November 4th, 2019

🕒 Wiki Weekly #25! 🕑

It's November!
We've listed pages that need some love. Take a look!

Latest Announcements

Talk:Vaati

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vaati's fate is not said at the end of the Minish Cap. In the Four Swords, we know that Vaati was sealed away with the Four Sword at some point. Is it just speculation that he is sealed in TMC, or did it come from a canon source? Can we be sure that Nintendo's not holding off that occurrence for an upcoming game?--Matt 16:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... you raise a good point. But I seem to remember it being said that the Four Sword trilogy was just that: a trilogy, consisting of TMC, FS and FSA, never to have another entry. So I really think that it's just assumed based on the events of the next two games, and never was nor will be explicitly stated. --Ando (T) 19:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cluttered

This page is really starting to look cluttered, with the amount of pictures being added to it. Should a gallery be started to bring them under control? --Yuvorias, 12:34, 1 May 2008 (EST)

I was thinking that too.Axiomist 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oot Poster inclusion?

http://images.wikia.com/zelda/images/4/4a/Vaati_OoT.png Seriously now, although That is from OoT, Doesn't it look uncannily like a Vaati form? I added it as 'trivia' not anything Canon. But some are willing to delete, and I'm willing to press it. So, I'll agree with the general consensus.Axiomist 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's the big bad shadow beast from OoT that is trapped in Kakariko's well. I'm sure bongo bongo is saddened by not being invited to the eye party. http://www.zeldawiki.org/File:Bongobongo.png PureLocke(User/Talk) 07:46, 16 November 2010 (EST)

Sheikah?

Is it possible for Vaati to be Sheikah? One of his form has the Sheikah Eye Symbol. And he has the whole "eye" theme Just wondering. This could possibly go in the trivia or theory section? Onyx 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TMC Vaati's Wrath Figurine Sprite.png
Let's see. Comparing these two images, there is some resemblance to the eye symbol. But definitely not enough for a connection. Remember that just because there is a eye symbol on someone, that does not make them a Sheikah. Zelda had it on here cloak in Twilight Princess, but she is not a Sheikah. Symbols themselves done mean that that person is related to the symbol's group. Veran has both the eye symbol and the Gerudo sysmbol on her clothes and we can be sure she is neither Gerudo or Sheikah. Remember that Vaati is a Minish. That alone makes this unlikely. So, in all, I'd have to say no.User:Matt/sig 02:23, August 14, 2008 (UTC)
TMC Vaati Transfigured Figurine Sprite.png this was the form i mentioned. and yeah your right. I just wanted a thought to ponder though. thanks!
Onyx 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually in Minish cap you find outg vaati is a minish. Calibure 17:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the eye is very similar, its only just missing the tear, which has been said, (non-canonically), to have been missing at some point. Along with this, Vaati has red eyes, and white hair, which are other Shiekah traits. I think you should consider saying in trivia that there are similarity. Nicktheslayer 02:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't really make that comparison. The only confirmed Sheikah we've seen are Impa and Impaz, the latter of which is old and thus her hair'd be white anyway. You can't say for sure that all Sheikah have white hair. Reign 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It's borderline. Perhaps if it fits well, then add it, but there really isn't a way to compare it. Besides, Vaati is Minish. Alter  {T C B H } 06:05, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


Okay, i know there isnt enough to say the Vaati is Sheikah, and that it already has been confirmed that he is Minish, but there are too many things that point to the Sheikah, that something should be said.

Things that pretty much scream, "SHEIKAH!": Red eyes, and white hair. Even though only one Sheikah was young enough to have color, and it was still white, all confirmed Sheikah had white hair.

The Sheikah eye symbol, as i said before, is his main symbol, just missing the tear. Also, he isnt really waering the symbol, he BECOMES the symbol, which is more than Zelda wearing it on her cloak.

On his face, he has marks under his eyes, similar to the tear in the Sheikah Symbol.

He is wearing blue and red, like every other confirmed Shiekah, along with Shiek.

The only thing saying hes not Shiekah is the fact that hes Minish... I don have much evidence to support this, but im sure i could try to look into it later.. Maybe Vaati had something to do with the Sheikah, and he was the one who betrayed, causing them to put the tear on the eye symbol. This could be why Vaati's symbol didnt have the tear, and that it was added later. It could easily been added before the other games, and this also goes to support the fact that the Minish Cap was first in the timeline. Nicktheslayer 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. We'll add the info if some more concrete evidence surfaces at some point. Alter  {T C B H } 03:17, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the Vaati was originally minish, but helped create the sheikah. Vaati is good with dark magic/ Shadow magic (The sheikah are the shadow folk), has sheikah characteristics (White hair and red eyes), and has the Eye Symbol (without the teardrop, though it is non-canonically stated that at one point the Eye Symbol didn't have the teardrop originally.) I think that the minish cap would come first in a time line of the entire series, so the Sheikah may not have been yet created. Vaati could have created the Sheikah before the events of the minish cap. As Vaati has distinguishable Sheikah traits, he could have served as an appearance model for the group. The eye symbol would have been created as a reference to the Sheikah's creator's true form, with the tear drop being added on at a later point. By Tressert 2:15 January 2nd 2010
Well, unfortunately, these are all just theories, which cannot be listed on a factual encyclopedia. Trust me, if there is a game released or more developer quotes which make these ideas more viable, we will have them listed. Alter  {T C B H } 21:17, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Vaati can't be a Sheikah as he is Minish. But there is a group of mage supporting him in Four Swords Adventure. Those people could have been or could have become the Sheikah tribe. Jeangabin 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the eye has more in common with Majora's than the sheikah's. Vaati and the mask both have a purple/gold theme, both have final forms called "X's wraith", etc.... Jabberwock xeno 20:58, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

TMC ending: Is Vaati sealed or not?

