ALVIS

Boidoh submitted the results of all of the Kanohi polls to Greg several weeks ago, but since Greg apparently took a break from answering questions over the holidays, they haven't been answered. Boidoh, I'd suggest you repost them so that he can make a pronouncement.

K, exactly how it works wasn't specified for that mask anymore than exactly how the Hau (lol) works or the Pakari. Why should it be demanded we understand every canon detail of that one but not the others? In all those cases it seems generally left to the fans to think about it and come up with the most plausible understandings themselves.

The problem is that the powers of the Hau and Pakari are much simpler to understand/explain. The Mask of Possibilities, on the other hand, controls an abstract notion that doesn't even properly exist. Katuko's exploration of the mask's logistics has given me, and probably others, a much better sense of how it could work or might work in the context of the MU. I didn't need such a lesson about the Hau and Pakari.

You are correct, though, in saying that it's off-topic. Perhaps the subject could migrate to the "Real-life physics in BIONICLE" topic (even though probability isn't actually part of the laws of physics)?

 

 

Telekinesis. 

 

Fortunately, Toa have moral scruples.

The Mask of Tossing Stuff with your Mind? Just use any sort of stealth/speed power to out maneuvre them.

 

That is, if you aren't choked to death from telekinetic hands or ripped apart already. 

 

And besides, any mask, no matter how OP, can be defeated. That really isn't the point. 

 

 

Was it ever confirmed that the Mask of Possibilities could make percentages go to 100%? That doesn't quite make sense to me; if that were the case, the likelihood of a Toa that wore such a mask being killed is drastically reduced, and everyone knows that Mask of Possibilities wearers can be killed.

 

If somehow it can go up to 100%, then I'd throw my hat (well, one of them) into that ring.

Well, if it wasn't 100%, there wouldn't be much point in wearing the mask.

 

First off, I'm inclined to disagree with this. Let's say I'm in a fortress in the midst of a battle, and the gate desperately needs to get shut before even bigger bad guys show up. Improving the odds of the gate closing in time from 50% to 70% would seem like a substantial advantage.

 

I think how much probability is altered depends on the will of the user. So a Makuta might be able to alter probability 50% to 100%, but that might be beyond the capability of a Toa. (That's headcanon/theory realm, so take it with salt.)

 

The problem with the mask is that it appeals to the internal destiny system of the MU, with the idea that there is a "probability" governor in the system, and this mask changes or alters it. What confuses me is, can you up the probability from 0% to 10%? Can you make the impossible unlikely? Unlikely likely? Likely certain? It would seem that really is the case. So even if you can't make everything certain, you might be able to change an impossible situation to one where you really do have a chance.

 

I don't purport to be a math whiz, but wouldn't changing 0% to any positive percentage be a change of infinitely great magnitude? That seems like it should be outside the mask's capabilities.

Of course, there's are very few scenarios in which something has a flat 0% chance of occurring. With only a few exceptions, almost anything is possible.

How would a Felnas affect a Matoran? Oh good God, he used a Felnas on a Ta-Matoran! Now that poor soul is... even more resistant to heat. Huh.

Perhaps the Ta-Matoran's heat resistance would become amplified to the extent that they would be unable to draw any energy from their surroundings, and would die of hypothermia.

Anything and everything can go horribly, horribly wrong. 

 

 

 

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Felnas, the Mask of Disruption. It can (through contact) cause anyone's powers go haywire, and that has been showed to have some very fatal consequences. Sure it has a limit (you have to be close enough to touch and by then you could get hit yourself) but one touch and it's potentially all over. 

*Uses Felnas on Kaukau

Gali can now breath underwater infinitely?

The Felnas depends too much on what you use it on, what if you have no powers?

Well firstly, it has been stated that Gali can use her Kaukau Nuva to force people to have to breathe water (making them unable to breathe air therefore suffocating them) and so the Felnas could easily do that as well.

Also, the Kaukau isn't the only power Gali has. When Gorast touches her victim, the power that always went wild was the power that was 1. currently active (Icarax was just about to teleport) or 2. the most prominent power they had (Pohatu and his stone power, or Krika and his density control). My case still stands, it's a very potent mask to have.

 

Fair point, I forgot it affected all powers, not just masks.

It still wouldn't work on a powerless being unfortunately.

 

It actually seems more logical that the Felnas only works on powers inherent to a being, not mask powers. This would be consistent with the limitation that the Mask of Emulation can copy inherent powers, but not Kanohi powers. It makes sense, if you think about it: the mask works on the being's power, not the power of a bauble they happen to be wearing.

