The questions I want EW to answer the most: WHY and HOW was the world sundered?

[Lauront]

Meanwhile I'm lookin' at the Pandaemonium description and thinkin' to myself, "Yep, there is totally no way at all the Ancients could have been responsible, knowingly or otherwise, for the Final Days and their fall from grace. How could they be, Emet-Selch said their society was perfect and lasted forever beforehand... nothing could possibly have gone wrong."

Very few people deny that it could be the case at all - reddit, and even this forum at various points, made something out of an industry of trying to find ways to blame the ancients for their downfall, and I am sure a vague enough description that could cover a range of different scenarios will serve to confirm such speculation in the minds of some people. Meanwhile, for many of us, irrespective of narrative preferences, it remains an open possibility, either way.

[Cleretic]

Very few people deny that it could be the case at all - reddit, and even this forum at various points, made something out of an industry of trying to find ways to blame the ancients for their downfall, and I am sure a vague enough description that could cover a range of different scenarios will serve to confirm such speculation in the minds of some people. Meanwhile, for many of us, irrespective of narrative preferences, it remains an open possibility, either way.

Something I wrote on another forum about this, essentially talking about how there's two ways to take the general concept of 'blame the Ancients for their downfall', and both are actually very different in terms of both arguments and motivation.

First: The notion that the Ancients are somehow responsible for the Sound. This part is I don't think in any way consciously influenced or motivated, it's just trying to find an answer for a question. Something like that probably didn't just happen, something likely caused it. And given we haven't had an incident like that ever since, the notion that it was something the Ancients were doing seems pretty plausible. It's also a very classical story, very Tower of Babel; they reached too far and paid the price. No real malice or politics inherent in that one, it's just recognizing that the evidence has not yet excluded a very typical story arc. And FFXIV has never shied away from the classics.

But then there's the second: The notion that Amaurot was not a perfect utopia, and may not have been an entirely innocent victim. Essentially, rather than saying that they literally brought on their own end, that they had in some way karmically 'deserved it'. There's a lot of mindsets going into this theory, I think, but most of it is stemming from the fact that we actually know extremely little about Amaurot; so little that even the game acknowledges that. So there's a lot of blanks to fill in, and people aren't always inclined, when the rest of that canvas is lily-white, to fill in those blanks in turn.

Essentially, the people 'blaming' the Ancients for the End of Days fall into one of two camps (with some people who likely believe both): Those who say they caused it, and those who say they deserved it. And so it's important to recognize who's coming from which angle.

Personally, I mostly come from the second, because frankly I don't buy that Amaurot is as perfect as claimed. FFXIV isn't the type of game to do a flat, perfectly innocent society; there has to be some shadows being cast somewhere. At the same time, I'm also aware of the possibility that they might be responsible for the event itself, just by virtue of 'we don't know what did it, so maybe they did it'.

[Cilia]

Something I wrote on another forum about this, essentially talking about how there's two ways to take the general concept of 'blame the Ancients for their downfall', and both are actually very different in terms of both arguments and motivation.



Essentially, the people 'blaming' the Ancients for the End of Days fall into one of two camps (with some people who likely believe both): Those who say they caused it, and those who say they deserved it. And so it's important to recognize who's coming from which angle.

Personally, I mostly come from the second, because frankly I don't buy that Amaurot is as perfect as claimed. FFXIV isn't the type of game to do a flat, perfectly innocent society; there has to be some shadows being cast somewhere. At the same time, I'm also aware of the possibility that they might be responsible for the event itself, just by virtue of 'we don't know what did it, so maybe they did it'.

As far as the Final Days alone, I'm more in the former - if only because cause and effect dictates something is behind it, Amaurot is the only place we know of from before the Sundering, and I'm not willing to bet on space aliens until all other options have been exhausted. I'd not say they deserved it. Emet-Selch says it was perfect, and by and large believes it was, but perfection is a matter of perspective. I often make light of "possible" theories, but perfection is one of the few things I consider truly impossible, and even if it is there's no meaning in it. By saying something is perfect you are saying it never needs to change, and thus doom it to stagnation and, in the end, death or obsolescence.

The Sundering? Well, I don't think they deserved it, but being so conceited as to believe they could treat the rest of the world's life as fuel to return to the pre-Final Days status quo... and seemingly keep that status quo forever... I can't help but feel they brought it on themselves.

Overall I feel the Final Days / Sundering are very much an "expulsion from paradise" analogue; the world was once perfect, but when faced with a crisis the people gave in to temptation trying to restore the old status quo, and in so doing fell from grace and were expelled from paradise. That's why Utopia references abound with the Ancients - that place may have once existed, but it no longer can, and no matter how hard the Ascians tried or even if they succeeded in rejoining the worlds it was never going to come back (which is the real tragedy about the Ascians and their mission). Time marches forward, not back. That's how I see it, anyway.

[kaynide]

...

It does beg the question, if the Ancients triggered the sundering rather than an external entity, what could they have done to cause the star to go out of balance to the point of the aether going crazy?

