The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

...

---

Sorry if this has been discussed already but this can't simply be a matter of viewing things from a different perspective as inconsistencies with Hydaelyn's character can be seen even as far back as Heavensward. I recall there being a line back when she used Minfilia as her mouthpiece where she states she's failed at preventing 7 rejoining's, which we now know can't possibly be true since her entire plan hinged on us having come as far as we have. Considering she needed those rejoining's to happen, I'd sooner call them victories on her end.

Also, on the matter of converging timelines, ignoring that this expansion seems to brush aside what we've already learned about time travel in Shadowbringers, assuming that timelines are indeed "converging", I feel most of these changes would have occurred only after our trip to Elpis. Venat at the start of Endwalker mentions honoring some promise she made in another age, and Elidibus's words suggest we will eventually meet him in Elpis, but both of these conversations happen before we've even done anything to change the course of history. The simple fact that characters are referencing events that will, NOT might happen tells me the writers just want us to assume that it really is just a perfect closed loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

because the Ancients just want to record like that.

---

They put on their, "we all wanna pretend we're a collective" filter! :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyrerus

They put on their, "we all wanna pretend we're a collective" filter! :3

---

Resistance is Futile you will be ethereal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Much like how certain posters make it painfully obvious that they loathe the Ancients, Ascians and/or Garleans...though mysteriously they're never called out despite being far more vocal and prone to toxicity and personal attacks.

Funny, that!

---

Indeed. Just another example of a double standard. It’s almost like a mimicry of the story :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Sorry if this has been discussed already but this can't simply be a matter of viewing things from a different perspective as inconsistencies with Hydaelyn's character can be seen even as far back as Heavensward. I recall there being a line back when she used Minfilia as her mouthpiece where she states she's failed at preventing 7 rejoining's, which we now know can't possibly be true since her entire plan hinged on us having come as far as we have. Considering she needed those rejoining's to happen, I'd sooner call them victories on her end.

Also, on the matter of converging timelines, ignoring that this expansion seems to brush aside what we've already learned about time travel in Shadowbringers, assuming that timelines are indeed "converging", I feel most of these changes would have occurred only after our trip to Elpis. Venat at the start of Endwalker mentions honoring some promise she made in another age, and Elidibus's words suggest we will eventually meet him in Elpis, but both of these conversations happen before we've even done anything to change the course of history. The simple fact that characters are referencing events that will, NOT might happen tells me the writers just want us to assume that it really is just a perfect closed loop.

---

The thing with that Heavensward explanation is that during Heavensward they were re-writing the backstory of who the ascians were and why they where doing it, Yoshi-P said this in a recent interview. So it is possible that, that was a relic from the original iteration of the Hydaelyn/Zodiark dynamic.

Except that it was Shadowbringers, not Endwalker that caused problems when it comes to time travel in the story. In the Alexander raids there is plenty of time travel, all of which, (as far as I am aware), was of the closed loop variety making Shadowbringers the time travel problematic expansion. In regards to Elidibus him saying that is just before we travel to the past so could be, as I explained, a symptom of the simultaneous creation of and merging with the new timeline. The same could possibly be said about Hydaelyn considering that like Elidibus they are both primals and as such time could interact a bit wonkily with them.

tldr: they already messed up the rules of time travel in Shadowbringers so anything could happen when it comes to merging timelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Sorry if this has been discussed already but this can't simply be a matter of viewing things from a different perspective as inconsistencies with Hydaelyn's character can be seen even as far back as Heavensward. I recall there being a line back when she used Minfilia as her mouthpiece where she states she's failed at preventing 7 rejoining's, which we now know can't possibly be true since her entire plan hinged on us having come as far as we have. Considering she needed those rejoining's to happen, I'd sooner call them victories on her end.

---

Hydaelyn directly said in her big Endwalker scene that she had faced failures, but was reassured that things would be okay by the stories we told her.

You're making the mistake of assuming that everything that happened was Exactly According To Plan. That she went 'okay we need to let exactly seven Rejoinings happen, one needs to only be a partial apocalypse, I need to make friends with an alien dragon that will turn up at some point' and then just stuck with that with no deviation or attempts to improve it. And... no, that's actually completely untrue. Venat wears her failures, she will admit to them, and the Rejoinings were just that--her failing.

However, you've made me realize something. In that Heavensward scene with Hydaelyn, she mentions that 'the darkness' will be unstoppable if the next Calamity is allowed to happen. First of all, kudos to the people who cast doubt on that 'darkness' being the Ascians and Zodiark, because now it makes sense that she could've been talking about the End of Days. But there was never any other evidence to it; the Ascians never acted like one more Rejoining was all they needed, and we know from G'raha's future that the Eighth Umbral Calamity doesn't necessarily do much different from others in terms of destructive force.

