(ShB Spoilers) Didn't Hydaelyn, uh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

Yes he doesn't know and neither do we...and...?

---

When it happens again, they wouldn't be able to solve their own problems. Again. And their civilization will collapse. Again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

My point is just because a horrible event happened that's only one problem by their account that caused real dissent.

---

That doesn't mean they deserve to be raised from the dead on the sacrifices of the living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

And I already stated civilizations fall.

---

Usually the result of some terrible flaw, which is why you don't want a carbon copy restored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

After the Sundering we have had MANY. I mean we could debate on the Ascian influence of those conflicts, but it is debatable as to whether the world was gonna be all Bob Ross.

---

Moral relativism. Civilizations that completely destroyed themselves from their own conflict are worse then civilizations that have endured multiple conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

When it happens again, they wouldn't be able to solve their own problems. Again. And their civilization will collapse. Again.

---

The collapse of their civilization was a direct result of a sound from inside the planet driving their powers out of control. Their loss of control created a self-sustaining cycle with their growing fear wherein their powers went from uncontrolled to running completely rampant. Zodiark dealt with the cause of the sound as part of his initial summoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Usually the result of some terrible flaw, which is why you don't want a carbon copy restored.

---

A civilization that survived for eons without any discernible conflict is significantly less flawed than the petty, selfish creatures inhabiting the world today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Moral relativism. Civilizations that completely destroyed themselves from their own conflict are worse then civilizations that have endured multiple conflicts.

---

Their civilization was only destroyed after countless tragedies befell them. And even then, it took a minority of their remaining population deciding to summon what was essentially a light-themed Zodiark copy to actually finalize their downfall. We've no clue how much time passed between Zodiark's first and second summonings, let alone when the Convocation decided it appropriate to sacrifice countless lesser lifeforms to revive their sapient brethren.


As for moral relativism, that's actually kind of key to seeing the overarching plots from both sides at this point. Expecting wholly alien life - which Ascians would certainly qualify as - to operate off of the same set of morals and balances as we do is quite unreasonable. Emet-Selch views current extant Spoken races as broken, flawed shells of what they originally were. He considers them to be little more than insects in the grand scheme - and to the eyes of an immortal being with near-godlike power, that may actually be a valid point of view. It's a lot easier to destroy something if you see it as a non-entity. Here in the real world we don't hesitate to swat a fly, after all. Granted that fly can't carry on a conversation with us, but the comparison is largely the same in terms of actual power and knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

Emet-Selch views current extant Spoken races as broken, flawed shells of what they originally were. He considers them to be little more than insects in the grand scheme - and to the eyes of an immortal being with near-godlike power, that may actually be a valid point of view. It's a lot easier to destroy something if you see it as a non-entity. Here in the real world we don't hesitate to swat a fly, after all. Granted that fly can't carry on a conversation with us, but the comparison is largely the same in terms of actual power and knowledge.

---

First off, the comparison between how Ascians view us to how humans view animals is flawed. Do animals possess any mental abilities beyond primitive instincts? No, which is why most people think that it's acceptable to (painlessly) end an animal's life. It's not that we are "superior" to them, but rather that we are self-aware and have actual desires beyond pleasure/pain, such as not wanting to die.

From what we've seen, the only respect in which Ascians are god-like is longevity and creation magic. WoL is now 9/14 on the way to being a full Ascian and we are nothing special aside from being remarkably effective at fighting. Strength hardly equals moral high ground.

What I find more interesting is the problem of mortal vs. immortal beings. The easy answer is that whether you can live forever changes nothing, but thinking deeper into that opens up a bad can of worms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The collapse of their civilization was a direct result of a sound from inside the planet driving their powers out of control. Their loss of control created a self-sustaining cycle with their growing fear wherein their powers went from uncontrolled to running completely rampant. Zodiark dealt with the cause of the sound as part of his initial summoning.

---

Which resulted in their destruction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

A civilization that survived for eons without any discernible conflict is significantly less flawed than the petty, selfish creatures inhabiting the world today.

---

Moral relativism. Civilizations that completely destroyed themselves from their own conflict are perhaps worse then civilizations that have endured multiple conflicts. The petty and selfish desires of those inhabiting the world may have created a less flawed civilization then the Ancients. The selflessness of the Ancients may very well have been their downfall, as perhaps they did not value their own lives enough to allow their civilization to endure. Greed is just an extension of self-preservation it could be argued that lacking this is a fatal flaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

As for moral relativism, that's actually kind of key to seeing the overarching plots from both sides at this point. Expecting wholly alien life - which Ascians would certainly qualify as - to operate off of the same set of morals and balances as we do is quite unreasonable. Emet-Selch views current extant Spoken races as broken, flawed shells of what they originally were. He considers them to be little more than insects in the grand scheme - and to the eyes of an immortal being with near-godlike power, that may actually be a valid point of view. It's a lot easier to destroy something if you see it as a non-entity. Here in the real world we don't hesitate to swat a fly, after all. Granted that fly can't carry on a conversation with us, but the comparison is largely the same in terms of actual power and knowledge.

---

Emet-Selch has done the same to humanity. Expecting wholly alien life - which humanity would certainly qualify against the Ancients - to live by the same set of morals and balances as they did is unreasonable. The Ancients are little more then footnotes in history. They had their chance. The Ancients are a non-entity, no more then a memory. In comparison, the civilizations of humanity are superior in nearly every way because they are still alive. The legacy of the Ascians is failure. Failure to deal with their Calamity, failure to deal with Hydaelyn, failure in the Thirteenth, failure at dealing with Thordan, failure to stop the Warrior of Light, leaving all but one Ancient DEAD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

The legacy of the Ascians is failure. Failure to deal with their Calamity, failure to deal with Hydaelyn, failure in the Thirteenth, failure the deal with Thordan, failure to stop the Warrior of Light, leaving all but one Ancient DEAD.

---

You're forgetting that WoL is an Ascian. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kokomi

You're forgetting that WoL is an Ascian. :rolleyes:

---

No, the WoL is not.
A: Fragmented Ancient soul makes the WoL a member of Humanity.
B: That Ancient soul the WoL has may have been opposed to the Ascians originally and summoned Hydaelyn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

No, the WoL is not.
A: Fragmented Ancient soul makes the WoL a member of Humanity.
B: That Ancient soul the WoL has may have been opposed to the Ascians originally and summoned Hydaelyn.

---

A fragmented Ascian is still an Ascian. Opposing the Ascians tempered by Zodiark doesn't mean WoL is suddenly not an Ascian.

I actually love how the Ascians are responsible for their own downfall in the present day. First the fact that their greatest enemy, WoL, is one of them, and second that the 7 rejoinings have continually powered us up culminating in how we were able to defeat Emet-Selch.

No. They SUCEEDED with the Calamity. They overcame it. They failed to agree on HOW to proceed after they even restored life.

Their dealing was far from a failure considering we wouldn't have a story if it was the case.

Hydaelyn was the one that dubbed the Ancient race (leftover) Ascians.

I mean depending on ppls viewpoints since EVERYTHING save 3 got sundered. It's like the WoL and some others didn't want someone taking the ball and toys in hopes of what may or may not be a trade and kicked the sandbox breaking all the pieces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kokomi

A fragmented Ascian is still an Ascian. Opposing the Ascians tempered by Zodiark doesn't mean WoL is suddenly not an Ascian.

---

Ancient ≠ Ascian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

No. They SUCEEDED with the Calamity. They overcame it. They failed to agree on HOW to proceed after they even restored life.

---

Their solution destroyed them. That's the point I keep trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kokomi

A fragmented Ascian is still an Ascian. Opposing the Ascians tempered by Zodiark doesn't mean WoL is suddenly not an Ascian.

I actually love how the Ascians are responsible for their own downfall in the present day. First the fact that their greatest enemy, WoL, is one of them, and second that the 7 rejoinings have continually powered us up culminating in how we were able to defeat Emet-Selch.

