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

[Alenore]

No matter how you cut 'summon a counter-god to match up to their god', that's probably not gonna go down well. Especially given the Hydaelyn game plan, even if it didn't intend some world-cracking, definitely did intend to smash Zodiark to bits.

Yes, my point being that even if the sundering wasn't planned, it was still meant to have lasting consequences and affect Zodiark / counter their plans. Not really just "balancing the aether".

[Cilia]

Hydaelyn's purpose was to "bind" and "hold [Zodiark] in check" - even Emet-Selch never goes so far as to say the Sundering was a deliberate, premeditated action on the part of Hydaelyn or her summoners. Of course, binding their savior would be sure to piss off Zodiark's adherents - especially the tempered Convocation - but the intent of anything other than binding him is purely speculation.

Azem bits:

1. The PC is not literally Azem of Amaurot. They are Azem reborn in the modern age, and their own person - not bound by whatever the last Azem of Amaurot did. "It's strange / improper for the PC to take sides because Azem didn't take sides" doesn't make any sense.
2. While Azem refused to participate in the summoning of either Zodiark or Hydaelyn, once that die was cast they might not have had a choice one way or another. They were a champion and hero to people the world over, not just Amaurot. What difference would it make, though? (See 1 above.)

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."

[Yuella]

No, Hydaelyn was summoned to stop the Darkness (the Sound), just like Zodiark. Emet and the Ascians are sensitive snowflakes who thinks Hydaelyn's summoners are out to get him and Zodiark. (Emet is an unrealiable narrator, so is Hythlodaeus' shade, who was created by Emet). The difference is Zodiark only temporarily prevented the Darkness. Hydaelyn was meant to be a permanent solution (as long as the Ascians didn't do any rejoining). Unfortunately, the Ascians keep doing rejoining and while it's bringing Zodiark back, it also threatens to bring back the Darkness.

Refer to my previous post

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5689000

especially this



Whenever Minfilia (3.2) and Venat (5.2) talked about Darkness, they're talking about the Sound, not Zodiark

Venat's cutscene is the most objective of them all.
Minfilia talked directly to us (3.2), she could be lying or wrong
Emet talked directly to us (Qitana Ravel), he could be lying or wrong
Hythlodaeus talked directly to us (Amaurot), he could be lying or wrong

Venat didn't talk directly to us, it was a recording of their group preparing to summon Hydaelyn.

[Alenore]

-snip-

Considering the Sound has never been refered before as Darkness, and Zodiark is literally an incarnation of Darkness, how do you even reach the conclusion the "Light" that was summoned was Zodiark?

From the same cutscene that you're quoting :

You know as well as I that but few support our cause. Far fewer than they who place their faith in Zodiark.
If Hydaelyn is to stand a chance of opposing Him, I am the only one who might suffice as Her heart.

While She was summoned as a more permanent solution to the Sound, the plan included opposing Zodiark. So no, Emet and the other Unsundered didn't imagine that Hydaelyn was against Zodiark, because Venat herself says so. And if you mean to say "Him" refers to the sound, "Her" "Him" has pretty much always refered to Zodiark (she even mentions him by He in the previous line).

[Theodric]

Emet and the Ascians are sensitive snowflakes who thinks Hydaelyn's summoners are out to get him and Zodiark.

That isn't the case at all, though. From Yoshi-P himself:

"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

Naturally he isn't going to be pleased with the actual consequences of the Sundering, giving what it did to his people, much in the same way as how the Sundered are not necessarily going to want to roll over and die for the sake of the Unsundered.

[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'.

[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.