The comment about an all-powerful being is correct about both of them though. They were made up of the souls of many beings that on their own had near-limitless power and both primals could rewrite the laws of physics and aetherology. I think they stop just short of being gods though since we know that they're just extremely complex man-made creations. And that's why I fault the Ascians because unlike the WoL, they were there when this all went down and they should definitely know better. Just as I don't agree that Hydaelyn should refer to herself as the planet's will made incarnate or a deity since she's neither, I don't think the Ascians should be declaring themselves "servants of the one true god" and treating the Rejoining like a religious crusade.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
Just because "Hydaelyn did it too", doesn't vindicate the Ascians for the same thing and doesn't suddenly give them a compelling argument for doing what they're doing.
-
08-03-2023, 06:28 AMMikkoAkure
-
08-03-2023, 06:38 AMKizuyaKatogamiNo it doesn’t vindicate them. And i’m glad we came to an understanding that both of them should be held accountable. So tell me why then in Hydaelyn’s case she is treated as a hero and a primal of peace time and time again whereas Zodiark is treated as nothing other than some malevolent being and they eerily omit the fact he kept the planet shielded and protected for 12k years. Can you at least acknowledge that bias and why it might make a lot of people irritated?Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
-
08-03-2023, 07:25 AMMikkoAkureIt's treated that way because Hydaelyn's followers don't go around mass-murdering while laughing like a 1960s cartoon villain.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
What Zodiark initially did was treated as a good thing in the story and Venat didn't disagree with that either. But going beyond what seemed to be the initial scope of His purpose seemed to cross a line that she, and evidently enough people to successfully oppose His power, disagreed with.
The key difference in how they're treated is because the story is told from the WoL's point of view and throughout the entire game we've been opposing Zodiark and the Ascians, who wanted to kill us and destroy the world. Hydaelyn meanwhile saved our lives and gave us the power to fight back and protect our own existence while the Ascians continued to go around killing people and sowing chaos. To most people, I would think that committing random acts of villainy while dressed in masks and black robes is short-hand for "these are the bad guys". And that's how the game was for years with nothing else to really make us question things.
That sort of stasis quo went on until 3 expansions and 6/9 years into the story when the writers sort of did a paradigm shift. While it was revealed that Hydaelyn kept the truth from us, the Ascians didn't stop to explain themselves correctly either and until after trying to kill us and failing several times. This explanation of why being revealed until many, many hours in the story's life and years in real time also makes it difficult to walk back the behavior of the Ascians from before and reconcile them as a sympathetic party.
The writers wrote themselves into a corner trying to make things grey despite things being pretty black and white before. They attached complexity to a story that was previously "light good, darkness bad" and I think they fumbled the attempt. I don't think that suddenly makes Zodiark and the Ascians right and Venat wrong though. Hydaelyn is still very obviously painted in a much more sympathetic light but I don't think that's "bias" when that's intended by the game's creators. I just think it means that they stink at explaining their intent through the writing, changed too much of the secret backstory compared to our expectations and understanding, and didn't make Venat as sympathetic and as much of a popular character as Emet-Selch.
The game's story isn't a series of real events being portrayed "improperly" with "bias" by the writers. They created the whole thing, and very obviously intended Hydaelyn to be the main side we're supposed to be on from the beginning. -
08-03-2023, 08:24 AMKizuyaKatogamiSo just to make sure im getting this correctly, you believe they had a strict good vs evil story going on until around ShB where they decided to shift to a greyer narrative. If i read that correctly then good because we’re in agreement, then. My issue doesn’t necessarily lie with anything prior to that though. I understand retcons and things like Zodiark just being referred to as bad and evil back then. I have 0 issue with that. My issue is after* the devs specifically state in interviews etc that they’re writing the story to center around grey morality and neither side being right or wrong, they then come out with heavy, yes I’m going to use the word again, bias, towards Venat.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikkoAkure
I somewhat understand the explanations of the scions or WoL not questioning her even if i personally don’t agree with it myself. However, when you have things like her minion specifically calling her a hero, that isn’t grey. When you have things like the Codex which is meant to serve as a lore guide for new players specifically showing heavy bias towards her side and calling her a primal of peace (she objectively is nothing of the sort and i think even she would agree with that,) there is an issue.