But now it's making more sense. It's not because she knows the Eighth Umbral Calamity is any different, because she doesn't and it's not. No, she puts that finality on it because she knows that, if she failed to stop the Rejoinings as she ends up doing, the Seventh Astral Era is the one that got closest. The Seventh Astral Era is the one that got far enough to learn what the deal is; not just us, but Sharlayan too. if the Eighth Umbral Calamity wipes both of them off the map, she's in uncharted territory, with the only stories she could hold on to as hope being torn to shreds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami

Indeed. Just another example of a double standard. It’s almost like a mimicry of the story :p

---

Like how the second time someone ever responded to a post of mine it was someone with problems with Venat who mocked me for my response to their statement about why Venat is a murderer? There are people on both sides of the debate who hold a double standard when it comes to Venat/the ancients and to smugly mock people, like you appear to be doing with that emoji (I could be wrong, it just seems that way), doesn't solve anything and instead makes your arguments about hypocrisy ring false.

I'm not saying you personally are being hypocritical but that some people on both sides are.

Edit: I probably have some part in this hypocrisy, I don't normally interact with forums and have a bad habit of poorly wording what I say and reacting too emotionally to opposing arguments and so sometimes go too far or don't say what I mean clearly enough and that definitely causes problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Sorry if this has been discussed already but this can't simply be a matter of viewing things from a different perspective as inconsistencies with Hydaelyn's character can be seen even as far back as Heavensward. I recall there being a line back when she used Minfilia as her mouthpiece where she states she's failed at preventing 7 rejoining's, which we now know can't possibly be true since her entire plan hinged on us having come as far as we have. Considering she needed those rejoining's to happen, I'd sooner call them victories on her end.

---

I’ll admit I’m confused why many seem to believe she intended for the things to happen as we described to her and that was the plan. Yes, she had great hopes for us and liked us. No, does that mean all she did was to ensure our arrival. Venat never took for granted that things would play out exactly as we described, and she makes it clear she is going to fight her battles as they come. She says this clearly in Elpis.

https://i.imgur.com/OzegOYw.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/uWFfU3I.jpg

She also makes it clear that the conjunction in the timeline only began to form post Shadowbringers, meaning she did not believe it was certain to be occurring before then.

https://i.imgur.com/ckL7HhH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0b8WmTg.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nilroreo

Venat at the start of Endwalker mentions honoring some promise she made in another age, and Elidibus's words suggest we will eventually meet him in Elpis, but both of these conversations happen before we've even done anything to change the course of history. The simple fact that characters are referencing events that will, NOT might happen tells me the writers just want us to assume that it really is just a perfect closed loop.

---

The promise seems to me to be her parting words in Elpis.

https://i.imgur.com/FrZ002G.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/MkMkPd0.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleretic

Hydaelyn directly said in her big Endwalker scene that she had faced failures, but was reassured that things would be okay by the stories we told her...

---

But what failures? She must have already known we hailed from the 7th astral era. If she was already aware that we were as you say 'the one that got closest,' what reason would she have to prematurely declare any of the events leading up to the present as failures? Sure she could've had been filled with remorse over the lives lost as a result of her actions, but to suggest that they were anything but necessary casualties in her pursuit of her real goal is hard for me to believe. The prospect of history going down a different path than what we described to her would've no doubt been scary for her, but as far as were made aware, there were no deviations and everything went exactly as expected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kordarion

Like how the second time someone ever responded to a post of mine it was someone with problems with Venat who mocked me for my response to their statement about why Venat is a murderer? There are people on both sides of the debate who hold a double standard when it comes to Venat/the ancients and to smugly mock people, like you appear to be doing with that emoji (I could be wrong, it just seems that way), doesn't solve anything and instead makes your arguments about hypocrisy ring false.

I'm not saying you personally are being hypocritical but that some people on both sides are.

Edit: I probably have some part in this hypocrisy, I don't normally interact with forums and have a bad habit of poorly wording what I say and reacting too emotionally to opposing arguments and so sometimes go too far or don't say what I mean clearly enough and that definitely causes problems.

---

1.How am i even mocking you with an emoji when my comment isn’t even responding to you, and 2.I think it can be a problem on both sides for sure, but i’ve never seen one side get called certain words like nazi’s or genocide sympathizers etc whereas the other side is called that typically on a normal basis if they showed any liking to garleans or the ancients what have you. Irregardless though that isn’t really what this thread is about and i’d rather not derail it more than it already has been. Was just giving my 2 cents.