Spoiler Demise, Ganondorf, calamity, and Null

[Commander_Has]

Alright, thanks

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Police going over the speed limit in an emergency is not breaking the law.

Speeding under any circumstance, no matter the excuse is breaking the law, purely by the book...

My whole point is precisely that certain liberties can be granted and laws can be bent in emergencies that require it, which is why a cop can speed and not get in trouble while in a pursuit.

Thus, if Hylia could've used the Triforce, she would have. Her not doing so wasn't because she was trying to follow rules or something. If that really were the case, then she'd be like a cop in the analogy who refuses to do her job and pursue the bank robber because she was told speeding is against the law.

What you've said about police speeding simply because they want to is a completely irrelevant argument and doesn't even apply. It's not comparable at all, Hylia using the Triforce to defeat Demise is her acting in the line of duty, not because she just felt like it.

Do you feel Hylia's plan to defeat Demise was an abuse of power? I think that's a really odd way to look at it and 99% of people who paid attention to the plot of Skyward Sword would disagree with you.

Digging in further, if the only real classification that defines who is a god, and who is not, is who can make use of the triforce, the classification becomes very one sided.

I wouldn't say that's the only meteric we have to figure out if someone is a god or not, just that if someone can use it that's a huge indicator ruling out that they are a god.

I will concede to your point that a demon like Demise was comparable to the power of Hylia, a confirmed goddess, so that technically scales him into a god-like power levelling. Is he a god however? No, he is a demon.

I feel like the answer to this lays within the fact that Null isn't even a real entity one could argue, which is why he gets described as the void rather than part of it.

I could possibly agree with your notion that Null changed, but I think the change happened basically when the game started. The Triforce splitting after Null touched it indicates an unbalanced heart, which goes against what Null should be in theory. Farore tells Link that Null "devoured life indiscriminately" before they sealed him with the creation of the world, at the time he was balanced. He probably began getting corrupted from being neutral after he started swallowing people into the rifts and gaining their knowledge, and when he began to seek the Triforce which made him lustful of power.

 

[Commander_Has]

Her duty was morality above all else. thus she had too follow the rule, emergency or not.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Her duty was morality above all else. thus she had too follow the rule, emergency or not.

I don't agree, but if that's your position you need to make a compelling case for it, but I don't see how you could.

I mentioned before that Fi's personality is more than likely a reflection of Hylia. We see Fi sometimes withold information in deceptive ways throughout the course of the game which is morally grey. However, Hylia's own actions show she will do whatever it takes for her plans to unfold accordingly, without regard of the consequences. We see this when Zelda tells Link that Hylia planned from the start to use him as nothing more than a pawn in her plans.

Moral compass didn't stop Hylia from doing anything, if using the Triforce while she still had divinity was possible it's 100% an avenue she would've utilized, to do otherwise is entirely counter to the way she is characterized in the game.

I don't see this morality notion as viable to the discussion anymore at this point.

 

[Daku Rinku]

Her duty was morality above all else. thus she had too follow the rule, emergency or not.

Right each of the gods or goddesses do not function the same, Nayru is about wisdom, so she would not demonstrate power the way Din does with fire, or strengthening a champion to strike.

 

[Ryuu Kage Desu]

Thus, if Hylia could've used the Triforce, she would have. Her not doing so wasn't because she was trying to follow rules or something. If that really were the case, then she'd be like a cop in the analogy who refuses to do her job and pursue the bank robber because she was told speeding is against the law.

This is a straw-man argument, and it insists that one particular ethical point of view is her sole point of view. You added the bank robbery scenario to be easily defeated. Point in fact, police chasing a robber is so legal, there are laws about pulling your vehicle out of the way, and not obstructing the police. Obstructing the robber, though frowned upon, is legally fine. Your analogy says nothing about the ethical importance of enforcing rules versus following rules, aside from insisting that it is okay for rule enforcers to break the rules. This is only compatible with a Might-is-Right, or Ends-Justify-the-Means ethical locus. Hylia strikes me as neither.

Then when I correct the scenario to more accurately describe the idea being proposed, you say,

What you've said about police speeding simply because they want to is a completely irrelevant argument and doesn't even apply. It's not comparable at all, Hylia using the Triforce to defeat Demise is her acting in the line of duty, not because she just felt like it.

If you don't understand it, it's fine. The whole analogy was meant to point out why enforcers following their own rules is a real world ethical concern. Police get in trouble all the time because they don't follow the laws they are payed to enforce. If you need another analogy, I can find another, or we can get right to the point of the message.

