Talk: Eternal

God

The God section seems like it should be "Holy Light" instead of God, since the human religion never mentions a single deity. Although it alludes to Catholicism in many ways, it never explicitly talks about God. Unless there's some citeable info for God in the RPG or elsewhere, I'd suggest rewriting this section to focus more on the Holy Light instead of a deity. User:Montag/sig 23:17, 6 January 2007 (EST)

Its old lore from Warcraft I, II and III manuals, and hinted on in other sources as well. Sources actually uses that term. It doesn't fit "Holy Light" as we know it. BTW this whole article should probably be moved to the term "Eternal" as that's what is used in the RPG for all gods/demigods, etc.Baggins 04:27, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Eternal is too obscure of a term. "Gods, demigods, and Immortals" makes more sense for the content, seeing as how I have never heard the term "Eternal" any WC games, novels, manuals, or the encyclopedia. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:46, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Cough... the term is mentioned at least once in World of Warcraft... [1]Baggins 13:34, 13 January 2007 (EST)

That doesn't actually prove anything, Baggins, apart from the fact that the term exists. Need I remind you how many definitions of "Ancient" there are?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:18, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I don't actually have to "prove" anything. All I have to do is list information, cite sources, etc. I don't go out of my way to find contradictions or to try to perceive contradictions in sources. Although understandably there is room for different interpretations for some subjects when it is vaguely written.

As for other terms such as "gods" it actually still links to this term. So people will be able to search for that, or type that in if they are looking for this subject.Baggins 14:27, 13 January 2007 (EST)

Eh, there are worse things.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:30, 13 January 2007 (EST)

According to this page, http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/encyclopedia/417.xml It clearly states there are no omnipotent or omniscient god(s) in the Warcraft universe. I'm going to take out the "God" section and add this new information instead. Death Wing 02:01, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Worthwhile information. However, the God section does not mention anything about omniscience or immortality. There's no reason why Warcraft's "God" need be any different from Elune. I'm not going to rollback just yet, so as not to start an edit war, but I recommend we keep the section until it's disproven, retconned or directly contradicted. User:Montag/sig 20:38, 4 February 2007 (EST)

The problem with that section is that it isn't verifiable. If Blizzard states such things, I'm all for adding it in here. However the closest it comes to talking about how the universe was first created was in the Undead section of the Warcraft 3 manual when it talks about Sargeras and the Titans. It says something to the effect of, "No one really knows how the universe was created...". Blizzard left it open on purpose because they wanted Warcraft's universe to be more cosmic in nature rather than religious like Diablo's (which incidentally doesn't mention god either). Death Wing 20:18, 13 February 2007 (EST)

God section relates to Warcraft I manual, and some material in Warcraft II manual. I've put the warnings in it that its from Warcraft I lore and may not exist in current lore as we know it.Baggins 22:28, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. It seems like information about god has been retconned since then though, so I added that in the speculation area. Death Wing 02:49, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Ya, that's fine. That's kind of the point of the individual source templates. They mention where the source came from, and that it may not exist in other sources of lore.Baggins 02:53, 14 February 2007 (EST)

If it was retconned out that is the end of it. I thought they explained that the existance of "God" in warcraft was a falce belief and the "holy light" was true. No rumor there.--SWM2448 16:45, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

There will be no name change

I really don't like calling this page "Eternals" (largely because it's very rarely used). Does anyone have any suggestions other than "gods"? The only thing I can come up with is "Immortals", the category where most of these beings would be listed in Blizzard's own encyclopedia. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:41, 4 February 2007 (EST)

I never heard the term "Eternals" myself. It also seems to insinuate that they are immortal when that's not true. They can die. How about Deities? Death Wing 20:24, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Well, the encyclopedia points out that there is no question that immortality is not a permanent state but that's the name of the category in question nonetheless. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Just pointing out that by some definitions of "Immortal" an immortal can die. He just can't die of natural cuases, but certainly being killed by another god, or immortal is feasible by most legends.Baggins 22:29, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Isn't that what I said (sans examples)? Blizzard does take that into account.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 22:55, 13 February 2007 (EST)

The only other suggestion I can think of would be "Endless," which is a Neil Gaiman term, and which I actually would not recommend we use. I say we go with Immortals. User:Montag/sig 02:25, 14 February 2007 (EST)

I don't think Immortals is a good name. The night elves were immortal at one time, but they aren't appropriate for this category. What's wrong with Deities? Even the Titans are refered to as such. Death Wing 02:43, 14 February 2007 (EST)

