(10-22-2016, 01:48 PM)Virella Wrote: Okay, you say 'screw what the devs said'. So what do you want to discuss here with people? Do you want to just have your headcanon praised? Because this isn't discussing lore, but merely gathering praise for your headcanon at this point?With all due respect, no one's actually been able to pull up something that says exactly what they are one way or another. So far the only source has been talking about their appearances and ultimately coming up with a blend of the ideas the devs had to make something less humanoid than things like the miqo'te and viera who, when you take away ears and tails, are more or less just humans.
While I like the effort you put in, it all doesn't matter at the end of the day if dev's stays 'no, they are demonic of origin now, only Ishgardians are stupid enough to confuse them for dragons'... then well, that's how it is? Yeah, it is a shame they bailed out on making them dragons, but don't try to make up 'lore'.
This whole theory is based upon your own headcanon, pushing them to be dragons, while we already have proof they are not. That's not discussion lore, that's just raving on about a part of the lore you don't like, and trying to justify them being dragons; while they are not.
But that's not proving or disproving anything. That still leaves a big hole of curiosity to be explored. Hence why Kyren says specifically at the end that it's simply a theory.
If the devs come outright and say exactly what they are and not just discussing what fueled their aesthetic, then awesome. People will be relieved to at least have a solid answer since Au Ra origin theories have been spiraling around since before the expac even emerged.Â
No one's trying to make up lore either? Not quite sure where you're getting that from since all of this was pulled from the lore book Kyren and I have been looking through and the similarities between titles, timelines, and a few other bits which he has directly quoted. If you'd like, I can personally send pictures of the pages if you do not have a copy of the book presently to look up the page numbers yourself or if others haven't already uploaded pages for others to view.
Quote:That's not discussion lore, that's just raving on about a part of the lore you don't like, and trying to justify them being dragons; while they are not.
Also ??? there as well. Again, this is a theory. The only thing anyone's been able to pull up has been either discussion on their aesthetic or what the scholars have claimed but even then that's not a hard line in the sand. Hell, maybe Osric's the one who's right and it's actually referring to Hydaelyn and Zodiark. FF14 could have Black Dagger Brotherhood'd this shit.
Lastly: no one said this was a part of the lore that wasn't liked. It's a part of the lore that isn't clearly stated, thus theories and discussions are born. Which is what we're doing here
