Oh, is this an excuse to go on about one of my more favorite topics, in my amateur grasp of philosophy? I think it is!

It's interesting that you bring up the Greek stories, as something to emulate, and yet seem to want "Guardians make their own fate" to be a thing that's true. Because, and while I'll stress again here that I am an amateur who's mainly poked around on surface level things and read some works in high school, the idea of Greek fate isn't what you want either. It's an inescapable predestination; even the Gods have to obey it. And while many stories have this in keeping with free will, even resulting from it- Oedipus is prophesied to kill his father, and it is his father's reaction to this prophecy that eventually leads to his death at Oedipus's hands- some others are... less so. I'm not sure if there's much of a Greek idea of fate countervailing free will, (off the top of my head all I have is the rationale they gave Alexander to console him after he drunkenly murdered his friend, that it was the will of the gods that he die then and Alexander was merely their implement, but that's not quite Greek though) but there are situations where it's more about circumstance. Acrisius learns that his daughter's son will kill him, so he locks her away. And then Zeus just shows up as a beam of light and gets her pregnant, because, well, he's Zeus, he does that. So he threw them into the sea, which, by more divine intervention, led them to another island and Perseus going on to be, well, Perseus. Then later he throws a discus which accidentally strikes a man in the stands, oh hey that was Acrisius that wraps up that prophecy. This is still in keeping with free will, but rather than being born purely as consequences of their actions it's kind of divine will and coincidence. And I know it's a theme that even the gods are subject to Fate. Nobody can make their own fate, however they try. To attempt to do so is folly. That's not a favorite moral of the modern day, to say the least.

Now, while I can't tell you that Destiny won't turn out to be a chosen one thing, I can say a piece on why I don't think that would be so bad, and then offer up my idea of what it will mean. Because while we're chosen by the Traveler, there is a theme about making our own fate, and I think that is something that will hold true. I think it is named Destiny for a reason, and I hope that reason gets a good resolution, and I think that it will- though I don't think Greek tragedy is the best grounds to go to, for that.

This part, I think I'm going to try to keep short. It's already established that we're Chosen. Chosen by the Traveler, to wield the Light; seemingly chosen again, to see the visions, and reclaim Light from the corrupted shard- not the only chosen to see it, but the only to reach it. Apparently. This hasn't meant that our actions have been constrained. If you feel that way, it's more because of the story structure- being told to do things by other characters, and then going and doing those things. It's not because of The Traveler. Secondly, the Traveler is not all-powerful. It does not dictate fate. If it chooses someone to face the Darkness, it is not arming them with inevitability- but with hope. It's an important distinction! The Master Chief being a Reclaimer didn't cheapen Halo, did it? Yes, that went a little off the rails- because humanity was chosen, not preordained. With the Traveler, things have already gone off the rails. Why should this shake out any differently, necessarily less satisfactory? It will only present a major problem, I feel, if it's used as a deus ex machina. Which would be unsatisfactory even without any little bit of choice! Just because you are chosen to do something doesn't mean you can no longer claim credit for having done it. That wasn't how it worked in the Greek stories, either. Being fated to perform an incredible feat wouldn't take away from the fact that one still performed that feat. If defeating the Darkness is any different... Well, that comes down to just a difference of opinion, I suppose. I know some people can't stand the idea of chosen ones at all, whereas I can't wrap my head around the idea of determinism being inherently contra free choice. But, I don't think this is that important. Because I don't think this is why it's Destiny.

For that, I'm going to have again invoke an amateur knowledge of lore, but this time it's Destiny's lore. The first thing that stands out to me when I think about the lore, and specifically what I like about the lore, is all the stuff about causality.

One of the Grimoire fragments on the Darkness describes the initial effect of the Skyshock event, whatever it was, as "acausal". Now, this wasn't necessarily truly acausal, but that's what the Warmind flagged it as. The other fragments of scattered lore about the Darkness paint a picture of struggle, domination, the thing that plays the winning move in the game that is existence. So what's that bit about acausality doing there?

Well, let's just look at the Hive. The big thing here is sword logic. I don't know that I can give it a fantastic explanation, and I didn't read all of the relevant grimoire besides- but it ties into both aspects we're given, of the Darkness. It's will imposing itself on reality- or at least a pocket of reality, the reality of the Ascendant Realms- so long as that will is the will to struggle and conquer and dominate. And the fulfillment of one's basic nature, the bargain of the Worm Gods, seems to inevitably progress towards that goal.

The Vex saw the Ascendant Realms and decided that they wanted to control reality in that same way. That's what the Vault of Glass is; their attempt to worm their way into the structure of reality. They want to gain acausal powers by warping the rules of the universe. They're trying to reverse engineer the power the Darkness seems to wield, while others worshipped the thing which seemed to wield it. (The contrast between the Vex that worship the Heart of Darkness in The Black Garden, and those in the Vault, headed by Atheon- from atheos, the rejection of the gods one's society worships, is a thing.)

The Darkness is, at times, described as inevitable. The thing that reality itself converges towards; it's the winning move, so eventually it will rule the universe so that nothing will ever exist except by its consent.

