Zemouregal and the Staff of Armadly + Mahjaratt Speculation

[Den]

*sigh* Jagex really like their locked doors. #-o :wall: -.-

 

 

 

[a b c]

[hide=]

*sigh* Jagex really like their locked doors. #-o :wall: -.-

 

 

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Oh great, not another one!

 

I hope we can know what is for soon.

[Obtaurian]

I always assumed that Zaros knew the identities of the chief conspirators. He cursed Viggora (the human in the ghostly robes quest) to become a ghost as he was supposed to be of one of Zamoraks closest supporters who fought Zaros' guards with the other Majharat and Lord Draken.

 

 

 

This is a very good point.

 

 

 

Correction Zaros cursed no-one

 

 

 

The curse befell those who had brought the staff from its temple to kill Zaros.

 

 

 

It was a natural curse resulting from playing a part in slaying a god not an actual curse cast out by anyone

 

 

 

This entire thread is about speculating on the future of the zemergoul/mahjaratt stroy line.

 

 

 

I do not need to write assume every other word.

 

 

 

Also if you read back over my posts you'll not i highlight bit that we have been told from quests etc as fact or we know that. Then proceed to say what i think this suggest

 

 

 

My problem is that you keep declaring your opinions as fact. I'm not asking you to use the word assume before you start a sentence. I'm asking you to separate what we know from what you think.

 

 

 

And yet again I say to you if you read my posts back I make clear distinction of what is fact. Virtually all my posts take form of we known that and that which means this is likely or it is probably that such and such because of x y and z

 

 

 

Its not my fault if your not bright enough to distinguish where i switch between the too unless I put up a huge flag pole between them. I used reasoned argument where each sentence contains a theory and the reasoning

 

 

 

In that case, let me rephrase:

 

 

 

Your knowledge of Runescape lore is terrible.

 

 

 

Also, you should really do DT again, then do the ghostly robes miniquest. The ghosts clearly state that Zaros cursed them.

 

 

 

Hence the name, CURSE OF ZAROS.

[Sy_Accursed]

"As the Empty Lord faded from this world completely, Viggora heard his voice, almost a whisper upon the wind, cursing all who helped Zamorak in his victory"

 

 

 

That is the exact quote from the story it can however be read in two ways.

 

 

 

The first way is that as he "died" Zaros cast a curse upon them

 

 

 

The second suggests simply that Zaros cursed as in swore revenge or hatred of them as he faded whihc then wholey implies the curse to befall them was a simple act of the magical universe for slaying a god rather than a direct curse upon them.

 

 

 

Happy now? Or are you still too thick headed to accept things can have many interpretations?

[Obtaurian]

"As the Empty Lord faded from this world completely, Viggora heard his voice, almost a whisper upon the wind, cursing all who helped Zamorak in his victory"

 

 

 

That is the exact quote from the story it can however be read in two ways.

 

 

 

The first way is that as he "died" Zaros cast a curse upon them

 

 

 

The second suggests simply that Zaros cursed as in swore revenge or hatred of them as he faded whihc then wholey implies the curse to befall them was a simple act of the magical universe for slaying a god rather than a direct curse upon them.

 

 

 

Happy now? Or are you still too thick headed to accept things can have many interpretations?

 

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Which scenario seems more logical to you?

 

 

 

"...cursing all who helped Zamorak in his victory." Ironically enough, they were ACTUALLY cursed when Zaros cursed them!

 

 

 

"then wholey implies the curse to befall them was a simple act of the magical universe for slaying a god rather than a direct curse upon them."

 

 

 

Now, where did this information come from? Oh, it's completely speculation.

 

 

 

You see? Speculation is great, but not when it's based on NOTHING, and there's a much simpler and more obvious deduction to make.

 

 

 

Also, knock it off with the name calling. We're not twelve here.

[Sy_Accursed]

"As the Empty Lord faded from this world completely, Viggora heard his voice, almost a whisper upon the wind, cursing all who helped Zamorak in his victory"

 

 

 

That is the exact quote from the story it can however be read in two ways.

 

 

 

The first way is that as he "died" Zaros cast a curse upon them

 

 

 

The second suggests simply that Zaros cursed as in swore revenge or hatred of them as he faded whihc then wholey implies the curse to befall them was a simple act of the magical universe for slaying a god rather than a direct curse upon them.

 

 

 

Happy now? Or are you still too thick headed to accept things can have many interpretations?

 

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Which scenario seems more logical to you?

 

 

 

"...cursing all who helped Zamorak in his victory." Ironically enough, they were ACTUALLY cursed when Zaros cursed them!

 

 

 

"then wholey implies the curse to befall them was a simple act of the magical universe for slaying a god rather than a direct curse upon them."

 

 

 

Now, where did this information come from? Oh, it's completely speculation.

 

 

 

You see? Speculation is great, but not when it's based on NOTHING, and there's a much simpler and more obvious deduction to make.

 

 

 

Also, knock it off with the name calling. We're not twelve here.

 

 

 

Its not based on nothing though.

 

 

 

It based on solid fact of the story.

 

 

 

The story gives no definite answer either way.

 

 

 

And both circumstances I've drawn from it are perfectly reasonable meanings given by those words.

 

 

 

The view point of a literally magical curse comes from the magical definition of "curse" as in to cast a curse upon someone

 

The view point of a curse by chance comes from the other definition of "curse" as in to swear

 

 

 

Both use equal amounts of fact and guess work.

 

 

 

The first interpretation has the fact of the words but has no proof that a magical curse has been cast

 

The second has the fact of the words and the common fantasy rule that slaying a god cause bad things but has no proof this rule works within the runescape world

 

 

 

Neither is more or less unlikely than the other as both have the exact same support to thier being true so neither is more or less obvious, logical or speculative.

[Obtaurian]

Oh God. -.- Here goes nothing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not based on nothing though.

 

 

 

It based on solid fact of the story.

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

The story gives no definite answer either way.

 

It gives an extremely blatant and obvious clue, which I've already pointed out.

 

 

 

And both circumstances I've drawn from it are perfectly reasonable meanings given by those words.

 

No they are not. Your speculative version is based on the definition of the word "cursed", while ignoring the fact that THE GHOSTS ARE IN FACT CURSED.

 

 

 

The view point of a literally magical curse comes from the magical definition of "curse" as in to cast a curse upon someone

 

Bingo.

 

 

 

The view point of a curse by chance comes from the other definition of "curse" as in to swear

 

I would agree that this is the case, except that THE GHOSTS WERE ACTUALLY CURSED.

 

 

 

Both use equal amounts of fact and guess work.

 

No, the first deduction is logical, based on evidence. The second, while not being completely extraordinary, is null when compared to the more obvious answer.

 

 

 

The first interpretation has the fact of the words but has no proof that a magical curse has been cast

 

But there IS proof! THE GHOSTS ARE CURSED!

 

 

 

The second has the fact of the words and the common fantasy rule that slaying a god cause bad things but has no proof this rule works within the runescape world

 

This is Runescape. This might be true for a billion other MMORPG's, but we're playing RUNESCAPE, and in RUNESCAPE, there is no evidence to suggest that slaying a God automatically causes a curse to befall you.

 

 

 

Neither is more or less unlikely than the other as both have the exact same support to thier being true so neither is more or less obvious, logical or speculative.

 

Actually, the scenario in which Zaros curses everybody who helped Zamorak, and then they ACTUALLY BECOME CURSED, is pretty solid.

[Sy_Accursed]

Seriously you are trying to make me out as dumb yet you cannot see or accept that the story can be read in two ways?

 

 

 

Lets try this one more time

 

 

 

WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING.

 

 

 

Therefore a story can have more than one meaning, unless you are the writer you CANNOT say with any certainty which meaning its meant to be.

 

 

 

Thousands of people in this world spend hundreds of hours studying books, poems, essays, diaries, memoirs etc in this thing called Literature writing essays about the different ways each thing can be intpreted based on the duality of meaning that almost any sentence can contain.

 

 

 

Sure each person will favour a different view point on the matter but anyone with a good amount of common sense will be able to admit there are more ways to interpret things.

 

 

 

It shows even in runescape where on a quest release day two people reading the same dialogue in a quest will go and try two complete different things to further the quest.

