Spoiler The Legend of Zelda series timeline and lore discussion thread, post-TotK (full series open spoilers)

[VegiHam]

Tbh talking about the Zelda timeline has stopped being fun for me. But I did just find something that's a nice confirmation for BotW/TotK lore:

If you wear a certain outfit and talk to Impa, she will confirm that Calamity Ganon was the hatred/Malice of the sealed Demon King taking physical form over the years. It seems obvious that's what the game was implying to me, but nice to have the link confirmed.

Seconding the which armour question. Sounds interesting

 

[Skittzo]

And I haven’t done that one personally yet, no, but my partner has done it so I’m aware of it and I know the gist of it. Is that not just specific to that one statue, though? Surely the implication isn’t that all of the Goddess Statues are taken over by these bargainers?

And regardless of the Goddess Statues’ exact relation to Hylia, we know Hylia still exists as a goddess otherwise not just from the Sheikah monks, but also from the Horned Statue which specifically names the Goddess Hylia as the one who trapped them in the statue.

All of the "great" hylia statues (i.e. the ones at each of the springs, the one in the forgotten temple and the one in the GP temple of time) do indeed have giant bargainer statues directly beneath them. The implication is that they're both controlled by the same or a similar entity, likely not the goddess or any goddess.

 

[DunningSmith]

Seconding the which armour question. Sounds interesting

I'm not 100% sure myself, but I assume it's the one you get...

Spoiler

...when you finish all the shrines.

At least that would make sense to me.

 

[Tye]

All of the "great" hylia statues (i.e. the ones at each of the springs, the one in the forgotten temple and the one in the GP temple of time) do indeed have giant bargainer statues directly beneath them. The implication is that they're both controlled by the same or a similar entity, likely not the goddess or any goddess.

Okay, interestesting. But again, there’s still the matter of the Sheikah monks and Horned Statue, regardless of whatever’s up with the Goddess Statues, unless we’re to believe that the Sheikah monks were lying or being deceived the whole time and the Horned Statue somehow was mistaken about it being the Goddess Hylia that sealed them away.

 

[Skittzo]

Okay, interestesting. But again, there’s still the matter of the Sheikah monks and Horned Statue, regardless of whatever’s up with the Goddess Statues, unless we’re to believe that the Sheikah monks were lying or being deceived the whole time and the Horned Statue somehow was mistaken about it being the Goddess Hylia that sealed them away.

Well the monks may have been old enough to actually have interacted with Hylia in some form.

And the horned statue is probably just assuming any "good" force that can actually effect change in the real world is Hylia.

I've actually always been of the opinion that Hylia and the golden goddesses were never actually "gods" in the sense that they're omnipresent ethereal beings who can like, create life and whatnot. I always assumed they were said to be goddesses in legend because they were so powerful or advanced that they seemed like god-beings. The golden goddesses especially, I think this game makes a strong implication that they were originally Zonai who swallowed secret stones to become the respective dragons.

 

[andipossess]

All of the "great" hylia statues (i.e. the ones at each of the springs, the one in the forgotten temple and the one in the GP temple of time) do indeed have giant bargainer statues directly beneath them. The implication is that they're both controlled by the same or a similar entity, likely not the goddess or any goddess.

I'm pretty sure only the one on the Great Plateau is controlled by a different entity, although all of the other ones have dark mirrors in the depths as well.

There's a quest associated with the three Goddess Statues at the springs to restore the power of the "Mother" (not sure if I'm remembering the word they used right) Goddess Statue in the Forgotten Temple that's been knocked over, and the reward for that is the Goddess Sword, so I doubt Nintendo is implying that all of the Goddess (or indeed any of them) are out of Hylia's control.

 

[Pavolink]

 

[Skittzo]

I'm pretty sure only the one on the Great Plateau is controlled by a different entity, although all of the other ones have dark mirrors in the depths as well.

There's a quest associated with the three Goddess Statues at the springs to restore the power of the "Mother" (not sure if I'm remembering the word they used right) Goddess Statue in the Forgotten Temple that's been knocked over, and the reward for that is the Goddess Sword, so I doubt Nintendo is implying that all of the Goddess (or indeed any of them) are out of Hylia's control.

The fact that whatever entity which is controlling them is tied specifically to their respective statues and that they don't even know what happened to the one in the forgotten temple tells me they're not being controlled by an omniscient deity. They seem to literally just be housed within that particular statue, able to communicate with others in some way but still bound to that form.

Same with the bargainers, they communicate with each other and know where each other is located but don't really seem to know much of the world outside of their respective statues.

I don't think there's really much suggesting Hylia literally speaks or acts through them, maybe just that she created them originally or something.

 

[Tye]

Well the monks may have been old enough to actually have interacted with Hylia in some form.

And the horned statue is probably just assuming any "good" force that can actually effect change in the real world is Hylia.

I've actually always been of the opinion that Hylia and the golden goddesses were never actually "gods" in the sense that they're omnipresent ethereal beings who can like, create life and whatnot. I always assumed they were said to be goddesses in legend because they were so powerful or advanced that they seemed like god-beings. The golden goddesses especially, I think this game makes a strong implication that they were originally Zonai who swallowed secret stones to become the respective dragons.

That can’t be true with the monks, because the shrines were created after the Sheikah did their part in sealing away Calamity Ganon 10,000 years ago. That was well after TotK’s Imprisoning War, and by extension much further after the Era of the Goddess Hylia before SS.

But yeah, I agree that especially after TotK, the true nature of the goddesses is more open for interpretation than ever. I’ve thought similarly about the dragons, too. That said, Hylia’s powers to transcend time, and the Golden Goddesses’ ability to basically create the world and the Triforce, are quite a bit more than we’ve seen any Zonai capable of doing, but there’s still so much mystery surrounding the Zonai that it’s not impossible. Though Sonia is very much said to be not Zonai and specifically Hylian, the people of Hylia, and it’d be pretty weird for Hylia herself to actually be Zonai while her people aren’t.

Regardless, one thing that seems clear about Zelda’s gods is that they have an essentially infinite amount of Force (Force being the single term that’s used in Japan for the Light Force, Life Force, and Force Gems, and is clearly connected to the Triforce and Sacred Flames as well), which is something said to dwell in all life, but to different degrees as we’ve seen in cases like the Light Force and the Ocean King’s Life Force compared to the more common Force Gems/Gratitude Crystals as physical manifestations of a person’s Force, so the assumption can be made that Force is the source of magical abilities in the Zelda series with some individuals having more magical potential due to carrying more Force. So perhaps what makes the Zonai more godlike is the amount of Force they possess, allowing them to use these godlike abilities. Of course, this could explain the sage’s abilities as well, with their natural high amount of Force relative to others of their people being amplified further by the Secret Stones. …I don’t remember exactly what my original point was here, lol, but I find the Force stuff in Zelda interesting because it feels like it’s hugely important lore that kinda goes ignored because it’s primarily talked about in the handheld Zelda games and was localized with different names in different games.

 

[andipossess]

Regarding the dragons. I don't actually think they're meant to imply the Golden Goddesses were Zonai that swallowed Secret Stones.

My thinking is the following:

• Breath of the Wild calls them servants of the spring they're associated with, although you could chalk that up to relaying myth.
• Although Din has been associated with Fire, I don't think Nayru nor Farore have ever been associated with Ice or Lightning
• Dinraal's JP name is not named after Din. It's actually named after Eldin. (Eldin's japanese name is "オルディン (orudin)" while Dinraal's is おルドラ (orudora)", compare Farosh's "フロドラ (furodora)" and Naydra's "ネルドラ (nerudora)".

What I think is that there were Zonai who were fervent servants of the goddesses who happened to have power over Fire, Ice, and Lightning who became dragons in order to protect the springs in their respective regions. Were the regions named after them or were they named after the regions? Who knows.

 

[Skittzo]

That's actually an interesting way of looking at it, using the lore from another series to give a name to a concept of reuniting disparate timelines. I can definitely see the arguments for this, but it feels a bit hand wavy to just say her going back in time suddenly "fixes" the dragonbreak. I dunno.

That can’t be true with the monks, because the shrines were created after the Sheikah did their part in sealing away Calamity Ganon 10,000 years ago. That was well after TotK’s Imprisoning War, and by extension much further after the Era of the Goddess Hylia before SS.

But yeah, I agree that especially after TotK, the true nature of the goddesses is more open for interpretation than ever. I’ve thought similarly about the dragons, too. That said, Hylia’s powers to transcend time, and the Golden Goddesses’ ability to basically create the world and the Triforce, are quite a bit more than we’ve seen any Zonai capable of doing, but there’s still so much mystery surrounding the Zonai that it’s not impossible. Though Sonia is very much said to be not Zonai and specifically Hylian, the people of Hylia, and it’d be pretty weird for Hylia herself to actually be Zonai while her people aren’t.

