Talk: Tetraforce

Solid Foundation

Being that the "series" was, by known legend, created when 3 goddesses created Hyrule and left the Triforce in the beginning of time, its nearly impossible to argue the existence of a 4th piece considering that the Triforce represents the power of the gods. Such 4th piece would undoubtedly be weaker then the Triforce wholly and each portion individually since everything exists underneath the gods and their power. I've seen many triangles in Zelda games and you can't really say that they all represent the Triforce. Its likes saying that the trumpet is a holy relic because the first letter looks like a cross (long live the saxes). That being said, conclusively, the Tetraforce is fan-fiction, nothing more then seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. --Marinko 00:31, 17 May 2007 EST

Tetraforce, Triforce, or Uniforce

The tetraforce can be real but what would the fourth piece be? Well, the fourth piece is the tetraforce piece of strength, made by the goddesses to have the power of all the other pieces, but the goddesses knew it was too powerful for any one to hold alone; so they broke it into the three pieces known as the Triforce. So who ever holds all the pieces of the Triforce they hold the the triforce piece of strength too, which then makes it the Tetraforce-- or maybe even the Uniforce.

No, there are three peices. Saying anything else is fan speculation.--Farewell to Gibdos

In the early photos of the beta version of Ocarina of Time, the shield had four golden triangles of equal size. Three were arranged as the triforce, and the forth was directly below. This is clearly visable in this photo. So at one point, Nintendo might have considered making another Triforce piece, but eventually decided against it.--Matt 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Still valid

Well, Marinko is forgetting something very important. The only time we've ever seen the creation of Hyrule is in a flashback many generations after the fact. We cannot possibly know everything that occurred in that space. Remember, in Link to the Past, it was mentioned that three GODS, not goddesses had created Hyrule. Obviously, the story has changed over the years. It is certainly possible that more could have been lost.

Well it's interchangeable. A lot of times the Goddesses have been called gods, but still. They are gods, but they're female.--Green 16:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Exactly. The Goddesses are often reffered to as "The Gods" in games, even in Twilight Princess. The Tetraforce Theory is invalid. --Farewell to Gibdos 01:44, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Haha. I do kinda like to see that this topic is still kind of going even after so long. I haven't quite played LttP in quite a while so I can't say much about what they say in there. However, what is said in the game(with the exception to various bits of information taken from Wind Waker) is taken to be true, most notably, the intro to Ocarina of Time. Why would the game developers lie to us about what's actually happening in the game? In the instance of WW, the intro is discussed as if it were a legend and shown like a book or some type of record. A lot of what happens in WW is taken to be true, but only in the form of legend, such as the evolution of Zoras to Rito. --Marinko 12:06 21 June 2008 (EST)

They didn't lie. ALttP is an earlier game. So they could have changed their minds when they made the new games. They modified a lot of information in ALttP's GBA re-release. THey could have missed a few minor details.--Matt 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sand Goddess

This little sentence in the "Sand Goddess" section:

"This Goddess would explain the existence of the Gerudo, as while Farore created life to uphold Nayru's law, this supposedly Evil Goddess may have created life that would break the law and as a result she could have been banished along with her piece of the Triforce."

seems a little off to me. I had always assumed that by "law", the game was suggesting not the kind of law that would be upheld by court, but rather natural laws, such as the law of physics, or the law of gravity, etc. If such is the case, then the whole Sand Goddess section is moot and should be removed. Thoughts? Ando 12:11, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Isn't sand also the land...and that would make sense since Din has been shown with red hair she may make a better connection to the gerudo that way...also if you think about how Ganon has Triforce of power would that be in any way related to having Din as his Godess..? if i'm right that is --Remo 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Kind of. Ando, I agree with your laws of physics/natural law idea, but perhaps the contributor of this theory meant something like the Sand Goddess created the mind, perspective, personality, or point of view - a way for Farore's beings to contemplate Nayru's law and apply it to their lifestyle on Din's earth... — cipriano^talk 04:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If it does deal with the law breaking state of mind like Ando understands it to be, the Tetraforce/Tetra naming theory could fit, since she is a pirate. Since pirates are generally associated with breaking the law, and Tetra is the head pirate, Tetra could be named after the missing piece. Bsltiger 09:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Highly unlikely, because not only is Tetra revealed to be Princess Zelda later in the game, she inhibits the Triforce of Wisdom. Tetra's name is more likely to be a reference to the "tetra", a type of fish.— cipriano^talk 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordon

"The creators have made it clear that Ordona is supposed to represent the second half of Farore's name." Really? The original (japanese) name is something more like Laotan. TheManInTheMoon 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Second the motion. Even when considering non-latin-based languages, there are cohesive rules for dissecting parts of a word where you have a root and any affixes, whether pre- or suf- (as the aforegoing). If Farore was divided into the two names "Faron" and "Ordona", then it seems reasonable to say that the superfluous letters constitute just such an affix. In the case of Faron we have the root "Far-" with the suffix "-on". Ordona is more complex, however, as the remaining letters after the root "Or-" (the final "e" in "Farore" is ommitted) are "-dona," which is substatially large for an affix compared to its root. What is perhaps more likely is that the root is a bigger hunk of the word; "Ordo-", perhaps, with a suffix of "-na". I'm willing to go with your explanation if you can find a reference, though. All I've ever seen are claims without a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linque1 04:43, 23 July 2009 {{{2}}}

Irony?

Its funny (that even though Tetra doesn't make sense since Tri should only be reference to the shape not the number of triangles) That a Tetrahedron is shaped with 4 sides including a base to make a Pyramid...like the way teh triforce of power and wisdom looked in the crappy show of Zelda....but when u unfold it, the layout is the same shape as the triforce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedron here see. --Remo 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no offense, but... I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. --Ando 02:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tetra is the girls name in wind waker...Tetraforce is the name of the so called complete triforce...now...theres a shape called a tetrahedron...i linked to a wiki page of it.

Just look at the page and ull see the shape and u will probably understand me...but look at the whole shape and the unfolded version of it(it is a 3d object so it can be unfolded)--Remo 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning that if a tetrahedron is unfolded, it looks exactly like the Triforce. It just a point of irony. That is all that is being said.—Matt 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Remo, mabye there always was a Triforce of Courage, and it was only hidden at the time of the original legend of Zelda, and not Not-Existent-Jedi 10:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RUMOR REVEALD

maybe they WANTED us to make rumors when they put the extra peice on, got a headache when asked about it over and over, and removed it. the best part is, we still are!Dragonstetraforce 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Now let's make more rumors that have no good evidence or good POINT TO IT at all!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfpanda10 (talk) 01:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Um...What?

"Skull Kid is shortly seen above what seems to be the Terminan version of the Triforce." What? When & where? ~Moshata, The Mistress~ 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here — Steve 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or this Triforce ^{(T C)} 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First image is interesting, second one likely means nothing. Jimbo Jambo 01:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Theory Clean-up

I think several of these theories, esp the ones at the end about Triforce of Shadow and whatnot need to be either deleted or better integrated and sourced - especially that one and the Sand Goddess one, I've never heard anything about that anywhere, even in the theory forums I've been through in the past where such ideas are sent to gather support. — cipriano^talk 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

4th piece = Vaati = Fierce diety

I recently figured this out: the light force is supposededly the "completed" tri/tetra force (with the upside down triangle in it.) -TMC well Vaati is theroised to have taken that fourth piece of the tertaforce. and that fierce diety link has an upside down gold triangle on his chest plate. so vaati could possibly be the spirit sealed inside the fierce diety mask (if there is actually a spirit sealed inside it.) assuming that vaati doesn't die in FSA I know that the color isn't the same but who cares about the colors they can change right. Note: this is complete theory i have no actual proof but still. -Minish Ω 03:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vaati was sealed away in the four sword in the end of FSA, so it's either the four sword has bacome the fierce deity mask, or vaati somehow managed to get into the fierce deity mask. And remeber that the moon child gave Link the fierce deity mask so that they could play a "Good Vs. Bad" game, and Majora's mask is evil, and so is Vaati, so even if Majora thinks itself "good" it would think of Vaati "good" as well. The firce deity could be the fourth piece, but Vaati seems to be unrelated to it. --Doryban 16:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

-Spirit Tracks-

No one seemed to meantion the change of the winged Triforce symbol in Spirit Tracks. There doesn't even seem to be a picture of it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure it has some relevence here. ~Moshata, The Mistress~ 11:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Majora's Mask + Fused shadows

Think about it- The fused shadowes were used by the twili's ancestors to own the triforce. ome theories say that Majora's Mask was created by this tribe. Majora's Mask's shape could fit inside the triforce, it's horns serve as "connectors", making the triforce wearable. Also, note that the triforce grants the wishes of only those who are good. If an evil one wants to use it, it will grant the wish with a "catch", or shatter. It could be understood that the Twili's ancestros tried to use the triforce, but before they could they had to make it "evil". For that purpouse, they created the Fused Shadows, and Majora's Mask as the connector between the triforce, the fused shadows, and the user. Also, note that if the part about the horns is true, then it means that four horns are needed for the triforce of courage, four for wisdom, but only two for power. This may indicate that the theory of Din being somewhat "evil" for choosing ganondorf, and less darkness is needed to currupt it, since it is not purely good, like the other two. The in-game connection between Majora's mask and the fused shadows, is that in the cutscene showed to Link by Lanayru, it seems that like Majora's mask, the fused shadows are also able to take control of people. In this scene, the fused shadows are also used as a "cage" to the triforce. It is also possible from these details that the fused shadows may have "taken" the middle part of the triforce, which became Makora's maskm yet this would make less sense. --Doryban 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Evil Goddess?

The shadow meddallion shows an upsidown triangle, surrounded by three dots on its sides. The OoT hylian shield has the bird separating the fourth peice. I think that at the time the goddesses left thus making the triforce, a fourth goddess of evil came after the original three and created evil and greed. This fourth and evil goddess left to follow the good goddesses, and took a detour to the sacred realm and made a fourth triforce peice. Originally written by dBekuFcrub999

That "Evil goddess" could very well be Majora. Think about it, the shape of the mask would fit inside the triforce, the mask has overwhelming powers, and is said to be anciant. Now, Skyward sword should answer a lot of questions. My dream is that it will revolve around the oeigin of Majora's nask, We already know it will feature the creation of the master sword, so maybe it was created to fight the mask. Then again, the game, Majora's Mask didn't feature the master sword. Also, the happy masks salesman mentions that the "Anciant ones" sealed away the mask. We know that the master sword was created by the original sages (Not the OoT, that wouldn't make sense chronologically). Maybe the "Anciant ones" are the otiginal sages. That will conclude that the Triforce might have been created as the mask's seal. As proof: The Kakariko well. If you go to the northmost part of it you find a triforce drawn on the floor. Play "Zelda's Lullaby" and the middle piece will turn purplr, and you could progress. Kakariko is the birthplace of Impa, the sage of Shadowm and remember- the Shadow Medallion was our original proof. Also, the well has pictures of, what I think is, first concept art of Majora's moon which they left in as a plot device for the next game. Second proof for "Niddlr pircr is Evil" Is the master sword. In OoT and WW, we find it on a Triforce drawing on the floor, the sword in the middle piece. This is the sword of Evil's Bane and we always find it in the muddle of the Triforce. That would mean that there is evil there. Dorlo1994 09:31, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

I think you guys are looking WAY too far into things, but that's what's great about the Zelda series. :) To this day, I still don't understand what's so awesome about a fourth triforce piece! At this point, introducing a fourth piece into the franchise officially would be almost useless and confusion-generating, as the grand portion of Zeldas have worked on the very premise that there is only three. No title in any timeline has mentioned the possibility in-game, so it would be strange to present it as real now... unless the fourth piece generated such powerful, unspeakable emotions in the past that no one wished to speak of it, even the Royal Family. Your bit about Skyward Sword shedding some light on this "mystery" is the only way that I believe a fourth piece would even have legitimacy in the Zelda series at this point, as it would be before all other titles in the timeline. Just my two cents. — cipriano^talk 11:03, 30 August 2010 (EDT)

Well, if they do introduce the fourth "Evil" piece in skyward sword, than that means that in the rest of the series it acts like a "He who must nit be named" kind of thing, which can turn out very beautifully. That would be why we've seen indications of it only in shadow/ evil related places. Maybe it's the same for twilight princess in which the don't say "Triforce" at all (Since it should be about one or two generations after the events of OoT) Dorlo1994 10:37, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Source for Nintendo statement

Would someone mind providing a source for Nintendo's statement on the subject? I've search, but so far have been unable to find one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Calibur (talk) 02:28

About Majora theories

But remember how MM doesn't even take place in Hyrule at all? That could either deminish or BOOST the theory of Majora having to do with the fourth piece! It might mean that the fourth piece was hidden IN Termina so it wouldn't be found, or it could mean that Majora has nothing to do with the fourth piece of the Tetraforce. Even though Nintendo has already made it clear that there is no fourth piece, still. It keeps things interesting to keep talking about these speculations. Yellowpikmin476 22:30, 2 January 2012 (EST)

Duh!

