Dwarven Religion and the Tyrian Pantheon

[Black]

Any new edition to this particular thread in regards to its theory? Especially now that GW:EN is upon us, since GW:EN shed some light on the whole Great Dwarf and Great Destroyer thing. What about now, that the age of the dragon is upon us and the birth of a new race?

[Gmr Leon]

To my knowledge, Quintus never released a further edition of this theory. However, this would be the thread to post in if you wanted to converse over the new information we've gotten from GW:EotN.

[Amanda Creamwave]

i have to agree that i think the great destroyer is not menzies.

the great destroyer seemed to have been awakened at the start of eotn.

but then again it is never said Menzies is really there to fight in the fissure, he could be 'asleep' and his generals attacking the fissure.

and 'Great Destroyer' and 'Lord of Destruction' sounds bit simmilar.

but then again Shadow Army and Destroyers dont really seem to fit together, and i dont think Menzies comes from the depth of the earth.

[Gmr Leon]

I'm fairly certain that Menzies is not the Great Destroyer, as the Great Destroyer was created by Primordus. The Elder Dragon we see as a statue in the chamber with the Great Destroyer.

While that may be debunked though, we still haven't any solid information confirming Balthazar and the Great Dwarf being one in the same.

[aptaleonII]

I'm also one of those that doesn't believe Menzies and the Great Destroyer to be one and the same.

Quite simply because if they were, the game would have given us some proof before the Great Destroyer's death.

On a more Lore-ey note, though, it's impossible; the Great Destroyer was summoned from the depths by Primordius, to be his lieutenant. This we know.
Menzies, on the other hand, is the half-brother of Balthazar. They can't be the same.

And about Balthazar and the Great Dwarf... well, there's no evidence there, so you can't use it to back up the point about Menzies + the Destroyer.

[Quintus Antonius]

To my knowledge, Quintus never released a further edition of this theory. However, this would be the thread to post in if you wanted to converse over the new information we've gotten from GW:EotN.

There is a second edition. But it was disproven. I'd say this one was as well by GWEN, but the part about Balthazar is still highly credible.