Regardless, one thing that seems clear about Zelda’s gods is that they have an essentially infinite amount of Force (Force being the single term that’s used in Japan for the Light Force, Life Force, and Force Gems, and is clearly connected to the Triforce and Sacred Flames as well), which is something said to dwell in all life, but to different degrees as we’ve seen in cases like the Light Force and the Ocean King’s Life Force compared to the more common Force Gems/Gratitude Crystals as physical manifestations of a person’s Force, so the assumption can be made that Force is the source of magical abilities in the Zelda series with some individuals having more magical potential due to carrying more Force. So perhaps what makes the Zonai more godlike is the amount of Force they possess, allowing them to use these godlike abilities. Of course, this could explain the sage’s abilities as well, with their natural high amount of Force relative to others of their people being amplified further by the Secret Stones. …I don’t remember exactly what my original point was here, lol, but I find the Force stuff in Zelda interesting because it feels like it’s hugely important lore that kinda goes ignored because it’s primarily talked about in the handheld Zelda games and was localized with different names in different games.

I'm not suggesting Hylia was Zonai, but the golden goddesses were. Hylia probably had her power from the triforce itself, which is another mystery here because I don't think the creation myth told in OoT was supposed to be exactly true either, I think it's supposed to be a creation myth like many in the real world. I don't believe the golden goddesses actually created the world or the triforce, or even necessarily existed (as I'll get to below). But the idea of advanced technology like that of the Zonai coupled with the "force" from Hylia/Hylians could kind of explain how some of the figures back then were seen as gods.

Regarding the dragons. I don't actually think they're meant to imply the Golden Goddesses were Zonai that swallowed Secret Stones.

My thinking is the following:

• Breath of the Wild calls them servants of the spring they're associated with, although you could chalk that up to relaying myth.
• Although Din has been associated with Fire, I don't think Nayru nor Farore have ever been associated with Ice or Lightning
• Dinraal's JP name is not named after Din. It's actually named after Eldin. (Eldin's japanese name is "オルディン (orudin)" while Dinraal's is おルドラ (orudora)", compare Farosh's "フロドラ (furodora)" and Naydra's "ネルドラ (nerudora)".

What I think is that there were Zonai who were fervent servants of the goddesses who happened to have power over Fire, Ice, and Lightning who became dragons in order to protect the springs in their respective regions. Were the regions named after them or were they named after the regions? Who knows.

We're both saying the same thing I think. I don't really think Din, Farore and Nayru were meant to be actual people or deities that existed and literally created the world, they're part of a creation myth. If these servants or priests or whatnot became dragons to protect those springs, then they themselves may have turned into the original basis for those deities over the ages.

Also I'm pretty sure Eldin was named after Din to begin with, just like Lanayru and Faron. So it's kind of a chicken and egg situation about whether the dragons are named after the regions or the goddesses.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

@Skittzo To be clear, you're of the position that the Zonai presence predated the backstory of Skyward Sword? I also hold that position, but I want to be sure I'm reading you right

 

[Skittzo]

@Skittzo To be clear, you're of the position that the Zonai presence predated the backstory of Skyward Sword? I also hold that position, but I want to be sure I'm reading you right

I'm not sure if I'd say they were necessarily known as Zonai (could have been the same race as Picori or Ooccoo who changed over time) but yeah there was some civilization in the sky which was sufficiently advanced that they would appear to be gods. I'm having trouble remembering the exact backstory of SS but there was an ancient advanced civilization in that too, though at that time (long before SS) they at least had presence on the land.

It's possible that civilization from pre-SS is the same one that went up into the sky and evolved over time to become Zonai. Maybe they even left the planet to explore other worlds or something, then came back.

After a quick wiki refresher, the ancient robots in SS sure seem quite similar to the constructs in TotK, both in design (they've got energy beams which connect their limbs) and in purpose (mining stuff, i.e. maybe Zonaite).

 

[Jimmy Joe]

I'm not sure if I'd say they were necessarily known as Zonai (could have been the same race as Picori or Ooccoo who changed over time) but yeah there was some civilization in the sky which was sufficiently advanced that they would appear to be gods. I'm having trouble remembering the exact backstory of SS but there was an ancient advanced civilization in that too, though at that time (long before SS) they at least had presence on the land.

It's possible that civilization from pre-SS is the same one that went up into the sky and evolved over time to become Zonai. Maybe they even left the planet to explore other worlds or something, then came back.

You're thinking of the robots who were built by Lanayru in the Lanayru desert region. There was a civilization prior to the demon war waged by Demise against the peoples of the land, but it was essentially the same as what existed in the presence, only, like... actual nations and whatnot, and with Hylia assumedly walking around

The robots were like drones built during the period of the war. The biggest link to the deeper antiquity in Skyward Sword is probably the flames of the old gods—the names Din, Nayru, and Farore were in use for them at the time, though they wouldn't be called goddesses until the Ocarina of Time era (which I've always liked to think was due to equating them with Hylia, over time)

 

[WestEgg]

Got around to watching this and honestly it’s not a bad interpretation, as well as lining up with my own sequence of events. Might adopt this.

 

[Tye]

I don’t understand how people can look at impossible timeline convergence theories like this and say “sure, this makes sense” yet refuse to believe a simple timeline split from SS is likely or even possible.

The whole Dragon Break concept just doesn’t make sense at all. Maybe it somehow works out better in The Elder Scrolls, I dunno (I have zero experience with or interest in that series so I wouldn’t know), but in the context of the Zelda timeline it just makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that there’s no good explanation at all for how and why the timelines would converge in the first place or the Downfall Timeline’s inclusion in that (and no, I don’t believe the reasons given in that video are sufficient at all, because it’s hardly an explanation and essentially amounts to “Sage of Time, I guess”), you have to just ignore the reality of what would actually have to happen if these three separate timelines were to somehow merge. You can’t just say “all possibilities and outcomes become truth, though contradictory to each other” because in practice that is literally impossible. I mean, obviously, we’re talking about time travel here after all, but even by the magical time logic by which Hyrule operates it simply doesn’t and can’t make sense.

It’s not simply past events that exist in people’s memories that you have to consider, but also the present state of each timeline when the convergence happens. When the timelines merge, what happens to all the people from each timeline and the currently established histories surrounding them? Does the population of Hyrule and its surrounding world suddenly become tripled, with people (and literally everything else) from the other two timelines poofing into existence within some impossibly mashed together world? Or do 2/3rds of people and things within the world arbitrarily cease to exist? We’re talking three entirely different timelines spanning at least many hundreds if not thousands of years during which the course of history has changed dramatically. Hell, one timeline literally has the whole world flooded. These differences in history are just far too great to somehow merge into one. Now if we’re talking smaller, more localized events within time somehow affecting another timeline in a relatively minor way? Sure, that’s more believable (if still technically impossible, but far easier to reconcile with divine intervention or whatever), and we’ve already seen examples of that in games like SS and TP. But for that to happen to something on the scale of the entirety of the Adult, Child, and Downfall Timelines? It just doesn’t work at all.

 

[Mango]

I don't think the Bargainer statues control the Hylia statues at all, the implication is that just the Great Plateau one managed to hijack the the ToT statue. I also don't think the Golden Goddesses didn't exist or were Zonai. We know regardless of what other games did or didn't happen that Skyward Sword did happen, as Fi is very much still in the Master Sword, ergo of Skyward Sword happened than Hylia definitely does exist and is definitely a Goddess, moreover the Triforce definitely does exist and it proves the creation story to be accurate.

 

[Skittzo]

I don’t understand how people can look at impossible timeline convergence theories like this and say “sure, this makes sense” yet refuse to believe a simple timeline split from SS is likely or even possible.

The whole Dragon Break concept just doesn’t make sense at all. Maybe it somehow works out better in The Elder Scrolls, I dunno (I have zero experience with or interest in that series so I wouldn’t know), but in the context of the Zelda timeline it just makes no sense at all. Aside from the fact that there’s no good explanation at all for how and why the timelines would converge in the first place or the Downfall Timeline’s inclusion in that (and no, I don’t believe the reasons given in that video are sufficient at all, because it’s hardly an explanation and essentially amounts to “Sage of Time, I guess”), you have to just ignore the reality of what would actually have to happen if these three separate timelines were to somehow merge. You can’t just say “all possibilities and outcomes become truth, though contradictory to each other” because in practice that is literally impossible. I mean, obviously, we’re talking about time travel here after all, but even by the magical time logic by which Hyrule operates it simply doesn’t and can’t make sense.

It’s not simply past events that exist in people’s memories that you have to consider, but also the present state of each timeline when the convergence happens. When the timelines merge, what happens to all the people from each timeline and the currently established histories surrounding them? Does the population of Hyrule and its surrounding world suddenly become tripled, with people (and literally everything else) from the other two timelines poofing into existence within some impossibly mashed together world? Or do 2/3rds of people and things within the world arbitrarily cease to exist? We’re talking three entirely different timelines spanning at least many hundreds if not thousands of years during which the course of history has changed dramatically. Hell, one timeline literally has the whole world flooded. These differences in history are just far too great to somehow merge into one. Now if we’re talking smaller, more localized events within time somehow affecting another timeline in a relatively minor way? Sure, that’s more believable (if still technically impossible, but far easier to reconcile with divine intervention or whatever), and we’ve already seen examples of that in games like SS and TP. But for that to happen to something on the scale of the entirety of the Adult, Child, and Downfall Timelines? It just doesn’t work at all.

