Does the Original Master Sword Exist in Wind Waker?

[Crash]

I'm tired of this. Really.
I had an idea, I posted it here and asked for proof for or against. I have given my two cents for what works and doesn't work in my posts. When someone gives theirs, I try to play devil's advocate and flip it around on them. Just like if someone where to say "The Master sword cannot be the original because..." I would say "But couldn't that be due to...".
Stop acting as if I'm wrong for doing so.

I don't understand how it disproves the theory as that is the idea I have had of the split timeline and the way time travel works all along and you simply seem to be repeating it to me. before the split, Link uses the Master Sword as a way of travelling back and forth between the only timeline that was operational at that point. The Child Timeline was irrelevant before the end of the game as it was yet to even exist. When he wishes to travel back in time, he places the Master Sword back in the pedestal and is taken to a equal point in time 7 years ago (although it may or may not be exactly seven years). However, the concern I have had and the point that started this thread was that Link is sent back in time through other means at the end of the gam. The Master sword as far as we know plays no part in his being sent back in time and the sword is shown to be sent with him. We know that the Ocarina is powerful enough to send someone back in time without the Master Sword as it is used in MM for the same purpose.
I don't buy into the whole "Child Link never places the Master Sword back" idea as we quite clearly see him pulling the sword OUT of the pedestal when travelling to the future. It has to be placed back in at some point otherwise we are just expected to believe that it places itself back in there.

Read my comment earlier on this same concept. The light shown in the Temple of Time at the end is the time traveling blue light, not the one that Zelda sends us away in. Also, whenever we travel back to the present, the sword already is in the pedestal, Link just jumps down. This same logic can be applied at the end of the game.

 

[Onilink89]

I'm tired of this. Really.
I had an idea, I posted it here and asked for proof for or against. I have given my two cents for what works and doesn't work in my posts. When someone gives theirs, I try to play devil's advocate and flip it around on them. Just like if someone where to say "The Master sword cannot be the original because..." I would say "But couldn't that be due to...".
Stop acting as if I'm wrong for doing so.

I don't understand how it disproves the theory as that is the idea I have had of the split timeline and the way time travel works all along and you simply seem to be repeating it to me. before the split, Link uses the Master Sword as a way of travelling back and forth between the only timeline that was operational at that point. The Child Timeline was irrelevant before the end of the game as it was yet to even exist. When he wishes to travel back in time, he places the Master Sword back in the pedestal and is taken to a equal point in time 7 years ago (although it may or may not be exactly seven years). However, the concern I have had and the point that started this thread was that Link is sent back in time through other means at the end of the gam. The Master sword as far as we know plays no part in his being sent back in time and the sword is shown to be sent with him. We know that the Ocarina is powerful enough to send someone back in time without the Master Sword as it is used in MM for the same purpose.
I don't buy into the whole "Child Link never places the Master Sword back" idea as we quite clearly see him pulling the sword OUT of the pedestal when travelling to the future. It has to be placed back in at some point otherwise we are just expected to believe that it places itself back in there.

1. Wait what? So you think that Link traveled back in time at the end because of the ocarina and not the MS? We clearly see in the game that Link puts the MS back to the pedastal (including the whole timetravel warp effect).

2. Second, the time travel of OOT and MM is entirely different. In MM, Link is constantly leaping back 3 days in the past, and not fast forewarding and rewinding like in OOT.

3. Even if Link was send back with the Ocarina in OOT, the MS he grabbed was from the past (the starting point). Even if you apply the MM method, always going back to the starting point.

4. When I apply your way of thinking of timetravel for this theory. It means that there is a second orignal MS in the future that he never touched, simply because he NEVER drawed the MS from the future.

5. To make this more solid, even if there is no second MS in the future, the MS he puts back in the past 9 (at the starting point) will result the same MS in the future (in both conclusions). The only difference is the conclusion/ending.
Like you said, the split occurs at the ending not the past. Meaning that Link starts from the starting point (first time were he drawed the blade). Same beginning, different conclusion. (action=reaction)

So again, both different ways of time travel result that there is a orginal MS in both timeline's. There is no reason to begin with that the orginal MS is missing from the adult timeline. What is not to understand about this? If you still don't understand this, i will actually draw it for you.

EDIT: On second thought, i did draw it quickly for you on paint.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

1. Wait what? So you think that Link traveled back in time at the end because of the ocarina and not the MS? We clearly see in the game that Link puts the MS back to the pedastal (including the whole timetravel warp effect).

2. Second, the time travel of OOT and MM is entirely different. In MM, Link is constantly leaping back 3 days in the past, and not fast forewarding and rewinding like in OOT.

