About the Emperor [Major Spoilers for 4.4]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balipu

Yes, that's the thing. He didn't say Solus was replaced by an Ascian or was controlled by one. He WAS an Ascian.

---

To be exact, he said the founding father of the Empire was an Ascian.

There's still leeway there in that phrasing for either interpretation: that Solus the man directly became a Ascian, or was merely a 'mask' for the Ascian who was the true founder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khalithar

But we've also seen that the Ascians have taken corpses that looked "fresh" I guess for lack of a better word.

---

Bodies seem to 'keep' remarkably well on Hydaelyn.

For a story example (no time bubble!) from the Alchemist questline...

Severian has been trying to revive his beloved W'nahja, who died in the Calamity. Five years have passed, and she looks like she's merely asleep.

Perhaps there's some sort of alchemical preservant involved, but then the Ascians would doubtless be using it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonnycbad

Also to note: Ascians were prior Echo users and/or Warriors of Light that for some reason decided to side with Zodiark upon realizing some epiphany.

---

I think that's still just an assumption at this point? There were hints of it with Unukalhai's nature in the Warring Triad quests, but not outright stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

Now we know that Zenos and Varis aren't related [...]

---

"Now we know"? Do you mean specifically in conjunction with your "Solus never existed" theory or do you think the game actually stated that as a fact? If so, where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

Clever! Though I could also see it being presented the other way around. Varis - known for enjoying strategy games - outsmarts Solus in the end, and turns his smug "game pieces" analogy back on itself.

---

In my researches in the Garlean section of the Lore book, I came across this little gem;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Eorzea, page 178

"Varis's tactical genius displays itself in 'megalith,' a traditional Garlean game of strategy. Indeed, it is said that the Eemperor has but rarely lost a match in all of his forty-six years."

---

Headcanon has now created a scene where Varis faces his ultimate showdown on the megalith board. It could even be like The Player of Games... now that would be something! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

"Now we know"? Do you mean specifically in conjunction with your "Solus never existed" theory or do you think the game actually stated that as a fact? If so, where?

---

In the MSQ they said that Varis choose Zenos as his heir, I interpreted it as in he adopted him into the family, adoptions of this kind were not uncommon in ancient Rome and since that is the inspiration for Garlemand I feel it is reasonable to get that conclusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mieck

But the Lore Book explicitly talks about House Galvus being a prominent family. For an established house to be an elaborate fabrication is a massive leap - and there are too many weak links; there would be whispers of the illegitimacy of House Galvus, rumours of power behind the throne, and everything we've heard out of Garlemald prior to 4.4 doesn't back this up, in my view. The Lore book is effusive in its praise for Solus, in fact; he is credited with reshaping the military around warmachina, and this is what gives them the edge against their neighbours. "...[he] was a self made man, and history will remember his success."

I think it points to an Ascian wearing the meat suit of a well respected, up-and-coming member of the establishment from a good family, or simply that he became an Ascian, though that would imply ability to manipulate aether that pureblood Garleans (another thing stressed in his EE profile, page 178) lack. At what point that happens is open to interpretation, but my view is that Solus existed as a boy and man for a number of years, until possessed.

---

Yes, but aside the possible errors in the lorebook or the fact that the book narrator can be wrong, or that the dev team didn't want to drop this bomb yet, because of the revelation of Solus being an ascian, that the reason for the empire exhistance was a fabrication and the lie about the burn, I don't think we can consider that as truth anymore.
It's possible that a house Galvus existed yes, but as things stands we cannot consider beyond any forms of doubt the existence of Solus Galvus which muddies everything about his family too. This reveal frankly changes everything and we can no longer consider prior knowledge accurate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

snip

---

To simply disregard all previous information, just because we receive one new revelation changing some of the context of that information, is silly. It is possible that other information presented in that section of the lore book is false, but we should not assume it outright. Mieck has just presented good reasons for why it seems highly unlikely that House Galvus itself is a historical fabrication.

The first emperor of Rome was Called Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, however he wasn't born a member of the gens Julia and was later adopted into it.
That might be a valid explenation for Solus too, he wasn't born a Galvus and later was adopted into the family, becoming the greatest member of it later.
I'm not saying that we should disregard what was said, but that we cannot take them as facts anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

The first emperor of Rome was Called Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, however he wasn't born a member of the gens Julia and was later adopted into it.
That might be a valid explenation for Solus too, he wasn't born a Galvus and later was adopted into the family, becoming the greatest member of it later.
I'm not saying that we should disregard what was said, but that we cannot take them as facts anymore.