It works in Elder Scrolls because it lasts for a very short time, like hours or days. It's basically a way for the devs to say that all of the player's possible choices for this one sequence towards the end of the game are canon, so it only really applies to a short series of events, relatively minor events compared to the scale of thousands of years of events in Zelda.

One example (from fuzzy memory which can very much be quite wrong but this is generally the jist) is basically when the player finds a giant mechanical golem do they A) destroy it, B) use it to attack the bad guy, C) use it to cause chaos or D) give it to someone else to use. Onlookers for these events describe all of the outcomes happening simultaneously which shouldn't be possible, so it's called a dragon break since the god of time and continuity is a Dragon called Akatosh. Basically they say he stopped functioning correctly for a little while.

I agree with you that this kind of reasoning doesn't really work with the time scales involved here. Even if you can resolve the idea of a dragon break happening in Zelda the idea that it happens for a period of countless eons only to then resolve where everyone knows it all happened makes little sense, considering the people who are present in one timeline probably aren't present in the other. When the scale of the break is hours/days you don't have to worry about entire civilizations being built or destroyed before it's resolved.

 

[andipossess]

I personally doubt that the Goddesses aren't actually Goddesses because pretty much all of the spirits that appear in the series acknowledge them as Goddesses and why would they if they didn't exist or were Zonai who became dragons in time immemorial? At the very least, Hylia worship predates the fall of the Zonai based on evidence we get in TotK.

I'm more inclined to trust that the spirits know what they're talking about than that some ancient event was twisted by the passage of time into what we know as the Golden Goddesses and Hylia.

 

[Mango]

I personally doubt that the Goddesses aren't actually Goddesses because pretty much all of the spirits that appear in the series acknowledge them as Goddesses and why would they if they didn't exist or were Zonai who became dragons in time immemorial? At the very least, Hylia worship predates the fall of the Zonai based on evidence we get in TotK.

I'm more inclined to trust that the spirits know what they're talking about than that some ancient event was twisted by the passage of time into what we know as the Golden Goddesses and Hylia.

The Deku Tree literally says the Master Sword was created by a Goddess. Someone could argue he doesn't know but I'm gonna take his word over Mineru or Rauru who don't seem to have any knowledge of the the sword.

Also the idea that the even the creation myths are fake is just like super lame imo. Even if ToTK was outright saying that, at that point I'd just consider TotK non-canon, it's not a worthy trade.

 

[andipossess]

I personally don't mind if the creation myth is fake, as long as we get an interesting story out of it. But evidence suggests that the goddesses were actually goddesses as far as pretty much everybody in the series is concerned, even if they don't directly interact with the plot.

 

[Tye]

It works in Elder Scrolls because it lasts for a very short time, like hours or days. It's basically a way for the devs to say that all of the player's possible choices for this one sequence towards the end of the game are canon, so it only really applies to a short series of events, relatively minor events compared to the scale of thousands of years of events in Zelda.

One example (from fuzzy memory which can very much be quite wrong but this is generally the jist) is basically when the player finds a giant mechanical golem do they A) destroy it, B) use it to attack the bad guy, C) use it to cause chaos or D) give it to someone else to use. Onlookers for these events describe all of the outcomes happening simultaneously which shouldn't be possible, so it's called a dragon break since the god of time and continuity is a Dragon called Akatosh. Basically they say he stopped functioning correctly for a little while.

I agree with you that this kind of reasoning doesn't really work with the time scales involved here. Even if you can resolve the idea of a dragon break happening in Zelda the idea that it happens for a period of countless eons only to then resolve where everyone knows it all happened makes little sense, considering the people who are present in one timeline probably aren't present in the other. When the scale of the break is hours/days you don't have to worry about entire civilizations being built or destroyed before it's resolved.

Okay, yeah, I see how that could be believable enough within the context of The Elder Scrolls then. I don’t understand why it’s become such a prevalent theory for people to apply that same concept to the Zelda timeline, though, since it entirely falls apart in that context. It’s as if people are just going “this sounds cool” and believing it without actually thinking the idea through at all, or just ignoring the ways in which it makes no sense whatsoever because the end result is a timeline that is no longer split and that’s just what they want since people love to hate the split timeline for whatever reason.

 

[Skittzo]

Okay, yeah, I see how that could be believable enough within the context of The Elder Scrolls then. I don’t understand why it’s become such a prevalent theory for people to apply that same concept to the Zelda timeline, though, since it entirely falls apart in that context. It’s as if people are just going “this sounds cool” and believing it without actually thinking the idea through at all, or just ignoring the ways in which it makes no sense whatsoever because the end result is a timeline that is no longer split and that’s just what they want since people love to hate the split timeline for whatever reason.

I think it's just because BOTW and TotK reference lots of things from other games so people are working on trying to make sense of that within the canon.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

The Zelda series definitely and canonically has its own "OK maybe a bunch of different choices happened at once here" moment, and it's the Oracle games, since they can be played in either order

 

[Tye]

I think it's just because BOTW and TotK reference lots of things from other games so people are working on trying to make sense of that within the canon.

Sure, but the Dragon Break theory makes even less sense! It’s far more plausible that either the things like minor location names and the amiibo/DLC items are just fun references and/or not supposed to be canon, or the games take place on a different timeline (which TotK already appears to strongly imply, for reasons I’ve already explained) with an unexplored history where any of those references could theoretically be explained by similar events having happened (if those things are even meant to be canon in the first place, of course).

The Zelda series definitely and canonically has its own "OK maybe a bunch of different choices happened at once here" moment, and it's the Oracle games, since they can be played in either order

Sure, but ultimately it doesn’t matter because no matter what order you play the Oracle games in, the end results are basically the same. Though, technically, the canon order is OoS first, OoA second.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Sure, but ultimately it doesn’t matter because no matter what order you play the Oracle games in, the end results are basically the same. Though, technically, the canon order is OoS first, OoA second.

I don't hold the Historia or Encyclopedia as the last words on canon

This isn't an invitation to an argument, it's just to let you know my perspective before using them as a source in conversation with me

I think you could argue that the Merged Timeline Theories of BOTW (which I also hold, especially after TOTK) argue that everything turns out the same in the end: over the course of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, everything ends up at a spot more or less like BOTW, and when things get similar enough there isn't really any redundancy in a merging

 

[Tye]

I don't hold the Historia or Encyclopedia as the last words on canon

This isn't an invitation to an argument, it's just to let you know my perspective before using them as a source in conversation with me

I think you could argue that the Merged Timeline Theories of BOTW (which I also hold, especially after TOTK) argue that everything turns out the same in the end: over the course of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, everything ends up at a spot more or less like BOTW, and when things get similar enough there isn't really any redundancy in a merging

Okay, well that’s a different theory than the Dragon Break one. With the Dragon Break, all three timelines somehow literally merge into one, which is absolutely impossible. The theory you describe, being that any or every timeline eventually leads to roughly similar events somehow (though they’d have to happen in a different order and still play out somewhat differently) and ultimately results in BotW/TotK either way, is at least more plausible than a literal merging of the timelines (not to say that I think it makes much sense itself, either, but nothing besides BotW/TotK being on an alternate timeline really makes sense to me after the context we’ve been given in TotK and how it changes what we thought we knew from BotW, for all the reasons I’ve already explained in this thread).

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Okay, well that’s a different theory than the Dragon Break one. With the Dragon Break, all three timelines somehow literally merge into one, which is absolutely impossible. The theory you describe, being that any or every timeline eventually leads to roughly similar events somehow (though they’d have to happen in a different order and still play out somewhat differently) and ultimately results in BotW/TotK either way, is at least more plausible than a literal merging of the timelines (not to say that I think it makes much sense itself, either, but nothing besides BotW/TotK being on an alternate timeline really makes sense to me after the context we’ve been given in TotK and how it changes what we thought we knew from BotW, for all the reasons I’ve already explained in this thread).

I mean I already think the "Downfall" timeline is nonsense, and the SS timeline split (Demise Timeline vs Imprisoned Timeline) is what I like to use instead

But I also think the two new games definitely take place in a merged timeline, especially given how TOTK makes the easter egg costumes from BOTW into part of the text

 

[andipossess]

I'm not particularly inclined to take gameplay rewards in Tears of the Kingdom as serious bits of text, myself. Not when you can get a brand new Goddess Sword as a quest reward.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

I'm not particularly inclined to take gameplay rewards in Tears of the Kingdom as serious bits of text, myself. Not when you can get a brand new Goddess Sword as a quest reward.

