Talk:Skull of Mondain

Ultima IX Image of Skull

Okay, I realize the skull's appearance in Ultima IX may have been a blooper on Origin's part, but there are no other pictures of it in Ultima lore... and is there any reason the skull couldn't have looked like that? --Polygoncount 09:15, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Even if it was a blunder or whatever, it is a picture of the Skull in Ultima IX. I know most people don't like Ultima IX and that the game has a lot of problems, but this hate against the game that prevents rational stuff to be added to the article makes no sense. Why can't the picture appear, with a caption like "The skull as seen in Ultima IX"?--Sega381 00:53, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose it's possible that, in-game, the Skull is a replica of the real thing... even I agree it doesn't make sense, but whatever; THAT'S WHAT ENDED UP IN THE GAME AS RELEASED. In the Wiki World where articles without images end up on special pages, I think it is perfectly reasonable to put the skull in there with the caveat that it may or may not be the "true" skull. Besides, Wikis are meant for casual visitors as well as psychos like us who put so much time and effort into documenting classic stuff like this. :) ...Tribun?? --Polygoncount 01:09, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall if it was actually required to cast the skull into the Abyss to gain entrance in Ultima IV - weren't Bell, Book & Candle enough? In any case, what you do is to "cast the skull into the Abyss". Jude claims this would destroy it, but it doesn't say anywhere in the game that the skull was really destroyed. It was just thrown into the Abyss by the Avatar. Hence, the true skull may still exist. (Of course it's another question entirely whether it would be on display in a museum...) 87.164.172.72 13:42, 25 January 2011 (PST)

It's clearly stated in Forge of Virtue, that the skull was destroyed. That makes the action canon.--Tribun 14:40, 25 January 2011 (PST)

Besides repeating myself in that the wiki shouldn't care about what's canon, but include every bit of information it has, I was checking in the Forge of Virtue transcript, and it actually doesn't say anything about the skull being destroyed. It says "'Twould seem that someone let that slip into a volcano...", refering to the skull. So basically it gives the same information as the U4 game, only it assumes that the player did actually throw it into the lava. But it is nowhere explicitly stated that it was destryed, this is just an assumption. Though, I agree, a very logical assumption.--Sega381 09:27, 26 January 2011 (PST)

What is the best perspective on capturing the images of the museum pieces from Ultima IX? Just the artifact itself and should the case be visible as well? --Iceblade (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As long as the artifact is big enough to be clearly seen, I think the case can stay in. Btw., the picte thembnail does need re-sizing as well.--Tribun (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, the item indeed is too small. So if needed, you should neglect the case, the item is the truly important thing.--Tribun (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Minax recovery of the skull

The only reference I have been able to find about Minax's recovery of the skull is this page, and the text there seems to come from no source I can find. So I'm removing that bit from now. If anyone can find a reliable source for these facts, we can re-add them.--Sega381 18:03, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

ARTIfact = ARTIficially made

Mondain's skull is always described as an artifact: it means that it was made by Mondain. If it really is the skull from the head of Mondain, in order to be an ARTI-fact, then someone must have modified it ARTI-ficially. --Abacos (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that was the intention. While you're correct about the definition, we're given no reason to believe it is anything but his own skull. I think your edit introduces unnecessary speculation and would find it preferable to simply not refer to it as an artifact on the wiki. --Terilem (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Terilem is right - I'm going to remove this edit. You're absolutely right about the definition of artifact, Abacos, but not when referring to fantasy worlds. Within the fantasy genre, artifact is commonly used to refer to items of great magical or divine power. I'm fairly sure this originated from Dungeons & Dragons where you've been able to find such esoteric artifacts as the Eye or Hand of Vecna, which are also body parts rather than man-made objects. If it helps, you can think of the enchantment in the skull as the part that is ARTIficially made, rather than the skull itself. --Warder Dragon (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you. Thank you for the good explanation. --Abacos (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (MST)