The only reason "Immortals" works better is because that's the category that Blizzard's encyclopedia puts them in. However, "Deities" might actually be better, considering that Velen, Kil'jaeden, and Illidan are also immortals. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 10:19, 14 February 2007 (EST)

You'd have to remove things out of the article that aren't officially "deities" though. If you use that term. In anycase, even if we moved this article, the Term "Eternals" would either have to have its own article, or have a write up within this article, as its also an "official" term.Baggins 10:22, 14 February 2007 (EST)

The whole point of "deities" is that it doesn't have an official connotation- whereas "Immortals" and "Gods" have specific definitions. If we went with Immortals, we'd need to add Illidan, Archimonde, Kil'jaeden, Velen, and no small number of dreanei. If we go with Gods, everything except Elune, Hakkar, and the Old Gods are removed. Deities (or even Eternals, though I still think it's to obscure of a term), perhaps through lack of an official definition, works, as even demigods are teh objects of reverence. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 11:53, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Yea I think Deities can work fine in this article. Everything discussed in this article can easily fall into the category of Deities as well. Nothing needs to be taken out at all. Death Wing 21:38, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Well its said that while their may be cults that worship the aspects they aren't deities, and laugh at the notion, and would never would bless anyone who venerated them.Baggins 17:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The titans don't bless their followers either (Aspects excepted). Another reason for the name change: "Eternals" and "Ethereals" look far too similar for the font we use. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:35, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Well there is the difference sources have stated that Titans are "deities", where as, as far as I know Aspects are said not to be "deiities". Unless you have an example of a source specifically stating that aspects are deities?Baggins 19:52, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Then we remove the Aspects from the page (even though they are deities in the same way the titans are). Unless you'd prefer Most powerful beings. Bottom line: Eternals doesn't really work. -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:09, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Omnipotent beings? Supreme beings? Ancient power (which is a synonym for Eternal given in Shadows & Light)?

Actually btw, there are people known as the Sister of steel, who believe they are directly blessed by the Titan, Khaz'goroth with the ability to turn their skin to stone.

Oh, and one more thing of note, the WoW Encyclopedia entry on Immortals, is mainly an article on the nature of immortality(its affects, what causes it, etc), and covers all "immortal races"(note that the term is always lower case).

"Eternals" on the other hand is a term that is always uppercase, it does not have the same direct meaning of "immortal" although Eternals are also "immortal" something RPG, and other sources state as well (there is no disagreement on that designation, even the Eternals article in the RPG mentions that fact). Night Elves while once being immortal, were not "Eternals". Additionally usually "killing" an "Eternal" only destroys their physical being, but not their spiritual side.-Baggins 11:28, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Aspects are deities because the definition of "deity" is broad enough to include anything on this article. There's no hard definition. Basically we have to know what this article is supposed to be about. Ok, we want an article on the gods and god-like beings in Warcraft. Well, that's basically what a deity is. There is no "official" word for the category we are looking for so we have to make it up if we want this article to exist. We could go for the blunt, Gods and God-Like Beings if we wanted. But Deities is a lot simpler. Death Wing 02:32, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Am I saying that deities is the perfect replacement? Absolutely not. But Eternals doesn't work, in my opinion, so we either rename it Deities, or we remove Aspects, demigods, and Titans, and call it "Gods". -_Ragestorm (talk · contr) 09:45, 17 February 2007 (EST)

How about a vote? Death Wing 18:27, 17 February 2007 (EST)

Term "Eternals" used yet again in Monster Guide, 2007...Baggins 13:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Cite and example, as the majority of us don't lay hands on the RPG books for various reasons (cash, for one).--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 14:28, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Sure thing, one example is under Quilboar article;

"Quilboar revere Agamaggan - an ancient, boarlike Eternal associated with the night elves - believing him to be the progeniator of their race. Where his blood spilled, it is told, patches of enormous briars sprouted to serve as homes to the quilboar. These dens still exist."Baggins 15:10, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Well we only got two citings of Eternals, while Gods would require to remove alot and Immortals to add alot, so i'd say we change it to Dieties, as it seems most people agrees with that -Rovdyr 16:56, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Point of note, Titans are said to be "gods from the far reaches of the cosmos" in the Sunwell Trilogy.Baggins 21:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well actually there is at least one refrence to "Eternals" in all sourcebooks published since Shadows & Light (even some released before S&L).Baggins 00:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

This article is definitely about Eternals now, and quotes in introduction is much expanded upon from when this arguement first began, and are direct quotes from S&L, bringing the quotes to far more than just two citings, demigods has its own article now. As for people wanting a reference to more quotes for Eternal;

Most of the divine beings of Azeroth (known as Eternals) are distant entities. They exist to assist those caught in the conflicts of a cruel, violent world.