Again: you have to keep in mind that I see the timeline split in Skyward Sword as a timeline split, instead of a closed loop. That there is a Goddess sword given to you is support for that reading, to me

I'm all for ignoring DLC or Amiibo reward, fine, but when you have quests and in-game plaques where Misko talks about the travels he made to other lands to collect these armors, and the bargainer statues talk to you about these armors, make some for you, point you to others, etc. It's a lot of text to just go "that doesn't count," and I'm not interested in dismissing such a large portion of the game's wordcount

 

[LegendHero]

I've actually always been of the opinion that Hylia and the golden goddesses were never actually "gods" in the sense that they're omnipresent ethereal beings who can like, create life and whatnot. I always assumed they were said to be goddesses in legend because they were so powerful or advanced that they seemed like god-beings. The golden goddesses especially, I think this game makes a strong implication that they were originally Zonai who swallowed secret stones to become the respective dragons.

Any time the goddesses have been directly referenced it's said the exact opposite, Farore literally did create all life on Hyrule. Nayru created the laws of physics and magic and Din shaped the world from formless chaos. Everything that makes the world a world comes from them, and the Triforce keeps the world operating as such. If you want to believe that none of that is true and the Triforce really exists for some other reason I suppose you can, but the games themselves don't really suggest that they weren't true gods. We even see in A Link Between Worlds that when the divine providence of the Triforce is gone, the world decays and eventually is destroyed completely.

 

[andipossess]

Again: you have to keep in mind that I see the timeline split in Skyward Sword as a timeline split, instead of a closed loop. That there is a Goddess sword given to you is support for that reading, to me

I'm all for ignoring DLC or Amiibo reward, fine, but when you have quests and in-game plaques where Misko talks about the travels he made to other lands to collect these armors, and the bargainer statues talk to you about these armors, make some for you, point you to others, etc. It's a lot of text to just go "that doesn't count," and I'm not interested in dismissing such a large portion of the game's wordcount

Trouble is, too many of those things are inexplicable even within the text of TotK. Why do treasure maps in the sky islands (ostensibly from Zonai times) mark out exactly the spots in the Depths (which are mostly mines) where you get things like previous heroes' gear from across thousands of years? Why the does Bargainer statue let you buy the an outfit that makes you look like Dark Link, when Dark Link is not a physical entity who wore clothes and a mask to look like OoT Link? Why is your reward for the Lomei Labyrinths the clothes worn by OoT Phantom Ganon who also is not a physical entity who wore clothes? I can't fathom a way to frame that as lore without bending over backwards to accommodate for that sort of video-game-y weirdness.

Also regarding the Goddess Sword, that it exists at all is a problem because the Master Sword also exists and they're the same entity, so you have to also believe that the timelines merged after the Skyward Sword split without these two items merging into a single item, noting that the item implies with the same amount of certainty (that is, uh, not 100%) that it is legit as all the other easter egg-y items you can find. Unless there's another way you think they can exist simultaneously in the current time.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Trouble is, too many of those things are inexplicable even within the text of TotK. Why do treasure maps in the sky islands (ostensibly from Zonai times) mark out exactly the spots in the Depths (which are mostly mines) where you get things like previous heroes' gear from across thousands of years? Why the does Bargainer statue let you buy the an outfit that makes you look like Dark Link, when Dark Link is not a physical entity who wore clothes and a mask to look like OoT Link? Why is your reward for the Lomei Labyrinths the clothes worn by OoT Phantom Ganon who also is not a physical entity who wore clothes? I can't fathom a way to frame that as lore without bending over backwards to accommodate for that sort of video-game-y weirdness.

Also regarding the Goddess Sword, that it exists at all is a problem because the Master Sword also exists and they're the same entity, so you have to also believe that the timelines merged after the Skyward Sword split without these two items merging into a single item, noting that the item implies with the same amount of certainty (that is, uh, not 100%) that it is legit as all the other easter egg-y items you can find. Unless there's another way you think they can exist simultaneously in the current time.

"Zonai times" describes a period that lasted tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and the latest recorded instance of a Zonai appearing directly in Hyrule is the Hero who fought the Calamity 10,000 years ago. They've been around, and apparently made a habit of collecting the armors of the heroes when they were done with them. Access to the depths has been rare in the long ages of Hyrule, but that doesn't mean it's been completely sealed off

And the bargainer statues make clothes, rather than just give them to you. All that's required for the Phantom Ganon armor to exist in the canon is for someone to know what Phantom Ganon was and then model armor on it, which to me is a much smaller ask than that much of the text—and the text for the labyrinths is important to the Zonai's place in the larger cosmology!—being thrown in the garbage

I don't think the goddess sword existing is actually a problem, because my reading is that the timeline split is caused—just like in Ocarina of Time—when the Master Sword is placed in its pedestal at the end of Skyward Sword. So in the timeline where the Imprisoned was killed by the Triforce, things are as normal, but in the timeline where Demise is killed by the Master Sword, that timeline's goddess sword (which did exist, since Skyloft was already in the sky at this point) was never forged into the Master Sword. Yes, that means both weapons were extant at the same time. No, I don't see that as a real problem

 

[WestEgg]

Yeah, I was willing to dismiss the prior game items like the outfits and Majora’s Mask as non canon when they were amiibo locked in BotW, but TotK clearly treats them like revered historical artifacts from Hyrule’s History, giving them very prominent housing within the world, or being closely guarded by Ganondorf’s forces like with Majora’s Mask. They are definitely a part of the world as much as any other outfits you find.

I wasn’t initially as sold on the idea of a merged timeline even in BotW, but it’s very spelled out in this game that the events of past Zelds happened in some way, even the conflicting ones.

 

[LegendHero]

Trouble is, too many of those things are inexplicable even within the text of TotK. Why do treasure maps in the sky islands (ostensibly from Zonai times) mark out exactly the spots in the Depths (which are mostly mines) where you get things like previous heroes' gear from across thousands of years? Why the does Bargainer statue let you buy the an outfit that makes you look like Dark Link, when Dark Link is not a physical entity who wore clothes and a mask to look like OoT Link? Why is your reward for the Lomei Labyrinths the clothes worn by OoT Phantom Ganon who also is not a physical entity who wore clothes? I can't fathom a way to frame that as lore without bending over backwards to accommodate for that sort of video-game-y weirdness.

Also regarding the Goddess Sword, that it exists at all is a problem because the Master Sword also exists and they're the same entity, so you have to also believe that the timelines merged after the Skyward Sword split without these two items merging into a single item, noting that the item implies with the same amount of certainty (that is, uh, not 100%) that it is legit as all the other easter egg-y items you can find. Unless there's another way you think they can exist simultaneously in the current time.

The Dark Tunic is specifically referred to as a replica of the Hero of Time's tunic, but as for the Evil Spirit set it's hardly a new plot point for objects to be possessed in fiction (or even in superstition people really have). Even in this very game we are told the Ancient Hero's Aspect contains his spirit or aura. The Evil Spirit set in this game is said to have been sealed away since times of old, so clearly there's something about it that the ancients viewed as dangerous. And the White Sword of the Sky doesn't seem problematic because it has no Fi and hasn't been forged into a Master Sword. We're given no reason to believe the Goddess Sword itself couldn't have sister blades.

Yeah, I was willing to dismiss the prior game items like the outfits and Majora’s Mask as non canon when they were amiibo locked in BotW, but TotK clearly treats them like revered historical artifacts from Hyrule’s History, giving them very prominent housing within the world, or being closely guarded by Ganondorf’s forces like with Majora’s Mask. They are definitely a part of the world as much as any other outfits you find.

I wasn’t initially as sold on the idea of a merged timeline even in BotW, but it’s very spelled out in this game that the events of past Zelds happened in some way, even the conflicting ones.

Agreed, but I don't necessarily think the timelines merged.

 

[Tye]

There’s always some degree of suspension of disbelief that you have to apply to video game elements such as rewards like this. There are plenty of things in Zelda games that are clearly elements present within the games that aren’t necessarily meant to be taken seriously as canon, and these BotW DLC/amiibo items may very well be one of those. I mean, does it make any sense that the bargainers can recreate sacred weapons like the Goddess Sword—sorry, White Sword of the Sky—and offer them to you for the same amount of Poes as a simple boomerang, for example? Or that Cece can somehow recreate Majora’s Mask, complete with the same properties the “real” one found in the world gives you? Like, no, clearly not all of this is supposed to be taken as strict canon. It’s like how Hyrule drastically changes between games in impossible ways that just don’t match up no matter how hard you try to make sense of it—you have to just chalk it up to video game logic, despite it literally being the physical world you explore in each game. It’s clearly an element that actually exists within the games, yet it doesn’t add up, so it can’t be meant to be strict canon as-is. A looser interpretation is required for it to make sense.

