Origin of the Enchiridion?

[Berethos]

To be honest, I found that vision by itself to be rather strange, not least because they didn't craft a new history of what happened on that day. What happened on that day is that Haldrath drove off Nidhogg, and that's exactly what they publicised.

When he said shape their nation anew with a history of their own making, I don't think he was necessary limiting himself to just the events of that one day...and even if he was, he references it as the "truth of this dark day" and that strongly suggests the betrayal and consumption of the eyes for power happened on that day as well (along with what they thought was the final defeat of Nidhogg, which was very nearly true...they had no idea Hraesvelgr would give up one of his own eyes to help Nidhogg). Certain elements of the lie were almost certainly created in later years, perhaps centuries later, but there's a strong indication from this scene that decision to begin that narrative was made that day and not born out of minor changes to the events that eventually spun out of hand as you seem to suggest. In fact, where they are talking is in the Churning Mists (The Rookery), not far from the area where Ratatoskr is most likely to have been killed (Tharl Oom Khash). Leaving only to return to the scene of the crime on a different day? Not terribly likely.

I also think you might be pinning too much on the belief that these were men of integrity. They were all complicit in the partaking of the power of the eyes to take the fight to there own allies (though clearly even after 200 years there were those among the Elezen who resented the Dragons for one reason or another), and that scene shows - with the exception of the Lord of House Dzemael, who was in fact quite pleased at the idea of Haldrath ruling with his newfound power - a great deal of guilt and shame among the survivors. It was a decision to hide the truth born out of shame and cowardice for a terrible act...not something men of integrity would do. While the others did walk away from it all and give up being knights...they were just as complicit, and it's likely that their guilt and shame kept them silent as well.

Eventually that guilt might (a word I've chosen carefully, but to explain why would be spoilery) lessen over time for those few privy to it as they are born further and further from the date of the transgression, and such knowledge coupled with more organic developments could certainly impact how the Enchiridion was taught (to pull the original discussion of the thread back in a bit) if not actual changes to the text in the 1000 years of the Dragonsong War.

[UAnchovy]

Hold on, I thought we knew that there were significant gaps in time between Thordan slaying Ratatoskr, Nidhogg slaying Thordan, and then Haldrath defeating Nidhogg? Let me pull out the sources again...

The Encyclopaedia Eorzea (p. 149) suggests that Nidhogg killing Thordan and Haldrath defeating Nidhogg were part of the same battle, but that battle lasted for seven days and seven nights. It doesn't expand on what that means: perhaps it was a running battle with periods of rest, as each side withdrew to try to recover while the other side hunted them down, or perhaps Ratatoskr's eyes meant that each side had the stamina to literally fight for a week.

Then in-game... Ysayle doesn't provide anything in 'Purple Flame, Purple Flame'. In 'Heart of Ice', Hraesvelgr fails to add anything either. No dates are mentioned. No one mentions any dates in the Echo flashback after 'Into the Aery'. Neither does Thordan VII mention anything when he describes it in the flashback in 'The Sins of Antiquity'. I think those are the only places in the game where anyone describes what happened? Hraesvelgr, Haldrath, and Thordan VII all describe the same sequence of events - Thordan and the Knights Twelve slay Ratatoskr, the first dragon to learn of it is Nidhogg, Nidhogg immediately attacks the knights in a rage, Nidhogg kills Thordan and half the knights but is defeated by Haldrath, and then the surviving knights go on to found the high houses - but none provide any timeline.

Hm. When I played, the impression I got was that this wasn't all in the one day. It must have taken some time for Nidhogg to discover the news of his brood-sister's death, which would also allow time for the Knights Twelve to master their new powers. However, I can't offer any evidence for this. It just feels more right to me. In my defense, neither can I find any evidence that it did all happen in the one day. The only mention of time I can find is the EE's reference to the Thordan-Nidhogg-Haldrath battle taking a week.

On the integrity of the Knights Twelve:

Here's where the sheer ambiguity of what happened that day becomes a problem for me. I would think that we have a relatively consistent picture of Haldrath, and we know that he was pretty heroic. Similarly, the fact that three knights chose to walk away after the battle, instead of accepting power, suggests to me that they were not primarily motivated by greed or self-interest. Even the four who did take power couch their argument in terms of the benefit of the people (Flavien: "Think of your people, my lord! Without a king, who will the common man turn to in his hour of need?"), and then they immediately agree to share power and set up a stewardship. If they were motivated primarily by hunger for power, why not appoint a king from among their own number, as Haldrath suggested? Their restraint suggests to me some sense of propriety, some humility, or even some guilt, or a sense that they were unworthy. Or at the very least, enough enlightened self-interest to realise that feuding over who would be king would threaten them all.