---

"Ascian" is the name use to describe the Ancient that were tempered by Zodiark. As of yet, we don't know if Zodiark tempered all Ancients, and if so, it would make the summoning of Hydelyn really curious since tempered souls devote their life for their primal. We also don't know if tempering cease at dead, if it persists once the soul return to the life stream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

"Ascian" is the name use to describe the Ancient that were tempered by Zodiark. As of yet, we don't know if Zodiark tempered all Ancients, and if so, it would make the summoning of Hydelyn really curious since tempered souls devote their life for their primal. We also don't know if tempering cease at dead, if it persists once the soul return to the life stream.

---

That makes sense, thanks for correcting me on the terms. Don't really have much else to add. We're going to win against the Ascians anyway so no point in kicking a horse that's almost dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

When it happens again, they wouldn't be able to solve their own problems. Again. And their civilization will collapse. Again.

Moral relativism. Civilizations that completely destroyed themselves from their own conflict are worse then civilizations that have endured multiple conflicts.

---

Convenient logic/hand waving

Their conflicts were not on the scale of the one that destroyed them. Per Selch he said they did have disagreements but learned to get around them not have full scale wars - at least from the peak of their existence (since we aren't sure if there was an evolutionary path - I'd think there would have been). This was the first one that ended up destroying them.

The ideas used to say how terrible their society is reminds me of the patriotism type of logic people use to admonish other countries, so it's no different.

That doesn't mean I believe that their society is perfect, my point is no society is and eventually falls/changes drastically.

As far as the analogy to animals, there is something in that because people don't understand animal intelligence or morality (which animals have demonstrated they do have morality). I'd think if anything the comparison is more like how people have ableist views towards others because of disabilities. Not having a complete soul does seem like someone looking at a friend they knew was a track star, that is recovering from a coma/devastating sports injury.

Then you have cultural differences along with being tempered by your own creation. I can't imagine it being easy to accept, and a lot of people on the forum kinda "oh well" it and not really ponder upon it - only in the most coldest of senses to make oneself "feel better" or justified in the camp they're sitting in. Not experiencing it in a real life kind of fashion makes it easier to distance one from the dilemma in a more empathic fashion.

Emotional level I think being stripped from everything you knew is a very devastating thing, if anyone has watched the documentary Blackfish - where killer whales were captured and thrown into a different environment with other whales of varying culture I can see why erratic or mental behavior occurred.

That being said there is still disgust for the destruction of beings to have the past back, especially if there is no guarantee that you'd get everything you wanted back. That is very likely a side effect of being tempered, but not sure if Zodiark being split has stronger control of those tempered despite being sundered?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

Convenient logic/hand waving

Their conflicts were not on the scale of the one that destroyed them. Per Selch he said they did have disagreements but learned to get around them not have full scale wars - at least from the peak of their existence (since we aren't sure if there was an evolutionary path - I'd think there would have been). This was the first one that ended up destroying them.

The ideas used to say how terrible their society is reminds me of the patriotism type of logic people use to admonish other countries, so it's no different.

That doesn't mean I believe that their society is perfect, my point is no society is and eventually falls/changes drastically.

As far as the analogy to animals, there is something in that because people don't understand animal intelligence or morality (which animals have demonstrated they do have morality). I'd think if anything the comparison is more like how people have ableist views towards others because of disabilities. Not having a complete soul does seem like someone looking at a friend they knew was a track star, that is recovering from a coma/devastating sports injury.

Then you have cultural differences along with being tempered by your own creation. I can't imagine it being easy to accept, and a lot of people on the forum kinda "oh well" it and not really ponder upon it - only in the most coldest of senses to make oneself "feel better" or justified in the camp they're sitting in. Not experiencing it in a real life kind of fashion makes it easier to distance one from the dilemma in a more empathic fashion.

Emotional level I think being stripped from everything you knew is a very devastating thing, if anyone has watched the documentary Blackfish - where killer whales were captured and thrown into a different environment with other whales of varying culture I can see why erratic or mental behavior occurred.

That being said there is still disgust for the destruction of beings to have the past back, especially if there is no guarantee that you'd get everything you wanted back. That is very likely a side effect of being tempered, but not sure if Zodiark being split has stronger control of those tempered despite being sundered?

