[6.0 - 6.4 Spoilers] An interesting video detailing Venat's polarizing reception

[Theodric]

If you actually check the channel, Cleretic, you can find that the full video is broken down into bite sized chapters for easier digesting. I'd personally suggest the 'Dehumanisation of the Ancients' segment as perhaps the most important section to view.

There's a separate video relating to Zenos and another revolving around Hermes - both viewed through a critical but constructive lens.

It's also very strange to consider Lauront as not speaking in 'good faith'. He's consistently sourced his talking points when discussing the lore and neither is he the only individual involved with the project.

I'll admit to being very amused that the counter to the video is in the form of the very common talking points and misconceptions that the video itself refutes, though.

[KizuyaKatogami]

snip

It’s moreso an issue of obvious bias. Venat being called a hero isn’t morally grey. Her being called a primal of peace isn’t morally grey or correct in any relativity. Zodiark’s codex entry being nothing but negative while hers is nothing but positive etc. There is constant obvious bias that a lot of people ignore that is the root of this whole issue.

[Absimiliard]

Frankly, I can't wrap my head around how people look at the complete destruction of an entire species as not controversial. Just the mere concept of taking all those people and effectively killing them. Yeah, their biological matter and souls weren't entirely eradicated, but their identities were stripped away by the Sundering process and all the building blocks that comprised them instead went on to become wholly distinct organisms. That is in many ways worse than just being outright dead. Then there's the matter of how things went in the time period immediate following the Sundering, which we're lead to believe was positively horrific for all involved.

Whether or not it was justified is an entirely separate matter.

[Gaddes]

Frankly, I can't wrap my head around how people look at the complete destruction of an entire species as not controversial. Just the mere concept of taking all those people and effectively killing them. Yeah, their biological matter and souls weren't entirely eradicated, but their identities were stripped away by the Sundering process and all the building blocks that compromised them instead went on to become wholly distinct organisms. That is in many ways worse than just being outright dead. Then there's the matter of how things went in the time period immediate following the Sundering, which we're lead to believe was positively horrific for all involved.

Whether or not it was justified is an entirely separate matter.

Y'know, you bring up an interesting point that I never really thought about before. Venat sundered the world into shards to keep ancients from just sacrificing themselves over and over again summoning Zodiark, but... to what end?
The end result from the sundering is that, yes, life survives... but as sundered beings, those new lives are new entities from the ancients they came from. So basically, if we consider those original lives "lost" to split into new ones with new personalities and new bodies, then the whole thing was a failure because everyone died anyway to make that new life.
The surviving few Ascians think they could regain their friends' past lives by Rejoining, but it doesn't seem like it was part of Venat's original sundering plan to account for a few ancients escaping into a rift to avoid being sundered. So if she didn't account for any survivors who would reinstate those lost lives/personalities, what was she really saving by sundering anyway? She basically killed all the ancients with the Sundering process.

If I was an ancient, I could certainly be convinced that that was an evil, or at the very least morally grey, action...

[Absimiliard]

it doesn't seem like it was part of Venat's original sundering plan to account for a few ancients escaping into a rift to avoid being sundered. So if she didn't account for any survivors who would reinstate those lost lives/personalities, what was she really saving by sundering anyway? She basically killed all the ancients with the Sundering process.

It was planned for. Well, to be specific, Emet-Selch was planned for. She meant to leave him intact, although she wasn't 100% sure she could pull it off in the moment the sundering began. She essentially left a little flaw in it, one which she hoped he would recognize and exploit as a means of saving himself. Elidibus and Lahabrea just so happened to be in his company at that time, and so he was able to save them as well. Venat did this to preserve the timeline that gave rise to the WoL she met in Elpis. The horrors those three would unleash, the lives sacrificed in pursuit of the Rejoinings -- she knew about it all.

[MikkoAkure]

So if she didn't account for any survivors who would reinstate those lost lives/personalities, what was she really saving by sundering anyway? She basically killed all the ancients with the Sundering process.

I think it was more about saving or protecting "life" in general than anything specific.

I think a problem we have with trying to reconcile Zodiark, Hydaelyn, and the Sundering is that a lot of their thought processes and their culture is alien to us. To me, the Ancients seemed to be of the mind that they were ultimately "custodians of the star" and that everything they did was for a greater whole rather than masters of it that bent the world to their own will for their own needs.

It was already established that Ancients will die and return their aether to the star to reenter the cycle of death and rebirth once they have "finished their job". Venat was already somewhat of a heretic (a trait shared with her Occurian namesake) in that she didn't do that. Seemingly related to the standard Ancient death custom is that it seemed to be a great honor to sacrifice your aether to Zodiark. To harvest life that had finally returned to the planet in order to revive people who sacrificed themselves seems pervert that notion. That they titled Zodiark "Will of the Star", called him a god, and called themselves His "servants" doesn't seem to paint a good picture either.

[Absimiliard]

It was already established that Ancients will die and return their aether to the star to reenter the cycle of death and rebirth once they have "finished their job". Venat was already somewhat of a heretic (a trait shared with her Occurian namesake) in that she didn't do that. Seemingly related to the standard Ancient death custom is that it seemed to be a great honor to sacrifice your aether to Zodiark. To harvest life that had finally returned to the planet in order to revive people who sacrificed themselves seems pervert that notion. That they titled Zodiark "Will of the Star", called him a god, and called themselves His "servants" doesn't seem to paint a good picture either.

