Talk:Great Beings

From BIONICLEsector01
Revision as of 20:07, 14 August 2019 by Gonel (talk | contribs) (Re: "Nontribal": new section)

<spoiler>Would it be reasonable to name the disguised Great Being in the list of Great Beings "Velika" under a spoiler tag, since we already know his name was always Velika, or should we wait?</spoiler> The Mirror King 21:23, 2 September 2012 (PDT)

I think your going to need to ask a staffie on that. Besides, even if we got permission to, the page is blocked.--FROGGER0 Ribbit?! Sig/Userbox Services 21:37, 2 September 2012 (PDT)

Less than twenty Great Beings

I wonder if the addition of this quote from LMB is reasonable or not : even if "Not something we have ever revealed" suggest that this information was decided in the time by the Story Team, "but I would say less than 20." seems to be a current supposition/a personal memory of GregF. Du7734 19:19, 3 January 2015 (CET)

Perhaps under trivia; something like "No official population numbers were ever given for the Great Beings, but in an X Date posting by GregF on the LMB, he estimated their numbers to be at "less than 20". If you want. -- Dorek Talk External Image 20:12, 3 January 2015 (CET)
It's fine for me. Sorry for not have been able to edit before, but thank you for having made it, in any case. ;) Du7734 02:11, 4 January 2015 (CET)

Organization vs. Species

In recent years, Greg's answers on the GBs have been moving closer and closersdering them a group of Glatorian, rather than a separate species, and now this quote comes along and says it quite decidedly. I ask the community: to reflect the canon, should we now rewrite this page as an Organization rather than a Species? --Angel Bob (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (CET)

Urg, tough one. I'm... going to lean towards no, myself. Besides the obvious Glatorian page example (what else would we call it?) a lot of species terms are actually just job designations which can change or otherwise be applied to somebody else. Toa is the big one; we tend to consider something a "Toa" until it is biologically not one anymore (like Nidhiki) but in truth, since Toa just means "hero" (thanks for redundancy, Matau!) Nidhiki would have stopped being one the moment of his betrayal. Likewise, Mata Nui and Ignika both call themselves Toa, but they do so before even earning the title.
I don't think the GB's are actually a group of Glatorian (unless Greg comes right out and says that). Unless there's a major retcon as to how and where they get their powers, these entities are markedly different from anything we encounter in the story, which should be enough to set them apart. Annona's description in Sahmad's Tale, too, implies them to be completely new to her.
Personally, I've always imagined them to be aliens (how cool would that be?) based on what little we know about them, but I think that's the point; their true nature is always going to be a little bit mysterious, no matter how many tidbits we get. I'm sure there are a lot of theories that can be made one way or the other, but for now, I feel comfortable with the way we've organized things. -- Dorek Talk External Image 17:14, 3 February 2015 (CET)
I think that the Great Beings are all from different species, and are certain members form those species who, collectively are known as "Great Beings". --Gresh113, Glatorian of Air 17:48, 3 February 2015 (CET)

The quote says that they never specified them as a separate species, but other places he has said that they aren't Glatorian (perhaps not same species as most Glatorian), but as Glatorian is a job description... I saw a rejoining question about this quote, so before we rewrite the page, how about we wait to see how that one pans out? ζoxHistories External Image

Actually Greg confirmed that the GB's are of the Glatorian species on page 823 of Chat with Greg Farshtey, so shouldn't we put it on the page?
I don't have the quote which would confirm it, but I'm pretty sure GregF had stated in the past that he wanted to keep the origins of the Great Beings indefinite. I think we should apply the GregF's precedence rule here: it's kind of an unintentional retcon to me.
On the NIE, we have added this into the trivia section: "Despite the fact that Greg Farshtey has responded several times that the Great Beings could be natives of Spherus Magna and hypothetically be Glatorian and/or Agori in the first place, he had stated in the past that he wanted to keep their origins indefinite." Du7734 19:35, 23 April 2016 (CET)
But he said that they ARE of the Glatorian species, and if Greg said it, it's canon, right?
If it isn't an intentional retcon and if it comes in direct contradiction with an older GregF's statement, it's not: that's how the precedence rule works. But, yeah, to make this properly, we still need (an) appropriate quote(s). Du7734 17:47, 24 April 2016 (CET)
I asked Greg about this, and he said that it was an intentional retcon, or more correctly a reveal, since it didn't go against any of the old stuff. Source: . Since now it's official, the fact that they are Glatorian should be on this wiki.

The whole destruction of the mystique surrounding the Great Beings really disappointed my friend and I. SacredSpirit1337 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars

Guys, if you have edit wars like the one from earlier, remove the citation and discuss it on the appropriate talk page. Do not keep undoing undoing each other's edits, and do not cite a source based on the process of elimination--after all, the correct info may actually be from a Greg citation, as was the case here. Thanks. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2017 (CET)

Re: "Nontribal"

Was hesitating about adding the "nontribal" bit myself as Greg's answer seemed somewhat ambiguous/contradictory; however, I added it since I got the impression that he was saying that the Great Beings don't forget their tribal origins, they just don't care for them as they are more interested in their pursuit of scholarly endeavors. As a group, though, the impression I have is that they're still nontribal in nature, as tribes don't matter so much to them. I won't change it back, oc, but that was my reasoning behind the edit.

--777stairs (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)