[SPOILERS] No one seems to be talking about that OTHER huge event

[Lium]

(For this timeline alone, Future-G'raha traveling to the past did not change the state of the time he originated from. That's what I meant by calling the bad future a stable time loop.)

So, basically you're talking about the Kelvin timeline in Star Trek or what Avengers: Endgame did.

Changing the events of the past do not necessarily change the future. They just create alternate timelines. In that regard, it's quite possible the bad future still happened and that timeline is unchanged. But because we stopped the Calamity, we are all now living in an alternate timeline.

[Iscah]

So, basically you're talking about the Kelvin timeline in Star Trek or what Avengers: Endgame did.

Changing the events of the past do not necessarily change the future. They just create alternate timelines. In that regard, it's quite possible the bad future still happened and that timeline is unchanged. But because we stopped the Calamity, we are all now living in an alternate timeline.

I nearly did comment on your reference to Endgame. I haven't seen it as I'm not an Avengers fan, but I did read a summary out of curiosity and it seems to be the same basic concept. Time is for the most part a single stable timeline, and "changes" by time travelers get incorporated into that one single version of events and were always there. But particularly irreconcilable changes can break it and cause a split.

Still, it's quite a different situation to the sort of time concepts where every decision you make spawns off a new timeline where it did-or-didn't happen, in which case the whole thing seems futile because you can't actually prevent anything from happening somewhere.

So yes, the mostly-stable model is what we're dealing with here. We don't have infinite slightly-variant universes, just one place where it breaks because the good future can't happen without the bad future's initial interference, and the bad future can't happen once the good future has been established. So the universe can't resolve the paradox, and the timeline splits at that single point.


(Breaking the timeline like this relies on the ability to time travel in the first place of course, and the audio recording at the end of the Twinning indicates that not only did they have to invent the time machine, but that only G'raha can survive the trip because of his merging with the tower. And now we've broken the mechanical Alexander that presumably made the whole thing function in the first place.)

[Cilia]

Think back to Trunks and Dragon Ball Z - while he wasn't able to stop his future from being a Bad Future, through his time travel he was able to create a Good Future, even though that Good Future doesn't overwrite his own. (Super reveals this is a big no-no.)

Theoretically it could still be possible to go back to Crystal Exarch G'raha's future, then, but without the Tycoon to control the Tower's warp functions it's impossible (and even if it were would kill anyone except for Crystal Exarch G'raha and maybe the Warrior of Light).

[Rannie]

Ugh time travel shenanigans really screw up verb tenses and makes my brain hurt especially with how little sleep I've been getting since shb came out.

[Alleo]

As I understand it, the "bad future" was reliant on three elements:
- the First being full of Light and primed for the Calamity
- the Eorzean army starting to gain ground
- Garlemald willing to use Black Rose in response to this.

Just to make sure: I am not saying that you are wrong, it does make sense in a way that there might have been a time loop but for me the breaking of that was Graha Tia thus why I believe he could not have been part of the times before.

You are right about the three points but if I remember it correctly in our timeline Varis and Elidibus only discussed a stalemate while in the bad one we were winning and that is the reason why they used it. We also know that we and the scions died there. So for me at least it just does not make sense that Exarch always existed and just made mistakes.

First in the bad future we seemingly took part in the fights. There is no mention of us disappearing, it just sounds like they did win ground because of us being there. Of course this could have been forgotten but wouldnt someone mention it that the fights would have gone better if we were there? Of course the gas could have happened later when we returned but it does not make sense.

- If Graha fails to call any of us then the bad future would kinda play out like it was but why would he suddenly not fail in this timeline?
- If Graha partly fails and just cant call us, why do all the scions die?
- If he summoned us all but we do fail on our mission then first we would have been missing from the battles and if Graha dies we would be stuck on the first because he still needed to open a portal for us to come back. Of course the scion would be able to go back because seemingly his life is keeping them there but we dont. We need the portal to travel between worlds.