---

Rumours of an adoption would have circulated, though. Just the way rumours that Aymeric was the Archbishop's illegitimate son were rife.
There's no mention of an adoption or anything. The lore simply states;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Encyclopaedia Eorzea, page 51

1489: Solus zos Galvus, first son of esteemed House Galvus, is born.

---

No doubts, no hedging. Just born.



Furthermore, for a good 20-30 years of Solus's life, he (and by extension, his family) are not in a position of absolute power. Servants gossip. The word would have gotten out before Solus was in any kind of position to quash rumours, or set up a counter-narrative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

In the MSQ they said that Varis choose Zenos as his heir, I interpreted it as in he adopted him into the family, adoptions of this kind were not uncommon in ancient Rome and since that is the inspiration for Garlemand I feel it is reasonable to get that conclusion

---

Can you give the specific quote?

If I remember correctly, the context was that Varis immediately named Zenos his heir after becoming Emperor to create a sense of stability in contrast to Solus who would not name his choice out of Varis and Titus.

If that is correct, it didn't necessarily have anything to do with Zenos not being Varis-the-person's heir prior to that, rather that he is now the designated heir of the Emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

It's possible that a house Galvus existed yes, but as things stands we cannot consider beyond any forms of doubt the existence of Solus Galvus which muddies everything about his family too. This reveal frankly changes everything and we can no longer consider prior knowledge accurate

---

Solus's status may muddy his blood relationship to Varis, but it shouldn't have any direct effect on Varis's relationship to Zenos. (And Varis is presumably a normal mortal, strange-looking as he is, or Solus would probably have taunted him about that too.)

IF Solus was an Ascian from the start, and IF human-Ascians cannot have children of their own, THEN [Varis's father] and Titus were presumably adopted. They and their families are completely unrelated to Solus, so there's no reason to question their status just because of this.

Looking at the lorebook profiles for Solus and Varis - no mention at all of Zenos, but it only covers up to Heavensward. Most of Varis's profile is spent on rumours about the relationship he may or may not have with his grandfather (favoured him? respects him? blames him for the country's internal strife?).

And for Solus, the last paragraph sounds to me like a 'dancing around a future reveal' type of statement.

Quote:

---

Encyclopedia Eorzea Vol.I p.178
Galvus was a self-made individual, and history will remember his successes. However, it is difficult to characterise his life as happy: he was betrayed by those he had considered his closest friends, and lost his firstborn son to illness when the man was still young.

---

His son's death must have come when he was already "considered an Ascian", but the vaguely described betrayal is presumably going to be important at some point.

It could be the case that his despair at being betrayed left him open to Ascian possession, like Thancred was vulnerable to Lahabrea.

Or it could be the catalyst for the man to take the first steps down the dark path of becoming an Ascian himself. (Which might still come down to other Ascians taking advantage of his vulnerability at that point, just in a different way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mieck

Rumours of an adoption would have circulated, though. Just the way rumours that Aymeric was the Archbishop's illegitimate son were rife.
There's no mention of an adoption or anything. The lore simply states;







No doubts, no hedging. Just born.



Furthermore, for a good 20-30 years of Solus's life, he (and by extension, his family) are not in a position of absolute power. Servants gossip. The word would have gotten out before Solus was in any kind of position to quash rumours, or set up a counter-narrative.

---

If Garlemand is idd modeled after ancient Rome than adoption is not something that will be cause of clamor. It was not an uncommon pratice of adopting someone into your family giving them also your name. Augustus was adopted into the gens Iulia and he was born of the gens Octavia, also Tiberius wasn't the biological son of Augustus either.
I don't understand this idea of servants rumors that ppl have, we have no idea exactly how the law in Garlemand works, but if the writers are trying to base it on Rome and not just citing names we can assume that they did some research on the practices and general law.
We might assume that the war of succession could be based on the Augustus vs Anrthony war after the failure of the second triumvirate for all we know.

@iscah as for the quote about Zenos. I'll search the cutscenes since I don't remember where it was said exactly

Edit: However we might aswell also consider the logical explanation of retcon on the lorebook, I mean there's the problem of that guy from the durendaine family whose age is not fixed in the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

It could be the case that his despair at being betrayed left him open to Ascian possession, like Thancred was vulnerable to Lahabrea. Or it could be the catalyst for the man to take the first steps down the dark path of becoming an Ascian himself.

