6.0 Story Speculations

[Veloran]

I'm thinking more "it's the lore the writers are going back to to make sense of this" - the beginning is the end, they even used the Starshower.

In order for a plot element to make sense of something it needs to actually make sense. Answers is relevant in some ways, but to have a resolution to Hydaelyn now, after everything written since then, we'd need an Answers 2 that sheds real light on her motivations and offers an answer which is a satisfactory reason for everything she's done.

You said yourself she only does anything when an Umbral Calamity is on the horizon.

That's just when she kicks up her game, she creates WoLs elsewhere if Tenzen and the Zodiac Braves are any indication. Krile even describes her directly as "intervening in man's affairs" until very recent history.

Like, I can get that compared to the lives the Ancients led, ours seem short and cruel. They also happen to look just like the lives we humans actually live. Regardless of its origin, the world we're fighting for in Hydaelyn's name is modeled on the one we can most identify with, Earth, because almost every story we've ever been told about what it means to be alive takes place here. Even the name "Eorzea" shares the same etymological root as "Earth".

There's a reason the world of the Ancients is described as a paradise in comparison to the current world. And there's also a reason why plenty of FF games end with defeating some godlike being that was responsible for the current state of the world the protagonists reside in, because the status quo is unhealthy or defective in some regard. And I would argue that not only is this the case in XIV, but also that Hydaelyn deserves particular scrutiny in this regard because she destroyed another world to bring this one into being.

I'm suggesting it didn't set up the "you have no free will and the one thing we told you was good is bad" part very well,

In my estimation ignorance is the furthest thing from freedom, and Hydaelyn has been keeping people ignorant of who they are and where they came from for 12,000 years.

Hydaelyn may be flawed but if she was truly that despicable, that was the time to start building up to the crescendo.

I'm not saying she's despicable, I'm saying that the idea she's a force for good has basically been dashed, we even have that from the developers directly. If you want to get aetherological about it, Hydaelyn represents stasis more than anything else, her entire motivation seems to just be keeping the world as she's created it.

I would ask, "Protect the stability of the world from... [who]? Because they intend to destabilize it by... [doing what]?

I'd say this question hasn't truly been answered yet, but personally I think she wishes to protect the stability of the world from human nature. This would explain why she sundered the world and split everyone's souls, originally leaving them in a state where they apparently couldn't even use magic, by limiting the potential of mankind the world itself couldn't be threatened with destruction.

Ramuh is described by Square Enix as being an oddity among primals whose true nature has yet to be explained. Moreover, he was imbued by his summoners with the traits of a wise judge who makes righteous decisions, and the Ascians were shocked he assented to the Warrior of Light. Alexander was summoned to be a perfect calculator and it, too, overcame its summoners' biases and doubled down on the Warrior of Light. Meanwhile Louisoix tells you Phoenix was "no true primal", and Yotusyu's change in demeanor was suggested by Zenos to be because she tempered herself during her own summoning and then it faded upon the death of that identity.

As things currently stand we have no reason to think either Ramuh or Phoenix were actually all that unusual as far as Primals go. Alexander simply gave up on it's primary summoned objective to create the best future and instead entrusted WoL with a completely unknown future (bad decision in G'raha's world), and for Yotsuyu tempering doesn't fade with the death of a Primal, so her giving up her spite at the end is still an act of agency you suggest Primals can't have.

I'm not entirely confident at this point that Hydaelyn does think of Herself as the one true god.

She certainly describes herself as something like the primordial force of Light, existing before life came to be. And "All Made One"? I would consider that a title of a god.

As it is we can only think that she either falsely believes her own hype, or she's lying.

there is panel in Rak'tika that specifically shows Zodiark and Hydaelyn together,

I would say that panel looks more like a confrontation than a coexistence. Anyway as to the part you're quoting, the more relevant time would be immediately after the Sundering, not before it.

You assume it was coercion because you literally haven't been given the answer yet.

I assume it was coercion because WoL - In their current iteration - Joined the war with answers that were either false or nonexistent. Again, I can't consider WoL free in this scenario if they're being left ignorant, that's just manipulation.

[Lauront]

Honestly, up until Shadowbringers I never really considered Hydaelyn to be much more than a convenient plot device for the Warrior of Light's power. The reveal that Hydaelyn was, in fact, a Primal was quite intriguing to me.

My own approach is to split characters into one of three categories - namely protagonists, antagonists and villains. I only really care for the first two, as outright villains are just as boring to me as goody-two shoes who can never do any wrong ever. For me, it's about understanding the 'why' the various characters do that they do.