In order to avoid an edit war, I think it is more proper to discuss the matter here. The point I made was that FS (released in 2002) shows clearly that Vaati was sealed in the FS. TMC comes two years later and we just see him exploding. Had they wanted him to be sealed, they would have portrayed it as they did in the previous game. Also, the fact that the screen goes white for a moment is not proof that he got sealed. The same thing happens after OoX Ganon is defeated and we know that he is not sealed. Yes, TMC is a prequel to FS and FSA but this doesn't mean that TMC is the FS BS. When ALttP was released, it was also meant to be a prequel to LoZ/AoL; it was not LoZ's BS though. So basically, what we have to assume is that after TMC events, Vaati is somehow revived and then the FS BS occurs. Zeldafan1982 11:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

It also doesn't prove that he was destroyed eithor, Ezlo says that Vaati was "Defeated", he doesn't say he was destroyed. The fact is there is more evidence supporting the fact that Vaati was sealed away in the Minish Cap and it is not the same as the instance from the Oracle series because Ganon isn't defeated with the Four Sword, he is eithor defeated with the Wooden Sword, the Noble Sword, or the Master Sword. It does prove that the Minish Cap is apart of the Four Swords Saga because the Minish Cap tells us the story of Vaati and the creation of the "Four Sword". I'm not trying to start an edit war, believe me, I'm just posting the facts from the games themselves that prove and support that he wasn't destroyed. --Vaati The Wind Demon 12:17, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I agree that in TMC he is not completely destroyed. There is no doubt about that. But I still don't see any evidence that he is sealed. I mentioned the Oracles battle, because this shows that the "blanking" of the screen is just a transition effect. The article should just say that he is defeated, not sealed. Zeldafan1982 12:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
Agreed, Friends.--Vaati The Wind Demon 13:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
It's nice that we came to an agreement :) I will edit (or you, whichever comes first!) the three articles to reflect that. Zeldafan1982 13:14, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
I'l give you the honors for editing the Minish Cap pages if it's alright with you, ;).--Vaati The Wind Demon 13:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

How do you pronouce Vaati

The trivia says it's pronouced Vah-tee. but is the *AH* part pronounced like the *O* in hot or like the *A* in hat? --Vaati The Wind Demon 17:34, 19 January 2012 (EST)

"Ah" doesn't pronounce the æ sound in "hat", so it's the former. I added a pronunciation key to the top of the page to avoid this confusion. - TonyT S C 19:15, 19 January 2012 (EST)
So the *a* is pronounced as sounded when one says the word *at*, thank you. --Vaati The Wind Demon 21:08, 19 January 2012 (EST)
Uh, the "aa" in Vaati is pronounced like the "ah" sound in "naught" and "blot". So it has no association with the pronunciation of "at" or "hat". - TonyT S C 23:37, 19 January 2012 (EST)
So wouldn't that mean that it's pronounced as Vaw-tee, instead of Vah-tee, because *ah* can actually be pronounced as *a* as well as *aw* too. --Vaati The Wind Demon 07:36, 20 January 2012 (EST)
I don't think there's a difference between "ah" and "aw" in American English (apart from length, maybe). As far as I know, "ah" only produces the ɑ sound. Do you have anything that proves otherwise? - TonyT S C 13:03, 20 January 2012 (EST)
Proof that *Ah* can be pronounced as *aw* and *a*. The word *yeah* is pronounced as "ya" and the word *Yahtzee* is pronounced as *yawt-zee*. This website here pronounces words http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=ah ha&submit=Submit. --Vaati The Wind Demon 13:17, 20 January 2012 (EST)
There's a difference between spelling and phonetic pronunciation. The pronunciation of the word "yeah" goes along the lines of jɛə, where the "a" sound comes from the 'e' and the 'a', not the 'a' and the 'h'. I'm strictly speaking about pronunciation (IPA) respelling, in which case "ah" only makes the ɑ sound. - TonyT S C 13:48, 20 January 2012 (EST)
I think it depends on where we are from. Where I'm from, in Canada, most of the vocabulary and the pronounciations we give vary from both British English and American English. Vocabulary tends to be different in British English as *ah* is is usually pronounced either way, where as in American English, it would be pronounced as *aw*, as well as depending on what letters are used to form the word. Thanks for the advice and answering my question, I think I understand now. --Vaati The Wind Demon 14:35, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Origin Theory

I think that a problem with the second theory is that during OoT, Demise's hatred would be sealed along Vaati so how would Ganondorf be affected/"corrupted" by it? Zeldafan1982 01:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No strategy

This page has no strategy listings for the fights with Vaati. Is there a strategy page like for Ganondorf that I just don't know exists? If not we might want to add some kind of strategy section. --Planetbox 22:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential Origin