Healers find their power in the world around them or in the spirits or Eternals they venerate.

Although the shaman may seem wise and serene at first glance, he is a formidable foe; and when angered, his wrath is as fierce as those who have a connection to the Eternals or nature.

...Weapon proficiency with the faith’s or Eternal’s favored weapon.

Religion (Eternals, Titans, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, the Scourge and other undead)

Although the Holy Light is not a conduit to the Eternals, its code of morality is strong enough for devotees to honor and believe in.

Artifacts and Eternals are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

However, in the case of a creature atoning for deliberate misdeeds and acts of a knowing and willful nature, they must intercede with one's faith or Eternal.

A healer who has lost the ability to cast spells by incurring the anger of his or her faith or Eternal may regain that ability by seeking atonement from another healer of the same faith or Eternal.

...healers of chaotic Eternals or faiths...

...healer of an evil Eternal...

...healers or paladins of good Eternals or faiths...

...healers of lawful Eternals or faiths...

Nothing short of a mind blank spell or the direct intervention of an Eternal keeps one from learning the exact location of a single individual or object.

Eternals and other beings who rule a planar realm can prevent a gate from opening in their presence or personal demesnes if they so desire.

Eternals and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord.

One doesn’t so much cast a miracle as request one. He states what he would like to have happen and requests that his Eternal (or the power he prays to for spells) intercedes.

In any event, a request that is out of line with the Eternal’s or faith’s (or alignment’s) nature is refused.

The community has a permanent structure dedicated to the worship of one or more Eternals.

The entire community holds the same devout spiritual belief, worshipping an Eternal or another power — from the Cult of the Damned to the satyr communities of Ashenvale Forest still hoping for the return of Lord Xavius.

Ten thousand years ago, an Eternal boar named Agamaggan fought in the battle against the first coming of the Burning Legion.

Malygos the Spellweaver (male blue wyrm Eternal) is the blue Dragon Aspect, and the master of the blue dragonflight.

Many think that ursa totemics are infused with the power of the twin bear demigods (Ursoc and Ursol; Eternals).

The night elves turned to nature and their Eternals for protection instead, and over the centuries they developed a deep and abiding love for the world and all its creatures.

Gnomes are far less likely to follow the path of divine magic. Most of them are too grounded in earthly desires and too distracted by intellectual pursuits to become devout, or even to pay much attention to the various Eternals and philosophies.

Quilboar revere Agamaggan — an ancient, boarlike Eternal associated with the night elves — believing him to be the progenitor of their race.

...and many many more. BTW, if anyone is curious the term Eternal was apparently developed by Bob Fitch and Tim Campbell. Bob Fitch is one of World of Warcraft game designers, and has history with the Warcraft video games. Also Eternal is now integrated into individual related articles at this point. There will not be a name change.Baggins 08:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dead tags

Dead tags on Eternals is a tricky matter considering that;

A number of the Eternals died during the War of the Ancients. This doesn’t, however, mean that those powers can have no influence in later eras. Many of the fallen powers still have followers 10,000 years later, such as the furbolg who follow in the path of the long-dead ursine demigods Ursoc and Ursol. Further, though written history says they perished, can Eternals who possess the special quality of immortality truly die? Perhaps a “fallen” Eternal simply sleeps away centuries while his wounds heal…?

This hints that Eternals do not necessarily die. Like Cenarius, Malorne is also said to possibly live in the Emerald Dream or with his wife, Elune. Even, Aviana is still said to spy and send messenges to modern races. I'd say information of that sort is probably best left to the individual articles themselves.Bagginstalk § contr18:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

True. Note: we don't actually know if Elune and Malorne are married or whatever. And no, the sig isn't working as planned. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Night elves

Interesting I found a reference to night elves being described as "deific" at one time until the loss of the world tree. This of course doesn't make them "Eternals" but its interesting.Baggins 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The term was invented by Metzen

...and also Bob Fitch.