---

Inherently it's very difficult to argue for the superiority of a civilization that has already destroyed itself. This is why I was never sold on Emet's praise of Amaurot. The Ancients didn't deserve what happened to them, but neither did humanity deserve what Emet-Selch planned to do to it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edax

Inherently it's very difficult to argue for the superiority of a civilization that has already destroyed itself. This is why I was never sold on Emet's praise of Amaurot. The Ancients didn't deserve what happened to them, but neither did humanity deserve what Emet-Selch planned to do to it either.

---

To an extent neither did the new life deserved what was done during Sundering either if that choice was not their own.

When it comes down to it Emet was doing the things he was doing because he thought it was for the greater good (unlike Laha or Elidibus who seem more just like Zodiark fanatics). Usually when villains are set up this way we can clearly see that this is not actually the case and they are delusional, but it's a little more questionable here due to our lack of knowledge on what really happened.

Regardless of that, his lack of empathy for the new races is unexcusable. If Amaurot really was closer to a utopia than a dystopia, I doubt that he held these kinds of views initially, and I wonder how much of it is due to everything he went through vs. tempering by Zodiark.

The points I found interesting to ponder in all of this:

We learn that half of the Ancient population sacrificed themselves to summon Zodiark.

We learn that half of the remaining Ancient population sacrificed themselves because <something something> Zodiark.

We do not learn that such sacrifices wouldn't be required in the future.

We do learn that Emet-Selch believes that a rejoining will mean the total recall of all of those who sacrificed themselves. WHO gave him that idea? Where is the external validation for that idea outside his own headspace?

It's not "something something" Zodiark.
It was that the planet's calamity was stopped but needed the ability to house life to be restored.
Then we get to "something something" Zodiark when it came to restoring the lives sacrificed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPZ2

The points I found interesting to ponder in all of this:

We learn that half of the Ancient population sacrificed themselves to summon Zodiark.

We learn that half of the remaining Ancient population sacrificed themselves because <something something> Zodiark.

We do not learn that such sacrifices wouldn't be required in the future.

We do learn that Emet-Selch believes that a rejoining will mean the total recall of all of those who sacrificed themselves. WHO gave him that idea? Where is the external validation for that idea outside his own headspace?

---

I would rewatch the cutscene where we speak with Hythlodaeus as that's where it's explained. The second round of sacrifices was to restore life to the planet which had be devastated after the calamity. Then the Council of Thirteen came up with a plan to sacrifice a portion of that life to Zodiark to get back the lives of the Ancients who had sacrificed themselves to summon him.

What we don't know:
1) What kind of life was going to be sacrificed to Zodiark to resurrect the Ancients.
2) How the Council knew, if they did, that this plan would work at all.
3) What specific reasons led the dissenters to summon Hydaelyn and Sunder everyone except Emet/Laha/Elidibus.

Emet is still carrying out this same plan thousands of years later, except before he can sacrifice the lives on the Source he needs to rejoin the shards. But yes you're right, per 2, we don't know what gave the Council the idea that such a sacrifice would work at all.

I'd put down good odds that the life they were going to sacrifice was the kind that has the best aetheric capacity barring Ancients. See there is one thing that neither Emet or anyone else mentions. How long they waited to put the sacrifice plan into action. It very well may have taken a very long time to cultivate enough aether to offer up to Zodiark. Long enough for the races we call the spoken to develop. I highly doubt that the 14th and their followers were over concerned about bees and trees being feed to Zodiark.

They most likely got the idea from Zodiark himself. We know that primals can speak and reason within a limited sphere of relevancy to their goals. He was created to restore the world and bringing back the Ancients lost during the End of Days would be well within his sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deusteele

snip

---

Yeah, evidence points toward the current races having been created by Zodiark since we know they exist on the First as well as the Source. Everything you said could be true but we really have no idea how the cultivating + sacrifice would actually work (If Zodiark created the lifestream, it has a finite amount of aether, where is it getting more from? Why would Zodiark need a living sacrifice as opposed to just pulling extra aether out of the lifestream?).

