Spoiler Common Theory Breakdown: One or More Ganons?

[Locke]

-begs for multiquote function-

What I find interesting is how it seems that every time he goes for the Triforce it splits. Except once. What's the difference between his grabbing it in aLttP and every other game that meant he could come away with the full Triforce instead of just the ToP? This is more of a pondering with partial relation to the topic at hand.

Different Ganondorfs have different personalities. This one happened to be more balanced.

In WW and TP Ganondorf did not die, IMO. In WW, he was turned into stone, and if by chance the Master Sword is removed from his head, he will be back. In TP, I am almost positive he did not die. Remember how the sages said Ganondorf was blind? Well, in the Mirror Chamber, the Triforce of Power gave him his sight, and in the end, the Master Sword drained the ToP out of him, causing him to become blind again.

Tye already addressed his blindness, so I'll take his death in WW.
...eh nvm. I can't find the quote and I gtg. There's a developer quote saying he died in WW and they just made him turn to stone to keep it 'E'-rated or something. I was wondering if I could use that quote to indicate his death in TP as well once I found it.

 

[MrMosley]

Mosley we've debated this before and EVERY time I contradict you, you've run out of the conversation.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaveric_spasm

Instant rigor mortis, also known as a Cadaveric spasm can occur INSTANTLY after death if the person in question has been exerting him/herself heavily before death. This explains the standing up.

You haven't proven anything though. You have just stated one possibility which is a very rare and very unlikely possibility to explain him standing up. The fact is that ordinarily, a death would not be represented with the character left standing. Many kids play this game, many of which probably don't know anything about a cadaveric spasm nor would they ever take the time to look it up. As a matter of fact, without some kind of professional medical education, there's no way any normal person playing the game would have considered that a possibility, unless they looked it up of course which you did. It would just be stupid and illogical for Nintendo to put this in the game without explaining it whatsoever, and so far it has not been explained by them nor has the scene been confirmed by ANY dev. as a death. Wind Waker's ending scene was confirmed as a death, so if TP was a death as well, why hasn't it been confirmed? Again, its cool that you came up with a possibility, but your possibility has qualities that make it very unlikely in the environment of a Zelda game and there is no way that anyone should base a theory off of this very small possibility.

-begs for multiquote function-

The bottom right of each post allows you to multi-quote.

 

[Tyeforce]

You haven't proven anything though. You have just stated one possibility which is a very rare and very unlikely possibility to explain him standing up. The fact is that ordinarily, a death would not be represented with the character left standing. Many kids play this game, many of which probably don't know anything about a cadaveric spasm nor would they ever take the time to look it up. As a matter of fact, without some kind of professional medical education, there's no way any normal person playing the game would have considered that a possibility, unless they looked it up of course which you did. It would just be stupid and illogical for Nintendo to put this in the game without explaining it whatsoever, and so far it has not been explained by them nor has the scene been confirmed by ANY dev. as a death. Wind Waker's ending scene was confirmed as a death, so if TP was a death as well, why hasn't it been confirmed? Again, its cool that you came up with a possibility, but your possibility has qualities that make it very unlikely in the environment of a Zelda game and there is no way that anyone should base a theory off of this very small possibility.

I think the only reason why the developers haven't ever confirmed his death in TP (other than the obvious fact that no one has bothered to ask them that question in an interview) is because the game made it quite clear... At least that's what I and everyone else I know in real life who have played it thought. I don't understand why so many people doubt it. As for an explanation as to why Ganondorf is standing up... How about because it made for an epic ending? Seriously, it's a video game. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, as Zelda surely doesn't. Besides, it's far more farfetched to believe that Link and Zelda just left Ganondorf there when he was still alive than to believe that he died while still standing. Let's get real here. The whole scene with Zant figuratively snapping his neck and the Triforce of Power leaving Ganondorf, combined with the atmosphere and music... It all really drives home the fact that Ganondorf did indeed die. To me, it's very clear that that's what the developers were trying to accomplish with that ending scene; Ganondorf's death. Besides, it's much more clear than an ambiguous defeat such as disappearing in an explosion like in ALttP.