I can see your point of view, where the Goddesses could have created the Triforce to not allow itself to be used by Gods. And, that sounds good, until it is taken so literally that the only group that is excluded becomes so specific that it becomes an absurd oversight, particularly for the Goddess of Wisdom. If the Triforce really were designed to not allow Gods to use it, we don't have any conformation as to how it would react. It's a valid extrapolation that it just wouldn't operate. It may also strip the god's divinity away. There are many other ways it can react. We have yet to see a confirmed god, deification intact, interact with the Triforce, so there is a lot of room for guess work in this perspective.

The issue, is where you are not seeing the value of the goddesses following their own rules. I agree with you that Hylia is shown to be logical and mythodical, and not just in Skyward Sword. Where I don't agree, is that a logical deity would default to the ends justfying the means. I think it would be important for her to show that even in dire sercomstances, it is important, and possible, to adhere to the decrees of the goddesses. Her ethical locus comes across far more Stoic and Utilitarian, due to her seeking to reduce the suffering of the many, while taking on extra hardship herself to make it happen.

However, Hylia's own actions show she will do whatever it takes for her plans to unfold accordingly, without regard of the consequences. We see this when Zelda tells Link that Hylia planned from the start to use him as nothing more than a pawn in her plans.

I did not read that moment as so cold and calculating. She was remorceful, and seemed to make it clear, to me, by the nature of her saying that it was the only way, that she tried to figure out another way.

I don't see this morality notion as viable to the discussion anymore at this point.

Seeing as the greater discussion is about the nature of how (or if) Ganon, Demise, and Null are related, as well as Null and Demise's place in the greater cosmology, allong with your assertion that Demise and Null can not be gods, based on one interpritation of Hylia's statement and her ethical values, I would say that the issue is still open for debate. Unless you do think there is room for alternate interpretations.

 

[Commander_Has]

Hylia was extremely sorry that she used Link, also, the goddess of light is, by definition, the creator of moral law. she cannot be grey in any way while in her Devine form. she has to be perfect. As an example, let's use the Christian view of god (hear me out). in the beginning of the new testament, God sacrifices his son to save humanity from a life of sacrifices to cleanse sin, however, god can do all things, he could just forgive everyone's sins. I think there are actually a few times when Jesus (God in physical form) forgave sins, but god in Devine form had to sacrifice something more valuable than anything so as to save mankind. it is similar with Hylia. she had to take a physical form to avoid deceit and keep perfect light.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

This is a straw-man argument, and it insists that one particular ethical point of view is her sole point of view. You added the bank robbery scenario to be easily defeated. Point in fact, police chasing a robber is so legal, there are laws about pulling your vehicle out of the way, and not obstructing the police. Obstructing the robber, though frowned upon, is legally fine. Your analogy says nothing about the ethical importance of enforcing rules versus following rules, aside from insisting that it is okay for rule enforcers to break the rules. This is only compatible with a Might-is-Right, or Ends-Justify-the-Means ethical locus. Hylia strikes me as neither.

I feel like you are being extremely dismissive right now. Nothing I've said is a strawman argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire argument is that Hylia could've used the Triforce as a god, but because there's only a rule in place for gods not to use it, she plays so by the book that she couldn't break that rule, which is why she gave up her divinity so she could use it as a mortal, all to not break the rule? If I'm incorrect about this notion let me know.

My analogy fits the scenario of someone playing so by the book they refuse to take a necessary action as part of their job. That perfectly fits what I thought your argument about Hylia is.

A strawman fallacy is "something that mischaracterizes someone's argument" often by "refuting an argument that is different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction"

Now by all means, if what I thought your argument was is wrong, clarify it to me. What you said was:

What if it's not in the design of the Triforce, that actually keeps gods from using it, but a mandate. Less of a scientific law, and more of a rule of the road. Hylia reincarnating into mortal form would be her playing by the rules.

Does this not match how I laid out your argument above?

"Hylia could've used the Triforce as a god, but because there's there's only a rule in place for gods not to use it, she plays so by the book that she couldn't break that rule which is why she gave up her divinity so she could use it as a mortal, all to not break the rule."

Is my summery of your argument not essientially the same thing you've said back on page 2 of this thread in post #26? If it isn't, explain to me how.