Edit: Also if we somehow failed in the first, Tataru still would have sent out Estinien, and all the stuff that happened in Garlemald should have happend too. Which means that Varis is death as long as we go to the first because that seemingly sents Zenos on his way to Garlemald. And that guy does not want to use the poision anyway and Elidibus would be in no position anymore to activate it.

So for me him being there but failing just makes it very strange.

And of course you could say that maybe we always won and the point of the use has just not happen yet but I find that hard to believe. Us going to the first (including the scions) changed quite a bit. Gaius is without Alphinaud, Estinien was sent to Gaius by Tataru because we are not there, Zenos probably went to Garlemald because we are not on the battle field and thus killed Varis and Elidibus had to leave the body behind. Zenos already said that he wont use the poison and at that time the first is safe anyway.

So for it to have happened, it had to have happened before we won in the first. But if we lost there and died there then why would they say that we died on the source? It could be made up but wouldnt it make more sense that the people are saying that they lost because the hero was not here? For me it sounded that we just simply won the battles because we were at the frontline thus the use of the black rose.

Also one could also argue that the crystal tower being there in the first probably changed quite a bit already. Since it was only thanks to that, that the city was built and the people were somewhat protected. Not having it here would then make it much easier to let it fall to the light, because people out of fear for their lifes might turn to Vauthry which means stagnation, wich means Light. Thus the first was ready to be rejoined. With the tower being there and the city being a safe place this was harder. (Which might be the reason why Emet was going there) And even if we failed and died, we still inspired people along the way to not give up. Would the first be ready then to be rejoined?

Time travel is really just confusing and as long as we dont even know which way they do it its probably all just speculation (but I do love some good discussion, so thanks for the posts ).

[dragoelete]

i just hope it doesnt go the way of ff13-2 where it makes time paradoxs that we then have to deal with in season 2. though ... now that i think of that it could be interesting if time paradoxs happen and that ends up giveing us enemies to fight after the ascians...

[Lium]

i just hope it doesnt go the way of ff13-2 where it makes time paradoxs that we then have to deal with in season 2. though ... now that i think of that it could be interesting if time paradoxs happen and that ends up giveing us enemies to fight after the ascians...

Like fighting alternate versions of ourselves. That happens a lot in fantasy games.

[Iscah]

First, let's revisit Urianger's description of the bad timeline:

As I drifted hither to the First, traversing the boundary 'twixt reality and probability, I did bear witness to events yet to come...

There I saw the combined forces of Eorzea and the Far East offering fierce resistance to the legions of Garlemald. So fierce, in fact, that they did begin to push the enemy back. Ilm by painful ilm, then yalm by yalm, and malm by malm in time.

Yet the joy they felt was short-lived, for in so doing, they did force the Empire's hand. Faced with defeat, the Garleans turned to a weapon most vile - Black Rose.

Its potency defied all reckoning.

Once released, the gas took on a life of its own, wreaking untold carnage not only in Eorzea, but in the provinces of the Empire besides. From fighters on the front lines to babes in their beds, none were spared. And as the casualties became too numerous to count, so did the fabric of civilization begin to unravel.

Nor did the land itself escape unscathed. For spreading from the site of its release, Black Rose brought death to the very soil.

To survive amidst the chaos and upheaval, men came to live by the sword, the rule of law giving way, inevitably, to the rule of might. Thus was the spark struck and the fire kindled, and swiftly did it spread, as a blaze in a field of straw, to engulf every corner of the world.

Nations worthy of the name did then cease to exist. And those souls brave and true, who might have risen to restore order... were no more. For the weapon spared not one. Not even thee.

An endless age of war, begotten by the blight of the Black Rose... Such is the legacy of the Eighth Umbral Calamity which I did behold. No matter the cost, we must forestall this tragedy.

Putting aside the question of how we manage to have mass civilian casualties AND enough people left for an eternal age of war... the effects clearly spread far beyond the battlefield, and the Scions may well have all perished while still unconscious at the Rising Stones.

You are right about the three points but if I remember it correctly in our timeline Varis and Elidibus only discussed a stalemate while in the bad one we were winning and that is the reason why they used it. We also know that we and the scions died there. So for me at least it just does not make sense that Exarch always existed and just made mistakes.

We're in a stalemate with Garlemald already. The Calamity is triggered when that current stalemate breaks and the Eorzeans begin to push the Garleans back - and that could happen with or without us.

Also there is no mention of the Scions dying on the battlefield. The effects of the Black Rose spread far beyond it - and additionally we saw Elidibus directly counselling Varis that the Scions are unconscious, and he should attack them while they are vulnerable.

I'm not saying the plan necessarily failed because the Exarch "made mistakes" either. The fail point could be that critical moment at Mt Gulg where we struggle to contain the Light - perhaps we didn't, and became a Lightwarden, leaving the First still primed for calamity. Perhaps the Exarch absorbed the Light and he became a Lightwarden. Perhaps Hades defeated us in the final battle.

Whatever happened and when, we missed the final "point of no return" beyond which the Calamity was inevitable.

First in the bad future we seemingly took part in the fights. There is no mention of us disappearing, it just sounds like they did win ground because of us being there. Of course this could have been forgotten but wouldnt someone mention it that the fights would have gone better if we were there? Of course the gas could have happened later when we returned but it does not make sense.
[...]
So for it to have happened, it had to have happened before we won in the first. But if we lost there and died there then why would they say that we died on the source? It could be made up but wouldnt it make more sense that the people are saying that they lost because the hero was not here? For me it sounded that we just simply won the battles because we were at the frontline thus the use of the black rose.

There is no mention at all of the Warrior of Light being present - it only talks about armies.

As I said earlier, it's quite likely that the details of history from that last short period before the Calamity have not been recorded. People might assume we were on the battlefield and among those killed by the gas, but actually we were never there and instead died on the First. (The Scions aren't going to have spread the news that the Warrior of Light was currently absent and off in another world - it would be demoralising for our side, and a boon to any Garlean spies who picked up the information.)

Keep in mind that even though the visuals for Urianger's vision show us with the other Scions killed by Black Rose, this is secondhand information relayed to him from someone who only heard it 200 years after it happened, with an instruction to make it even more vague as a "prophecy" or "vision" and not with the detail of historical fact.

Additionally, when we return to the Rising Stones at the very end, Tataru is surprised by how soon we have returned - it seems that there was a time fluctuation and our trip to the First was extremely condensed by Eorzean time.

(I know they gave the whole "time between the Source and First is currently stable" thing at the start, but I'm sure that's purely for gameplay convenience. If this was telling a story without needing to consider gameplay, we'd be stranded in the First for the entirety of the story. Most notably, the Exarch has to specifically set up a teleport to return us to the Source, and the conversation seems like he'd have to summon us again to return.)

- If Graha fails to call any of us then the bad future would kinda play out like it was but why would he suddenly not fail in this timeline?

Because by my interpretation of it, not-failing is what makes it "this timeline" in the first place. There is only one timeline up until the point where it hinges on whether we pass or fail some particular event, after which there are two neatly-split timelines.

I don't know what that event is, thus the many hypotheticals as to where it might go wrong (or right).

- If Graha partly fails and just cant call us, why do all the scions die?

Killed by the vast spread of the Black Rose, whether conscious at the time or not.

- If he summoned us all but we do fail on our mission then first we would have been missing from the battles and if Graha dies we would be stuck on the first because he still needed to open a portal for us to come back. Of course the scion would be able to go back because seemingly his life is keeping them there but we dont. We need the portal to travel between worlds.

Again, there is no requirement that we were ever present for the battles. The army may have succeeded on their own.

