| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

100 Sword of Sepathok (Disputed)

Page history last edited by K 5 years, 2 months ago

100 Swords of Sepathok

Inothar's Blade of Correct Enumeration

 

Back to Disputed Pages

 

Someone added a false sword on there as number 91 Inothar's Blade of Correct Enumeration (The Miscounted Sworde) and moved the real blade of The Plain Ol' Sword to number 101 giving it the title of (Not technically one, but included for its significance) this is wrong as the plain ol' sword was one of the original 100 and should have it's rightful place on the page.

 

Incorrect. The plain ol' sword was just the blade Gragnakas hid inside the collection to trick Selent. The actual 100th sword was Undarwhom. -Luggage
I think the problem here is whether we include the Plain Ol' Sword in the list of the 100, as Granakas presented them, or outside the set of 100, as it is not one of the actual 100 swords. -TychoCelchuuu
It's not one of the 100 swords that Selent comissioned (as they were all supposed to be enchanted in some way) but it should still be included, as it's still important to the story and it is an important relic. - Luggage
I've added a bit to the page, which should clear up the blade's confusing history. We still have to decide whether this or the Plain Ol' Sword counts as number 91, though (which is kind of ironic). ~Lucres
This all seems to be much ado about nothing. Sepathok is one of the great literary figures of Battal, and so of course his tales will include a very strong and memorable number like "100" to describe his vast number of swords. It should be obvious from the list thus far that "100" is more like a conveniently round number, imposed upon the story by later storytellers. Gragnakas obviously forged more than 100 swords, so its silly to insist that "this set of 100" comprises "THE set of 100." It seems to me that 100 is more a cultural way of saying "damn, Sepathok has a lot of swords." In fact, I think I'll go add this theory to the page.
No, these 100 were the hundred commissioned by Selent after he kindapped Granakas' family. They're a very specific set, but there are of course mroe than 100 of them. -TychoCelchuuu
I have updated the 100 Swords of Sepathok page and the Swords page in literary criticism to reflect this debate. I think I got it right this time.
The Plain Ol' sword still isn't part of the collection, and should be below Undarwhom. -Luggage

 

Okay, I have edited the 100 Swords page (particularly the "On the Number of Swords" section) and thus hopefully removed the necessity of the discussion at the bottom of that page. That discussion is now archived below. I also moved the sword blurbs from the 100 swords page into the individual sword pages, resolving contradiction and redundancy when necessary. I have not been so bold as to remove the {disputed} tag from the top of that page, but hopefully we can soon do so.- 256

 

That seemed a bit overbold, 256. You removed a lot of previous work with your revision. I've reverted it to Luggage's changes, but before whacking swords off the list you should consider why others put them there. I think acknowledging the debate as part of the overall world of Battal is a much more prudent course than deciding unilaterally which swords qualify as part of the set.

 

 

Really? The only sword I removed from the list was Forgerye. And I didn't remove it from the page, I simply moved the link from the list to the "On the Number of Swords" section. And the other stuff which was removed from that page was not deleted, but rather moved to the pages of the individual swords, which seems like the more logical place for it. I have nothing but respect for the previous contributors to the page; I do however think that those edits I made were strongly in favour of clarity. This is the link to my version of the page for those who would like to compare. -256
I actually prefer 256's. It makes more sense to have each sword's history in their articles, and since Forgerye is non-canonical, it shouldn't really be counted in the set. -Luggage
I think it's fine to have the sword's history in their articles. What I don't understand was removing the sections where I made it canonically okay to have more than 100 swords listed among the 100 swords. There's clearly some dispute among fans as to the exact number of swords and which constitute the "real" 100 or if the "real" set is even truly limited to 100, and I think that should be reflected in the article instead of insisting that there are exactly and only 100 swords worthy of listing here. This is particularly complicated by the fact that only 99 of the swords were given cards in the CCG, and "the 100" were not all named until the card game, meaning the name and description of the final sword are kind of up in the air based on individual interpretations of the books.
Err... those were in there. -Luggage

 

The reason for their being 101 swords on the list is that the magic of Inothar's Blade of Correct Enumeration (perhaps combined with the power of The Forgotten Falchion) caused Gragnakas to believe that he had created more swords than he actually had. Thus, when the time came to deliver the hundred swords to King Selent, it was brought to his attention that he was actually one blade short.

 

This realization caused Gragnakas to toss The Plain Ol' Sword in to the collection as the hundredth sword at the last second. Convinced that the King would eventually discover this deception, Gragnakas immediately began work on Undarhwhom, intending to use it to defend himself and his family from the rage of the king at that time. As such, there is some dispute as to whether The Plain Ol' Sword or Undarhwhom should be considered the true hundredth sword. In fact, there is a third argument suggesting that The Plain Ol' Sword and Undarhwhom are both part of the "official one hundred" and that it is in fact The Forgotten Falchion which is the odd blade out seeing as Sepathok never possessed it and these are, after all, the 100 swords of Sepathok.

 

This is what it was changed to. Basically, this looks like an attempt to limit the 100 to 100, or possibly 101. I re-reverted the page to 256's changes, then updated the "Number of Swords" section to properly render the debate. Everyone cool now?

 

I am quite happy with the current revision. Glad we could work together on it. -256

 

so maybe Gragnakas created the 100 swords (Including The Plain Ol' Sword, as the description does show it is magic) forgot about the falchion, so then slipped the non-canonnical sword in to makeup the 100 before creating the sword of irony, this would explain everything i feel -Shriike

Discussion

 

Is the list in order of their finding by Sepathok, or their creating by Gragnakas? Would it be correct to refer to a sword like the Knife of Mildly Annoying Papercuts as the 27th Sword of Sepathok, the 2nd (or whichever) Sword by Gragnakas? - Kemper
I can't get the link for The General's Demonblade of Maiming +2 (sword #4) to work no matter what I try. Someone with wikiexperience needs to do it. -TychoCelchuuu
I believe links with "+" symbols in them do not work. You have to either omit the "+" (as it was done for the Longsword +6) or simply write "plus" instead. -Izzy
I realize that, but omitting the plus still doesn't work. You try it. -TychoCelchuuu
Fixed. You need to put in a space instead of the plus sign. -Izzy
Slightly different question...if the swords were forged in 16,567, and Sepathok killed Gragnakas for the 100th sword...but Sepathok lived during the Magic Sword King Period...did the other 99 get sent back later, then Sepathok traveled forward to obtain the last sword, then brought it back to the MSK period to create the legend that would provide Gragnakas with the inspiration for the swords in the first place? Sorry, I just always had issues getting my head around circular causality. - Desmos
The whole Verdant Anguish thing was retconned out, and Shezdor's journey now takes place just before the Elemenstor cycle.
Alright...but that still doesn't explain how Sepathok gathered the swords during the MSK period in the first place, if he had to kill Gragnakas for the 100th sword, or when the swords initially went back to the MSK...does it? God, this is why I always hated mentions of timesorc'ley...
He gathered them only a few years after Gragnakas made them, not during MSK
Why couldn't the Verdant Anuerism been the one to kill Gragnakas? Sure would make things easier..
Guess it was already fixed that way - Holy Crap How Do I Fix This
Done. Two last swords described. No need to thank me. - Jake
Added in a 100th sword. Since Plain Old Sword was a decoy the list was missing a sword. POS #91 is now #101- Quasispace
Err... shouldn't all the post Shezdor sword stuff be put into their respective articles?-Luggage

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.