Definitions of "Toa Code?"

[Click]

So, just a quick question I was wondering about. Pretty much the only thing we know about the Toa Code is it means Toa are not supposed to kill their enemies. Yet, there have been a few instances that Toa have killed, such as when Tahu used the Golden Armor. So, are there constraints on what they can kill or not? Like they cannot kill sentient beings (Makuta, Matoran, Toa, Turaga, etc.), but can kill Rahi and other non-sentient beings (Kraata, Krana, etc.)? Or is it all enemies?

[Hitoshura]

They cannot kill unless they have no other choice, or let their enemies die if there can be a way to save them. Like if the universe depended on it, like in Tahu's case, or not doing so would result in the death of the Toa.

[Cratak]

From what I remember, sentient beings are the only "no-kill" creatures. There have been times when characters try to kill there enemies, but most back down before that. As for the Order, they don't really care, but because it works for them, most characters don't bring it up.

[bonesiii]

Kraata generally wouldn't be counted, no. I think it somewhat gets into the "politics of Matoran culture". They will consider some things "just Rahi" that are actually just as intelligent as them, or nearly so, but "don't seem like them". Like the Morbuzahk King Root. It was fully sapient, but because it was a plant, they didn't consider it alive in the way they were and were more okay with it being killed. So if a Toa kills an enemy that the Matoran feel is not sapient, they might possibly be more okay with it.

 

But in both of those examples, the Toa had no better tools, and lives were on the line, and besides, Toa will try not to kill Rahi either. Ultimately it does come back to the fact that it's an ideal to strive for as hard as you can, not an absolute rule. If there is no other choice, you have to kill to save lives.

 

You can also think of it as a balance thing. If I'm a Toa and I choose not to kill a villain who is trying to kill an innocent Matoran, then have I not killed the Matoran? If either way a death results, then from a good guy's perspective (assuming there's no other option, and the whole point is that there almost always is), killing the villain is to "not kill", but letting him live is to "kill."

[Taipu1]

Another consideration is that the Toa may not know the consequences of their actions. Did Tahu know the exact function of the golden armour?

[Makuta Matata]

I'm pretty sure it's all sentient beings, but many Rahi probably count as well, just not officially.

[FallenCor]

So has anyone asked Greg what the entire Code is, or is it just "don't kill if you can help it" and the rest (if any) is up to the imagination?

[TheSkeletonMan939]

So has anyone asked Greg what the entire Code is, or is it just "don't kill if you can help it" and the rest (if any) is up to the imagination?

 

There isn't an 'entire code'. It's really just a loose set of morals that Toa think they ought to follow.

 

The main rule is 'don't kill unless you have no choice', which is a pretty vague statement. Especially since, you know, Toa seem to have a habit of killing things.

[bonesiii]

"Toa don't kill" is the Toa Code. That's it. No lawyerey regulations, therefore no misleading implications of loopholes. How they apply is basically up to them and the public at large. But by making it so simple, it becomes virtually impossible to ignore any part of it. (Three words is pretty hard to forget. )

 

These other explanations we're giving are our understandings of how Toa tend to apply the Code. They are not to be confused with 'extra rules' or the like.

 

[X-Ray]

Perhaps in the distant past there was an original document or agreement written up by the first Toa detailing how Toa would conduct themselves. As it is, I doubt that we'll ever see it, but it would be nonetheless very cool if we could.

 

X-Ray

[Hitoshura]

Perhaps in the distant past there was an original document or agreement written up by the first Toa detailing how Toa would conduct themselves. As it is, I doubt that we'll ever see it, but it would be nonetheless very cool if we could. X-Ray

No, Helryx was the first Toa, and she most likely didn't write it. According to BS01, Helryx was made before the code was created, and she didn't have time/couldn't afford to follow it due to the fact that leading the OoMN was not possible without possible killing.

[fishers64]

 

Perhaps in the distant past there was an original document or agreement written up by the first Toa detailing how Toa would conduct themselves. As it is, I doubt that we'll ever see it, but it would be nonetheless very cool if we could. X-Ray

No, Helryx was the first Toa, and she most likely didn't write it. According to BS01, Helryx was made before the code was created, and she didn't have time/couldn't afford to follow it due to the fact that leading the OoMN was not possible without possible killing.

