Disappointed in one Endwalker Aspect [SPOILERS]

[Rannie]

Lyth.. you do realize that the Azem that Hythlodaeus was speaking about was the PC's past life.... OUR signature spell then was the ability to summon our friends to our side. Especially because when you play a male character he uses the HE pronouns when speaking about that Azem.

[MikkoAkure]

Are we shown how long everyone lives on each shard or that their measurements of time are the same? No. This is a case of the scriptwriters presenting a plot fact, but then not showing or writing what it really means into the story, because that would be too difficult to really show. Keep in mind every shard is locked away from the real universe by a space-time dimensional barrier that only allows aether, and perhaps Dynamis, to pass through it.

If your theory was correct, then it would be a noticeable fact throughout history that people gain longer lives after each Calamity but there’s nothing at all to suggest that. That would be like saying that people died of old age before their 10th birthday immediately following the Sundering and that’s just silly.

Also, there are Viis who themselves say are over 100 years old on the First. If they were a fraction of the Viera of the Source then they wouldn’t live that long. We’re also shown that measurements of time are the same. The Scions all reflect on the years they spent there. You would think that some of the brightest people from a different world would be aware of time being different or a year being a fraction as short. We’re also given ages of a couple of characters from the First in comparison to those from the Source and not only do they look that age, they look like the same age as the characters from the Source.

If that was an actual possible theory, then there would be clues somewhere, but there’s not. It’s not even a matter of “difficulty”, there’s no point in writing supporting information for something that doesn’t exist. I’d need actual proof, not “my theory is so difficult for the writers to put in the game that they didn’t”.

I had to go back and look at the scene to see it. Y'shtola says, "it may predate the empire." because it's, "Unlike anything she's ever seen." Emet-selch merely says that anyone pre-Sundering would remember it. I said it was the Ronkans, due to the later questline where we see the Meteorshower Mural with the Vieran Sorceress.

The whole point of Y’shtola saying that the cave paintings predate the empire is because the materials used are “older”. You’re twisting the source material and quoted it wrong. The full quote:
Y’shtola: “The murals. If I am not mistaken, they predate the empire.”
Minfilia (Ryne): “How can you tell?”
Y’shtola: “A peculiarity of the paint. Most are made from mineral-based pigments, but whatever was used here is older than anything I have ever seen.”

And by the way, the Viis sorceress Tiuna had the Echo. That’s why she saw the meteor shower and why it’s in her mural. At least to me, the murals don’t look the same either. Different art styles. And one is painted in a cavern wall that was eventually developed into a shrine devoted to “the wisdom of the ancients”, the other is a mural painted on the walls of a ruin itself.

[Vyrerus]

If your theory was correct

It's something they keep vague, because it is hard to show. It's like how half-races are possible, but they've only ever shown Hilda. Whenever they present something hard to write and account for in the story/gameplay, they generally tend to shy away from it or mention it again vaguely in later sidequests. The time passage for the Scions was written to show that the time drift between the Source and the Shards is real, as the entirety of Shadowbringers takes place relatively quickly (like what, a couple of days? I don't remember what Tataru says when you return at the end) by Source time. The Viera's age was to keep the FFXII reference intact when they decided to include the race in the game, and so they also used it in the story so that the Viera on the First can tell us events from 100 "years" ago.

Also keep in mind that the Scions were taking the time passage on the First for granted by those who told them what day it was, considering that for the "years" they spent there were hounded by a sky that never darkened. So you tell me, how long is a year in Norvrandt? How many days? How many months? And then, in the Source?

I was answering you casually, so I didn't bother getting the direct quote. Also, just because they predate the Empire, doesn't mean they predate the Ronkans. For instance, the Garleans existed before their Empire and had a culture that did things, before their empire.

As far as Tiuna's mural goes, it is Y'shtola herself who compares it to the murals in Qitana Ravel. /shrug

[MikkoAkure]

The time passage for the Scions was written to show that the time drift between the Source and the Shards is real, as the entirety of Shadowbringers takes place relatively quickly (like what, a couple of days? I don't remember what Tataru says when you return at the end) by Source time.

I think you got the wrong impression from this. Shards vary in time and can be faster compared to the Source at one moment and slower the next. It was specifically stated in-game that the First is currently 1:1. The same amount of time we spend on the First now is the same on the Source.

But that doesn't mean that their years are specifically different than ours, just that the passage of time itself can move faster or slower relative to ours. If you were to travel during a time of speeding up or slowing down, the time for you when you're on the shard would be normal, but when you get back, more or less time would have passed. But it's always in flux. We just get there at a time when the difference is negligible in order to save the writers headaches when we're going back and forth.

I still think that whole thing is really stupid, but that's how the writers wanted to deal with the expansion since they didn't want us to be there in a world that was only just devastated by the Flood.

