/r/ffxivdiscussion: Has FFXIV had any major retcons or plot holes in the story?

[ZavosEsperian]

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

Please reread the argument I stated. In regards to the Ancients, your arguments without proof have no bearing and thus can be discarded without hesitation. I will have you ponder the following question:

If no genocide occurred as a result of the sundering, where did all the Ancients go after the sundering?

Stating they are sundered, thus creating new races, indicates they were fundamentally changed which would be indicative of them ceasing to exist which is tantamount to their destruction, and as it was targeted into them would constitute argument C. This fundamental change resulted in the new life created being unable to give birth to their progenitor race even when the progenitor race is involved, which constitutes D. B is the weakest, but if you believe no genocide occurred, would mean the Ancients that did survive the sundering would have been subjected to significant reductions in quality of life and mental acuity, which would mean B can be argued as plausible if not true.

Reinventing the definitions of genocide specifically to avoid calling someone who is a genocider a genocider is extremely dangerous, foolish, and makes me concerned about any watch lists you may be on. Arguing there is no genocide via sticking your head in the sand saying it doesn't exist exposes your posterior for all to see and ridicule, particularly when your defense to it is extremely flimsy and falls apart under any scrutiny when it is applied. I suggest rereading what I have stated and perhaps what constitutes genocide before making any more posts as to not expose yourself again.

[Theodric]

That's an unfortunate consequence of Venat - and the Ancients as a whole - being tied to practically everything in the setting either directly or indirectly. As well as a consequence of the game being exceedingly preachy - even by the standards of a typical JRPG - when it comes to the protagonists and the values they claim to hold dear.

I personally think that the writers went overboard with that, since it erodes away the agency of various characters. Perhaps Dawntrail will truly be a 'fresh start' as intended but that remains to be seen as even in the lead-up we are seeing flashbacks and quotes that once again tie to the Ancients.

To say nothing of a glowing red glyph in one of the promotional screenshots that may or may not turn out to involve more Ancients.

There is also no obligation for anyone to like to dislike specific characters, so naturally people are going to drift towards discussing what intrigues them. An efficient compromise would be to seek to write with the intention of pleasing a broader variety of tastes and presenting a cast of characters with a bit more variety in terms of moral outlook, personalities and backgrounds. As it stands, most of the core cast either share similar roots or they start out differently and end up undergoing the process of 'Scionification'.

[Eisi]

There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered.

You are such an empath ♥

[Enkidoh]

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

[Lady_Silvermoon]

Only problem again is that no Genocide was committed.

B,C,and D which you highlighted did not occur. B There was no harm (bodily or mentally) to those who were Sundered. 14 new individuals were created. C did not happen as that was the End-singer that ended the lives of the Ancients. Zodiark returned the lives and then they were subsequently Sundered creating 14 new unique lives, nothing was destroyed. D is a bit derivative as births still occur.

You could have had some sort of tangential argument with E but changing the Ancients into 14 unique beings isn't really forced transfer of children from one group to another as one group simply changed into the other via the Sundering.

How does reducing your IQ to 7 and your lifespan to 5 minutes not harm you? Our world starts prehistoric. They had cities, families, societies, cultures. She devolved them to apes. There is no way to get from the near immortal Ancients to my cat girl without doing something horrific to the species and the devs flat out explain what was done to them, even their immortal souls were shredded.

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

If we say what she did was genocide and you say no it's not. How can we show it's genocide without using the definition of genocide? She at best mutilated her species to the point where they could no longer be recognized as the same beings. How that does not fit any and all definitions of genocide is beyond me. It is actually one of the most horrific genocides I've ever heard recounted given the Ancients have observable immortal souls...which she sundered. Because of magic, she was able to do worse to the Ancients than real people can actually do to each other. For all the horrors we've committed against each other, we don't have the ability to rend each others souls apart. And all the horrors we do commit against each other were included in the sundering package--war, disease, famine. Thanks, Venat.

[ZavosEsperian]

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

Genocide's definition is rooted inside of law. The term never existed prior to the Holocaust and, with it, its informal definition. The Genocide Convention defined the term as the formal definition was coined during the time they were writing out the convention. As such, me using the legal definition is equivalent to me using any other definition, particularly if you want to say someone is guilty of committing it as that naturally invokes the legal ends.

As such, if you were to remove the modern-world framework, you would be unable to declare the Ascians guilty of the same crime because it would not exist. I am sure you are not a fan of the idea of giving the Ascians a free pass in order to give Venat a free one as well, as that would be the consequence of you throwing out the term. Of which, I would be able to call you an Ascian sympathizer along with a Venat Sympathizer as you would be unable to say either is guilty or not guilty without absolving or condemning the other party.

