The Wyrmking vs. Thordan

I finally got around to unlocking Dragoon, and just completed the level 35 quest, where Ser Alberic told me the story about Ishgard's founding and the skirmish with Nidhogg. (i.e. the plot point for Heavenward mentioned at Las Vegas fan festival)

One thing I can't help but notice in the tale is that Thordan seemed to start it by attacking the wyrmking unprovoked. Obviously Ishgard is going to be extremely biased, but the tale as told doesn't exactly indicate Nidhogg approached with hostile intent.

Though given Ishgard's shady nature and who they may or may not be harboring within their walls, I do wonder if the missing Eye and ensuing blood feud is not the only "sins" the rising chorus is preaching about.

My take on the story was that Nidhogg came swooping down and Thordan leaped up to intercept.

I think its almost without question there is more to the tale. However I doubt its going to be clear cut on either side. While the Ishgardian founder may have been guilty of wrongs, Nidhogg and the Dravanians have not discriminate in their war, slaughtering the weak as ruthlessly as they have the strong. From my experience of FF14, I expect we will find issue with both sides. Its also possible both sides are getting played by Ascians.

Also there is the comment in 2.5 that there are two Wyrmlords in Eorzea. That could suggest that the Dravanian leadership could have it's own factions. That could create an interesting politic dynamic among the Dravanians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belhi

My take on the story was that Nidhogg came swooping down and Thordan leaped up to intercept.

I think its almost without question there is more to the tale. However I doubt its going to be clear cut on either side. While the Ishgardian founder may have been guilty of wrongs, Nidhogg and the Dravanians have not discriminate in their war, slaughtering the weak as ruthlessly as they have the strong. From my experience of FF14, I expect we will find issue with both sides. Its also possible both sides are getting played by Ascians.

Also there is the comment in 2.5 that there are two Wyrmlords in Eorzea. That could suggest that the Dravanian leadership could have it's own factions. That could create an interesting politic dynamic among the Dravanians.

---

Those two Lords, mayhaps, being Nidhogg and the King of Kings, Midgardsormr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PotatoSalad

Those two Lords, mayhaps, being Nidhogg and the King of Kings, Midgardsormr.

---

It's Midgarsormr himself that states two of his sons are presently in Eorzea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treuhavik

It's Midgarsormr himself that states two of his sons are presently in Eorzea.

---

o3o

Oh, right-o! I forgot 'bout that detail! :D

Well, isn't Midgy one of the first dragons born in Eorzea? If so, maybe he's referring to one as Bahamut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PotatoSalad

o3o

Oh, right-o! I forgot 'bout that detail! :D

Well, isn't Midgy one of the first dragons born in Eorzea? If so, maybe he's referring to one as Bahamut?

---

Aye. In fact, Midgarsormr is supposedly the first dragon and sired seven sons.

Bahamut might make sense if you haven't finished coil, but is that the real Bahamut or a aethereal manifestation of him? Actually, considering that the coil storyline ended before patch 2.5a, even his primal form is dead. Besides, even if Bahamut had never been entrapped by the Allagan in the 3rd astral era, he'd still be in Meracydia with his people dragon horde, which is not in the realm of Eorzea.

So, while Bahamut was probably one of Midgardsormr's children, he's not one of the sons he references being in Eorzea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zohar_Lahar

Though given Ishgard's shady nature and who they may or may not be harboring within their walls, I do wonder if the missing Eye and ensuing blood feud is not the only "sins" the rising chorus is preaching about.

---

I have a feeling the Ascians have had a finger in Ishgard since at least that first battle.

Reposting from another thread;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treuhavik

Could it be that someone empowered by Halone came to Thordan, converted him and his men from their previous religion, and guided them to the Holy See? Maybe once conflict between the Ishgardians and Dravanians began, this 'Saint' "betrayed" the people she had led by consorting with their new-found enemy.

What if the Dravanians aren't as bad as they're made out to be...?

What if Ishgard fell under Ascian influence not long after it was founded, and their Saint remained pure thanks to a certain divine gift, defecting to the side of lesser evil to put an end to a senseless war?

---

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by treuhavik

I have a feeling the Ascians have had a finger in Ishgard since at least that first battle.

Reposting from another thread;


Thoughts?

---

I just finished the Dragoon Job story and that ending gives me the feeling that whatever happened in the past, Nidhogg is rather fallen these days. It's not clear but I suspect that whatever started this who conflict wasn't nearly as clear cut (trying to avoid spoilers) and involved failings on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to learn that the Ascians have been playing both sides. Possibly to keep both sides from every allying since that would be detrimental to their plans.

Whoever the other Dragon Lord is, I have a feeling they are more likely to be moderate. What we have seen of Nidhogg is he is positively burning with hatred. Every time he wakens he rampages slaughtering pretty indiscriminately. Heavenward seems likely to be mainly about us trying to end the ancient conflict and bridge the divide between the Dragons and Ishgardians. That's why I don't think we will be taking a specific side but rather wrestling with both sides to finally end the conflict.

Dravanians actually being the "good" guys is too easy, and ultimately contrary to the "dark fantasy" they're aiming for. The writers are still trying to find a consistent tone, though, so I suspect we'll see story arcs backing both sides before getting to the truth both of them are hiding. The dragons (at least some of them) have proven themselves to be sapient beings, but continue maintaining their "senseless monster" facade to further their current war of attrition. They're not to blame, but also not blameless.

The Ascians are definitely manipulating the whole thing to their usual cryptic ends, but I'd like to think they (as in, the writers) know enough world history to know that war is rarely, if ever, born from purely evil intentions, and that reconciling "differences" is a much more complex process than simply holding peace talks and telling the naughty children to behave.

Honor, faith, and patriotism are the pretty dress worn by a really ugly, misshapen, Queen Brahne-shaped blob of real-world considerations. Trade routes and natural resources are two of the largest causes of war, especially "holy wars," but the fine line between greed and necessity is the first to blur when a cause needs justification. And the rest is just escalation.

I think they have seeded that. The Leader of the Temple Knights makes comment that he likes to believe the Fury values the lives of her followers over the deaths of her enemies. I think the big clincher in this who thing will be truth. Unmasking the reasons for the war in the first place. We have seen potential moderates in the Ishgardians and I imagine there will be ones among the Dragons.