That said, if you do believe the BotW DLC/amiibo items in TotK are supposed to be strictly canon, I’ll say again that the SS split theory that I believe with BotW/TotK taking place in an alternate timeline where similar events happen but differently (as we see with TotK’s Imprisoning War and how that is what was initially assumed to be OoT in BotW but clearly isn’t after TotK) also leaves open the possibility for those items to be canon by way of similar events to the respective games being referenced having happened in this alternate timeline with an unseen history. It also explains how the Goddess Sword and Master Sword could exist at the same time! But with this theory there’s also no need for any kind of impossible timeline convergence or the idea that three separate timelines somehow turn out to be the exact same in the end. We have a previously unexplored timeline split from SS that serves as a clean slate, without having to bog down any of the previous timelines with BotW/TotK’s enormous 10,000+ year history or rid them of their identities by making them inexplicably all become the same at some point. And it seems pretty clear to me that an alternate timeline of some kind has to be at play here, since BotW and CaC tell us that the event we thought was OoT with Ruto, Nabooru, etc. was the source of Calamity Ganon, yet in TotK we learn that it was in fact a different Imprisoning War with a different Ganondorf entirely, so “OoT” as we know it never could have happened in a way that reasonably makes sense in this timeline.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Given the length of time being dealt with here, I don't see why there can't be more than one Imprisoning War

We already had four of them, after all: Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess's backstory, Link to the Past's backstory, and Wind Waker's backstory. I don't think anyone's ever theorized four timelines, so at least one of them—the Adult timeline on the "The Imprisoned was killed by the Triforce" timeline, if you like—already had two Imprisoning Wars with very different details and very different (but still consistent in some ways) results

"Imprisoning War," at this point, is less a specific event as it is a description of any conflict where Ganondorf is sealed away rather than killed

 

[Jersh]

I mean… they did happen in some form though. Ruto and Nabooru are both directly acknowledged as in game legends among their respective races. Fi’s glow is blatantly shown in cutscenes.

Pulling this here because it seemed more relevant (and I'm catching up on all the spoiler threads now lol); part of me wonders if it's not too far-fetched for Ruto and Nabooru to be the names of the ancient sages. Ruto's stone tablet in BotW admittedly fits OoT better (fitting the legendary hero to be Rauru is a bit of a stretch), but it was a thought I had while starting the Zora stuff, and hearing the feminine voice for the Zora sage made me wonder more.

I'm not sure if I'd say they were necessarily known as Zonai (could have been the same race as Picori or Ooccoo who changed over time) but yeah there was some civilization in the sky which was sufficiently advanced that they would appear to be gods. I'm having trouble remembering the exact backstory of SS but there was an ancient advanced civilization in that too, though at that time (long before SS) they at least had presence on the land.

It's possible that civilization from pre-SS is the same one that went up into the sky and evolved over time to become Zonai. Maybe they even left the planet to explore other worlds or something, then came back.

After a quick wiki refresher, the ancient robots in SS sure seem quite similar to the constructs in TotK, both in design (they've got energy beams which connect their limbs) and in purpose (mining stuff, i.e. maybe Zonaite).

Oh cool, I get to flex my SS nerd knowledge

There certainly appears to be an ancient advanced civilization in SS, but the more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the robots were the civilization, full stop. Lanayru (the Thunder Dragon) created them, and they seemingly developed a culture of their own. It's why all their important status are not of their creators, but of themselves. There was no ancient race to depict not because the developers didn't bother drawing it up, but because there wasn't one.

(Also - they mine Timeshift Stones practically exclusively. That's pretty well established.)

The only hint we have of a living civilization on the surface more advanced than what we see directly in SS are the ruins in Eldin. There's references to a king, and while there's no advanced tech, the architecture at least gets rather impressive (and to me, looks rather Zonai-esque, but more of the variety seen in Faron). Curiously, there's also a heavy emphasis on dragons and owls. Other animals are seen too - namely frogs and a different kind of bird - but the dragons and owls are most prominent.

Do with that what you will.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Pulling this here because it seemed more relevant (and I'm catching up on all the spoiler threads now lol); part of me wonders if it's not too far-fetched for Ruto and Nabooru to be the names of the ancient sages. Ruto's stone tablet in BotW admittedly fits OoT better (fitting the legendary hero to be Rauru is a bit of a stretch), but it was a thought I had while starting the Zora stuff, and hearing the feminine voice for the Zora sage made me wonder more.


Oh cool, I get to flex my SS nerd knowledge

There certainly appears to be an ancient advanced civilization in SS, but the more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the robots were the civilization, full stop. Lanayru (the Thunder Dragon) created them, and they seemingly developed a culture of their own. It's why all their important status are not of their creators, but of themselves. There was no ancient race to depict not because the developers didn't bother drawing it up, but because there wasn't one.

(Also - they mine Timeshift Stones practically exclusively. That's pretty well established.)

The only hint we have of a living civilization on the surface more advanced than what we see directly in SS are the ruins in Eldin. There's references to a king, and while there's no advanced tech, the architecture at least gets rather impressive (and to me, looks rather Zonai-esque, but more of the variety seen in Faron). Curiously, there's also a heavy emphasis on dragons and owls. Other animals are seen too - namely frogs and a different kind of bird - but the dragons and owls are most prominent.

Do with that what you will.

I think the Fire Sanctuary being full of owls, one of the three animals the zonai use for their own architexture and symbology, has a very different feeling after Tears of the Kingdom

 

[WestEgg]

Given the length of time being dealt with here, I don't see why there can't be more than one Imprisoning War

We already had four of them, after all: Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess's backstory, Link to the Past's backstory, and Wind Waker's backstory. I don't think anyone's ever theorized four timelines, so at least one of them—the Adult timeline on the "The Imprisoned was killed by the Triforce" timeline, if you like—already had two Imprisoning Wars with very different details and very different (but still consistent in some ways) results

"Imprisoning War," at this point, is less a specific event as it is a description of any conflict where Ganondorf is sealed away rather than killed

Yeah, the imprisoning war has already been directly been used to reference two separate, incompatible events: The imprisoning of Ganon into the Dark World by the Sages within the Downfall Timeline, and Rauru imprisoning Ganondorf’s power beneath Hyrule Castle. These cannot possibly be seen as the same event.

 

[Tye]

Given the length of time being dealt with here, I don't see why there can't be more than one Imprisoning War

We already had four of them, after all: Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess's backstory, Link to the Past's backstory, and Wind Waker's backstory. I don't think anyone's ever theorized four timelines, so at least one of them—the Adult timeline on the "The Imprisoned was killed by the Triforce" timeline, if you like—already had two Imprisoning Wars with very different details and very different (but still consistent in some ways) results

"Imprisoning War," at this point, is less a specific event as it is a description of any conflict where Ganondorf is sealed away rather than killed

Only one of those events was ever explicitly called “the Imprisoning War”—the one from ALttP’s backstory, being the events that OoT lead into on the Downfall Timeline. They could have called it anything else, but no, they specifically chose to name it the same as an existing event in the Zelda timeline, which also served to misdirect people into believing that the game’s intro was confirmation that this game took place on the Downfall Timeline (as was a commonly believed theory for BotW) before surprising you with the revelation that, no, actually, this is an entirely different event. Which also means that all those other references that you thought were to OoT, like the mentions of Ruto and Nabooru? Nope, different event with different characters entirely—with strong implications that they’re actually the unnamed sages of TotK’s Imprisoning War. And the same with Rauru being named such as well—they’ve never reused character names for major characters outside of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf to this degree before, let alone reusing the name of a specific event like the Imprisoning War. Combined with the framing of that memory with Ganondorf kneeling before the king mirroring OoT 1:1, it’s incredibly obvious to me that it’s meant to read as a parallel to OoT in a timeline where OoT didn’t happen as we know it. And with what we thought was supposed to be OoT actually turning out to be TotK’s Imprisoning War and also still the source of Calamity Ganon, it pretty much rules out OoT also being able to take place separately in this timeline, for reasons that I’ve already explained in greater depth before:

There absolutely is evidence for BotW/TotK being on a different timeline, though, which I’ve already explained, but I’ll try to make that more clear here. The thing is, we can’t take BotW and CaC at face value anymore, because TotK contradicts them. The developers’ intentions have seemingly changed between BotW and TotK, or potentially weren’t even fully decided prior to TotK in the first place. BotW leads us to believe that Calamity Ganon arose from OoT Ganondorf, with Ruto and Nabooru assisting in the fight against him, and CaC further cements this. (It also states that another male Gerudo hasn’t been born since then, which I only recently learned.) But TotK goes against this, because we find that the source of Calamity Ganon is in fact not OoT Ganondorf at all, but an entirely different Ganondorf. And that also means that the Ruto and Nabooru that we thought were the ones from OoT must be different sages entirely, too, because they were directly tied to the same events that we had assumed were supposed to be OoT. But TotK changed that, making those events instead be this other Imprisoning War, complete with a number of very obvious OoT parallels such as the name of the Imprisoning War itself, the Sage of Light being Rauru, the framing of the scene with Ganondorf kneeling before the king mirroring OoT exactly, etc. Yes, names and concepts are commonly reused in the Zelda series, but never quite to this extent. It immediately read to me as “this is a parallel of OoT’s events in another timeline,” which is really the only sensible conclusion you can come to given TotK’s contradictions of what we previously thought was supposed to be OoT’s events. Honestly, rather than it going against the developers’ intentions, I’d say it very likely aligns with what the developers were trying to convey to us in the game.

