Zodiark's Codex entry what do we think about it?

[Iscah]

Hydelean

Thanks for providing the codex quote, but it needs a spelling check.

I find Light's association with peace and tranquility at odds, considering all we see of Light and refulgence in Shadowbringers.

Light is primarily stasis – representing tranquility in contrast to the activity of Darkness, neither of those being a bad thing in moderation.

The First is an example of what happens when Light goes too far, past a pleasant degree of tranquility and into a destructive form.

So, what precisely was your intentions in starting this thread? Because the tone comprised withing is coming across as oddly combative, is there anyone even still invested in starting this particular duel anew? Discuss Lore please, do not attempt to incite certain posters to come duke it out here. The exact nature of the sacrifices seem to do little but start embattled rows these days, and most here I say claim to be rather weary of that fight.

This is further actual information (if still frustratingly vague) on the nature of the sacrifices. Just because people on both sides of the argument make it a misery to try to have the discussion doesn't stop it from being a lore question that those of us in the middle would like an answer to.

If you're going to accuse people of being "oddly combative" then your own post is coming across that way too.

How low does one have to be relegated to to think outright offing oneself is the best they can contribute to the greater good?

The maths gets rather altered by the fact that there is a literal world-destroying calamity looming and the only way to solve it is by people volunteering to sacrifice themselves.

In normal life he is quite happy to live and support his friends. In this situation he decided that the best way to support them is to be one of the sacrifices so that they can go on living.

[TowaIsBestGirl]

Light is primarily stasis – representing tranquility in contrast to the activity of Darkness, neither of those being a bad thing in moderation.

I was basically saying I do not consider an absence of a driving force inciting change to be tranquility be default. It's one interpretation to be sure, but it certainly isn't the only one. Absence of change can just as easily be a creepy, disquieting void of nothing as it can be a tranquil sea with no waves to disrupt equilibrium. When "Light" is brought to the fore in FFXIV, the most prominent example from what I can recall is a direct threat to both the Scions and the world of the First.

The instances before that, especially insofar as Hydaelyn are concerned, the element in question being Light was less of a prominent detail than it was during the events of Shadowbringers. Which is the expansion where the finally deigned to give us the true details of what comprised Umbral and Astral aether. That's why I find it odd to consider it tranquil by default, since when the specifics were explained we were dealing with a threat comprised of being whose aether had been stilled to violent effect.

This is further actual information (if still frustratingly vague) on the nature of the sacrifices. Just because people on both sides of the argument make it a misery to try to have the discussion doesn't stop it from being a lore question that those of us in the middle would like an answer to.

If you're going to accuse people of being "oddly combative" then your own post is coming across that way too.

Fair enough. Though, to be frank I never discounted myself from that. Either way, future escalation sadly cannot be forestalled by taking no action at all so I refused to do that. I'm wary as to future details we may or may not get, to be quite honest however. I can't help but get a sinking feeling it'll satisfy either only one party and enrage the other or satisfy nobody. Too early to tell, though. Even then, I don't imagine we'll be getting any future detail after Pandaemonium neither. This may well be the end of the Ancient clarifications. Which is weird, since imo Pandaemonium gave us more questions than answers.

Anyway, to Sanna I wasn't being fair to you 'twould seem and for that you have my apologies.