I notice that the theory on Vaati being reincarnated from Demise was removed. However, as explained before, TMC and FS both precede Ganon's first appearance in OoT by a considerable amount of time, and there's no explanation as to why. Vaati also persecutes both Zelda (the one with the "blood of the goddess") and Link (the one with the "spirit of the hero") as the curse instructs. Yes, this could just be coincidental, but that's a quite large and unlikely coincidence, wouldn't you say? Vaati, despite not being part of the curse, targeting and attacking the very targets the curse describes, centuries before the curse supposedly took effect? Plus, to respond directly to a criticism, yes, Demise's hatred could reincarnate twice- the curse, remember, ensures that Demise's hatred will take on a physical form and "ever follow" Link and Hylia's descendants. Demise's spirit itself is not reincarnating (being trapped in the Master Sword), and the curse never specifically says that there will be one reincarnation. Plus, in FSA, TP Ganon's hatred flows through the Dark Mirror to form Shadow Link while Ganon II reincarnates. Now yes, Shadow Link wasn't made directly under the curse, but because Ganon (and by extension his hatred) are derived from Demise's, in a very real sense, Demise's hatred did take on two forms. If it could take on two, why not three? Lastly, it was already acknowledged in the theory that Ganon and Vaati being alive simultaneously would seem to go against the curse; but, remember, the terms of the curse stipulate that Demise's incarnation will "ever follow" its targets. After being sealed in the Four Sword the second time, Vaati could no longer get out, and thus under the theory could no longer follow and persecute his targets. The curse would've thus been forced to compensate, creating a new incarnation to fulfill its terms. Thus was Ganon born. This could also explain how Vaati seemed to decline between FS and FSA, going from a charismatic and intelligent villan to a mute, brutish monster- Ganon's emergence, followed by that of Ganon II would have degraded Vaati's essence.

