Indeed, the way Emet-Selch phrased it, Zodiark's actions were all in response to requests made by the Ancients. Even tempered, it was the summoners who directed Zodiark's major actions and sacrificed to Him to enable them. Beyond the needed sacrifices of lives/aether to accomplish His tasks, all we know Zodiark asked of the Ancients in return is their loyalty in ensuring His rule. Primals in general are not duplicitous, in fact they tend to be rather direct in trying to carry out the purpose for which they were created (Alexander trying to engineer his own destruction is the only example I can think of which might strain this paradigm). As conceptual entities, this actually makes a lot of sense.
I would be very disappointed if the story goes straight out "Zodiark 100% bad." I prefer the concept of an entity that will sincerely save the world and grant wishes, but at STEEP sacrifice.
Also, Zodiark likely expended much of the sacrificed aether in restoring the planet. Even with a favorable concept matchup of "weakens Zodiark" and probably the support of all non-Amaroutine people pre-sundering, I don't think Hydaelyn would have been able to successfully oppose Zodiark if He had 75% of the Amaroutine population's aether and She had a fraction of 25%.
A good point, though I think Zodiark, too, was summoned in part by hope. He WAS, in many ways, the hope of the Amaroutine people.
Rather, I think the core conceptual difference is something closer to this:
Zodiark: We will survive and prevail, by ANY means necessary.
Hydaelyn: We should treasure tomorrow over today or yesterday, even if this means stepping down or fading away.
This plays into the overall themes of Shadowbringers very well. Not sacrificing what we have now (Ryne) for what we once had (Minfillia). Letting the world move forward, rather than trying to keep it the way it is (Vauthry) or going back to the past (the Ascians). That there's a difference between giving up and letting go.



Reply With Quote