 

[DuckNoises]

I think the only reason why the developers haven't ever confirmed his death in TP (other than the obvious fact that no one has bothered to ask them that question in an interview) is because the game made it quite clear... At least that's what I and everyone else I know in real life who have played it thought. I don't understand why so many people doubt it. As for an explanation as to why Ganondorf is standing up... How about because it made for an epic ending? Seriously, it's a video game. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, as Zelda surely doesn't. Besides, it's far more farfetched to believe that Link and Zelda just left Ganondorf there when he was still alive than to believe that he died while still standing. Let's get real here. The whole scene with Zant figuratively snapping his neck and the Triforce of Power leaving Ganondorf, combined with the atmosphere and music... It all really drives home the fact that Ganondorf did indeed die. To me, it's very clear that that's what the developers were trying to accomplish with that ending scene; Ganondorf's death. Besides, it's much more clear than an ambiguous defeat such as disappearing in an explosion like in ALttP.

The fact that he says, "Do not think this is over" really seems to imply that he will return. It definitely looks like he's dead, because that's what the characters are supposed to think. The notionthat he's not dead isn't supposed to be obvious; it's meant to be cryptic at best, explaining why the characters in the game think otherwise. At the end of OoT, none of them expected that Ganondorf's Seal would break, and yet it did. They can't just have Ganondorf make an obvious display that he's still alive and then end the game, because, quite frankly, that's bad storytelling. That would be just a contrived cliffhanger like something that appears on a reality TV show before it goes to an abrupt and intrusive commercial break. His defeat is meant to be ambiguous, so you can ponder whether or not he really was defeated.

In regards to Gerudo society:
Ganondorf always has some sort of regal title in his name -- King of Thieves, King of the Gerudo, King of Evil or Darkness; this seems to heavily imply that he has always been of royal blood. The Gerudo government is a monarchy, like most other systems of government in Hyrule. Only those belonging to the Gerudo royal family can become heir to the throne, and in this case, only males. It's a very archaic way of thinking, in which they assume that the members of the royal family are superior to all others. It's what's known as "Divine Right;" they were chosen by God (in this case, Goddesses) to rule because they are under the belief that they are superior. It seems fitting for Ganondorf, does it not? Continuing their thought process with the monarchy, they assume that the best way to obtain a superior ruler is to ensure that they are born of "superior" and "Godly" ancestry. Monarchies are impractical for this very reason.

 

[MrMosley]

I think the only reason why the developers haven't ever confirmed his death in TP (other than the obvious fact that no one has bothered to ask them that question in an interview) is because the game made it quite clear... At least that's what I and everyone else I know in real life who have played it thought.

Long before WW's ending was confirmed as a death for Ganondorf, I believed he died. Getting a sword stabbed halfway through your skull, cartoon styled or not, would logically kill you, especially at a time when Ganondorf didn't even have the ToP to keep him alive. But people doubted it. There were theories all over the place saying that later on, it is likely that someone will pull the sword out and Ganondorf would come back to life. To me, that made no sense. A normal man with a sword stabbed through his brain is not going to magically come back to life if the sword is removed. However in TP, it did not make it so clear. The only reason you think it made it clear is because its what you believe. It made it clear that he had been defeated, yes. But dead? No. It did not make that point clear at all. In fact...

The fact that he says, "Do not think this is over" really seems to imply that he will return.

That HE will return. The SAME Ganondorf will come back. Whereas most people seem to assume that because they think TP was a death, a new Ganondorf has to be born later. Which is another thing that does not make sense and is only a theory because certain people like to believe he died in TP. A new Ganondorf existing has never been proven and has never been made clear at all, just like Ganondorf's supposed "death" in TP.

As for an explanation as to why Ganondorf is standing up... How about because it made for an epic ending? Seriously, it's a video game. It doesn't have to follow real life logic, as Zelda surely doesn't. Besides, it's far more farfetched to believe that Link and Zelda just left Ganondorf there when he was still alive than to believe that he died while still standing.

That's the thing though... No one knows what happened to him after that. No one knows if he fell over and died, simply disappeared, or ran off or anything. No one knows for sure, and by that fact, no one can conclude whether he died or not at the end of the game. I believe that whether or not he disappeared afterwards, that specific Ganondorf did not die. Or perhaps he did but later was brought back by some unknown means. To be honest, I disagree with his death at the end of TP for one main reason: I do not believe in the multiple Ganondorfs theory. So in actuality, I could care less if he lived or died at the end of TP, but saying that he died and another Ganondorf had to come along later is not a very good theory nor does it have much support. I simply believe that that specific Ganondorf was not completely destroyed as most consider.