Everything I've written so far was operating under the assumption that this is what you are arguing, and likewise, my analogy illustrates a scenario that matches what you said your argument was: someone playing so by the book they can't go against the book, even if they could, and arguably should. Of course a cop not speeding to pursue a robber is ridiculous, of course the cop should speed to catch them and they wouldn't get in trouble for doing so. A notion that a cop getting in trouble for speeding in this scenario sounds absurd because it is. You saying Hylia could use the Triforce as a god but doesn't sounds equally absurd without there being some compelling reason why using it would be a bad idea, which isn't something you've provided yet.

In emergency situations first responders are "exempt from traffic laws, to an extent" according to state law. Which goes back to me saying obviously laws are bent to get necessary jobs done. I feel like it's extremely niave to think if gods shouldn't use the Triforce is only a rule, that it isn't a bendable one in a proper emergency scenario just like traffic laws can be waived.

Let's move on though. Your analogy about a cop speeding just because they can illustrates a completely different scenario from what Hylia was faced with, because there are no stakes to a cop speeding because they simply feel like it. What you've illustrated is an abuse of power that was prompted by nothing, and has no possible justification. It isn't even a response to an emergency situation like Hylia's scenario would've been. Your analogy greatly misrepresents Hylia's situation, making your analogy the actual strawman we're dealing with. If you can't accept this you're simply being stubborn.

Hylia's position was she was gravely wounded, all she could do was seal away Demise and she can't launch another attack to kill him because of her injuries. Using the Triforce to wish for Demise's eradication is the last option. Demise is going to do anything to get the Triforce, and the world will fall into ruin if he does. This is an emergency situation. Is her using the Triforce in this circumstance, if she could, an abuse of power? Does she have no justification to do so, like in your analogy? Or should it be more like my analogy; she can be exempt from following this law because it's necessary, under the circumstances it wouldn't even be breaking a law, wouldn't she be justified in using the Triforce if it was possible?

If you don't understand it, it's fine. The whole analogy was meant to point out why enforcers following their own rules is a real world ethical concern. Police get in trouble all the time because they don't follow the laws they are payed to enforce. If you need another analogy, I can find another, or we can get right to the point of the message.

I do understand the ethical concerns in real life for law enforcers to abide by the laws as well. This isn't actually what your analogy depicts though in the context of likening it to Hylia's situation. I think a more accurate analogy would be a scenario where breaking a law against opposition seems like a compelling and totally justifiable option, but if it's done it comes with some outcome that is somehow worse than the opposition fulfilling their plans. We don't even know if this would've been the case if Hylia would've tried to use the Triforce as a god, and to suggest so would be operating under total conjecture. We really can't make any firm arguments based on what could happen if a god tried to use it, because it's something we've never seen happen. You go on to point this out as well, and it's not something I can disagree with – we just don't know for certain. That said, all that we know is Hylia said "gods can never weild it" and that she sacrificed her divinity in a plan to use it, and based on this information the conclusion most theorists lean to is that it wouldn't operate at all if a god tried to use it. All we can do is use the information we have, and with what we have this seems like one of the most valid conclusions.

I can see your point of view, where the Goddesses could have created the Triforce to not allow itself to be used by Gods. And, that sounds good, until it is taken so literally that the only group that is excluded becomes so specific that it becomes an absurd oversight, particularly for the Goddess of Wisdom.

I don't really get what you mean by this. Zelda games obviously do a very bad job properly making distinctions between what classifies someone as a god and what doesn't. If they were more clear about it we wouldn't be trying to figure out if Null and Demise should be considered gods. I think the series could benefit from drawing those lines more clearly, and in that sense I don't mind if they were more specific on who are real gods and who aren't.

There should be some other way to determine it though rather than hinging it on whether someone can or can't use the Triforce, because it's really rare to see the Triforce get used by someone that could be considered a god. Null is really the only time it's maybe happened, but it's possible he maybe lost his divinity before trying to use the Triforce, assuming he's actually a god at all. As for Demise, we don't get to see him succeed in trying to use it. Those are the only two questionable gods who had ambitions to use it.

If divinity was more clearly definied, we wouldn't have these issue. This will never happen though because it would require the devs to take more care about establishing lore and sticking to it, which they are on record saying they prefer not to do. This is why equating Zelda to richly crafted stories like Tolkien's books, or the The Elder Scrolls series (which you and others have done in this thread a few times) can never be relied upon. If storytelling and lore was more of a focus for Zelda I wouldn't say this, but at the time of writing the Zelda series doesn't focus on creating a rich mythos, and there's no indication it ever will shift to such a focus.