But we can even look at the smaller things as well. Interesting how she gets all this development and time even if it wasn’t that much yet both Elidibus and Zodiark got minuscule screentime in comparison. I don’t see a minion for either of them calling them heroes for standing for what they believe in. Or even the bare minimum of at least bringing up in Zodiark’s codex entry or realistically any of the scions offering any form of gratitude or thanks to Zodiark or Elidibus for saving us and the world. Literally if it wasn’t for either of them, we’d be dead. Zodiark with the shield and Elidibus with sacrificing himself to send us back in time. Yet neither of these deeds are even mentioned. It’s strictly Hydaelyn who has kept the world still spinning as the codex refers to it. This to me, is strict dev and writing bias. -
08-03-2023, 10:53 AMClereticThe thing there is that 'controversial' can be taken in two fundamentally different ways with characters like Venat and Emet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
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. -
08-03-2023, 11:26 AMAbsimiliardI don't think I can truthfully say my position on the matter has much to do with being "not okay" with Venat's actions or those of Emet-Selch. It is after all just a story, and I do think both characters were written adequately in their respective roles. Both had their perceived justifications, and both found themselves in what most would consider impossible positions. Neither really had a means to bring about an end that would satisfy everyone. Both of them also have an unfathomable amount of blood on their hands. Neither of them were, in my opinion, "good." They were flawed people whose actions lead to flawed outcomes. In other words, they're both guilty as can be of omnicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
What I'm not overly fond of is the lack of in-game negative response to the truth of what she did. It's the sort of thing the Scions would normally find positively revolting, but they seemed quite willing to just overlook it. The closest thing we really see to it being called out proper is in one of our responses to Omega on the matter. Quite frankly, I don't think I would have even become embroiled in the numerous conversations on the subject were it not for this particular thing. It just didn't jive with me for whatever reason. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as they say.
Ultimately, I suppose I can attribute some of it to the impression I was left with by Endwalker; that the writers tried to walk back some of the "morally grey" ShB brought to the table. I like nuance, intrigue, and moral quandaries with no right answer. I've got no particular need to feel like my character is "right" in a given situation, and I definitely don't mind if it sometimes turns out their actions have horrible consequences. Sometimes doing what you think is right turns out be the opposite, and sometimes you find out the person or entity you believed in is just as flawed and broken as you are. Hell, sometimes you wind up just being flat out wrong and get a bunch of people killed -- or, for an example that befits the topic at hand, realize your story about the future was in part the inspiration for what transpired on Venat's end. It's fine for bad things to happen in fiction, but if they do, I'd much prefer to see the resulting social and/or emotional fallout. Consequences and emotional substance are very important parts of a story to me. -
08-03-2023, 11:40 AMKizuyaKatogamiYup. Especially when now you have the scions saying things like “how dare you destroy one world in favor of the other.” It’s the hypocrisy and double standards that do it for me. They had no problem calling out Emet in ShB. It’s absolute delusion to think Venat gets even a fraction of that amount of flak. The story contradicts itself numerous times so yeah, in the end it absolutely is character failure, and to think it isn’t is again, delusion and willful ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
-
08-03-2023, 12:00 PMAbsimiliardI'd have been satisfied with something so meager as a single scene depicting the Scions being truly disturbed by what they learned. These people found out the goddess some of them spent all that time in reverence of was responsible for an incomprehensibly large loss of life, after all. It stands to reason they wouldn't take it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
-
08-03-2023, 12:01 PMClereticI think an important part to remember is that the game keeps Venat and Emet's crimes at a distance. Venat did her thing twelve thousand years ago, and nobody who meets Emet is really personally victimized by anything he did. This is very much intentional, because it puts the question forward without providing an answer or letting it derail the story. With Venat, part of that is absolutely that nobody who learns about this is impartial, and nobody who was hurt by it is alive anymore; the only people hearing this and being available to cast judgement on it are the people who were (very, very distant) results of her actions, but more importantly who kinda have something more important to do. They're not going to weigh in on this--which, again, is intentional, because in a story with well-liked main characters, any word they'd say on it would hold more weight than any on-paper fact. The Scions being 'truly disturbed' would become the only evidence on the table, because we consider the Scions and their feelings that much more important than any other source in the game. Trying to use that fact in putting forward two different sides seems to be something they're doing with Dawntrail, but in Endwalker, it would've just been an unwelcome distraction at the climax of the story. (And I suspect won't work well with Dawntrail because people will pick according to their favorite Scion to the exclusion of all else, but we're a good year away from knowing that for sure.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
