Thread: The Road to 5.0

Putting my answer into Spoilers because its too long and also still a bit off topic.

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Ah, but the times in fiction where the protagonist has done THIS VERY THING (putting the needs of loved ones ahead of the needs of the many) and still been presented as sympathetic and the good guy. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is NOT a hard-and-fast philosophical rule. The amount of literature debating this is endless. Heck, it's a decision that every one of us makes, each and every day. By liquidating all of your assets, selling your body's organs, and sending the money to feed starving citizens in other countries, you could potentially save dozens of lives at the cost of one (yours). Only a lunatic would consider not doing so to be "evil". Choosing self over strangers, family over nation, nation over the world - none of these decisions are inherently evil.

I honestly dont remember playing many games where the hero truly let the world burn to save someone dear to him and still be a complete good guy. More like quite morally grey. (Last of Us or Witcher 3 comes to my mind) And yes there is a discussion about certain aspects like if you would throw someone in front of a train if that saves other peoples life and stuff like that but I am more talking about a person that for example murders a whole town because someone that lives there had hurt his family. I would dare to say that our society would not accept this as anything less than evil.

About choosing one self over stranger: I am quite sure that there rules that if someone is in need of help you should provide is as long as it does not endanger your own life. Its also like if you kill someone in self defense it does not count as murder. But my example was more along the line of: Would someone truly not be evil if they do horrible things for their loved ones? For example you said that Yotsuyu was evil because she only did all those things for her own self. (And I do agree with that) Would she be less evil if she had a younger sister that would have lived through that and now she avenges this by hurting and killing the people? In her mind she would protect her dear sister and would chose her over strangers. But would that make her actions less evil? For me it does not because there is a difference between choosing not to help or actively do something bad.

In the end, for me, it all comes down to individual actions and situations. If you live in a world that for example is full of zombies but a lot of the surviving humans in that are worse then them, then I dont find it evil to protect the ones you love over their lifes. It would not make you a good person but honestly that probably is really hard to achieve in such a world. But if you go around and kill every red haired man in the world because such a man murdered your family does make you evil in my view.

Also you said that if someone does horrible stuff to help their nation to grow, that it would not count as evil. But wouldnt that give every horrible dictator their reason for not being called that way? No matter how many million people they have killed with wars and mass murder or genocide? Because in their view they only do this to make their country great. Also can we truly decide who does something for selfless or selfish reasons in that case? Maybe the ruler did this mostly for his own gain but it also helps his nation. What then?

About Thordan and Varis: I believe that those two are quite different. Thordan had the problem that his nation was probably truly doomed if he just told the people the truth without the actions we did at the same time (like trying for peace and then killing Nidhogg). Because his enemies were not other normal mortal races but the dragons, with someone as the leader that wanted them all deleted from history and so full of hate that nothing helped. Thats why I for example see him as less evil and more as morally black with a reason to be that way. (But still wrong in the end but only thanks to our power) Varis has (as far as we know) no such an enemy. Garlemald is the most advanced country in the world. Other than primals nothing could really truly stop them. So would his people really be doomed if he stopped conquering the lands? Its not like they had already tried it the diplomatic way and worked together with countries to get a good solution for the primal problem without enslaving serveral countries under their rule and trying to kill all those that could theoretically summon one.

In the end for me if someone does some really horrible stuff which includes pure cold blooded murder, genocide, experiments on people and more, they are evil for me. Maybe I see this too simple but otherwise I just feel that we would just give someone a free reign as long as he/she does it somehow for others.

Topic: After the trailers and the poem I do wonder where they will go with the story. I just really hope that its not going to be like "oh you did just do too much good because you helped a couple of countries and now everyone will also suffer" because I just dont find this to be a good way. Because it would always mean that we would theoretically have to stand by and let bad things happen for the balance.

(And how would we even know which action would count towards the balance in which way?)