Sacrificing your life and aether to Zodiark was regarded as honorable specifically because you were giving yourself up to save your world and fellow man. The initial sacrifices, to save the planet and heal it, respectively, were purely for the sake of preserving the world and its remaining inhabitants. We aren't given any reason to doubt the nature of these particular sacrifices. As for subsequent intended sacrifices; there was a great deal of debate over them. Some were for it, some against it. I strongly suspect this opposition was in fact a direct result of the ancients' duty to the star and strongly held belief they should return the aether of their very souls to it when their purpose was served.

[Kozh]

Y'know, you bring up an interesting point that I never really thought about before. Venat sundered the world into shards to keep ancients from just sacrificing themselves over and over again summoning Zodiark, but... to what end?

First, this notion of "they're going to endlessly sacrifice themselves" is purely a slippery slope by people still stuck at ARR mentality where "primal = continuous sacrifice". What is the 3rd sacrifice purpose? To get back the souls inside Zodiark. After they achieve that and rebuild the world..... what the supposed next sacrifices are even gonna be about?

The end result from the sundering is that, yes, life survives... but as sundered beings, those new lives are new entities from the ancients they came from. So basically, if we consider those original lives "lost" to split into new ones with new personalities and new bodies, then the whole thing was a failure because everyone died anyway to make that new life.

The game said that she did it for the future, because she's so traumatized by (2 lines report of) the Nibirun's fate. Fearing that's how the Ancients will ended up, she sunder the world to prevent it.

But if we think about it further, by preventing Nibirun dead end (she's wrong), she also opens the possibility for, at the very least, Dead End 1 and 2 (grebuloff and global citizen).

The sundering was a stupid, knee-jerk reaction to Hermes temper tantrum.

[SannaR]

First, this notion of "they're going to endlessly sacrifice themselves" is purely a slippery slope by people still stuck at ARR mentality where "primal = continuous sacrifice". What is the 3rd sacrifice purpose? To get back the souls inside Zodiark. After they achieve that and rebuild the world..... what the supposed next sacrifices are even gonna be about?

We're not caught up on the ARR definition. Like last time it's the whole belief about how souls are ment to be able to return to the Aetherial Sea is a fundamental part of their society. If we are to assume that is still the case post 2nd sacrifice then they shouldn't be ok with replacing the souls inside Zodiark with more souls. As we know no matter what shape the new life took that it had souls in it. The not souls of lost friends and love ones should have mattered just as much to them as those that were of friends and love ones. Thus the idea of needing to constantly swap out souls and even more tempering of the convocation.

[Cleretic]

Frankly, I can't wrap my head around how people look at the complete destruction of an entire species as not controversial. Just the mere concept of taking all those people and effectively killing them. Yeah, their biological matter and souls weren't entirely eradicated, but their identities were stripped away by the Sundering process and all the building blocks that comprised them instead went on to become wholly distinct organisms. That is in many ways worse than just being outright dead. Then there's the matter of how things went in the time period immediate following the Sundering, which we're lead to believe was positively horrific for all involved.

Whether or not it was justified is an entirely separate matter.

The thing there is that 'controversial' can be taken in two fundamentally different ways with characters like Venat and Emet.

1. 'This character stands for and acted on things that aren't inherently agreeable and cause split emotional responses as people have different reactions to them. This is both true and intentional for Emet and Venat, and are a huge partof their joint popularity; neither would be nearly as popular if Emet were just a sassy boy with depression, and Venat was just a nice wine mom. Even Harchefant's popularity is falling off over time.

2. That a character actually has a split response among the fanbase in terms of 'like' or 'don't like', to the point of significant divides. FFXIV doesn't actually have many of these on a large scale, and the best I can think of (for VERY different reasons) are Lyse and Hildibrand.

I'd prefer to use the term 'polarizing', because neither is actually, by dictionary definition, 'controversial'; none of those characters caused controversies.

These are entirely separate definitions, and one doesn't inherently cause the other. Again, Emet and Venat are two of the most popular characters in the game, in very large part because of their emotionally and morally complex stories and deeds. (Granted, this isn't exactly a perfectly repeatable formula; Ysayle didn't exactly see the same bump, and I have some largely unrelated thoughts on why.) And on the other side of that coin, the reasons Lyse and Hildibrand get hate is in no way related to their views and actions, that range from ineffectual to nonexistent. I think using terms like 'controversial' or 'polarizing' relating to Venat (doesn't really happen around Emet) is basically an attempt to conflate the two as the same, when they absolutely aren't.

You're allowed to not be okay with what Venat did, just as I'm not okay with what Emet did, and we don't have invalid opinions in thinking such. But this doesn't make these characters a failure, and it's wrong to approach them as if they did; it makes them successful. Nor does it make them unpopular; the thing I saw in that Twitter and Reddit dive, far more than actual dislike, were people talking about that part of Venat as a big reason why they like her.