Thread: The Road to 5.0

Originally Posted by KageTokage

I'd like to hope the emperor has some kind of back-up plan in case things with Elidibus don't pan out as well as he hoped, though even if he did, with how prevalent the Ascian influence is in Garlemald it would probably be difficult to keep it hidden.

Him being referred to as a tactical genius is going to seem rather silly if he just ends up getting used as a tool, and I'm kind of surprised he was willing to cooperate with an Ascian when he should know full well they're the ones responsible for primal summonings even being a thing in the first place.

I tend to think he is only willing to do so much as long as it tends to benefit him. I lean towards both parties wanting to keep the other as ignorant as possible as to what the other hand is doing. It could be that Varis' access to allag tech is something he keeps tightly vs what he reports to Elidibus.

Just to point out a question.. How long does Elidibus think he has if he is truly the one who took Zenos' body? I would assume that he would be aware of displacement of a soul of the Elezen is the real Zenos and the ramifications of that decision couldn't be a long game motive. I would also think that Elidibus would be aware of the fact that they can manufacture Echo-touched individuals which would let the cat out of the bag quickly.

Maybe I need some clarity from you fine lovely folks?!?

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)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by King Mickey, Kingdom Hearts II

You can't have Light without Darkness, 'cuz Darkness is half of everything.

Expunging the Dark doesn't cause Light to grow too powerful, it causes Light to lose meaning... until there's nothing left. The only indication we have that "Light is winning too hard" is the Burn, which... well, if what we've been told is correct, is a result of too many primals being summoned, not rampant power of Light.

Off-topic philosophical nonsense.

Remember... the definition of "hero" is someone who uses their strength for the sake of others.

Now, while Varis may be a terrible villain to the Domans and Eorzeans - bringing his country's might to bear against them based on speculative reasoning - to the Garleans he's a great hero, using his military prowess to protect them from the savages who would do them and the planet harm. (Of course, if the average Garlean citizen would get out there and see the provinces and other countries for themselves, they could easily hold a different opinion from what the Imperial propaganda machine spews. All of the "good" Garlean characters we've met have done exactly that.) He is, technically, using his strength (military prowess, tactical ability) for the sake of others... his own people, albeit at the expense of the rest of the world. ("cuz they were horrifically persecuted!" - Irrelevant.)

What makes Varis so dangerous is, like LineageRazor said, his unwavering, arrogant belief that he and only he knows what's best and right - that he and only he can save the planet. Since what he does is for the survival of the planet, anything can be justified. It's fair to say this makes him similar in that regard to Thordan, who much like DBS' Zamasu was said to "[believe] only in himself" verbatim.

The thing is... a lot of people disagree, both on whether the means Varis is willing to use are acceptable and whether the world he wants to create is ideal. Given that his goals involve killing and/or effectively enslaving everyone who isn't Garlean... naturally, just about everyone else in the world is going to be against him. Garlemald's successes are, in no small part, a consequence of the rest of the world being unprepared for just how powerful its war machine is and not standing together against it. Now that's happening, and the tide is being turned.

Anyway, I digress. Varis uses his strength for his people, which makes him a hero to them... while that strength brings nothing but death and ruin to the rest of the world, which makes him a terrible villain elsewhere. Even if he does (or commands) evil things, they're for the benefit of his people... which makes him not objectively evil, and that is why war is so tragic. (The Eorzeans and Othardians, on the other hand, have never done or condoned any morally questionable acts against Garlemald, and have only ever fought to defend their homes or reclaim seized territory from the Empire... so for most intents and purposes they are in the right, and acting against the Empire in the capacity they do can't really be construed as "morally grey." [X thing Y Eorzean nation / Doma did Z years ago] is contextually irrelevant - Garlemald isn't attacking Eorzea because of the War of the Sisters, for instance. This is a red herring - a non sequitur, to be specific.)

Since it's... somewhat relevant, let's look at Sylvanas' motivations for the War of the Thorns in WoW. With the advent of Azerite (analagous to mako energy, for those not in the know) she feared that the Alliance would develop Azerite superweapons as well, which combined with her belief that the bad blood between the Horde and Alliance would inevitably spark a war, would lead to mutually assured destruction. Therefore, attacking and forcing peace on the Horde's terms, while very questionable, was preferable to that mutually assured destruction.

Now, there are a number of problems with Sylvanas' strategy that would have rendered it ineffective even if her plan had gone off without a hitch (killing Malfurion would have just martyred him a la Varian, and supplemental material reveals that Greymane would not have abandoned and consequently splintered the Alliance like she anticipated) and I in no way at all would ever condone starting a war based on speculative reasoning (much like with Garlemald), Sylvanas' logic does have... some merit to it. The conflict really was morally grey... until she killed roughly a thousand civilians due to Saurfang causing a setback, deployed chemical weapons against friend and foe alike, desecrated the remains of those friends and foes, used what was more or less a false surrender to try and kill the Alliance leaders, and rendered a large swathe of land uninhabitable.

Are the things she does evil? Undeniably. Is the Alliance in the wrong to fight back? Not one bit. But... as long as it's to prevent mutually assured destruction (or less charitably ensure the Horde's prosperity), Sylvanas' actions cannot be condemned as wholly evil. She's meant to be seen as "pragmatically ruthless," and while I personally condemn her methods and ends that is what she objectively is... not unlike Varis. (A world where everyone can at least coexist in peace and freedom is far more ideal to me than the world either of them want to create, so naturally I sit in opposition to both.)

Of course, both hinge on their stated intentions being honest. Sylvanas seems... rather shady, but Varis seems to be honest in his intentions... though I again question what he would do if forced to choose between his people and his ideals. That would be the true test of character for him as a ruler.

I've rambled long enough.

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.