Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    Quote Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid View Post
    I died a little inside when I saw Force Ghost (tm) Tassadar.
    I died a little inside when I saw Force Ghost (tm) Tassadar in such a completely pathetic, ill-managed appearance.
    I could have accepted it, if it was an epic appearance, when everything was lost, but seriously, casual chatting with Zeratul? Cannot Tassadar just use the Khala to communicate with Artanis (obviously not with Zeratul).

  2. #22
    Tenebrae's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    Yeah...

    Whatever he is, they could have done much better with his appearance within the campaign. It was just like, "Oh, hai there Tassadar...how's every little old thang?"


    "There's a fine line between reality and fantasy, but a far finer line exists between sanity and insanity." -Tenebrae

  3. #23
    Gradius's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9,988

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebrae View Post
    Currently, we have absolutely no idea as to what the Xel'Naga are, nor what their new incarnations are meant to be. They could be physical, they could be psionic, they could be a hybridization of the two...there's nothing that states anything in regards to their nature beyond the current Hybrids being an abomination in comparison to what was truly intended.
    It's definitely not spelled out 100% in big bold letters, but a little bit deductive reasoning tells you that:
    a) the xel'naga beings that died over zerus were not force ghosts or anything of the like, otherwise they wouldn't have died. since those xel'naga were successful mergers from a previous cycle, we can assume that those type of beings are what xel'naga aim to create.
    b) DT Saga twilight said the merger is supposed to be natural. There's nothing natural about a psionic warrior smashing into a hivemind and merging with it. Zamara called the hybrids an abomination because they have nothing of the natural cycle in them, just like this scenario here would.

    Also, it's stated in numerous places that the Overmind actually did die. In addition, Blizzard would have to retcon the entire premise of the Tassadar mission, that the Overmind actually did die, but for a reason. I'm pretty sure the only reason people seem to like this theory is because Tassadar's portrait is a reused Archon, which is a merged entity. Bottom line is that this requires breaking of lore, is unparsimonious, and has no evidence to back it up. Blizzard could make it true if they wanted, but they could also make the Xel'Naga are a race of clowns that enjoy juggling in their free time if they wanted.

    Now, I don't mean to rip on any of your guys' theorycrafting here, since I definitely appreciate creative thinking, but this kind of theorycrafting is too rampant for my tastes.

  4. #24
    Tenebrae's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    A:

    http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Archon

    Archons have no physical form, they are purely psionic beings...which is poorly depicted in the unit portrait and model. So, it's perfectly possible that the Xel'Naga were, and are, Force Ghosts...as you put it. Both Archons and Xel'Naga can be destroyed.

    Archons are pure energy beings...not a single part of them, lore-wise, is meant to be physical...same with Dark Archons.

    B:

    Yes, the merger was meant to be natural...and we have no idea what transpired to the two upon impact...just a huge explosion, at the core, from the looks of it...which is practically what happens to an Archon on a smaller scale. Just because something looks violent...does not mean it's always the case. We already know that Archons shed their physical husks...the same could be said of the Overmind upon that impact. Or, in the case of a partially physical and part energy result, the majority of its bulk...seeing as how it's husk was flipping huge.

    It said in a lot of places, before SCII, that Tassadar died too. You don't have much of a twist of something making a return, in any form, unless it's already presumed dead. For example...had they left the fate of Fenix with some sort of hint to the possibility of him being alive...it's no where near as shocking when he makes a return.
    Last edited by Tenebrae; 09-07-2010 at 10:33 AM.


    "There's a fine line between reality and fantasy, but a far finer line exists between sanity and insanity." -Tenebrae

  5. #25
    Gradius's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    9,988

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebrae View Post
    http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Archon

    Archons have no physical form, they are purely psionic beings...which is poorly depicted in the unit portrait and model. So, it's perfectly possible that the Xel'Naga were, and are, Force Ghosts...as you put it. Both Archons and Xel'Naga can be destroyed.

    Archons are pure energy beings...not a single part of them, lore-wise, is meant to be physical...same with Dark Archons.
    The Overmind assimilated the Xel'Naga into the Zerg gene pool. Clearly the Xel'Naga were not energy beings.

    Also, saying that Archons can be destroyed but have no physical form is a contradiction. Archons are not 100% psionic entities. Things such as hallucinations are 100% psionic entities though.

    Yes, the merger was meant to be natural...and we have no idea what transpired to the two upon impact...just a huge explosion from the looks of it, which is practically what happens to an Archon on a smaller scale. Just because something looks violent...does not mean it's always the case.
    I just hope you realize that this ad-hoc slamming together of two entities to form a new Xel'Naga is pretty much the exact opposite of the cycle described in DT Twilight.

    It said in a lot of places, before SCII, that Tassadar died too.
    Such as? If you look at either versions of the Story So Far or the post-mission text in SC vanilla, it confirms the Overmind's death. All it says about Tassadar though is that he sacrificed himself.

  6. #26
    Tenebrae's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    64

    Default Re: Was Tassadar really Tassadar?

    I'll concede that it's extremely unlikely they were purely energy beings due to the Overmind having "consumed the greater whole" of the Xel'Naga. They have done some silly things in the past, but it's far more likely that they are a hybridization of psionic and physical beings in a manner akin to the Phoenix creatures.

    The Hybrids themselves seem to be partially energy based, but on a far lesser scale...with the Destroyers and Maar seemingly more so than their Reaver counterparts.

    As for the Archons, and Dark Archons, they are 100% energy beings in accordance to the lore. It says this within the wiki as well as several other areas, manual included. It also makes the claim that they eventually "burn out", but Ulrezaj has thwarted this and extended his existence indefinitely.

    Do you have the specific quote on the DT Twilight? I haven't gotten the third book, only the first two within the series. As for Tassadar, I could have sworn that at least one person said that he gave his life for Auir...in that typical cliche manner. I may, however, have been mistaken...in which cause, it was a poor example for my point, but really doesn't take away from such. It's less of a shock to see someone make a return when they aren't deemed dead to begin with...you always hold out hope for a loved one until the body turns up.


    "There's a fine line between reality and fantasy, but a far finer line exists between sanity and insanity." -Tenebrae

Similar Threads

  1. En Taro Adun or En Taro Tassadar?
    By Xyvik in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-26-2012, 10:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •