Talk:Master Sword


 * Archive 1

Twilight Realm Light upgrade
If you wait long enough while fighting Puppet Zelda, Midna tells you that power of the Sols will allow the Master Sword to reflect the energy balls. I think you have to be using the Ordon Sword for this to occur. --MaskedKitsune 15:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)


 * I checked the info you were referring to, and while I cannot vouch for whether or not Midna actually mentions this, it is stated in the article that the Sols are not a requirement for the Master Sword to reflect the energy Ganondorf, through Zelda, fires at you because Link was able to do this in earlier games, as in Ocarina of Time, with both the Master Sword and the Biggoron's Sword. In fact, Twilight Princess implies that the Sols have no impact on the Master Sword outside the Twilight Realm. Thus, in the battle to which you are referring, which takes place in the Light Realm, it is as though Link had never been to the Twilight Realm. I will need to check whether she actually says that. If she does, it is an error. Kyro-Dizzy 23:52, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
 * That shouldn't be considered an error - there's no reason to believe that the energy balls Puppet Zelda is using are the same as Ganon's from earlier games. The game outright tells you you need the Sols, for one, and it's easy to imagine that Ganon is exploiting Twilight magic, for two...actually isn't the castle still Twilit during the battle?KrytenKoro 19:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-arrange Appearances section by timelines as well?
Given the recent minor reorganization that Her Grace did to the History section of this article, I tried to keep the History section as brief as possible, otherwise it would repeat too much information from the Appearances section below. However, given that recently the Royal Family of Hyrule article and the Link article have been organized by timelines, should the appearances section be arranged by timelines as well? The History section could stay as is, giving a brief summary of the Master Sword during the Unified Timeline while leaving the heavy stuff in the Appearances section, which could be organized by timeline. What do you guys think? --Dany36 14:58, 13 January 2012 (EST)


 * The Master Sword is only used once in each of the timeline splits, right? This is of course not counting its insignificant appearance in OoX. I think you can easily fit it in by just stating its appearance for each timeline. It would be better to put the OoT section before the splits, though, as the split does not happen until the sword has been used. Noble Wrot 15:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Master Sword forged by first incarnation of Link?
I remember reading on the Link article that the Link appearing in Skyward Sword is the second incarnation of Link, with the first being referred to as the Chosen Hero by Zelda or something along those lines, while this article states that it was the first incarnation of Link who forged the Master Sword. Should we leave this page as it is, or go ahead and say that the Link appearing in Skyward Sword is the Hero's first incarnation, therefore we edit the Link article and state the above? TriForce64 22:12, 15 March 2012 (EDT)


 * Changed to the second incarnation, since that seems more accurate. 05:23, 16 March 2012 (EDT)


 * (SPOLIER) It's likely that the hero that Zelda is referring to is SS Link (via time travel). He did receive the Sail Cloth from the Goddess after all. Plus, Demise states that he's never seen a human stand up to him until SS Link did.


 * But you must remember, though SS Link was in the past, there was no record of his presence there because he hadn't been in the past yet. Otherwise, The Imprisoned would not have existed in the present. In addition, Zelda mentions that Hylia had given her chosen hero a Sailcloth. Link was not given another Sailcloth during his visits to the past.
 * It is quite difficult to explain the workings of time, because our information of timelines as it is presented in literature and the like varies greatly. Sometimes, there is nothing left to give us a sign that time has been changed. Other times, there are many inconsistencies in the present that are a result of the changing of history. The latter manifested in Skyward Sword particularly through Zelda's actions, such as the amber crystal at the back of the Sealed Temple and the bracelet she had given to Impa, both of which may be seen at any time in the game that you are able to visit the temple. Kyro-Dizzy 23:16, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

This is true. So... should we post this as a theory on the Link page? TriForce64 18:53, 21 March 2012 (EDT)TriForce64