---

I've been looking at this, as well. Even the Archon Ahldbahr story foreshadowed Ascian focus on twisting despair. (Probably to foreshadow Thancred, of course.)

So I found the part and frankly it kinda implies that the throne is not inherited father-son because of ppl not being happy with the choice of Zenos as heir, but then I had a worm in my head and went to read the short story and there Zenos is called Varis' Heir before his ascension as emperor.
Now unless we have to consider this a retcon of the short story, we should consider idd Zenos as his biological son, though it's interesting that in the short story Titus is said to be the Emperor's second son while Zenos is simply called ready heir.
Now this might imply just an adoption which as I just said if it's like ancient Rome it's nothing to be ashamed of, but I would ignore this eventuality since it's not clear enough.

As for Solus, I'm still of the opinion that we can't really say that whatever was written before really holds up, Perhaps a real Solus existed, perhaps not, we know for a fact that by the time he decided to create an empire Solus was already an ascian and said ascian might or might have been present during the ancient allag( what he said when comparing to allag).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

Edit: However we might aswell also consider the logical explanation of retcon on the lorebook, I mean there's the problem of that guy from the durendaine family whose age is not fixed in the story.

---

Of course. I've said before that the lorebook isn't guaranteed to be reliable if the information hasn't been covered in-game (edit: hasn't been covered but will be in future).

It's just interesting to go back and read that part in light of the new information we've learned. It doesn't prove anything either way, it's just an odd thing to put in his profile if it's not going to be important later (whether the details will need retconning or not, they've put a seed of information there).

More so, if it wasn't going to be important, then it seems odd to bring it up but talk about it so vaguely. Either elaborate on it, or don't put it in. But if it's going to be a plot point, then vagueness now avoids the need for retconning later.


Just so long as everyone is on the same page as to the facts underlying the vagueness, anyway. Which I suspect is how the Durendaire family tree got into a mess in the first place. I just hope they untangle that before they finalise quest scripts for 5.0 and put some kind of even-harder-to-retcon snarl in it..... ;_;

A Retcon is really specific though. It's when new information contradicts previous information. And I don't think that's what's happening in this case. New information casting old information in a new light is not a Retcon.

To be honest, finding Retcons in-game of Lore Book information is really, really hard. While not *all* the information is in the Lore Book, the vast, vast majority of information in it is correct. We just don't have everything. That's much different then saying the Lore Book as a whole isn't a reliable source of information.

Until more information comes out (Lore Book 2!), I'd say that it's much better to err on the side of everything in Lore Book 1 about the Garlean Empire being correct. There's no reason to assume that it isn't and the new information about Solus fits in just fine with with the information about him in the Lore Book. As it is, we're probably going to get a lot about Zenos and the Garlean Empire's occupation of Gyr Abania in Lore Book 2. So I'll be waiting for that to come out before saying Lore Book 1 is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ObsidianFire

A Retcon is really specific though. It's when new information contradicts previous information. And I don't think that's what's happening in this case. New information casting old information in a new light is not a Retcon.

---

The fun thing about the word retcon is that everyone has a different idea of what it means and passionate opinions about everything related to it. For example, what you're describing is by some considered "retroactive continuity" (retcon) of the "addition" type. The "alteration" subtype is also heavily leaned on by FFXIV. It's the "subtration" subtype people get all up in arms about.

... if ignorance may be forgiven, which story is that Archon's? Or where is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

The fun thing about the word retcon is that everyone has a different idea of what it means and passionate opinions about everything related to it. For example, what you're describing is by some considered "retroactive continuity" (retcon) of the "addition" type. The "alteration" subtype is also heavily leaned on by FFXIV. It's the "subtration" subtype people get all up in arms about.

---

Sub what now? I think I may need a post from you detailing the different kinds of retcons.

About Solus: This is definitelya retcon. What kind of retcon? We don't know yet because we don't know how much of the existing canon it retcons. Kinda depends on when and how Solus became "Solus".

And why the eff did he have a physical body in the cutscene? He can talk to Varis as a ghost. And if he can...does that mean that Varis has the echo? Or at least artificial fake echo (Resonance) ?

