Talk:Codex of Ultimate Wisdom

When did he become Avatar?
I had the idea that avatarhood was achieved when the last shrine gives you an eighth. This article has it that it is only achieved when the Codex is liberated. If that's true, no wonder no one else can become an Avatar. AngusM 02:12, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that if its clearly stated somewhere, but Lord British says this in U4: "The Quest of the Avatar is to know and become the embodiment of the Eight Virtues of Goodness! It is known that all who take on this Quest must prove themselves by conquering the Abyss and Viewing the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom!". This somehow implies that to prove you are an Avatar, and therefore really be an Avatar, you must get to the Codex. But then, other texts suggest that you only need to achieve perfection in each virtue. I'm not sure if there is a subtle distinction between being an eight-parts Avatar and having proven yourself as an Avatar by getting to the Codex. At least it IS stated by LB that to complete the Quest of the Avatar, you have to reach the Codex.--Sega381 02:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... so the way I see it, there are 2 issue:
 * becoming the Avatar
 * proving oneself to be the Avatar
 * Becoming isn't the same thing as proving. It seems to me that one becomes by going to the Shrines and proves by doing that Codex thing. I'll wait for more input before I do anything about it, though. AngusM 19:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear that by reaching the Codex, the Stranger completed the Quest of the Avatar and proved himself/herself. When exactly he became the Avatar, is a little less clear. Therefore, I think the best thing to do would be to modify the article to say what we really know, that is, that by reaching the codex he/she finished the Quest of the Avatar and proved him/herself. And do not mention anything about when he really became the Avatar, not at least until we have some evidence.--Sega381 20:17, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, the Codex actually says this: first, "The boundless knowldege fo the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom is revealed unto thee", and then, the Codex says "Thou hast proven thyself to be truly good in nature. Thou must know that thy quest to become an Avatar is the quest of a lifetime. Avatarhood is a living gift. It must always and forever be nurtured to flourish. For if thou dost stray from the paths of virtue, thy way may be lost forever".--Sega381 20:40, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to talk about this, actually - when the Avatar reached the Codex, he didn't complete the Quest of the Avatar at all. The Codex revealed that the Quest of the Avatar is forever, as in, it can't be completed. It's a constant struggle to remain virtuous, and to learn that was the entire point of reaching the Codex in the first place. It's the lesson that's important, not climbing down into an active volcano. And the point of the Quest wasn't to create a super being, it was to provide an example for the people of Britannia to follow - if Avatarhood is unobtainable for everyone but one person, why would anyone else even try? No, Avatarhood is gained by achieving enlightenment in the eight virtues and then not striving from that path. Unfortunately I have very little in the way of cold hard facts to back me up here, but I really think that is what was intended with the whole thing. If we must make a distinction, people in U4 talk about "eight-part Avatars" being able to find the Mystics. Maybe there's a difference between eight-part Avatars and the Avatar, but I truly doubt it. --Warder Dragon 21:57, June 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so what we have is: you get to be an Avatar once you do this, you don't get to be an Avatar until you do something else, and you never get to be an Avatar. The Avatar was supposed to be an example to the people, but I'm pretty sure that he was also supposed to be, maybe not a superbeing, but definitely a being of a different qualification.
 * But we're getting away from the issue here. The issue on this, the discussion page, is when does the Stranger become the Avatar. I had the idea it was not at the end of the game, but before the big finale, which means some of the text should read "Avatar" and not "Stranger". AngusM 03:32, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Lord British also says the following: "It is said that in the deepest recesses of the Abyss is the Chamber of the Codex! It is also said that only one of highest Virtue may enter this Chamber, one such as an Avatar!!!". This implies that someone is already an Avatar when reaching the Codex, saying that the Codex will only let an Avatar enter, not that the Codex will turn someone into an Avatar. Therefore, the entrance to the chamber only has tests to verify that the one trying to get in was in fact an Avatar. Of course, this is not explicitly stated, but I think it's the best approximation when can get.Sega381 14:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I see it more simple. You need to be an eight-part Avatar to even enter, meaning you need to know about the virtues individually. What the Codex does is to test if you actually can also let the virtues work together in harmony, becoming the Avatar of Infinity (the combination of all virtues and principles), as shown by the infinity sign at the end.

So you are an "Aspiring Avatar" by having proven mastership of all eight virtues, thus enabling you to reach the Codex. But to be a true Avatar, you need to pass the test of Infinity.--Tribun 15:20, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * But there's no such thing as an Avatar of Infinity. The Avatar is an Avatar of Virtue, and Infinity is not a virtue. The Axiom of Infinity is that the virtues combine into and are combined from the principles... infinitely. It's definitely an important part of the system of virtues, but it's not what defines the Avatar. The people of Cove - and others - knew all about it long before the Avatar recovered the Codex. I stand by what I said before, and I'm even more convinced now that I saw that LB quote. The Avatar became an Avatar before reaching the Codex, but wasn't fully aware of the extent of the Quest until the Codex divulged that it would last forever. --Warder Dragon 15:27, June 26, 2010

(UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, Warder. Banner removed, then? --Polygoncount 05:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh... I think there needs to be more than banner removal. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that consensus on the timing of Avatarhood is inconsistent w/the text. In which case, it would also have to be changed.
 * It seemed that folks were saying that Avatarhood was achieved when the Stranger meditated at the last shrine. The wording in the article has the "Stranger" reaching the Codex, implying he wasn't the Avatar yet. AngusM 03:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Risen or Stolen ?
I'm surprised this hasn't been brout up before, but I think this is matter worth discussing. Now it seems most if not all the pages related to the Codex on the Ultima Wiki keeps with the Ultima V/Lazarus explanation of the rising of the Codex from the Abyss by the Great Council.