It actually makes complete sense, and works very well, that Omega's the only one facilitating anything resembling a discussion on this, not just because it's a relatively minor character that wouldn't really sway that debate, but because it's kinda the only figure anywhere on the Source who actually doesn't have stake in it: it was neither a victim or beneficiary of Venat on even the most abstract and tangential level. Omega is the most outsider one can be to the subject... and as a result I think it's interesting that from that perspective, Omega doesn't limit the conversation to her. It actually puts forward all three of the sides I mentioned way back in my first post, even considering Hermes to be a valid perspective, because from its perspective Venat's only part of a debate that has no clear right answer.
You want the game to take the stance you agree with, or at least provide stronger evidence in favor of it than all alternative views. And it's just not going to, in the same way that it consciously avoided taking the stance I wanted it to with Emet. And all of this is deliberate. -
08-03-2023, 12:10 PMAbsimiliardI wouldn't even say I'd have to agree with the stance. If I'm honest, I'd be pretty okay with the pendulum swinging the other way as well. As you've said, the Scions aren't impartial, and they are well and truly removed from Venat's part in the tale. I could also have lived with a scene of them acknowledging it and writing it off as a "necessary act" or what have you. Even should the Scions be fine with it, the acknowledgement of "WTF" in and of itself (during the lull after the dust settled, not at the height of the action) would've at least made sense. The Scions are just people at the end of the day, and people have a tendency to be perfectly fine with things that don't directly affect them even if those things are pretty messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
-
08-03-2023, 12:17 PMKizuyaKatogamiThis part is kind of incorrect. Taking Endwalker into current account, when Hydaelyn is explaining her plan and we found out her plan etc and how her backup plan was to sacrifice the shards…that very much affects our allies. Yshtola, who has her love Runar on the First and Thancred who had Ryne on the first, effectively his daughter figure. Yet even despite this none of them speak up or even question her on it or that their loved ones will be killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
-
08-03-2023, 12:32 PMSannaRMaybe because it doesn't matter if the escape plan, which the way I see it was a test, was going to sacrifice the remaining shards. The source getting wiped out was the equivalent of knocking out a load bearing beam in a wall. Knocking it out is going to cause the wall and maybe the whole building collapse. Your average person if given a safe or safer option vs a risky option will choose the safe option as part of their flight or fight response. You only give people one option even if said option is seen as a safe option more people will have a tendency to balk at it. It's why in the 8UC a lot of people turn down the original turn back the clock plan, but choose to get behind the save the WoL plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
-
08-03-2023, 12:48 PMKizuyaKatogamiOkay right but….that doesn’t at all really dispute the fact that they express zero shock or horror at all at this revelation whatsoever. My point moreso is that they made the scions such cardboard cutouts in that entire scene purely to prop her up and leave her unquestioned. Compare it again, to when they question Emet. It’s night and day and in both situations people they loved were at the risk of dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by SannaR
-
08-03-2023, 02:56 PMKozhThen why do you and your ilk still comment on threads about Ancient/Zodiark?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleluia
-
08-03-2023, 03:09 PMKozhFirst, 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddes
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaddes
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. -
08-03-2023, 09:51 PMSannaRWhen were they supposed to question her? When they learned about the plan the ones that were there pretty much went "Oh heck no.". When those that weren't on the moon learned of the plan agreed with the situation. It wasn't like we had been to the Atiascope yet. It's kinda hard to bring up grievances when you can't directly bring them up to the person you'd bring them to. Hydelean knows that she can't tell the Loporrits that the task she gave them is just a test, mostly due to how she made them. When they finally meet Hydelean the track down the Meteia and whack some sense into them plan is already in action. To show major dissatisfaction with the escape plan then wouldn't make much sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