Also keep in mind that the Scions were taking the time passage on the First for granted by those who told them what day it was, considering that for the "years" they spent there were hounded by a sky that never darkened. So you tell me, how long is a year in Norvrandt? How many days? How many months? And then, in the Source?

I mean, there's the item called "Crystarium Wall Chronometer", a device that tells time which in our world we call a clock. When the little hand goes around twice, it's been a day. The inhabitants of the First can also tell time without a sky because they themselves have relayed information to us based on years. But if Urianger says that he's been there for years, I'm more inclined to believe him than a poster on the forums. You would also think that a group of people from the Source would use Source-reckoning when it comes to describing the passage of time to another person from the Source. What use would it be for G'raha or any of the Scions to tell us that it's been "X" years if it's Norvrandt years and not Source years and we have no point of reference for how long a Norvrandt year is?

I was answering you casually, so I didn't bother getting the direct quote. Also, just because they predate the Empire, doesn't mean they predate the Ronkans. For instance, the Garleans existed before their Empire and had a culture that did things, before their empire.

In the original post I replied to you on, you said:

Also, the Qitana Ravel cave paintings were made by the Ronkans, an empire civilization implied to be similar in workings to the Allagans, though never outright stated to be a machination of the Ascians, it could have been.

Now you're saying that it was by the Ronkans, but before they were an empire? Then what would the point of referencing the fact they were an empire even be? The Garleans were only made an empire because of the Ascians. There's no proof in the game at all to suggest that the Ronkans were made an empire by the Ascians, but even if they were the murals are already stated in-game to predate the empire so it would have nothing to do with the Ascians to begin with. I'm not following your logic here. Per Oda himself:
“So, the cave painting was not done by Ascians. It was drawn by someone who has a memory of the world before the Sundering, he must have seen it through a dream or something, and made a mural.”

Then there's a whole other section of the MSQ where we specifically examine a "Primitive Mural", a "Ronkan Mural", and a "Faded Mural" anyway, which would suggest there are different periods of mural making in the area.

As far as Tiuna's mural goes, it is Y'shtola herself who compares it to the murals in Qitana Ravel. /shrug

Watch the scene again. Y'shtola compares the scene itself depicted in Tiuna's mural to the scene depicted in the Ravel mural. The whole point of that cutscene is to show us that the Echo is connected to the Final Days. The Viis with us tell us that Tiuna was a peerless mage and goes on to describe what we know as Echo powers. Then Y'shtola says that the falling stars remind her of the Ravel mural and also what Emet-Selch showed us at Amaurot. Then we're treated to a flashback showing the Tiuna mural, then the Ravel mural, then the Final Days themselves, then the Tiuna mural again.

[Lyth]

I suppose that Emet doesn't sit well with you either, being the founder of said Garlean Empire and being responsible for pretty much everything you described. Nor does your own character, and the countless lives that you've ruined as the 'Weapon of Light'. Or anyone with authority, for that matter. Someone who can't live with the weight of their decisions has no business making them.

It's actually really, really easy to draw philosophical parallels between Venat and the Dark Knight questline. Not altogether surprising when you consider the lead writer.

'To live is to suffer. And in suffering find strength, and purpose, and hope.'
'To walk the path is to suffer. To sacrifice. But we must never lose sight of why we chose to walk it.'

I'll let you tell me who said what.

Lyth.. you do realize that the Azem that Hythlodaeus was speaking about was the PC's past life.... OUR signature spell then was the ability to summon our friends to our side. Especially because when you play a male character he uses the HE pronouns when speaking about that Azem.

I know this. In an earlier post, I pointed out that the seat of Azem is a role that both we and Venat have performed at previous points in time:

Azem isn't a person. It's a job stone. Equip it or leave it. It's a persona. Much like our other job trainers, we gain insight into how the seat of Azem historically functioned though watching Venat at work. At which point you can decide for yourself how much, if any, of this that you want to incorporate.

In 'Etched in the Stars,' Hyth outlines Azem's role:

'Among all the offices, the Fourteenth was the most unusual. For while the rest sat in Amaurot, its holder was charged with gaining an intimate knowledge of the wider world. In the course of her duty, she traveled the length and breadth of every land, and befriended countless folk. She encountered troubles too. Matters which she could simply have referred to the Convocation. But that was not her way. Nay, more often than not, she would call upon her comrades, and together resolve matters themselves. Such is the magick sealed within that crystal - the magick to summon the stars to your side.'

If you want to understand Venat's actions, then you really need to look at them through the lens of Azem. Her attitudes and decisions, whether you agree with them or not, are well in keeping with someone who has spent many lifetimes in that role.

As I discussed fairly extensively in that post, part of Venat's function from a narrative perspective is to allow us as a diverse group of players to see how the 'Azem' role works without forcing us to play in character. It's just a couple of pages back.

