What lore do you ignore?

[SannaR]

ETA: Most the villains in FF14 were well-meaning. Thordan, Athena, the Ascians, all attempting to do what they believed to be the greater good.

They were wrong.

She is wrong.

The difference that disturbs me to no end though is while the game recognizes the others were wrong, it doesn't seem to realize that Venat's fascist agenda was also wrong. When Zenos is drawing in the lifeforce of all those people to give himself the resonance, we get that's wrong. But when Venat sets up entire worlds to be smashed back into the Source so that her super soldier can be born, for some reason people can't follow the exact same logic and realize that's also wrong. She made worlds of people for the purpose of being destroyed to feed our strength, both of character and of spirit.

You might feel that you're not saying that Venat made herself into a god for personal gain, but that is how it is coming off to others. Many in this discussion have said now and in the past that the sundering was a horrible act. Yet due to the world we play in and the type of game we are playing they have chosen to come to terms with how it happened in their own way. You and the others aren't wrong in wanting or wishing for an AU where they might have gotten a better ending or lasted longer. Or for wanting the characters to react the same way they did in the past to other events. Yet that isn't what we have been given. Does it suck that for some there is a disconnect that varies in how severe that disconnect is? Well yeah.

It's not the characters fault if the writer(s) didn't stick the landing on how readers should interpret their actions. The same way that people shouldn't get mad at an actor when they're dealing with a bland, lackluster or subpar script. Or a voice actor gives a deadpan performance if they're not given any indication of how their character is supposed to be feeling.

Venat did something that she knew would mean the star could continue. As it didn't look as though there was any way to convince the convocation to not sacrifice soul endowed life to Zodiark for a third time. Especially if we are to assume that everyone at the time still held firm the belief that souls should always be able to return to the sea. You don't replace souls with more souls.

[Cleretic]

It's not the characters fault if the writer(s) didn't stick the landing on how readers should interpret their actions. The same way that people shouldn't get mad at an actor when they're dealing with a bland, lackluster or subpar script. Or a voice actor gives a deadpan performance if they're not given any indication of how their character is supposed to be feeling.

I'd also argue that it's not a fault of the writers that they didn't create a world with an unambiguous happy ending for everyone. Which really does seem to be an argument being made: that the Ancients deserved a happy ending, and so them not getting it is from varying angles both the other characters' fault for not giving it to them, and the writers' fault for not doing it.

Whereas the truth is that there's a hell of a lot of stories that just don't and shouldn't end with 'the villain is dead and the good guys all live happily ever after'. Amaurot's story is one of a tragic death of a society that doesn't deserve it, and Endwalker's story is one of grappling with death and grief in all its facets. Sure, maybe not all of those elements of either story stuck the landing, but the fix isn't to take away the fact that Amaurot died in the first place.

Is Heavensward bad for not letting us revive Harchefaunt?

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I'd also argue that it's not a fault of the writers that they didn't create a world with an unambiguous happy ending for everyone. Which really does seem to be an argument being made: that the Ancients deserved a happy ending, and so them not getting it is from varying angles both the other characters' fault for not giving it to them, and the writers' fault for not doing it.

Whereas the truth is that there's a hell of a lot of stories that just don't and shouldn't end with 'the villain is dead and the good guys all live happily ever after'. Amaurot's story is one of a tragic death of a society that doesn't deserve it, and Endwalker's story is one of grappling with death and grief in all its facets. Sure, maybe not all of those elements of either story stuck the landing, but the fix isn't to take away the fact that Amaurot died in the first place.

Is Heavensward bad for not letting us revive Harchefaunt?

You really can't tell the difference between "all stories need happy endings" verses "I am disturbed what this story is trying to slip past as right and good is fascist propaganda." I'd be like making Zenos the hero of Stormblood and having all the Scions look at him adoringly as he murdered people for the sake of genetic superiority. That's be weird right? It'd be okay to point out that's maybe not a good thing, right?

I've made it blatantly clear me issue with Endwalker is to agree with Venat's actions, you have to agree with some pretty horrific concepts, like some lives aren't worth as much as others, like it's okay to take everything from a people if you believe you can make better use of it and these are the exact arguments I've been seeing trying to defend the mass murder of 10 worlds. Because even if you're willing to do all kinds of backflips to act like what she did to the Ancients wasn't genocide, she unquestionably set up several shards to be destroyed, on purpose. That's a lot of death for a loving mommy to cause.

[Cleretic]

You really can't tell the difference between "all stories need happy endings" verses "I am disturbed what this story is trying to slip past as right and good is fascist propaganda." I'd be like making Zenos the hero of Stormblood and having all the Scions look at him adoringly as he murdered people for the sake of genetic superiority. That's be weird right? It'd be okay to point out that's maybe not a good thing, right?

I've made it blatantly clear me issue with Endwalker is to agree with Venat's actions, you have to agree with some pretty horrific concepts, like some lives aren't worth as much as others, like it's okay to take everything from a people if you believe you can make better use of it and these are the exact arguments I've been seeing trying to defend the mass murder of 10 worlds. Because even if you're willing to do all kinds of backflips to act like what she did to the Ancients wasn't genocide, she unquestionably set up several shards to be destroyed, on purpose. That's a lot of death for a loving mommy to cause.

Oh, I'm not even talking about you at this point, although you are the most recent person I've seen raise it. I've seen it a lot. And I think it betrays something under the surface; not one of the first complaints, but one underneath. I don't know what it could be, and I'm not about to speculate for anyone; I don't have enough of a hint to even begin to guess.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Oh, I'm not even talking to you at this point, although you are the most recent person I've seen raise it. I've seen it a lot. And I think it betrays something under the surface; not one of the first complaints, but one underneath. I don't know what it could be, and I'm not about to speculate for anyone; I don't have enough of a hint to even begin to guess.