Let's get real here. The whole scene with Zant figuratively snapping his neck and the Triforce of Power leaving Ganondorf, combined with the atmosphere and music... It all really drives home the fact that Ganondorf did indeed die. To me, it's very clear that that's what the developers were trying to accomplish with that ending scene; Ganondorf's death. Besides, it's much more clear than an ambiguous defeat such as disappearing in an explosion like in ALttP.

But it didn't matter how he died in ALttP. Sure, he exploded into nothing... but anyone who had played the three games up until that point knew that Ganon came back later because he was in LoZ. His death scene in that game played no significance since we all knew it didn't destroy him. Whereas in TP, you have a questionable series of games that would logically come later that Ganondorf is in (FSA) and Ganon (the rest). It is the same situation as was with ALttP. In TP, sure he was beaten, but there have been games already made that we know he exists in later on, so to assume that the one Ganondorf came to an end there is a fruitless theory.

 

[Satsy]

I imagine they've left it ambiguous so they can use such an event at a later date. Heck, that's what I would do.

I mean it's the sort of thing you could probably explain away easily enough: Between his connection to Zant and the removal of the Triforce, would it be out of the question to assume that Ganon, with his dark magics, would use Zant and/or the Triforce to effect an 'extra life' with which to continue in the face of death? If he effected this through Zant, then by the other's death he is granted extra life. If he effected it through the Triforce, he would sacrifice his position as holder of Power to allow him to live... giving him time to regroup and steal the whole thing at a later point.

Possible to explain, even if it is all just speculation. But where his deaths are given very certain 'this body's not gonna be doing much to anyone anymore' animations, cutscenes, or the like, having one that leaves his presence where it stands should account for the ominous possibility of what he could do to future generations.

 

[Tyeforce]

The fact that he says, "Do not think this is over" really seems to imply that he will return. It definitely looks like he's dead, because that's what the characters are supposed to think. The notionthat he's not dead isn't supposed to be obvious; it's meant to be cryptic at best, explaining why the characters in the game think otherwise. At the end of OoT, none of them expected that Ganondorf's Seal would break, and yet it did. They can't just have Ganondorf make an obvious display that he's still alive and then end the game, because, quite frankly, that's bad storytelling. That would be just a contrived cliffhanger like something that appears on a reality TV show before it goes to an abrupt and intrusive commercial break. His defeat is meant to be ambiguous, so you can ponder whether or not he really was defeated.

I think that quote wasn't foreshadowing the return of that Ganondorf, it was foreshadowing the birth of another. This is made even more clear if you include the unused text. If you've never seen it before, here it is:
_______________________________________
When the chosen ones appear...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
They are always born into this
world in perfect balance.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
That is the destiny of the chosen.
That is the fate decreed by your
gods, the only path for those who
bear their crests.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
When this world brings forth
another marked as you are...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
Know too, that it shall also be
visited by one of my blood.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
Do not think this ends here...
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_______________________________________
The history of light and shadow will
be written in blood!
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Now, nothing but the last two lines actually made it into the final game, so it can't really be considered canon, but you can't deny that it shows intent. Nintendo wrote those lines of dialog and planned for it to appear in the game at one point, but for whatever reason, they chose not to use it (most likely fairly late in production, since the text still remains in the game's files), probably because it was too long or too confusing or something. Whatever the reason, had that text made it into the final game, we would have official in game confirmation of multiple Ganondorfs. I see no reason to believe why the lost text shouldn't still be taken into consideration, because it makes perfect sense, and there's nothing to suggest that it can't be true.

In regards to Gerudo society:
Ganondorf always has some sort of regal title in his name -- King of Thieves, King of the Gerudo, King of Evil or Darkness; this seems to heavily imply that he has always been of royal blood. The Gerudo government is a monarchy, like most other systems of government in Hyrule. Only those belonging to the Gerudo royal family can become heir to the throne, and in this case, only males. It's a very archaic way of thinking, in which they assume that the members of the royal family are superior to all others. It's what's known as "Divine Right;" they were chosen by God (in this case, Goddesses) to rule because they are under the belief that they are superior. It seems fitting for Ganondorf, does it not? Continuing their thought process with the monarchy, they assume that the best way to obtain a superior ruler is to ensure that they are born of "superior" and "Godly" ancestry. Monarchies are impractical for this very reason.

This is all just speculation. Nothing in game ever suggests that Ganondorf is a full blooded Gerudo. His title proves nothing.