 

 

 

The story has two possible meanings you think the literal cursing of them is more likely. I prefer the idea of a natural curse for slaying a god. Both are equally feasible based on the wording of the story.

 

 

 

The great difference here is I am open minded enough to agree there is another way to read it, but i base my specualtion on my personal view on the matter you on the other hand are so close minded you cannot see the possible other meanings in it.

 

 

 

Hell if you asked a few litertaure students I'm sure we culd find 5 or 6 perfeclt plasuible meanings of that story fragment.

[Death]

I always assumed that Zaros knew the identities of the chief conspirators. He cursed Viggora (the human in the ghostly robes quest) to become a ghost as he was supposed to be of one of Zamoraks closest supporters who fought Zaros' guards with the other Majharat and Lord Draken.

 

 

 

This is a very good point.

 

 

 

I thought that he said that Zaros put out a curse that generically affected everyone who had a hand in his death (I.E. the ghosts from the Ghostly Robes all lead to the human who fought with Zamorak)

[Obtaurian]

Seriously you are trying to make me out as dumb yet you cannot see or accept that the story can be read in two ways?

 

 

 

Lets try this one more time

 

 

 

WORDS HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING.

 

 

 

Therefore a story can have more than one meaning, unless you are the writer you CANNOT say with any certainty which meaning its meant to be.

 

 

 

Thousands of people in this world spend hundreds of hours studying books, poems, essays, diaries, memoirs etc in this thing called Literature writing essays about the different ways each thing can be intpreted based on the duality of meaning that almost any sentence can contain.

 

 

 

Sure each person will favour a different view point on the matter but anyone with a good amount of common sense will be able to admit there are more ways to interpret things.

 

 

 

It shows even in runescape where on a quest release day two people reading the same dialogue in a quest will go and try two complete different things to further the quest.

 

 

 

The story has two possible meanings you think the literal cursing of them is more likely. I prefer the idea of a natural curse for slaying a god. Both are equally feasible based on the wording of the story.

 

 

 

The great difference here is I am open minded enough to agree there is another way to read it, but i base my specualtion on my personal view on the matter you on the other hand are so close minded you cannot see the possible other meanings in it.

 

 

 

Hell if you asked a few litertaure students I'm sure we culd find 5 or 6 perfeclt plasuible meanings of that story fragment.

 

 

 

"...but i base my specualtion on my personal view..."

 

 

 

There, right there. No, stop, you've gone to far, go back a little bit... right there.

 

 

 

There's where you're completely wrong.

 

 

 

/debate

[Sy_Accursed]

No its not.

 

 

 

Its where you stupid for not being able to accept there are 2 different interpretation of a sentences and therefore two entirely different roads of speculation from the same thing

[Obtaurian]

No its not.

 

 

 

Its where you stupid for not being able to accept there are 2 different interpretation of a sentences and therefore two entirely different roads of speculation from the same thing

 

 

 

Again with the name calling? Is an intellectual debate too much to ask for?

 

 

 

I've already given you my evidence. I suggest you read over it a few times.

[Sy_Accursed]

No its not.

 

 

 

Its where you stupid for not being able to accept there are 2 different interpretation of a sentences and therefore two entirely different roads of speculation from the same thing

 

 

 

Again with the name calling? Is an intellectual debate too much to ask for?

 

 

 

I've already given you my evidence. I suggest you read over it a few times.

 

 

 

 

 

An intellectual debate?

 

 

 

That's a laugh and a half. How can it be remotely intellectual where you point blank refuse to accept there is more than one possible way to interpret what the story has said? Despite that fact that all the rules of English perfectly backs up both views of it.

 

 

 

I've given clear and consise evidence for all my views and speculation none of which can be questioned by anything other than alternative speculation. Equally you have given you views and they cannot be questioned by anything but alternative interpretation.

 

 

 

The great difference is I have accepted your views as a possibility if you interpret things the way you chose to while you cannot manage to see how mine can equally be true if you take my chose of interpretation to be true. I'd hate to see you trying to have a debate about the 150th quest with someone who thinks the Northern threat (based upon the kbd post bag hint of dangers at 4 compass points) is the penguins rather than the mahjaratt

[Obtaurian]

No its not.