Similarly for me. The reclamation and restoration of the ancient world is what I find intriguing in the Ascians and a theme I like a lot in other fantasy settings that do it, e.g. with the elves. In the end I play fantasy games, not necessarily to identify the characters, but because I like the way they can entertain "what ifs?", and also put you in hypothetical scenarios you wouldn't really find yourself in. Ivalice has always appealed to me most of all the FF settings, because of Matsuno's skill in assigning compelling motives to those involved, even if I like FF9 best overall.

My question here is what does "ancient times" have anything to do with sundered at all? This part of the debate seems moot if nobody was sundered yet. The Convocation was just pushing "sacrifice people to Zodiark" as the fix for every problem

That isn't my reading of it. They had a specific plan to bring back those who were sacrificed to Zodiark, and not as a fix to every problem, but rather some very specific ones which required high aetheric commitments and the power Zodiark brought to bear. We can muse as to the reasons behind it, but a plausible interpretation is that this would fast-track the return of their civilisation rather than having to wait thousands of years to catch up given their lifespans. That is assuming the newer souls were full-fledged "ancient" ones and not something else.

and ignoring the people who questioned it, leading Venat's faction to believe that what was supposed to be a temporary measure was now as sure to doom them as the Final Days, assuming they had even found a permanent way to stop it in the first place.

Hmm... we don't know whether her faction had approached them before/the same issue had been put to them before, and was rebuffed. A key factor here is that Elidibus chose to take his leave of Zodiark while disagreement was raging, so it was already on-going - the scene with Venat by all appearances is just prior to the point where they summon Hydaelyn, after Azem as well had (for whatever reason) not responded to their overtures. Elidibus returned to help mediate. I am fairly convinced that his return served as proof to the Convocation that a similar approach could be applied to the souls lying dormant in Zodiark, and therefore strengthened their belief in this approach.

The question for them was, even if the Convocation eventually said, "OK, enough sacrificing our own to Zodiark, do they really get to unilaterally decide "Well, we'll just sacrifice others!"? Who has the right to make that call for whom? And to refuse to debate the wisdom of sacrificing the very life their comrades sacrificed themselves to beget is tantamount to turning on the foundations of their culture. They were the leaders of their culture, a culture that saw themselves as the stewards of the world, and then turned on all of it for Zodiark alone.

One could ask that question of any state or government. No matter how widely approved their decisions were at any time, they possessed and retained that authority, with the ancients having instituted a technocratic form of government where leaders in particular fields held the highest office. It is worth noting that Venat's group acknowledged that many of their kin would side with the Convocation on the matter, so they evidently retained that sense of authority.

One question that remains open for me is, did those who sacrificed themselves to Zodiark ever expect to be restored in the first place? Did they truly sacrifice themselves to see the world reborn only for that new birth to be slaughtered on the altar of their own resurrection? And what of the new life's lack of consent in this plan?

If that was the case, I personally think they were unworthy to ever claim the mantle of the world's stewards in the first place.

I disagree that such an assessment follows.

On the one hand, if we are going to maintain that the (unexpected?) tempering by Zodiark is the possible cause of their entrenchment in their views, the "ever" falls away, because that is something which came after Zodiark's summoning.

On the other hand, assuming it is a non-factor in their decisions, it comes down to:

1. what is their moral framework?
2. what were the alternatives if they did not take such a course of action for the star's future development?

Venat's group certainly did not solicit the consent of the ancients before sundering the world. Likewise, when the Ironworks and Exarch embarked on their bid to forge a new future, there was always the risk (yes, we know it did not materialise, but if we are focused on intentions, that must be cast aside, as per your point with the WoD) that it would result in the extirpation of the future timeline. Again, not all agreed to such a plan. Now we can perhaps pass off Venat's actions as accidental (it's ambiguous), but the latter was a consciously taken decision - to me it just means that sometimes, consent isn't the only relevant moral consideration.