About Elidibus: I just never understand him. If he would believe that we would join his side if we know the "truth", why not tell us? Also why allows us to be hurt or maybe even killed if he cares so much about balance? (Since we are the only one on the original world that are a help for the Light)

Originally Posted by ObsidianFire

With Elidibus, I keep going back to his interactions with the WoD. All he'd have had to do to come off as a truth-teller in that indecent was tell the WoD to go talk to Hydaelyn and see if she could help prevent the Flood of Light. Yeah, figuring out how to talk to Hydaelyn isn't easy (or is it for Warriors of Light?) but he would have been able to pull of an "I told you so" once Hydaelyn agreed to absorb the excess Light from the 1st Shard. It would have done a lot to boost his "I am acting for the balance" stance since the 1st Shard would have had less light after everything happened and would have been in balance. Instead he goes and tells them that the only way to bring balance is to increase the amount of Darkness, not on the 1st Shard, but throughout all the Shards. Which means decreasing our influence. So it seems he passes up an opportunity for balance to create discord among the forces of light.

The other thing I find interesting about the WoD situation, is that for there to be "less Light" on the First Shard, there doesn't have to be "increased Darkness". It's not like the Ascians or Zodiark have to do things to balance the shard out. Instead, Hydaelyn has to remove Light from it. Even if the Source has "too much Light" (and I do not think that is the case), that doesn't mean we have to necessarily being doing anything different. What it does mean is the Hydaelyn has to be absorbing excess light from the Source. Only, she's been getting weaker and weaker over the Eras. According to Lahabrea, the Ascians have been the ones behind that...

Thats exactly my problem with a flood of light or "Elidibus has been right" concept. Maybe he did not know that she could absorb it back into her but for me it makes more sense if he just used it as an easier way to create a rejoining because that would help his master. But this would be bad for Hydaelyn. If I remember it correctly she does absorb other shards only because she lost too much light in a calamity and is forced to take the shard back in to "survive". Wouldnt that mean that she is already so weak that she cant take a calamity without needing more ressources? Which would imply that she also is at a disadvantage for quite some time thus any kind of "we are getting too strong" just sounds like a trap. Also she could just take in the Light again thus our problem should be solved. And as you stated, the shard was saved just by removing light so it seems that at least for us, it would just be a good solution to simply do what we always do and let her take in Light if it gets too much.

But who knows what they have planned for the story. I just hope it makes sense in the end.

Maybe the end of the story will be that primals must still exist. That summonings might be bad if they are not stopped but that we should not find a solution to stop them from even being summoned. So it would be fine to kill them if the pop up but not to never let them be summoned again. And seeing how the spoken races including the beast tribes should be able to start conflicts even withouth Ascians I am quite sure that even if we do solve big problems, the smaller ones would still happen. Thus an evergoing fight and we are allowed to stop it when its happening, just not stopping it before it can happen. (Maybe that was also what the WoD did, they just stopped any conflict before it really started? Would be really interesting to get more information on their shard and actions)

Originally Posted by Cilia

I'm not of the mind that we're "winning too hard" at all. Hydaelyn is known to be in a weakened state as a result of the Ascians' machinations; Her shielding us from Ultima, according to Lahabrea, sapped the majority of Her remaining strength.

That said, if the Warriors of Darkness' description of what happened / is happening on the First Shard is accurate, it implies that Light could be an independent force from Hydaelyn - or that without Dark to counterbalance it, She is unable to stop Her power from, well... turning everywhere and everything into the Burn.

I think it just happened because she was so weak that she could not even help them with her own Light. I mean she could not even talk to us anymore without Minfilia and we are on the original one. But as soon as she got some power back she was able to sent Minfilia there to take the Light back in. So for me that just sounds like she could have controlled it by taking it back to her before it gets too much but was stopped because she grew too weak. We sadly did not get more information about the first shard afterwards but they made it seem like their problem was solved. So somehow the balance was created again without more Darkness. So I kinda wonder if we truly need Darkness as a big second force if she just can make it right again without that.

Originally Posted by Alleo

she does absorb other shards only because she lost too much light in a calamity and is forced to take the shard back in to "survive"

I've been trying to figure out where this started for ages.

