Are Rahkshi Rahi?

So for the longest time I thought Rahkshi were rahi because they were made by the makuta and were preyed upon by Muaka. And there are wild rahkshi. I need this cleared up.

1 Like

The most simple answer is that Rahkshi are not Rahi.

Rahi are creatures created using a mix of Viruses and Liquid Protodermis. While Rahi are almost exclusively made by Makuta, the original Rahi where made by the Great Beings and other groups and beings, such as Artakha, can create Rahi as well with those substances.

Rahkshi, on the other hand, are not made from Viruses. They are made from the Makuta’s essence, which is Antidermis. Like Makuta, all Kraata are made from Antidermis. The Rahkshi suit/armor is transformed Kraata after being exposed to Energized Protodermis and then another Kraata inhabits it. Wild/feral Rahkshi being ones whom the Makuta just let wander around and do whatever they want. So they eventually developed natural predators.

However, Matoran in-universe would refer to most things as Rahi. Since Rahi generally means “not us” to the Matoran, plenty of other creatures and beings such as Krana, Bohrok, Keetongu, etc. are classified by the Matoran as Rahi. Basically, if it isn’t one of them, Matoran consider it to be an animal or monster of some kind.

9 Likes

So linguistically everything thats not matoran, toa or turaga is a rahi. But biologically the rahkshi are not rahi.

That is correct.

2 Likes

Thanks

Would that also mean that the matoran consider species such as the Makuta, Vortixx, or Skakdi to be rahi as well, linguistically-speaking?

1 Like

For some of them, I would lean towards no. Rahi does mean “not us” in a more literal translation, but more commonly used in reference to wildlife. Based on what has been explained to us at least. As shown by some things that have been classified as Rahi, or stated that Matoran would have classified them as such, what Matoran would consider to be wildlife and what we would consider is different. So where the line begins and ends to Matoran is fuzzy.

So it would be best to see how Matoran talked about and interacted with other species in the story and go case by case. Makuta they would not, there is plenty to show that they hold Makuta to a much higher view and possibly even above themselves. Still as monsters, sure, but not necessarily animals.

Vortixx they trade and work with, so it would appear that they wouldn’t consider them Rahi outside of insults. Given that Skakdi can be mistaken for Toa by some isolated Matoran, perhaps they don’t consider them Rahi. Though we don’t have much of a sample for what Matoran would consider them in general.

But then you have things like the Dark Hunter “Poison”, whose race was wiped out by the Matoran. And as far as we know, “Poison” is not a Rahi, but both Matoran and Toa mistake him for one. And they mistake him as a Rahi mostly on looks. The same applies to Zyglak, despite being an intelligent race that can also speak the Matoran language, they are considered Rahi.

However, it seems that Matoran do not consider the Frostelus to be Rahi. Or at the very least it has not been confirmed if Matoran would consider them to be Rahi. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be, but they also have so few appearances in story. The most direct confirmation, aside from asking Greg, would have been in The Kingdom altverse as they lived with the Ko-Matoran. I should note that in that universe they also invited the Zyglak, who refused, so perhaps the Matoran were just less racist in that universe. Who knows.

3 Likes

No. Rahkshi are composed of solid Antidermis and Antidermis beings cannot be revived on the Red Star. Only Protodermis-based life can be. Rahi are composed of Protodermis so they can be revived.

There’s been some confusion around this, but this is untrue:

Rahkshi still aren’t Rahi, though.

2 Likes

No, Rahkshi definitely aren’t Rahi.