One final challenge remained,though: naming the template. “Immortal” didn’t feel right; although “divine” was used in Warcraft III for units such as Cenarius, it also felt a bit awkward. So, Bob Fitch and Chris Metzen (the main Warcraft guy at Blizzard) got together and came up with… “Eternal”!(White Wolf Quarterly, Fall 2004)

So ya, anyone that still hates the term, blame "the main Warcraft guy at Blizzard", and not the RPG.--Baggins 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the Gronn

Do the Gronn count? I can't see any reason why they shouldn't. Meneldir 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's also no source stating that they should. -- Dark T Zeratul 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the beastiery says that they are rumored to be the Progenitors of the Ogre Race, and they are described as Immortal Demigod's here, although that's not a source we can use for it. Meneldir 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comic info

The comic's seem to mention a previously unheard of ancient, the Original Lo'Gosh. Meneldir 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cenarius

As read from "War of the Ancients" trilogy, Cenarius is the child from Ysera and Malorne isn't it? Why it is referred to be Elude child?

XMaverick 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Elune was the mother of Cenarius by Malorne the Waywatcher. Ysera, the Green Dragon Aspect, raised Cenarius as his foster-mother, imparting his close connection to the Emerald Dream. When I track down a source I can cite, I'll include that information in the article, but I know this has been established in print. Fir bholg (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft encyclopedia on the official site. Knaak also mentioned this in an interview, but he envisioned Ysera and Malorne in a relationship themselves, when the encyc clarifies they were close friends.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Xavius

How can Xavius be an ancient? As far as I know he was a night elf, then a satyr. Ancients are demigods of the forest, Xavius was a mortal turned demon. Xavius, the Satyr Lord 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The top highborne were godly.--SWM2448 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Only insofar as they thought themselves to be gods compared to the "lesser" night elves. Xavius was definitely not an ancient. -- Dark T Zeratul 01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When he took on great powers he turned into both a demonic being and an ancient according to the RPG (all relevant citations have been given in related pages). The RPG lists him consistently as an ancient under lists of all the Ancients. The same occured with Azshara who became an ancient due to her gained powers. The other qualifying aspect of being an ancient is groups of people begin to worship you as one (I.E. Satyrs began to worship Xavius, and various races worship Azshara). Were they originally ancients? No, but they became ones over time.

On a related note I probably should point out that Aviana is similar in the respect that she originally wasn't an ancient but became one as she was granted power by Elune.

It should probably be also pointed out that Shadows & Light discusses the possibility of other mortals or immortals becoming Eternals and/or Ancients, if given powers by other Eternals.--Baggins 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

archangels and archdemons

Is there any source that suggest these beings- if they exist- are automatic eternals?--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Archimonde is listed as an Eternal and he is an Archdemon. Archdemons are the antithesis of Archangels.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The only Warcraft reference to archangels I've ever seen predates the introduction of the Eternal classification. If there's an RPG reference I don't know about, cite it. Archimonde could also be an archdemon who happens to be an Eternal, or an Eternal who happens to be an archdemon. It is also possible that archdemon isn't a specific classification and is just a term people use to describe a demon who commands other demons.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

People described a lot of creatures as gods or demi-gods and they made it in here.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they have citations. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them have citations. Also for an example of people calling a being something higher, the Satyrs called Xavius a demi-god and now he is on the list.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 13:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impresstion that Xavius used the Eternal template in the RPG. If I'm wrong, Baggins and I will argue over whether or not to remove him. The core of my point is that we know nothing about archdemons except that Archimonde was one. Kil'jaeden probably was one too, but Mannoroth and Tichondrius would fit the definition too, and they weren't eternals. You're acting under the assumption that one begets the other, which doesn't work. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolandius your arguement was flawed if you would check the table of contents for Shadows & Light you would see that Xavius was infact categorized as an Eternal under the direct article on Eternals, as was Queen Azshara. That wasn't an assumption it was based on direct citations.Baggins (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your argument for erasing a lot of people from the page is also flawed. The page says right on top, and I quote, "Eternal is the term used for the gods, goddesses, demigods, deities, and some demons in the Warcraft universe. Eternals are the divine-like beings of Azeroth, and the other planes who shape the large arcs of history for good and ill." Almost all the people you erased are eternals under that definition. Also the game says many fit under that description, yet you erased them. If the game itself isn't even a valid source, why have this website?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The top line is commentary. It isn't a statement even form the book. To be fair only the definition utilizing the affecteding the world of Azeroth needs to be taken into account. Secondly alot of your additions were pure speculation, and didn't even fit into the azeroth rule, or some of the other rules from the book. I'll tell you again Xavius is categorized as an Eternal in the book and an Ancient.