We know only that a sufficient confluence of (presumable aetherial instability-related) chaos will "blow out" the "barrier" between a reflected dimension and the Source, causing the reflection to be essentially "deleted", reduced to pure aether, and rushed back into the Source dimension.

"Hydaelyn is knowingly eating them to survive." is quite a leap from that known point. (i.e. a valid theory, but just a theory)

Kudos to whoever called it from so far out if it proves to be true, but until then, that's a big ol' [citation needed], imho.

Originally Posted by The Word of the Mother

They seek to tear down the barriers which surround the Source.

Originally Posted by Warrior of Darkness

For there is but one way to restore the balance and save our home: the Ardor. Calamitous destruction with the power to break down the barriers between planes, and see our worlds rejoined.

Originally Posted by Adventurer's Journal

And so, to prevent this fate, they joined hands with the Ascians and came to the Source. Here, they intend to bring about another Umbral Calamity, for only through such unbridled destruction may the barriers between planes be broken down, and the First and the Source made one.

Alisaie
The Warriors of Darkness spoke of how the Ardor had the power to “break down the barriers between planes,” that our worlds might be rejoined. I would ask that you research this for us.

(Later...)

Urianger
Though their copious use of allegory defieth any single interpretation, the oracles paint a most disturbing picture─one of worlds parallel to our own, apart yet linked, reduced to ruin with every Umbral Calamity...

Alphinaud
"Seven times have they succeeded."
Then of ten and three, only six worlds remain.

Urianger
Aye. All is as my lady Minfilia spake unto thee.
As for what becometh of these reflections when they and the Source are rejoined...
Frail flesh undone in Umbral fires,
Each soul surrend'reth to Her call,
To flow unto the endless sea,
There to endure as one and none.

Alisaie
Then...then if the Warriors of Darkness succeed, everyone in their world will die?

Urianger
In essence, aye. The verse speaketh of the renunciation of the flesh, and subsequent return to the Lifestream. However, this fate may yet be preferable to the alternative, for if the First were to fall to transcendent Light in the manner the Warriors of Darkness described, it would give way unto a void wherein none may know either life or death. Far better to die, they reason─for in death there is life. The essence of a soul which returneth unto the Source may be born anew. Saved. Such, at least, is their belief, I surmise.

Originally Posted by Alleo

Oh well must have read that somewhere and thought it was the case, sorry. x_x

A number of redditors and streamers present this theory as fact to the exclusion of others, so that's my first suspect, lol.

Originally Posted by Alleo

Is her power Aether? Or is her power a special kind of one and thus seemingly the Light. (Or is Aether the Light and too much Aether in a world is bad for its people too?) She did get stronger when we gave her some crystals of Light back. And she was able to take back in the Light that was threatening the first shard, which imo should only be possible if she uses this as her power.

This is a little less clear, at the moment (as far as I know, anyway). To give you the best impression I possibly can will require essentially giving my own version of one of Minfilia or Urianger's PowerPoint presentations, lol.

I posit that there are sub-types of aether governing its behavior and capabilities, and that how aether might be converted from one "energy spectrum" to another is unclear, but that they are not compatible with one another. A number of phenomena suggest this to be true, even if the specifics are unclear.

Take, for example, the Eorzean belief that mortal death triggers a division of a living being's body (their corporeal form) and soul (their spiritual form). However, let's only consider this superficially. Eorzeans have a habit of being thematically accurate at best. They also believe that while the body breaks down into aether to nourish the Land, the spirit moves on to the afterlife to dwell in the halls of the Twelve, when as far as we know it moves through the corporeal rivers and out into the empyrean realm (the aetherial sea) to be shorn apart into uncountable pieces to flow back into the world and be reborn as life anew.

At the risk of digressing too far, this seems to explain how we are able to defeat Ascians. They transcend death and maintain their spiritual integrity without a corporeal frame, resisting the return to the Sea. Therefore, we bring a mimicry of Sea to them - a profusion of aetherial energy that shears their souls apart. But moving on.