Because I assumed once the WoL was involved we'd save people. You know, like G'raha did one expansion earlier. But nope, we're just a useless pawn who stands there looking at their feet when kind, gentle people ask us about the danger coming for them. I was hoping for better because given the morals espoused even one expansion earlier, I wouldn't have imagined the necessity of culling the weak to be the next lesson for me to learn.

When Elidibus looks at us and says, "I know who you are. You are death." After Endwalker, I wanna be like, "Oh, so you do remember me?" Like you do get the WoL is now the direct cause for the Sundering? Had we not told Venat she did it, she'd likely have no motivation to do it. They put the death and suffering of millions, if not billions of people on our character...and I just wanted to fish, man.

For all this back and forth, I will admit, I envy those who can't see it. I wish I was oblivious to the many horrific implications of Endwalker. I could just fish, race my chocobo and wonder if my character would marry Aymeric or G'raha. Oh those halcyon days, I was so innocent.

[Cleretic]

Because I assumed once the WoL was involved we'd save people. You know, like G'raha did one expansion earlier. But nope, we're just a useless pawn who stands there looking at their feet when kind, gentle people ask us about the danger coming for them. I was hoping for better because given the morals espoused even one expansion earlier, I wouldn't have imagined the necessity of culling to weak to be the next lesson for me to learn.

When Elidibus looks at us and says, "I know who you are. You are death." After Endwalker, I wanna be like, "Oh, so you do remember me?" Like you do get the WoL is now the direct cause for the Sundering? Had we not told Venat she did it, she'd likely have no motivation to do it. They put the death and suffering of millions, if not billions of people on our character...and I just wanted to fish, man.

For all this back and forth, I will admit, I envy those who can't see it. I wish I was oblivious to the many horrific implications of Endwalker. I could just fish, race my chocobo and wonder if my character would marry Aymeric or G'raha. Oh those halcyon days, I was so innocent.

I see what you see, I just don't agree with your take on it.

And with this one, I feel like for a lot of people, the example may be the people we couldn't save--Haurchefant, Moenbryda, Minfilia, Papalymo, Ysayle. That we aren't Superman: that sometimes, it's impossible to save everybody. And I don't think that's an invalid read, it's one that I'd certainly hear out an exploration of. But for me, the interesting echo comes from somewhere else.

I think the partner to the tale of Amaurot is actually the game's stories about necromancy: Edda's story, Palace of the Dead, Endwalker Caster, Stormblood Dark Knight, a 'weird it happened twice' amount of Alchemist stories. Bozja, in a strange form. Because no matter how many different forms of necromancy we find, the message is always the same: that death is tragic, that wanting to find a way to circumvent it is understandable and sympathetic, and that even that journey to find a way to fix death might bear important fruit, either personal or material... but that, at the end of the day, you can't bring back what was lost. That what is dead must lie, and that you have to move on. And that the living shouldn't pay the price for the dead.

To the game's timeline and characters, Amaurot is not a living friend to save: it's already dead. It's been dead for twelve thousand years. In a very real sense, the Ascians are game's biggest story about necromancy, willing to sacrifice everything to bring back what's lost. And the greatest tragedy of all is that you just can't; Amaurot will always be a graveyard, no matter if your means of necromancy is to try to change the timeline, or to sacrifice entire planets.

I don't see us as a useless pawn in someone else's game for the Ancient world. Because to me, that 'game' ended so long ago that nobody needs care about the score. And trying to replay it for a different result is only going to cause pain.

[Lady_Silvermoon]

I see what you see, I just don't agree with your take on it.

And with this one, I feel like for a lot of people, the example may be the people we couldn't save--Haurchefant, Moenbryda, Minfilia, Papalymo, Ysayle. That we aren't Superman: that sometimes, it's impossible to save everybody. And I don't think that's an invalid read, it's one that I'd certainly hear out an exploration of. But for me, the interesting echo comes from somewhere else.

I think the partner to the tale of Amaurot is actually the game's stories about necromancy: Edda's story, Palace of the Dead, Endwalker Caster, Stormblood Dark Knight, a 'weird it happened twice' amount of Alchemist stories. Bozja, in a strange form. Because no matter how many different forms of necromancy we find, the message is always the same: that death is tragic, that wanting to find a way to circumvent it is understandable and sympathetic, and that even that journey to find a way to fix death might bear important fruit, either personal or material... but that, at the end of the day, you can't bring back what was lost. That what is dead must lie, and that you have to move on. And that the living shouldn't pay the price for the dead.

To the game's timeline and characters, Amaurot is not a living friend to save: it's already dead. It's been dead for twelve thousand years. In a very real sense, the Ascians are game's biggest story about necromancy, willing to sacrifice everything to bring back what's lost. And the greatest tragedy of all is that you just can't; Amaurot will always be a graveyard, no matter if your means of necromancy is to try to change the timeline, or to sacrifice entire planets.

I don't see us as a useless pawn in someone else's game for the Ancient world. Because to me, that 'game' ended so long ago that nobody needs care about the score. And trying to replay it for a different result is only going to cause pain.

There is a difference between the inability to stop a light spear and standing next to the member of a world's governing body and not warning him of an oncoming genocide because you're afraid it might be in conflict with you benefitting from the death of everything he cares about. One is an actual "couldn't be helped" the other is the kind of "can't be helped" that is the source of my displeasure with the direction they took it. That's the kind of "can't be helped" that ends in small pox blankets and people in cages. And the fact those two are being conflated is exactly what's bothering me.

Also, why is our time the "real time" in a world with time travel? Good thing Ironworks didn't hold that position or our character would be dead. If we don't go back and tell Venat about the Sundering, the Sundering doesn't happen. We're not just witnessing the past, we're the cause of the way events unfolded.