Which makes me wonder: how the heck did Thordan pitch the slaying of Ratatoskr? All the Knights Twelve took part in it, including Haldrath, and at least one of them seems to have been a relatively decent person. Why did they agree to slay Ratatoskr? Was it, in fact, premeditated at all? Skimming the sources I mentioned above, there's even confusion as to what Thordan's motivation was.

EE p. 47 suggests that they devoured Ratatoskr's eyes "to gain preternatural wisdom", p. 149 says that Thordan "coveted the power" in the eyes, and p. 206 says that he killed her out of "avarice", "for her eyes and the strength they might provide." In 'Purple Flame, Purple Flame', Ysayle suggests that the knights believed that dragons are immortal because of the aether in their eyes, and that they wanted to become immortal. Hraesvelgr in 'Heart of Ice' just says it was the desire to possess 'strength', Haldrath in 'Into the Aery' says "we traded our honour for the strength which now courses in our veins", and in 'The Sins of Antiquity', Thordan VII says they killed Ratatoskr "that they might partake of her eyes, and thereby transcend their mortal limits".

So, what was the goal? Knowledge? Power? Immortality? How preconceived was this plan? For all I know, Thordan and the knights walked up to Ratatoskr, Thordan demanded that she share the knowledge and power of dragons with mankind, Ratatoskr tried to intimidate them and said that it could never happen while she lived, and battle broke out due to misunderstanding. I don't know what happened because they only people present for that battle were Ratatoskr, Thordan, Haldrath, and the Knights Twelve, most of them died, and the few survivors never talked about it.

Anyway. When I try to guess at something like this, I try to start with two principles. Firstly, I try to assume that no one was gratuitously stupid, and secondly, that no one was gratuitously evil. That's not say that gratuitously stupid or evil people don't exist in Eorzea (e.g. Hildibrand, Xande), but that they're unusual enough that I think it's better to start with the idea that people aren't morons or supervillains. If I bear that in mind and try to start from a position where Thordan and the Knights Twelve thought they were justified... well, how can that be?

I think I also prefer a non-stupid non-evil interpretation of the knights because it better contextualises their surrounding actions. In every part of their lives we know about other than the slaying of Ratatoskr, they don't seem to have been villains. Haldrath is unambiguously heroic; the three survivors who walked away weren't after power; and even the four founders spent their lives defending Ishgard and establishing a stewardship that would last a thousand years. Even Hraesvelgr describes Thordan I as "that most noble of elezen". (Granted, he might be sarcastic. What does a sarcastic tone even sound like in dragon speech?) Haldrath also refers to them as "men of such wisdom and compassion", though I guess he too might be sarcastic? Regardless, the slaying of Ratatoskr is the only clear act of villainy I can attribute to any of these people.

As a final note, I find it more dramatically interesting if the Knights Twelve were not just nakedly after power, or if they, Ratatoskr aside, were for the most part genuinely good people. A noble brotherhood who are tempted to do something evil, or who commit a terrible crime out of loyalty to a king who has gone mad with power, or who rationalise a dark deed to themselves and later regret it, or who commit an atrocity out of misunderstanding and then have to face the consequences, are to me more interesting than people who are simply monsters. I think that also heightens the parallel between the Knights Twelve and the modern Heavens' Ward, who contain some villains but also some genuinely good and heroic people. Thordan VII, like his original namesake, tries to use hideous means in order to accomplish a noble goal. I like the parallel you get.

Anyway, I realise I've gone on for a while, and haven't been very focused. I suppose this is what happens the first time you post in the official forum, with an entire game's worth of reflections to comment on. Thank you for indulging me.

[Zohar_Lahar]

Eventually that guilt might (a word I've chosen carefully, but to explain why would be spoilery) lessen over time for those few privy to it as they are born further and further from the date of the transgression, and such knowledge coupled with more organic developments could certainly impact how the Enchiridion was taught (to pull the original discussion of the thread back in a bit) if not actual changes to the text in the 1000 years of the Dragonsong War.

In the Scholasticate quests, it was mentioned how a man who had to keep records on these dark secrets for the Vault actually became depressed and committed suicide because of it.