[Veloran]

I suppose that Emet doesn't sit well with you either, being the founder of said Garlean Empire and being responsible for pretty much everything you described. Nor does your own character, and the countless lives that you've ruined as the 'Weapon of Light'. Or anyone with authority, for that matter. Someone who can't live with the weight of their decisions has no business making them.

I should think you quite satisfied with such a notion given your obvious criticisms.

It's actually really, really easy to draw philosophical parallels between Venat and the Dark Knight questline. Not altogether surprising when you consider the lead writer.

'To live is to suffer. And in suffering find strength, and purpose, and hope.'
'To walk the path is to suffer. To sacrifice. But we must never lose sight of why we chose to walk it.'

I'll let you tell me who said what.

The highlight tells you why Venat and the ideals in the DRK quests are not equivalent. Dark Knights choose to walk their path. Venat forced all of humanity and WoL on to the path and ideals that she wanted. Venat's deeds are antithetical to the rights of freedom and self-determination, and as such she is not in keeping with the ideals of WoL-as-Azem.

Indeed the differences in thinking and methods between the two are hinted at by the Twelve. Ever since the Azem reveal people have wondered why Azeyma shares the name and symbolism rather than the more clear parallel of the wanderer Oschon. Now though it appears as though Azeyma - A goddess of the scales of judgement that punishes sinners that don't live up to her standards - is clearly in reference to Venat-as-Azem, not WoL. On top of this, while Azeyma's symbol is the sun, her actual title is keeper of the sun, which is a fitting description of Venat/Hydaelyn's relationship with WoL.

[RyuDragnier]

The highlight tells you why Venat and the ideals in the DRK quests are not equivalent. Dark Knights choose to walk their path. Venat forced all of humanity and WoL on to the path and ideals that she wanted. Venat's deeds are antithetical to the rights of freedom and self-determination, and as such she is not in keeping with the ideals of WoL-as-Azem.

Remember, DRKs walk their path and will do whatever it takes to get the job done, even if it means causing undue suffering on others. Venat did much the same, and could almost be considered a DRK (much like Emet-Selch). She sacrificed the honor and kindness, along with a willingness to do things within the rules, to become the blade that would keep going on towards her goal much like a vigilante, no matter how much suffering would become of it to others and herself. To top this, at ANY point she could have just let the Ascians fulfill their desires and get Zodiark back, but did not falter. She CHOSE to keep going, no matter how much suffering her choices had caused.

[KariTheFox]

To top this, at ANY point she could have just let the Ascians fulfill their desires and get Zodiark back, but did not falter.

Could she? It seemed like she could do very little to prevent the ascians from rejoining seven times over, it doesn't seem like she had any control over the matter one way or the other. And the one who actually stopped them from doing it any more was the WoL, not Hydaelyn.

Edit: There's also the fact that letting the ascians get what they want and bring back Zodiark means allowing at least seven more genocides, which is sort of bad.

[MikkoAkure]

Could she? It seemed like she could do very little to prevent the ascians from rejoining seven times over, it doesn't seem like she had any control over the matter one way or the other. And the one who actually stopped them from doing it any more was the WoL, not Hydaelyn.

The issue is that when it comes to starting a Calamity, the Ascians only have to win once. We know that there have been other Warriors of Light who stopped catastrophic events that could have led to Calamity, but all it takes is for a group to fail for one to happen.

The Zodiac Braves sealed up Ultima and Tenzen sealed Koryu. We don't know how much the Ascians could have been involved since we don't have their point of view, but Hydaelyn did recognize a danger and call people to power who then stopped said dangers.

[Lyth]

...

Everyone chose to walk their respective paths. When you get down to it, Temple Knight A might just be starting their first day on the job, with a family to feed. Perhaps they look after stray cats in their free time and mind an elderly neighbor. They never caused any harm to anyone. And then wham, Azem shows up out of nowhere and kills them. Did they have any choice about how their path ended? 'So many broken by this world, then by you.' You can apply this line of reasoning to pretty much anyone that you dislike in game. Except for maybe Zenos, who would school you with it like he did Jullus.

It's actually Urianger who puts forward the idea that there's a connection between Azem, Azeyma, keeper of the Sun, and Azim, the Dawn Father. The glyph on the Azem soul crystal is the symbol for the sun.

As for the twelve, while there may be a link with the Convocation, most of them stayed within the walls of Amaurot. I'm more inclined to suspect that there's a connection with Radz-al-Han's Tales of the Braves (not to be confused with the Ivalice version):
'In an era long since ended
When chaos reigned o'er all the land
Did valiant souls take up the fight
To bring forth Light and cast out Dark
They numbered Twelve, no more nor less.'[1]

I haven't gone through the Relic weapons lore yet to see which ones are accounted for; it may be that we have ten names from the original relics and Azeyma and Menphina are the two unaccounted for. But who knows.