I wonder if it is to believed that Varis only recently learned that his grandfather has been an Ascian for awhile and that his whole country for some time has just been one huge puppet; if when we met him in the sea of clouds he'd still have acted the same way or not. As he seems to not enjoy having learned why the empire's focus is the way it is. I feel a little bad for him as he's in a catch 22. If he goes along with it he's a willing puppet. If he doesn't I think he fully knows that "grandfather" and "son" are fully able to go through with their plans without him and that he too could get body snatched just to make it easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balipu

About Solus: This is definitelya retcon. What kind of retcon? We don't know yet because we don't know how much of the existing canon it retcons. Kinda depends on when and how Solus became "Solus".

---

It's only a retcon if the writers intended something different from the start. Yda/Lyse was probably a retcon - if the 1.0 writer(s) had no intent of Yda being anyone but herself, but then in rewriting the plot for ARR onwards it got changed to "actually, Yda in the later 1.0 scenes wasn't Yda at all but died and was replaced by her sister", that's a retcon. New information has been made up and laid over the previous intent. There may be some glitches or convoluted explanations to make the new information fit with what had previously been established.

On the other hand, if the writers planned that fact from the very start of the story, and were always leading up to that reveal, it's not a retcon, just new information. Even if it does turn the whole plot on its head and make you re-evaluate all the facts. (And especially if once you've done that, it's clear they were setting up for it all along.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ObsidianFire

To be honest, finding Retcons in-game of Lore Book information is really, really hard. While not *all* the information is in the Lore Book, the vast, vast majority of information in it is correct. We just don't have everything. That's much different then saying the Lore Book as a whole isn't a reliable source of information.

---

I edited my previous post to say, I'm wary of trusting the lorebook account of events if that information is going to be discussed later in the game itself. Anything that's planned by the writers but not known to the players at the time of writing, may be mentioned but in a deliberately vague way, or witholding key facts. (See Yda's profile, for example: the only Scion with no age given; establishes that she has a sister; brings up her as-yet-unmentioned 'one true wish' of freeing her homeland from the Garleans - but no hint of the actual major reveal). We only have some of the facts until the game is ready to reveal the whole story.

Even before this, it seemed likely that the "Garlean history" page was not going to be a full and reliable record of what happened.



And if I may bring up the Durendaires again.... something has to give there. Either facts stated in the game are wrong, or the lorebook is wrong. One is going to have to win out over the other at some point - but the longer it's unresolved, the more chance they'll put in some kind of additional information that will create more inconsistencies. (Say, building on the lorebook version of the AST timeline when writing the new job quests, rather than continuing with the facts previously given in-game.)

My take on the Solus situation is that the figure we see in the ending cutscene to 4.4 is a representation of Solus zos Galvus when he originally agreed to become a Paragon. When that was precisely is still up for debate, but I think the theories as to it being after the loss of his firstborn son might hold some water. As for why Solus apparently aged and died naturally, I think a potential answer to this is that Solus could have had a body double.

Key here is how Gaius was characterized as being most loyal to the Emperor himself, questioning the reasoning of other figures like Nael and seeking out the approval of Cid in order to strengthen the Empire according to the specific ideals he holds (and by extension those he believes the Emperor holds.) Contrast that with the openly cynical and abrasive personality exhibited by Solus in the cutscene, and there would seem to be a paradox in how Gaius could idolize such a man, excepting if the man Gaius met was not in fact Solus, but another man posing as him. My theory is that after the original Solus became a Paragon he sought out a mortal man to replace him in the day-to-day matters and public appearances needed of such a figurehead, keeping watch and directing his decisions at key moments to align with what his personal goals for sowing chaos entailed. Perhaps in becoming the man full-time, the double became the truest believer of the ideology we now know was built on false pretenses, and cultivated a real relationship with Gaius during the latter's rise to Legatus and successful war campaigns. Mortal!Solus had a reliable general and a man who embodied the might and ideals of Garlemald to a T, and Ascian!Solus had a reliable tool that could be directed to subjugate areas and create resentment that might lead to general unrest or Primal summoning. The irony now that Gaius was so loyal that he now presents a major obstacle to Solus should he foment a political or popular uprising against the royal family in his quest to get back at the people who used him.

As for Solus's potential Zodiac alignment as an Ascian, I think perhaps he might be related to Capricorn.

After having read up on the known history of Solus my mind is in the place that Solus was an actual person before the Ascian. I think that the original Solus was a seperate entity who was on track to just be a Military star that either A) Made a poor choice that lead to his demise (and ascian body-snatching) or B) Maybe it was a willful sacrifice for the prosperity of his country and countrymen or a combination of both. The Galvus family was very well known even before the empire was established. A well known entity is a prime target for anyone wanting to seize control. I also feel that the Ascian probably has two names but goes by Solus because he -was- Solus for so long. I mean, it just makes life easier if you are living an alternate identity amirite? Also I think if I lived as long as the Solus in a different life I would probably want a vacation before coming back as well. Its hard to really tell if an Ascian's experience any kind of a time line other than just being. It may be that they never have bodies of their own in the first place I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Balipu

Sub what now? I think I may need a post from you detailing the different kinds of retcons.

---

Luckily, there's a whole Wikipedia article! Though, again, most people just skip right over learning what the concept is and assume "retcon" always means "we're ignoring past information to add new information that directly contradicts old information" (subtraction retcon). In that light, FFXIV would rely heavily on "reframing" (addition retcon) or "new revelations" (alteration retcon).

Let's face it, the only way you're going to get through a 10+ year game is to have some wiggle room, and if you hate subtraction retcons (and the dev. team do), your only option is to rely on being vague where you can get away with it (so you can re-frame for new possibilities) and having information vectors that make mistakes (Dumb NPCs). Can't write all 10+ years ahead of time.

Any writing that's done recently that changes writing done previously, after the fact, in a way that wasn't intended at the time is continiuity ... retroactively. Even if it doesn't have any contradictions, but merely explains or adds new significance that wasn't intended from the beginning, it's still technically a retcon.

It's just that we tend to see only one subtype of it as plot poison. But if we're going to debate, we might as well be using the same operational definitions, yes? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SannaR

I wonder if it is to believed that Varis only recently learned that his grandfather has been an Ascian for awhile and that his whole country for some time has just been one huge puppe

---

That's how I took it. In the 4.0 stinger he's acting like Rejoining is an entirely new concept to him and he doesn't know whether to trust it. In 4.4, Solus is saying You believe in our ideals, right? Not much time bridging those two concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnigMatt

Snip

---

This body double is an interesting idea. It could solve the aging, the dying, the sex. Everything. And by the way it wouldn't sound stupid for an Emperor to have body doubles anyway. But I'm pretty sure a proper Ascian could play Gaius like a violin. I mean Lahabrea could do it and everyone from Nabriales to Solus himself talk about Lahabrea as if he was the biggest moron out of all the Ascians.

If we take what we think we know about Ascians as definitive canon then we have two possibilities for what Solus is: The son of one of the most prestigious houses in the garlean republic that either got replaced/possessed by an Ascian at some point in his life to be used as a pawn OR that ended up "ascending" to the existence as a Ascian.

I think based on his dialogue we should take the first explanation as more likely as he sounds as if he's an actor playing a part (which makes for a nice reference to Emperor Solus being a patron of the arts as we learn in the Ivalice raid). Yet i doubt Solus would be the name of an actual Ascian and if we follow the actor metaphor he would have very little reason outside of player exposition to come back using the same name of a dead character. So at this point i believe either theory floats and it's down to preference.

However i think we can safely say the transformation from mortal man Solus, be it from ascencion or possession, into an Ascian happened fairly early in his life probably around the time he started rising in the military chain of command. I'd say the latest this could've happened was when he became a legatus as that is when he became involved with the whole magitek thing. Planning a whole empire out of whole cloth and rallying the support of the masses would take a fair share of time.

Interesting seeing the various theories on just what it means for Solus to be an Ascian! I don't think there's enough presented information to completely discount any of the theories, but here's the one that I'm going with until it is explicitly shown, in-game, to be incorrect:

Solus was born a normal Garlean human being. At some point in his life, most likely before he became Emperor, an Ascian took him as a host, just as Lahabrea did with Thancred. Ascian!Solus proceeded to lead Garlemand in its conquest, ostensibly to combat the "primal menace" but really just to stir the pot and get a Calamity rolling. As his body was human, he lived, aged, and died, just as a normal human does. If he had special Ascian powers (and he probably did), he rarely or never used them, and it's unlikely that they could be passed to offspring even if he had them. After death, he vacated the body (as Ascians do after their host body dies) and went to "sleep" in some fashion, possibly a reward for a job well done, given how resentful he seemed at being woken from it.

As far as I can tell, this explanation is simple, and doesn't contradict any facts presented in the game OR the Lorebook. As far as any outside observer could tell, Solus was just a talented and ambitious Garlean aristocrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

*ALC Spoilers*

---

Actually, if I recall correctly, it is explicitly stated in the ALC storyline that Sevarian was utilizing preservatives while he did his research. Additionally, the Stormblood ALC quests involved corpses that were free of decay, and this was treated as unnatural.

