Sharlayan origins and the Endwalker Trailer

[Vyrerus]

I'm torn on the 'Sharlayan is an Ascian plot, look at the buildings' theory and logic.

On one hand, I don't think that logic holds up as well as people think it does. Sharlayan is very clearly Greco-Roman, while Amaurot is Art Deco As Hell (Art Deco having a huge pile of influences, only part of it being Greco-Roman); Amaurot is almost entirely sharp angles that only curves for structural reasons like spiral staircases, while Sharlayan basically makes circles and curves for fun. Amaurot accents only in bronzes and golds; Amaurot doesn't hate the gold, but is more inclined towards blues and greens. So honestly, I don't see anything in their architecture that says they connect well enough to put a pin in it.

But... on the other hand, statistically speaking, most things are Ascian plots. So I'm fully prepared to learn that Sharlayan is yet another one, I just feel like we're looking at the wrong thing and declaring it a smoking gun.

Moose did a screenshot comparison a couple weeks back... he being a doubter of it too. Except he'd realized that the ruins of the building you fight the Terminus Bellweather in is a building that basically looks like it could pass for the Arkitektron in Dravanian Hinterlands. Or well, any of the circle domey buildings there.

The place to really look and compare though is The Antitower to the Art Deco ones. Similar stone, though different patterns. Towns of spires, though none of those helical ones. One is impossibly large stone structure made by old giant race, while the other is an incredibly large castle where gravity for the player is inverted. The inside of the antitower once you get into the "upper" reaches is a bit more in matching with the colors used in Amaurot though still not a whole match.

Of course, this is because the Sharlayans are obsessed with the issue at the heart of the world... which interestingly ties into real life in a neat way. When there are problems in a person's heart it generates electricity in a spiral pattern. I'm off topic now, but there's a problem like this with XIV's world, no?

[Anonymoose]

Moose did a screenshot comparison a couple weeks back... he being a doubter of it too.

The way I keep saying this is: "Every expansion there are 100 arguments that X kinda looks like Y ergo we can make an inference that... which are kinda crazy, and in the end 99 are APOPHENIA STRIKES AGAIN...but 1 always incidentally turns out to be exactly what the devs were trying to surprise us with."

Think back to Shadowbringers. It turns out we really could identify a Miqo'te by his lips. Exarch was G'raha. But remember also that many bought into the idea that the top of his staff bore such a strong resemblance to a simplified FFXII Zodiark that he was "obviously" going to join the Dark side. Recall how many thought there was "no way" we were going to walk away from Shadowbringers without embracing Darkness. How many by comparison predicted Emet-Selch and Elidibus would both die recognizing their plans were flawed in a tragic concession that it may have been doomed from the start?

Connecting the entire history of Sharlayan and Amaurot because a spiral was used in an abstract statue in Anyder is a big leap. But SE is looking to shock us, and some of that architecture is pretty dang similar...

That abstract statue actually does bear a pretty strong resemblance to a Sharlayan aetheryte now that we've seen those.

And Venat's group did meet at Anyder...

Sometimes people land those big leaps, lol.

[Vyrerus]

Sometimes people land those big leaps, lol.

Heh, honestly I've always thought that the Exarch's initial staff looked like the metal thingie hanging off the front of Emet's coat.

Either makes sense, considering it's probably an Allagan staff he found in Ye Olde Syrcus Tower.

[Veloran]

Think back to Shadowbringers. It turns out we really could identify a Miqo'te by his lips. Exarch was G'raha. But remember also that many bought into the idea that the top of his staff bore such a strong resemblance to a simplified FFXII Zodiark that he was "obviously" going to join the Dark side.

Because the Exarch was intended as a direct parallel to the Ascians generally and Emet-Selch specifically.

Recall how many thought there was "no way" we were going to walk away from Shadowbringers without embracing Darkness.

That did happen though. In the end WoL was saved by Emet-Selch's darkness and goes on to defeat Elidibus' Warrior of Light as the Warrior of Darkness.

How many by comparison predicted Emet-Selch and Elidibus would both die recognizing their plans were flawed in a tragic concession that it may have been doomed from the start?

Not exactly the most accurate characterization. Neither of them renounce their plans.

[Cilia]

Because the Exarch was intended as a direct parallel to the Ascians generally and Emet-Selch specifically.

I feel like this one is forcing the evidence to fit the idea; and G'raha / Exarch never joined the "Dark" side anyway. Regardless, this is an argument made in hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20.

That did happen though. In the end WoL was saved by Emet-Selch's darkness and goes on to defeat Elidibus' Warrior of Light as the Warrior of Darkness.

Not per sé - the argument was that the PC would be abandoning the Light / Hydaelyn and joining with the forces of Darkness due to a "tyranny of the Light" situation. That's... not exactly what happened: yes, there was a tyrant of the Light (Vauthry) but he was created by the Dark (Emet-Selch). Hydaelyn was in no way responsible for the Flood of Light or using it to her advantage. We did defeat Elidibus as the Warrior of Light, but that whole situation was crafted to emphasize the moral greyness of the situation - Light with the trappings of Dark (PC / Azem) vs. Dark with the trappings of Light (Elidibus).

Certainly there's no small cross-section of the playerbase who wishes to turn on the Light / Hydaelyn... but the story hasn't gone there. (Yet, at any rate.)

Not exactly the most accurate characterization. Neither of them renounce their plans.