Is the theory provable? For the moment, no. But it has more evidence in its favor than detractions, and so is far from "debunked". I'll leave it alone for now, but I really do think it should be put back. Setras (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if Demise had the power to back up everything he said he was going to do, he wouldn't have lost in the first place. Did his miasma remain behind and lead to Ganondorf's corruption? Definitely. Is every villain in the series simply an incarnation of his hatred? That...that detracts from character development and writing quality too much for me to stomach.KrytenKoro (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, according to Hylia, Demise had enough power to completely destroy the world even as The Imprisoned, and yet he lost three times, so power alone clearly doesn't guarantee victory. And no, not every villan in the series would be from Demise- Majora, Bellum, Malladus, Nightmare, and Yuga are almost certainly unrelated to him (though the curse may have influenced the latter)- but the circumstances surrounding Vaati would allow him to be part of the curse. Setras (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Demise may have been unable to reincarnate into Ganon immediately because he still existed inside the Master Sword, this would mean that at some point after FS and before OoT, Demise's consciousness decayed into nothing and he then reincarnated into Ganondorf, giving Vaati plenty of time to attack the Kingdom three times - as Demise had incredible power and it would take a while for him to fully disappear. In terms of Vaati's degrading intelligence, he also seemed to degrade at the end of TMC when he took on his demon forms, and then again in between TMC and FS, so it has nothing to do with Ganon, his power was just probably too much for his mind to manage.--LordM (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've heard the "Demise had to decay first" idea before, and it works as a separate theory all its own, but there's no definitive proof that it's true either. Actually, it's quite common in fantasy for curses and the like to be tied to their makers, so I'm of the opinion that Demise's "residue" will still exist in the sword as long as Ganon (or alternate incarnations) keep appearing. Once they stop, it will indicate that Demise has decayed altogether, and thus the curse dies with him. I think this idea might be worth mentioning somewhere, too, but I'm not sure how secure it is with community support, or where it would go. And as far as Vaati's intelligence goes, yes, he underwent some minor decline at the end of TMC and FS, which, as you said, could have stemmed from power overtaking him. But in FSA, he seems to have virtually nothing in the way of intelligence left- aside from a hollow-sounding laugh and a death cry, he never displays any speech capabilities, and his attacks consist of blindly sucking Link up, ramming into him, and firing beams. There's no sense of strategy or focus. Now, FSA is centuries after FS, but there were also two (three if you count Shadow Link) different reincarnations of Demise between the two games, so really, it could go either way depending on which theory you subscribe to. Setras (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing why even Ganon should be seen as a straight reincarnation of Demise, rather than just an evil being who has maybe been tempted by Demise's miasma (which, as the god of all monsters, could further his curse simply by being monsters). I mean, it's a death curse from a guy who's known for being an evil jerk...there's very little reason to believe that it's actually valid, beyond authorial intent that links it to (a) Ganon.
Given the design of Demise's sword, and how Demise specifically looks like Ganon and is tied to the Master Sword (which Vaati is unrelated to), I can only see three ways that the curse could act:
  1. It acts through the remaining monsters in the world, which were sealed up anyway when Vaati became evil.
  2. It acts through the Trident that Ganon stole in FSA to become Ganon, whose origin we don't know yet (like Ghirahim 2.0, a corrupting influence).
  3. Twinrova specifically summoned Demise's remaining miasma through whatever process they used to become Ganondorf's surrogate mothers.
Specifically because he didn't recieve the Triforce, I don't see Demise as able to "rewrite the fabric of reality" to an extent that would make his descendants a certainty, rather than just an option. I mean, Ganondorf makes the same threat, and screw that guy, right? He even gives up by the time of TWW. He's just lucky, not inevitable.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember, though, Hylia herself attested that, god or no, Demise had incredible power. He's not omnipotent, hence his desire for the Triforce, but he could've destroyed the world even in a weakened form, and was either able to tear open a rift into another world or outright create said world for the final battle. I don't think it's a huge stretch to assume that a being that can manipulate the fabric of reality so easily could cast such a versatile curse. And with regards to the curse- first off, Demise specifically says that the curse will create "an incarnation of [his] hatred". This seems like a fairly steaightforward statement to me- his hatred will take on a physical form or, as you suggested, corrupt someone who otherwise wouldn't be corrupt. And the curse seems to work just as it says it will- through the "blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero". Therefore, direct blood descendants of Hylia will fall victim to the curse, and those who embody Link's spirit will fall victim, too. Whenever they appear, the curse will (for want of a better term) activate, causing an incarnation to appear if it hasn't already and seek them out. If it is defeated or rendered incapable of doing its duty, a new incarnation will appear to compensate. TP and FSA demonstrated this with the death of Ganon I, which resulted in the birth of Ganon II centuries later.
As to the point about Demise's sword- I actually think this sword came first, and that the Master Sword's final form was meant to counteract it. Setras (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I meant that Demise's sword resembles the Trident, implying to me that that's how Ganon got corrupted in FSA.
As for the incarnations of his hatred, he says this while being sealed in the Master Sword. I think it's a real stretch to think that any of the incarnations would be vulnerable to anything but the Master Sword; Vaati has always been antagonized by the Four Sword (with Ganon being sealed by the Four Sword, not slain, in FSA).
...and clearly breaking out in ALttP ARG WHY DID THEY PUT IT IN CHILD TIMELINE.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
...Not sure I follow your last point. But anyway, the Master and Four Swords both have the power to repel evil, so both will hurt evil creatures. (I actually think the Picori Blade was a prototype for the Goddess Sword, given how it looked so similar to the Master Sword). For whatever reason, Link did not draw the Master Sword in TMC and FS (possibly because the Temple of Time was hidden in the woods until some time prior to OoT, when Castle Town was expanded, and thus no one knew where to find it), so he couldn't use it against Vaati, regardless of if the latter was a reincarnation of Demise or not. And in most of the Downfall timeline, Ganon was hurt by Light and Silver Arrows, and in two cases could only be taken down by the latter weapon. The Master Sword also doesn't appear in Zelda I, and Ganon is capable of potentially being hurt by a wooden sword, so it's been established that the Master Sword isn't necessarily essential to take down Demise's reincarnations. Setras (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, as Princess Zelda said herself in Four Swords, the Four Sword is the only blade that can contain the Wind Mage, so it is the only blade that can defeat Vaati. --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