So, I think it's safe to say that dead bodies in-game do NORMALLY degrade just like real-life bodies do. In the case of Ascian possession, however, I wouldn't be surprised if Ascians are very skilled at restoring bodies when they take them over. How far gone a body can be and still be viable as a vessel is not clear, but I'm guessing an Ascian can, at the very least, patch one up that's just a bit bloated and worm-eaten.

Well the artist formerly known as Solus zos Galvus, or however we should name him, said he created the Empire to cause chaos. So unless he is just lying to mess with Varis, and by proxy the players, we can assume that he was already an Ascian when the Empire was established.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Interesting seeing the various theories on just what it means for Solus to be an Ascian! I don't think there's enough presented information to completely discount any of the theories, but here's the one that I'm going with until it is explicitly shown, in-game, to be incorrect:

...

As far as I can tell, this explanation is simple, and doesn't contradict any facts presented in the game OR the Lorebook. As far as any outside observer could tell, Solus was just a talented and ambitious Garlean aristocrat.

---

That was my take on it as well; I guess I must have been a bit unclear?

It does leave some questions that the answers to can only be speculated on, though in my opinion those questions aren't particularly pertinent. We know that Solus (?) was an Ascian who created the Garlean Empire solely to create conflict (and ultimately cause Calamities) on Hydaelyn while also maintaining the balance between Light and Dark; if he's an ascended mortal, why he's choosing to continue to identify as "Solus zos Galvus" (if he's one of the overlords), what body he's using now, etc... none of those feel particularly important to me, though the knowledge would be welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cilia

That was my take on it as well; I guess I must have been a bit unclear?

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that my chosen theory contradicted all of the other currently stated theories - just that it's the one I've accepted as most likely, for now. The fact that it happens to match your theory just means we're of a like mind.

As for identifying as Solus, keep in mind that the ENTIRETY of what we've seen of him so far has been one scene in which he spent the entire thing conversing with Varis, who only knows him as Solus. He probably didn't see much benefit in saying, "Oh, and call me X now - it's my TRUE ASCIAN NAME of EVIL. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!" He's likely fine with Varis continuing to address him as Solus, whether or not it's his true name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LineageRazor

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that my chosen theory contradicted all of the other currently stated theories - just that it's the one I've accepted as most likely, for now. The fact that it happens to match your theory just means we're of a like mind.

As for identifying as Solus, keep in mind that the ENTIRETY of what we've seen of him so far has been one scene in which he spent the entire thing conversing with Varis, who only knows him as Solus. He probably didn't see much benefit in saying, "Oh, and call me X now - it's my TRUE ASCIAN NAME of EVIL. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!" He's likely fine with Varis continuing to address him as Solus, whether or not it's his true name.

---

No, I'm not saying you contradicted my theory; on the contrary, I had that idea from the beginning, and a lot of people seemed to feel I was unclear on that point. The problem is that it leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but that's the one idea I have that doesn't contradict any information presently available.

I agree that he's still using the "Solus" name because it's what people in his role as "Solus" knew him as, and it's easier if they just call him that. Could also be for emotional torment; Varis is clearly unhappy knowing that the country he loves is motivated by little more than a bunch of meaningless lies told to them by an immortal phantasm hellbent on causing chaos and mass destruction, especially when Varis' main goal is to bring order to the world to prevent it from destroying itself - and to top it all off, that immortal phantasm is his own grandfather. There can't be many worse gut punches.

The first Emperor was an Ascian who set the Empire up to cause conflict, not resolve it, and set that Empire on its course by giving them a power high through magitek and selling them a bunch of meaningless lies. Further details seem... unimportant to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

Luckily, there's a whole Wikipedia article! Though, again, most people just skip right over learning what the concept is and assume "retcon" always means "we're ignoring past information to add new information that directly contradicts old information" (subtraction retcon). In that light, FFXIV would rely heavily on "reframing" (addition retcon) or "new revelations" (alteration retcon).

Let's face it, the only way you're going to get through a 10+ year game is to have some wiggle room, and if you hate subtraction retcons (and the dev. team do), your only option is to rely on being vague where you can get away with it (so you can re-frame for new possibilities) and having information vectors that make mistakes (Dumb NPCs). Can't write all 10+ years ahead of time.

