About the Emperor [Major Spoilers for 4.4]

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.