On top of that, intentionally or not, Hydaelyn via Sundering did something equally as bad: she killed everyone on the Source except three unsundered Ascians, the only difference is that the aether went back into the lifestream or became fragmented souls instead of going into Zodiark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kokomi

(If Zodiark created the lifestream, it has a finite amount of aether, where is it getting more from? Why would Zodiark need a living sacrifice as opposed to just pulling extra aether out of the lifestream?).

---

There's no telling if they've decided on a retcon by now or not, but the lifestream was stated a long time ago to operate in much the same way it does in FFVII. Every creature receives a tiny amount of lifestream at birth. The quality and quantity of this lifestream increases over the course of the entity's life before being reabsorbed in totality after their mortal demise. Everything they are - memories, abilities, identity - is stripped away, their contribution allowing the lifestream to gradually increase with time.

What we don't understand at this time is the relationship between soul and aether. They cannot be one and the same, at least not completely - the void proves this to us. If soul and aether were one, there would be nothing living in the void at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

There's no telling if they've decided on a retcon by now or not, but the lifestream was stated a long time ago to operate in much the same way it does in FFVII. Every creature receives a tiny amount of lifestream at birth. The quality and quantity of this lifestream increases over the course of the entity's life before being reabsorbed in totality after their mortal demise. Everything they are - memories, abilities, identity - is stripped away, their contribution allowing the lifestream to gradually increase with time.

---

That explains a lot, thanks. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

What we don't understand at this time is the relationship between soul and aether. They cannot be one and the same, at least not completely - the void proves this to us. If soul and aether were one, there would be nothing living in the void at all.

---

Wasn't it said in the MSQ that the lifestream is made out of aether, which means that souls are aether arranged in a particular way? I'm sure there's a reason why the sacrifice to Zodiark needed to be souls and not just plain old aether, especially since with lesser primals all they need is aether from crystals, but it's a mystery to me right now.

The fact that they talk about cultivating life in the post-Zodiark world would indicate that a properly functioning Lifestream would be resource positive. If that was not true then the whole plan would be rendered void from the beginning.

Per Hydaelyn's actions, yes she did. Beyond that her actions have ever been beneficial to life. We have no idea why she was granted such a specific ability and what circumstances lead to the Sundering. The only evidence we have that she holds any agenda contrarian to life has been presented by a tempered biased genocidal megalomaniac.

Lahabrea told us no differently then Emet-Selch. The only difference was that the former talked down to us, the latter did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QT_Melon

To an extent neither did the new life deserved what was done during Sundering either if that choice was not their own.

---

Of course but that is again the fault of those that wanted to sacrifice the new life. Hydaelyn and her summoners wanted to let them live their lifes but the Ascians did not. If she was not summoned then this life would have been killed of. It was seemingly just the choice between complete extinction and being sundered but still alive.

And we have no idea how much of the old character was still there. Seemingly Ardbert and the WoL are similar in their character even though they grew up in two different worlds. Maybe those that got split did remember everything but lost it after the first cycle of death and with time people simply forgot that part of their history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

Of course but that is again the fault of those that wanted to sacrifice the new life. Hydaelyn and her summoners wanted to let them live their lifes but the Ascians did not. If she was not summoned then this life would have been killed of. It was seemingly just the choice between complete extinction and being sundered but still alive.

---

A sacrifice of presumably non-sapient life to bring back heroes that gave their lives to save their world and people really doesn't sound that bad, if you think about it. Hydaelyn and her summoners may have wanted to preserve the newlly cultivated lifeforms, but they were knowingly sentencing sapient life--heroes--to remain imprisoned within Zodiark forever by doing so. Granted, these individuals were put there by their own wills, but it's still an awful way to repay their sacrifice. In any case, whatever life was sacrificed to Zodiark could easily have been recreated by the Ancients themselves once their numbers were fully replenished. From my perspective, the sundering itself was no less an act of genocide than what the Ascians planned to do with the all that life Zodiark made. Innumerable sapient and non-sapient organisms were altered on a level that essentially made them into completely different beings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alleo

And we have no idea how much of the old character was still there. Seemingly Ardbert and the WoL are similar in their character even though they grew up in two different worlds. Maybe those that got split did remember everything but lost it after the first cycle of death and with time people simply forgot that part of their history.