Yes, it may end up burdening those who survived (the returning ancients, or the present timeline) with survivor's guilt, but the Convocation had faced the complete ruination of their star and what they must've seen as a retrenchment in their civilisation of several thousands of years as a result - we humans often balk at losses counted in mere years of productivity, nevermind such complete loss, and however long it took for beings with such long lifespans to reach a mature state once more. If their apparently strict focus on autonomy is only ever (or at least in emergencies) predicated on a utilitarian framework (i.e. that it serves the best way forward for the star), it will then make sense for it to yield in some circumstances to other considerations. Some people may not like or agree with such an approach (it comes down to your approach to ethics) - perhaps even they would not - and that is fine, but IMO it is a valid way of looking at it. There's also added complexities, such as the cycle of rebirth (i.e. the new souls would eventually be born again), and that it would likely be soul aether rather than whatever it is that is the "core" of a soul which would be exchanged (given what we know of souls), that factor in.

With that said, with the appearance of a person capable of replicating the Final Days by design, I am leaning towards the conflict having been potentially seeded between the Convocation and Venat's group in order to continue with the destruction of the world.

That's definitely a place we need more information. Venat speaks as though she knows for sure this solution is only temporary and the Convocation was still just "Hail Zodiark, He's got this down in perpetuity" about it. If the Convocation were guaranteed to keep sacrificing to Zodiark as they felt was "necessary" until the reborn world was once again lost, sundering Him at any cost was the only solution. If the Final Days were doomed to repeat if there were creation magicks to run amok at all, then sundering everyone was the only solution. Those are the two big "this was supposed to be temporary" possibilities I can think of. "Entity that can rewrite the laws of reality and corrupted the psyche of our leaders" having permanent admin permissions over the planet does sound like it will eventually bend all to its will. Hydaelyn accuses Zodiark's greatest sin of being greed.

One thing that's causing struggle for me here is knowing that a lot of the people willing to condemn Venat for this difficult decision are the same people who thought the Warriors of Darkness's plan to murder everyone on the First (never mind the casualties on the Source) so they could reborn was pretty noble. Is that so different? The First didn't consent. Their lives and memories would have been lost. Their individual lives would have been lost.

The WoD were wrong that it was the only option, and yet people still called them noble.

Why not Venat?

I believe I am fairly charitable towards Venat's group and their intentions, as well as Hydaelyn. I don't argue that she is evil (and certainly not in the sense of some being like Jenova), and I grant that they may not have intended the Sundering (or, if they did, they may have had reasons for believing it was the right path, even if such an outcome does not sit well with me), but in all honesty I see very little reciprocity in this facet towards Zodiark by many who comment on the lore. Quite often, the worst is assumed of him - as he is a primal, he must too operate as do regular primals in all facets. Yet in her case, all manner of exceptions are conceived. Krile or Y'shtola merely questioning Hydaelyn's motives is enough to raise an eyebrow. And so on. This isn't a dispute over the lore so much as our own individual preferences, and I do appreciate that you put yours out there in the open (and mine are easily gleaned from my signatures, and similarly those of others' from their arguments), however my hope is that they are unshackled from simply trying to tailor the final outcome to commitments from 1.0/an existing impression of her "benevolence"/the existing relation with the WoL.

With them having built him up as at least earnest in his impetus towards salvation, and dropping the "no light, no dark, no good, no evil" (loose paraphrase) in relation to the Amano art of the pair, I'd like to see something a little more nuanced than mere power-hunger as what may have gone wrong, especially given how we know from Elidibus's testimony that he felt deeply for his people and even while inside Zodiark returned to them to help mediate their disputes. Now that we have what looks like a potential third party instigator of the Final Days, I'd like to see them shift focus on that and keep the conflict between the two Primals as a tragic misunderstanding, while both are drawn on by the MC in a bid to honour their duty of remembrance and halt a true annihilation of the world. While I acknowledge they could ultimately push forward with a "Zodiark bad"/"Convocation bad" (latter more doubtful) styled plotline, I can't say I'd really care all too much for it - much like many have come out to express concern about them pushing Hydaelyn in a similar vein. I'd also hope that if misuse of tempering came into it, it'd be through Zodiark being corrupted somehow (e.g. through the harbinger of the Final Days) rather than it being a case of mere power hunger. Granted, I find the choice (and meaning) of name interesting, given the associated character in XII, but how far they will take that remains to be seen, and it can be read in many ways (e.g. unintended (?) consequences flowing from their actions.)

For the time being, I think I'll wait to see what (if any) lore we get by 5.55 to shed further light but I suspect we won't hear much more until 6.0 kicks off in earnest, because I believe a lot of the arguments at this point in time, once the facts are cleared up, amount to conflicting personal preferences - as is natural, however it lends itself to a certain retreading of old ground, which can grow sterile. Onwards to 5.55, then.