But- There is that dream of small minds.

The Hive worship the Darkness. The Vex seem partly to worship it, and the other part wanting to emulate it, perhaps supplant it, or maybe even to become it in the first place. However, the Fallen want to take back the Light, while the Cabal seemed to just sort of wander onto the scene- but they, as we found out, also wanted to take the Light.

I'm not going to go on some whole bit about what the Light is, and all that, but- It is something the Vex can't simulate it. The Relic was the one tool that could cleans Guardians afflicted by the curse of inevitability, and it was a Ghost hammered into a wellspring of Light. I largely fell off of Destiny after House of Wolves, for life reasons, and so I never did play King's Fall, but reversing the corruption of Light was a thing at play there, wasn't it? I remember seeing a post here to the effect of, rather than embrace the sword logic like we did against Crota, we overcame it, against Oryx. But I don't know, for sure, there- maybe it supports my point here, maybe it doesn't.

I've gone on for a while now, at least in time spent writing and I think in the actual things I've written here, so I think I'll wrap it up. It's a personal interpretation, colored more by the parts of the lore that stuck out to me (and so obviously only those that I actually, well, read) and so subject to my own personal bias. And honestly, a lot of this is me finding a new home for thematic ideas I developed and grew attached to in another fandom. But, I digress. This was hardly the most streamlined, or elegant, but I think the shape of my point is visible amongst all that rambling?

It's carving out our own destiny in the face of the forces of inevitability.

A triumph of free will, not a denial of it.

The vast majority of significant artists fall into a particular mode. Typically this follows the length of their entire career. It's why filmmakers(Kubric, Cameron, Lynch, Nolan) and authors(Gibson, Mieville) and painters(Dali, basically everyone), but especially musicians, are lauded for reinventing themselves; breaking their own molds, as it were. I'll point out here that none of the greats(or merely "goods") I've mentioned have been completely successful. However many Avatar films are in production, and the fact that we just got news of even more Twin Peaks coming down the pike can be submitted as evidence of this.

This has been borne out in video games as well, obviously. See Kojima, see Ken Levine. Bungie is no different. We could make a list of Bungie themes and tropes that stretch back across multiple IP's and we'd see a particular repetition.

Destiny, the word itself, tells us all we'd need to know from the get-go, even without prior knowledge of Bungie. And yet coupled with knowledge of the Bungie body of work that you have, you still ask the question. You can call it whatever you like, but the predetermination has happened. They aren't in the habit of giving narratives with choices; the faceless hero has been a staple because its a better universal fit for the audience. And in the case of Destiny, personalizing our avatars and letting us create our own backstories only strengthens the fiction.

Because we, the audience, were chosen for greatness. There's no amount of personality or internal struggle that goes with it. It's literally the conflict between Light and Dark. The long bones have been laid out. The meat on the skeleton that gets us between here and there is where motivations and nuance come in. Which is why the Stranger is important, as are Osiris, Mara Sov, and her brother. Rasputin, as well. They are the ones that struggle. They add all the subplots and variation to the overall tapestry. We are marked by the Traveler to have a Destiny beyond theirs.

I don't know how most of the new Trials lore hasn't hammered this home, either. I'll be the first to admit I haven't pored over every scrap of it, but I feel like it's pretty clear where things are going.

"Guardians make their own fate" is a contextual reference to the Vault, I'll wager. Outside of that, perhaps an ethos for the IP itself. Perhaps in regard to prevailing by razor-thin margins against enemies on a scale and scope we couldn't previously perceive. But if you're expecting some revelatory inner dialogue, or some heretofore unseen level of character development, I think you'll be left wanting.

~m

The ability to change your fate and brake causality is another term for destiny. This is the more apt description, since Atheon was attempting to simulate and ensure no possible outcome would result in your victory.

Bungie did include an out, that not all guardians heeded the traveler's message yet many received it.

realistically though, how are you going to make the story seem special if your guardian has the option of going "this is too hard, lets wait till someone else in my clan does it and I get the engram"?

So RaichuKFM already touched on some of this in a post above, but there is a philosophical/psychological school of thought that approaches the concept of "Destiny" or hero mythology from something close to the opposite direction than is common.

The basic idea is that our stories, cultural fables, religious myths, etc, are based on our own accounts of human history over thousands and thousands of years. That people all over the world watch each other, learn from each other, and recognize something special in an individual who is able to do great things. We might not be able to articulate exactly what makes that person special or why they are able to do amazing things, but we tell stories about them nonetheless. And as those stories grow in number over the generations, people start to notice commonalities between the "heroes" of such stories. And that this leads to the creation of new stories that feature "meta heroes"; characters that are combinations, or distillations, or amalgamations of the traits and personalities of all the great people we have observed throughout our history.

Carrying that concept forward, questions about "Destiny" can easily be turned on their head. It isn't that a hero (like 117, for example) was guaranteed to achieve greatness because of forces outside of his control. It is the opposite; A hero, by making the choices that he/she made, fostering the strength that he/she did, could not help but achieve greatness. And that is a very different thing than having greatness handed to you.

Why would you recommend this video to me? Are you spying on me?