Sundering and specific character questions. [Spoilers]

[RyuDragnier]

That makes me wonder if the individual presumed to be Venat is using her original appearance, because outwardly she just looks to be a Hyur of fairly normal stature.

Though she did mention she'd always be present in one form or another, which suggests she's been somehow changing over the millenia.

It may be a form that is easily understood to be a person by us. It's possible that they looked all so completely different from one another that the robes were used to "homogenize" their looks via glamour so they would focus only on personality and a person's character, not their looks.

[Tsiron]

We never see any Ascians present themselves as anything but Hyur, do we? So the Ancients may in fact just have looked human (except large)...

[Vyrerus]

We never see any Ascians present themselves as anything but Hyur, do we? So the Ancients may in fact just have looked human (except large)...

While not entirely distinct from Hyurs, and even said to be cousins, Garleans are not Hyurs. Emet-selch presented himself as a Garlean.

[Tsiron]

While not entirely distinct from Hyurs, and even said to be cousins, Garleans are not Hyurs. Emet-selch presented himself as a Garlean.

... I guess they're different enough in stature/proportions (except when they're not, for whatever reason) and the third eye. But you know what I meant, we never see a Miqo'te or Au Ra or whatever Ascian

[YianKutku]

... I guess they're different enough in stature/proportions (except when they're not, for whatever reason) and the third eye. But you know what I meant, we never see a Miqo'te or Au Ra or whatever Ascian

I have to keep reminding myself that it's most probably due to game dev limitations rather than anything lore-relevant. (Other than Garleans, the closest we had to non-Hyur Ascians was Travanchet.) But yeah, I'd be immensely interested in seeing, say, a Moogle Ascian.

[Vyrerus]

I have to keep reminding myself that it's most probably due to game dev limitations rather than anything lore-relevant. (Other than Garleans, the closest we had to non-Hyur Ascians was Travanchet.) But yeah, I'd be immensely interested in seeing, say, a Moogle Ascian.

Since it's just their physical host, I do wonder if there's a limitation to it.

Like, I wonder if an Ascian has ever inhabited a dragon?

[Vyrerus]

Don't forget about the masks and such!

[Rosenstrauch]

On the other hand, voidsent seem to have no trouble possessing dragon corpses, as evidenced by the sheer number of dragon zombies that tend to crop up. So I wouldn't be surprised if, at the very least, the same was true for Ascians. But I'd wager only an Overlord could possess a live dragon, and the Great Wyrms might be impossible to possess if their souls are as robust as Midgardsormr's.

As for why they've apparently never done it, maybe infiltrating dragon society would be exceedingly difficult compared to the alternatives. Or maybe, as extraterrestrial invaders handed dominion of the star by Hydaelyn, the Ascians simply hated them too much to even consider it. Or maybe dragon's eyes acting as a sort of natural auracite meant they'd get Lahabrea'd if they weren't careful around dragons.

Or something else entirely. Who can say?

[Vyrerus]

I think there is a difference between externally exerting control over a species and actually inhabiting their body.

Not really a compelling argument, all things considered. Though it's obviously true, insofar as yeah, the mechanism for control would be entirely different.

There's what Rosenstrauch said about Voidsent.

There's also the fact that Estinien was able to resist Nidhogg, at all.

Then there's also the fact that dragons are shown to be inferior to Ancients in regards to not possessing creation magic innately, given that Tiamat had to learn it from the Ascians in the form of Primal summoning rituals.

I think I'd chock it up to the Ascians finding a way to control them with neurolinks early on, giving them no need to possess them. Why possess what you can so easily enslave? Especially if it hurts the soul/weakens them.