3. Even if Link was send back with the Ocarina in OOT, the MS he grabbed was from the past (the starting point). Even if you apply the MM method, always going back to the starting point.

4. When I apply your way of thinking of timetravel for this theory. It means that there is a second orignal MS in the future that he never touched, simply because he NEVER drawed the MS from the future.

5. To make this more solid, even if there is no second MS in the future, the MS he puts back in the past 9 (at the starting point) will result the same MS in the future (in both conclusions). The only difference is the conclusion/ending.
Like you said, the split occurs at the ending not the past. Meaning that Link starts from the starting point (first time were he drawed the blade). Same beginning, different conclusion. (action=reaction)

So again, both different ways of time travel result that there is a orginal MS in both timeline's. There is no reason to begin with that the orginal MS is missing from the adult timeline. What is not to understand about this? If you still don't understand this, i will actually draw it for you.

1: Yes. Yes I do.

2: And that is why. The time travel that occurs when the Master Sword is involved is what we witness in OoT. When it isn't, MM time travel becomes apparent. Zelda tells Link to lay the Master Sword to rest in order to close the 'road between times' and then says "Give the Ocarina to me. As a sage I can return you to your original time with it". Not "Give the Ocarina to me. I'll send you over to the temple of time so you can let yourself back to your childhood".

3: I'm struggling to understand what you mean here. He wasn't being 'sent back' as such. He was being sent to a different timeline. From that point on the two never interacted.

4: We must simply be applying it in different ways then.

5: Again, the only thing I can draw from your point is that you are under the impression that the Child Timeline somehow affects the Adult Timeline following the split. If Link has taken the Master Sword with him and put it back in the PoT of the Child Timeline then that means the Master Sword of the Adult Timeline is now forever lost to it's original Timeline. despite the fact that the child timeline (before he went to speak to Zelda) has it's origins in the past of the Adult Timeline, that doesn't mean it's future will result in the future we see of the Adult Timeline.

 

[Onilink89]

1: Yes. Yes I do.

2: And that is why. The time travel that occurs when the Master Sword is involved is what we witness in OoT. When it isn't, MM time travel becomes apparent. Zelda tells Link to lay the Master Sword to rest in order to close the 'road between times' and then says "Give the Ocarina to me. As a sage I can return you to your original time with it". Not "Give the Ocarina to me. I'll send you over to the temple of time so you can let yourself back to your childhood".

3: I'm struggling to understand what you mean here. He wasn't being 'sent back' as such. He was being sent to a different timeline. From that point on the two never interacted.

4: We must simply be applying it in different ways then.

5: Again, the only thing I can draw from your point is that you are under the impression that the Child Timeline somehow affects the Adult Timeline following the split. If Link has taken the Master Sword with him and put it back in the PoT of the Child Timeline then that means the Master Sword of the Adult Timeline is now forever lost to it's original Timeline. despite the fact that the child timeline (before he went to speak to Zelda) has it's origins in the past of the Adult Timeline, that doesn't mean it's future will result in the future we see of the Adult Timeline.

1 & 2: Even if that is the case, both will result the same. Look at the image i presented

3: And the way i understand your statement is, when Link is send back with the ocarina its send back to an entirely different timeline (which becomes the child timeline), and not the timeline when he first drawed the MS? Don't tell me that you think that this is the cause of the split timline? That does not make any sense, that would mean that there would be two MSs in the child timeline. This is like mixing up the OOT method with the MM Method.

4: ...

5: First of all, your impression is wrong, the events of the child timeline does not affect the the events of the adult timeline when the split is created. However, the master sword is the starting point of the split. One end is were link is trapped for 7 years, sealed ganondorf and was send back to the starting point. And the other end is, when Link is send back for the last time, were he has not been trapped for 7 years and warned zelda about ganondorf. In other words, The events of the adult timeline is already occured, while the (different) events of the child timeline still has to occur (this is the split).
Yes he takes the MS back in the child timeline and obviously he puts it back in the child timeline. I still don't see your logic how the MS would be gone from the adult timeline.

-------

This will be my final response in this thread, before i actually lose my temper. Bottom line is, i already have disproved your theory more then enough with arguments that actually make sense. Heck i even took the effort to make images, just because you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand) my arguments. I cannot make it any more easier then that.

Of course you are free to have a different opinion then mine. You have fun with deluding yourself with your flawed logic of this so called theory.

 

[Locke]

If Link has taken the Master Sword with him and put it back in the PoT of the Child Timeline then that means the Master Sword of the Adult Timeline is now forever lost to it's original Timeline. despite the fact that the child timeline (before he went to speak to Zelda) has it's origins in the past of the Adult Timeline, that doesn't mean it's future will result in the future we see of the Adult Timeline.

There's already a MS in the past on the CT. When he returns to the past, he's putting that back. Are you suggesting that there are now two copies of the MS on the CT?

 

[TheBlueReptile]

There's already a MS in the past on the CT. When he returns to the past, he's putting that back. Are you suggesting that there are now two copies of the MS on the CT?

No. I'm suggesting that contrary to seemingly everyone's belief, Link was sent back in time to just after he had drew the Master Sword. Thus, he places his Master Sword back (Which was absent because the past version of himself had already drawn it) and closes the 'road between times'. As far as I can tell, there really is no indication that it happened any time before then. Plus, for Link to have exited the Temple of Time, the Door of Time would have had to be open (which we can quite clearly see it is), which indicates that just prior to that Link had already opened the door to allow himself in.

This will be my final response in this thread, before i actually lose my temper. Bottom line is, i already have disproved your theory more then enough with arguments that actually make sense. Heck i even took the effort to make images, just because you don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand) my arguments. I cannot make it any more easier then that.

Of course you are free to have a different opinion then mine. You have fun with deluding yourself with your flawed logic of this so called theory.

I had a lot of respect for you during the early phases of this thread. Shame you've just had to go and blow it. I have not once insulted you or tried to degrade your version of events. I have debated with you and that was it. I would have hoped you could do the same.

 

[Onilink89]

I had a lot of respect for you during the early phases of this thread. Shame you've just had to go and blow it. I have not once insulted you or tried to degrade your version of events. I have debated with you and that was it. I would have hoped you could do the same.

It seems that my last post will not be my last post after all. Going off-topic.

I don't really care if you have respect for me or not. And if you took it as a "personal attack/insult" because i called you stubborn, then you are free to think that way. I called you stubborn because i really think you are being stubborn. Not because i wanted to insult you or provoke you. If you really have an issue with it, feel free to PM a mod.

You should first learn what debating really means. The way i see it, people gave good arguments about your theory, yet you say "nobody seems to able to disprove it". There is a word for that, its called "false criteria fallacy" in a real debate. This is also the main reason i got frustrated.
As if all the arguments that people present to you become in vain.

 

[TheBlueReptile]

It seems that my last post will not be my last post after all. Going off-topic.

I don't really care if you have respect for me or not. And if you took it as a "personal attack/insult" because i called you stubborn, then you are free to think that way. I called you stubborn because i really think you are being stubborn. Not because i wanted to insult you or provoke you. If you really have an issue with it, feel free to PM a mod.

You should first learn what debating really means. The way i see it, people gave good arguments about your theory, yet you say "nobody seems to able to disprove it". There is a word for that, its called "false criteria fallacy" in a real debate. This is also the main reason i got frustrated.
As if all the arguments that people present to you become in vain.

I don't care how you justify yourself. When you say things like...

You have fun with deluding yourself with your flawed logic of this so called theory

then I am simply not willing to debate with you any further. I have presented my 'evidence' already in several posts and so was not going to do it again. Instead, I focused on trying to break down the evidence that was being presented to me and found a lot of it to be inadequate.
Now please, if you are going to continue this petty argument, then just don't respond or continue it with me privately. It just doesn't belong here.

 

[Ronin]

The Link of Ocarina of Time does not exist in the Adult Timeline after Ganon's defeat. That isn't a possibility that is a fact. Sorry

Simply stating something as fact does not make it that.

If you have evidence, then please share it. And if this evidence has already been posted by you then just quote it in reply to this. That way we can still keep up the debate and you'll not have to repeat yourself.

 

[Locke]

No. I'm suggesting that contrary to seemingly everyone's belief, Link was sent back in time to just after he had drew the Master Sword. Thus, he places his Master Sword back (Which was absent because the past version of himself had already drawn it) and closes the 'road between times'. As far as I can tell, there really is no indication that it happened any time before then. Plus, for Link to have exited the Temple of Time, the Door of Time would have had to be open (which we can quite clearly see it is), which indicates that just prior to that Link had already opened the door to allow himself in.

Ah, so you also believe that drawing the sword in the past removes it from that part of time. Well, Link doesn't even leave that time and jump to the future. He's sealed there for the duration of the seven years until he's grown up. Master Sword included.
"Therefore, your spirit was
sealed here for seven years."
So even if he returns, with the MS from the future, to a point after he draws the sword, the past sword is still there and we now have a copy.

Simply stating something as fact does not make it that.

If you have evidence, then please share it. And if this evidence has already been posted by you then just quote it in reply to this. That way we can still keep up the debate and you'll not have to repeat yourself.

In Japanese, the line "When the Hero of Time was called to embark on another journey and left the land of Hyrule" specifies that he left through the flows of time. Here are a few translations, though I've seen better but don't feel like going beyond the first few google results...

It is said that when the Hero of Time traveled through time and left Hyrule, ...
When the Hero of Time travelled to another time, ...

This implies that he's referring to Zelda sending him back at the end of OoT, and Link actually leaving that timeline in order to embark on his next journey in Termina.

 

[TrueChaos]

i just assumed that because it was young Link using the MS, it just gave the illusion that the sword was a different size

 

[TheBlueReptile]

Ah, so you also believe that drawing the sword in the past removes it from that part of time. Well, Link doesn't even leave that time and jump to the future. He's sealed there for the duration of the seven years until he's grown up. Master Sword included.
"Therefore, your spirit was
sealed here for seven years."
So even if he returns, with the MS from the future, to a point after he draws the sword, the past sword is still there and we now have a copy.

You think he's sealed there physically? Link is shown to be shocked at the sight of himself. He is sealed there but through magical means. For him, it is a jump through time whilst in reality he has just been waiting.
And yes I do think the Master Sword is 'removed from time' in a way. More like removed from physical reach for the seven years, but we get the same effect. Simple reason why, had the Door of Time been open and the Master Sword was left there for seven years Ganondorf (or anyone for that matter) could have just strolled in there and taken, damaged, or maybe even destroyed it.

Simply stating something as fact does not make it that.

If you have evidence, then please share it. And if this evidence has already been posted by you then just quote it in reply to this. That way we can still keep up the debate and you'll not have to repeat yourself.

As well as what Locke quite rightly said, we are also shown Child Link in MM in the Child Timeline (MM is confirmed to be of the child timeline I'm not just saying this). Link has placed the Master Sword back in it's pedestal just as Zelda instructed and therefore the 'road between times' has been closed. From that point on, there is no interaction between the two timelines.

 

[SebTH]

placing my 2 cents in, even though I am new to this site I've speculated about Zelda for awhile, and Debated with my friend whos actually smarter than the ZU/ZD staff themselves.

The Master Sword at the End of OoT, Is the very same blade you See in WW, Now before you jump saying blade length, Im going to say what hundreds of others have said, The Blade was given its smaller size due to the Design of Wind Waker, For example, Toon Link isn't very tall. now continuing on, hundreds of years passed since Ocarina of Time, the very reason Ganondorf is still alive, is because he was only sealed, taking into context this: "In OoT Young Link grabs the Master Sword, but hes too young for it's tittle "Hero of Time", and it sealed his spirit in the Sacred Realm." This is Due to the sages telling him that, In Wind Waker, the Sages don't exist anymore, there dead all thats left is there images on stain-glass windows where the sword slept. Now if you clearly think about it, Then its apparent the Blade wasn't Swapped or "re-forged" now Its perfectly understandable that an Objects "power" runs out much like batteries in a wii-mote, The Master Sword must of been reverting to its original state (the Goddess Sword) if you look carefully at the blade, the wings are closed, in Skyward Sword they show this after Dungeon 6.

But moving on, The Sword is still the same none the less, and all there is here to finish is: its a design choice, thats all.

 

[LegendofDylan]

It's the same sword but link shrunk and the sword broke in half and they sharppend the end to save time that's why the master sword lost it's power

 

[Fierce_Deity]

In Wind Waker it is stated, when you obtain the Master Sword, that it is the one held by the Hero of Time. This means it was not created by anyone else- no where in the game is that ever hinted at. What he did with the sword at the end of Ocarina of Time is really irrelevant whether he placed in the Temple of Time or it left him- One sword remained in the adult timeline and the other was never touched in the child timeline

There is a split at the end of Ocarina of Time- in the Adult timeline Link used the Master Sword to defeat Ganon and allow the Sages to seal him away. In the Child timeline, Link never uses the Master Sword. Instead Ganon is sealed in the Twilight Realm without the Master Sword having defeated him (and maybe unaware the sword even exists). This is why the sword has lost power in Wind Waker and not Twilight Princess- WW Ganon was defeated by the sword so he sought out the sages that prayed to keep its power and killed them, thus the sword lost power. In TP Ganon is unaware of the sword and does not kill the sages that pray to keep its power.