Trivia
Can I get a source on the last part listed, where it says "At the end of Skyward Sword, because of the time travel involved, the Goddess Sword and Master Sword exist simultaneously. The Master Sword is within the Sealed Temple while the Goddess Sword is up in Skyloft"? Kyro-Dizzy 23:53, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
 * I think it refers to the point after Demise's defeat and before their return to the present. Zeldafan1982 16:16, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
 * Ah. Then it means that it is after Link has driven the sword into its pedestal, but between then and the actual point in time BEFORE Link began his journey, yes? I had not taken that into consideration. Thank you for pointing that out. Kyro-Dizzy 14:26, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

"Theory"
is not actually a theory, as it is explicitly stated within the games. It should be readded to the article, we have no reason to doubt it unless it has been explicitly retconned as false.KrytenKoro 19:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is that, although according to TP the MS was created by the Sages, the quote from SS mentions only Hylia. Given that SS is newer and retcons have happened in the series before, I don't think it can be considered a fact anymore. Zeldafan1982 22:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's still not a theory, it's something the game presented as fact at one time. It should be presented in the lead as something like "although it is also claimed in TP that the Sages were involved in its creation".KrytenKoro 22:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but seriously, sages have been the backstory since ALttP (and OoT, and TWW, and TP); SS is the only game to give a different backstory. Although it's the only one to actually depict the events (and is most recent), implying it's a retcon, the sage-backstory should be treated as just that - a possibly retconned explanation that is still completely canon. Can I move this back to the lead, please?KrytenKoro 15:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sages may have been depicted in these games, but only Zelda in TP says that they were those who created it. Basically, the theory concerns the sages' marks in the Sealed Temple; that their presence there indicates the sages were involved in its creation is an interpretation, which is.. inspired of course from Zelda's quote in TP.
 * If the MS was created during the events of SS (some believe that the MS was only reforged, based on some quotes) then the quote from TP is clearly retconned. It is mentioned in the discrepancies section. But even if the MS was originally created before SS, then there is still Zelda's quote from SS, so personally I have some trouble to take it as canon. Zeldafan1982 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not just that sages exist in those games, but that the ancient sages are specifically credited with creating the blade:


 * ALttP:
 * The ancient scrolls tell of a prosperous people who once inhabited this land... They created many powerful weapons and hid them throughout Hyrule. The Master Sword was their ultimate treasure...
 * For that reason, the people of Hyrule were told by the gods to make something that would repulse any evil that may kidnap the Triforce: the blade of evil's bane.
 * Suspecting that Ganon's power was based on the Triforce's magic, the people of Hyrule forged a sword resistant to magic which could repulse even powers granted by the Triforce. This mighty weapon became known as the blade of evil's bane, or the Master Sword.
 * TWW
 * The fact that the Master Sword lost the power to repel evil suggests to me that something has happened to the sages who infused the blade with the gods' power.
 * TP
 * There you will find the blade of evil's bane that was crafted by the wisdom of the ancient sages...the Master Sword.

