Talk:Scepter of Orr

I haven't been convinced that the scepter Livia finds at the end of EotN is the Scepter of Orr. The scepter she finds has a different coloring on the wrapping, and the animation at the head is different - with lightning instead of the glowing mote/bubbles. Yukiko 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember her mentioning the Scepter of Orr...but where does she "have" it? Calor - talk 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yukiko, does it looks like the Staff of the Mists??? Lord Dark Eyes 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks more like a cross between the two, excepting the differing animations. I just uploaded a screenshot of it during the final cinematic - found here in the other section. I suppose that the differences I see are purely from image quality, except that the animation is completely different. Yukiko 19:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just the lighting/visual effects in the cinematic that make it look different. I'd say it's definitely the Scepter. (It seems to have a will of it's own, so it may be able to change itself slightly as well) Srakin 07:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there are 5 different scepter, each one linked to a Bloodstone, each one keeping dormant a dragon while channeling their powers. Once the Scepter of Orr (Undead Dragon) and the Scepter of the Mists (Primordius) where destroyed, they started to awake... sounds logical. MithranArkanere 13:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the Scepter of Orr was not or has not been destroyed yet.Gmr Leon 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The one Livia finds could be perfectly a third one. MithranArkanere 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case (A third; controlling dragon)... Perhaps it "controls" Drakkar? Theta Republic 06:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing that could have happened is that the gods captured 6 dragons, trapped them in 6 cages, and used each of them as a source of powers to humans. The scepters could be the 'keys' to those cages, and the Bloodstones the locks:

• Put the 'fire' (Orr) key in the Fire Lock (Komalie Bloodstone), and you awaken the Fire dragon (Eye of the North).
• The Scepter of the Mysts was destroyed, so maybe one of the dragons will remain caged.
• So if only 5 dragons are seen, probably it's because 5 of the scepters were found and used in the 5 bloodstones.
• Livia could have freed the second dragon (the Undead one underwater in Orr, for example) with a third scepter.

Then in a later expansion of GW2 they could add a plot where someone makes a copy of the Scepter of the Mists and find a sixth bloodstone, uses the 'key' and dang! A sixth dragon awakes!

That would also explain the changes in the skills. Once the dragons are freed, humans lose the powers they were granted by them being caged and must develop others. MithTalk 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats possible...but mabye controlling the staff gives you control over that dragon...

Livia, Lich Lady as a boss in GW2? Paddymew 10:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this while looking at random stuff in the wiki. Possible third or fourth scepter? Paddymew 10:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that the Scepter of Orr/Staff of the Mists *or the supposed Scepter of Ether* have power over the dragons or are even linked to the bloodstone. Also, Mith, you forget that there are 5, not 6, bloodstones. I think that theory to be completely illogical. Just like so many others I've seen. As for the difference in animation/color, it's not to unusually that Anet simply changed the design of a few bits and pieces through the new technology and graphics. Afterall, Eye of the North, in terms of both Cinematics and actual graphics, exceed Prophecies. So this could simply be a "new" look for the Scepter of Orr. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No. That can't be. Although it can be puirchased in parts, the gw.dat is one and for the entire game. When something is updated, is updated for the entire game. When they updated the appearances of Devona and friends, the changes retroactively reflected in previous instances of them. Same when they updated the appearance of charr for Eye of the North. As for the number of Bloodstnes, 5 is the known number of them. Nothing prevents the addition of more. There were 5 gods, yet a 6th was added. In my theory, there would be 5 dragons and 5 bloodstones if the bloodstones were created after the defeat of Abaddon, and a 6th forgotten bloodstone if they were created before the Abaddon incident.

Remember: What we know, what is writtend, what is was and what it can be, are different things. What we know can change, what is written can't, what is was is sometimes yet to be revealed, and no one can say what it will be.

So you can't always believe in what is written (like in manuals), since it can be false and won't change when the truth is revealed.

And can't deny what it was when it is revealed (you can't definitely say that Abaddon was not one of the 6 gods know that we know it, no matter how many texts you find saying there are only 5 ods). MithTalk 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are four principles of magic. One bloodstone for each, and one bloodstone. True, we did only know of 5 gods, then a 6th god made an appearance, however, unless there is an unknown school of magic, there cannot be another bloodstone. Yes, new canon lore can come out saying that a "new school of magic is found" as long as it is completely new, not a combination of schools *like the expansion professions do* and then we find a new bloodstone. However, without even an implication or hint to there being a 5th school of magic, there is no reason to even think there is another bloodstone. If Anet decides to add a 5th school of magic, than there may be a 6th bloodstone. But until even a hint at a new pure school of magic, it is just as illogical to go with your hypothesis as it is to go with Quintus' many Mursaat hypothesis - whether you go with him saying they are ascended humans, or extra-terrestials. Or if you go with him saying Odran was a Mursaat, or that the Mursaat were once followers of the Old Gods, or that they build the Temple og Grenth and Temple of Balthazar. All of which are rather illogical with minimal - if any - support. Just like yours is. At least, for now. If something comes up where a new school of magic - that came from the Gods and was limited by a bloodstone - is introduced, than I'll say your hypothesis has become a theory *albeit still far out* and may be possible.

As for the differences, the cinematic still could be a modified version because the cinematic version is not an item - if it was, it would look just like the Scepter of Orr when it is dropped, on the ground and still. Not floating and *iirc* spinning. Therefore, it is an environment object, not a bundle, and is listed differently in the gw.dat. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You said so. There is not much information about the bloodstones themselves. Supposedly, there are 4 bloodstones, one for each magical principle (aggression, destruction, preservation, and denial), and one to 'control' them all.

Anyways, when it comes to more Bloodstones or scepters, I just say that there's nothing against adding more, not that there must be more. If you take a look at the principles, every single skills can be alligned with more or one of them. Aggression for negative effects, destruction for damage, preservation for healing and protection, and denial for things like effect removal and damage nullification. But... where's the buffing? When you receive a bonus to one attribute, that's not aggression, destruction, preservation nor denial. It isn't 'control' either. That's something else that could receive names like 'empowerment', 'augmentation', 'grow' or things like those. You can relate the schools to elements too: aggression with air, destruction with fire, preservation with earth, and denial with water. Ether (chaos) would go with 'control'... but what about dark and holy damage?

So, the are still things left out and room for a new school is there, even not probable, it is plausible.

My main point with scepters is that they seem to be related to bloodstones, and can be used to interact with them them. And with bloodstones is that since the main upcoming 'event' is the awakening of the dragons, and one them, the one most related to Fire, begins to awake around the same time the a scepter is in the place most related to fire, the same Bloodstone that some people presume to be the 'Destruction' bloodstone. That's too much of a coincidence for me. MithTalk 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The schools of magic more of less go more towards the original caster professions. Warriors and Rangers not using magic. Since you are so much intended on this theory - explain why Primordus needs to be woken up by the Great Destroyer if it is the bloodstone/scepter that would do so with your theory - and after the Great Destroyer's death, he is put back to sleep for 2 generations (40-80 years after EN *46-86 after the events of Prophecies* roughly). Also, there is more support - and belief - for the Ring of Fire bloodstone to be the Keystone, not the Destruction Bloodstone. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 04:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Gods gave magic to their followers. But magic must came from somewhere. I think dragons are connected in some way to whatever gives magic to their chosen ones. The dragons were put to sleep, and the gods took advantage on that. They used the power of the dormant dragons to give 'power to the people'. But something must have been wrong, probably one of the dragons beginning to awake prematurely, and a way to correctly channel and control the power was required, while also preventing the awakening of the dragons. So the bloodstones were made to seal the dragons away. And so you kill two birds with the same stone: keep the dragons asleep and control the power creatures can have in the world.

Then you break the seal, and it's like nudging someone that is asleep. They may say "five more minutes" or "shut up, let me sleep!", turn around and continue sleeping. Time for dragons is nothing like it is for humans, so what looks like 100 years for a human, it's just the '5 more minutes' for a dragon.

Once the dragons awake, the powers also change, and so you can explain like that why is there a change in skills. MithTalk 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

{ri}Why automatically connect magic that the gods gave to the Ancient Dragons? Do not creatures in the Mists and the Rift use magic? There are no Ancient Dragons there - and if there were, than your theory would be next to impossible. I think Gmr Leon has a much better theory on the source of magic - the source being the Mists themselves. Also, why do you keep on saying a "change in skills" - the only thing that would revolve around that is Anet saying that the professions won't be the same. But take Diablo 1 and 2 for instance - the Warrior in the first game is basically the same as the Barbarian in the second. Of the Necromancer in the second is basically the same as the Witchdoctor that was announced for the Third. Different "professions" but their magic is technically the same. Nothing was said about the skills, or magic, being different. And if I'm mistaken *which I doubt as I've been keeping tabs on just about everything Anet releases about GW2*, then please show me where it was said that magic would change in GW2. -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but the change in the powers do not happen until the dragons fully awake. And the dragons may have been channeling power, but that doesn't mean other creatures can't have power without being channeled by the dragons. Any skills that have the same name and similar behavior from GWO to GW2, or not usable by humans would be skills that were not related to the dragons or the bloodstones.