-
08-03-2023, 09:56 PMKizuyaKatogamiI’m talking about when they confront her at the Altiascope. None of them question her whatsoever. That’s when they could have brought up grievances and called out her plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by SannaR
-
08-03-2023, 10:09 PMSannaRWe'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozh
-
08-03-2023, 10:14 PMSannaRWhy would they bring that up then? It would be like filing a complaint about a poorly thought out clean up of an oil spill plan that hasn't been put into action when you're already enacting a better solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
-
08-03-2023, 10:48 PMKageTokage
Really, having any critical reflection on her actions akin to what was given to Emet-Selch and ELidibus would've made me feel a little better, but I've lost all hope of that happening even as Myths seems to primed to grapple more deeply with the consequences of the Sundering and the purpose the Twelve served in its immediate aftermath.
-
08-03-2023, 11:11 PMKizuyaKatogamiBecause….the people they loved lives were at risk. Also they didn’t even know if their plan was a “better” solution. Just one that might end up with their loved ones not dying. It doesn’t change the fact Hydaelyn’s plan B was extremely poorly thought out overall and in the end would result in their loved ones being destroyed. That in itself should be cause for scrutiny especially considering how much they preached to Emet in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by SannaR
-
08-03-2023, 11:22 PMWellGramaryeEver planned ahead? I mean really far ahead, like several years ahead? Now try to plan ahead 10,000+ years ahead. Things rarely stay consistant enough over a long time that plans are going to be foolproof, and hindsight usually makes fools of everyone who plans things in long advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
-
08-03-2023, 11:40 PMKizuyaKatogamiWell exactly. But that’s why i scoff at the idea that people really think her trusting her people and confiding in them and believing in them was any more of a gamble than relying on a single person she only just met with a plan that required 10k years of suffering and billions of lives being lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
-
08-03-2023, 11:51 PMWellGramaryeHey, I just met you, and this is crazyQuote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
But here's my blessing of light, so call me, maybe.
I'm more inclined to believe that we are not the first incarnation of Azem on the source since the sundering, and we've been honed in to our current form over the ages. We're less some random adventurer and more the Chosen One (tm). Look back on the events and history of Minfillia and Ryne's line of girls after the flood was stopped.
Hydaelyn was cooking for quite some time with these shards of Azem. -
08-04-2023, 12:00 AMClereticWho says it wasn't a gamble? Everyone on every side of both the Ancient conflict and the present-day conflict around Zodiark were running on some level of luck, because everyone was in uncharted territory. Venat and the Convocation-turned-Ascians were both running with plans that held no guarantees for them, but that's because they had no other option: if you can't guarantee the result they want, you set up every factor you can and then just cross your fingers. That doesn't make the plan bad, it makes the plan 'the best you can get'--and most importantly, dramatic, because who's interested in a story about a plan with a 100% chance of success? Where's the tension in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by KizuyaKatogami
Basically the only person in that whole situation who wasn't relying on luck at the end of the day was actually Amon-Fandaniel--mostly because he had a guaranteed fallback plan of 'if the Warrior of Light can't kill Zodiark, then at least Zodiark can kill Zodiark'. But then, Amon was probably the figure in the story with the largest collection of relevant knowledge to his ends; unlike everyone else, he's got a map to his destination. -
08-04-2023, 12:06 AMKizuyaKatogamiThe issue for me though, and what makes her a villain is that she chose a world that she didnt even live in yet over her own and gave up on her people without even warning them and giving them a proper chance. To me, it's less of a gamble to trust your people who have far more potential and power than that of the sundered. Not to mention her whole plan? Yeah, it relied upon not even just pure luck, but contrivance. She had only intended for Emet to escape the sundering. However, its only due to Elidibus being around that we even make it to Elpis in the first place. Her plan on all sides sucked. It relies on plot contrivances and not thinking too hard to make it believable. Versus her working with her people to come up with a solution. Thats the entirety of the issue here, and the fact none of the scions call her out on sacrificing her world for ours when they then try and preach the same to Golbez is hypocrisy at its finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleretic
-
08-04-2023, 01:20 AMDenishia
Venat worked with her own people - it's just that being far more familiar with everyone including her former Convocation co-workers (like Lahabrea), she decided that their were other people that were better to confide in to work towards a solution without accelerating the disaster.