It can’t be that TotK Ganondorf was a different Ganondorf that came before OoT Ganondorf, because we know from CaC that another male Gerudo hasn’t been born since the one that became Calamity Ganon, and even if we’re to assume that’s not canon now there’s no way the Gerudo would let another Ganondorf essentially repeat the events of TotK’s Imprisoning War in OoT. CaC touches on the great shame the Gerudo felt over giving birth to the source of Calamity Ganon, and Urbosa talks about it in BotW as well, so if this shame was great enough to persist well over 10,000 years into the future, it surely would have still existed a mere few hundred years after TotK’s Imprisoning War. (And it has to be less than 400 years if you believe that Kotake and Koume are the same ones from OoT—which is another issue itself, because that may not even fit within the established timeline, given that there had to have been around 400 years between Hyrule’s founding and OoT at the very least since there are 100 years between TMC and its backstory, plus at least 100 years between TMC and FS and another 100 years at least between FS and OoT since 100 years seems to be the earliest known and most common amount of time between incarnations of Link and/or Zelda, plus there’s probably at least 100 years or so between Hyrule’s founding in the Era of Prosperity and TMC’s backstory of the Hero of Men in the Force Era as well, and that’s all if you assume the very least amount of time possible happened between these events with absolutely no breathing room beyond that.) After all, FSA Ganondorf was expelled by the Gerudo and forced to become a desert nomad rather than being automatically accepted as king from birth as OoT Ganondorf and TotK Ganondorf were, so if TotK and OoT are supposed to exist on the same timeline then OoT Ganondorf should have never been made king in the first place.

Either you have to ignore TotK’s inconsistencies with BotW/CaC and OoT entirely, or you have to assume that BotW/CaC’s description of the “OoT” events must either have been retconned or are supposed to be interpreted differently. And really, it’s only the mention of the hero of legend that appears to cause issue, which I’ve already provided a possible explanation for, and it’s not like inconsistencies with a presence or lack of a hero haven’t been a thing before in the history of the Zelda series. Everything else fits perfectly if you assume what we thought was referring to OoT is instead referring to TotK’s Imprisoning War somewhat mirroring it on another timeline. The only tiny bit of info that’s contradictory to this is the mention of a hero of legend in that time, but again, that doesn’t even make sense within the context of TotK anyway for the same reasons I already explained above; we know those events mentioned in BotW and again in TotK with Ruto and such are supposed to be that of the origin of Calamity Ganon, formerly believed to be OoT, but now known to be an entirely different event with entirely different characters. There was no hero of legend present in TotK’s Imprisoning War (aside from the sage’s knowledge of Link in the far future), so clearly the legends aren’t exact with the details (an idea the developers have brought up multiple times, along with Fi highlighting this in SS when she says that the oral tradition “is one of the least reliable methods of information retention and transmission”), which is the simplest explanation for this discrepancy. After all, while not physically present in that time, the hero of legend who wielded the Master Sword from the far future was known about, and the Master Sword itself was sent back in time to that point, too. Over time, it’s entirely possible that these details were conflated and it was thought that the hero of legend existed in that time, too. No matter how you try to explain it, there are inconsistencies somewhere, and I feel like the spoken legend being slightly misinterpreted over time is a far more likely and elegant solution than ignoring the fact that BotW’s “OoT” simply can’t be the OoT that we know based on what TotK reveals to us.

So, given this context, Occam’s razor would actually suggest that it must be either an alternate timeline or a separate continuity altogether, because anything else just doesn’t fit without much more convoluted theories and assumptions. And why settle for it being a completely separate continuity (something I absolutely don’t see Nintendo doing, especially after they claimed the reason for not revealing BotW’s timeline placement is, at least in part, to fuel speculation of where and how the game may fit in, and if the answer is actually “it doesn’t!” then that would be incredibly misleading and disappointing) when there’s already an alternate timeline that works perfectly for it branching off of SS? We could argue endlessly about whether or not SS is truly supposed to create a timeline split, but it absolutely can’t be a perfectly closed loop because the game shows us how it’s not—not only with the Tree of Life and Master Sword, but also with Zelda (awoken with Hylia’s memories) being completely unaware of Ghirahim’s plan to take her back in time and resurrect Demise in the past; Hylia set up her own plan to eradicate Demise with the Triforce in advance in a way that transcended time itself, with every step along the way being known to her since it became predestined. Yet Ghirahim’s disruption of those plans caught Zelda/Hylia unawares, which shouldn’t have been the case if these events were truly unchanged from Hylia’s predetermined history of events. Demise is also given contradictory sealings/revivals/defeats, which only makes sense if there was indeed a timeline split. Yes, it’s messy, inconsistent, and poorly conveyed, unless you consider that the original timeline of events as predestined by Hylia’s plan is the “closed loop” that we perceive, while the unforeseen changes in history due to Ghirahim’s actions creates a split, explaining stuff like why the Master Sword doesn’t follow the same time logic as Impa’s bracelet and Zelda. Additionally, we’ve seen a timeline “fix” itself due to paradoxes before, namely the “divine prank” that inexplicably gave Ganondorf the Triforce of Power (along with OoT Link and Zelda’s descendants having the Triforce of Courage and Wisdom, respectively) when he never touched the Triforce in that timeline; this happened because Link was sent back in time in OoT, creating the Child Timeline, with the Triforce of Courage still in his possession, which created a paradox since the Triforce was still untouched in the Sacred Realm in that timeline, so time “fixed” itself by splitting the Triforce among its destined wielders as it is in the other timeline, unbeknownst to them. You can apply this same logic to stuff like the Master Sword suddenly appearing in its pedestal in SS’s original timeline when it was never there before, explaining how it can exist in the same state in both timelines.

As for the multiple Links and Zeldas, that doesn’t really change my theory at all, and I was only questioning that because TotK seems to throw that into uncertainty in some ways. But it can be assumed that Calamity Ganon attacked Hyrule multiple times throughout this timeline and that’s where these heroes of legend and princesses of Hyrule fought Ganon together (and also at least one of those heroes was Zonai, for some reason), so that all fits. Of course, if Hylia is still a goddess in this timeline and never became mortal, that does beg the question of how Zelda supposedly carries her blood, but in this timeline the history of Skyloft and the lineage of the Royal Family would have likely played out differently anyway, so for all we know some other “Zelda” (it could have even been Sonia!) was eventually gifted with some form of power from Hylia, whether that was a piece of her essence/the Light Force, or something else entirely—like the full Triforce, hidden within the princess of the Royal Family and passed down through their bloodline, which seems to be implied to be the true source of Zelda’s power in BotW/TotK—and the “sharing the blood of the Goddess” thing was just a legend passed down by the Sheikah given SS’s events in the original timeline or extrapolated based on receiving Hylia’s blessing. Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that it shouldn’t be possible for Hylia to both have become mortal and still be a goddess at the same time, otherwise that undermines the whole plot of SS, as it’s made very clear that gods can’t use the Triforce, even indirectly, so there’s still that inconsistency with BotW/TotK either way.

But regardless of how BotW/TotK may or may not connect to an alternate timeline from SS, the fact is that BotW/TotK simply cannot exist within the same timeline relative to OoT as we were originally lead to believe; TotK makes that clear with its Imprisoning War now being the origin of Calamity Ganon. Which means, aside from even more convoluted theories that ignore more inconsistencies, BotW/TotK have to exist in an alternate timeline, be it one that’s connected to the original timeline in some way or one that’s its own entirely separate continuity. And, as I already explained, I much prefer and expect the former over the latter, and since SS was the last 3D Zelda game before BotW and the first major Zelda game since OoT that could spawn a timeline split, and BotW/TotK would have been the first opportunity for them to utilize said timeline split, I see it as very likely possibility. It explains Nintendo’s vagueness about BotW’s timeline placement, it explains a number of big inconsistencies that you’d otherwise have to just ignore, and, like they did with OoT before it, it strikes me as something that the developers would absolutely do to give themselves more storytelling freedom.

Pulling this here because it seemed more relevant (and I'm catching up on all the spoiler threads now lol); part of me wonders if it's not too far-fetched for Ruto and Nabooru to be the names of the ancient sages. Ruto's stone tablet in BotW admittedly fits OoT better (fitting the legendary hero to be Rauru is a bit of a stretch), but it was a thought I had while starting the Zora stuff, and hearing the feminine voice for the Zora sage made me wonder more.