 

I think the Code was developed over time as the Matoran attained sapience. I doubt Lesovikk would have written the thing, seeing as he doesn't follow it either.

 

Probably just a tradition of fighting enemies that became a written code. After all, killing off valuable nanotech over petty disagreements would not exactly be in Mata Nui's better interest, and I think the Matoran eventually realized that.

Edited March 15, 2013 by fishers64

[Hitoshura]

Lesovikk's a possibility, actually. He gave up following it after the Zyglak killed his teammates, then he gave up on it because he thought he was not worthy enough to be a Toa.

[X-Ray]

 

 

Perhaps in the distant past there was an original document or agreement written up by the first Toa detailing how Toa would conduct themselves. As it is, I doubt that we'll ever see it, but it would be nonetheless very cool if we could. X-Ray

No, Helryx was the first Toa, and she most likely didn't write it. According to BS01, Helryx was made before the code was created, and she didn't have time/couldn't afford to follow it due to the fact that leading the OoMN was not possible without possible killing.

 

I think the Code was developed over time as the Matoran attained sapience. I doubt Lesovikk would have written the thing, seeing as he doesn't follow it either.

 

Probably just a tradition of fighting enemies that became a written code. After all, killing off valuable nanotech over petty disagreements would not exactly be in Mata Nui's better interest, and I think the Matoran eventually realized that.

 

I meant "Toa" in the plural sense. But since you brought it up, I suppose it wouldn't make sense for Helryx to have been behind it, not to mention hypocritical of her if she did, but if Lesovikk was the leader of the first Toa team, he might have had something to do with its conception and adoption.

 

X-Ray

[FallenCor]

 

So has anyone asked Greg what the entire Code is, or is it just "don't kill if you can help it" and the rest (if any) is up to the imagination?

 

There isn't an 'entire code'. It's really just a loose set of morals that Toa think they ought to follow.

 

The main rule is 'don't kill unless you have no choice', which is a pretty vague statement. Especially since, you know, Toa seem to have a habit of killing things.

 

 

"Toa don't kill" is the Toa Code. That's it. No lawyerey regulations, therefore no misleading implications of loopholes. How they apply is basically up to them and the public at large. But by making it so simple, it becomes virtually impossible to ignore any part of it. (Three words is pretty hard to forget. )

 

These other explanations we're giving are our understandings of how Toa tend to apply the Code. They are not to be confused with 'extra rules' or the like.

 

Just checking. I swear I read somewhere a few years back that there was more to it, but I never bothered to look into it 'til now. Thanks, peeps. XD

[Van Hohenheim]

not sure if anyone's thought of this, but have you guys considered that it might contain rules similar to Chivalry?

[Click]

Here's all BS01 has on the subject. (Under Toa

Toa CodeThe Toa Code is a series of principles developed over the time, after the Toa realized that their success depended on having the trust and respect of the Matoran, and not their fear. Although this code's exact rules remain vague, one of the key rules is that Toa must not kill their enemies, unless they have no other choice. However, certain circumstances allow Toa to avoid the Code, like instances where saving one's enemies would potentially cause the death of the Toa. Almost all Toa follow this, known exceptions being Helryx, who cannot afford to obey the Code, Lesovikk, who does not consider himself worthy of the title "Toa", and Tuyet, who ignores it.

So, there should be multiple parts to it, but the one that comes up most frequently is "Toa don't kill." I'd guess they probably have rules for Toa summoning other Toa for aiding a cause (like the Toa-Dark Hunter War), maybe some kind of regulation saying if you are made into a Toa, it is your duty to protect your homeland, and probably something in there like "If you see any being in trouble where you could assist without causing more harm, it is your obligation to assist in any way."Chivalry or other etiquette also sounds good though. It would make sense.

[FallenCor]

 

not sure if anyone's thought of this, but have you guys considered that it might contain rules similar to Chivalry?

 

 

Chivalry or other etiquette also sounds good though. It would make sense.

