Disappointed in one Endwalker Aspect [SPOILERS]

[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.

[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.

[KariTheFox]

...no? No. This was never even remotely anything near the truth. All evidence ever asserted to be in favor of this was honestly nonsense, even before we learned in Endwalker what the Blessing of Light actually was.

In fact, I think the most telling argument against 'Hydaelyn tempered us' was always that, after we learned she was a primal, not one single person on any side of the story that would have reason to put these puzzle pieces together raised the notion that we might be tempered.

• Emet-Selch didn't, despite being the guy to say that he himself was tempered and who loves a play to make us seem equal.
• Elidibus didn't, despite being a primal himself and being desperate for justification that he was the good guy.
• Fandaniel didn't, despite having all the reason in the world to sow chaos and set us off.
• The Scions didn't, despite learning very specifically about the symptoms of tempering and how to detect them, and talking very directly about the WoL's relationship with Hydaelyn.

When the writers reject every opportunity to bring in the plot point you've decided is obvious, it might be time to admit you're not onto something.

I thought the matter of Hydaelyn tempering us was pretty settled when we learned that the blessing of light was a simple traveller's ward that protects against aetheric corruption.

Indeed, it seems like Hydaelyn'a whole philosphy is about giving you the means to think, wander, feel... etc. for yourself. Something the spirit of tempering goes against.

Also, tempering was something that could be scientifically and objectively measured by characters in the world. And cured. If we were tempered surely someone would have given us a porxie.

Also, the conversation with Y'sthola has her showing up and examining you too see if your aether was corrupted, like it was back in the first. And she saw nothing out of the ordinary.

[Rulakir]

Y'all are overthinking this. My thought process following an expansion where the WoL's life was saved the and 8th Umbral Calamity averted was Elpis could end with another timeline. Why bother having us go back in time at all vs. Echo flashbacks? Why bother giving the WoL agency in the past so that the player thinks there's a chance they can change history only for that always to be an impossibility? Had we been restricted to being a witness to it, fine, but we were a participant and that created a paradox.

Since I know someone's going to bring up Alexander, I had no idea what that was until a few weeks ago. I've only done the MSQ and since I hate raiding I never would have done that content anyway. ShB was all I knew of time travel, so I assumed FFXIV operated under multiverse theory. I would've preferred it that way too as I don't like time loops and their subsequent paradoxes.

Anyway, re: tempering, Thancred has a line after Qitana Ravel, "The eldest and most powerful of primals... Gods. If that were Hydaelyn's origin, then what would that make--" Sadly the first and only time he's expressed being concerned over Hydaelyn's treatment of Minfilia.

Edit: Forgot to add that I don't agree Venat was acting in the same capacity as an Azem at all. Her actions are contrary to what we know of 'our' Azem as well as from what we've seen of the WoL and Ardbert.

[Kordarion]

Y'all are overthinking this. My thought process following an expansion where the WoL's life was saved the and 8th Umbral Calamity averted was Elpis could end with another timeline. Why bother having us go back in time at all vs. Echo flashbacks? Why bother giving the WoL agency in the past so that the player thinks there's a chance they can change history only for that always to be an impossibility? Had we been restricted to being a witness to it, fine, but we were a participant and that created a paradox.

Since I know someone's going to bring up Alexander, I had no idea what that was until a few weeks ago. I've only done the MSQ and since I hate raiding I never would have done that content anyway. ShB was all I knew of time travel, so I assumed FFXIV operated under multiverse theory. I would've preferred it that way too as I don't like time loops and their subsequent paradoxes.

Anyway, re: tempering, Thancred has a line after Qitana Ravel, "The eldest and most powerful of primals... Gods. If that were Hydaelyn's origin, then what would that make--" Sadly the first and only time he's expressed being concerned over Hydaelyn's treatment of Minfilia.

Edit: Forgot to add that I don't agree Venat was acting in the same capacity as an Azem at all. Her actions are contrary to what we know of 'our' Azem as well as from what we've seen of the WoL and Ardbert.

Except that anyone paying attention would have been under no illusions that we could have changed the past, before sending us back to Elpis Elidibus clearly warns us that we cannot change the past, that it happened and we cannot stop that. I don't know how much clearer the game can be than pre-emptively telling the play we cannot save the unsundered past.