 

Golden masks don't necessarily let them share the powers with others nearby, but they do seem to give the Toa greater power and access to special "moves" or "attacks."

I suspected this, but this is the first I've heard of special attacks. Do we know exactly what these attacks are?

They're listed as "signature moves" on the character bios on BIONICLE.com, and also on the relevant BS01 pages. For example, Pohatu's "moves" are "Kaboom-erang" and "Sandstorm", while Tahu's are "Lava Dash" and "Flame Spin".

 

Excluding Legendary Kanohi Masks, I also have to go with the Mohtrek. Being able to summon yourself from the past for battles can make a very difficult enemy to beat. 

But if you kill one, you kill them all. There is a drawback.

 

That's true, but there's also a drawback to the drawback: if you kill one of the past copies and change history, where does that leave you? Your world might be a lot better off... or you could go careening into a horrible alternate timeline. The Sound of Thunder and all that.

And in the context of the BIONICLE story: Toa don't kill, and probably don't maim, so inflicting permanent damage isn't really an option for them -- making the Kanohi Mohtrek that much more frightening.

 

A bit of interesting trivia: Greg says there are fewer than 20 Great Beings, in all.

 

3.How many great beings exist.

3) Not something we have ever revealed, but I would say less than 20.

This is interesting. It implies that the GBs aren't a race on their own, as 20 individuals wouldn't have enough genetic variety... Maybe this means they were part of the Glatorian species, or an altered version of them.

 

That's what Greg's been saying for a while now. Nothing concrete, but he's said many times that he "saw them" as specialized members of the Glatorian race.

A bit of interesting trivia: Greg says there are fewer than 20 Great Beings, in all.

 

 

3.How many great beings exist.

3) Not something we have ever revealed, but I would say less than 20.

Now, maybe Ekimu and Makuta are extra-long-lived beings, or even immortal, and the others aren't, but we don't know that. The Toa have also been described as "timeless". This could be evidence that some beings don't age in Gen 2 but the normal villagers do. (That wording might also mean something poetic/mysterious unrelated to lifespans though.)

I think this is the most likely scenario. It's rather like traditional high fantasy: humans, goblins, etc. grow old and die at a quicker rate than elves, dwarves, dragons and their ilk.

Ekimu and Makuta are probably supernatural beings appointed to rule the mortal villagers. Ekimu's "spirit" whispering the Prophecy of Heroes, and Makuta's spirit (presumably) manipulating the Skull Spiders are both examples of their magical nature.

There's also the fact that certain media states that Ekimu's fall happened "a long time ago" or even "thousands of years ago". That would certainly seem to imply that the Protectors today aren't the same as the Protectors then.

Personally, I favor this interpretation. It's a lot better than G1 BIONICLE, in which almost all of the characters were around even in the "Time Before Time". Okoto's story has more of an epic, historical feel if the original events occurred so long ago that all of the witnesses are dead. We, as humans with a very finite lifespan, can better relate to this sort of setting.

The similarity between the Protectors of old and the Protectors of today can be obviously explained by animation convenience. One need only look to the villagers, who are all clones of the same basic template. In-story, perhaps the armor and weapons of the Protectors are passed down with the masks.

This also implies that the scene between the Protector of Fire and his son might not depict the current Protector telling the legend to his son -- it might depict his father telling him, or any other two Protectors in the lineage.

It's really quite refreshing (and headache-inducing) how open-ended the new story media is. It's certainly very different from old BIONICLE.

So what's the cannon status of this?

Boidoh has submitted the results to Greg for approval in the LMB thread. Since Greg hasn't been answering many questions over the break, however, he has not approved or disapproved any of the results.

 

Of course there are female Ba-Matoran. The canon gender rules are stupid and should be disregarded completely.

 

Of course, the purpose of BS01 isn't to catalogue information that makes sense or tells a good story; no, it's to catalogue the canon, which is a completely different thing. So that page should probably be edited.

That sounds incredibly contradictory, you know. "Yes, there are, even though the official story says there aren't."

 

That was the point. I used that phrasing to highlight the difference between what is generally accepted among the fans (in our current "Headcanons?" topic, the idea of mixed-gender tribes is nearly unanimous) and the canon, to show how out-of-touch and unpopular the gender ratios are.