But again, that statement could've just been due to the information about the Master Sword being lost, probably during the Era of Chaos. Thus, the Four Sword was the only known way to stop Vaati at the time. Setras (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, the Master Sword was a blade that helped save an entire kingdom for the first time in Skyward Sword, so I don't think they would be careless enough to forget it's whereabouts or mention it in a Legend. The Four Sword had capabilities and powers that even the Master Sword could not perform. Such as, dividing into units and sensing portals to the Dark World, ETC. The only instance I recall the Master Sword being sort of lost was in the backstory of A Link to the Past in the Decline Era. --Vaati The Wind Demon (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Master Sword did save the world, and yes, there probably were legends about it, as Navi knew about it despite always living in the Kokiri Forest. But the whole point of sealing up the sword behind the Door of Time was to prevent people from entering the Sacred Realm, so broadcasting its exact wherabouts would be counterproductive. The temple was thus left in the woods, the information about it was lost in the latter period of the Era of Chaos, and the legend of the Picori Blade supplanted it after the Minish descended in the Force Era. However, during and after the Unification War, the temple was probably rediscovered, and after the war ended and Hyrule expanded, it was rebuilt. After the events of OoT, the wherabouts of the Master Sword became known again in different ways in each timeline, and thus it was used when needed. The one exception was in FSA, when Link had no choice but to draw the Four Sword, thus eliminating any need to search for the Master Sword. Setras (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Evidence against theory: Hyrule Historia states in the FSA section that "Vaati has become caught in the cycle of Ganondorf" meaning that he was not a part of Demise's cycle beforehand.--LordM (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not really a problem- the "cycle of Ganondorf", where he continually revives/reincarnates is indeed separate from Vaati, but this still doesn't preclude the two of them from being formed by Demise's curse. Remember, Vaati was defeated and thought to be dead in TMC, but he later reappeared (albeit with severe memory loss) in the backstory of FS. So, initially, he did behave just how Ganon does later in the timeline- he's defeated, stays away for a while, then revives. It's his sealing in the Four Sword that nipped this in the bud, so to speak- Vaati's essence was now still very much alive (and so could not revive nor reincarnate), but unable to escape. Demise's curse was thus stopped in its tracks, and so had to create Ganondorf I to compensate. Ganon then revives/reincarnates as necessary, thus beginning the "cycle of Ganondorf". This (at least as far as the theory goes) basically "sterilized" Vaati (why keep reincarnating an "older model"?), and each rebirth/revival of Ganon degraded him, until by FSA he was a mindless beast with virtually no personality or intelligence and could be killed completely. Thus, Vaati preceded Ganon, but still became caught in the latter's cycle. Setras (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
There's no need nor reason for Vaati to be involved with Demise at all, and both SS and the Historia are fairly obvious in pointing the cycle directly at Ganondorf. Vaati was a Minish, part of a divine species, who was seduced by his own greed. Ganondorf is the surrogate son of the witches Twinrova, and it's pretty clearly implied that, as in the Oracle games, they literally summoned him into the world. Furthermore, Demise is the father of all monsters, yet Vaati doesn't seem to have any significant power over monsters like Ganondorf is always shown having: he merely opened the chest and released them all -- even Bellum is shown with more power over monsters than that.(...hmm, is SS Link the one in the TMC backstory? If not, we still have good opportunity for that and the SS prologue as games).
This theory doesn't explain any holes in the official narrative, it causes more inconsistencies than it purportedly fixes, and has no real justification to stand on besides not explicitly being false, even though it is implicitly false due to the curse being linked to Ganondorf.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Also Vaati bears no resemblance to Demise, while Ganondorf looks a bit like a human Demise (HH even states that Demise was modeled after Ganon). The Black Knight Darknut from TMC looks more like Demise than Vaati does - the Black Knight also antagonizes Link - so he is just as likely a candidate as Vaati. Just an example, I dont actually believe that the Black Knight is a reincarnation. So yeah, I think the theory should be removed.--LordM (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The theory does explain two things: namely, why Demise's curse supposedly took so long to activate, and why Vaati behaves so different in FS and FSA. Now I'll grant you that perhaps neither of those factors are in critical need of an explanation, but still, the theory is explaining something.
Secondly, yes, Vaati was a member of a "holy" race- but does this make him totally uncorruptable? No. Indeed, both Ezlo and his figurine pointed out how he was always entranced by evil even before he became Ezlo's apprentice. Again, this isn't something that really requires much explaining, but the theory could also explain this otherwise strange obsession- a reincarnation of a demon's hatred is obviously going to at least display some curiosity toward evil.
Lastly, yes, Vaati actually does display power over monsters- he summons two Dark Moblins to fight Link, and later fills Dark Hyrule Castle with an army of the things. Now yes, it must be pointed out that Ezlo's Magic Cap is what gave him the power to do so, but the fact that he was Ezlo's apprentice heavily implies that he had some power before he put it on. It's true that we are never shown him controlling monsters as a Minish, but they were all in the Bound Chest at the time, so how could he control them? Yes, canonically speaking we have to assume he never had such power as a Minish, but the idea itself can't be dismissed out of hand. (Indeed, we know that Ganondorf could control monsters as an adult, but we know nothing of his childhood. How can we say for certain that he always had that ability, and that it didn't instead develop as he matured?)
How about we at least get a couple more opinions on the subject before we delete it? No offense meant to either of you (seriously- it's good to point out flaws in any idea), but I'd prefer a more community-backed verdict of yea or nay before it's taken out. Setras (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
"It's true that we are never shown him controlling monsters as a Minish, but they were all in the Bound Chest at the time, so how could he control them?"