If you're talking about codes of conduct that range from the Warriors cats' Warrior Code to the contents of A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry, I'd be somewhat surprised if they didn't have something like that at all; at least with more "formal" Toa teams, anyway. (I've actually thought about putting something like that in a fan-fic.) But I think Bonesiii and the others are right in this case, in that the Toa Code is simply "do not kill".

[Hitoshura]

Well, there might be more things to it, but not just "do not kill". But yeah, that's the main point.

[The Pyro (From TF2)]

I think it's just simply "Don't kill anybody." Rules were meant to be broken though. Like every episode of Star Trek: Next Generation is about an issue where the prime directive might have to be broken. But wait, if the Red Star originally brought back to life anybody in the MU who died, why was the Toa Code invented in the first place? Was it originally "You can kill people, but make sure that you leave a body so that we can revive them,"?

[Hitoshura]

Only Helryx, Lesovikk, and Tuyet broke it. Helryx because she was made before the Code was created, and the OoMN had to kill when necessary; Lesovikk because he thinks he isn't worthy enough to be a Toa; and Tuyet just ignores it. Of course, part of it says that you can't leave someone to die unless the Toa will die as well.

[bonesiii]

 

Here's all BS01 has on the subject. (Under Toa

Toa CodeThe Toa Code is a series of principles developed over the time, after the Toa realized that their success depended on having the trust and respect of the Matoran, and not their fear. Although this code's exact rules remain vague, one of the key rules is that Toa must not kill their enemies, unless they have no other choice. However, certain circumstances allow Toa to avoid the Code, like instances where saving one's enemies would potentially cause the death of the Toa. Almost all Toa follow this, known exceptions being Helryx, who cannot afford to obey the Code, Lesovikk, who does not consider himself worthy of the title "Toa", and Tuyet, who ignores it.

So, there should be multiple parts to it, but the one that comes up most frequently is "Toa don't kill." I'd guess they probably have rules for Toa summoning other Toa for aiding a cause (like the Toa-Dark Hunter War), maybe some kind of regulation saying if you are made into a Toa, it is your duty to protect your homeland, and probably something in there like "If you see any being in trouble where you could assist without causing more harm, it is your obligation to assist in any way."Chivalry or other etiquette also sounds good though. It would make sense.

Alright, it sounds like I was wrong then. I never heard Greg say anything like that though -- he always described the Code as "Toa don't kill." I would say that that description is accurate in the sense that the clarifications like what we're talking about in this topic could have developed later, as people realized "don't kill" is confusing in some situations where someone has to die either way, etc.

 

Either way, it would be cool if we could try to theorize how these principles would be worded if they were ever written down -- how would the other rules be phrased? (Whether rules or clarifications.)

 

I think it's just simply "Don't kill anybody." Rules were meant to be broken though. Like every episode of Star Trek: Next Generation is about an issue where the prime directive might have to be broken. But wait, if the Red Star originally brought back to life anybody in the MU who died, why was the Toa Code invented in the first place? Was it originally "You can kill people, but make sure that you leave a body so that we can revive them,"?

Well there's some dispute as to how early it stopped sending people back. BS01 currently says that it was already broken in the same year that some of the GBs were still doing things in the Matoran Universe -- the year of the Shattering (which would seem highly unlikely to me, but possible). If that's correct, then the difference between "dead" and "stuck where we can't go" is trivial.

 

Based on the actual facts we know, if Kestora can be trusted to give any useful information at all, it was apparently broken some time later when Gaardus was there and left (though he left by his own power). That is apparently somewhere around 80,000 years "ago", or 20,000 years after the Shattering. If this is true (and likewise if it ever worked), then there's still the principle of the thing. Even if it seems reliable that someone killed will come back, that doesn't justify killing willy-nilly.

Only Helryx, Lesovikk, and Tuyet broke it. Helryx because she was made before the Code was created, and the OoMN had to kill when necessary; Lesovikk because he thinks he isn't worthy enough to be a Toa; and Tuyet just ignores it. Of course, part of it says that you can't leave someone to die unless the Toa will die as well.