---

The Warrior of Light's nature is largely up to the player to decide. It has little direct canon interpretation at this time beyond being an excessively powerful mortal with a penchant for killing false gods. Dialogue choices made available to us during the course of the game can even be used to paint a picture of them as embittered, lonely, and sick of always having to be the hero. Some dialogue options even indicate a strong bloodthirst while others lean toward a desire for vengeance. The Dark Knight questline also brings to light several negative aspects of the WoL's personality that aren't explored elsewhere.

As for their memories, well, we've no way to know for sure if they retained anything before their first trip through the lifestream. In-game text appears to indicate that it was the sundering itself that robbed them of all they were, however.

In general people don’t like gray morality. Think of all the hapless people you as the main character have slaughtered “for the good of the world”
To the families of any one of those people you’d be a villain.
I actually really like that they tried to trigger people’s cognitive dissonance about morality with this recent expansion. They even talk about how saving the world in the way the main characters wish to save it is ultimately for selfish reasons
Of course where they take it from here and how they end up explaining all the loose ends will really give us a fuller view of things. But again, thats part of gray morality is making choices you think are correct with the information you have and pretty much just dealing with the fallout as you move forward. Its a welcome piece of reality in a fantasy world in my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odym82

In general people don’t like gray morality. Think of all the hapless people you as the main character have slaughtered “for the good of the world”
To the families of any one of those people you’d be a villain.

---

My thoughts everytime MSQ roulette. Hits home if anyone's ever talked to the Garlean Triple Triad NPC in Mor Dhona beforehand. Kid doesn't want to fight, but his mother made him do something with his life. And the one soldier who had the hots for Taru. They're still people, and oh what's that, a fully manned airship crashing to the ground? Pfft, whatever gotta get my EXP.

Most Garleans don't want to fight. The overwhelming majority of Garlean soldiers are conscripts. That doesn't change the fact that they're all trying to kill us though. It sucks for the soldiers unlucky enough to be in our way, but if it's them or us, I'm choosing us every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odym82

I actually really like that they tried to trigger people’s cognitive dissonance about morality with this recent expansion. They even talk about how saving the world in the way the main characters wish to save it is ultimately for selfish reasons

---

To add onto this, we aren't actually fighting against the Ancient peoples as they're all dead or sundered minus three. Even if they didn't want the fate that befell them, they no longer possess the ability to hope for a different outcome. It's very much Emet's personal battle against the world and even if he is right, there's no way the peoples whose existence are threatened can let him win.

I still feel sad that we had to kill him, but now that he's gone I doubt Elidibus will be nearly as compelling. Hope we dumpster him and Zodiark quickly and move on to a new arc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightamethyst

Most Garleans don't want to fight. The overwhelming majority of Garlean soldiers are conscripts. That doesn't change the fact that they're all trying to kill us though. It sucks for the soldiers unlucky enough to be in our way, but if it's them or us, I'm choosing us every time.

---

They are trying to kill us, but some of their leaders are actually in the right. The Twelve really are slowly bleeding the land dry, Eorzea's leaders really are pretty awful at their jobs a lot of the time, and lasting peace can only be maintained through a willingness to use force. Of course, there are just as many Garleans (likely more, in fact) that just have a massive chip on their collective shoulders because of how much abuse their race suffered prior to its discovery of ceruleum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kokomi

To add onto this, we aren't actually fighting against the Ancient peoples as they're all dead or sundered minus three. Even if they didn't want the fate that befell them, they no longer possess the ability to hope for a different outcome. It's very much Emet's personal battle against the world and even if he is right, there's no way the peoples whose existence are threatened can let him win.

I still feel sad that we had to kill him, but now that he's gone I doubt Elidibus will be nearly as compelling. Hope we dumpster him and Zodiark quickly and move on to a new arc.