The community voted in this poll that we should not determine the weapons of the Toa Mangai -- which would include this Toa's weapon. In light of the community's wishes, this topic should be discontinued and disregarded.

Of course there are female Ba-Matoran. The canon gender rules are stupid and should be disregarded completely.

Of course, the purpose of BS01 isn't to catalogue information that makes sense or tells a good story; no, it's to catalogue the canon, which is a completely different thing. So that page should probably be edited.

While I liked some aspects of this story, I ultimately voted against it. The dynamics between Hydraxon and the Barraki seemed a little off to me; looking at "his" interactions with Pridak in Hydraxon's Tale, I doubt he would have ever bothered to share a story about unity and teamwork with his prisoners. The dialogue between the Toa Mata felt a little stale as well.

While I like the idea of a renegade Makuta setting herself up as some sort of cult leader, I didn't agree with Gorast's characterization in this story. She didn't seem quite fierce enough.

New story calls for new blood, basically.

For those of you who are wondering, no, I haven't asked Greg about this issue yet. He's probably on holiday break right now, and he hasn't been answering many questions. I'll ask him once the new year rolls in.

I'd suggest more pathetic are those who smother their own culture so close to death it's almost lost to them forever, and then after years spent trying to resuscitate it, grab another pillow...

 

No offence btw 

Sir Kohran did a good job pointing out the flaw in the assumption on which you based your opinion: the Maori people did not oppress themselves, and it was the British Empire that forced them to speak English and not Maori. Really, I don't understand how you could possibly draw the conclusion that the Maori were responsible for their own suffering. It belies a fundamental lack of knowledge about First World natives and their history with imperialist European nations.

But what I really can't stand is your last statement. Your post is a hateful and ignorant rant that makes the Maori out to be a stupid and "pathetic" people -- you CANNOT simply attach "No offence btw" to the end of such a horrible, vitriolic post and expect that to make up for all of your offensive sentiments.

Permit me to cut to the chase, bonesiii: I agree with everything you've said, and I think at this point we're just arguing over semantics. If I might sum up the points we've agreed on so far:

• Authors should attempt to reduce cast bloating by keeping the focus on more important characters.
• Character death is one way to remove characters from the cast.
• However, since not all character arcs naturally lead to a character's death, it should not be endorsed as the "only" or "best" way to avoid cast bloating.

The main reason for your disagreement seems to be my wording, which could be read to imply that character death should be encouraged purely for the purpose of thinning the cast. That wording is misleading, for which I apologize. I should clarify that I believe character death is an effective tool to remove unnecessary characters, but should only be used if it is a natural development in their story. (Example: Tsukiko's death in The Order of the Stick #830. She was a prominent antagonist, but was not essential to the core of the plot. Her death, which was a result of her being caught between the schemes of the two main villains, both removed her from the comic's startlingly large cast and furthered the plot by intensifying the conspiring between the main villains.)

If you direct your attention to the original post I made, you'll see I was merely saying that I didn't agree with the popular headcanon that Krika survived. The reason I stated there was that death was a natural end to his character arc -- not that he should have died to thin the cast herd. My comments about using character death to avoid cast bloating were side remarks, and as such, were made in a brief manner that didn't aptly describe all sides of the issue. Perhaps I should rephrase them in a more detailed and explanatory manner:

 

Personally, I don't believe in keeping characters around after they've fulfilled their narrative role*. Krika's arc was complete, but because of his strong feelings against Teridax, death was the only way to permanently remove him from the story. Dying in a doomed, pointless attempt to save his brethren from their treacherous leader was a poignant way to conclude his arc of guilt and regret. So although his death was tragic, I'm glad that his character arc reached a fitting conclusion.

 

*For example, one of my biggest issues with The Legend of Korra is that it introduced far too many heroic characters and then never killed any of them off. Because The Legend of Korra was an intense action/adventure series dealing with very Big Issues, seeing more heroic characters die would have served the dual purpose of both thinning the cast and raising the stakes. If good guys die more often, the audience fears the bad guys more, and is therefore more worried for the heroes when they confront those bad guys. Because no prominent heroic characters died in The Legend of Korra, it was harder for me to take the villains as credible threats, and by the end of the series, I was not at all worried for the heroes -- even though they were, in-story, fighting the battle of their lives.

