We know because he said so.

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

We've all seen it. Many of us have even used it. When discussing some theory, there always seems to be some statement to the effect of, "This person stated a thing, so it must be true." I've never really liked that approach. Of course, if we throw out everything that everyone says, by the off chance they are wrong, lying, or whatever the reasoning may turn out to be, we won't have much lore left. This is not a discussion/critique about all lore sources, but about the trustworthiness of in universe characters, and statements related to them. Is nobody allowed to lie, making everyone trustworthy (except Vilia, the guy who sells Link the Gerudo set)? Or, are some accounts more trustworthy than others?

My opinion is that it depends on the situation. Is there a reason for the character to lie? Could they be mistaken? Are they speaking about something they would be experts in?

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Why no option for "more than once eyewitness"

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Why no option for "more than once eyewitness"

Good point. Added.

 

[MapelSerup]

In a game, as long as it’s plot-relevant, the character has no reason to lie to you and it’s not directly proved wrong by the game, I think it’s safe to assume that it’s true. The developer will most likely avoid lying about the story they’ve meticulously crafted unless that character has a plot-relevant reason to do so. (A plot-relevant reason includes but isn’t limited to the story only being a myth to the characters or an evil character lying)

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

Most people think its safe to assume a character is honest only if you have no reason to question their truthfulness. In a game I was playing recently an team member stole some items, gave a tragic backstory for her reasoning, and then tricked my team into a trap. You could say "Oh, well they stole from us and lied about their past to distract us into being trapped!" But maybe she was giving her actual reason why she stole those items, she just used that truth for her advantage. In WW Ganondorf talks about his past and motivations. Sure, he could just be making up a sob story. He is very evilly lied to and tricked people before. But you get the impression that his words, to some extent, are true.
I would say there is only 2 ways to determine if an account is honest-
1. Multiple sources agree. If several unbiased, bribed, brainwashed, or brain dead characters agree that something happened, it most likely did. And if they were mistaken, the game will usually reveal it in some fascinating plot twist.
2. Only one source agrees. This sounds contrary to what I just said, but think of it this way- A town is destroyed and there is one survivor, who tells you what happened. That survivor would be the only person with the truth. And unless the game specifically called out their story as a lie, it must be true. Most games would not withhold vital information such as that.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Very good replies. So, here's where it a little messy. What happens when a comment by a character makes some other aspect of the game troublesome? One case that comes to mind, is in one of the Oracle games (don't remember which one), where time travel throughout the game seems to work one way, but one character makes a statement that runs counter to that.

I approach it that that character is mistaken in how it all works. Even if it wasn't the creators' intent, the situation makes more sense.

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

Very good replies. So, here's where it a little messy. What happens when a comment by a character makes some other aspect of the game troublesome? One case that comes to mind, is in one of the Oracle games (don't remember which one), where time travel throughout the game seems to work one way, but one character makes a statement that runs counter to that.

I approach it that that character is mistaken in how it all works. Even if it wasn't the creators' intent, the situation makes more sense.

As a general rule, the purpose of most games is to try and tell a narrative. If something is stated that contradicts the facts of the narrative, the character is mistaken. But if it's the official explanation, even if it doesn't make sense, it is the intended explanation. The bigger question would be if you can disregard information to justify your headcanon, or the opposite of "we know because he said so".

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

True enough, @Uwu_Oocoo2. I've known quite a few people who ignore import information, so that their headcanon can live. Not saying that I haven't fallen victim to the same pitfall. I'm sure every good theorist has done that at least once.

As far as the intent, I think a far more useful discussion is the "death of the author." As I understand the consept, once an author/artist/content creator puts something out for public consumption, how the product is received trumps the intent behind it. For instance, someone may write a love story, but if the public sees it as horror, it will most likely be considered a horror, despite the author.

Now, while I think the idea has merit, the extreme is too far. Looking into the intent of the game designers is very valuable for filling in gaps, and clarifying gray areas. I think in game information, especially causation, is paramount. But, that's just me.