---

Could be wrong here, but Zodiark seems to still be connected to the world on a fundamental level. The sundering itself appears to have been an unintended consequence of Hydaelyn's attempt to divide and seal him. If just splitting and binding him did that, what would ending him do? And Elidibus... yeah no, I agree with you there. He has some big shoes to fill, and I just don't think the character is up to the task.

It's way too black and white in Zodiark's favot if the Ascians are right. I'm assuming that Hydaelyn and co. had better reasoning than "aLl liFE iS sAcReD, you can't sacrifice trees to revive your friends".

Theories:
1. The only way to prevent another apocalypse with full-power Ancients around is to temper them, removing their free will. That's all Zodiark does - "rewriting the laws if reality" is just BS. Hydaelyn and co decide that sundered beinglets with free will is a better future than one full of happy immortal ancients enslaved to Zodiark forever.

2. Zodiark is just another aether-hungry primal. Recovering aether/souls from him was always a hopeless pipe dream, and if left at full power he would continue to demand sacrifices and gorge himself on aether until there is nothing left but him. Hydaelyn sunders the world because that is the only way for there to be any world in the long term.

I favor 2, because there were clearly untempered Ancients around if Hydaelyn was able to be summoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShinShimon

It's way too black and white in Zodiark's favot if the Ascians are right. I'm assuming that Hydaelyn and co. had better reasoning than "aLl liFE iS sAcReD, you can't sacrifice trees to revive your friends".

Theories:
1. The only way to prevent another apocalypse with full-power Ancients around is to temper them, removing their free will. That's all Zodiark does - "rewriting the laws if reality" is just BS. Hydaelyn and co decide that sundered beinglets with free will is a better future than one full of happy immortal ancients enslaved to Zodiark forever.

2. Zodiark is just another aether-hungry primal. Recovering aether/souls from him was always a hopeless pipe dream, and if left at full power he would continue to demand sacrifices and gorge himself on aether until there is nothing left but him. Hydaelyn sunders the world because that is the only way for there to be any world in the long term.

I favor 2, because there were clearly untempered Ancients around if Hydaelyn was able to be summoned.

---

We have seen Primals and a certain someone from the DRK storyline summon people from the dead. The resurrected don't come back right. It could be the Ancients already knew this but because their de facto government (The Convocation) was tempered and possibly indoctrinated into thinking Zodiark was special. If the untempered Ancients thought Zodiark couldn't bring back the dead properly, then this could have resulted in the schism that destroyed Amaurot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

The Twelve really are slowly bleeding the land dry

---

What? No.

That would be true if the Twelve were constantly summoned as primals, but they're not. People worship and invoke the Twelve, but no one is summoning them. (aside from the one time at Carteneau, sort of.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brightamethyst

What? No.

That would be true if the Twelve were constantly summoned as primals, but they're not. People worship and invoke the Twelve, but no one is summoning them. (aside from the one time at Carteneau, sort of.)

---

And what is going to happen when something happens that pushes Eorzea's citizens beyond the despair event horizon? They'll cave in and try to summon The Twelve. Louisoix was smart enough to only summon partial manifestations when he did it - they had vague forms and some power, but none of those conjurations had any actual will of their own. They were woefully incomplete and simply not up to the task at hand. While we do not know if full manifestations of The Twelve could've re-sealed Bahamut, we do know that the amount of aether required for Louisoix to even partially summon them was monumental to say the least. A full manifestation of The Twelve would in all likelihood have catastrophic consequences. The Twelve being inherently more powerful than most other primals, courtesy of the sheer volume of faith and prayers available to them, would doubtless consume heretofore unseen amounts of aether.

In any case, it was established a long time ago that The Twelve may actually passively consume a certain amount of aether without having to actually be summoned due to the overwhelming amounts of prayer and supplication in their name. It was never confirmed, but the mere fact that it's been mentioned is at least worth noting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

A sacrifice of presumably non-sapient life to bring back heroes that gave their lives to save their world and people really doesn't sound that bad, if you think about it.


The Warrior of Light's nature is largely up to the player to decide.