Based on story beats, I'd guess:

1) This has something to do with the lay lines we're seeing related to the towers. (The ancients have knowledge on how to draw aether from the planet itself)
2) Possibly, this has something to do with the ancients discovering a means of cheating death/reincarnation; does this require huge amounts of aether? Does it involve tampering with the Lifestream? Did the lifesteam..break..with this tampering? (Is this connected to the religious beliefs of the Azim Steppe?)
3) Perhaps the Ascians are themselves actually Primals (Actually, Guardian Forces), having shed their mortal bodies (a la Hades). This would explain their need for huge amounts of aether, possibly draining the planet.
4) It's the Dark Crystal; The Ascians are the Skeksis. The 12 Gods are the Mystics. (I'm 1/2 joking)

...I'm still on Team Lavos, but there are a LOT of ways the story could go, each with amazing potential.

[MikkoAkure]

It's the Dark Crystal; The Ascians are the Skeksis. The 12 Gods are the Mystics. (I'm 1/2 joking)

mmMMMmmmm.

[Iscah]

4) It's the Dark Crystal; The Ascians are the Skeksis. The 12 Gods are the Mystics. (I'm 1/2 joking)

Well, Zodiark is quite literally a Dark Crystal...

Though in this case, we don't want to stick it back together.

[Cleretic]

Though in this case, we don't want to stick it back together.

From what I have heard this is by no means a universally agreed-on idea. In fact some amount of players (I'm hoping an insignificant amount, but I do keep finding them...) think that should be the goal, no matter the consequences or casualties.

I'm not sure if said players have realized that the casualties include themselves.

[Iscah]

No, Hydaelyn was summoned to stop the Darkness (the Sound), just like Zodiark.

You're welcome to have an alternate theory but when you bring those "facts" into a discussion where everyone is working on a different assumption, you need to frame it as a theory immediately, not just "no, you're wrong because my theory says something else happened".

As for your quoted line from Venat's describing Hydaelyn as "the Light that shall keep the Darkness in check", that slots in perfectly with Emet's description of Hydaelyn as "Zodiark's shackles".

[Yuella]

Emet was wrong (unreliable narrator). Darkness refers to the Sound, not Zodiark.

Minfilia could've said "With every rejoining, Zodiark has grown stronger" but she didn't. She said "with every rejoining, Darkness has grown stronger"
(in the same cutscene, she referred to Zodiark as Zodiark)

Venat could've said "Let's summon the light that keeps Zodiark in check" but she didn't. She said "let's summon the light that keeps Darkness in check"
And Assumed-to-be-Venat at the end of 5.55 could've said "Zodiark is coming" but she didn't. She said "Darkness is coming"

Elidibus, the heart of Zodiark, manifests himself as the Warrior of Light. Why would that be if Zodiark is Darkness? Zodiark is actually Light that was summoned to balance Darkness (the Sound)

Also Minfilia in 3.2 said "Light and Darkness was one but Darkness covets power"
Light is actually Zodiark and Darkness is the Sound

"So I sundered the world into 13"
She did this because Light (Zodiark) couldn't contain Darkness (Sound) forever (as confirmed by Venat in 5.2).

However, it is in Hydaelyn's best interest to keep Zodiark and the Shards sundered to keep Darkness from coming back.

But in Endwalker, we are going to let Darkness come so we can beat it and there will be no need for Zodiark and Hydaelyn. And the ancients can rest.

[Cleretic]

Emet was wrong (unreliable narrator). Darkness refers to the Sound, not Zodiark.

Minfilia could've said "With every rejoining, Zodiark has grown stronger" but she didn't. She said "with every rejoining, Darkness has grown stronger"
(in the same cutscene, she referred to Zodiark as Zodiark)

Venat could've said "Let's summon the light that keeps Zodiark in check" but she didn't. She said "let's summon the light that keeps Darkness in check"
And Assumed-to-be-Venat at the end of 5.55 could've said "Zodiark is coming" but she didn't. She said "Darkness is coming"

Elidibus, the heart of Zodiark, manifests himself as the Warrior of Light. Why would that be if Zodiark is Darkness? Zodiark is actually Light that was summoned to balance Darkness (the Sound)

Also Minfilia in 3.2 said "Light and Darkness was one but Darkness covets power"
Light is actually Zodiark and Darkness is the Sound

"So I sundered the world into 13"
She did this because Light (Zodiark) couldn't contain Darkness (Sound) forever (as confirmed by Venat in 5.2).

However, it is in Hydaelyn's best interest to keep Zodiark and the Shards sundered to keep Darkness from coming back.

But in Endwalker, we are going to let Darkness come so we can beat it and there will be no need for Zodiark and Hydaelyn. And the ancients can rest.

Gotta be honest, absolutely none of this makes sense of things that didn't already read just fine with the assumption that 'Darkness' was used to refer to Zodiark, which is itself a primal of darkness.