Any writing that's done recently that changes writing done previously, after the fact, in a way that wasn't intended at the time is continiuity ... retroactively. Even if it doesn't have any contradictions, but merely explains or adds new significance that wasn't intended from the beginning, it's still technically a retcon.

It's just that we tend to see only one subtype of it as plot poison. But if we're going to debate, we might as well be using the same operational definitions, yes? lol

---

Well tbh I think that this news of Solus is an acceptable retcon since tbf, we don't know yet the full extents of an ascian existance nor what was said of Solus was completely set in stone and him being an ascian might even not invalidate that either.

And tbf, I'm happy that we are actually going to meet Solus, I wasn't to keen of him being offscreene'd

Retcons only bother me when they make past events make less sense or they make things less interesting, which is subjective.

On one hand, ascians founding the Empire makes sense logically because while the Empire claims to have noble intentions the way they go about things plays into the goals of the Ascians so it makes sense to me that the Ascians have been pulling the strings.

The issue I have is that I find a well meaning but misguided empire more interesting than one that's secretly a puppet for the architects of calamities behind the scenes. And I fear that even if Varis somehow takes control, he'll be doing it with our help and not as an antagonist.

Tbf few ppl knew of the puppet thing, most of the ppl a well meaning and extremely misguided in the end.
I mean Gaius is an example and he's coming back with a vengeance

I do think they are trying to salvage the empire after they have kinda demonized them too much with what Zenos was doing. I mean, if Zenos was the poster boy of the empire I don't think anyone would say they can be saved, since they would be irredeemably evil

I definitely never considered Zenos the poster boy for the Empire fwiw; he goes out of his way to show you he doesn't really care about the Empire or their purported mission. He may be the Emperor's son, and legatus to boot, but he's a really piss-poor Imperial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocl

I definitely never considered Zenos the poster boy for the Empire fwiw; he goes out of his way to show you he doesn't really care about the Empire or their purported mission. He may be the Emperor's son, and legatus to boot, but he's a really piss-poor Imperial.

---

Yeah, and they made Zenos intentionally unsympathetic for the purpose of not having people side with him like some people wanted to side with Gaius in ARR. If anything this move is to help push people away from siding with the empire by saying 'actually their mission statement about saving the world form primals is a lie.'

I thin this move is making ppl side with the empire more, since now the Garleans can be redeemed, tbh the story being set up is not much different than Ishgard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

I thin this move is making ppl side with the empire more, since now the Garleans can be redeemed, tbh the story being set up is not much different than Ishgard

---

I wouldn't say Garlemald is redeemable exactly, or at least not in its current state. Ascian manipulations aside, as well as whatever true feelings about said manipulations he has, Varis is still very complicit. I don't doubt he could potentially become a valuable ally for a time, should he become too much of a nuisance for the Ascians and Elidibus plays the crown heir's body card to usurp full control of Garlean operations. Even so, it's an alliance that likely won't last one way or the other. While Varis may be doing what he believes is right for his people, I don't think he'll abandon his own beliefs on what should be the core Garlean values. Without Ascians to pull the strings, he will likely still lead the Empire on its path of conquest, only according to his own designs instead. Even should he decide to change things and make amends for the wrongs the Empire committed under the influence of the Ascians, he should still be held accountable for his own part in perpetuating them. In order for Garlemald to truly begin the path of "redemption", as you may, I think it could be done only under the rule of someone else entirely. Perhaps someone who has already paid dearly for following the path of conquest, and for working closely with Ascians? Someone who may already be trying to make amends for these mistakes? I wonder...

Neither Varis nor Gaius wants to abandon their conquest wiew nor does the populares mind you.
Can't say for Varis exactly, but both Gaius and the populares wants to have the empire being not an oppressive force.
As I said elsewhere, the populares treaty for Doma was essentially asking to become Vassal since they were asking them to enforce their belief of no summoning to the othardian's beast tribes.
It's another form of conquest, not done by war but by politics (you can guess what would've followed if they didn't accept).
What I mean with redeemable is that, they are not exactly all evil, which was not really something you could imagine from what you saw Zenos' doing. It also makes the empire all the more interesting and less cartoonish villain.


TBF I was expecting ppl being more disappointed that this is Ishgard all over again more than anything else

Because it's not Ishgard all over again. That's why.