I thought Zaria did too? *checks* Apparently yes, according to his page:

 

Zaria was later forced to kill a Makuta during necessary circumstances, violating the Toa Code. The experience haunted him, and also sparked a rumor that he began murdering all of his enemies.

Though the Toa Code section on the Toa page doesn't mention him. It doesn't say what the necessary circumstances are; I forget if they were described in-story. You'd think if they were necessary, it wouldn't be a violation if the Code was a series of principles clarifying such situations. *is still confused*

[Click]

 

Only Helryx, Lesovikk, and Tuyet broke it. Helryx because she was made before the Code was created, and the OoMN had to kill when necessary; Lesovikk because he thinks he isn't worthy enough to be a Toa; and Tuyet just ignores it. Of course, part of it says that you can't leave someone to die unless the Toa will die as well.

 

 

I thought Zaria did too? *checks* Apparently yes, according to his page:

 

>Zaria was later forced to kill a Makuta during necessary circumstances, violating the Toa Code. The experience haunted him, and also sparked a rumor that he began murdering all of his enemies.

Though the Toa Code section on the Toa page doesn't mention him. It doesn't say what the necessary circumstances are; I forget if they were described in-story. You'd think if they were necessary, it wouldn't be a violation if the Code was a series of principles clarifying such situations. *is still confused*

 

 

Zaria only broke it that once, so it didn't result in him completely ignoring it. Those rumors he was killing all his enemies were just that, rumors (hopefully). If not, maybe no one thought to update that section when Yesterday Quest came out.

 

That's interesting though, that it said it was under neccessary circumstances, yet also said he violated the code. So, there's some line between Tahu killing all the Rahkshi or the Metru killing the Morbuzahk, and Zaria killing a Makuta. Maybe there are species distinctions, such as "Makuta are always right (of course, before they turned evil), so you are not able to kill them under any circumstances, but Rahi and other non-sentient lifeforms are okay."

[Hitoshura]

Tahu didn't know what the Golden Armor did. That's different. So it wasn't exactly Tahu's fault.

[FallenCor]

It could be that "Toa don't kill" was the first and primary "rule", but perhaps it was originally worded "treasure/protect all life", or something like that, but was corrupted/miscommunicated over time (like what happens in the Telephone Game). Or, it could be that the rules weren't so strict in the beginning, but something happened to cause someone to start tightening the reins on how Toa were doing things. I could see an overly pacifist person trying to instill a rule like that. *shrug*As for the rest, maybe stuff like "Toa always put the needs of others before their own". I doubt it would be anything overly elaborate.

[fishers64]

Or "A Toa's duty is to uphold the will of Mata Nui." There probably was the UDD in there somewhere.

[boston100]

dont kill if u can help it i think.

[Rooster Nui]

Tahu didn't know what the Golden Armor did. That's different. So it wasn't exactly Tahu's fault.

I'll have to agree with that. I wonder what the consequences are for accidentally killing would be, hmmm. I'd say that the Toa Code would have a primary rule and then a bunch of secondary rules.

[darkslizer]

Well, I think the incident with the Golden Armor was accidental. As far as I remember, the energy just sort of.....expelled itself form Tahu's body/armor. However, back on topic. The Toa code would probably involve something involving traitors, a rule Nidhiki clearly broke. In general, I think it is just a Bioniclized version of the medieval code of chivalry, doing the most noble and just thing possible.Seems plausible to me. Any thoughts?

[Canis Lycaon]

Okay, here is what I don't get: Zaria broke the code, and he doesn't have an exception or reason for breaking it like the other three that break it do. Zaria's only punishment was getting rumors saying he killed all of his enemies spread about him. What sort of penalties are there for breaking the code?

[fishers64]

Okay, here is what I don't get: Zaria broke the code, and he doesn't have an exception or reason for breaking it like the other three that break it do. Zaria's only punishment was getting rumors saying he killed all of his enemies spread about him. What sort of penalties are there for breaking the code?

 

“If that’s true, he has violated the code of the Toa,” said Kopaka. “We have to bring him down.”

 

Basically, you're considered an enemy by your fellow Toa. You may be exiled from your village. If your antics are particularly bad, you may be sent to the Pit.