What we have in SS is a clear retcon that contradicts basically everything we were told about the origin of the Master Sword in past games. As it is the most recent game, it should be taken as a retcon and the new canon, but while that renders the prior origin story non-canon, it does not turn it into a fan theory. What should be done is to say in the lead something like "The Master Sword was created by the Goddess Hylia to aid the chosen hero, and given the power to repel evil through being forged by the sacred flames and given Hylia's own blessing; earlier games in the series claimed that it was instead crafted by the ancient sages of Hyrule, and infused with the gods' power through their prayers."
 * Both versions of the origin story are 100% official, it's just that Nintendo decided one of them was non-canon, like DC and Marvel do all the time.KrytenKoro 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't have a problem if the theory is removed, but I think it is better if the intro stays "clean", containing only the current canon, and the origin of the MS per TP is mentioned in the discrepancies section. According to TWW the sages empowered the sword, but that alone doesn't mean that it was originally created by them. The latter would have been speculative before the release of TP. Zeldafan1982 22:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh...ALttP pretty clearly says that it was forged by the Hyrulians to combat Ganon, rather than manifested by a goddess to combat Demise. I completely agree there's an irresolvable contradiction with what we've been given. And having a separate section for the prior canon is fine with me, so long as we don't minimize the prior canon too too much...I mean, it is the canon we were given for the entire rest of the series, and there's probably a ton of the official websites, guides, interviews, or manga that give the same backstory if we search harder. The main thing I was objecting to was portraying that retconned canon as if it was a fan theory...as long as we portray it any other way, I've got no real complaint.KrytenKoro 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We can remove the theory if there aren't any objections from other editors. It boils down to whether one accepts retcons or not. Some fans just reject/hate retcons, and this theory is an example of this stance. Zeldafan1982 19:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting Fi: ``The oral tradition, one of the least reliable methods of information retention and transmission. It appears that critical sections of the passage have been lost over generations´´. I think that the developers were trying to use this sentence to say that the Hylians messed up the legends and so they thought that the sages created the sword when was actually Hylia the one who created it. I think it's a good explanation to all the ``retcons´´ of the series. SilverArcher 12:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be fair enough to cover most of the issue, and is probably what should be represented in the article ("it was created by the goddess, although oral tradition eventually forgot this and instead attributed its creation to the sages for use against Ganon"), except for (1) that Hylia created the Goddess Sword is itself oral tradition, if from a much more reliable source, and (2) not all of the instances of the sage-origin are presented as oral tradition, in my opinion; the intro to ALttP would seem to be "Word of God" instead.
 * Eh, I'm rambling. Main gist: (1) from a real world PoV, it's clearly a retcon made in order to make the story Nintendo wanted to, and (2) from an in-universe PoV, it's meant to be the truth being forgotten over time. Agreed?KrytenKoro 15:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, some fans may want to view it like that; history that is being distorted over time, but I think this would better fit in the theory section.
 * Alternatively, if we accept it as a retcon, then TP Zelda never said that. Zeldafan1982 10:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but, she did. Nintendo isn't magic, and just because they change the story in a different game, that doesn't suddenly make Twilight Princess a fan-produced game. The way the thing is presented now, it is literally claiming that this is an idea that the fans came up with, rather than a story officially published by Nintendo. Retcons absolutely should not be equated with fantheories, it's incredibly disingenuous.KrytenKoro 13:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In some cases the dialogues cannot be considered canonical anymore. One example is OoA Zelda, where she speaks to Link as if she hadn't met him before or Rauru saying that the ancient Sages created the Temple of Time (Historia says that he was him alone).
 * As I said, I don't personally mind if the theory is removed. Zeldafan1982 16:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but just to offer my perspective on this- the fan theory seems to be that the Sages of Hylia's era created the Goddess Sword. This is not confirmed in SS or TP (or any of the other games, for that matter), and would therefore be considered speculation; but Zelda's quote in TP does provide support for it. It's therefore too speculative to be accepted as fact right-out, but still likely enough to be treated as a viable theory. Setras 15:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was the reason it was initially included as a theory on the page for the Goddess sword. On the other hand, SS Zelda doesn't mention the sages. I'd say it is far more likely that this is because they weren't actually involved, rather than her omitting their involvement for some reason. The latter would be definitely true though, if one wants to keep the TP origin as valid! So in the end it has to do with whether one is easy to accept retcons or not.. Zeldafan1982 16:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the Setras thing, that would be fine as a fan-theory. However, the retconned origin of the Master Sword, that it was created by the Sages, needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article as official, but seemingly not current-canon. That's the only thing I have an objection to. The theory section should probably be reworded to clarify that the theory is that there is no retcon, and that the two origins can be fused. So long as we don't conflate "retconned and no-longer-canon stories" with "stories made by the fans", then we're in the clear.
 * I can write up a draft, if necessary.KrytenKoro 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)