Finally if the game specfically says something is an Eternal that can be taken into acount. But one shouldn't speculate if something is an eternal based on use of "god" diety" etc, if something else contradicts that evidence, especially the book's definitions. Besides demigod has its own articles.Baggins (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay when the sentence was there is wasn't speculation. The sentence was wrong not me. Second, the majority of those were not speculation. It seems like if it isn't in an RPG book you don't count it. For instance, I don't know who wrote it, but Omen's page says he is a demigod who was blessed by Elune and to defeat him you can use Elune's candle. But you said nope he is an ancient only. I think you should make a page for deities, gods, goddesses, and etc. just like you did with the worlds page  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the RPG ever uses the term eternal, so you mmust avoid assuming you know who and what eternals are. The RPG only talks about their history as being creatures involved with Azeroth's history. If you accuse me of being biased again, you will have problems. Btw, omen is still in the article I just moved him into the Ancients section, since his description fits ancients, and all Ancients are specifically Eternals according to the book. Although if you like we could remove it altogether.Baggins (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do. I am just telling you what his page says. Someone wrote demigod.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy

Going by definition of Eternal it seems that while they may travel the planes they at least need to have some kind of direct connection to Azeroth, and altering its history and the world itself. So we may need to remove anything that isn't remotely connected to Azeroth.

Also they at least actual gods, demigods or listed as an Eternal in an official source before they go on this list. We should avoid anything that is just worshiped as a god, but not necessarily an actual god or demigod, and has no citations connecting them to Eternals. Otherwise Ner'zhul could be added to this list... Even the night elves were said to have godlike powers but they were not eternals.

Also just being immortal doesn't make one an Eternal otherwise night elves could go on the list...Baggins (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not since the felling of the World Tree. :( --Sky (t · c · w) 07:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is an easy one, since the naaru are thought to be immortal and are not eternal. Also like you said the Lich King isn't an eternal. That is why I put Entropius back because he isn't worshipped as a god, but instead is called a god by the game.  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 07:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant listed as "former", but if you go by S&L there is nothing in the articles to imply they were ever Eternals. Alot of things are called "gods' in game that doesn't mean they are Eternals. Especially things not from Azeroth, that never historically altering the course of history of changing the planet as the definition of Eternal states must be done.Baggins (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On the page for Eternals the definition is: "Eternal is the term used for the gods, goddesses, demigods, deities, and some demons in the Warcraft universe. Eternals are the divine-like beings of Azeroth and the other planes, who shape the large arcs of history for good and ill".  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 09:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.Baggins (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay what do you mean by fixed? Fixed as in you changed it or fixed as in some source says something different than the previous quote, which was up there who knows how long?  Rolandius  (talk - contr) 10:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The previous sentence was not even remotely a quote. It was an "observation".Baggins (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gul'dan

So adding to the confusion about Gul'dan's ever-shifting powers and abilities: is he truly dead? His skull had conversations with Ner'zhul and it seems Deathwing as well, which would imply he is in some form not truly dead, as if his spirit remains. Perhaps he's an Eternal? Granted, neither of those people are known to be particularly sane, but it makes me wonder why Blizzard keeps dragging him back up, is he alive in some form like Xavius? Maybe he's going to make a return. Lckyluke372 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make him an Eternal, just something different. Why does Blizzard keep dragging him up? he's a very effective and significant villain. Don't sign anything in an article again. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant "why do they keep dragging him up" in the context of do they have future plans for him, he's undoubtedly one of the most evil, powerful, lore-important and popular villains in the lore. And when did i sign something in an article? Lckyluke372 (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, didn't mean to put that there, I guess I did that while trying to edit this page my bad. Lckyluke372 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We've no idea whether or not Blizzard has future plans. It's possible that Gul'dan is part of Illidan's insanity, absorbed with the Skull, but with Illidan dead, it's unclear whether Gul'dan is gone for good or if he's now subtly influencing the players who have the Skull trinkets. Anyway, this conversation is now officially non-editorial, so it must cease unless it goes to usertalk, this is not a forum. --Ragestorm (talk · contr) 13:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Solus the Eternal

Would Solus the Eternal count as an eternal? Rolandius (talk - contr) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt it.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I guess it could just mean like eternal as in lives a long time or something. Rolandius (talk - contr) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ula-tek

It's believed to be a old god inside the background not outside.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)