---

As others have pointed out I am quite sure that a lot of Ancients would have had no problem if it was simply just animals or plants to sacrifice (seeing how its fine to capture that monster and turn it into a crystal so that we can craft our own robes) so I doubt that this was the case. Hydealyn talks about the spoken races as her children, if she was created to protect the new life it would makes sense that she would see them as her children, right? And suddenly it turns from using some kind of lifeforms into them wanting to destroy sapient life. Also these ancient ones gave their life willingly for the future of the planet, would they truly be fine if they came back and see what they have done? Would the Asicans stop? What if the sacrifice would have destroyed part of the ecosystem and thus a cycle of sacrifice would begin.

Also we have no hint that these souls even still exists in there. We know from our primals that they cant bring back the death, just soulless copies of them. We also know that Zodiark needed their lifes because of the massive amount of energy necessary to stop the calamity and afterwards to restore the planet. I see it as a much bigger chance that these people are gone and that this was just a way to get more power.

In the end without the sundering these lifeforms would have been killed and taken into Zodiark (thus taken away from existence completely) while Hydealyn changed their existence but they were still alive. You might see this as the same acts but for me, her part was less bad than his and at least the life had a chance of going on.

About our character: Yes we can decide a bit how the character plays but at a basic level this is still SEs character. You cant just say "I give up" or "I will join side x", you are always forced into certain actions which define your character. And seemingly Seto and others see Ardbert and our character as similar. Not the same of course because of different memories and lifestyles but the basic seems to be the same. So who knows what we completely lost with the sundering. I mean if the spoken races existed at the time they would still need some kind of basic knowledge otherwise they would have all been like newborn babies and died because they could not take care of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absimiliard

They are trying to kill us, but some of their leaders are actually in the right. The Twelve really are slowly bleeding the land dry, Eorzea's leaders really are pretty awful at their jobs a lot of the time, and lasting peace can only be maintained through a willingness to use force. Of course, there are just as many Garleans (likely more, in fact) that just have a massive chip on their collective shoulders because of how much abuse their race suffered prior to its discovery of ceruleum.

---

Where is this stated ingame? I dont remember any dialogue that says that the twelve are bleeding the land dry, because for that to happen they would have had to be summoned right? Eorzeas leaders are not perfect but maybe they would be able to create a more stable future for their countries if Ascians and Garlemald would stop creating more calamites and other horrible stuff. We cant forget that a lot of the land was destroyed or "hurt" by Bahamut and thus a lot of problems even started thanks to that. Also being constantly at war with a nation that wants to conquer you and maybe even genocide the beast tribes surely does not help. Yet even if they are not perfect and cant solve every problems they are at least trying to turn Eorzea into a better place and thanks to our help they are quite united. They also use force if necessary (or who is fighting right now against Garlemald) but there is a difference between using force as the last resort or just going around the world believing that you have the rigth to own countries and people and force them under your rule.

This part about the Twelve “bleeding the land dry” is actually stated in game on numerous occasions during the ARR campaign, mostly by Gaius. Primals receive aether via prayer and devotion, as well as from crystals even when not physically summoned (paraphrasing). But the whole concept of the Twelve kinda fades into the background and is never really addressed directly like this after ARR

To give a more visual specific context https://i.imgur.com/W8a5zni.png

Take a special note of the plural form. Not Singular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odym82

This part about the Twelve “bleeding the land dry” is actually stated in game on numerous occasions during the ARR campaign, mostly by Gaius. Primals receive aether via prayer and devotion, as well as from crystals even when not physically summoned (paraphrasing). But the whole concept of the Twelve kinda fades into the background and is never really addressed directly like this after ARR

---

So it is, but he got no clue what he is talking about... Probably just blindly believing what Solus said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erendis

So it is, but he got no clue what he is talking about... Probably just blindly believing what Solus said.

---

No it's also mentioned in Tales from the Calamity.

https://www.finalfantasyxiv.com/anni...?rgn=na&lng=en

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odym82

Primals receive aether via prayer and devotion, as well as from crystals even when not physically summoned (paraphrasing).

---

Where does THAT assumption come from?