When one casts magicks, they deplete an aetherial wellspring connected to their physical form. Alchemical potions called "ethers" (which can be made from elemental crystals) can restore this, or it will regenerate naturally with one's physical vitality as they consume food and rest. However, there are also magicks which tap a spiritual energy called "anima," (such as forging soulkin quasi-souls or teleportation) which can only regenerate with time (or the spiritual high from successfully defending a hamlet <ribs Legacy players>).

Take, for example, a primal summoning, which necessarily requires [corporeal aetherial energy] (land; often, but not exclusively, crystals) and [spiritual aetherial energy] (spirit; faith, prayer, willpower, desire). This forges a temporary physical-world housing for an "essence" drawn forth and materialized from the Sea. Suggestions so far point to the idea that most, if not all, summonings of this nature are actually creating a beacon to which are drawn all the uncountable pieces of a once-living thing whose soul has already been shattered, re-manifesting them as, at best, a shade; an overpowered elemental presenting itself as the thing it is believed to be. Disrupt the integrity of this being, and it simply dissolves into mist, its physical body flowing back into the land, the rest back into the Sea.

But back to the point.

We have confirmation that the "elemental" energy spectrum (the six elements + two polarities) is distinct from the (upper-case) "Light-Dark" energy spectrum. It's entirely possible that the souls of the great crystals are composed of aether that is incompatible with simply drawing elemental energies from the land, or pure life-force from the Sea.

Perhaps they must necessarily reclaim Light and Dark energy from the "reflected" dimensions into which they were scattered. Perhaps the "Crystals of Light" are unique because they are manifestations of the land's energies with a fragment of Her power at their core, allowing Her to empower Her champions beyond mortal limits and manifest "divine intervention" in the physical world, albeit at catastrophic cost.

Those that believe Hydaelyn is knowingly "consuming" the worlds to survive might even disagree on how She re-generates from this. Is it the aether of their planet, destroyed when the dimension was deleted, that allows Her to retain Her form without compromising the physical integrity of the planet in the Source dimension? Is it the pure life-force of all the souls who perished in the process? Or did She simply re-claim what Light was trapped there?

Do the Ascians require Dark energy to resurrect Zodiark? Are they targeting Dark-heavy worlds and only went for the First out of necessity because it was collapsing? Why does a rush of aether into the Sea make Hydaelyn - living in the Sea - weaker, but empower Zodiark, who, as far as we know, is trapped in a rift in the moon? Are the Ascians preparing to circumvent his imprisonment by consolidating Dark energies and summoning his reincarnation? How is Elidibus going to use the Warrior of Light to ensure that this happens? (to "forge the final key"?)

Please look forward to it.

I'd like to just say up front that this is just an opinion of mine - one that could very well turn out to be a mistaken.
It doesn't have as many citations as most things, there are other possibilities, etc. etc. etc.

I really struggle with the "We're winning too hard!" thing. The story went out of its way to show us that to do so is possible, but how confident should we be that this revelation was intended to be taken as foreshadowing something that accurately reflects what is coming for our world?

What if it was just Final Fantasy III-esque wallpaper for setting up the Warriors of Darkness and the complexity of Elidibus's schemes? What if it's a red herring to fill us with doubt and fracture speculation? What if that experience and knowledge is what stops us from going down that route when we finally come to that fork in the road?

We're "close" to Hydaelyn, who has been hit with seven straight failures. She can barely speak, and on the rare occasion She does, it's usually to us. (Isn't that usually Her excuse? That she can't control things Herself and can't speak to everyone? But She speaks to us on occasion. Would She leave out a necessary warning? She doesn't want a Flood, either.) Everywhere we go, more people die, larger aetherial disturbances are set off, greater chaos erupts, and just because we happen to stop that section of it and warily march off to the next - and even bigger - clusterfluff, we're "winning too hard"? I don't see it.

It always seems to be Elidibus selling these alternative facts. Usually to people he's misled about the context of...everything else.

So any theory that spins that yarn another direction I'm inclined to take seriously for the time being.