As far as we can tell, the Ascians were never involved with Ishgard's problems until very recently. The Ishgard/Dravanian conflict? That's all on the Ishgardians killing Ratatoskr way back when and Nidhogg never letting go. Thordan's ambitions? From the sound of it, he's always had those, the Ascians just gave him a means to act them out fully. Nearly all of Ishgard's problems and conflicts have nothing to do with Ascian involvement and everything to do with normal ordinary people grabbing power and practically immortal beings holding a grudge.

Garlemald though... people have been debating for literal years what kick-started the Empire after 800 years of a successful Republic. And they've been debating for just as long why the Empire can't seem to get that trying to concur people to eradicate eikons contributes more then anything else does to eikons being summoned in the first place. We've all known something out of the ordinary must have happened for the Empire to have formed. An Ascian creating an Empire to keep the world in a constant sate of chaos nicely fills in all those gaps.

From everything we can tell, the Garlean Empire is the first (and currently only) country that the Ascians built from scratch. They didn't subtly influence it's founding, they didn't try to nudge it's leader in the direction they wanted him to go. Nope, instead they ran the entire thing from day one with seemingly no resistance and appeased the people they were leading with a bunch of logical sounding lies. We've never had that before. Certainly not on that scale. Garlemald controls an entire continent. Compared to that, Ishgard is a city-state and it's surrounding lands. The scale alone makes the two situations very different.

The term "vassal state" has a lot of political strings that weren't present in the primary agreement - in that case, Doma would be completely and totally subservient to the Empire, which was not part of the agreement. The agreement was simply to not summon eikons themselves and keep an eye on the beast tribes and try to prevent any summons - things they were already doing. Of course the Empire may have attacked had they not accepted or kept their word, but the terms were so agreeable it was nearly impossible not to (purposefully, mind) - but, threat of war or not, there was no request for submission from Doma. Becoming a vassal state was neither explicit nor implicit. ("Don't summon eikons and try to make sure the locals don't either, and we'll work towards peaceful coexistence starting with a prisoner exchange. No agreement, no exchange.")

We... don't actually have evidence that the Populares have the same goal as the Optimates and are just using a different method of achieving that goal. We also we have no idea what Gaius' goals are at this point beyond the extermination of Ascians - though his experience working with Lahabrea has clearly changed his perspective on some things.

Nobody has ever said that the Garlean people are all evil - but the system they have set up perpetuates violence and conflict, and is rooted in a bunch of meaningless lies. Zenos is a poor example of what the Garlean people could be, but he is an exemplar of the sort of evils the Empire's system produces, and stopping monsters like him is the very reason the Empire must be opposed.

We don't know this is going to go the Ishgard route and I will be somewhat disappointed if it does, but that's better than having to tear the whole thing down. I guess it needs to be clearer, but I don't think most people have issues with the Garlean people - it's their war machine that's the main issue, with the brutality some (if not most) provinces are subjected to being a close second... and the motivations for those things are nothing more than meaningless lies, so "morally grey" or not, who is in the right is pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Remedi

I thin this move is making ppl side with the empire more, since now the Garleans can be redeemed, tbh the story being set up is not much different than Ishgard

---

Garlemald could have always be "redeemed". Just never with its current system. Just like Ishgard a change in government and revealing the truth behind it could make for a different Garlemald. My problem with the Ascians being founders is, that it even makes current Garlemald completetly morally black. People cant even go and say that the government believed to do the right thing because the government (or at least the emperor) knew that it was all a lie. (One could argue that the people of Garlemald still were behind the idea of conquering other states because even an Ascian needs the approval of the masses to act as a ruler) So any complexity behind it is gone. All is a lie and its even worse than Isghard in that case because there it was a lie to protect people, since knowing the truth may have broken the will to fight thus killing them even easier. Here its a lie built in a state where there is no harsh enemy, just a lie to have people go to war against the world.

A lie that killed millions of people thanks to all the conquerings, thanks to the calamity that they created and all the suffering that people around the world go through. The empire until its reformed and peaceful is nothing but bad. No nuance there, nothing. Just there to create chaos and bring back Zodiark. (And again I do mean the government or state of Garlemald, not individual people that live there, those can be quite different on the moral scale)

Suppose we can agree to disagree. I didn't see a way for a Garlemand redeem story before, while this makes that option possible

I honestly see parallels to Ishgard and frankly Ishagrd comes out in the worst since as far as we've seen only Solus knew the truth while Ishagrd had essentially a secret police and the head of the clergy keeping the popoluce under constant check, not to mention they spun that lie to keep themselves appear holy and rigtheous.