-
08-04-2023, 02:12 AMAlleluiaVenat did nothing wrong. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Kozh
-
08-04-2023, 02:34 AMAbsimiliardWhile not explicitly stated, it's strongly implied every Warrior of Light (or "main" Warrior of Light for those instances where it was an entire team) has been a shard of Azem. It is only a case of "chosen one" in that Venat knew from the Elpis encounter a shard of Azem would be a necessity. The WoL being abnormally powerful is nothing more and nothing less than an extension of who their soul originally was; the blessing of light -- or traveler's ward, as it should be called -- only protects them from having their aether disrupted by outside sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
The above said, we are given no reason to believe Venat took an active effort in shaping the WoL beyond providing her ward and some minor direction whenever a shard of Azem happened to appear. She had no way of knowing with precision when or where these shards would even appear, relying largely on what she'd learned in Elpis. Granted, one could make the argument her involvement in and of itself counts on some level, even if only in the sense she knew they would need to act (and die) in specific ways to prevent the timeline from going askew. -
08-04-2023, 03:08 AMKizuyaKatogamiExcept…from what we know they didn’t even know the full truth either, which is pretty bad when you remember she basically consumed their souls yet couldn’t even bother to tell them the full truth. Also she worked with them to create the sundering plan. That isn’t working with her people against the current threat. That’s her working with her followers on her own plan which consists of forsaking her people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Denishia
-
08-04-2023, 03:22 AMWellGramaryeSee here Mr Nosferatu :>, you contradict this wisdom in your first sentence, and is disproven in ShB since Eldibus-Et-Ardbert body awaken's many people upon the first to being "Warriors of Light" then afterwards we have a whole dungeon where we fight other self-same created "Warriors of Light" including but not limited to a certain Gentleman of Light whom exists at the same time as us, and is definitely not our shard. Similarly there have been many "Warriors of Light" whom are not Azem across the expansions, such as the Zodiac Braves Mustadio, Agrias, and Ramza, whom aren't shards as well. Warrior of Light, just as Warrior of Darkness are just terms used as titles denoting a special type of adventurer, and is not intrinsically tied to the rebirth of the convocation member Azem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
-
08-04-2023, 03:28 AMAbsimiliardThere is a difference between "warriors of light" and "the Warrior of Light." What I am referring to specifically are the instances in which a uniquely powerful individual, whether alone or accompanied by a particular group, rose up to combat X thing. There have indeed been many warriors of light. I in no way asserted or implied the title was unique to Azem. I am asserting "the" Warrior of Light has always been Azem's shard, and the game does seem to support this stance. For example, we're told outright about an outstanding individual being present at the turning of point of each age. While they always fell in the end, there was none the less someone special there taking the fight to whatever scheme the Ascians were trying to wreck the world with that particular time.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
What Elidibus did to those people was draw out their vague memories of the original world's fall, after which many of them chose to set out on a life of adventure. None of them had any kind of special protection. They were just people that had their echo awoken. -
08-04-2023, 04:11 AMWellGramaryeOur character has three things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Absimiliard
1. The Echo. This allows us to communicate with everyone, and gives us a small bit of precognition (seeing attack markers in battle.)