 

[MrMosley]

I think that quote wasn't foreshadowing the return of that Ganondorf, it was foreshadowing the birth of another. This is made even more clear if you include the unused text. If you've never seen it before, here it is:

Quite interesting. I hadn't seen that before. However, you pretty much said it yourself here:

Now, nothing but the last two lines actually made it into the final game, so it can't really be considered canon, but you can't deny that it shows intent. Nintendo wrote those lines of dialog and planned for it to appear in the game at one point, but for whatever reason, they chose not to use it (most likely fairly late in production, since the text still remains in the game's files), probably because it was too long or too confusing or something.

Regardless of intent... Regardless of if it were planned to be that way, it was removed for a reason, and I do not believe that reason was because of confusion because the text really isn't confusing at all. Its just like how FSA had text that led many to believe it was supposed to be the events of the Seal War. That text was also removed late in production and can be found in the data of the game, and I believe it was what Aonuma referred to as Miyamoto "upending the tea table". It was removed because the plot changed. They didn't want to leave anything in that no longer made sense towards the plot of the game, or even moreso, the series as a whole. So, really the fact that they had this text and removed it works against your agrument way more than it helps it because it shows that they changed the plot, or changed the intent of the way the ending, or Ganondorf's "death", was meant to be interpreted.

This is all just speculation. Nothing in game ever suggests that Ganondorf is a full blooded Gerudo. His title proves nothing.

Its almost 100% certain that Ganondorf is not full-blooded Gerudo, seeing as how OoT made it clear that Gerudo women often go to Hyrule to seek boyfriends since there are rarely any males born into their own kind. Ganondorf can be considered half Hylian with no problem, unless you take Twinrova being his "surrogate mothers" into account, turn it into a theory, and suggest that Ganondorf had no real father and was merely created in a Gerudo female's womb by the two witches.

 

[Tyeforce]

Quite interesting. I hadn't seen that before. However, you pretty much said it yourself here:



Regardless of intent... Regardless of if it were planned to be that way, it was removed for a reason, and I do not believe that reason was because of confusion because the text really isn't confusing at all. Its just like how FSA had text that led many to believe it was supposed to be the events of the Seal War. That text was also removed late in production and can be found in the data of the game, and I believe it was what Aonuma referred to as Miyamoto "upending the tea table". It was removed because the plot changed. They didn't want to leave anything in that no longer made sense towards the plot of the game, or even moreso, the series as a whole. So, really the fact that they had this text and removed it works against your agrument way more than it helps it because it shows that they changed the plot, or changed the intent of the way the ending, or Ganondorf's "death", was meant to be interpreted.

There's a key difference between FSA's unused text and TP's unused text, though. FSA's unused text makes no sense in the context of the final game, suggesting that it was left over from before the story was changed. TP's unused text, however, doesn't contradict anything at all about the final game. Had it been included, it would fit in perfectly, which leads me to believe that it was removed for reasons other than a change in story. Not only does it make perfect sense in context of the game's story, but it also explains things that were never really resolved in the final game, such as why Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf have their Triforce pieces.

With this unused text in mind, the multiple Ganondorf theory is most definitely not a baseless theory. If anything, the single Ganondorf theory is the baseless one, because there's really nothing that suggests that there aren't multiple Ganondorfs. And when you take into account the many deaths of Ganondorf, along with his various backstories, it seems a lot less likely that there's only one Ganondorf throughout the Zelda games. There are just too many plotholes and inconstancies with the single Ganondorf theory. The multiple Ganondorf theory, on the other hand, makes virtually no plotholes or inconsistencies at all.

 

[MrMosley]

There's a key difference between FSA's unused text and TP's unused text, though. FSA's unused text makes no sense in the context of the final game, suggesting that it was left over from before the story was changed. TP's unused text, however, doesn't contradict anything at all about the final game. Had it been included, it would fit in perfectly, which leads me to believe that it was removed for reasons other than a change in story. Not only does it make perfect sense in context of the game's story, but it also explains things that were never really resolved in the final game, such as why Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf have their Triforce pieces.

I also stated that it affected the series as a whole, actually moreso than the individual game itself. I don't think it changed the plot of TP, but it would have changed the way we view Ganondorf. Most people put FSA sometime after TP, and in FSA, there is a man named Ganondorf. Just like in every other game, he is a Gerudo male questing for power and eventually obtains power which transforms him into Ganon. This same thing happens in OoT and TP, so to players, there is absolutely no reason to believe there are multiple Ganondorfs because believing that theory doesn't help nor hinder anyone's timeline. FSA would have been the Seal War and would have still been placed roughly in the same spot as it is now, only it would have given a playable game to be the events of the Seal War itself, something that was attempted with OoT and FSA later, but never fully came to be. In that respect, the texts are the same. Both were put in the game at some point before development ended, both gave players important information that would have affected the entire series and not just the specific game itself, and both were removed before the game was finished. Whether or not they removed it for storyline purposes or not, they did remove it, therefore it is not canon and holds virtually no importance.

Take, for instance, the Japan-only released "Ancient Stone Tablets". That game, produced by Nintendo, written by the same people who made the story for OoT, proved without a doubt that "Link's Awakening" was a direct sequel to ALttP. However, because the game actually suggests that the player is pulled into the world of Hyrule, and because it was a Japanese-only release, many people consider it non-canon. And as a result, some theorists today question whether or not LA is actually a direct sequel to ALttP. I could technically use AST as evidence to support my believe that LA is a sequel, but would it hold much ground? Not really, because I am using an example from a game that is widely considered non-canon, just as your evidence with this text would hold no ground because you are taking it from a game that it was removed from before the game was even released.

And when you take into account the many deaths of Ganondorf, along with his various backstories, it seems a lot less likely that there's only one Ganondorf throughout the Zelda games.

In ALttP's backstory, Ganon was once a man named Ganondorf, who was a leader of a band of thieves. In OoT, Ganondorf was the leader of the Gerudo (a group of thieves). In FSA, Ganondorf was, again, the leader of the Gerudo. In all games, Ganon/dorf is attempting to gain power, whether it be the Triforce or the Trident, whichever. Not to mention the obvious fact that his name is always Ganondorf. So of all the games that Ganondorf is in, aside from WW and TP considering we know that was the same Ganondorf from OoT, he has always had the same backstory.

There are just too many plotholes and inconstancies with the single Ganondorf theory. The multiple Ganondorf theory, on the other hand, makes virtually no plotholes or inconsistencies at all.

There are no more or less plotholes with either theory. The only plothole that people bring up is Ganondorf from TP to FSA, and the only reason it is brought up is because people consider FSA Ganondorf a different man because they think he died in TP. This isn't a plothole, its just a theory that really has no support nor does it really make a difference to even be a theory. As mentioned above, Ganondorf has always had the same general goal in mind, same name, and same background, which works towards believing that this is one man than multiple men who just so happen to be exactly the same. I can say simply that Ganondorf lost his power in TP, giving reason for him to be wanting power again in FSA, even if it meant going as far as stealing the ancient Trident of Power from the pyramid which directly went against his people's beliefs. There is no other plot holes.

 

[AaronX]

I think there are at least 3 Ganondorfs, and the Gerudo people in OoT tell you that every 100 years there's a new Ganondorf.

And in ALttP, the theives never tell you that they are men, and they have long hair, so I think they could be women. I'm not saying that they are, but you never know...

 

[MrMosley]

I think there are at least 3 Ganondorfs, and the Gerudo people in OoT tell you that every 100 years there's a new Ganondorf.

Well, sort of. They say that every 100 years, a new Gerudo male is born, not necessarily a "Ganondorf". In fact, its never been mentioned anywhere if the Gerudo have a system of naming every born male Ganondorf, which would be neat if it were mentioned somewhere, but its not.

 

[AaronX]

Well, sort of. They say that every 100 years, a new Gerudo male is born, not necessarily a "Ganondorf". In fact, its never been mentioned anywhere if the Gerudo have a system of naming every born male Ganondorf, which would be neat if it were mentioned somewhere, but its not.

This is a true statement. I wonder if they'll explain that in SS? Probably not but who knows?

 

[Locke]

The removed text doesn't set up well for LttP, in which the Triforce is obtained by one person as a whole, rather than three people bearing crests. Could this have been removed around the same time that TP was moved to the CT? That could be the reason it was removed.
Also, just because the context was removed doesn't necessarily mean the meaning of the last lines was changed. It still sounds to me like he's just telling us that light and dark will always clash, whether the triforce bit is there or not.

