The Dark Divinity 3.0

[Shirobi]

That's taking a leap of faith on the head cannon train.

Though it is an interesting idea that the sword was sealed in the crystal rather than Odin's body.

But for now Primals are Primals and Eikons are Eikons. Unakale seems to have been hinting at the idea that Eikons are fundamentally diffrent beings at a basic level.

While Primals are simply a summoner's thoughts given form using Aether as a catalyst (Totally called that one BTW) while Eikons seem to be living beings who don't need to be summoned. Thus why they could potentially be far more dangerous.

The idea that the 3 are the riad was expressed in a dev chat. Only leap of faith is that it was the sword locked in the font. The actual Odin is apparently locked in a ship somewhere, so what else could be locked in there?

And they specfically stated that Eikons and Primals are the same thing. Its just an older word.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...47#post3271647

[Februs]

Odin is however an example of a rather unique primal and goes to show our understanding of Eikons is still limited. Further it raises the question where the sword originally came from. There is also the question on why Odin's original personality seems to be dominant still after several body swaps if the sword itself is the primal.

I assumed this was the case. I had a feeling that Odin was being misjudged based on the dialogue we are given from the FATE. I'm glad I was right.

As for the sword, it could be that Odin and Zantetsuken are fundamentally compatible. From what little we know about the sword, the most we can assume about it is that it craves combat at it's very core. Further, it craves combat with the strongest of opponents. My guess would be that Zantetsuken was completely fine with being wielded by Odin when he was on his rescue mission and fighting a near solo battle against the Allagans (whom we all know to be immensely strong), because he was giving the sword exactly what he wanted. However, once the fighting stopped, the sword would no longer be satisfied and would seek to drive Odin into further conflicts.

If the sword truly is a primal (albeit a very strange one), the stronger influence it held over Odin the more primal-esque he would become, making him vulnerable to a SMN's influence. It would be an interesting irony that Zantetsuken's very wish to get Odin to fight more intense battles would be the cause of Odin's eventual defeat.

This brings two more major questions though. The first relates to the lore told by the Odin minion. It claims that Odin first received his eastern styled blade from the cold dead hands of the fist warrior who managed to put a scratch on his armour. If that is true, then who was this warrior? Who used Zantetsuken first? Where did the blade come from? The second question relates to the nature of the sword. We know of no other primal who take the form of an object, rather than creature, and none of the other primals are without a source of summoning. Even Bahamut had a brood of dragons locked up keeping his essence alive. So, if this sword really is a primal, who is summoning it? I have a couple rather outlandish theories about this, but i don't know if the timeline of astral era's would fit or not...

[Februs]

Odin, Urth, and (Presumably Wiyu) are not dead, they are somehow connected to the Warring Triad which were locked inside the ship near Helix.

The thing locked inside Urth's Font was just the sword.

This is an interesting set of facts, but it brings even more questions. For one, why was Urth against the allagans? Perhaps it has something to do with the warring Triad. Given that the Allagans had the Warring Triad sealed, why would it be an issue? The only thing I can think of is that either Urth or the Allagans wanted to exploit the Triad in some way, and the other party was against it.

Further, who was Odin to her (most likely lover, given his rush to save her life, but it's an interesting history)?

Wiyu's place in this is the only one that is clear cut. Defending home and country makes enough sense. Though, if there is a link to the Warring Triad, then it is interesting that there are three main characters being dealt with here. If they represent or are thematically linked the the warring triad then there may be some hints in those links. For example, the warring triad is (rather simplistically) represented by 2 demons and 1 angel (even in FFXIV, with the statues) who are all equally at war with one another. If that's true, than the balance is somewhat off as it would have originally been 2 versus 1 (Odin and Urth on the same side). However, after Odin fell to Zantetsuken's influence, it may be closer to 1.v1.v1. Which leaves only one question. Which characters matches to which deities? Who are the demons and who is the angel?

[Kaiser-Ace]

The idea that the 3 are the riad was expressed in a dev chat. Only leap of faith is that it was the sword locked in the font. The actual Odin is apparently locked in a ship somewhere, so what else could be locked in there?

And they specfically stated that Eikons and Primals are the same thing. Its just an older word.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...47#post3271647

OOOOOH!!! That must be from the TGS interviews then. OK

I haven't seen the transcripts yet so I'm pretty behind on the lore bomb aftermath.

[Kaiser-Ace]

OOOOOH!!! That must be from the TGS interviews then. OK

I haven't seen the transcripts yet so I'm pretty behind on the lore bomb aftermath.