As far as the fantasy issue is concerned, Alphinaud directly uses the term in the quest 'A Difference of Opinion':

Alphinaud
Genocide has ever been the Empire's favored recourse─and that is why we will continue to oppose your every attempt to claim Eorzea!

-A Difference of Opinion

Link to transcript

The French translation of Erichthonius when he is confronting Athena also uses the term:

Erichthonius
Tu anéantirais l'humanité actuelle au profit de ta "nouvelle espèce" !? C'est de la folie, c'est...un génocide !

I don't think it is necessary to translate the word as the concern is the use of the term, which would imply the Ancients as well as the those who were created from them understand the term. Because genocide is directly used in the text, it is implied that the definitions associated with the term, both informal and formal, are applicable and as such the real-world legal convention must be honored unless you want to absolve all individuals who committed the crime and/or want to go against the writers and what they placed inside of the text.

So I will ask you this, will you accept the definition of term genocide as it is, which implies the Ascians, Hermes, Emet-Selch, and Venat as well as anyone else who perpetrated the act is guilty of it, or do you not allow for the term to exist with its definition, which absolves all of the parties I have just listed? The choice is yours to make, not mine.

[NanaWiloh]

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

Its turning into twitter.

[jameseoakes]

So, we're attaching modern real-world legal frameworks to fictitious fantasy worlds that have absolutely no connection to Earth at all now? Please, this is getting tiring...

Honestly the game calls out her actions as it spends most of the last expansion preaching about how awful the acts are when others do them but it's fine when the character you push as the god does it as you'll just other the victims, that is really sick

[Turtledeluxe]

There are reasons using the term genocide is incorrect here whether we are talking about a pre EW history where Venat acted unknowingly or a post Elpis visit history where she acted with total agency.

1. This is a fictional story about nonhumans who don't experience permanent death. A. Their forms still exist (in the form of humans). b. The technically still exist in the Lifestream and can even have their consciousness/soul recovered from it at any given time. C. The form (humans) can technically be used to reconstitute the original humanoid form. This is not conventionally what we would call a genocide, not even a massacre. If I massacre a bunch of chickens, they are no longer conscious and their form will soon be irreparably broken down. At least right now, there's no way to recover their consciousness or reconstitute their body.
2. Genocide targets nations and groups to permanently eliminate them-- Venat didn't do that. She targeted all of the star to preserve what we would refer to as "consciousness" and it became an origin story for what we know to be humanity and myriad other beings on the star.
3. Zodiark functions on unchecked tempering and continuous sacrifice, and the game makes it clear that this is an existential threat. Ascians do not posssess the same knowledge as the audience in terms of what unchecked tempering leads to, so their assumption that their plans would have gone well are not credible or provable. If you're worried about effective death in the case of sundering, the whole star being a slave to Zodiark is also an effective death, as they wouldn't even be functioning under their own will. Invoking Zodiark's 12,000 year shield doesn't work either-- that shield is the result of him being in stasis via Venat, and you cannot divorce her intention/application of his power from its effect over 12,000 years. We don't typically use genocide when it comes to existential threats-- is killing off a zombie invasion genocide?

The reason the game softens the portrayal of Venat's actions is because they've already worked very hard to show the player that the alternative is an existential threat. In order to say it wasn't a threat, you have to invoke several theoretical arguments (while also ignoring that you do not resolve the issues of a wishlist in terms of time and causality) like "Well Venat could have said this and Zodiark wouldn't be summoned", "The ancients were smart, they could've done it", that the game does not explore. So you're left with either embracing an existential threat, or fighting against it through terrible and difficult means. Telling Venat that would she did was a mistake and there should have been some other way is not only not supported by anything in the game that the characters would know, but arguing this nullifies so much of what the characters said and fought for in Shadowbringers.

Also, despite claims the developers don't address Venat's culpability-- she expresses disappointment about her own actions, referring to them as "cruel and unjust". Her trial scene doesn't come across as total pandering, it's a bittersweet one where we acknowledge that this terrible thing happened, but it preserved consciousness and resulted in all these different cultures/lifeforms. It could be nice if the Scions admonished her a bit more or even hated her, but they exist as a direct result of her actions (as do animals, their cultures, their towns, etc) so it wouldn't resonate in the scene beyond being a childish initial reaction. We also technically kill her btw, and no amount of sad music or dialogue changes that.

[NanaWiloh]

Venat sunder her people. Sundering is not killing, but all the death that happened after. You can pin to her with nails and glue, as she knew that it would happen. Even admitted it was wrong to put us through it. I do not condone her actions nor forgive her.