2. The Blessing of Light/Traveler's Ward This allows us to resist tempering and the some mental influences.
3. The Soul of Azem. This allows us to have more raw (physical/magical/aetherical/dynamic) power than everyone else. The reason we can break our limits so easily, and the capacity to be every job, at max capacity at all times.
Only 1 and 2 are specifically associated with the Warrior of Light. 3 is specific to us an our incarnations.
For example, Ramza was the Warrior of Light in his age. He would have had 1 and 2. He did not have 3. He was able to, on the source, co-exist as us (even for a short while) during the fight against Ultima the High Seraph before fading away with the rest of the Zodiac Braves of his era. In accordance, St Ajora, the one who is said to have summoned Ultima the HIgh Seraph was also supposedly the Warrior of Light, though this is most likely a fabrication by the Church of Kiltia. -
08-04-2023, 04:22 AMAbsimiliardWhich is precisely the point I am making. The one serving as the game's player-character is not the first incarnation of Azem's soul on the Source. We're lead to believe one has been present at the end of each era. In other words, it appears there was an incarnation of Azem present for each Calamity. I didn't say everyone Venat gave the traveler's ward to was his shard. I'm saying the hero present at the climax of each age was the same guy in different lives, and that my use of "THE" Warrior of Light referred specifically to that individual in the context I provided in my previous posts. I'm sure there were other incarnations, but we've not had info regarding them. There's a fan theory Tenzen could've been one of Azem's reincarnations, but I don't believe it was ever definitively proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
As for Ramza; he was indisputably a Warrior of Light, but he was not the only one of that time.
I've always kinda hoped they would put out more information about the Calamities. I'd be rather fascinating to learn how each played out, not to mention how the main character's previous lives came to an end. -
08-04-2023, 04:57 AMWellGramarye
That's the rub of this particular term. Early in FFXIV's life it was used exclusively to mean the player character, but this has been expanded and compounded on where it doesn't quite mean the same thing anymore. We're arguing the same point but just in a different way. IMO the player is less the Warrior of Light anymore, since the term was diluted so much, after the Shadowbringer's era and should just be the Bearer of Azem, when we're talking about a specific incarnation soul, because these things are not mutually exclusive. Most likely there were plenty of incarnations who did not become a Warrior of Light and chose another path. 12000 years is a long time to cycle through for races that typically live <120 years.
-
08-04-2023, 06:42 AMCilia
Oooh, chum in the water! I'm late to the feeding frenzy (for which I apologize most sincerely), but...
... nah, not doing this dance again.
All I'm going to do is contest the assertion that Venat sundered the world because she had no faith in the Ancients' capability to overcome hardships; she did it because they had no faith in themselves. That's one facet of it, at least. There were lots of reasons, but I'm pretty sure those have been explained ad nauseam by this point... -
08-04-2023, 07:51 AMAbsimiliardLate as hell, but uh.. We all know Caine was just jealous.Quote:
Originally Posted by WellGramarye
https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2l...8mk5/giphy.gif -
08-04-2023, 07:58 AMKageTokageYou know what we did when we met people who had no faith in themselves and had lost hope in Stormblood and Shadowbringers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
We uplifted them and didn't write them off as a lost cause, even when they pushed back against us. The truly heroic mindset is to never give up. -
08-04-2023, 08:04 AMAlleluiaDoesn't Lyse still catch crap for that? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by KageTokage
Not saying the sentiment is wrong. Just an observation. -
08-04-2023, 08:14 AMKizuyaKatogami“Not doing this dance again”Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilia
*proceeds to make a false claim that they had no faith in themselves*
I’m pretty sure if they had no faith in themselves they wouldn’t have willfully sacrificed themselves to save their planet. But if we want to talk about no faith…. the sundered don’t exactly have that do they? We don’t give up on them though, we prop them back up. Once again Cilia, rules for thee but not for me spouting. Not surprised.