 

 

 

Its where you stupid for not being able to accept there are 2 different interpretation of a sentences and therefore two entirely different roads of speculation from the same thing

 

 

 

Again with the name calling? Is an intellectual debate too much to ask for?

 

 

 

I've already given you my evidence. I suggest you read over it a few times.

 

 

 

 

 

An intellectual debate?

 

 

 

That's a laugh and a half. How can it be remotely intellectual where you point blank refuse to accept there is more than one possible way to interpret what the story has said? Despite that fact that all the rules of English perfectly backs up both views of it.

 

 

 

I've given clear and consise evidence for all my views and speculation none of which can be questioned by anything other than alternative speculation. Equally you have given you views and they cannot be questioned by anything but alternative interpretation.

 

 

 

The great difference is I have accepted your views as a possibility if you interpret things the way you chose to while you cannot manage to see how mine can equally be true if you take my chose of interpretation to be true. I'd hate to see you trying to have a debate about the 150th quest with someone who thinks the Northern threat (based upon the kbd post bag hint of dangers at 4 compass points) is the penguins rather than the mahjaratt

 

 

 

I've provided my evidence, as stated before. You've provided none.

 

 

 

But, I'll wait for a third party opinion on our discussion. If someone else comes along and tells me that I'm off my rocker, I'll concede defeat.

[benar]

Ok, it's apparent that this thread has wandered away from the original topic. That was the posibility of Zemouregal getting a hold of the Staff of Armadyl (based on concept art), the speculation of the future quest lines involving that and all things relative to the whole 'mahjaratt moving north' story-line.

 

 

 

So lets get back on it. I'm also changing the name of the thread to better fit it.

[Sy_Accursed]

I have provided reference in all my theories.

 

 

 

Lets take this post for example (that you labeled as utter rubbish):

 

If Zaros was in the castle with Zamorak how would he have a definite knowledge of who was on what side outside the castle?

 

 

 

Equally within the story of Zaros defeat we learn SOME mahjaratt supported Zamorak but not all. The only mahjaratt we have met with an overt support for Zamorak was Enkhra

 

Anthankos displayed support for Zaros and called Enkhra a betrayer.

 

Azzandra displayed a strong desire to resurrect his lord Zaros as well

 

Zemergoul, Lucien and Hazeel displayed little obvious sign either way but since they headed north which is where Anthankos and Azzandra went and were after the object tht killed Zaros its a safe bet they fall on the Zarosian side.

 

 

 

Plus it is historic fact Zamorak and Saradomin followers alike killed and imprisoned the Zarosian followers. Since Hazeel, Lucien, Azzandra, Anthankos and Zemergoul were all imprisoned, dead or in hiding when we met them this further suggest they were Zarosian followers.

 

 

 

Now the first line clearly states the logic behind parts of earlier arguments as it says IF they were in the castle and the others were outside he would not have definite knowledge of who betrayed him aside from zamorak.

 

 

 

Then the entire list basically consists of solid evidence.

 

The story of Zaros aka Curse of Zaros tells us some mahjratt support Zammy some didn't. Evidence

 

Enkhra supports Zamorak, Anthankos supports Zaros. Derived from unquestionable dialogue in Enkhra's lament. Evidence

 

Azzandra supports Zaros. Derived from unquestionable dialogue in Desert Treasure. Evidence

 

Zemergoul, Lucien and Hazeel have displayed no signs either way. Backup by their respectively quests.

 

Then I say BUT which shows a beginning of theory/speculation As Lucien wanted the staff of armaydal, that killed Zaros and Zemergoul had it in concept art and all 3 headed north like anthankos and azzandra its likely they are on the zaros side. My specualtion that those three are on Zaros side cross referenced with the evidence of others and expalined why it suggests that

 

The imprisonment etc taken from various quests and lores we known Zamarokians and Saradominsts did imprison etc Zarosians. Evidence

 

Then further explanation of how this links to my specualtion on the allegiance of lucien hazeel and zemergoul.

