Zodiark's Codex entry what do we think about it?

[SilversLyu]

Endwalker really went too far with the othering of the Ancients and then pushing the idea that they didn't deserve to exist as they were both culturally and biologically wrong, it's therefore a good thing they were replaced with the correct races. It's a really heinous plot and the amount of praise it heaps on the people that did it is pretty vile

What Venat did was in essence eugenics, replacement of the race for a stronger and "better" race. The only other type of person who tops her in this regard is Athena, the very epitome of evil. Regardless if Venat had good faith or not, was fully aware of all the implications of the sundering or not. The devs paint a more or less onesided picture, they may not have noticed it until it was too late but these discussions are testament that the ancients had more potential to survive than is let on.

[RyuDragnier]

What Venat did was in essence eugenics, replacement of the race for a stronger and "better" race. The only other type of person who tops her in this regard is Athena, the very epitome of evil. Regardless if Venat had good faith or not, was fully aware of all the implications of the sundering or not. The devs paint a more or less onesided picture, they may not have noticed it until it was too late but these discussions are testament that the ancients had more potential to survive than is let on.

Ironically the Convocation too was going to be guilty of this. Replacing the the souls in Zodiark so their "superior" selves could once again inhabit the land.

[redheadturk]

Ironically the Convocation too was going to be guilty of this. Replacing the the souls in Zodiark so their "superior" selves could once again inhabit the land.

This is speculation. For all we know, they would be dropping the equivalent of dogs and pigs into him to get their own people out shrug

[jameseoakes]

What Venat did was in essence eugenics, replacement of the race for a stronger and "better" race. The only other type of person who tops her in this regard is Athena, the very epitome of evil. Regardless if Venat had good faith or not, was fully aware of all the implications of the sundering or not. The devs paint a more or less onesided picture, they may not have noticed it until it was too late but these discussions are testament that the ancients had more potential to survive than is let on.

Oh it's totally eugenics which is why I have such a problem with the plotting round Venat as it takes one of humanities most vile lines of thinking and goes full it's OK with we can convince enough people the victims deserve it.

I didn't engage all that well with the new raid story but my surface reading of Athena was that she was the same as Venat just with a negative take on it (there plans involved making themselves into a god and passing judgement on the world) which felt really weird, maybe I was reading it wrong I didn't really get drawn into the plot

[SilversLyu]

Ironically the Convocation too was going to be guilty of this. Replacing the the souls in Zodiark so their "superior" selves could once again inhabit the land.

Oh what the Ancients did back then with their creations was questionable (and how they viewed life and death in general), it's not they are without flaws. Elpis highlighted that. You could argue they return to the aether and get recycled, but their old self is still gone at the end of the day. The story takes side with the sundered and basically goes against the Ascians, leaving no breathing room for both sides. Shadowbringers actually did a great job at showing the difference between both Ancients and sundered, while being open for the opposing side but needing to live on. Endwalker flips the script and shows the flaws of them more, which is fine but the main point to which it all comes down to is the sundering, and the implications are threated lightly. It makes sense in a way that the sundered people cant grasp what the ancients have really lost or truly relate to them, especially in face of multiple genocides and imminent danger from them - that Venat arguably enabled. To Venat as Hydaelyn the primal especially, the only thing that matters are her people - the sundered. They probably needed to explore more the relation between her and the ancients, and vice versa to give it some oomph and make things more clearer (For all we know they could bring this topic up down the line in the story eventually, alongside what Azem did back then perhaps), but what drives her is that she finds the world of the ancients stagnant similar to Amon and that is strenghtened with the way of combating Meteion. I am fine with that, leave it for interpretation cuz if we talk from a meta writing perspective we will run in circles pretty much.

[SannaR]

This is speculation. For all we know, they would be dropping the equivalent of dogs and pigs into him to get their own people out shrug

It still would have been a life form that had souls. Which if they and the rest who were pro 3rd sacrifice still held the same view on souls and the underworld then it doesn't make sense to just replace souls with other souls. If the 1st two sacrifices and being tempered by Zodiark changed said view then sure they wouldn't see the new life as the same.

[Brinne]

It still would have been a life form that had souls. Which if they and the rest who were pro 3rd sacrifice still held the same view on souls and the underworld then it doesn't make sense to just replace souls with other souls. If the 1st two sacrifices and being tempered by Zodiark changed said view then sure they wouldn't see the new life as the same.

