Thread: The Road to 5.0

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.

I don't know where that notion comes from either. No mention of Hydaelyn "losing Light" has ever been made.

Just for a quick rundown, here's my basic understanding of the overarching mythos behind Zodiark, Hydaelyn, and Calamities. Someone correct me if I've got a detail wrong.

Aeons ago the two existed in harmony, but eventually Zodiark began to covet power, which upset the balance. In an effort to preserve the balance, Hydaelyn cast Zodiark out - His aether drained and split up among the Thirteen Shards, kept separate from the Source by Hydaelyn's walls but existing in parallel, and his physical form becoming Hydaelyn's moon.

Zodiark's agents, the Ascians, seek to cause Rejoinings - Calamities, as we know them - which break down the dimensional barriers separating a Shard from the Source, returning Zodiark's aether to fuel His resurrection. This not only causes the Shard to cease to exist, the damage that must be done to Hydaelyn to break down one of Her walls greatly weakens her - She has been losing power over the ages if Matoya's Crystal Eye is any indication - though if what we've been told is true, by returning the aether from a Shard to the Source the souls there enter the Source's Lifestream.

The reason the Ascians (or at least Elidibus) want to maintain balance is that, if a Shard edges to close to one extreme, it will render the Shard unsuitable for Rejoining. Too much Dark compresses the aether within into a singularity (see: the areas of the Void we traverse in the World of Darkness), while too much Light bleeds it away into nothingness (like the Burn - an aether-bleached wasteland).

Rejoinings don't cause Hydaelyn to "lose Light" and thus necessitate the consumption of a Shard for survival... as far as we know. Their intent is to weaken Her, but in order to break down the walls She has put in place between the Shards and the Source, not so She will need to "eat" (for want of a better term) a Shard to survive.

... that's my understanding of FFXIV's basic cosmology, anyway.

I feel like we'll definitely stop the coming calamity, but likely by causing a rejoining before the first is completely consumed by light.

The problem is that Ascians won't even need to directly cause calamities on the source to further their schemes anymore if they realize they can keep forcing us into situations where we have to cause a rejoining to prevent a calamity, as we're still pushing them closer to their goal, but mitigating damage to the source, making it a lose-lose situation for us in the long run. This would certainly explain why they referred to us as the key the Zodiark's revival a long while ago, too.

I'm honestly hoping that things don't play out how I'm thinking they're going to, simply because I like surprises, but everything seems to line up a bit too nicely to me.

Originally Posted by Alleo

So this makes it seem that either she always need her own agend on each world/shard and can never truly interact with it [and we as the source might be different with that] or that she is just that weak so she needs one. I lean towards the first. But still hard how much I forgot after that time x))

I think She's always required the agents, as well. There are many tales of heroes that had eldritch powers, did everything they could, and it still didn't work out. I feel like She'd intervene more if She could. And I suspect that Hydaelyn has a good reason to be wary of making beings of great power, or giving mortals immortality, or what have you. I wouldn't be surprised if She once tried it and it went bad. (Inb4 that's how the Twelve started and it led to the First Umbral Era.) I theorize that She's content to sit it out until the Ascians rock the boat, and then fires some Echo buckshot into the crowd only because She has to - and the welcome package for that job is really, really lacking. Though, hell, even Midgardsormr finds it impossible to keep track of what people know, don't know, and need to be told.

Also, I guess being mad at the Mother for being vague, reactionary, cautious, and then escalating right to throwing nukes in an emergency is about equal to being mad at Her for having realistic imperfections, being goddess of Light and life only incidentally, and not preventing the game from a plot.

Originally Posted by Theodric

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turns out that both Zodiark and Hydaelyn need to be opposed for the sake of the planet's stability and the continued existence of mortals and free will. It's a common theme in many of the Final Fantasy games, after all. Including many of the 'side' titles. FFXIV has also proven very adept at making many antagonists and situations very nuanced and far from simple. This goes for both minor and major antagonists alike.

I doubt very much that the situation with Hydaelyn and Zodiark will be much different. Especially with how vague and evasive Hydaelyn can be combined with the dubious circumstances surrounding Minfilia's 'ascension'. I expect that we'll end up with a situation where Zodiark and Hydaelyn need to be merged anew to bring back true balance. Hydaelyn will want to be the dominant force. Zodiark will want to be the dominant force. Yet neither of them can be allowed to do that and must come to some sort of compromise.

It's odd that we agree so much on paragraph one and so little on paragraph two, lol.

Being that man (allegedly) came into being after the division, and has only lived, evolved, and thrived in this cosmos as it exists, I'm not sure we can "unring that bell" and survive with "the world we fought for" intact, if we survive at all. Elidibus would have us believe we'd be better for it, but I'm not so sure. I think Light and Dark must continue to exist, and I'm not sure that either can ever win. But is it too simple to assume that story arc ends with Zodiark existent but silenced and Hydaelyn willingly quiet from here on out as Her children thrive? What curveball is the game going to throw into that?

I have this nagging worry that if Hydaelyn is really the core of the planet, changing the core changes the planet.Can we say we won if we lose the world as we knew it? At least if She willingly goes quiet "in victory," the reins of history pass to man and we only have to kill the gods between.

But I completely disagree with you about Minfilia. She liked being one of Hydaelyn's chosen, she wanted to do her part to save the world, she labored to develop become stronger in the Echo and commune with Hydaelyn, and when Hydaelyn told her she was needed, she went willingly. Through her Hydaelyn spoke for a short while longer, history was nudged in a (hopefully) better direction, and Minfilia was happy for it. And when Hydaelyn had the power to release her essence as Emissary and send her to the First - even though Urianger basically orchestrated her exile from our world, she told everyone to forgive him because if he could have asked her, she would have volunteered. I think her consent makes a world of difference.

An alternative theory mistrusting of Hydaelyn should have persuasive answers for: Why, during the Astral Eras, when man was at their strongest, did she not reveal Herself and urge man to lay siege to every fragment of Dark in the known world? If mortals are Her children, couldn't She have made at least those entities without Darkness if She desired? Why is Darkness bound to the heart of man?

Granted, I think part of that answer is itself that Light cannot be Light without casting shadow in which the Dark can take root. Only in a world with neither Light nor Dark can we be free of that truth...and can mortals live in such a world? Should we want to?


Recently I've had this tingling beginning of a theory that mortal life IS Her defense, that we are Light and Darkness, that we keep the balance, that we live short, hard lives that inspire us towards cooperation and conflict - some act as if influenced by the Light, some act as if influenced by the Dark, but most of us just live, and there's nothing we won't do to keep living.