And yes, the Exarch's death is one of the many potential fail points. We're probably stuck on the First until the Rejoining claims it; the other Scions wake up in Eorzea but they're still going to die when the Black Rose hits. Or maybe we do get back to Eorzea, but we haven't fixed the First's Light problem so we haven't changed the timeline.

Edit: Also if we somehow failed in the first, Tataru still would have sent out Estinien, and all the stuff that happened in Garlemald should have happend too. Which means that Varis is death as long as we go to the first because that seemingly sents Zenos on his way to Garlemald. And that guy does not want to use the poision anyway and Elidibus would be in no position anymore to activate it.

And of course you could say that maybe we always won and the point of the use has just not happen yet but I find that hard to believe. Us going to the first (including the scions) changed quite a bit. Gaius is without Alphinaud, Estinien was sent to Gaius by Tataru because we are not there, Zenos probably went to Garlemald because we are not on the battle field and thus killed Varis and Elidibus had to leave the body behind. Zenos already said that he wont use the poison and at that time the first is safe anyway.

You're assuming there is an "original" timeline to be changed. I'm assuming there isn't one, there's just a single timeline we're currently in.

Also one could also argue that the crystal tower being there in the first probably changed quite a bit already. Since it was only thanks to that, that the city was built and the people were somewhat protected.

But again, why does that mean there had to be a version of time where the city wasn't built? Why can there not only be one version of time where it exists?

I find it harder to reconcile an "early split" model where we've actually been living in the altered timeline since somewhere around the start of Stormblood - because that's the implication of assuming the unaltered timeline has no time travel influence whatsoever.

That does also mean there's some possibility we can fail in the new timeline as well, and just be left with two bad timelines.

[ObsidianFire]

Unfortunately, we already know Elidibus wants to pit us against other Warriors of Light... so I can totally see him messing around with previous WoLs in some way.

[Alleo]

We're in a stalemate with Garlemald already. The Calamity is triggered when that current stalemate breaks and the Eorzeans begin to push the Garleans back - and that could happen with or without us.

The thing is that if Graha always called us and the scions then Tataru must have also sent out Estinien to Garlemald and Varis would have been killed because Zenos went to him because we were not there. (Otherwise it would mean that characters suddenly act different under the same circumstances without reasons) Zenos does not want to use black rose and Gaius and his followers destroyed quite a bit of it. At the same time at that point Eorzea was at a stalemate thus the use of black rose was further away.

How would the other timeline then even happen? For me it makes sense that there was never a call, we never saved the first, the first never had a tower thus got lost to stagnation under Vauthry, and our side started to win. Seemingly Varis was still alive and black rose was used.

We could of course assume that the information we have are faulty. That people simply did not know the full things that happened in the past but I am not sure if it can be truly used as an argument.

Its true that its not said that we were at the battle but Uriangers does say that the weapon (black rose) stopped with nobody including us. (And then shows all the scions being death with the twins directly on our side) If we died on the first why tell us that we died by the weapon? Of course it could again be just rumors and that people started to believe that we died by it too but isnt it just more simpel in a story telling way that in the bad future nobody told us about the first, nobody called us and thus created all the new possibilites and thus we just died on the source.

So for me it makes the story much easier to understand if we had one timeline and it would have ended badly. But (in a way to prove the Ascians wrong too) the people of the future, inspired by our deeds, made the impossible possible and created a way to travel back to stop this from happening. And the change was Graha Tia and his calls to the first. And with the calls of the scions and us we set the change in motion.

Of course there is the question on what happened with the old timeline. If you say that our decisions split it then we should have a massive amount of such timelines. (Its like the strange Zelda timeline where one timeline with its games only exist if Link dies in a certain battle against Ganondorf in OoT. Even though he could have died more often too so there should be more right?)

Its not impossible that they go that way, especially with the Exarch wondering on why he still exists, but maybe he is simply a paradox in some way. I just wish that its not that complicated. Thats why I believe that there is just one line and we simply for the first time changed it.