It mentions the four colors of Link's tunic from the Four Sword or whatever, and says "where does the color purple come from?". I think it's an obvious reference to the colors of the four elements, green, red, blue and purple.

Work Needed

This article is outdated—especially since we now know that the original Zelda (from SS) actually is a fourth goddess. I'd edit it myself, but I don't know much about the current status of the theory and what its proponents think. Linebeck IV 15:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, an unseen Goddess of Time is mentioned in MM, so Hylia isn't the fourth goddess ever revealed.—Justin^(Talk) 06:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point! MM is one of those games I really want to play someday. Linebeck IV 22:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Triple Goddess = One

Often in Celtic mythology, three deities may combine powers to (and this is badly generallised)combine into one form, either because they are not "strong" enough or are simply in need of the others assistance. Perhaps the 4th Triforce is merely the presence of all three in one metaphysical embodiment. --Smighty 12:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That theory seems like it would fit in the "Other Propositions" section, and it's not too far-fetched. It certainly makes more sense than some of the other ideas down there. Dannyboy601^Talk 17:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Outdated

The various Tetraforce theories, while still popular among some, have been all but confirmed as false by Nintendo. I suggest we change the page to reflect this by clarifying that these theories are incorrect, though still worthy of remembrance. Linebeck IV 19:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean. The first line already says that "the idea is not known to be canon," and under "Official Nintendo Statement" it clearly states that "officially, the Tetraforce does not exist and it should be considered mere fan speculation." What do you suggest that we add or change? Dannyboy601^Talk 20:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being cryptic; while it is stated that the article's content is non-canon, other parts of the article are written in a way that suggests the opposite. It's a matter of stylistic technique. Linebeck IV 09:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be

The wiki quality standards state in no uncertain terms that theories "are to be reputable, [and] show evidence to support them". This page, by definition, does not. I understand that this was a "big thing" in the Zelda fandom for quite a while until a bewildered Nintendo finally said "WTF, no!", but I don't feel that justifies an exception to the quality standards. This article is not, in any real way, a record of franchise canon or history -- it's a record of community history, and should be treated as such.

So, proposal:

1. Create a new page called "Community:Discredited Theories" (or disproven/jossed/what have you). This page will be a repository for all theories that we can show had widespread support, but which were explicitly shown to be false by the canon, such as Single Timeline, Tetraforce, etc. Theories on this page may or may not show evidence, but they do need to show that there was community support for them before they were thrown out.
2. Move this article to "Community:Discredited Theories/Tetraforce".

OR

1. Move this article to "Community:Tetraforce Theory".

Thoughts?KrytenKoro (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally I feel as if this theory should be moved to your 2nd option. I do not believe the Tetraforce is real, but we have to remember that for the longest time Nintendo said there was no timeline, but they "changed" their minds and released one. As this is a very popular theory Nintendo could still implement the tetraforce somehow, though I hope they do not, so it shouldn't necessarily go into a discredited theories section, but it should be moved to a theory section. I am more tempted to say that the theory section should not exist though as it opens the way for MANY theorists that do not use much canon information for their theories to post personal theories in the talk section. I know I am guilty of making a few theories myself, but only on a small scale. Making a theory section, even just labeling a page theory, would open that path. I think that the safer route would be getting rid of this page entirely with a small mention about the theory on the Triforce page. Dark Mirror's Link (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a good point in that the Tetraforce is not a "thing" in Zelda canon, so I do agree that this should be moved to the Community namespace. However, I don't see the merit in creating an umbrella page for discredited theories at this time. As it stands, I'd just prefer to see it moved to Community:Tetraforce.—Justin^(Talk) 12:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually created a notice template for archived theories a while ago. I intended it mainly for timeline theories, but it works here too. --SnorlaxMonster 15:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)