Disaster! SE just ruined your headcanon!

[Andromeda]

There's also the question of the unreliable narrator. The game has had several character's statements about the function of the world later contradicted (the revelations about the origins of the Dragonsong War are probably the most apparent example to come to mind) and usually new bits of lore come from unreliable sources. While OOC we treat these, rightly, as facts that are true until proven false, it can be said that a character powerfully disagrees with this new fact and disputes its legitimacy based on the same unreliability. 

 

And our characters, themselves, are not reliable sources. No one really is on their own life. We misremember, even convince ourselves of lies about our past all the time. 

 

For instance: my Miqo'te Noble is a scandalous figure in Ishgard for not being Hyur or Elezen and daring to assume a station of nobility. If a patch suddenly introduced a family of noble Miqo'te everyone was cool with, maybe my character feels insecure and precieves this scandal and hostility when it isn't actually there? My headcanon and revised canon don't have to be in contradiction just because they disagree. 

 

Similarly, in the fallout of 3.3 (spoilerish) I'm keeping Andromeda distrusting and largely hostile toward Ishgard because she believes the reforms are being undertaken halfheartedly or dishonestly. We have no reason to believe that Ishgard's reforms are not genuine, but ICly Rommie still has every reason to distrust them and hold them in ill regard. 

 

The character probably most at risk for running into a problem with new canon is Illua, who is a defector from the IXth Legion and was, in her youth, the product of a failed experiment to infuse a Garlean with enough aether to make them magically active. A lot of pieces could eventually fall apart there, but in this one I can make Illua an unreliable narrator of her own life. If, say the IXth was involved with the burning of Doma and she said it wasn't, maybe that's shame? Or if there were experiments like the one I have in her backstory that succeeded, maybe she simply is unaware of the results? 

 

There's a lot of little ways you can tweak the story to fit new developments if they don't outright blow you out of the water, or even if they do, by playing up the fact that the things people say are very, very open to being lies, half-truths or mistakes.

[Miah Gamduhla]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters. If I keep that in mind when working on an origin or planning for the future, its pretty easy for me to keep my character(s) within the established lore.

 

I don't view the games lore as a constraint, but more of a medium that we as RPers work with. The tools are there, and its up to us to create stories with those tools. Just as a good musician puts themselves into a cover of another musicians work. Its up to us to determine what liberties we can and should take, but we have to be aware that what we do may not sit well with others.

 

Anyway! Enough rambling. If something were to come from SE in a loredump that contradicts something in Miahs history or her character or whatever, I would try to find a creative, sensible way to adjust to it. Failing that, I would just phase that aspect out - it would be pretty easy for me because Miahs character isn't dependent on anything that requires me to take many liberties.

[V'aleera]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.

 

"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.

[Momoka]

Considering how little about herself my character actually chooses to tell people, zero, nada, zilch, unless "lol gridania doesnt actually hate duskwights, JUST KIDDING!" becomes a thing. That would throw a wrench into a lot of why Lunelle is who she is.

[Valence]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.

 

"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.

 

They are not easier, quite the opposite in my view. The more average and common, the harder it gets to find something standing out, and then the more it asks for subtlety and a good grasp on believability.

 

Although your point is definitely true as well I guess. A case could be made for both. It's true that a modest character has less chances to be a ludicrous walking disaster when played bad.

[Miah Gamduhla]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.

 

"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.

You're free to think whatever you want to think. I'm not here to snub anyone for doing what they want or saying what they want to say. =)

I simply enjoy rping with more "normal" characters than say characters who have purposely been made strange or outlandish for the purpose of standing out.

 

To me, playing someone whos average and having their personality and their humanity be the main draw is more of a challenge than coming up with interesting, but outlandish (potentially lore breaking) things to be the selling points. That's not to say that those characters with the outlandish origins or stories can't be amazing as well (or that I would ignore them - I don't ignore anyone), but again, normalcy its just my preference especially when it comes to characters that I create.

[Nero]

The only way Square Enix can ruin any of my headcanons is by doing some actual worldbuilding and filling in all these bloody holes they've got. In which case, more power to them.

[Dravus]

I've already made the necessary preparations for dealing with my character if it turns out that the story is going in a completely different direction than expected. I created Graeham due to my love of the more morally grey/antagonistic characters and organisations in Final Fantasy games.

 

I do, however, prefer them to have more depth to them than being evil for the sake of being evil. So I am crossing my fingers and hoping that when we see more of Garlemald in the future it will be more like The Archadian Empire of FFXII and boast many different 'good' characters that just happen to be fighting for a different side.

 

If, however, it turns out that Garlemald is largely without redeeming qualities and the lore team are only interested in making the majority of Garleans into generic evil soldiers then I intend to have Graeham die in a vain attempt to push for peace between Eorzea and Garlemald. I feel like that would be the correct end for his character in such a scenario since my enthusiasm for playing him would be snuffed out and I have zero interest in having him turn against his homeland and people completely.

 

Mostly because I have a strong loathing for the 'defector' trope in most forms of media.

[Valence]

That would be awkward though, after people like Gaius van Baelsar. Speak of inconsistency...

[Klynzahr]

I've had to deal with this once before, when the Rogue's guild popped up and drastically changed the state of Limsa Lominsian justice. I had to quickly retcon the story of how she acquired the scar on her cheek and the fifteen "stripes" on her back, because according to the new lore she would have actually been executed not publicly whipped.

 

Fortunately she has always been tight-lipped about the incident. So changing the location didn't actually effect anyone but myself. I simply adjusted the crime and had the punishment take place at sea rather than in the city. 

 

 

I think that I will probably use the same approach if something else shows up in the future; focus on adjusting the details to fit the new lore, while keeping the spirit of Klyn's story. Her recent history is well grounded in the established lore but there are several things that could force me to retcon her backstory, prior to arriving in Ul'dah.

 

1) If we learned that Doma had been completely isolated before garlean occupation and had no naval trade with Eorzea. This would cause issues with the origin of her adopted brother and force me to adjust the doman tastes and mannerisms that she has picked up from her previous visits.

 

2) If it was specifically stated that the only survivors from The Company of Hero's clash with Leviathan, were the five individuals from the MSQ. This wouldn't effect her individually but it would impact her family history and her timeline might shift around.

 

3) If it was stated that Lominsian ships don't take an armoror out to sea. Her family trade would probably change to carpenter or whatever craft was typically used for naval repairs.

[Flashhelix]

i refuse to be on Lolorito's payroll.

 

you're the hero we need, but don't deserve

 

also if SE actually wanted to invalidate my headcanons they'd need to go into close detail about:

 

- how dragoon powers work

- how dragoon hierarchy is

- fat cats

 

and i doubt they're gonna go too far into those

[Andromeda]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.

 

"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.

The use of "better" rubs me the wrong way as well. I have characters that are products of unlikely pasts and characters that are just a Brume thief or Lominsian trade ship proprietor. Is the Garlean defector somehow less valuable than the history professor on her first teaching assignment? Or somehow offensive for having an unusual past? I don't believe so.

 

I also don't believe either one is more of a challenge to write than the other. They present different challenges. The more generic characters require a lot of extra work to make them feel like an actual part of the world instead of something that could be cut and pasted into any environment, and the more uncommon characters require a lot of delving into lore and a huge dose of humility to not overplay them into some shounen fever-dream of power and uniqueness. 

 

"Better" is way, way too value based a word to use here, I think. And I'm sure it slights a lot of talented writers who've developed interesting characters that happen to have bombastic backstories.

 

Mostly because I have a strong loathing for the 'defector' trope in most forms of media.

I never understood why so many defectors in media take up arms against their countrymen. I recently rewatched an old Star Trek episode about a defector who was deeply offended by the idea that he would betray his people and rationalized his defection in terms of actually helping his culture. Somehow the idea that a defector can still be loyal seems suddenly quite lost in media.

[Miah Gamduhla]

I'm a pretty fervent believer that more "average" characters make better characters.

 

"Better" is a fairly loaded worded. I'd say average characters are much safer/easier characters to play, for a variety of reasons, and that ease of play results in less skilled or experienced writers getting much better results instead of fumbling around with a more complex and extravagant character that would require more finesse to play to appropriate effect.

The use of "better" rubs me the wrong way as well. I have characters that are products of unlikely pasts and characters that are just a Brume thief or Lominsian trade ship proprietor. Is the Garlean defector somehow less valuable than the history professor on her first teaching assignment? Or somehow offensive for having an unusual past? I don't believe so.

 

I also don't believe either one is more of a challenge to write than the other. They present different challenges. The more generic characters require a lot of extra work to make them feel like an actual part of the world instead of something that could be cut and pasted into any environment, and the more uncommon characters require a lot of delving into lore and a huge dose of humility to not overplay them into some shounen fever-dream of power and uniqueness. 

 

"Better" is way, way too value based a word to use here, I think. And I'm sure it slights a lot of talented writers who've developed interesting characters that happen to have bombastic backstories.

As I said, its a personal preference. For the most part, people who I've RPed with who rely on things that happen to them to sell their character rather than rely on their character to sell their character aren't as enjoyable for me to RP with as someone who does - therefore better for me.

 

In reply to your example... a Garlean defector is 100% fine in my book and totally lore-friendly. I am sure that there are Garleans that aren't loyal to the empire and would defect - there are examples of this in the MSQ. I have no problem with that at all. What I'm referring to when I say outlandish are things like...  characters who jump around back and forth from other dimensions, characters who are from some station of high influence and power and impose that on others (things like characters who are in the Heaven's Ward or play as some deity in disguise) and other things like that. Even then, a lot of this would be fine as long as it wasn't the main draw of their character - snowflakes.

 

Please don't assume that I use the word better to slight others, give me the benefit of the doubt here. If I have slighted anyone, I'm sorry. I don't know if my word use hurt anyones feelings, but know that it wasn't my intention to do so.

 

Everyone has things that they like more than others. I like plain cheese pizza better than pepperoni pizza. Does that mean that I dislike pepperoni pizza or that I think less of people who like that topping more than plain cheese? No. If I could only have one slice of pizza and my only options were cheese or pepperoni, would I take the cheese? Yes. People have different tastes and that is fine.