 

 

 

How much more evidence and explanation can I give to show? I've shown through reasoned evidence and implication that it is easily plausible that all these mahjaratt, excluding enkhra, are in the north to perform the ritual mentioned in defender of varrock to resurrect their old lord.

[Obtaurian]

I have provided reference in all my theories.

 

 

 

Lets take this post for example (that you labeled as utter rubbish):

 

If Zaros was in the castle with Zamorak how would he have a definite knowledge of who was on what side outside the castle?

 

 

 

Equally within the story of Zaros defeat we learn SOME mahjaratt supported Zamorak but not all. The only mahjaratt we have met with an overt support for Zamorak was Enkhra

 

Anthankos displayed support for Zaros and called Enkhra a betrayer.

 

Azzandra displayed a strong desire to resurrect his lord Zaros as well

 

Zemergoul, Lucien and Hazeel displayed little obvious sign either way but since they headed north which is where Anthankos and Azzandra went and were after the object tht killed Zaros its a safe bet they fall on the Zarosian side.

 

 

 

Plus it is historic fact Zamorak and Saradomin followers alike killed and imprisoned the Zarosian followers. Since Hazeel, Lucien, Azzandra, Anthankos and Zemergoul were all imprisoned, dead or in hiding when we met them this further suggest they were Zarosian followers.

 

 

 

Now the first line clearly states the logic behind parts of earlier arguments as it says IF they were in the castle and the others were outside he would not have definite knowledge of who betrayed him aside from zamorak.

 

 

 

Then the entire list basically consists of solid evidence.

 

The story of Zaros aka Curse of Zaros tells us some mahjratt support Zammy some didn't. Evidence

 

Enkhra supports Zamorak, Anthankos supports Zaros. Derived from unquestionable dialogue in Enkhra's lament. Evidence

 

Azzandra supports Zaros. Derived from unquestionable dialogue in Desert Treasure. Evidence

 

Zemergoul, Lucien and Hazeel have displayed no signs either way. Backup by their respectively quests.

 

Then I say BUT which shows a beginning of theory/speculation As Lucien wanted the staff of armaydal, that killed Zaros and Zemergoul had it in concept art and all 3 headed north like anthankos and azzandra its likely they are on the zaros side. My specualtion that those three are on Zaros side cross referenced with the evidence of others and expalined why it suggests that

 

The imprisonment etc taken from various quests and lores we known Zamarokians and Saradominsts did imprison etc Zarosians. Evidence

 

Then further explanation of how this links to my specualtion on the allegiance of lucien hazeel and zemergoul.

 

 

 

How much more evidence and explanation can I give to show? I've shown through reasoned evidence and implication that it is easily plausible that all these mahjaratt, excluding enkhra, are in the north to perform the ritual mentioned in defender of varrock to resurrect their old lord.

 

 

 

The majority of this debate was discussing whether or not Zaros literally cursed those who betrayed him, which was also the last subject that we discussed. With this post, you've just brought up that you think the Mahjarrat are trying to resurrect Zaros. What happened to the curse debate?

[benar]

Well, lets say those heading north are going forth to resurrect Zaros. If he cursed the ones who betrayed him, then they wont be heading north. Now which Mahjaratt are not reportedly heading north? If one isn't, and they happen to support Zamorak, then perhaps those going north are indeed looking to bring back Zaros.

[jirenma2001us]

There are Zaros and Zamorak Mahjaratts heading north, I would assume that they are having their own final battle OR they want to assassinate Zamorak. Let's face it, no matter who they pledge allegiance to, they're all power hungry.

 

 

 

And what about the shield. I think in Part 2 (or 4) of the Arrav lore, the dwarves mention that the shield can protect against ancient magicks- specialty of the Mahjaratts.

 

 

 

And if you haven't read my post by now, take a look. Lots of compiled information from lores and in-game activity on topic.

 

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=762750

[whiteboy1102]

I recall reading somewhere that Azzanandra (sp?) was Zaros' son.

[Triquos]

Aww beat me to making a post like this =( but one thing I don't get...

 

 

 

Isn't armadyl meant to be all holy n stuff? He's all about judgment and all that, yet that evil skeletal guy seems to be the one with it?

 

 

 

Is it me or is there something wrong with that picture? :lol: either way I want that staff :twss: