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

[Veloran]

You're making the mistake of assuming that everything that happened was Exactly According To Plan.

I can't really view the events surrounding Minfilia and the First as being anything other than proceeding exactly as she willed it to. And frankly, the fact that she never revealed the threat of Meteion and the purposes behind the sundering to the Ascians casts a shadow over the entire rest of the conflict.

However, you've made me realize something. In that Heavensward scene with Hydaelyn, she mentions that 'the darkness' will be unstoppable if the next Calamity is allowed to happen. First of all, kudos to the people who cast doubt on that 'darkness' being the Ascians and Zodiark, because now it makes sense that she could've been talking about the End of Days.

She was clearly not talking about Meteion in that situation. The context was entirely about Zodiark.

The easiest way to rectify the 8UC is to look at the letter Y.

It's more something like an N, because the second timeline is entirely predicated on the first.

[RyuDragnier]

She was clearly not talking about Meteion in that situation. The context was entirely about Zodiark.

Doesn't Hydaelyn switch between using "darkness" and Zodiark though? With Zodiark being used whenever she actually refers to him?

[Veloran]

Doesn't Hydaelyn switch between using "darkness" and Zodiark though? With Zodiark being used whenever she actually refers to him?

Before there was life, in the depths of the aetherial sea, Light and Dark did once dwell as one.

But the Darkness coveted power, and the balance was broken. Thus was I forced to banish Him unto the distant heavens, to forever remain apart. A moon bound.

Zodiark longeth to be made whole. For His restoration, for His resurrection, His servants labor without cease.

Seven times have they succeeded. Seven times hath the Darkness grown stronger. Seven times have I failed.

I don't really see how any of that can be referring to Meteion. Note the capitalized Him being used to refer to both "the Darkness" and "Zodiark".

[RyuDragnier]

I don't really see how any of that can be referring to Meteion. Note the capitalized Him being used to refer to both "the Darkness" and "Zodiark".

Thanks for that, it has been a while since I saw that cutscene and needed a refresher on that.

[Kordarion]

It's more something like an N, because the second timeline is entirely predicated on the first.

It is an it isn't. Because G'raha moved backwards in time from the source to the first it can been seen as an N because he is travelling between two different shards. But it can't be an N if we are talking about time travel, because neither vertical line in an N is connected, which therfore means they couldn't come from the same original timeline that was changed by the time travel. Instead what you would end up with is G'raha traveling between alternate timelines (eg: a multiverse) rather than traveling back in time. If you want to get technical, which I should have to begin with, about it, G'raha's actions are more like the letter P but where the semi-circle reconnects halfway down the P there would we a diagonal line going back towards the top of the P representing our new timeline. The stem of the P representing the original 8UC timeline, the semi-circle representing G'raha's time travel and the added diagonal line representing our current timeline.

If you wanted to be even more technical you would need to more semi-circles with arrows on them, both connecting the end of the diagonal line to the base of the P. the first of these semi-circles would have the arrow facing towards the bottom of the P and represent our journey to Elpis with the second semi-circle and arrow pointing towards the top of the diagonal line representing our return from Elpis. You could then double those two line in the same place to represent our journey to and from Pandaemonium.

[Veloran]

It is an it isn't. Because G'raha moved backwards in time from the source to the first it can been seen as an N because he is travelling between two different shards. But it can't be an N if we are talking about time travel, because neither vertical line in an N is connected, which therfore means they couldn't come from the same original timeline that was changed by the time travel. Instead what you would end up with is G'raha traveling between alternate timelines (eg: a multiverse) rather than traveling back in time.

I don't really have much reason to believe it isn't that type of time travel, given how none of this is established. Based on events in Endwalker I'm not even sure Elpis/Pandemonium is actually a timeloop rather than actual Back to the Future style retroactive time travel that changes the future on the fly, given the talk about "conjoining timelines" and Venat/Elidibus doing a do I/don't I dance of whether or not they remember WoL from the past.

[Kordarion]

I don't really have much reason to believe it isn't that type of time travel, given how none of this is established. Based on events in Endwalker I'm not even sure Elpis/Pandemonium is actually a timeloop rather than actual Back to the Future style retroactive time travel that changes the future on the fly, given the talk about "conjoining timelines" and Venat/Elidibus doing a do I/don't I dance of whether or not they remember WoL from the past.

Except we do have reason to believe that it is that type of time travel, both other instance of time travel in the game, Alexander and Elpis/Pandaemonium both clearly have us traveling into the past of OUR timeline, impacting the past of said timeline, to me it makes no sense that one of the three instances of time travel in the setting would operate on a fundamentally different nature of time travel, crossing between universes instead of crossing through time, when it doesn't have to and nothing suggests it is from a different universe in a theoretical multiverse that as far as I am aware has never been hinted at.

[Veloran]

Except we do have reason to believe that it is that type of time travel, both other instance of time travel in the game, Alexander and Elpis/Pandaemonium both clearly have us traveling into the past of OUR timeline,

You mean except for the times Venat talks about divergent timelines conjoining again, right?

it makes no sense that one of the three instances of time travel in the setting would operate on a fundamentally different nature of time travel,

Why? It produces a completely different outcome. In fact all three major instances produce notably different effects from one another. It may be none of them are the same types of time travel.

[Kordarion]

You mean except for the times Venat talks about divergent timelines conjoining again, right?

Just because you travel into your own past doesn't mean the future has to be the same, if we say that you can change the past and you remain in the new timeline then you didn't return to where you started sure, but that doesn't mean you travelled to a different wholly sperate universe. The convergence could be, and if it happened is, the merging of two branches of the timeline together, two branches that have the same starting point that connects them to their unbranched past. For example I can cross my fingers together into one unit and they still have the same origin point, my hand.

Why? It produces a completely different outcome. In fact all three major instances produce notably different effects from one another. It may be none of them are the same types of time travel.

Because in each example there are different non-time travel related elements at play, in G'raha's case he is actively trying to change the past, something that would most certainly cause a different effect than the others. So of course there will be a difference when human agency and choice enters into the equation, that doesn't however mean that the method is different especially seeing as Elidibus appears to use G'raha's knowledge of time travel, that he learnt from the blood crystal in 5.3, to send us to Elpis the exact same way G'raha used to journey to his past to change the future. So if the method is the same then it has to be something else that cause the differences doesn't it? Also I'm not sure if its true but I heard someone say that the 8UC based its time travel tech off of Alexander which would mean all three methods are interlinked if true.

I think all of this would be so much less convoluted if they hadn't have written the 8UC short story and then we could say that whatever you do in the past changes the future instead of arguing over branch timelines and theoretical multiverses.

[Veloran]

Just because you travel into your own past doesn't mean the future has to be the same, if we say that you can change the past

Alexander would suggest that any changed past is never actually changed and was in fact always that way. Something that doesn't appear to be the case elsewhere where either things are explicitly different and divergent, or at least incredibly muddled.

in G'raha's case he is actively trying to change the past,

Venat was also trying to change the future. So what's the difference? Clearly G'raha's travel at least was fundamentally different somehow - Otherwise when WoL went back to the past you were actually leaving behind a doomed timeline and entering a new one. The entire thing is so borked that I can't even discount such a possibility, because when discussing this we have practically zero ground to stand on for any perspective.