 

[DuckNoises]

Its almost 100% certain that Ganondorf is not full-blooded Gerudo, seeing as how OoT made it clear that Gerudo women often go to Hyrule to seek boyfriends since there are rarely any males born into their own kind. Ganondorf can be considered half Hylian with no problem, unless you take Twinrova being his "surrogate mothers" into account, turn it into a theory, and suggest that Ganondorf had no real father and was merely created in a Gerudo female's womb by the two witches.

I'll take the flak for this, because I was the one that suggested this. I figured he was fathered by a previous, (and so far) nameless Gerudo King and Koume/Kotake. I figured that's how he came about, because it doesn't mention anywhere that he is the first king of the Gerudo.
I suspect his father isn't some arbitrary person as the Gossip Stone implies, because the context seemed to imply that Gerudo going to Castle Town to look for boyfriends was frowned upon by Gerudo society because it was not in their tradition. I suspect this is the case, seeing as it isn't mentioned by any of the Gerudo directly. I'd expect that they would be more particular if they were conceiving a king, as Ganondorf would probably have to be biologically related to the former monarch, as is the norm with most monarchies.
The specifics aren't important, really. The only thing relevant I was trying to bring to the table with this argument is that in order for a second Ganondorf to exist as a second Gerudo King, then the first Ganondorf would have had to have been related to the second Ganondorf, which isn't mentioned in any of the games. I think this is why it would be different than the multiple iterations of Link. This was just an additional argument against the multiple Ganondorf theory, by suggesting it was biologically improbable.

There's a key difference between FSA's unused text and TP's unused text, though. FSA's unused text makes no sense in the context of the final game, suggesting that it was left over from before the story was changed. TP's unused text, however, doesn't contradict anything at all about the final game. Had it been included, it would fit in perfectly, which leads me to believe that it was removed for reasons other than a change in story. Not only does it make perfect sense in context of the game's story, but it also explains things that were never really resolved in the final game, such as why Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf have their Triforce pieces.

That may be true, but even a lot of the text left in FSA still remains contradictory.
Seriously though, Mosley is right; this text was removed for a reason. If they really wanted to prove that there were multiple Ganondorfs, they would have put in much more substantial evidence by now in multiple games, and not just in TP. If there were multiple Ganondorfs, why isn't he younger in several games? Why isn't each specific Ganondorf's backstory explained in every iteration?

Granted, to a certain extent, you're right; this text does explain why Zelda, Link and Ganondorf have their Triforce pieces. It's not particularly necessary though, because Sheik made very similar vague statements about the Triforce in OoT. This text is in no way more informative or relevant to Twilight Princess than what Sheik said in OoT. If they really wanted to explain it in the context of TP, there would have been references beyond what the Sages at Arbiter's Grounds referred to as a "divine prank," and probably more outright and clear references to a specific instance in which the Triforce was split and everyone got their pieces. Such a statement was probably removed from the game because Nintendo wanted the players to make the link between OoT and the cutscene at Arbiter's Grounds by themselves, or because Nintendo felt that such a statement would be redundant.

Had it been included, it would fit in perfectly, which leads me to believe that it was removed for reasons other than a change in story.

What are you suggesting with this statement? This isn't NES text; they have plenty of room to fit in more text. What other reasons could the text have possibly been removed for, if not to make a case against the multiple Ganondorf theory?

With this unused text in mind, the multiple Ganondorf theory is most definitely not a baseless theory. If anything, the single Ganondorf theory is the baseless one, because there's really nothing that suggests that there aren't multiple Ganondorfs. And when you take into account the many deaths of Ganondorf, along with his various backstories, it seems a lot less likely that there's only one Ganondorf throughout the Zelda games. There are just too many plotholes and inconstancies with the single Ganondorf theory. The multiple Ganondorf theory, on the other hand, makes virtually no plotholes or inconsistencies at all.

This is circular logic. Essentially, what you've said in this paragraph is that: "My theory is right because your theory is wrong, and your theory is wrong because my theory is right." You've mentioned no reasoning in this paragraph why your theory is right and why my theory is wrong.
Sure, Ganondorf looks like he might have died. I don't see any reason why he still couldn't be alive; the only confirmed deaths of Ganondorf feature multiple games without Ganondorf that are made out by Nintendo (and occasionally stated) to be set clearly after Ganondorf's death. If Nintendo really wanted to push the multiple Ganondorf theory, they would have not only left this text in the game, but they should have also made it blatantly clear by now in the time span of almost 25 years that this theory was the case.