If the Triforce really were designed to not allow Gods to use it, we don't have any conformation as to how it would react. It's a valid extrapolation that it just wouldn't operate. It may also strip the god's divinity away. There are many other ways it can react. We have yet to see a confirmed god, deification intact, interact with the Triforce, so there is a lot of room for guess work in this perspective.

I feel like the consequence of stripping divinity away isn't too different from what Hylia did anyway with her sacrifice. Stripping divinity away with no chance of reincarnating would be a bigger punishment, and maybe a better reasoning for Hylia wanting to use an indirect method to use the Triforce. We don't know if this is what would actually happen. Sure there are many ways the Triforce could react, but again I go back to the information we do have.

If we want to get really specific we have closely look at the language used, which says: "For while the supreme power of the
Triforce was created by gods, all of its
power can never be wielded by one."

I've always interpreted this as meaning if a god tried to use the Triforce it wouldn't operate at all. I still think this is one valid conclusion to make.

If there is any other interpretation to extract based on all evidence that we have, I suppose it would lay in the dependent clause of the quote: "all of it's power can never be wielded by one."

Specifically "all of it's power" is important here, because it could imply that anytime a god tries to use it, the Triforce will split and they'll only get one piece, and even if they manage to reunited the others, it'll just split again. This might be why the Triforce split when Null tried to use it.

This is the only other scenario based in evidence that we have that seems plausible to me.

I did not read that moment as so cold and calculating. She was remorceful, and seemed to make it clear, to me, by the nature of her saying that it was the only way, that she tried to figure out another way.

The moment isn't cold, and Zelda comes off as remorseful because the entire dialog is Zelda relaying Hylia's memories to Link.

"And so Hylia... I mean, and so I... I knew that if it meant saving Zelda, you would throw yourself headfirst into any danger, without even a moment's doubt... I... I used you."

Zelda feels remorse, she is still trying to come to terms that she is Hylia reborn. She doesn't really know how Hylia felt about it because she only says " That all may be well intentioned and true... but it doesn't mean it's right" which is Zelda commenting on Hylia's memories. She's uncertain what Hylia thought of it, which is why she says "may be" instead of more concrete language. Zelda isn't going to make excuses for her past life, which is why that whole scene is sad rather than a happy reunion. She's just a pawn in it all, and now she has to tell Link he was manipulated too. I think it's really telling of how Hylia is willing to operate. I'm not saying she is terrible for it under the circumstances, just that it's extremely unfortunate and if it could've been prevented, perhaps if she could have used the Triforce without giving up her divinity without some huge world ending consequence, which you entertained the notion of on page 2, that makes it even more tragic and frankly I would say in that scenario what she did would be wrong.

Hylia was extremely sorry that she used Link

I've addressed this in the paragraph above. Zelda is sorry her past life used Link.

Seeing as the greater discussion is about the nature of how (or if) Ganon, Demise, and Null are related, as well as Null and Demise's place in the greater cosmology, allong with your assertion that Demise and Null can not be gods, based on one interpritation of Hylia's statement and her ethical values, I would say that the issue is still open for debate.

Has' argument about Hylia seems to mirror what you said on page 2 of this thread, and he keeps boiling it down to "Hylia couldn't use the Triforce as a god because it goes against her morals." He hasn't clarfied what he thinks Hylia's morals are, he hasn't cited any in game evidence to back up what he claims those morals to be. If he can't do that, than simply stating Hylia's morals stopped her from using the Triforce as a god isn't going to be relevant to the discussion about Hylia's motives for her sacrifice of divinity.

the goddess of light is, by definition, the creator of moral law.

The only god that is described as having created the law during Hyrule's creation is Nayru, goddess of wisdom. I'm not sure where you're getting that goddess of light is a title that can be defined as having created moral law. I've never seen this claimed in any Zelda game, so you'd need to cite where you're getting this information from.

I'm also not sure how this tangent about Jesus choosing to come to Earth as a mortal relates to anything you've been saying previously. Are there some parallels between it and Hylia's sacrifice to become a mortal? Other theorists have argued it before, for sure. We can't simplify the Zelda series only to having christian influences, however. Skyward Sword draws from a lot of shinto ideas, as well as buddhism.

 

[Commander_Has]

I'm not saying that your premise is wrong, I believe both ideas work, don't get me wrong. this view just fits with a timeline I posted. that's why I'm fighting for it.