I agree that that indeed seems to be the implication, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this whole thread! See the quote right above this one, lol.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Only one of those events was ever explicitly called “the Imprisoning War”—the one from ALttP’s backstory, being the events that OoT lead into on the Downfall Timeline. They could have called it anything else, but no, they specifically chose to name it the same as an existing event in the Zelda timeline, which also served to misdirect people into believing that the game’s intro was confirmation that this game took place on the Downfall Timeline (as was a commonly believed theory for BotW) before surprising you with the revelation that, no, actually, this is an entirely different event. Which also means that all those other references that you thought were to OoT, like the mentions of Ruto and Nabooru? Nope, different event with different characters entirely—with strong implications that they’re actually the unnamed sages of TotK’s Imprisoning War. And the same with Rauru being named such as well—they’ve never reused character names for major characters outside of Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf to this degree before, let alone reusing the name of a specific event like the Imprisoning War. Combined with the framing of that memory with Ganondorf kneeling before the king mirroring OoT 1:1, it’s incredibly obvious to me that it’s meant to read as a parallel to OoT in a timeline where OoT didn’t happen as we know it. And with what we thought was supposed to be OoT actually turning out to be TotK’s Imprisoning War and also still the source of Calamity Ganon, it pretty much rules out OoT also being able to take place separately in this timeline, for reasons that I’ve already explained in greater depth before:

I'm not sure you're replying to what I actually said; I'm already familiar with your position, and not arguing against it specifically

For the record: the phrase "Imprisoning War" has never been used in the text of a Zelda game before, only in the Link to the Past manual. The TOTK use of the term is the first time it's actually been in a game

 

[Tye]

I'm not sure you're replying to what I actually said; I'm already familiar with your position, and not arguing against it specifically

For the record: the phrase "Imprisoning War" has never been used in the text of a Zelda game before, only in the Link to the Past manual. The TOTK use of the term is the first time it's actually been in a game

I thought you were arguing in favor of OoT (as the original Imprisoning War) still taking place as a separate event from TotK’s Imprisoning War on the same timeline, which is what I was responding to.

And yes, I’m aware that it was only named in the manual, but that doesn’t make it non-canon. Is Impa from TLoZ/TAoL non-canon because she never appeared in game? Is Ganondorf’s backstory from ALttP non-canon because it came from the manual as well? Putting additional story details in the manual was standard back then. Sure, not everything from the manuals is necessarily strict canon, especially when liberties are taken with localizations or when remakes have clearly retconned some details, but regardless of that, we have no reason to doubt the canonicity of the Imprisoning War, because it’s clearly named as such on the official timeline present on Nintendo’s official Zelda websites (not even bringing the Historia/Encyclopedia into the equation):

HISTORY | Zelda Portal | Nintendo

Introducing the history of Hyrule, the setting for The Legend of the Zelda series.

www.nintendo.co.jp

https://www.zelda.com/about/

 

[Jimmy Joe]

I thought you were arguing in favor of OoT (as the original Imprisoning War) still taking place as a separate event from TotK’s Imprisoning War on the same timeline, which is what I was responding to.

And yes, I’m aware that it was only named in the manual, but that doesn’t make it non-canon. Is Impa from TLoZ/TAoL non-canon because she never appeared in game? Is Ganondorf’s backstory from ALttP non-canon because it came from the manual as well? Putting additional story details in the manual was standard back then. Sure, not everything from the manuals is necessarily strict canon, especially when liberties are taken with localizations or when remakes have clearly retconned some details, but regardless of that, we have no reason to doubt the canonicity of the Imprisoning War, because it’s clearly named as such on the official timeline present on Nintendo’s official Zelda websites (not even bringing the Historia/Encyclopedia into the equation):

HISTORY | Zelda Portal | Nintendo

Introducing the history of Hyrule, the setting for The Legend of the Zelda series.

www.nintendo.co.jp

https://www.zelda.com/about/

The NES days were definitely the time of canonical instruction manuals, and I'll never argue against them. They were the primary modes of expressing backstory, excepting only very few cases like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Phantasy Star

The SNES is kind of murkier in that a lot of that backstory started being rolled into the game itself. The story of the Imprisoning War is in LTTP's bootup screen demo, just not the name, so the canonicity of the instruction manual is less... essential, I guess? Yeah, I'd call it less essential to our understanding of the events of the game

I'm not arguing the Imprisoning War of LttP didn't happen, it's right in the text of the game, I'm just saying that the name of it hasn't been canonized in the text of a game until now. TOTK strengthens that canonicity retroactively, you could say

Regarding Zelda websites: "official" Zelda timelines have been around since the late 90s, and they were booboo nonsense doing things like putting Link's Awakening into the seven year sleep of Ocarina of Time, or suggesting that every Link was in fact the same person after Ocarina of Time had come out. You're free to use them as references for canon, but I trust you'll understand why I don't

 

[Jersh]

I agree that that indeed seems to be the implication, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying throughout this whole thread! See the quote right above this one, lol.

Like I said, I'm still catching up lol. Beat the game last night.

I don't really like the Skyward Sword split timeline theory at all - not because it can't work, but because it's kinda... pointless? Just about nothing is gained compared to a completely separate alternate universe, as splitting it that far back means that BotW and TotK are on a separate timeline of events from literally every prior Zelda game, except for Skyward Sword's backstory and key events in the ending. To me, at that point it may as well be its own thing, because there's no actual connections to be made to anything else.

That said, I've accepted that whatever's going on here, it's not something I like. Actually being an alternate timeline is just as disappointing, and the theory that Hyrule was re-established multiple times is similarly uninteresting to me.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Like I said, I'm still catching up lol. Beat the game last night.

I don't really like the Skyward Sword split timeline theory at all - not because it can't work, but because it's kinda... pointless? Just about nothing is gained compared to a completely separate alternate universe, as splitting it that far back means that BotW and TotK are on a separate timeline of events from literally every prior Zelda game, except for Skyward Sword's backstory and key events in the ending. To me, at that point it may as well be its own thing, because there's no actual connections to be made to anything else.

That said, I've accepted that whatever's going on here, it's not something I like. Actually being an alternate timeline is just as disappointing, and the theory that Hyrule was re-established multiple times is similarly uninteresting to me.

This is part of why I like the Demise timeline as a replacement for the Downfall Timeline: it's not a single, separate period only for linking Skyward Sword to BOTW, it's a more elegant replace for the Downfall timeline where all those games with weird things (like the Hero never using the Master Sword in LOZ, MC, or AOL) can be read as making more sense, as do things like the Royal Family having the whole Triforce pretty early on: since there was no threat from Demise, they could just go get it

I don't think it's necessary to stick BOTW/TOTK at the end of that timeline, though

And I don't think it's necessary to accept that something you don't like is goign on! There's no truth, here. You can make up a timeline that fits the facts in a way you enjoy! That's the beauty of the Zelda series's continuity: it's made up, and we're just having fun

 

[Tye]

The NES days were definitely the time of canonical instruction manuals, and I'll never argue against them. They were the primary modes of expressing backstory, excepting only very few cases like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, or Phantasy Star

The SNES is kind of murkier in that a lot of that backstory started being rolled into the game itself. The story of the Imprisoning War is in LTTP's bootup screen demo, just not the name, so the canonicity of the instruction manual is less... essential, I guess? Yeah, I'd call it less essential to our understanding of the events of the game

I'm not arguing the Imprisoning War of LttP didn't happen, it's right in the text of the game, I'm just saying that the name of it hasn't been canonized in the text of a game until now. TOTK strengthens that canonicity retroactively, you could say

Regarding Zelda websites: "official" Zelda timelines have been around since the late 90s, and they were booboo nonsense doing things like putting Link's Awakening into the seven year sleep of Ocarina of Time, or suggesting that every Link was in fact the same person after Ocarina of Time had come out. You're free to use them as references for canon, but I trust you'll understand why I don't

What are you talking about? The official timeline has always been relatively clear outside of OoS/OoA and FSA’s exact placements and the specifics of the Downfall Timeline:

TAoL was a direct sequel to TLoZ. ALttP was a prequel to TLoZ/TAoL, expanding on the Triforce and Ganon’s origins, and LA was a direct sequel to that. OoT was a direct sequel to ALttP/LA, based on ALttP’s backstory; of course, this one ended up not matching up exactly with ALttP’s Imprisoning War, but at the time the explanation for that would have been that, in what would become known as the Child Timeline, after Link warns the Royal Family of Ganondorf’s plans and leaves Hyrule, Ganondorf still manages to launch an attack on Hyrule later but in a different way despite the Royal Family being warned, with no hero around to stop him this time—TP would later change that, but FSA was seemingly going to be the solution as a new prequel to ALttP, with both games being in development at the same time, though FSA’s story ended up undergoing major changes midway through development, possibly being the reason why the Downfall Timeline was conceived instead. Anyway, then MM was a direct sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. OoS/OoA were a direct sequel/prequel to each other, and the first Zelda game made by a third party, seemingly designed to be as self-contained as possible, though they would have had to take place sometime after ALttP; I think these may be the only Zelda games to not have a set timeline placement originally, which would explain why Nintendo has switched between them taking place between ALttP and LA with the same Link and sometime after ALttP/LA with a different Link, because they could kinda fit in either place (though the latter makes more sense overall, with Zelda not recognizing Link in OoS/OoA). Then TWW was a sequel to OoT’s Adult Timeline. FS was stated to be the earliest tale in the Zelda series at the time, making it predate OoT, which made sense as the game didn’t feature the Triforce, Master Sword, or Ganon and wasn’t a side story with an existing Link. FSA was a sequel to FS, seemingly meant to take place in OoT’s Child Timeline as a setup for ALttP’s Imprisoning War which the Adult Timeline wasn’t compatible with, but as explained the story ended up being changed and simplified at Miyamoto’s request; as a result, it could no longer connect to ALttP, with the Downfall Timeline being conceived to fix that (and it does a fine job at that), but stays on the Child Timeline after TP (which is the only place it really fits, anyway). After that, TMC was a prequel to FS, and became the new earliest game in the timeline. TP was a sequel to OoT’s Child Timeline. PH was a direct sequel to TWW. ST was a sequel to TWW/PH. SS was a prequel to the entire series, putting it before TMC. ALBW was a sequel to ALttP/LA, placed after OoS/OoA and before TLoZ/TAoL. TFH was a direct sequel to ALBW.

From the release of each game, even before the official timeline was revealed in full, the timelines of SS→TMC→FS→OoT, OoT→ALttP/LA→TLoZ/TAoL, OoT/MM→TP, and OoT→TWW/PH→ST were clearly known. Yes, there have been some odd claims about the timeline in the early days from secondary sources like Nintendo Power before that were obviously just pulled from someone’s ass, and that one time where Miyamoto inexplicably got the timeline completely wrong when asked about it, lol, but those contradicted the already established timeline that could be pieced together given was known from the games themselves, their boxes/manuals, and interviews with the developers. And we know that a master timeline document existed as early as 2003, with Aonuma referring to its existence yet again in 2007, before it would finally be revealed to the public in the Hyrule Historia in 2011. It comes straight from the developers, so to pretend it’s not canon is to ignore the developer’s own intentions, and at that point you may as well be ignoring the games themselves too.

 

[Tye]

Like I said, I'm still catching up lol. Beat the game last night.

I don't really like the Skyward Sword split timeline theory at all - not because it can't work, but because it's kinda... pointless? Just about nothing is gained compared to a completely separate alternate universe, as splitting it that far back means that BotW and TotK are on a separate timeline of events from literally every prior Zelda game, except for Skyward Sword's backstory and key events in the ending. To me, at that point it may as well be its own thing, because there's no actual connections to be made to anything else.

That said, I've accepted that whatever's going on here, it's not something I like. Actually being an alternate timeline is just as disappointing, and the theory that Hyrule was re-established multiple times is similarly uninteresting to me.

The point of it is that rather than being a completely separate continuity altogether, it still connects to the original timeline, which is a very important distinction to me. It allows it to be essentially a clean slate while still being connected. It also explains some inconsistencies, like the stuff with Hylia. And it just feels a lot less cheap and disappointing that it being a totally unrelated continuity. We’ve already seen multiple alternate timelines in the Zelda series, after all, so why not one more?

And really, it’s not even that much different from the timeline that split off from OoT, either. The SS split would make only part of SS relevant to that timeline, yes, but in the other timelines, it’s only really SS and part of OoT that are relevant anyway, since TMC and FS aren’t really referenced outside of FSA. So you’re effectively looking at a timeline where half of a game is relevant compared to timelines where one and a half games are relevant—is that really that big of a difference? Like, yes, it’s pretty big in terms of lore implications, but if your concern is mainly in the games themselves just not being relevant to the timeline, it’s pretty much the same.

 

[Jersh]

Been debating whether to throw this in this thread or the main spoiler thread.

Tears of the Kingdom is a phenomenal game that I enjoyed a ton, I'd like to make that clear before I start. Easily among the best games I've ever played. But I am feeling pretty let down by how it handled its lore.

I always loved the little nods to different games throughout the Zelda series. Not the easter egg cameos, like Majora's Mask in ALBW, but things like the references to the Hero of Time (by name or otherwise) throughout The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, the images of the Spiritual Stones being used in TP (as well as the symbol of the Sage of Light being used in the Temple of Time), OoT's sages being depicted in TWW, even the sage symbols showing up in Skyward Sword in Hylia's Temple - which was weird, but evoked a sense of wonderment in what exactly was going on pre-SS backstory. Admittedly, the vast majority by necessity tie back to the same game, which is a little unfortunate (especially since I'm not quite as high on OoT as most), but even the other stuff - Spirit Tracks' nods to The Wind Waker's characters, The Minish Cap suddenly bringing in the Four Sword and being the backstory for Four Swords - I think all that stuff is neat. Similarly, in Breath of the Wild, I loved the tiny nods to Ruto and Nabooru (yes, Ocarina again, but what can you do).

I was hopeful going in that Ganondorf would be used as a vehicle to further connect Breath of the Wild back to the older games. It seemed pretty reasonable to me; after all, he did exactly that in TWW, and while FSA established reincarnating Ganondorf as a Thing™, every actual in-game depiction of Ganondorf as a Gerudo we've gotten has been of the same guy. The fact that he was clearly an ancient being by this time due to the mummy form only further strengthened my thought that they'd go that route.

Instead, he is very clearly not the same man, despite being ancient. We do see his backstory, but it's like a weird echo of OoT that is distinct and largely incompatible with it.

And on its own, that's fine. There is merit to Nintendo getting to tell whatever story they want, without worrying about the continuity of it all, even if I don't find that quite as fun. But the story they told was a Zelda story through and through to me; they didn't really explore any new ground by throwing off the need to tie in to Ocarina, instead just retracing it yet again. Zelda becoming the Light Dragon was the only truly interesting part to me, which was a detail that by itself didn't have to contradict anything else we've gotten.

What did pretty directly contradict what we know from old games, I don't feel added anything. Why is Rauru the first King of Hyrule? What does the Imprisoning War taking place during Hyrule's infancy accomplish for the story? If the Zonai were just some dudes that came down in the middle of Hyrule's existence, and Rauru was just some someone who particularly liked it in Hyrule, would that have changed... anything? Because it's really only the insistence that this is how Hyrule started that's throwing everything off, and moving things from ignoring events of older games to outright contradicting them.

The only thing I think is gained by any of that is linking Zelda to Rauru and Sonia by blood, in order to explain both the light and time association. BotW Zelda was already linked to light, so that bit wasn't strictly necessary, but not time. In that sense, Rauru needs to be royal to be an ancestor of Zelda, and with him being the last of an ancient race, perhaps it's easier to have him be the first king. It kinda just throws the oddity of the time power on to Sonia, though, as her significance is completely unexplained. In some ways, that's fine; underexplained ancient stuff leaves a lot of room to the imagination, and is probably better than Zelda just inexplicably having some control over time after not showing a trace of that in BotW. On the other, OoT and SS kinda already linked Zelda to time (indirectly through Hylia in the latter), so while weird strictly in the BotW/TotK continuity, Zelda's association with time would've been fine for longtime fans.

While I'm at it - though I might expand on this more in the main spoiler thread - I think they tried to do too much with the Dragon's Tears here. The short time span with which they needed to cover Zelda's meeting with Rauru and Sonia, Ganondorf's treachery, and laying the seeds for the plan to repair the Master Sword for Link left the dialogue feeling very rushed and contrived. Mineru explaining that you can become a dragon is perhaps the clearest example of what I'm talking about, but I'm struggling to articulate exactly what it is that bothers me. By comparison, the Breath of the Wild memories are much more focused on Zelda's internal struggle. It's still a bit weirdly paced at times, but with 14 memories to devote to essentially one plot point, it feels much better to me.

If I actually liked what Tears of the Kingdom put down more, I'd be more willing to accept it throwing away the old. But I can't help but feel it's doing so for something I'm more meh on.

You can make up a timeline that fits the facts in a way you enjoy!

That's just it though, I get no enjoyment from willingly ignoring too many things, and I kinda have to here to have this fit in a way I'd like. Any head canon that I find desirable is killed for me by the fact that I can't actually make it work in a way that I feel is satisfying.

The point of it is that rather than being a completely separate continuity altogether, it still connects to the original timeline, which is a very important distinction to me.

It's just not a very important one to me. I'm not really arguing against it. It's just one of three disappointing options for me, all of which are disappointing for the same reasons. It might be the least disappointing to me, but I haven't given it enough thought yet to know.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Ah, that's a shame. I just don't feel like it's throwing away that much, it's just given me new toys to play with when building the timeline. If that means scrapping my old timeline and build a new one, that's OK; I've done that with every major release since Ocarina of Time, save Phantom Hourglass