan really doesn't go his way; the Convocation want their world back, but Venat doesn't just believe this to be unattainable, but requires it to remain so.

[alibutterfly]

even if we assume she only wanted Emet to survive (why not Azem?!), she basically made him go rogue and commit genocide to her "children". if that wasn't her plan she should have given him some notes maybe...

Did she actually consider the peoples of the reflections "her children" in the same way as the peoples of the Source, though? I had the distinct impression she didn't particularly care about them when playing through the story, or at least that she didn't care about them to the same extent as the lives on the Source, since the Moon evacuation plan only applied to the Source. That seems to imply to me that she would save them if she could, but if it came down to flight in the end, they were an "acceptable loss."

Even before these live letter revelations, that part of her actions seemed really weird/hard to reconcile, to me.