[Rulakir]

I forgot everything always plays out exactly the way the NPCs say it will. Including nobody in the past being able to see or hear me, which lasted all of about 2 minutes.

[RyuDragnier]

I forgot everything always plays out exactly the way the NPCs say it will. Including nobody in the past being able to see or hear me, which lasted all of about 2 minutes.

Because Ellidibus was aware of how thin our Aether was compared to others of his time, meaning nobody at the time could have seen us unless they had incredible Aether sight...something Emet-Selch and Hythlodaeus both had. Considering how faulty his memory was at that time due to forgetting a lot of stuff he knew as the Elidibus before the Final Days, he probably even forgot that Elidibus and Hythlodaeus were going to be at Elpis around that time.

[Rosenstrauch]

Except that anyone paying attention would have been under no illusions that we could have changed the past, before sending us back to Elpis Elidibus clearly warns us that we cannot change the past, that it happened and we cannot stop that. I don't know how much clearer the game can be than pre-emptively telling the play we cannot save the unsundered past.

There are three problems with that line of thinking: The first is that everything Elidibus knows about time travel, as far as we know, comes from him studying G'raha's memories. G'raha, the time traveler from a future where we died in the Eighth Umbral Calamity, the First was rejoined to the Source, and he remained sealed within Syrcus Tower for around two hundred years before being woken up and sent back in time for the singular purpose of preventing the very Calamity that did us in. So no, Elidibus should be well aware that the time travelers can change the past.

The second is Elidibus's exact words need to be taken in full to be understood, instead of just quote mining him:

tl;dr: Preventing the Final Days will not save the world we came from, which only exists as a result of the Final Days. Preventing the Final Days would, as far as Elidibus is aware, cause our own world to cease to exist, stranding us in the past. And he'd be wrong, but the only people who could correct him exist in the future G'raha came from, which nobody 1. knows how to contact and 2. has never tried to contact.

The third problem is that, from the quest Travelers at the Crossroads, it becomes abundantly clear that not changing the future is like walking through a minefield blindfolded without so much as a metal detector. Our character is visibly upset and hesitant over being confronted with what we've been hiding, and when we spill the beans to Venat, she promptly concludes that even though we won't be able to change our own past, we can still alter the future of the Unsundered World. Which is correct, given our knowledge of the future G'raha came from: It still exists, unchanged by G'raha's efforts, despite the fact that from our perspective the events the preceded it are no longer possible.

As a corollary to the above, the sheer number of times things in Elpis wouldn't have happened if we didn't get involved is pretty much all of it. Yet we went in with zero foreknowledge of what would happen there. Because of that, shit like "I knew I had to warn X of Y and get Z because I'd seen me do it in the past" doesn't apply. Our choices, from the very beginning to the very end, are our own. And if folks prefer to interpret that as us trying to change the past, then they have every right to do so.

[Vexander]

There are three problems with that line of thinking: The first is that everything Elidibus knows about time travel, as far as we know, comes from him studying G'raha's memories. G'raha, the time traveler from a future where we died in the Eighth Umbral Calamity, the First was rejoined to the Source, and he remained sealed within Syrcus Tower for around two hundred years before being woken up and sent back in time for the singular purpose of preventing the very Calamity that did us in. So no, Elidibus should be well aware that the time travelers can change the past.

Except that there lies some fundamental differences between the Unsundered World, and the Reflections and Source.

Logically, G'raha going back in time to prevent the 8th Umbral Calamity would've undone the future of the Source that he had known. That G'raha somehow survived this seems only possible because he became a part of the first's timeline instead. I think the best analogy is an organ transplant. G'raha was like a kidney from the Source that was transplanted into the First. As a result, when his version of the Source, "died," he endured by remaining in the First.

Now, the problem with the Unsundered World is that it is beholden only to it's own time. As a result, any time shenanigans involving the source have to be part of a closed loop. Changing the Unsundered World's past cannot affect the Source or its reflections because each of them is functionally their own independent timeline.

[Rosenstrauch]

Have you read the short story An Unpromised Tomorrow?

https://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodes.../sidestory_08/

tl;dr: The future G'raha came from still exists. G'raha changing the past did nothing to it.