The Diablo case it's nothing alike. In Diablo I, all professions had one unique skill and then shared skills. In Diablo II, each profession had one or two shared skills, and then only unique skills, same goes for Diablo III. The barbarian keeps quite some skills from Diablo II to Diablo III, while the Warrior, Ranger and Sorceror are not the same as the barbarian, amazoness and sorceress in Diablo II. The warrior became Diablo himself, the rangers became the Sisters and the Sorceror became the Kurast henchmen... and no one knows what happened to the Monk, XDDD. In that case the 'change in the world' happens after the Stone World breaks at the end of Diablo II, and Sanctuary is no longer the same, so you could have them different skills in the same profession, but so far the only profession kept was the barbarian.

I say say, I don't think the dragons being the source of the magic, but more like the medium, the source of power for the channeling bloodstones make or the channelers themselves, controlled by the bloodstones. The Mists are clearly some kind of 'space between space' filled with magic energies, we know that demons are created from those enegies. Now, if you want to bring those energies to be used in other worlds, you need a way to open a rift or any kind of portal to keep a constant flow from the mists, and a way to safely channel the magic to the world, so the energies do not go wild and the place do not get filled with elementals and demons. And that way would be related to the dragons and the bloodstones. We already know that bloodstones do channel energies. They were used by the White Mantle to trap souls that power their constructs, or store power for G.O.L.E.M.s., two of the bloodstones affect the energies that resurrect creatures, while a third channels the energies from creature destruction to other creatures around then, that are then healed. MithTalk 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Decided to PM you my response on Guru - since wiki isn't really a place for 1 on 1 debates. x) -- Azazel The Assassin\talk 19:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As a response to the original post here -- if you look in the Hall of Monuments at the scepter on the base of the Hero of Tyria accomplishment (which is most definitely the Scepter of Orr) it has the same glow graphics as the scepter in the cinematic. 65.96.129.235 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And Rurik's sword looks like Adelbern's, but that doesn't mean it's they are the same. The Staff of the Mists looked like th Scepter of Orr, just dyed in a somehow reddish hue. That scepter could be anything, from a third scepter to the scepter of Orr. The end-credits comments about visiting Arah, makes me thing that it could be either the scepter of orr or a copy, though... and that the next lich could be Livia. MithTalk 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"and that the next lich could be Livia." Why does everyone say that Livia is going to be a lich because she has the Scepter of Orr? The Scepter of Orr has nothing to do with becoming a Lich. Khilbron was a Lich long before gaining the Scepter of Orr people! Get over that mentality, it has no backing. If you say it's because she goes to Arah - She's a Necromancer! I wouldn't be surprised that there have been several power-striving Necromancers who went to Arah in hopes of controlling the undead. Why would she want to control the undead? To help Kryta and kill the White Mantle. Clearly, since no mention of it is in the Movement of the World (major events and even the White Mantle are mentioned there) and that the undead dragon raises in Arah - Livia does nothing of major consequence. IF she becomes an undead (note: not lich), then it would be under the power of the Undead Dragon - which raises up at around 40 to 100 years after Eye of the North, thus making Livia a heck of a lot older than people would think of her. *yes, I'm annoyed, but not just at this little idea which has no backing* -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And why do you think I relate those two things? I don't think the scepter turn people into liches. I do think that necromancers turn into liches to live longer and have more power. In the hands of the lich, the scepter had a lot of power, in the hands of a living human, it just gives a very little energy. Khilbrom was a necromancer too, and I don't think he turned into a lich just for the cool horns or because he was evil, nor as a mere side effect of The Cataclysm, but to have enough power to be able to fully use the scepter to open the Door of Komalie. If livia wants to use the power of the scepter, she will probably will have to become a lich too MithTalk 15:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Or... he could have turned into a lich for an "eternal life" and the players didn't use the scepter's full power by choice. If you didn't notice, the heroes seem to be goody-goody two shoes and wouldn't desire the full power of the Scepter (nor know what the full power is). Same goes for the Staff of the Mists - they sought to destroy it, not use it. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They were not a forbidden item created for evil. The staffs were given to kings by the gods themselves. Why wouldn't humans want to use a gift from the gods? Theey destroyed the staff of the mists just because the Forgotten ones told them to do so, and I don't trust them. MithTalk 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It never says where the staves came from, just that they were given to the human kings and that the gods had to intervene - nothing on their origin is said. And neither staff is forbidden nor evil - in both cases, they were just used or about to be used by evil. In the hands of a good person, it would be beneficial, and not harmful. But again, what you said, Mith, says nothing on why the players could not have used the staves' full power, thus still easily leaving it open that the characters didn't use the full power by choice. And for all we know, what we see Khilbron use the staff for, might not have been the power of the scepter of orr - he already had control over the undead, and for the Titans, Abaddon could have ordered them to follow the lich. -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 22:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So... during the cinematic in Abaddon's Mouth, why did he say: "Yield to the Scepter of Orr. I command you." and "It worked. Just as the prophecy said. It worked!"? It's obvious that he used the scepter to open the Gate of Komalie, and then to identify himself as the one that did so in front of the titans. Anyways, even if it is not said that the gods created the scepters, it is said that they didn't destroyed the scepter themselves. They sealed them with their previous owners. If the scepters are as easy to destroy as throwing them into a certain point, why wouldn't them destroy them? That's easy to answer, because there wuold be consequences not even the gods want to deal with... but the Forgotten ones doesn't seem to care about those consequences. MithTalk 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You've been to GWO lore forums, which is where that idea originates from - it is possible Khilbron didn't know that Abaddon commanded the Titans. And Khilbron didn't open the Door of Komalie at all - the players did by destroying the seals. And those "certain points" are rare it seems, only known one is the Hallow's Point. True they could have taken the scepters out of the world or destroyed them, it's unknown why they didn't. Reason I say is that the history of the staves were added after Prophecies, thus they couldn't have them destroyed by the gods. And what consequences are you talking about? Nothing happens from the destruction of the Staff of the Mists. I must say that they shoulda had a bit more than simply "carry bundle; click location; done" for the quest - but still, nothing happened. And if you're going to go on your earlier theory that the staves are keys and the bloodstones are locks to the AD's cages - I will have to bring up again that in the final cinematic of Prophecies, the scepter goes up not down like you think. And that Hallow's Point isn't a known bloodstone (could be, but no environmental effect and no calling it a bloodstone currently says otherwise). -- Azazel the Assassin/talk 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