No, but they do come to the acceptance their fights were somewhat futile and pointless - particularly Elidibus, who in his final moments finally understands the schism in Amaurotine society he summoned himself to mend couldn't be fixed. "We had disagreements in the past before, always fleeting. But not this time. Not this time." or somesuch. As for Emet-Selch, one of the short stories shows him questioning whether the fight's worth continuing after 12,500 years, and it's implied he knows what he's doing is wrong, but he soldiers on because he's unwilling or unable to accept the world as it is and to help Elidibus (who, being a primal, is bound to carry out that directive regardless).

[Anonymoose]

Certainly there's no small cross-section of the playerbase who wishes to turn on the Light / Hydaelyn... but the story hasn't gone there. (Yet, at any rate.)

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

they do come to the acceptance their fights were somewhat futile and pointless - particularly Elidibus

I think most of my perspective actually comes from interactions with Elidibus. Emet-Selch was more focused on us not validating his Azem headcanon. Y'shtola tells Elidibus that "Remember us..." was as much a message to him as the Warrior of Light: Emet-Selch was throwing in the towel, conceding the future to the Warrior of Light and their kind and, at least in my interpretation, saying, "We just wanted to be saviors. We never intended to become the monsters we became. I know how unfair it is to ask, but please remember us for who we were, and tried to be, as much for what we've done in the end."

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

But when Elidibus dies, he has a very different tone. Pulling lines from multiple languages here: "I thought that if I gave myself over to Zodiark, I could save everyone." (I read: "I was mistaken about that assumption.") "I believed that if I did everything right, I would look upon their smiling faces, and this nightmare would finally end." (I read: "I was mistaken about that assumption.") "My friends, how could I have been the last to go? To abandon you for this early realm as you went on alone..." (I read: "I was mistaken to keep fighting.")

[EaraGrace]

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

Even in English, Elidibus' conviction and inflexible perspective was clear. It's odd, but in 5.3 he sounded more like Lahabrea then Emet, where earlier he seemed to dip his toes in the same kind of approach that Emet would later try with the WoL. Of course, like you point out, in the end he came to the same realization as Emet.

[YianKutku]

Not exactly the most accurate characterization. Neither of them renounce their plans.

I would say they came much closer than Lahabrea, who died still in disbelief that his Perfect Plans were flawed. Elidibus certainly expressed doubt near the end, and I'm quite certain Emet-Selch's last words were an admittance that his plans had failed, so he needed to at least go out with something worthwhile in the short time he had before dissipating.

Elidibus's reaction to this? Rage. (Especially in German.) Subdued rage. Fury and disappointment that Emet-Selch could come so far and be so wrong as to suggest entrusting the star having a future to the sundered. In some languages he goes so far as to call Emet-Selch "unworthy of being called an Original." There is no room for questioning Elidibus or Zodiark's will; Emet-Selch needed one thing: correction.

I see this as an extension of the primary message FFXIV has throughout its entire story arc: that life is painful and difficult, and we can never know the truth for certain, and we will make mistakes that have repercussions beyond ourselves, but for all of that, we must still live on. It was a little subdued in ARR, but definitely slammed into our faces in Heavensward and Stormblood.

So the characters who had absolute certainty that they were right has always had that faith questioned, and whether they admit to doubt and retrospection is the divide between hero and villain. Which doesn't even mean they have to change their actions: Estinien knows that his nation is built on a lie, and humans and dragons can live together in peace, but that doesn't mean his duty of slaying (or at least permanently stopping) Nidhogg has changed.

So I can see where Venat and the Convocation both come from: both had very limited time and information to work with, and both needed to make a decision now (albeit at different times for different reasons). The difference, in my view, is that the Unsundered became rigid in their dogma, where their way must be the one way and no other, to the detriment of their own fellows in the Sundered Convocation.

Meanwhile, Venat via Hydaelyn has expressed humility and contrition, while still also believing that what she needed to do hasn't changed. She accepts that she could be wrong, but absent any convincing evidence of such, she remains on her course.

So everyone, from Alphinaud to Fordola to Hraesvelgr to Hydaelyn, need to accept that choices are necessarily made without perfect knowledge, and so these choices may be the wrong choices. But the choices need to be made nevertheless, and if it turns out to be wrong, to accept the consequences thereof. Alphinaud and Fordola never demanded forgiveness from those they wronged, only humbly asking for it. If no forgiveness was given, they just had to live with that.

And that is, in the message of FFXIV, simply life.

[Cilia]

Hypothesis: Even if Endwalker revealed that Venat made mistakes and tough decisions but ultimately meant well, most of the people you're talking about here will still take a "See, I told you she was an irredeemable monster." victory lap.

Its weird to me that many of the same people who will argue in defense of the Ascians also seem to want Venat to have flaws so they can make her out as an irredeemable monster. Seems contradictory to me.

My read on it is the aforementioned cross-section doesn't much care; Hydaelyn / Venat sundered the world (all but annihilating Amaurotine civilization and drastically reducing the lifespan of mortal beings) and lied about the origin of her conflict with Zodiark, which is enough to make them irredeemable monsters. Never you mind that Shadowbringers took pains telling us we should at least try to understand people before passing judgment on them, or the possibility the whole thing was an accident.

Flawed characters are necessary for good stories. I'm fine with Venat / Hydaelyn being flawed, but vilifying either to make the Ascians look good in comparison doesn't really fly with me - not least because we haven't heard her side of the story.