In an action/adventure series like BIONICLE or The Legend of Korra, it's important to preserve a sense of intensity and urgency about the plot. Character death, when done right, can do wonders to preserve that high-stakes feeling and keep the audience on their toes. However, like you have said, it should only be done when it is a natural consequence of a character's actions in the context of the story. Authors should not arbitrarily kill off characters just for shock value.

Since we obviously agree on these points, any further argument can only be the product of misinterpretation of my remarks. I'm not going to clutter up this thread with more posts in a pointless argument between two people that actually agree on the issue they're debating, so I won't respond to any further posts on the matter. I think I've made myself quite clear enough.

 

I've also always seen headcanon used for stuff that doesn't contradict stated canon, not stuff you'd want changed.

I presume you mean in other fanbases. Here it's clearly been the other way around. (And this topic is the first place I recall seeing anybody suggest that other fanbases normally use it a different way.) But the more you know, as they say.

 

I'd suggest the difference is probably related to this being LEGO, and "your own version" has been pretty much inherent to LEGO and thus the LEGO fandom for a long time; sets are designed to be taken apart and made into your own creation, so we tend to see stories as designed to be altered in our versions too.

 

Personally, I don't believe in keeping characters around after they've fulfilled their narrative role*, so although his death was tragic, I'm glad that his character arc reached a fitting conclusion.

 

*For example, one of my biggest issues with The Legend of Korra is that it introduced far too many heroic characters and then never killed any of them off

Unless there's a good reason as there is in LOST for death to tend to accompany a character's "narrative role" (in LOST, getting over their main personal hurdle), this is generally a bad idea. Not saying Krika should have survived, but we have another reason in his case -- implausibility. IMO the whole idea of "killing off" (as in, by the author, not things in the story universe) is the problem, and doing any authorial guiding in a story, either to remove them or keep them, is problematic. (Unless you're going for a fourth-wall type of story on purpose I guess.) If a character dies, OR survives, it should be because that's what would actually happen in-story.

 

But that's me.

 

"Authorial guiding" -- what do you mean by that? It sounds awfully like just plain writing to me.

My stance wasn't necessarily that I want a saga to be soaked in the blood of its characters, but rather that I don't want characters sticking around with nothing to do. They clutter up the plot and distract attention from more worthy characters. As such, I think they should be removed from the action once they have run out of things to contribute to the story. Death is a very effective way to remove them. When done right, it can also be used to tug at the audience's heartstrings, especially if the doomed character was somewhat popular.

You are correct, though, that death should only occur when it's reasonable. Not every character's story arc naturally leads to a death, and for some, it would be jarring and a little unnecessary to kill them off as soon as they're done. There are many other ways they can exit the spotlight, some of them quite mundane. But for an "epic saga" like BIONICLE, the plot of which relies on a sense life-or-death intensity, character death is especially useful, because it both removes side characters and preserves the tension in the story.

In other words, you could say it... kills two birds with one stone. 

The impossible survival of Krika seems to be a popular item in this thread.

I don't see the appeal. He was a tragic character by definition; he wasn't meant to have a happy ending. His death makes his characterization much more powerful. Personally, I don't believe in keeping characters around after they've fulfilled their narrative role*, so although his death was tragic, I'm glad that his character arc reached a fitting conclusion.

*For example, one of my biggest issues with The Legend of Korra is that it introduced far too many heroic characters and then never killed any of them off, meaning that the cast became bloated with useless characters by the series' end.

It was used, though, and as far as I know, it is allowed. I am not familiar with the retconning that took place, but if the theory is that Tohunga only refers to Matoran on Mata Nui in their divided state, and someone wishes to, for example, write a fan fiction that takes place during that exact time period, and they wish to use the word, there shouldn't be a rule against it. They're not copywriting it or selling a product, and if someone is personally offended by the word's use (and not offended on behalf of others they assume would be offended), they can bring it up with the person who uses it. There are at least two perfectly defensible positions in the debate on the "ownership" of words by individuals or cultures.

Well, there are no rules for fanfiction, so we can't stop writers from using the term tohunga in their fanfics any more than we can stop them from writing a fanfic where Pridak and Teridax spend a romantic evening at the movies and watch Guardians of the Galaxy.

Using "Tohunga" in fanfics is still disrespectful to the actual meaning of the word, but at least it's not as bad as trying to make money off of Maori words (which is what TLG tried to do).

I have nothing against you, Willess12, but the idea of Mavrah being alive so early in Metru Nui's history doesn't sit well with me. I think he got adequate characterization in Voyage of Fear, and doesn't need an additional story focusing on him.