Primal confusion - spoilers

[Andres_Lonegrief]

After completing the story quests I'm a bit confused about the primals' origins since what we have learnt so far doesn't really match. I guess I missed a few pieces.

FFXIV (1.0 and 2.0)
We know that during the Silvertear battle in Mor Dona, the Garleans fought against Dragons and that the Midgarsomir destroyed the Agrius (the big airship we can see and raid in Mor Dona) causing a massive aetherical explosion that allowed Primals to roam in Eorzea (still, they need crystals and prayers to acquire a physical form).

We can see this in the 1.0 opening movie (where Titan and Ifrit are first seen).

In 2.0 we just know that the beast tribes love summoning primals to get rid of people or to protect themeselves (the sylphs).

Known primals: Odin, Bahamut, Ifrit, Titan, Garuda, King Mog (more or less), Leviathan, Ramuh, Shiva.

HEAVENSWARD
Here we learn that Primals aren't real gods but an aberration of what the beats tribes think their "gods" are.
This makes sense with King Mog and could be ok with almost every primal except Ramuh: he wants to test the Warrior of Light's strength and isn't really an enemy. How come?

Also, if the Silvertear battle allowed the primals' spirit to roam in the lifestream, this means that the primals have an identity regardless of the beast tribes' representation, which doesn't fit with what we have learntin Heavensward.

Finally, we know that Tiamat learnt to summon Bahamut back when the allagans were a society (so long before Silvertear's events). What "sealed" the primals back then?

[Cilia]

What's the question exactly?

Primals are, according to Igeyorhm, "the embodiment of mortal desire." They are, essentially, ideas given sentience and a corporeal form that sustain themselves with aether.

EDIT

On Ramuh
"... the embodiment of mortal desire." The sylphs, unlike every other beast tribe, are not belligerent in the slightest. They're a few fries short of a Happy Meal by human standards, but they're kind and helpful. Ramuh's major personality trait, the thing that drives him (like Garuda's lust for destruction and Ifrit's desire to dominate everyone) is a desire for reconciliation - hence why tempered sylphs sometimes kidnap un-tempered ones, and Ramuh is willing to give you a chance at proving mortal goodness.

Even then, Ramuh still embodies the worst traits of the sylph - he passes harsh judgment on all mortals because of Garlean incursions, and forces you to defend your ideals and the world with your life. Not too different from most primals, the only thing different is that he isn't aggressive and gracefully accepts his defeat because he knows being manifested on the physical plane isn't good for the world.

On the Ease of Summoning
Whatever Midgardsormr was doing in and around Silvertear Lake for God knows how long, it was keeping a great reservoir of aether dammed up (I think). It was still possible to summon primals before his "death," but it was much harder. So to answer the question, it was Midgardsormr.

On Primals in the Lifestream
It's kind of vague? Far as I can figure a primal only exists (in the Lifestream or otherwise) if someone acknowledges them. In other words without someone to acknowledge their existence, then the primal too will disappear from the Lifestream without someone to give it a basis for a personality or consciousness. Not saying much since Midgardsormr and the Ascians have been around since time immemorial, but even so.

Or maybe they just go Ozma. /shrug

[Andres_Lonegrief]

What's the question exactly?

Primals are, according to Igeyorhm, "the embodiment of mortal desire." They are, essentially, ideas given sentience and a corporeal form that sustain themselves with aether.

There, post completed.I don't think this thing really match with the rest of our lore

[WyrahFhurrst]

After completing the story quests I\\'m a bit confused about the primals\\' origins since what we have learnt so far doesn\\'t really match. I guess I missed a few pieces.

Primals are thoughtforms created through a ritual known as summoning. The people doing the summoning bring great quantities of aether together and use their willpower and thoughts to give that aether a form and a personality, thus forging a Primal into existence. That primal can be elementally aspected, or not, though usually they are (thusfar, as we've seen). They can even be combinations of elements, as is the case with Ravana and Bismarck. Further, a wielder of the Echo can summon a Primal form around themselves, and wield its power (as Iceheart does to Shiva).

All in all, Hraesvelgr tells us Primals are made up by their summoners, and no, you don't summon the immortal soul of a dead person and bring them back as a Primal (lookin' at you Bahamut and Shiva).