Except... this is an aspect that has very much been retconned from Ultima VI onward. I mean Ultima VI states inevocably that the Avatar seized the Codex at the bottom of the Abyss and brought it back (and also - yes - retconned the Ultima IV ending this way), and this is the explanation that is also put forward in all Britannian Ultima that followed both in-game and inside the manuals.

Now I don't want to be a pain, but usually as far at retcon goes - it is the most current version that should be put forth, especially since the fact that Avatar took the Codex is kind of too important not to be mentionned.

Now I expect some people will bring the theory that you can reconcile this by saying these are just in-universe mistakes from Ultima VI-onward, but as usual I do not feel it is our role to decide that so at the very least the decrepencies and the two version of these events deserves to be mentioned. Thoughts ? --Sergorn 21:24, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since Ultima VI creates a continuity snarl that is absolutely incompartible with the two previous games, and therefore would create an absurd article that contraidicts itself, I was forced to look at the facts, and IV and V provided much more detail and actual gameplay that shows that the Avatar didn't take the Codex, which trumps any kind of later attempt to shove the deed to him.


 * Also you must remember that VI is bad at giving you the facts straight. For the Gargoyles you are the Codex thief merely because you read it and shortly afterward some unknown force, which they assume was the Avatar, stole it. And the humans had the Codex for decades already by then, and that was enough time to created numerous false truths (happens in the real world as well).


 * In conclusion the actual gameplay of Ultima IV is most important, and it proves that the Avatar didn't take it, and the claim in VI is therefore of no substance. (However, I'll mention the problem in the Trivia).--Tribun 22:21, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * No offence - but that's just rationalization. I know you and I are not gonna agree on this in any case, but this is kind of the same issue as the Despise/Shame debate - in that it's not really our place to decide which canon is the "better" one since everybody will have its views on this specific aspects: there are people who will feel the Ultima IV/V version is the better one, but others that would feel Ultima VI is and both are perfectly valid points of view.


 * The issue I see with the trivia bit you just added, is that it considers Ultima IV & V as the unquestionnable fact and that since it contradict the canon of the previous games, Ultima VI is wrong. However... that's why it's called Retroactive Continuity - the point of a retcon is that it replaces and overwrite previous canon, which does not always sit well with fans, but is unfortunately a a part of err... the geeky way of life. Which is why the later retcon (unless later retconned itself), is to take precedence over previous canon, and also why it is not our place to decide which is "better".


 * Basically the issue here is that stating that the Codex canon of Ultima IV/V takes precedance to Ultima VI's would be akin to having all the article reflects the fact that Ultima IV was the Avatar's first journey to Britannia and take it as fact in spite of the retcon clearly applied by Ultima VI (and kept in later games) about this aspect. In both case, we ought to stick to the latest canon especially when it becomes in the end the one who gets the most referenced.


 * I mean, this is not about what you or I prefer, but simply about keeping the wiki as objective as possible, and that include mentioning all these aspects and not just as trivia bits. Rather regarding the whole Codex I feel personally this should more like "The Great Council raised the Codex from the Abyss blablabla. However it was later retconned from Ultima VI onward that the Avatar seized the Codex and brought him back from the Abyss himself." --Sergorn 23:28, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * (conflict when I tried to save)We aren't here to decide canon. So I simply made mention of the fact that it was later attributed to the Avatar in the article itself. -- Fenyx4 23:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment above was written before I read Sergorn's comment (as he committed as I was writing :) ). Seems like we are in agreement that both should be mentioned in the article and one shouldn't be relegated to trivia status. The way I wrote it in the article may have been weaker than Sergorn's example. I wouldn't be opposed if someone felt that it needed to be stronger but I am happy with how it is. -- Fenyx4 23:41, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with the way you have put it, it is somewhat vague enough in order for both side to be happy. I would admit that I'd personally be more inclined to have actual retcons be enforced in term of how lore is presented in the wiki - not in the sense that only rectons should be mentioned, but that they should mentionned as what they are and we shouldn't circle around the retcon issues just to try to keep the lore pages "consistent". Retcons create contradictions by nature, so it's allright to have the contradictory aspects mentionned. So I do feel the article should state explicitely that it was retconned, but I prefere discussing this rather than just do the edit without a consensus --Sergorn 00:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)