Revelations from Keynote II

[Iscah]

So, back on a different subject.... G'raha Tia again.

If he is indeed the mysterious Voice calling to us, I've just realised some rather curious foreshadowing - because how are we first introduced to G'raha in the Crystal Tower setup quest?

As a mysterious disembodied voice calling to us and giving us instructions.

If that's actually a hint, that's genius.

[Ceridwenae]

So, back on a different subject.... G'raha Tia again.

If...

I'm going to preface this with a big "I am not a lorehound in any way, shape or form", despite enjoying reading the threads on the Lore forum. This is from a pure gameplay/storytelling PoV. I cannot speculate on Lore in any real depth (please be kind!).

If the character shown is G'raha and he ends up having direct ties to the MSQ, it will be very, very confusing for anyone who only ever plays MSQ and has never stepped foot into the Crystal Tower raid series. My experience was more a case of people who have been in the MSQ can turn up in raid-related stuff, but raid plots have no direct impact upon MSQ plots, other than perhaps a meta kind of speculation and potential fleshing-outs for those that enjoy that sort of thing. Is there precedence for previous raid-only characters to be dropped into the MSQ?

If this theory is correct, that would require every player to have not only started the first alliance raids, but to have actually finished them, otherwise this catboi is going to be so far out of leftfield as to present major storytelling problems for those who do not raid. Having seen something like that happen in a different game, it's not something you want to wish upon any character, and it can constitute rather an off-day for a writer. That's not to say there isn't time to establish an MSQ foothold for G'raha - or indeed, do we have this already? Or, if not, is there enough time to lay sufficient groundwork so he doesn't risk being deus ex machina?

Resonating with the players when telling the story is key. Two examples in this particular game off the top of my head are firstly, in ARR, with Thancred. If a player doesn't start in Ul'dah, the game makes sure we spend enough time with this hapless individual to understand how he gets into the predicament he gets into, and to actually feel something about it. It gets a worthy set-up. Secondly in HW, with Estinien. We have bags of time with him, understanding his motivations (just in case we've not experienced the DRG 30-50 story), and it causes us to feel something when he lets his guard down at the end of that expansion. It had a perfect set-up.

Does G'raha have something similar, as in, have we spent, in any meaningful way, time with him? Do we know him (if we have not taken part in the Crystal Tower raids, I mean)? Unless there is a time travel segment, I'm thinking that ship has sailed for the average, non-raiding MSQ punter. Of course, everyone who hasn't done it already, can go back and do the raid, but it would seem a bit much storytelling-wise ("To understand the MSQ you must now go and do raiding").

If no, then I would suggest time is running out and either we have a good whack of the first bit of expansion with him and have him (re-)established, or it's just not him in that poster. Mixing the plots just isn't going to work so well.

[Iscah]

I agree - trying to write respawning into lore raises more questions than it answers. Particularly why significant NPCs never manage to hit the window between zero HP and death that allows them to aetherially drift off to their home point.

The "aetherial respawn" would make more sense (but worse story) if characters dissolved into aether, FFX-style, upon death. The lore suggests that it should work that way - in which case there would be logical layers of near-death experiences:
1. Zero HP/unconscious but able to hold form; able to be revived
2. Critical negative HP that triggers physical dissolution of the body; soul has enough energy to "hold onto" its aether and find its way to an aetheryte beacon
3. Second critical point, soul can no longer hold physical aether and death is permanent.

From a story (and in-world!) perspective this would be pretty awful though, as you'd have no certainty that a person was really dying or was going to be perfectly fine.

(...oh, wait! Maybe that's how Gaius survived in the end!)


I guess perhaps a variation could be seen in-game that the first two levels work the same, but at the third stage the body doesn't have enough energy left to instinctively dissipate and instead remains in physical form.

I still think it would be easier to not try to have a lore explanation for respawning, unless it's really well-integrated and used as a plot point elsewhere. When aether, life and death are so central to the story, it's awkward having this "get out of death free" card that's apparently available even to non-Echo-blessed people.

[Kalise]

Well... "Respawning" does have some lore to go with it.

Notably inferred lore. Specifically in the HW BLM quests. Wherein you get yelled at for "Not being able to control your power" because you apparently KILLED the cultists that were attacking your friends. (Though, it turned out that their deaths were not your fault and instead due to them using Black Magic without a Soul Crystal causing them to set their souls on fire due to the sheer power they're attempting to wield)

Which implies that typically, you DON'T kill enemies, even though gameplay wise you bring them down to 0 HP and then watch them fall down.

This also is referenced in other quests too where you will fight someone and essentially "Kill" them gameplay wise (I.e. Bring them down to 0 HP) yet they're still fine and continue to exist in cutscenes post-fight.

So, there's likely some sort of gameplay mechanic > lore happening where we bring enemies down to 0 HP just because it's more obvious that they're finished with than if they drop down to their knees and stay there in the fight (Like happens on some occasions), while in actuality we don't kill all of the enemies we beat, likely only actually killing beasts/monsters while just pummelling people into submission.

[Iscah]

If this theory is correct, that would require every player to have not only started the first alliance raids, but to have actually finished them, otherwise this catboi is going to be so far out of leftfield as to present major storytelling problems for those who do not raid.

I definitely think that IF it happens, it's going to have to involve some time travel to get around the issue of players not having played/completed the Crystal Tower storyline yet. In fact I don't think I'd be so fixed on it if there hadn't already been hints dropped that there might be a time-travel plot coming - I'd probably be arguing that he can't possibly be back so soon - but of course if he's from The Future then it hasn't been "so soon" for him!