who cares? its just a staff i dont think there are even 10 people that noticed there are differences. and anyway, I don't think they made a new script for an item that made a given weapon fly. they probably made a new item with a new script for the cinematic. and the scepter's history isn't useful at all.--SHIT 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a difference, there is a difference. They wouldn't change the Scepter of Orr's image, precisely because something like this would happen. Anet isn't dumb, and i doubt they would just be like "Hey! Instead of using the old texture, let's implement a completely new one, and just try and do it from our memories!" And as to whether or not the staves (Scepter of Orr and its confirmed twin) relate to magic, one controls nature and the logical (to us), and the Scepter of Orr controls the supernatural. Now, when you find something that is both natural and supernatural, lets discuss another staff. Tearh 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they would change the model, much like they changed the Losaru centaur's models with Nightfall - it's called an improvement of the models (though with the Losaru specifically, they were retconning the looks). In the EN cinematic, the object used for the Scepter of Orr is not the bundle - this can be told due to the one in the cinametic levitating and rotating, while the bundle does neither. It is still the Scepter of Orr, but a new model - they could indeed have just taken the old texture, unless they wanted to improve the look! I am sure that the Sohothin and Madgaer of Rurik and Adelbern will not look the same in GW2 at all, and it is possible that the GW1 versions get a reskin closer to GW2's release. -- Konig/talk 10:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

further referances

I dont know if some1 wrote this before, but im gonna write it anyway

Livia asks you about the scepter in the start cinematic of G. O. L. E. M., which is why I think the scepter in EotN endgame cinematic IS the scepter of orr, which is why i think she has learn something about it's relocating and such, content of which will probably be reavealed in GW2. Bbounty. You are reading this. Click. 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed some of your mispellings Zachariah Zuan. 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GuildWars intro movie

There is an early appearance of the Scepter Of Orr in the guildwars intro movie at 0:26 where an undead is weilding it like this:

Yseron - Serge Yseron 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruins of Orr

Look at this pic/screenshot of the map for Tyria. Doesn't it look like the ruins are shaped like the scepter? You have to compare the basic shape, though.--Necro Shea Mo 12:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach test. You see things. MithTalk 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a bug to me. and its eating a couple islands. Tearh 03:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin

How is this a relic of Orr? If the scepters were sealed in the tombs of their original wielders, and if this was presumably sealed in Kryta, than what does Orr have to do with it? Why did it return to Arah? Why is this game so confusing? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 05:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Relic of Orr: It's called the Scepter of Orr + "Recently, a group of White Mantle scholars uncovered what they believe to be the Scepter of Orr, a powerful artifact once possessed by King Reza, the last king of Orr." - We don't know why it is hidden in Kryta, but unless this was a retcon in NF, or a overlooked bit, the Scepter of Orr was recovered since the gods buried it in the corrupted king's tomb, and it was re-hidden since the Cataclysm. Also remember that all evidence points to Tyria's human kingdoms, like Elona's, were once ruled by one monarchy (which later split into 3) - Doric's line=Primeval King's parallel. And who said it returned to Arah? The game isn't confusing to me. -- Konig/talk 06:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The lich is defeated, the scepter disappears, and the next that we hear of it, Livia is going to Arah in order to find it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Aliceandseven (talk).

A big deal is made of the fact that Livia seeks a weapon of power. The Scepter of Orr is a weapon of power. She talks about the Scepter of Orr throughout the game, and doesn't mention any other possibilities (so if it's not foreshadowing it's a red herring. Which is more likely?). She then states she is going to Arah. She is then seen with the Scepter of Orr. Considering that the last we saw of the Scepter of Orr before that is Glint magicking it away, I think it's a fair assumption that the Scepter is in Arah when Livia is seen with it. To say that it isn't in Arah would be making assumptions, and with Occam's razor and all that, the simplest explanation is usually the best one because it requires you to make the least assumptions. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Livia says she's going to Arah, but nothing says that the scepter is there. She might think it is there, she might be after the undead there, she might be after the scrolls there (after all, the Lost Scrolls should still be under Arah, and that's a weapon of power, no?). There's many explanations aside from the Scepter being there. In my opinion, the simplest explanation is that she thinks it is in Arah. -- Konig/talk 02:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

True. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

She says she is going to Arah, and then she is seen with the Scepter. So the simplest explanation is that she went to Arah, and that's where the Scepter of Orr is, not that she went to Arah and it wasn't there and then she went somewhere else, or that she went to Arah for something else and then went somewhere else after that to get the Scepter of Orr. From the perspective of the ANet writers, if the Scepter of Orr wasn't in Arah, then you would write a line saying "I'm going to look for the Scepter of Orr", not "I'm going to Arah". Otherwise that line's a red herring, something which ANet's never done. There's nothing to suggest she's looking for anything else - if she was after the Lost Scrolls, she would have talked about them throughout the game, and be seen with them at the end. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get technical, the simplest answer is "She went to arah. She found the scepter of orr." not "She went to Arah and found the Scepter of Orr there." The Lost Scrolls was an example of what she might find but was not looking for. And I think Anet has done red herrings before, actually. But I wouldn't say leaving information out is really a red herring, as it isn't diverting our attention from anything, we just don't know the whole picture. All we know is this: "Livia went to Arah." "Livia found the Scepter of Orr." - two different things and you assume they are connected. As such, you're giving yourself a red herring. -- Konig/talk 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inventory icon

A bundle with an inventory icon? When do you have it inside your inventory? MithTalk 07:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. -- Konig/talk 09:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Phylactery?

In traditional fantasy liches have a phylactery (an item that they bind their soul into to make them immortal). I find it plausible that the Scepter of Orr could be the phylactery of the Lich Lord or Zhaitan. I'm not sure if showing up in the Gate of Madness confirms the Vizier as dead or not but he's with Shiro who has no (known) way to return to life again, I'd hazard a guess that he's truly dead now. In that case, perhaps it will play a part in GW2 as a phylactery or focus for Zhaitan. Any thoughts? If I'm missing a point that invalidates the possibility please let me know! Foozlesprite 07:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars doesn't have Phylacteries. The way we kill Khilbron is proof. His soul, within his body, is ripped from his body via the bloodstone and soul batteries - what we fight in GoM is his soul (like Shiro - and this is why he doesn't come back like in HP, but stays dead). GW liches are different from D&D and other fantasy liches. -- Konig/talk 09:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Energy

My ranger is at negative 10 energy while carrying this bundle. Anyone from a different proffession care to comment? Why is this not on the main page, or perhaps I didn't erad it? ~~:)>05.06.12 H2L

Ultimate Fate

So, what is the ultimate fate of the Scepter of Orr? Has ANet ever revealed what happened to it?