Zodiark: Good or evil? thoughts

[KizuyaKatogami]

I guess you've never heard of a necessary evil.

Which is better, End Times 2.0 because they failed to actually fix the problem that caused the end to begin with, or a one-time sundering which then allows life to flourish for the next 10,000+ years?

Life to flourish? They’re fractured beings torn apart from their loved ones that rendered the star unstable. This is said by the devs. Also, we don’t even know if it fixed the problem or not. The only insight we get is from Venat which isn’t the most reliable source at all.

[Katie_Kitty]

Life to flourish? They’re fractured beings torn apart from their loved ones that rendered the star unstable. This is said by the devs. Also, we don’t even know if it fixed the problem or not. The only insight we get is from Venat which isn’t the most reliable source at all.

They are living beings, whether or not their souls used to be something else doesn't magically mean they didn't flourish. Life flourished for a long time in the sundered world but now you're going to ignore that just because some ascian who you've become a fanboy of has a sob story to make you feel bad?

No thanks. Emet is a genocidal psychopath. Ascians are genocidal psychopaths and villains who needed to be stopped. Hydaelyn's world has not faced an end of days for many many thousands of years, and even did not have calamities without direct involvement by Ascians who cause them. There's no reason to see hydaelyn as anything but good.

[Anvaire]

They are living beings, whether or not their souls used to be something else doesn't magically mean they didn't flourish. Life flourished for a long time in the sundered world but now you're going to ignore that just because some ascian who you've become a fanboy of has a sob story to make you feel bad?

No thanks. Emet is a genocidal psychopath. Ascians are genocidal psychopaths and villains who needed to be stopped. Hydaelyn's world has not faced an end of days for many many thousands of years, and even did not have calamities without direct involvement by Ascians who cause them. There's no reason to see hydaelyn as anything but good.

Your argument seems to be based on people being zodiark's fan boys. I would say the reverse is true of you only with Hydaelyn instead.

Returning to the debate though, I think there is a distinction to be made between what the ascians did and wanted, and what Zodiark did and wanted. From what we can tell Zodiark stopped the end days and the plan that the ascians concocted to sacrifice the lives of the star to restore the souls lost was never accomplished perhaps due to Hydeayns interference.

But the question remains, why was only so few opposed to Zodiark or fearful of him?

As others mentioned, Azem wasnt opposed to creation itself, but seemd to not agree with the creation of Zodiark or Hydealyn. The question is why?

I still think that Zodiark himself should be seen as separate from his summoners desires and not seen as inherantly evil though. He accomplished the task that he was created for, he stopped the final days and restored the planet at a terrible cost, but one that was aggreeable to those who sacrificed themselves to achieve it. Emet Selch told us that directly and thinking on it logically. Given the disposition of Amaurotians we have seen, it seems that they would be open to such an occurance especially as they were already sacrificing themselves to drive creations like Quetzacotl, in that case, the summoner thought they were proctecting the building.

I think its easy to see the scrifice as wholly evil. But given the choice was between that and extinction... you can kind of see why they would do it and also why those who survived might want to do anything to see those lives restored. Either way i think its thoroughly in the gray area.

Id say this though, we do not know enough yet to detirmine whether hydealyn being summoned was actually required. There is something odd about how Venar talks about it. Her detirmination to be the core, and the fact that so few agreed with them. In a democracy it is akin to the least voted party taking power, despite the opponants having a clear majority.

Hydealyns actions in sundering the star technically caused more death than Zodiark as while the scrifice would have been of some of the lives, Hydealyn's sundering actually sacrificed far more lives in order to split the souls into fragments to populate the world. We do not know if this genocide actually resulted in the extinction of the original races and the ones existing now are due to evolution,or if some few survived.

I think that the former is true given that all was sundered. Though we have to consider whether the act of sundering actualy caused the death of those sundered, it is implied to be the case.

[EaraGrace]

I think its easy to see the scrifice as wholly evil. But given the choice was between that and extinction... you can kind of see why they would do it and also why those who survived might want to do anything to see those lives restored. Either way i think its thoroughly in the gray area.

The moral question isn’t over the willing sacrifices however, but the plan to replace those sacrificed with the life that was not yet born. It’s in that plan we see Venat and her followers dissent.

Id say this though, we do not know enough yet to detirmine whether hydealyn being summoned was actually required. There is something odd about how Venar talks about it. Her detirmination to be the core, and the fact that so few agreed with them. In a democracy it is akin to the least voted party taking power, despite the opponants having a clear majority.

I’m extremely hesitant to make any sort of observation on the morality of these decisions based on how many they had agree. Remember, after Zodiarks summoning the question was over whether they would be continuing with the plan to regain their friends souls. It’s entirely unsurprising that many would side with that effort.

I think that the former is true given that all was sundered. Though we have to consider whether the act of sundering actualy caused the death of those sundered, it is implied to be the case.

Emet-Selchs’ lecture in the solar I believe makes it clear that the act of sundering does not, itself, cause death.





The soul and its qualities are split, but both are still alive.

[Theodric]

I'd consider the Sundering to be the equivalent of death given that those struck by it are no longer who they once where in either mind or body. It's a technicality, really - I doubt many here would be pleased to see themselves ripped away from their friends, family and pets whilst also being made physically weaker and with little but fragmented memories of what once was.

A key point will be whether it was an intentional act or an accident. So far, we know that Hydaelyn was brought forth to supposedly keep Zodiark's power in check. Yet that was done in defiance of what the majority of the Ancients desired.

Ultimately, the Sundering itself is not framed as a good thing by the writers themselves - but it is an event that happened and one that cannot be reversed easily.

As for the morality side of things, Yoshi-P had this to say:

Talking of the story, what was your personal favourite while going through the expansion?

Yoshida - That’s a tough question, being in the development team, I’m involved with lots of adjustment and tweaking during creations, so I see all the cut-scenes and while in development I give feedback on if a cut-scene should be bringing up the tension in certain parts. I had to play Shadowbringers four times, so it’s hard to have one favourite part.

If I needed to pick one, there is a scene after you complete a dungeon in a cave where you see the murals that is the dream that the ancients saw which is about the war between Hydaelyn and Zodiark. Emet-Selch takes the whole party to the cave and talks about the war and Y’sthola, and other NPCs were surprised by his revelation about what had happened. This struck really hard to me.

This scene is really underlining the story of Shadowbringers. Everyone is in a different position, the view of winners will be different to those that have lost, and the truth that they may tell will also be different. There is not really any point in arguing who is right or wrong but what is really important is to understand that there are so many views, and we need to accept it; how can we move forward by us understanding each other.

That was more just for Shadowbringers, but it’s also a common theme through Eorzea and FFXIV. What Emet-Selch was expressing is his view that ‘this is my opinion not requiring approval from anyone because this is what I believe’. He doesn’t even reject what Haydelin is saying, he just accepts it. What he expressed in that scene was ‘how great ancients are and the deep understanding they have with people who have different opinions to themselves.

Source: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/gam...shida-21385561