I would say that panel looks more like a confrontation than a coexistence. Anyway as to the part you're quoting, the more relevant time would be immediately after the Sundering, not before it.

I agree. The flames in the background and loss of a halo don't directly point at mere coexistence there. Her unique power is enervation, and that is what looks to me to have been occurring. Perhaps the relation wasn't combative, but I also don't think we can assume from the scene that it wasn't, and the flames point against it, especially with the flames (Final Days/their "doom"?) in their background. Also agree with the rest. I'd like to see them expand on this some day.

She certainly describes herself as something like the primordial force of Light, existing before life came to be. And "All Made One"? I would consider that a title of a god.

As it is we can only think that she either falsely believes her own hype,

Indeed - it's quite possible for a Primal to do that.

[BlitzAceRush]

Then pretty much no one in existence is free, we never have all the answers or a full picture, all we can do is make choices with the information we have and then chose to change course if new information arises, which it did, we learned a lot during Shadowbrinders yet we stayed the course the WoL still opposes the Ascian in spite of all the new information.

I also never really bought the "WoL is tempered" and after Shadowbrings seems very false because:
1: Why would Emet try and reason with someone who's tempered? He admits he himself is tempered to Zodiark so it would stand to reason he'd know if the "servant of Hydaelyn" was tempered to her, unless tempering means something completely different to those two which still makes it a moot point as if that's true it would need to be a form a tempering that allowed you to turn against the one who tempered you for Emet's olive branch to be worth extending.
2: Ysayle, she had the blessing and yet pretty much didn't care, did as she pleased and used her powers to cause more harm than any good, she wasn't forced to peruse the agenda of stopping the Ascians

[Theodric]

At the end of the day, Hydaelyn is a Primal so I think it's a fair assumption that Tempering would be involved - and I would find it to be strange if, against all odds, Hydaelyn happened to have none of the usual drawbacks associated with Primal entities. Who knows? Perhaps Hydaelyn's summoners managed to cheat the system at the cost of instability and that is why the Sundering occurred?

At the end of the day, recent patches have expanded upon the lore surrounding Tempering significantly. It doesn't necessarily need to be obvious that someone is Tempered at a glance. That wasn't the case for Tiamat and it didn't stop Emet-Selch from operating in a way that allowed him to share information with the Warrior of Darkness...nor did it stop him from making the decision to bring Y'shtola back to life.

There's also a cure for Tempering, so even if the Warrior of Darkness is Tempered...it could potentially be cured and/or negated somehow. It could be that we end up gaining Zodiark's blessing and take up the mantle of the Warrior of Equilibrium instead.

[Anonymoose]

Without being able to get into all of the stuff I want to reply to here, I'd like to highlight that Emet-Selch called Hydaelyn and Zodiark primals because it was "language even you can understand," not necessarily because it's a 1:1 correlation. Being that Hydaelyn and Zodiark were created by Ancients with true creation magicks and internal aetherial wellsprings capable of getting the job done, they might have never had the drawbacks that the primals we know do. They might not leak aether, temper anything that comes near them, or require constant crystalline infusions to stay manifest. They might just...be.

Conversely, the downsides of the primals might have been due to creation-like magicks being taught to beings that couldn't wield them properly and didn't have the aetherial wellsprings to seal them aethertight, instead leaving the deiform entities constantly anemic, leaking all over the place, and sending their followers to war for more crystals. That might have been the point.

Emet-Selch says that what tempered the Convocation was the summoning. Summoning requires coming into symbiosis with the aetheric waveform of the summon, and nothing could resist the sheer power of Zodiark's psyche. But that doesn't mean he tempered anything but them. Likewise, it's possible that Hydaelyn never tempered anyone but the twelve who summoned Her, either. (Assuming they weren't fully extinguished.)

There are many people who assume that you're incapable of receiving a gift from such an entity without being tempered by them, but I'd point out that the original PR blurbs for the Heavens' Ward (yes, in both English and Japanese) said that the Ward not tempered (YET, dun dun dunnn)

A member of House Dzemael, Ser Grinnaux the Bull is a peerless warrior. Yet while his combat abilities are exceptional, his disagreeable personality has led to more than a few altercations with others. However, in accordance with the archbishop’s desire to recruit knights solely for their combat prowess, Ser Grinnaux was welcomed into the Heavens’ Ward. After all, should he grow insubordinate, the archbishop need only “bless” him to guarantee his loyalty once and for all.

