The Reasoning behind The Sundering? (*6.0 Endwalker Spoilers*)

[KageTokage]

We still don't even know if Zodiark could've actually brought back those who were sacrificed as true resurrection has repeatedly been shown as something out of reach of man and the cycle of life and death something that cannot be reversed, so sacrificing countless lives in the name of possible benefit, especially if those lives were sentient beings like the beast tribes comes across as...questionable.

The sudden shift in the Ancients' attitude of finding death in service to the star acceptable to something terrible that needed to be undone comes across to me as a likely product of Zodiark's tempering them with the selfsame desire he was summoned with; to return the world to the way it once was.

[Kordarion]

We still don't even know if Zodiark could've actually brought back those who were sacrificed as true resurrection has repeatedly been shown as something out of reach of man and the cycle of life and death something that cannot be reversed, so sacrificing countless lives in the name of possible benefit, especially if those lives were sentient beings like the beast tribes comes across as...questionable.

The sudden shift in the Ancients' attitude of finding death in service to the star acceptable to something terrible that needed to be undone comes across to me as a likely product of Zodiark's tempering them with the selfsame desire he was summoned with; to return the world to the way it once was.

The reason Zodiark could have brought back the dead was that, as we see on the moon, the souls of the ancients sacrificed to Zodiark remained within his essence. As far as I can tell they weren't trying to bring back those who died in the final days but rather were planning on sacrificing other life to replace the aether of their sacrificed brethren. Like replacing a battery but with souls and a potentially unwilling replacement.

[Cleretic]

We still don't even know if Zodiark could've actually brought back those who were sacrificed as true resurrection has repeatedly been shown as something out of reach of man and the cycle of life and death something that cannot be reversed, so sacrificing countless lives in the name of possible benefit, especially if those lives were sentient beings like the beast tribes comes across as...questionable.

The sudden shift in the Ancients' attitude of finding death in service to the star acceptable to something terrible that needed to be undone comes across to me as a likely product of Zodiark's tempering them with the selfsame desire he was summoned with; to return the world to the way it once was.

You can definitely question whether it was an influence of Zodiark or whether it was just... horrifically poor coping mechanisms. Both are equally viable.

I personally read it more as the latter. These are people insanely comfortable in their ways, who both haven't seen any meaningful hardships and have lived comfortably at the top of a status quo for ages. So when something horrible happens, they just don't have any practiced mental process on how to deal with it. This leads to them making bad decisions, because quite frankly, the right decision is way harder. And I suspect a similar reason is why they so immediately betrayed their ideals; because up until then, their ideals were easy to uphold, since they benefited from them. When things suddenly turned in such a way where their comfort and their ideals were at odds? That's even hard for modern humans to uphold, and we're used to asking ourselves those questions.

[Rulakir]

The more I've thought about it, the more I've realized why the "new life" conflict would not have worked. It seems clear the writers want the players to like the Ancients, we're even meant to like Hermes. Had the new life contained humanoids they would've been even more vilified in players' minds. Likewise, had Hydaelyn's primary reason for the sundering been to protect new life in the absence of humanoids then she would have come across as some kind of "vegan eco-terrorist", as one person put it, and we're supposed to like her too. It also doesn't make any sense for the Ancients to sacrifice themselves to bring back non-Ancient humanoids. The priority would have been on restoring the basics for the planet to be inhabitable, re-creating ecosystems, etc.

As for the rest, the Ancients who sacrificed themselves to Zodiark didn't return to the star, which changes things substantially. I wouldn't want the souls of my loved ones trapped inside of a primal indefinitely either. I'm surprised they went that direction because, in my mind, it makes the third sacrifice far more justifiable if only in terms of their souls being released.

[Lyth]

I suppose it's fine to trap souls in Zodiark if they aren't from Amaurot, then.

...

This was a binary decision, with Venat's faction on one side, and the Convocation and the rest of society on the other. Do you sacrifice the lives of the other, lesser souls on the star to bring back your dead friends to resume their roles as 'stewards', or do you move forward into the future with the survivors that you have? The convocation refused to negotiate, so Venat became Hydaelyn and performed the sundering. If Elidibus is negotiating this discussion, it's going to be to one of these two viewpoints regardless.

So at the end of the day, either Elidibus convinces to Venat's faction to agree with the Convocation's plan, they sacrifice all the non-Ancients on the planet and happily live out a hedonistic lifestyle until Zodiark runs out of batteries and they all die, or Elidibus convinces the Convocation to act responsibly and listen to Venat. Although I would question how effective he'd be at any of this post-summoning, with his mind and memories in shambles. I'd also question why Elidibus arguing the case would make things any different than when Venat or her friends tried. Emet thought that he was a bore. And as the recording of Venat points out in Anamnesis Anyder,

'Yet it is plain they will not countenance a permanent solution. That being the case, we must ask ourselves a simple question: are we prepared to pursue our chosen course, even should it mean suffering the eternal condemnation of our brethren? If so, I see no further reason to demur. Let us bring forth the Light that shall ever after keep the Darkness in check.'

It doesn't matter, at the end of the day, if the Convocation could be made to come around to Venat's viewpoint. Is this the right thing to do? If so, then act.

The bit about the Eighth Umbral Calamity is a false analogy. Had they said 'Let's use Zodiark to prevent the Final Days from even happening,' then you could compare the two. But we don't know if that's in the scope of Zodiark's powers or not, nor was it ever suggested. For 'Stewards of the Star', the snippets we get of Amaurot show that it's a very insular society that isn't really all that interested in what happens outside of its own walls. Calamity affecting an advanced civilization on another continent? Why is that our issue? Volcano about to wipe out a village and some delicious polygonal grapes? Well, let's chat philosophy about it while it erupts. If it doesn't immediately impact their cozy lifestyle, they're not that concerned about it. They were all too happy to live with a temporary fix.

[Apothecarist]

The reason why Venat performed the sundering was to weaken mankind's innate aetheric power which would take creation magic out of the equation and make mankind mortal.

The sundering cutscene showed that the majority of Amaurothians would do anything other than embracing the fact that despair and suffering were part and parcel of living. Venat knew this would prevent the ancients from ever defeating Meteon and truly stopping the end day. And although it was never explained, this also implies that Zodiark was probably not a long-term solution to stop the final days. The star would probably eventually run out of aether. I suspect this may be explored post 6.0.

In any case, we know that primals require alot of aether to sustain so I am guessing that constant sacrifice is required to keep Zodiark going. Knowing Venat, this probably went against her principles and the sundering could be partially attributed to her own selfish ideals. The results were clear.

1. Mankind lost the power for creation at will and had to constantly strive for survival. This suffering allowed mankind (or at least the scions) to develop the fortitude to not relent even when experiencing utter despair. This was key to defeating Meteon.

2. Curtailed Zodiark's power and allowed him to be jailed on the moon. This prevented the final days while reducing the amount of aether required to sustain him until mankind was ready to face Meteon. There is no evidence for the latter but also no evidence that Zodiark continued to consume a large quantity of aether. Haedelyn might have directly controlled the amount of aether being fed to Zodiark and was only giving enough to sustain him.

3. Might not have been intentional but the reduction in mankind's aether also allowed man to sense and utilize Dynamis as a power. This was used to overcome the despair in Ultima Thule, and more importantly allowed Meteon to overcome her own despair.

But perhaps more importantly, how was Venat even able to enact the sundering. Wouldn't it have required immense strength? It was not clear how many followers she had. Could there be more behind this?

EDIT: Ultima Thule also suggests that the paradise that the Amaurothian sought was bound to fail. Had the sundering not happened, Etherys would have been just another example on Ultima Thule.

[Necrotica]

Remember in all of this Azem did not side with Venat and the others that wanted to summon Hydaelyn. So it is possible that writers want us to recognize that Venat and the Convocation were both wrong.

[Lyth]

Not quite. Azem 'defected' and the seat was left empty before the Convocation had reached a decision on Zodiark. Venat's followers tried to send word out to Azem, but received no response. The real question is: where is Azem during all this?

The circumstances around Azem's departure were considered to be so grave that the Convocation refused to commemorate them with a soul crystal, and Emet had to make one in secret. I don't think that's a simple disagreement about a decision. Even when Azem had gone against the Convocation previously, Azem was just censured. With the likes of Hyth, Elidibus, and Emet all as close friends in Azem's corner, it would have to be something serious for which there was no simple defense. Something like, say, being accused of seriously injuring or even killing a senior Convocation member, perhaps? This is why I think we won't have a satisfactory resolution to these questions for another eighteen months.

[Ayche]

Let's not get sidetracked here. One side had respect for life, the other did not.
Let's not both-sides that fact here.

[Kordarion]

Let's not get sidetracked here. One side had respect for life, the other did not.
Let's not both-sides that fact here.

Which side is it that you think had respect for life? Because I've seen pro-hydaelyn and pro-zodiark/ancients people both claim their side has respect for life.