Let's pause for a moment and define light. I've been using the spiritual meaning. light refers to the goodness of the world. the moral right. A goddess of such light cannot compromise her morals in any way without messing it up for the world.

Also, Christianity was only an example because they can both be related to very similar powers of light. also, the stories lined up in becoming mortals to not compromise the standard they set.

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Let's pause for a moment and define light. I've been using the spiritual meaning. light refers to the goodness of the world. the moral right. A goddess of such light cannot compromise her morals in any way without messing it up for the world.

So you're saying she is so objectively good she cannot break a law even if technically breaking that law is possible, and arguably not immoral? I don't feel like that accurately depicts her characterization of the games. The idea of her going against the law casting the world into darkness and despair would be a valid reason for her not using the Triforce as a deity. We don't know if that's what would happen for certain, of course, but it could be plausible. It's highly unlikely, and has no evidence to potentially support it, so I'd warn you theorists will argue you are grasping at straws if you run with the notion.

I think it might interest you that besides possibly having a parallel to Jesus, there might be a stronger one between Hylia and Amaterasu. Her full name, Amaterasu Ōmikami, translates into english as "Great August Goddess Who Shines in Heaven". In Shinto, she was a sun goddess. According to Japanese legend, Jimmu was the first Emperor of Japan and claimed to be a mortal descendant of Amaterasu. The idea being each Emperor after came from divine ancestry.

 

[Daku Rinku]

So you're saying she is so objectively good she cannot break a law even if technically breaking that law is possible, and arguably not immoral? I don't feel like that accurately depicts her characterization of the games. The idea of her going against the law casting the world into darkness and despair would be a valid reason for her not using the Triforce as a deity. We don't know if that's what would happen for certain, of course, but it could be plausible. It's highly unlikely, and has no evidence to potentially support it, so I'd warn you theorists will argue you are grasping at straws if you run with the notion.

I think it might interest you that besides possibly having a parallel to Jesus, there might be a stronger one between Hylia and Amaterasu. Her full name, Amaterasu Ōmikami, translates into english as "Great August Goddess Who Shines in Heaven". In Shinto, she was a sun goddess. According to Japanese legend, Jimmu was the first Emperor of Japan and claimed to be a mortal descendant of Amaterasu. The idea being each Emperor after came from divine ancestry.

Is not Hylia a lesser god than the Golden Goddesses? More of demi god or what would Biblically constitute an angelic like being? She certainly is not on the level of Hyrule Trinity, she did not create the world correct?

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Is not Hylia a lesser god than the Golden Goddesses? More of demi god or what would Biblically constitute an angelic like being? She certainly is not on the level of Hyrule Trinity, she did not create the world correct?

Hylia is a lesser god compared to the golden goddesses. Yes, she didn't create the world. What's your point though?

 

[Commander_Has]

So you're saying she is so objectively good she cannot break a law even if technically breaking that law is possible, and arguably not immoral? I don't feel like that accurately depicts her characterization of the games. The idea of her going against the law casting the world into darkness and despair would be a valid reason for her not using the Triforce as a deity. We don't know if that's what would happen for certain, of course, but it could be plausible. It's highly unlikely, and has no evidence to potentially support it, so I'd warn you theorists will argue you are grasping at straws if you run with the notion.

I think it might interest you that besides possibly having a parallel to Jesus, there might be a stronger one between Hylia and Amaterasu. Her full name, Amaterasu Ōmikami, translates into english as "Great August Goddess Who Shines in Heaven". In Shinto, she was a sun goddess. According to Japanese legend, Jimmu was the first Emperor of Japan and claimed to be a mortal descendant of Amaterasu. The idea being each Emperor after came from divine ancestry.

two things. first, what do you see hylia's light as? the second question is, what is the tie between Amaterasu and Hylia, besides they were both once goddesses. What was the reason Amaterasu became a human?

 

[Commander_Has]

also, yes, I don't quite see where your going with Daku. What's your point?

 

[Daku Rinku]

Hylia is a lesser god compared to the golden goddesses. Yes, she didn't create the world. What's your point though?

Well claiming if she uses the power if the gods who created everything as against laws kinds doesn’t fit if she is only a half god or angel in level of gods; it would be like saying taking up Thor’s Hammer by Oiden a god vs Thor who is only a half deity; the laws are different for fully divine and only half divine. So how you define Hylia matters.