(In Japanese, instead of "bless" it was "make him tempado")

Not that I'd take that as conclusive either, because other PR blurbs said Thordan was summoned with rites previously perfected on the Ward's primal forms. Note that we saw Grinnaux's "primal form" early, in the Vault, which complicates matters. SE has never cleared that up, but it does suggest they were once of a mind to permit gifts-sans-tempering and that possibility isn't entire off the table until someone finally humors me and clears up Thordan, lol.

I can't decide what's canon and not canon for them when there's an inconsistency.

Mostly, I still just can't shake the idea that Yoshida just doesn't seem like he'd do it, lmao. Like he wouldn't let you touch Darkness. He wouldn't let you be Thief. Why would he give you any chance to say you didn't become a hero of your own free will? This is the root of many people claiming you were "tempered to have free will", but is that even a thing? Please look forward to it.

[BlitzAceRush]

The story also just introduced primals that can't temper and intimate objects that can, as well as changing it from being bound to the will of an entity to being bound to the will of a thing (or in this case nation) they just drastically expanded the boundaries of tempering beyond just primals.

As for showing no signs of being tempered, that's true, but that's to others, the tempered still know they're tempered and labour see their master/mistress will done, they can just appear normal to others, we as the WoL show no signs of this, if we did like acting strange internally or during dialogue choices we pick one but select another I'd agree, but we are in control of our actions both outwardly and internally.
Tiamat was a special case that they even point out, questioning weather it's down to her first brood nature, just the strength of her character and soul or that how you view the one you summon can effect tempering, she did not worship Bahamut, she saw him as her equal all potentially equating to her general sane state.

As for Emet, nothing he really did during 5.0 was at odds with serving Zodiark, he wasn't trying to alter his path, but ours, he wanted us on board with his plans, he never saw us or the scions as genuine threats, so saving Y'shtola was a simple trust winning exercise for him.
Giving us information, again was him trying to win us over, we can't trust anything he says at that point, it could have all been lies but even if true, if telling us warms us to his side then he's again only furthering his own agenda. As Elidibus points out in our trip down memory lane in 5.3. by the events of Stormblood we'd become an annoying thorn, too powerful to ignore, Emet simply decided to see if he could turn us, but had the backup plan of using us as the super light warden to get things back on track if things didn't work out.

[KizuyaKatogami]

Mostly, I still just can't shake the idea that Yoshida just doesn't seem like he'd do it, lmao. Like he wouldn't let you touch Darkness. He wouldn't let you be Thief. Why would he give you any chance to say you didn't become a hero of your own free will? This is the root of many people claiming you were "tempered to have free will", but is that even a thing? Please look forward to it.

Why don’t you think Yoshi doesn’t seem like he’d do it? We have Drk, a renegade job, and rogue/ninja. If it’s to tell a story and for the narrative why wouldn’t he let us touch darkness? Especially when he’s the very person who’s saying light isn’t equal to good dark isn’t equal to bad.

[BlitzAceRush]

Why don’t you think Yoshi doesn’t seem like he’d do it? We have Drk, a renegade job, and rogue/ninja. If it’s to tell a story and for the narrative why wouldn’t he let us touch darkness? Especially when he’s the very person who’s saying light isn’t equal to good dark isn’t equal to bad.

It's in Anonymoose quote, Yoshi gave us Rouge/Ninja because he felt the WoL could never be a Thief due to them being the hero of the story and DRK is ironically more good than PLD who is "Help those in need, but we have rules and obey the law" to DRK's "Help those in need, regardless of the rules/laws."

[Anonymoose]

Yoshi gave us Rouge/Ninja because he felt the WoL could never be a Thief due to them being the hero of the story and DRK is ironically more good than PLD who is "Help those in need, but we have rules and obey the law" to DRK's "Help those in need, regardless of the rules/laws."

I appreciate that you said this in two lines when it probably would have taken me two pages, lol.

DRK is also entirely rooted in love and protection. Even though "darkside" is tapping into rage and negativity, that "flame in the abyss" is the level to which you care and love that you're that furious at seeing people violated in the first place. Like Blitz said, DRK is, ironically, one of the most "good"-coded roles in the game depending on how you look at it.

[Theodric]

Yoshi-P also happened to be opposed to the inclusion of male viera. The community did not react well to that, however - and as the game has grown in popularity, I doubt it is a coincidence that the game's story has come to involve an increasing amount of nuance by virtue of seeking to appeal to a broader audience with much more diverse tastes and expectations.