I have some thoughts about the overarching themes of the new saga.
The first saga was about inheriting the world. We spent ten years uncovering the truth behind the source, the sundering, Zodiark, Hydaelyn, and the Ascians. None of that was our doing. We inherited the system they created, and by the end of Endwalker, we brought that era to a close and the torches has been passed on to us.
Now, 7.5 established that the current equilibrium between the source and the shards isn't sustainable anymore. It is our turn to find a solution to prevent an apocalypse. But I don't think the only viable answer to the Withering would be another Rejoining like Halmarut suggests.
That would validate the Ascians' worldview, which we've spent the entire first saga opposing.
Instead, I think the answer is connection, not merging.
The Evercold trailer says: "Unite the stars unto one." Notice it doesn't say Rejoin. What if "unite" means creating a world where the reflections are no longer isolated, but connected? Where people and aether could freely flow between worlds while each reflection keeps its own identity.
To me, that would also fit the new themes being introduced. The first saga explored the value of life despite suffering. This one seems to be asking about the individual vs the collective.
By comparing us to Zenos, Halmarut implies that our personal morals may doom everyone. We refuse to choose the difficult but necessary choice to save everyone to indulge in our personal moral code (=> we value our individuality over the collective) just like Zenos dooming Garlemald if not the world the world, to indulge in his sport.
Her logic reminds me of an animal killing off some of its young to ensure the survival of the litter as a whole. To me, the Rejoining would be the ultimate version of that logic: sacrificing many worlds so that one stronger world survives. Erase the individual to save the collective.
Her answer really fit with her being Ascian (A very monolithic culture, where people are symbolically stripped of their identity through the uniform, the mask, the title, where outliers like Hermes struggle because nonconformity is alien to their civilization)
The Warrior of Light's answer, could be be the opposite. Our strength has never come from concentrating power into one place. It has always come from forging bonds. We value the collective through the individual.
I like to think of it like chainmail. It's strong not because it's one solid piece of metal, but because thousands of individual rings remain distinct while supporting one another.
Maybe that's what "unite the stars unto one" really means: not one world, but one community of worlds.
submitted by /u/Witty-Pomegranate952
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...
The first saga was about inheriting the world. We spent ten years uncovering the truth behind the source, the sundering, Zodiark, Hydaelyn, and the Ascians. None of that was our doing. We inherited the system they created, and by the end of Endwalker, we brought that era to a close and the torches has been passed on to us.
Now, 7.5 established that the current equilibrium between the source and the shards isn't sustainable anymore. It is our turn to find a solution to prevent an apocalypse. But I don't think the only viable answer to the Withering would be another Rejoining like Halmarut suggests.
That would validate the Ascians' worldview, which we've spent the entire first saga opposing.
Instead, I think the answer is connection, not merging.
The Evercold trailer says: "Unite the stars unto one." Notice it doesn't say Rejoin. What if "unite" means creating a world where the reflections are no longer isolated, but connected? Where people and aether could freely flow between worlds while each reflection keeps its own identity.
To me, that would also fit the new themes being introduced. The first saga explored the value of life despite suffering. This one seems to be asking about the individual vs the collective.
By comparing us to Zenos, Halmarut implies that our personal morals may doom everyone. We refuse to choose the difficult but necessary choice to save everyone to indulge in our personal moral code (=> we value our individuality over the collective) just like Zenos dooming Garlemald if not the world the world, to indulge in his sport.
Her logic reminds me of an animal killing off some of its young to ensure the survival of the litter as a whole. To me, the Rejoining would be the ultimate version of that logic: sacrificing many worlds so that one stronger world survives. Erase the individual to save the collective.
Her answer really fit with her being Ascian (A very monolithic culture, where people are symbolically stripped of their identity through the uniform, the mask, the title, where outliers like Hermes struggle because nonconformity is alien to their civilization)
The Warrior of Light's answer, could be be the opposite. Our strength has never come from concentrating power into one place. It has always come from forging bonds. We value the collective through the individual.
I like to think of it like chainmail. It's strong not because it's one solid piece of metal, but because thousands of individual rings remain distinct while supporting one another.
Maybe that's what "unite the stars unto one" really means: not one world, but one community of worlds.
submitted by /u/Witty-Pomegranate952
[link] [comments]
Continue reading...