To complicate matters, Thordan and the Twelve Knights wear Primal forms of themselves, so essentially tempering themselves to an idealized image of themselves, mostly leaving them mentally the same, but overall leaving them even more devoted to the Archbishop, their Godking. Presumably the aether they use for these forms is their own, so it drains them, but they also supplement that with the faith of 1000 years of Ishgardian worship, so they can maintain those forms probably indefinitely. Thordan's just so powerful because he uses the Eye of Nidhogg, along with some of the power of the Warring Triad, who are not Primals but Eikons.

As we are told, Eikons are not simply Primals by another name as the Garleans like to think. They stole the word from Allagans, and the Allagans used the term for something much more powerful. The Eikons we know of right now are Odin and the Warring Triad.

Hope this helps clear some things up.

[Frederick22]

What may have happened on Silvertear ins that the seal that was there was just to make the summoning even more harder. That what I think. Before that summoning a primal could have not been as easier was before, also it may have released lots of aether.

[VargasVermillion]

Could the difference between primals an eikons be: primals are the same being summoned from aether whereas eikons are 'recreations' of a being through the same method? So Bahamut for example is an eikon, a vision of a being whereas ifrit is the same aetherial being each time he's summoned?

[jomoru]

Could the difference between primals an eikons be: primals are the same being summoned from aether whereas eikons are 'recreations' of a being through the same method? So Bahamut for example is an eikon, a vision of a being whereas ifrit is the same aetherial being each time he's summoned?

I think it may be the other way around

[Enkidoh]

As we are told, Eikons are not simply Primals by another name as the Garleans like to think. They stole the word from Allagans, and the Allagans used the term for something much more powerful. The Eikons we know of right now are Odin and the Warring Triad.

But isn't this just the same thing - an aetheric entity that is summoned? Even back in 1.0 it was made specifically clear the term 'eikon' is just another name for Primal (it is a Greek word where the English word 'icon' is derived from), hence the Garleans used it as a derogatory phrase (so much so, the beastmen actually hate the term) - early in the 1.0 Gridanian story Miounne actually used the term in that way, and Nananoby during the Path of the Twelve story actually chastised the player's Path Companion for using it in such a way:

Path Companion: "Do the eikons really have the power to move the hearts of so many?"
Nananoby: "You had best not speak that name around the beast tribes, lest you incur their wrath. 'Eikon' is a derogatory term used by the Garleans to reflect their belief that the Primals are not true gods, but mere beasts which the ignorant tribes mistakenly worship."

Of course much has been retconned from 1.0, but given the fact that throughout ARR's main scenario the game's narrative pretty much upheld this idea of primal=eikon, call me stubborn or in denial, but I'm still sticking to this definition.

[Velox]

From what I've gathered, Primals are beings consisting of pure aether manifested into a form. They only exist if there is enough desire for them to exist and aether available to sustain them. Given that we are given Odin as an example of a true Eikon, what sets him apart from all other primals is that his existence is not sustained via desire/prayer but through a physical object, Zantetsuken. I'm specualting that, in essence, an Eikon has a physical component to its identiy whilst a Primal is strictly made of aether. Because of this, an Eikon would not be bound in power as a Primal would (Primal power is relative to the amount of aether used to summon them). An Eikon would also have it's own free will, whilst a Primal's will is determined by its summoners.

[WyrahFhurrst]

But isn't this just the same thing - an aetheric entity that is summoned? Even back in 1.0 it was made specifically clear the term 'eikon' is just another name for Primal (it is a Greek word where the English word 'icon' is derived from), hence the Garleans used it as a derogatory phrase (so much so, the beastmen actually hate the term) - early in the 1.0 Gridanian story Miounne actually used the term in that way, and Nanonoby during the Path of the Twelve story actually chastised the player's Path Companion for using it in such a way: (more coming)

We aren't given the specific definition of Eikon yet, but we are told there is a difference. The difference may be that Eikons do not require summoning and exist on their own as a sort of living god. If you haven't done the start to the 3.0 EX Primals, I can see why that seems confusing, but it's what we're told, so hold onto your butts for some more lore in coming patches.