And while the Crystal Tower is called a "raid" it's really just a big dungeon, certainly at this point when everyone is so overpowered. It doesn't have the higher difficulty that you might associate with the activity of "raiding" being something separate to standard gameplay.

It's also worth noting that anyone who has skipped the Crystal Tower storyline is already missing a segment of an ongoing character's story, as this is where we first meet Nero again after the events of the Praetorium.

So, there's likely some sort of gameplay mechanic > lore happening where we bring enemies down to 0 HP just because it's more obvious that they're finished with than if they drop down to their knees and stay there in the fight (Like happens on some occasions), while in actuality we don't kill all of the enemies we beat, likely only actually killing beasts/monsters while just pummelling people into submission.

I'm also inclined to think we don't defeat as many small enemies as the game shows. If you were adapting this into a non-interactive story form, there'd probably be a lot less killing and a lot more sneaking into places; leaving guards tied up or magically bound rather than dead. Not just marching through the front gates and striking down the entire garrison of probably-conscripted soldiers.

[Mansion]

Well if it is tied to Crystal Tower somehow, couldn't they just make it a MSQ requirement? They nerfed the FATEs giving your crystals part recently, so there's nothing complicated unlocking these, let alone completing the Raids themselves...

[Ceridwenae]

Yep, @ Iscah and @Mansion, I agree. Crystal Tower isn't exactly hardcore anymore, and certainly could be added as a requirement, or we can even "revisit" it in terms of people who have been before and "visit" it for first timers, with appropriate dialogue changes. It's one way to circle that square of storytelling.

It doesn't sit 100% well with me, though, to have players complete something that was not necessary to complete previously in order to make the current story make sense. It's just not a deft way of telling a tale. I can't in good conscience say it's a particularly clever move, and that's the chief reason I don't think it can be G'raha in the picture. Honestly, I just want smarter storycrafting and telling. That's not to say it can't happen and I can definitely be wrong, but there's a bit of juggling required to make it so, and that fussing is just a lot of going around the houses when there is likely a much more simple explanation as to who's in the picture.

[Daralii]

Yep, @ Iscah and @Mansion, I agree. Crystal Tower isn't exactly hardcore anymore, and certainly could be added as a requirement, or we can even "revisit" it in terms of people who have been before and "visit" it for first timers, with appropriate dialogue changes. It's one way to circle that square of storytelling.

It doesn't sit 100% well with me, though, to have players complete something that was not necessary to complete previously in order to make the current story make sense. It's just not a deft way of telling a tale. I can't in good conscience say it's a particularly clever move, and that's the chief reason I don't think it can be G'raha in the picture. Honestly, I just want smarter storycrafting and telling. That's not to say it can't happen and I can definitely be wrong, but there's a bit of juggling required to make it so, and that fussing is just a lot of going around the houses when there is likely a much more simple explanation as to who's in the picture.

They've done it before with the Coils and Alisaie, CT and Nero, etc. It wouldn't be anything new.

[Guiballad]

In the event that the Mysterious Figure is actually G'raha Tia and he's suddenly relevant to the MSQ i really doubt that SE is gonna be like "ok so you have to do this raid that used to be optional but now you have to because otherwise you wouldn't understand the plot".

My bet is that it would be something like this: the events of the Crystal Tower happened. Even if it wasn't your WoL's story it was a story that happened. The game already states that there are many high level adventurers around that could fill parts of our role and i don't think there's anything in the CT storyline that demands the presence of the actual WoL. So if you did it prior to the story moment where it becomes relevant then the game acknowledges that you where there and you did it and seeing G'raha is a reunion moment. But if you didn't then they would need to stop for at least a moment and explain the important parts to you. But the thing is if the CT plot actually becomes relevant they'll probably stop and summarize it anyway because for a lot of people that was ages ago.

It can be a bit... clunky but there's a lot of simple ways to integrate it into the MSQ without demanding a detour from a chunk of the players.

[Ceridwenae]

My bet is that it would be something like this...relevant they'll probably stop and summarize it anyway because for a lot of people that was ages ago.

It can be a bit... clunky but there's a lot of simple ways to integrate it into the MSQ without demanding a detour from a chunk of the players.

Yes, this is what I meant (sort of) when I said 'we can even "revisit" it in terms of people who have been before and "visit" it for first timers, with appropriate dialogue changes. It's one way to circle that square of storytelling.' And yeah, it's clunky. Which is why, even if it's possible, I don't like it. I'm just putting it in my cons column against the theory because it just seems a bit much for someone who yes, had some importance, but was not important enough to be in our MSQ - if you see what I mean. If G'raha is a Chekhov's Gun and is our mysterious voiceover of recent patches, he should've been in the MSQ in some way already to bear absolute relevance to those selfsame MSQ lines. And if he hasn't (afaik, he's raid only), then there's some groundwork to be laid hard, otherwise the story in terms of his presence risks incredulity. He can, of course, be mentioned by characters such as Cid or Nero if they comes back into MSQ plots proper, but then we're potentially wasting time on exposition, or alternately, not giving enough weight to G'raha's role. It's messy, clunky, and there's simply got to be better candidates.

They've done it before with the Coils and Alisaie, CT and Nero, etc. It wouldn't be anything new.

Yes, but this is that in reverse. Is there precedent for it?

(and this is why I like these lore threads! I love this sort of discussion, and I'm really happy to be able to take part in it, even if my lore is subpar in comparison to the rest of you!)