That's the entire point. Ganondorf, for example, was able to create monsters out of magic, from the first time we heard about him. Vaati, a member of one of the races closest to the goddesses and Hylia (so very, very unlikely for Demise to be able to insert his curse into), had to seek out and release the monsters, after which he still had a less intrinsic link to them than, say, Bellum has with the Phantoms. Vaati found power, he was not born with it.
As for why it took so long to activate: in SS alone, there's a span of 1000 years between Demise activating his curse and him beginning to reemerge from his seal, with Ghirahim's help. Demise influenced Ganon's creation, but...honestly, Ganon is much more active and impressive than Demise is, and it's painting a picture that doesn't make much sense to portray him as a pervasive threat. I'd personally argue that Demise got lucky, hitching his wagon to Ganon -- Ganondorf may have been born by whatever Twinrova did that made them surrogates and made Ganondorf an incarnation of Demise's hatred, but most of what Ganondorf has accomplished is his own achievement, not Demise's.KrytenKoro (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you're reading a bit too much into the "surrogates" thing- it most likely means that Ganon's birth mother died, and thus Twinrova were his foster (surrogate sometimes being a synonym for foster) mothers. As for your other points- Demise's curse has little to do with his form as the Imprisoned, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Besides which, SS's ending was so convoluted and paradoxical that I'm convinced it caused another timeline split (though that's another topic entirely), so the casting of the curse and the rest of the events of SS are actually only distantly linked to each other- the only reason why the curse affects the rest of the timeline at all is because it works directly through Zelda ("those with the blood of the goddess") and Link ("and [those] with the spirit of the hero")- blood relatives of Zelda, and incarnations of Link (which includes some blood relatives, i.e. TP Link) will be "ever follow[ed]" by reincarnations of Demise's hatred.
Plus, it's noteworthy that the Gerudo may be directly descended from the Skyloftian Hylians, as Groose is theorized to have been the patiarch of what would become the Gerudo (given his red hair and yellow eyes), and in any case the Gerudo do not exist on the Surface yet in SS. While not as close to the gods as the true Hylians, this would still technically make them a holy race- and yet Ganon, the confirmed reincarnation, is their king. Even without taking these hypothetical details into account, the fact remains that being close to Hylia would not, on its own, be protection from the curse- indeed, being a member of the Minish didn't stop Vaati from turning evil in the first place, curse or no, even with their otherwise holy status. Setras (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It could mean his birth mother died, but considering that the game doesn't say anything about that, we see them return in OoX to rebirth him into the world through Zelda, and SS tells us he is an incarnation of Demise's hatred, it's a bit more plausible that some sort of ritual was involved. In any case, it's irrelevant and technically speculation.
What I'm trying to say about the Imprisoned is that when Demise was still alive he took 1000 years to try anything. There's no reason to assume that waiting a few centuries after SS is an "odd" lull in his activity.
Also, you're mangling Demise's quote: he stated "an incarnation". "An". We already know that, canonically, there were plenty of people in the Zelda and Link lineages who didn't have to deal with Demise's threat, so it's false to claim that anything they face must be such an incarnation (not necessarily saying you're claiming this, just making it clear).
As for the sidebar about another timeline split and about Groose -- those are completely off-topic and irrelevant.
As for Vaati being a Minish -- we already know that plenty of Hylians turn evil. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that it would be extremely unlikely (though not absolutely false) for Demise to take a Minish like you're suggesting -- not just seduction, but siezing his fate and turning him into an incarnation of his hatred.
All in all -- not only are there no questions that this theory answers, but it runs contrary to the evidence we do have (Demise's actual quote, Vaati's backstory), it runs contrary to the obvious intent of Demise's curse as explained in the Historia, and requires a lot of non-seemless perturbances in the setting that would just raise even more questions.
We really, really need to cut back on theories like this -- those that are not seeking to answer questions, but simply to make up stories that cause even more problems, like for example the Keaton being the true creator god of the setting and the golden goddesses being usurpers. If it's not required or implied by the available evidence, then it's not a theory (something that answers a question), it's pure speculation and conjecture. There are fanfiction sites for that. The criteria should be "does this answer more questions than it puts forward?", not "is it explicitly rejected by the canon?".KrytenKoro (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Since Demise says that an incarnation of his hatred will follow the Links and Zeldas, I think it's safe to assume that his hatred somehow escapes the MS seal. It wouldn't be the first time a seal weakens in Zelda after all. So, I'll reinstate my objection that, since Vaati was sealed during OoT, Demise's hatred was sealed along him, so I don't see how it would corrupt Ganon (and it has to). On a side note, regarding the "curse", I don't think an incarnation of his hatred appears whenever a Link and Zelda appear. Rather, it's the other way around.. the good guys appear in response to a villain posing a threat. I simply think this is how the universe was designed by the goddesses, and not a result of the "curse". He doesn't put a curse basically, he knows the Links and Zeldas are "cursed" because they are fated to fight a villain time and time again, because his hatred is eternal. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Demise's hatred was never sealed up- his "residual consciousness" was. However, if we assume for the sake of argument that his hatred was sealed up as well, then yes, it must have escaped to give rise to Ganon I. But if it could escape the Master Sword, why not the Four Sword? Even in this scenario, his hatred could still get out after Vaati's sealing, thus allowing Ganon's birth and/or corruption. As to your point on the curse, the fact that he calls it a curse and, one way or another, it does come to pass as he said it would strongly implies that Demise did cast an actual curse. I'm not seeing anything that implies he was being metaphorical (not to mention, it was stated in real life that SS would explain why Ganon appears- so why would the "explanation" be a metaphor, thus making it unconnected to Ganon and thus, not really explaining anything at all?). Plus, Demise's curse specifically says that "an incarnation of [his] hatred will ever follow ['those with the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero']". This seems pretty clear-cut to me- Demise's reincarnation will appear to persecute Hylia's descendants and Link's successors. Your explanation would require precisely the opposite of that- that a reincarnation of Demise will randomly appear, only for a descendant of Hylia and a successor of Link to rise up to fight it. The latter doesn't seem to fit with the wording or intent of the curse. Setras (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that there is no evidence that Vaati would be the TMC/FS incarnation, any of the Enemies and Bosses could be the incarnation of Demise, and since none of them occur at the same time as Ganon, they are actually more likely candidates than Vaati is. If we keep Vaati as a "possible" incarnation, then we need to add the theory to every single enemy that appeared between SS and OoT.--LordM (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? Vaati was the only major- and the main- antagonist during the events of TMC, FS, and the events in between. By that logic, every single non-Ganondorf enemy in the series would be a potential incarnation of Demise, thus effectively rendering the curse moot. And yes, there is evidence, slight though it admittedly is, that Vaati is a reincarnation of Demise, and I have brought it up multiple times now- he precedes Ganondorf I's appearance by a considerable number of years; he specifically targets and persecutes Link and Zelda, exactly as Demise's curse instructs; and he initially behaves exactly as Ganon does later on in the timeline, i.e. after being apparently defeated, he was revived in a new, more demonic form some time later. The only real issue is the fact that Ganon and Vaati exist simultaneously, and I have explained several times how this issue could be resolved, i.e. Vaati's sealing in the Four Sword rendered him unable to fulfill the curse, prompting the creation of Ganondorf I to compensate, and in the process weakening Vaati. It's not 100% ironclad, I acknowledge that, but it fits with both the timeline and the wording of Demise's curse. Setras (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Example: The boss Gouen - Vaati's ally - persecutes Link (by fighting him), and Zelda (by stopping Link from saving her), he also is on fire, like Demise's hair, and is a demonic creature who lives in Death Mountain (Ganon's residence in later games), therfore he is more likely to be Demise's reincarnate than Vaati. But we don't include the theory on his page, so it should not be on Vaati's either--LordM (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. The curse is not literal. Ganon and Vaati were once (mostly) ordinary people. I doubt that Demise's curse caused them to turn evil. Perhaps it strengthened them, but Demise is not the only source of evil in the world. Honestly, I find it pointless to even mention the curse in any article besides Demise's. Champion of Nayru (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The curse is literal, Hyrule Historia states that Demise will eternally reincarnate (as Ganon).--LordM (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Why would the curse not be literal? Hylia herself acknowledged that, even in his sealed, weakened form (the Imprisoned), Demise could easily destroy the entire world if he wanted to; and, upon regaining his normal form, he demonstrated that he could easily perform a variety of magical skills, summoning his sword from Ghirahim, hurling Zelda's body away, tearing open a portal into another dimension (if not outright creating said dinension), controlling the weather in this dimension, and surpressing the (normal) ability to create Skyward Strikes. He has no shortage of raw power nor ability- so why would his curse suddenly just be posturing?
As to the point on the bosses- don' forget, Vaati was controlling bosses like Gouen- they likely wouldn't exist if not for him. The same is true for most of the other bosses in the series, as they are under Ganon's control. Any boss not controlled by Ganon is either controlled by Ghirahim (in the case of most of SS), Vaati (in the case of FS), Yuga (in ALBW), Majora (in MM), Bellum (in PH), or Malladus (in ST), or else is acting as a guardian of something (as in the Oracle games, Zelda I, and TAoL). The lesser bosses in each game are controlled by a main antagonist/character, so they are more henchmen than antagonists in their own right. The curse is, of course, referring to Ganon and not his henchmen, so it could also refer to Vaati, and not his henchmen. Setras (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Demise's hatred there is also this quote from Hyrule Historia: "Upon his termination, the Demon King’s hatred was absorbed and sealed in the Master Sword" (page 76). Also, if Demise's hatred can escape Vaati's seal wouldn't that mean that Vaati should be freed as well?
I think a non-literal interpretation of the curse makes sense. Basically, he doesn't need to put an actual curse to avenge them. This is the point. The "curse" is the cursed fate of the future Links and Zeldas, due to his hatred being eternal. So, the "curse" is connected to him but he doesn't put an actual curse/spell. SS still connects to the appearance of Ganon in OoT in this case (Demise's hatred corrupting Ganon). His wording excludes other villains, but Demise at that point doesn't know about e.g. Vaati. Regarding the timespan between SS and OoT, as Kryten said, there is a gap of thousands of years between Hylia's seal and SS Link's time. Also, Aonuma had mentioned only Ganon in that interview. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said before, suggesting that Vaati is a manifestation of the curse requires "evidence" which is not at all backed up by anything said in the games, and more importantly, requires one to disregard the very explicit wording of the curse and the Hyrule Historia. If we're going to allow stuff like this we might as well throw our hands in the air and start claiming the Zora's Flippers were really created by the Mogma for their arboreal war agains the Anouki because why not, why the hell not. It's not like sources matter at all anymore.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The "very explicit" wording of the curse ("Those like you... Those who share the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero... They are eternally bound to this curse. An incarnation of my hatred shall ever follow your kind, dooming them to wander a blood-soaked sea of darkness for all time!") only says that an incarnation of Demise's hatred will appear to persecute Link and Zelda's descendants/successors. It never says that there will be only one reincarnation at any given time, it never says that two incarnations can't exist simultaneously, and it never specifically names Ganon. The "very explicit" curse is actually quite ambiguous. As to your complaint about the evidence I've offered- Vaati was the main antagonist of TMC and FS, was he not? He did appear long before Ganon even existed, did he not? He specifically attacked Link and Zelda, did he not? He was defeated and presumed dead after TMC, only to suddenly reappear a long time later, was he not? And does not Ganon do the same thing- twice- later in the timeline(s) (Once between ALBW and Zelda I, and once between TP and FSA; the former being a revival, the latter a reincarnation)? I've pulled my evidence directly from the games- the one "leap of faith" that I've taken is to say that Vaati's sealing touched off Ganon's later birth/corruption/whatever. This, admittedly, is not confirmed, but it would fill in the one missing gap in the theory, because it would fit the terms of the curse. Vaati was sealed in the Four Sword at the end of FS, by his own account, and he could not get out unless the Four Sword was drawn, as established in FSA. Therefore, he could not fulfill the terms of the curse, thus forcing it to compensate by making/corrupting/whatever-ing Ganon. The theory isn't confirmed, but it doesn't contradict anything in the games or HH. Setras (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's go through:
  1. No timespan is given for how often the curse will appear, and we explicitly know that it must be over a thousand years before it affects anyone, because a thousand years after it is cast, Link is at most fighting the Imprisoned.
  2. We have plenty of other demons who appear who have no apparent connection to Demise.
  3. The quote explicitly says "AN" incarnation.
  4. The Hyrule Historia explicitly says that the curse is intended to refer to Ganon.
  5. Vaati did not specifically attack Link and Zelda. Link and Zelda, point of fact, attacked him.
  6. Many, many, many other monsters reappear throughout the series, often as the same being.
  7. You're consistently confusing "incarnation" with "reincarnation".
  8. Leaps of faith:
    1. That there's some sort of "time limit" for activations of the curse, or that every monster Link and Zelda face must be related to it.
    2. That Vaati's sealing could touch off Ganon's birth.
    3. That there's any mechanic for "forcing the curse to compensate".
    4. That the curse could refer to someone other than Ganon, but not henchman, despite Ganon explicitly using Vaati as a tool in FSA.
    5. That Demise's "residual consciousness" was sealed, not his hatred.
    6. That his hatred has to "escape the seal" in order to give rise to Ganon.
    7. That letting the curse refer to "every single monster" would render the curse moot, despite Demise being the father/lord of all monsters.
    8. That Vaati being "apparently defeated, and then revived in a more monstrous form" indicates that he must be operating as part of the same curse, despite this being standard operating procedure for Veran, Onox, Malladus, Bellum, and even Midna.
    9. That the info about the legendary Master Sword, whose shrine was eventually the location of Hyrule Castle, was "lost" prior to TMC and FS, and Zelda's explicit claim that only the Four Sword could contain the Wind Mage was wrong.
    10. That every descendant of Zelda and inheritor of Link's spirit will fall prey to Demise's curse, despite direct in-canon evidence that there are Zeldas who had no interaction with any such demon (the ancient Zelda of AoL), and Links and Zeldas who interact with demons such as Bellum and Malladus with no relation to Demise.
    11. That Ganon will keep reappearing until Demise's "residue" dissappears from the Master Sword.
    12. That despite discounting minions, Shadow Link (who is always a minion, if not even just a minigame obstacle or a visual aid) could be a manifestation of Demise.
To answer your initial question, of why there is "no explanation as to why TMC and FS both precede Ganon's first appearance by a considerable amount of time", I once again state: Demise laying the curse precedes it doing jackall in the present day by a considerable amount of time, there's nothing to indicate frequency, the "spirit of the hero" language is a very strong indicator of the Triforce of Courage, which those Links did not obtain, and Vaati's origin (a normal Minish who was interested in evil and was seduced by it) is pretty well documented in TMC, while Ganon's (a messianic, once-in-a-lifetime king of thieves whose surrogate mothers were ancient, evil witches who repeatedly try to summon him from the world of darkness by sacrificing the incarnation of the goddess Hylia) is much, much more befitting an "incarnation of the font of evil". So, why was there such a gap? Probably because Demise had left his hatred in the world to incarnate, and Twinrova were the first to actually breathe life into it.
Again, you continuously use language along the lines of "well, X direct evidence from the canon doesn't necessarily rule out this theory, or shouldn't count", which is not what theories should be. It's already delving pretty far into fanfiction to be speculating on what the authors "intend" the "truth of the setting" to be without sources -- when the theory is actively struggling in the face of direct sources, then it's not a good theory. Demise states "an incarnation". Ganondorf is one incarnation, who is slain multiple times and returns as the same being through dark rituals. Vaati is simply an evil dude who got sealed in a sword, then eventually killed off for good.KrytenKoro (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@Setras: The problem as I said though is that if Demise's hatred is able to leave/break the FS seal to "corrupt" OoT Ganon then Vaati should have been freed again between FS and OoT. So, I think you have to consider the non-literal interpretation of the "curse" ("cursed" fate for the Links and Zeldas due to his hatred being eternal, versus actual curse/spell). It doesn't have this problem and it still makes sense. Zeldafan1982 (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Once again, you are a voice of reason in an otherwise chaotic environment, KrytenKoro. You hit the nail on the head; just because a theory isn't actively contradicted, doesn't make it likely. To quote some dead guy, there may be a teapot floating around in space, but with no way to know and no evidence, there is no reason to believe that there is. And honestly, this theory is actively contradicted anyway. Champion of Nayru (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to bow down in respect to KrytenKoro for proclaiming the sense of truth into this discussion so thoroughly. He is absolutely correct. While it is POSSIBLE that Vaati came about as... some sort of result of Demise's influence, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Demise's words refer to anyone other than Ganon, and a lot of evidence to suggest that it only really refers to Ganon, the Demon King. The only other potential candidate, in my eyes would be Malladus, due to his title of Demon King, and the fact that Malladus actually has some vague connections to Ganon already (although they're only visual). But even then, there's no solid evidence. As for Vaati, he's is a whole other beast, much like Majora's Mask. User:Fizzle/sig 05:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Name Origins - Dungeons and Dragons?

Came across a mention of this "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Dukes_of_Aaqa" the other day in a gaming group, and I quote

"The Wind Dukes of Aaqa (/ˈɑːkə/ ah-kə),[1] also known as the Vaati, are fictional characters of legend in the World of Greyhawk campaign setting for the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game. They were powerful lords of the elemental plane of air."

There's no way this is a coincidence right? Especially since I've never come across another mention of the term "Vaati" etymologically. Seems like someone at the Nintendo localization staff is a DnD fan...

If no one objects I'll add a reference in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCGames (talk) 25 March 2015 22:29

History out of order

I noticed that the Four Swords section starts with "Peace returned to Hyrule as Vaati was presumed dead," but that's the first sentence of the entire article. (Outside the lead section.) It doesn't explain what happened before peace returned or why Vaati was assumed dead until you get to The Minish Cap's section. So should they be rearranged so that The Minish Cap comes first, or should the Four Swords section just be tweaked slightly? Doodlyskoots (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Sections must go in the order games were released, so it would be good to reword some parts. Actually, the whole page is in need of an update. - Chuck * (Talk) 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)