Update: I'm not behind anymore. Lol

Thanks for the link to Fern's thread.

[Rocl]

Eikon is just another word for primals. This was confirmed in the dev chat.

Ah, so we thought until the quest myahele linked where Urianger and Unukalhai, both of which seem to know a lot more about Primals than us (specifically the latter), inform us that Eikon and Primal are similar, but distinct. In the modern day, Garleans use Eikon to refer to Primals, but the Allagans used the word Eikon to refer to a distinct type of being similar to a Primal.

EDIT: There was a second page to this thread I didn't see, sec

The best we can figure out given in-game context and Ferne's post is that all Eikons are primals but not all primals are Eikons (and even that's a stretch I wouldn't want to make yet); there isn't information enough to say much more than "Garleans call all Primals 'eikon'" and there exists some form of distinction between 'primal' and 'eikon' given Unuhalkai's dialogue, though it may be more superficial than some of us think

Unukalhai: I sought you out that I might alert you to the rising threat of the beings known as eikons. ...You are aware of the threat, you say? Ah, but I speak not of the primals, with which you are exceedingly well acquainted. It may interest you to know that the term “eikon” and the beings to which it refers precede the Garlean Empire by eras.

Unukalhai: Ah, yes. The beings the Allagans dubbed eikons. How much we have yet to learn.
Unukalhai: Precisely how they stand apart from primals we have yet to determine. If they were summoned in a similar manner, then who was responsible, and how have they managed to endure for millennia?

[Berethos]

The best we can figure out given in-game context and Ferne's post is that all Eikons are primals but not all primals are Eikons (and even that's a stretch I wouldn't want to make yet); there isn't information enough to say much more than "Garleans call all Primals 'eikon'" and there exists some form of distinction between 'primal' and 'eikon' given Unuhalkai's dialogue, though it may be more superficial than some of us think

I think there's a couple possibilities here, admittedly among others. Either Unukalhai is misleading us (knowingly or unknowingly) with inaccurate information, though I'm not sure what he would stand to gain from that, or there's more to beings summoned by aether than our characters know, and it's to that which the little snake is referring.

Through the course of the MSQ we already learned that the Primals as we've seen them aren't truly creatures/deities that exist on their own but are a created image by those who summon them.

It's possible that the primals that we've faced so far, excluding Odin, are simply a subtype of summoned being, and that there were more powerful types (like Odin, that operated differently in terms of being summoned or sticking around) and that these are the Eikons that the Allagan empire faced, but still fall within the term "summoned beings" as referenced in Fernhalwes' post.

For me, the real question is what has led to Unukalhai making the distinction in the first place.

"Ah, but I speak not of the primals, with which you are exceedingly well acquainted. It may interest you to know that the term “eikon” and the beings to which it refers precede the Garlean Empire by eras. You see, it is the name by which the Allagans called godlike beings, the Dark Divinity Odin among them."

Notice that he doesn't say it's the name used by the Allagans to refer to summoned beings, just simply godlike beings, while also flat out saying he's not talking about the primals we've encountered so far. With Fernhalwes' post for context, it seems he's not 100% in his knowledge of these things, so it has me wondering why he believes they are different enough to be separate beings when according to the lore wrap up transcript they are at least in the same class of beings.

[Februs]

Notice that he doesn't say it's the name used by the Allagans to refer to summoned beings, just simply godlike beings, while also flat out saying he's not talking about the primals we've encountered so far. With Fernhalwes' post for context, it seems he's not 100% in his knowledge of these things, so it has me wondering why he believes they are different enough to be separate beings when according to the lore wrap up transcript they are at least in the same class of beings.

I'm not convinced that they are different at all.

He does explicitly state that there is a difference between Primals and Eikons; however, the little spawn fails to elaborate on any distinction in definition. Consider that "Eikon" simply means: "God like beings." What does "Primal" mean? Also, "God like beings." I don't recall summoning being a part of either definition, but nor is it necessarily absent from either definition. So, really, there is no difference in definition between Eikon or Primal. The only distinction that the spawn makes is that they are god like beings that we have not yet been acquainted with, but that would make sense, given that we have not been to Allag (or at least not seen any summons related to the Allagans except for Bahamut, who, I should point out, was not included in the spawn's list of Primals that we've been acquainted with) or the Garlean Empire.

As far as I can tell, the term "Eikon" is completely interchangeable with "Primal," and that spawn is simply using the term Eikon to refer to primals we have not yet met and are from a different Geographical origin. Basically, it seems to be a geographical distinction only. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When talking about Primals from Allag or Garlea (is that right? Garland? Garleand? I dunno), use the term Eikon.

That being said, I have noticed one distinct difference common to both "Elder Primals" that is not common among the normal Primals we have faced in the MSQ. The spawn (in case you hadn't picked up on this yet, this is the term I use for children, in this case that little masked freak with a long name) talks about the Primals we know in terms of the elements they relate to. All of the Lesser Primals have one or two elements that they are attuned with. Odin, Bahamut, and Alexander (the only three "Elder Primals" that we are currently aware of) do not. They are non-elemental creatures (which is why I pointed out Ark and Ozma earlier. I was trying to think of Powerful non-elemental Summons). That being said, both Bahamut and Alexander have followers who summoned them. Odin is the only odd Primal out.

[Februs]

The part about this that really gets the gears turning is the notion that Odin's true body is locked away somewhere else, and that only the sword was locked in Urth's Fount. If that's true, then it raises the question as to if Odin is, in fact, a Primal/Eikon at all.

This just makes me fall back to my previous theory that Odin is, quite simply, a Super Powered warrior whom, like the Warriors of Light, got so strong he crossed the threshold of attaining God-like powers (hence the term "Eikon" being applied to him). If that's true, than it's not even certain that the sword Zentetsuken is a Primal. The notes only refer to it as being "cursed" and having a corrupting influence.
Possible spoilers for those who have not completed MSQ.

I can see this feeding into the future lore of the story for a couple of reasons:

The first is the notion of the "Warrior of Darkness" who appears at the end of 3.0 MSQ. The Ascion who introduces this warrior does so because he says the balance must be restored. The Warrior of Light has grown too strong, strong enough to cross into the realm of the gods, and that the balance must be kept. Intro Warrior of Darkness.

From this we gain two facts. The first is that it is possible for a mortal to cross the threshold of "God-Like powers." This is pretty much irrefutable. It comes straight from the Ascion's lips and, lets be honest, we've been whopping so-called "God's" butts all up and down their own castles. The second fact is that mortal warriors crossing the threshold of God-like powers can go in one of two ways, Light or Dark. The constant struggle between the two is actually given physical shape in the Dark Knight lvl 50 quest line. So, I'd say it's safe to assume this is part of the lore.

It is possible, lore wise, that Odin really was no different than us, a Warrior crossing the threshold of attaining "God-Like Power," but, when he got to the cusp of crossing the line, he did so using the Dark side of his soul, as he was corrupted by Zantetsuken's influence.

[Februs]

The part that relates to the sword is the part that is a little more difficult to wrap our heads around (given that it has, apparently, been running around by itself, possessing bodies for the sake of killing stuff). The easiest way to explain the sword is to simply say that it is a Primal. After all, it can temper (or possess) people, it can cut pretty much anything, and it has a will of its own... sort of... a mix of wills between Odin and it, would be my bet. It is this mix, though, that makes me think the Sword might have a different connection to the Lore of the game.

For one, every weapon in the game has a means of becoming attuned to it's wielder. The system has been in place since forever. Spirit bonding. It could be that Zantetsuken is simply a supremely powerful sword that has been completely Spirit Bonded to Odin. For this reason, whenever it gets a new body, it fashions that body to Odin's likeness and will because of the bond they share. A Spirit bonded weapon cannot be used by another person. No matter who the sword possesses, it has to turn them into Odin.

Another interesting, and disturbing, thought is that Zantetsuken was forged the same way the Zodiac Zeta Weapons were forged. It has already been established in the lore that the original relic weapons from back in the day could never have been used by anyone other than their original owners because they had developed a sense of consciousness. They had a will. The Zeta questline had us reproduce the result by distinctly forging each section of the weapon's consciousness using mahatma. They became more than just weapons. They, supposedly, had minds of their own.

It could be that our Zeta weapons are one step shy of being exactly like Zentetsuken, or that the original zodiac weapons of eld (if they are still out there somewhere) could be like Zentetsuken... Or that Zentetsuken is one of the original Zodiac weapons. Given that we don't know the origin of the blade, or who used it first (as we know it was not Odin's originally), it is entirely possible that Zentetsuken is a Zodiac Weapon of the original Zodiac Braves, which may have lore implications for any future Relic Quests, if they make a new relic.