I think if we're going to pinpoint a certain event that probably changed their views on "using souls" (because Elpis, Pandaemonium, and Emet's short story with the Phoinix establish that Ancients, and their culture, strongly discourage messing with souls and view it as entirely up to the planet), it was the Final Days, in which they needed to utilize souls in their last resort of creating Zodiark to save the world. They were desperate enough to break what multiple pieces of the text reinforced again and again was, throughout their history, a serious taboo.

As I said, my overall view is that the writers are almost certainly never going to go into detail about the sacrifices for the sake of wanting to keep everyone likable and sympathetic, but for a diegetic conversation, animals do have souls - the requirement of a soul is simply "natural life embraced by the planet." This is reinforced by P9, recently, where the first boss devours a behemoth soul as one of its mechanics and acts accordingly.

This, of course, doesn't disclude the possibility of the souls being "more" than animals, but since the "new life" was stated to be created by Zodiark - aka, Themis - it actually does strike me as a bit weird to suggest that it must have been some form of sapient people. Because the shape of the life would have been guided by Themis, and then the plan was to "cultivate" it over a long period of time until the time was right to offer up "a portion" of it and return to how things were before the apocalypse.

I think I said this a long, long time ago in a thread far, far away, but if I had to make a guess, based on the description of the sheer damage the second sacrifice was meant to address - the planet was devoid of all life, the seas were poisoned, no wind, etc - whatever "new lives" Zodiark/Themis would have seeded would logically have been, at least initially, pretty rudimentary in order to set up an ecological system to get going again from the ground up. You don't make predator animals without first making prey animals, and you don't make prey animals without first making flora, you don't make flora without..., etc, etc. Just to at least get the basic elements functioning again. To me, this would fit with Shade Hythlodaeus's description of "tiny lives sprouting."

Therefore, this initial life, once stabilized, could thereafter be "cultivated" and guided and gradually shaped by the Ancients afterwards how they saw fit. The debate, therefore, was which direction in which to "cultivate" it - towards a form of life that could legitimately inherit the world from the Ancients (and to Venat, unspoken to anyone else, probably a form of life that could battle Meteion) - or as material to replace the Zodiark souls and free the sacrifices. In other words, at the time of the arguments and the Sundering, the actual content of the "third sacrifice" probably was not even been materially existent, since the Convocation's plan to cultivate it, guide its evolution and development, towards their chosen purpose never had a chance to meaningfully advance because they were busy fighting Hydaelyn.

For me personally, in terms of my own values, it's honestly really hard for me to get outraged at the base premise of "use up life and souls to save our people" with the understanding that, yes, animals are established to have souls. We don't know enough to say definitively that they weren't, or rather, wouldn't be People Souls - maybe Zodiark does require Specifically People Souls. It's not established, simply "souls", and we're free to make guesses as to the rest. But in theory, I can't really see a meaningful distinction between "sacrificing life" for that purpose as opposed to "sacrificing life" for my dinner tonight.

Which comes down to Venat's ultimate objection not really having anything to do with the sacrifices themselves. It made no difference to her concerns what kind of souls they were. Her problem was with the Ancients' way of life, and the direction she believed their "chosen course" would progress towards (Meteion's report of the Nibirun.)

[SannaR]

I think if we're going to pinpoint a certain event that probably changed their views on "using souls" (because Elpis, Pandaemonium, and Emet's short story with the Phoinix establish that Ancients, and their culture, strongly discourage messing with souls and view it as entirely up to the planet), it was the Final Days, in which they needed to utilize souls in their last resort of creating Zodiark to save the world. They were desperate enough to break what multiple pieces of the text reinforced again and again was, throughout their history, a serious taboo.

As I said, my overall view is that the writers are almost certainly never going to go into detail about the sacrifices for the sake of wanting to keep everyone likable and sympathetic, but for a diegetic conversation, animals do have souls - the requirement of a soul is simply "natural life embraced by the planet." This is reinforced by P9, recently, where the first boss devours a behemoth soul as one of its mechanics and acts accordingly.

This, of course, doesn't disclude the possibility of the souls being "more" than animals, but since the "new life" was stated to be created by Zodiark - aka, Themis - it actually does strike me as a bit weird to suggest that it must have been some form of sapient people. Because the shape of the life would have been guided by Themis, and then the plan was to "cultivate" it over a long period of time until the time was right to offer up "a portion" of it and return to how things were before the apocalypse.

Oh I totally get that we don't know what and probably won't know what that next generation/new life was. Just from the two times we get any reaction to them is that somehow they weren't what at least some of the convocation were expecting. At least when it came to aetherial thickness. Well that's how I perceived it. That they weren't as thick as they were expected to be and that they might have also not looked as they expected to. It's why for me at least it doesn't make sense that you'd want to leave the planet to well a bunch of animals and plants. I'm pretty sure that's how you get Animal House(sort of joking with that).

That while yes anything and anyone can inherit something I still stand on the ground that most people don't outside of fiction leave things to well animals or inanimated objects. Unless done out of spite or to show how whimsical a person was. Unless said flora or fauna was sentient like Frank from Harley Quinn the animated show. Also give us more details about this time frame you cowards. I know they probably will never, but I want it.

[Brinne]

That while yes anything and anyone can inherit something I still stand on the ground that most people don't outside of fiction leave things to well animals or inanimated objects. Unless done out of spite or to show how whimsical a person was. Unless said flora or fauna was sentient like Frank from Harley Quinn the animated show. Also give us more details about this time frame you cowards. I know they probably will never, but I want it.

Well, like I said, my own guess as to what makes the most sense is that... the question of "can they inherit the world as they first appeared, as made by Themis" wasn't the issue. The issue was "do we now guide this life towards something that could/will inherit it" - or, if you want to use kinder phrasing towards Venat's faction, perhaps letting it evolve and take shape naturally however it would, even if it meant evolving into something that would naturally displace the Ancients someday, as opposed to keeping it pruned carefully so as to serve as Zodiark fodder. So nobody, even if the "new life" as it ever materially existed and lived, was suggesting literally letting animals inherit the world. It was more choosing the Let Animals Potentially Evolve Into People direction or Evolve Animals Specifically Into Zodiark Fodder direction.

(Just to keep things clear, I'm not definitively stating it WAS animals, and again, it's possible Zodiark had some unknown MUST BE PEOPLE requirement to function. We do not know. But this is in the hypothetical case that makes the most sense to me with the information we have now.)

Again, the framing is that Hydaelyn represented "the future" and Zodiark represented "the past" in this conflict. Both of those exclude, and as factions, both were willing to sacrifice, "the present."

Oh I totally get that we don't know what and probably won't know what that next generation/new life was. Just from the two times we get any reaction to them is that somehow they weren't what at least some of the convocation were expecting. At least when it came to aetherial thickness.

Hmm, I don't remember this - where did you get this impression?

[SannaR]

Well, like I said, my own guess as to what makes the most sense is that... the question of "can they inherit the world as they first appeared, as made by Themis" wasn't the issue. The issue was "do we now guide this life towards something that could/will inherit it" - or, if you want to use kinder phrasing towards Venat's faction, perhaps letting it evolve and take shape naturally however it would, even if it meant evolving into something that would naturally displace the Ancients someday, as opposed to keeping it pruned carefully so as to serve as Zodiark fodder. So nobody, even if the "new life" as it ever materially existed and lived, was suggesting literally letting animals inherit the world. It was more choosing the Let Animals Potentially Evolve Into People direction or Evolve Animals Specifically Into Zodiark Fodder direction.

Oh I know that you aren't saying it was animals. Just some in the past maybe to make the convocation look less icky or whatever would always go for the it was plants and animals angle. It is hard to tell if the 1st two sacrifices had any kind of role they played (post acting as fuel). They did seem to dislike Fandaniel trying to assert control over them though. So they might had more to do than be in limbo. I also understand that they could evolve into people or just Zodiark fodder. Yet we know if they weren't people it'd take a bit for them to evolve enough into plant/animal people. Just look at the Ixal they used to be able to fly, but over five thousand years their arm feathers shrunk dramatically making them loose that ability.

I got that impression from shade Hythlodaeus and if Emet's convocation memory stone is about the new life Zodiark popped out then to me both hint that what came out wasn't what they were expecting. Course another problem that I don't think anyone has brought up before is we don't know a quantity for the new life. I know in the long run it wouldn't matter. But if said life wasn't meant to be more than just give the planet a kick start and was even as big as the amount of the 2nd sacrifice then the only reason to me at least to cultivate them is due to their thinness in aether. Which I mean why didn't Zodiark make em chunky? After all he should have been able to do so.

For me it comes down to A) they didn't make em chunky cause that's not how creations/familiars normally were made or B ) they for whatever reason couldn't pop out chunky aether bodies. Even after being allowed to rewrite the laws of the star. If B then one can assume there's a problem that doesn't allow for that. If A then they needed to (and obviously didn't get time to do so) stop thinking that new life that they make needs to be creation thin.